Pedophilia; I can't accept it.

[Violet]

Violet,

Saying we are never going to agree is not a cop out - its simply a statement of fact.

It's not a statement of fact unless you're specifically never going to agree with me regardless of my views. But that'd be stupid... so it's just not a statement of fact

Society did indeed used to regard homosexuality as wrong but I don't live in that society. The one where I do regards almost all adult sexuality as fine but it recognizes children are a special case. I agree with society - you don't.

And had you been born in that society, you too would regard homosexuality as wrong? Parrots of the people make such bland music.

Foolish consent is only consent if it is reasonable to accept that the person giving their consent understood what that meant. In the case of a smaller child they probably have little to no idea of what they are consenting to. They might simply be agreeing to "Now you do want to make Daddy happy don't you?"

Honey... foolish consent is consent necessarily. If it wasn't so, then it would be foolish nonconsent. I understand that logic is difficult for young people... but bear with me: you'll get it if you keep trying.

Regardless of whatever trickery is performed to put someone in a sexual situation: if both parties consent to the sexual situation, and continue to consent all the way through the activity (if someone says 'no' or otherwise communicates such: the activity ceases)... then they have successfully had a nonabusive sexual experience. Congratulations to them: many adults seem to struggle with this.

Not to say that guilt-tripping a child is a particularly respectable thing to do (it's not)... but I'd only take issue if it was forced upon an unwilling/undesiring participant.

Surely you see the scope for abuse here. Children, despite all your claims to the contrary, are more trusting. Children up to the age of about 6 are not even capable of lying.

Direct challenge: when a toddler breaks something, and is asked if they broke it... the typical answer is 'no'. Children are lying bastards from very early on into their babydom: they realize that adults react to their crying, and then fake-cry to manipulate them into doing something they want. One of the very first things a human learns... is to lie.

Yes, a 6 year old child is capable of lying... more than that: they've been doing it for about 6 years. But surely I don't have to explain science to you: surely you can see that humans are a trusting people *regardless* of their age, and that their being particularly otherwise is considered abnormal. Surely also, you can see the scope for the abuse of people is no different for children than it is for adults (infact, I daresay that you can inflict far more terrifying abuses upon an adult... as they've had years and years to acclimatize to not being horrifically abused. Very good canvas).

Again we are at cross purposes. You are focusing on what I would maintain is a very rare child indeed that wants sex and actually understands what that means. You are ignoring issues such as the physical damage that might do to them and indeed the psychological damage that could affect them their entire lives. I am focusing on the child that gives its consent but doesn't actually know what that means.

Have I ever argued that anyone 'actually understands what <anything> means'? Here I thought I took quite a different stand regarding understanding. Children do want sex, it's enough of an issue that they gave the (cis) girls in my class sexual education in the 4th grade. That would make them 9 and 10, generally. Sexistly, the (cis) boys were given the same class in 5th grade (10, 11 generally)... but I'll never forget that in 4th grade, when I asked if I could go with the other girls: my classmates immediately assured me that I didn't want to go. By 9, they were generally well aware of sex *before* the sexual education class

Am I ignoring the physical damage that might be done to them, and the psychological damage that could affect them their entire lives? Absolutely. But would I ignore physical damage done to them, and psychological damage that does affect them their entire lives? Absolutely not. I'm not a particular fan of punishing people for crimes that haven't happened. I am focusing on the child that gives its consent... regardless of whatever they know or don't know, but you can be sure that I'd attempt to educate them as to some of the basics if they professed to me a desire to bang someone (anyone). Same as I'd do for a teenager, or any adult who also confessed they'd never had sex before. I'm so charitable.

At 6 years old I wouldn't even let my daughter choose her own clothes. "I want to wear this dress." "That's a summer dress and its snowing - you can't."

Funny... I'd be letting them choose what clothes they wanted to wear whenever they communicated that they wished to wear <whatever>. I'd be expecting them to do this task of finding the clothes they wish to wear by four, and certainly dressing themselves in such within a year of that point. Otherwise... I'm pretty sure my child is stupid. Oh well, world needs stupid people too.

Me, I'd let my daughter wear the dress, but if she was going outside in it: I'd tell her that snow is cold, and that she'd probably have a better time if she bundled up. Then I'd keep tabs on her, like any responsible parent, and let her have fun... because snow is fucking awesome.

We do not hold children as responsible for their actions as a society until they reach a certain age. I agree that this is an imperfect rule but its about the best we have.

You don't... I do. There are consequences for our actions. That said, my punishments fit their crimes in my eyes... I'm not about to cut off someone's hand because they took candy from another kid. I might not intervene if they are then punched in the face by the kid they stole from, though.

There are very good reasons for this. I suggest you take a look at how the human brain develops as they are growing up. Decision centres in the brain are different between children and adults. That you think it's fine for a seven year old to drive really says a lot. How do you handle responsibility in this case? The child loses control of the vehicle and ploughs into a bus-stop full of people. Is the child responsible? Do you have no problem imprisoning that child for manslaughter? Do you not hold the parents responsible for allowing their child to drive in the first place?

If there are, I sure have yet to hear one. I suggest that if you base your shit off of the human brain: you mark 25 as your age-line, as it's been routinely asserted that the prefrontal cortex hasn't finished developing until that magic age. You are the property of your parents/the state until you turn 25, you may not drive, drink, smoke, have sex, or so much as eat a carrot without permission from an authorized permission-giver. Don't move... don't even breathe... without permission.

That I think it's fine for a seven year old to drive... if they pass the driving test, 'says a lot'. I'm not okay with a 40 year old driving if he hasn't passed the driving test. Or I should say: I'm okay with it when it's needed, but I prefer people who have demonstrated their ability to drive to be driving, and driving is dangerous, so I like to minimize that anyway.

Same way we do in every case. The child is at least partly responsible... the vehicle is also partly responsible... I could teach you a lot about responsibility and how it's never actually completely and totally on just one thing (outside mathematical hypotheticals), but I don't think you'd understand, and it's really quite a long topic. I have no problem imprisoning that child for manslaughter. I do not hold the parents or society as particularly responsible for allowing the child to drive in the first place. Unless they are, of course... no two cases are identical. If an adult took a gun to the kid's head, and told him to drive, and he then lost control: I'd stick it more onto the gunman than on the kid. We could make a game of it: the blame game