Dutch to allow paedophile group

Swift
You apologized:sly: I on the other hand offer no apology at all for my feelings toward what are probably the most twisted people on the planet.

Aw comeon really? Seriously? Far be it from me to defend these people, but is the desire to have sex with underage kids really so sick and twisted? It's practically natural. A thousand years ago it was common social practice. 10,000 years ago it was the only possible way for our species to survive.

I don't agree with them, and I don't think it should be legal, but it's far from being the most twisted thing people do. Forced rape (adult or child) is sicker in my mind than "consentual" molestation (and by consentual I mean as consentual as it can be). Some of the things Saddam is accused of are sicker than molestation.
 
danoff
But they certainly have a right to exist, assemble, and speak out in favor of change. Others also have a right to make fun of them and call them names.


Agreed, i just don't see the connection between Paedophilia and politics?





Paedophilia and religion maybe....
 
danoff
Aw comeon really? Seriously? Far be it from me to defend these people, but is the desire to have sex with underage kids really so sick and twisted? It's practically natural. A thousand years ago it was common social practice. 10,000 years ago it was the only possible way for our species to survive.

I don't agree with them, and I don't think it should be legal, but it's far from being the most twisted thing people do. Forced rape (adult or child) is sicker in my mind than "consentual" molestation (and by consentual I mean as consentual as it can be). Some of the things Saddam is accused of are sicker than molestation.

Consensual sex with a child is an oxymoron. So it's always rape. At least to me. Sure, murder and torture are very sick. But I really can't think of anything sicker then wanting to have sex with a child.
 
Though, as danoff points out, only 200 years girls as young as 10 were married and/or mothers.
 
Famine
Though, as danoff points out, only 200 years girls as young as 10 were married and/or mothers.

As opposed to these days where 12 year old girls are unmarried mothers, in Sheffield at least.
 
Famine
Though, as danoff points out, only 200 years girls as young as 10 were married and/or mothers.

200 years ago the slave trade in America was alive and well. Doesn't mean it was right though.
 
Quite true - though it was socially acceptable. Thinking about it practically for a second, it could mean that your great-great-grandfather had sex with a child (your great-great-grandmother). Would he have been sick and twisted, or just in line with societal norms of the time?

Until as recently as 1885, the UK had NO specific age of consent (just fathers with muskets), and in fact the age of consent in many US states is lower than the current world-standard of 16 (which is still legally a child) - 14 in many cases (and in Canada) and 12 in Delaware. Oddly this is the same age as this Dutch group is campaigning for... Is Delaware sick and twisted?
 
Swift
200 years ago the slave trade in America was alive and well. Doesn't mean it was right though.

Not by our standards today, but at the time, like getting married young, it wasn't really frowned upon. Unfortunatly.
 
Thanks Famine, I typed up a response, but it felt too weird to defend this stuff. I started to get into the difference between sex with a willing child and sex with an unwilling child. There is a difference, though Swift is right that the basic problem is that no child can give complete consent.

But yes, my point is that mankind comes from a time when this was the social norm, and even, a requirement of the species to survive given short lifespans. If you're going to die at age 30, you need to start having kids at 12 so that you can have five (two die at birth), and raise three until they're 12 before you die.

That makes me think that, while completely outdated today, this kind of behavior is fairly natural. But lots of natural behavior is outdated and illegal today, and rightly so.
 
Famine
Quite true - though it was socially acceptable. Thinking about it practically for a second, it could mean that your great-great-grandfather had sex with a child (your great-great-grandmother). Would he have been sick and twisted, or just in line with societal norms of the time?

Just because it was within the "social norms" doesn't make it any less twisted. At least not to me.

Famine
Until as recently as 1885, the UK had NO specific age of consent (just fathers with muskets), and in fact the age of consent in many US states is lower than the current world-standard of 16 (which is still legally a child) - 14 in many cases (and in Canada) and 12 in Delaware. Oddly this is the same age as this Dutch group is campaigning for... Is Delaware sick and twisted?

Oh yes, if you've ever driven in Delaware, you know just how sick and twisted it can be. :sly: I'm serious btw, Delaware has a lot of problems. NOt the least of which is that 12 year old consent rule.
 
Swift
200 years ago the slave trade in America was alive and well. Doesn't mean it was right though.
I think for that time period it was right because people didn't live nearly as long as we do today. For the survival of the species people had to be able to create more babies than there were people dying. In order to do that then you would have to get an early start.

It doesn't work nowadays because we live much longer and you can wait until you are 30,40, 50, or even 80 (as in Tony Randall's case) before you have kids. Now the only limit is when the female's system becomes too old to produce. You could honestly make the legal age of consent 25 and it wouldn't affect the species.

That said, 200 years ago it was just a matter of being old enough to produce that made them old enough to marry. You had to get an early start after all. No one ever took into account the maturity level.

Today we have the time to judge it by the maturity level of the person. We set the limit by what the government has determined to be old enough to maturely think about sex. I know plenty of people where 18 probably isn't old enough.

EDIT: So Famine and danoff are quicker than me.
 
Swift
Just because it was within the "social norms" doesn't make it any less twisted.

The word twisted implies (at least to me) "unnatural". And I don't think that something mankind was engineered (whether you think by God or nature) to do (as evidenced by the age at which women are physically capable of having children) is unnatural.
 
danoff
Thanks Famine, I typed up a response, but it felt too weird to defend this stuff. I started to get into the difference between sex with a willing child and sex with an unwilling child. There is a difference, though Swift is right that the basic problem is that no child can give complete consent.

But yes, my point is that mankind comes from a time when this was the social norm, and even, a requirement of the species to survive given short lifespans. If you're going to die at age 30, you need to start having kids at 12 so that you can have five (two die at birth), and raise three until they're 12 before you die.

That makes me think that, while completely outdated today, this kind of behavior is fairly natural. But lots of natural behavior is outdated and illegal today, and rightly so.

Is it any wonder that the most popular form of pornography centres on women dressed as schoolgirls and, errr... "non-hirsute"?

Still, I did find it odd that "The First State" already allows what this Dutch group wants (though in Delaware's case you must be within 4 years of the younger partner's age) but no-one is condemning them.


And danoff is right - it's a genetic predisposition which, until 140 years ago, was still done in "civilised" society. Breeding this out in such a short time is quite tricky, especially when The Darwin Awards prove that we've still not bred out the horrific stupidity gene, despite 140,000 years of trying. That's not to say that it isn't wrong, but that it can be, to an extent, understandable (though not defensible).
 
danoff
The word twisted implies (at least to me) "unnatural". And I don't think that something mankind was engineered (whether you think by God or nature) to do (as evidenced by the age at which women are physically capable of having children) is unnatural.

Interesting observation. However, since it's a matter of an opinion of observed facts, I can consider it unnatural(at least from my point of view) and call it twisted.

Both you, Famine and others have made valid points. But the fact of the matter now is that the ONLY reason for a non-third world person to have sex with a child is the "enjoyment" of it and there is no way a child is going to understand the consequences and ramifications of said actions.
 
Swift
But the fact of the matter now is that the ONLY reason for a non-third world person to have sex with a child is the "enjoyment" of it and there is no way a child is going to understand the consequences and ramifications of said actions.

On that we agree.
 
Swift
I on the other hand offer no apology at all for my feelings toward what are probably the most twisted people on the planet.
however, you have to distinguish between a peadophile and a child molester. not every peadophile puts his preference for young childs into practice, many even seek medical help.
people don't decide to become peadophiles, they just happen to be it. some then manage to keep themselves under control and some don't. those that don't are basically victims themselves.
but before anyone else now feels he has to go down the usual "you liberals want molesters and mruderers walk around freely" BS, i personally would detain child molesters for life as long as there is no therapy with a succes guarantee.
i may not believe that they would have to be imprisoned to punish them, but i feel that it has to be assured that they can't do anymore harm...
you can punish someone for stealing a car but not for his feelings...because peadophiles in my opinion are sick, literally.
 
many peadophiles were either abused as a child or had a sexual experience as a child. its not tsomething they can just turn off.
 
vladimir
however, you have to distinguish between a peadophile and a child molester. not every peadophile puts his preference for young childs into practice, many even seek medical help.
people don't decide to become peadophiles, they just happen to be it. some then manage to keep themselves under control and some don't. those that don't are basically victims themselves.
but before anyone else now feels he has to go down the usual "you liberals want molesters and mruderers walk around freely" BS, i personally would detain child molesters for life as long as there is no therapy with a succes guarantee.
i may not believe that they would have to be imprisoned to punish them, but i feel that it has to be assured that they can't do anymore harm...
you can punish someone for stealing a car but not for his feelings...because peadophiles in my opinion are sick, literally.

That sounds a lot like the same argument you used for homosexuality on the IDM boards a while back.

And the only difference between a child molesture and a pedifile is intent. The result is the same. A child is physically assaulted. Now, if his dad did it to hime then I am truly sorry. But a grown man should be able to recognize his problem and either get help or not be around children at all.


Gabkicks
many peadophiles were either abused as a child or had a sexual experience as a child. its not tsomething they can just turn off.

Yep, that's the liberal mindset alright. Don't blame the adult for his actions. Blame his childhood. You could use that argument to back up any person that's commited any crime.
 
i'm not saying they shouldnt be punished. They should intelligently go about preventing themselves from committing any crimes through counseling of some sort and by staying away from kids obviously. Yes child molesters should be punnished if they commit crimes and also treated for their predisposition to youngins. yes yes measures should be taken to prevent kids being molested... It all starts at home really.

a very high percentage of children are sexually abused in america.
 
Swift
And the only difference between a child molesture and a pedifile is intent. The result is the same. A child is physically assaulted. Now, if his dad did it to hime then I am truly sorry. But a grown man should be able to recognize his problem and either get help or not be around children at all.
why is the result the same?
a person can have peadophile feelings but keep them under control. noone is harmed them. not every peadophile goes as far as raping a child. and as i said, many seek help.


as for the "liberal mindset"; i told you already that you should not assume that someone who tries to EXPLAIN a certain behavior is automatically TOLERATING it.

even in the US, where there is still the death penalty in place, someone who is mentally ill should not receive it.
and i would say that someone who rapes a child due to peadophile feelings is mentally ill.

Gabkicks
many peadophiles were either abused as a child or had a sexual experience as a child. its not tsomething they can just turn off.
thats not even confirmed...
 
Gabkicks
well its comonly accepted among many doctors. when has a pedophile ever been "cured"?

Oooh, oooh, oooh! Can I cite the case of the guy with the brain tumour again?
 
Legalize sex with animals? WTF!?

Jesus, that reminds me of that page on the web about "How to have sex with dolphins" or whatever.

Man, these people have a couple nuts lose.
 
Swift
Can you say, "NAMBLA" :lol: Now that really exist. Man, scary thought. I hope a few of you get it. :)

The National Association of Marlin Brando Look-A-likes?
...oh, that NAMBLA.

But seriously, if I ever meet anyone who supports pedophilia, I would probably beat them to death with a tube sock full of nickels.
 
Really this sounds positivly wonderful. Looks like I'll be moving soon...

Driving everywhere is really costing to much these days...

Like someone said before, this is going to go no where because who in the heck is going to sign for this... I probably wouldnt put my name down if you paid me. Its wonderfull that they have the freedom to do this and are using their rights in the correct manor though...

I believe that while everyone should have total freedom over themselves to do as they please both in and out of the bedroom, this just couldnt work out. First off, there are no girls that age willing to consent and proving so in a legal manor would prove very difficult. If there are enough that age to actually go around I may just really move there as there must be slightly older girls willing to go farther just falling from the sky.
 
Time_Attack
...using their rights in the correct manor though...


Haha, there's a strip club in my city called The Manor that just got busted for hiring underage girls.

How ironic.

But on a more serious note- discussion like this innevitably brings us to the question of What Is Morality? ("It's what I say is right, and what I say is wrong!" -Pastor Richards)

As many have pointed out, it was a sociatal norm for people to have intercourse during the Victorian age (of all times, jeez). It was probably somewhat linked to Freud's constant sexual connection with things that people suddenly took attention and gradually became more sensitive to certain subjects regarding sexuality.

Pederasty: What's the difference between that and pedophilia? Pederast's maintain a loving relationship between themselves and said child--sexual or not; a pedophile is one who "loves" a child because they're prepubescent, and is almost always maintaining a one-sided sexual relationship.

More....

Many sexual activities now considered harmless or even beneficial by many (such as masturbation) have often been considered perversions or psychosexual disorders in various societies, and how to regard these behaviors has been, and continues at times to be, a controversial matter.

Now, I ask the opinion of some of you: Whats worse, pedophilia (or hebophilia) or gerontophilia?

Some interesting (and potentially useful) information:

wiki
In every state and federal jurisdiction of the United States, the law states that a minor below the age of consent in that state or jurisdiction cannot consent to sexual activity of any sort involving a partner (with certain exceptions).

[wikipedia]Illegal sexual activities involving an adult and a minor are generally categorized as a sex offense.[/wikipedia]

Situations in which both participants are under the age of consent are generally not prosecuted, if neither minor used force or coercion on the other minor.

In addition, many states include in their penal code a so-called "Romeo exception". This exception deals with situations in which a young adult above the age of consent performs a sexual activity with a someone under the age of consent; it exempts the young adult from being charged with a sex offense if the adult's age is within three years of the minor's age, and the adult did not use force or coercion on the minor.

Another exemption under states sexual abuse laws that exists in some states applies to adults legally married to minors. Thus, said adults can legally have sexual relations with their spouses without violating the law.

And just so we're clear:

wikipedia
The activities identified as sexual abuse of a child varies between countries. In the United States, sexual activity of any kind is prohibited between an adult and a person under the age of consent. Examples of prohibited activities:
* sexual intercourse (oral, anal or vaginal) with any person under the age of consent, which is between 16 and 18 years in the U.S.,
* soliciting sexual activity from a child,
* contact with a child's genitals for the purpose of sexual gratification,
* inducing a child to touch his/her genitals or another's genitals,
* acting as a pimp for prostituted child
* inducing a child to behave sexually in a performance, or to watch any kind of sexual behavior,
* inducing a child to appear in child pornography,
* lewd acts with children, including disseminating pornography to a minor.

Still more:

Offenders are more likely to be relatives or acquaintances of their victim than strangers.[1]
Most reported offenders are male; the percentage of incidents of sexual abuse by female perpetrators is
usually reported to be between 5%[2] and 20%, though some studies have found it to be much higher.


And something else to chew on:

Rate

Goldman (2000) notes that "the absolute number of children being sexually abused each year has been
almost impossible to ascertain" and that "there does not seem to be agreement on the rate of children
being sexually abused". A meta-analytic study by Rind, Tromovitch, and Bauserman (1998) found that
reported prevalence of abuse for males ranged from 3% to 37%, and for females from 8% to
71% with mean rates of 17% and 28%
respectively. A study by Fromuth and Burkhart (1987) found
that depending upon the definition of CSA used, prevalence among men varied from 4% to 24%.



That's a pretty huge range, I had no idea it would've been so high...


...and finally, for your viewing pleasure:

Super-wide, forum breaking image...

Explanation of the super long post:

I just think everyone should know as much as they can about a particular subject, especially one capable of starting so much debate-- just to keep things balanced.

Even so, it's still pretty much generally agreed upon that even 15 years old is pushing it for an age of consent law- and Canada's is 14?

I do, however, find it funny that the "Land of Freedom" has some of the tightest (NO PUN AT ALL INTENDED)sex laws in the world.
 
Well I believe that just as long as both partys agree and are fully aware of that agreed upon actions it should be legal... There should of course be laws to protect people from violence but I hate laws that only protect people from themselves.
 
All this because some moron saw a hot 16 year old and wants to ....well give her a cookie...or something ?
 
Back