If they can read, they can bleed.
If they can crawl, they're in the right position.
I think we've covered the topic now!
Thread
Posts in chronological order
Paedophilia = an adult person is attracted by a
pre-pubescent child. It's not about age of consent and sex with teenagers. The law usually defines the age of consent but that has nothing to do with the abuse of children which is illegal everywhere.
pre-pubescent child. It's not about age of consent and sex with teenagers. The law usually defines the age of consent but that has nothing to do with the abuse of children which is illegal everywhere.
I am pro pedophilia but only if it involves me and my hot MILF teacher from 5th grade.
[QUOTE][QUOTENAME]YourValentine wrote: [/QUOTENAME]Paedophilia = an adult person is attracted by a
pre-pubescent child. It's not about age of consent and sex with teenagers. The law usually defines the age of consent but that has nothing to do with the abuse of children which is illegal everywhere. [/QUOTE]
If it only was that simple, there would be no problem with it. ;)
My dictionary says a paedophile is somebody who is sexually attracted to children. The paedophilia in ancient Greece was something that happened between middle-aged men and teenage boys.
What's confusing the issue is the fact that the participants themselves don't necessarily feel they are children, even though the society around them does, e.g by setting the age of consent.
If were talking about the paedophilia that happens with children who don't know what sex is, it's obvious to everyone that it's wrong. That's NOT a taboo subject in any way.
However the sexual relationships between adults and teenagers are a taboo subject, because they are deemed illegal by the society. They aren't openly discussed because it would be more harmful to the participants.
pre-pubescent child. It's not about age of consent and sex with teenagers. The law usually defines the age of consent but that has nothing to do with the abuse of children which is illegal everywhere. [/QUOTE]
If it only was that simple, there would be no problem with it. ;)
My dictionary says a paedophile is somebody who is sexually attracted to children. The paedophilia in ancient Greece was something that happened between middle-aged men and teenage boys.
What's confusing the issue is the fact that the participants themselves don't necessarily feel they are children, even though the society around them does, e.g by setting the age of consent.
If were talking about the paedophilia that happens with children who don't know what sex is, it's obvious to everyone that it's wrong. That's NOT a taboo subject in any way.
However the sexual relationships between adults and teenagers are a taboo subject, because they are deemed illegal by the society. They aren't openly discussed because it would be more harmful to the participants.
[QUOTE][QUOTENAME]YourValentine wrote: [/QUOTENAME]Paedophilia = an adult person is attracted by a
pre-pubescent child. It's not about age of consent and sex with teenagers. The law usually defines the age of consent but that has nothing to do with the abuse of children which is illegal everywhere. [/QUOTE]
Indeed - pre-pubescent is the point to note.
For post-puberty, see:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ephebophilia
However regardless, an adult who has sex with say a sexually active 15 year old like in the example above is still called a paedophile by most people, when that isn't strictly true.
Whilst the 15 year old in the example above was clearly taken advantage of (and I think in the vast majority of such cases the immaturity of the younger participant is probably being taken advantage of), comparing it to sex with a child who is not sexually active and who isn't equipped to have sex without being physically hurt makes it clear the two things are different.
pre-pubescent child. It's not about age of consent and sex with teenagers. The law usually defines the age of consent but that has nothing to do with the abuse of children which is illegal everywhere. [/QUOTE]
Indeed - pre-pubescent is the point to note.
For post-puberty, see:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ephebophilia
However regardless, an adult who has sex with say a sexually active 15 year old like in the example above is still called a paedophile by most people, when that isn't strictly true.
Whilst the 15 year old in the example above was clearly taken advantage of (and I think in the vast majority of such cases the immaturity of the younger participant is probably being taken advantage of), comparing it to sex with a child who is not sexually active and who isn't equipped to have sex without being physically hurt makes it clear the two things are different.
I have never really understood this....why look at something so undeveloped when you can look at something that is sooooo developed with curves and.. and uhhhh give me a minute to collect my thoughts here
Seriously, though...who _isn't_ attracted to "adolescents?"
[QUOTE][QUOTENAME]<font color=666600><b>Music Man wrote: [/QUOTENAME]Seriously, though...who _isn't_ attracted to "adolescents?"[/QUOTE]
I don't know, I've always preferred people in general past age 25 if we're talking about looks alone.
I don't know, I've always preferred people in general past age 25 if we're talking about looks alone.
[QUOTE][QUOTENAME]<font color=666600><b>Music Man wrote: [/QUOTENAME]Seriously, though...who _isn't_ attracted to "adolescents?"[/QUOTE]
Rihanna is so friggin' hot.
Back when she was 17 I could have sworn she was in her early 20s.
Rihanna is so friggin' hot.
Back when she was 17 I could have sworn she was in her early 20s.
[QUOTE][QUOTENAME]<font color=red>The Audacity of Charles wrote: [/QUOTENAME][QUOTE][QUOTENAME]<font color=666600><b>Music Man wrote: [/QUOTENAME]Seriously, though...who _isn't_ attracted to "adolescents?"[/QUOTE]
I don't know, I've always preferred people in general past age 25 if we're talking about looks alone.[/QUOTE]
Come to think of it, it's quite different when it comes to females. But from a male perspective, and I reiterate:
Who isn't attracted to adolescents?
I don't know, I've always preferred people in general past age 25 if we're talking about looks alone.[/QUOTE]
Come to think of it, it's quite different when it comes to females. But from a male perspective, and I reiterate:
Who isn't attracted to adolescents?
[QUOTE][QUOTENAME]Penetration_Guru wrote: [/QUOTENAME]A thought occurred to me earlier, and I wonder how th erest of you feel about it.
Paedophilia is a sexual preference that society deems unacceptable based (at least partly) on the lack of informed consent on both sides. However, at its base level, it is no more than a sexual preference, just like...redheads, or large chests, or even homosexuality.
Now, at this point I can hear the sucking of teeth and the sharpening of knives so I should say that the militant wing (child abuse) is a horrendous thing which should be stamped out, as should its grown up cousin (rape).
I'm just curious as to why (especially with the age of consent varying throughout the world) we deem being attracted to the young as irrevocably evil, when other preferences are tolerated?
Discuss... [/QUOTE]
You raise an interesting point here. I think it'll require a long slab of text to explain my thoughts to this essentially simple question though.
First of all, children, especially young children, are, both mentally and culturally, in a dependent position. They are unable to make rational choices, and are easily influenced by adults (or anyone significantly older than they are), whether in good or bad intent. Therefore, it is only natural that children are protected from (sexual) predators.
Then there is the physical issue, as raised here before by (I think) HistoryGirl: physical damage can easily be done, and that is never acceptable.
However, when puberty is reached, the body becomes mature, and a somewhat rational decisionmaking process should be attained (some children reach this mental level by age 8, others never do, but that doesn't mean the mentally incompetent (not necessarily handicaped) aren't legal sexual partners when they turn 16/18. Therefore, I do not see what would be unhealthy or perverted about a relationship between, say, an 18 year-old boy with a 14 year-old girl.
The 'age of consent' is still based on more or less Victorian views on children and young adults, and it should be treated as less of an absolute than it is now (no two 16-year olds are equally mature, but they have the same legal rights, because it is so difficult to legally arrange subjectivity). Of course, there are many scenarios that are unacceptable, and child abuse is, as P_G stated, nothing short of rape. But a mutually consensual relationship is possible before the legal age is reached in some cases, and impossible even beyond the legal age in others.
So, essentially, the law is an over-generalization that, in protecting those it should protect, also hinders those it shouldn't. But in all honesty, I can't find a more practical solution save having the law take subjective conditions into account.
Paedophilia is a sexual preference that society deems unacceptable based (at least partly) on the lack of informed consent on both sides. However, at its base level, it is no more than a sexual preference, just like...redheads, or large chests, or even homosexuality.
Now, at this point I can hear the sucking of teeth and the sharpening of knives so I should say that the militant wing (child abuse) is a horrendous thing which should be stamped out, as should its grown up cousin (rape).
I'm just curious as to why (especially with the age of consent varying throughout the world) we deem being attracted to the young as irrevocably evil, when other preferences are tolerated?
Discuss... [/QUOTE]
You raise an interesting point here. I think it'll require a long slab of text to explain my thoughts to this essentially simple question though.
First of all, children, especially young children, are, both mentally and culturally, in a dependent position. They are unable to make rational choices, and are easily influenced by adults (or anyone significantly older than they are), whether in good or bad intent. Therefore, it is only natural that children are protected from (sexual) predators.
Then there is the physical issue, as raised here before by (I think) HistoryGirl: physical damage can easily be done, and that is never acceptable.
However, when puberty is reached, the body becomes mature, and a somewhat rational decisionmaking process should be attained (some children reach this mental level by age 8, others never do, but that doesn't mean the mentally incompetent (not necessarily handicaped) aren't legal sexual partners when they turn 16/18. Therefore, I do not see what would be unhealthy or perverted about a relationship between, say, an 18 year-old boy with a 14 year-old girl.
The 'age of consent' is still based on more or less Victorian views on children and young adults, and it should be treated as less of an absolute than it is now (no two 16-year olds are equally mature, but they have the same legal rights, because it is so difficult to legally arrange subjectivity). Of course, there are many scenarios that are unacceptable, and child abuse is, as P_G stated, nothing short of rape. But a mutually consensual relationship is possible before the legal age is reached in some cases, and impossible even beyond the legal age in others.
So, essentially, the law is an over-generalization that, in protecting those it should protect, also hinders those it shouldn't. But in all honesty, I can't find a more practical solution save having the law take subjective conditions into account.
[QUOTE][QUOTENAME]<font color=666600><b>Music Man wrote: [/QUOTENAME][QUOTE][QUOTENAME]<font color=red>The Audacity of Charles wrote: [/QUOTENAME][QUOTE][QUOTENAME]<font color=666600><b>Music Man wrote: [/QUOTENAME]Seriously, though...who _isn't_ attracted to "adolescents?"[/QUOTE]
I don't know, I've always preferred people in general past age 25 if we're talking about looks alone.[/QUOTE]
Come to think of it, it's quite different when it comes to females. But from a male perspective, and I reiterate:
Who isn't attracted to adolescents?[/QUOTE]
That is part of my point: girls reach physical maturity a LOOOOONG time before boys do. Meso-American peoples, for instance, realized this by considering girls legal adults at age 16 and boys at 21. Apart from this, individuals may differ from this standard tremendously (I know a 13-year-old girl who has no trouble convincing anyone that she is 18, for instance). Therefore, such a legal absolute is not a good solution, IMHO. Subjectivity is what is required.
I don't know, I've always preferred people in general past age 25 if we're talking about looks alone.[/QUOTE]
Come to think of it, it's quite different when it comes to females. But from a male perspective, and I reiterate:
Who isn't attracted to adolescents?[/QUOTE]
That is part of my point: girls reach physical maturity a LOOOOONG time before boys do. Meso-American peoples, for instance, realized this by considering girls legal adults at age 16 and boys at 21. Apart from this, individuals may differ from this standard tremendously (I know a 13-year-old girl who has no trouble convincing anyone that she is 18, for instance). Therefore, such a legal absolute is not a good solution, IMHO. Subjectivity is what is required.
Just a thought: 'Legal' pornography (consisting of consenting adults) is also subject to 'fashion' and technology. For example, it is broadly easy to 'date' pornographic material from the 1940's, 1950's, 1960's, 1970's etc.
However, it seems that current pornographic trends are towards a 'smooth-shaved-body' look.
Therefore, by creating a demand for adults to look like pre-pubescent children, is this not blurring the edges of what is - and what is not socially acceptable?
However, it seems that current pornographic trends are towards a 'smooth-shaved-body' look.
Therefore, by creating a demand for adults to look like pre-pubescent children, is this not blurring the edges of what is - and what is not socially acceptable?
[QUOTE][QUOTENAME]John S Stuart wrote: [/QUOTENAME]Just a thought: 'Legal' pornography (consisting of consenting adults) is also subject to 'fashion' and technology. For example, it is broadly easy to 'date' pornographic material from the 1940's, 1950's, 1960's, 1970's etc.
However, it seems that current pornographic trends are towards a 'smooth-shaved-body' look.
Therefore, by creating a demand for adults to look like pre-pubescent children, is this not blurring the edges of what is - and what is not socially acceptable?[/QUOTE]
In fact, up to (I think) the 1960s, it was legal for minors to perform in porn-movies so long as they had parental consent. These movies didn't become illegal until after they were made. Which raises a number of interesting legal questions, but is totally unimportant in any other way. Just thought I'd flaunt the one bit of knowledge I have about the subject :P
However, it seems that current pornographic trends are towards a 'smooth-shaved-body' look.
Therefore, by creating a demand for adults to look like pre-pubescent children, is this not blurring the edges of what is - and what is not socially acceptable?[/QUOTE]
In fact, up to (I think) the 1960s, it was legal for minors to perform in porn-movies so long as they had parental consent. These movies didn't become illegal until after they were made. Which raises a number of interesting legal questions, but is totally unimportant in any other way. Just thought I'd flaunt the one bit of knowledge I have about the subject :P
[QUOTE][QUOTENAME]<font color=666600><b>Music Man wrote: [/QUOTENAME][QUOTE][QUOTENAME]<font color=red>The Audacity of Charles wrote: [/QUOTENAME][QUOTE][QUOTENAME]<font color=666600><b>Music Man wrote: [/QUOTENAME]Seriously, though...who _isn't_ attracted to "adolescents?"[/QUOTE]
I don't know, I've always preferred people in general past age 25 if we're talking about looks alone.[/QUOTE]
Come to think of it, it's quite different when it comes to females. But from a male perspective, and I reiterate:
Who isn't attracted to adolescents?[/QUOTE]
Well, I meant what I said about girls, too. :P
I don't know, I've always preferred people in general past age 25 if we're talking about looks alone.[/QUOTE]
Come to think of it, it's quite different when it comes to females. But from a male perspective, and I reiterate:
Who isn't attracted to adolescents?[/QUOTE]
Well, I meant what I said about girls, too. :P