FSTDT

Mark of Zorro #fundie jref.com

Children simply lack the maturity to make sexual decisions. Our bodies may have evolved to be sexually mature by age 13, but the average person only lived into his thirties in prehistoric times. Just because the body is ready doesn't mean the mind can make mature decisions in today's world.

But they have the maturity to make traffic decisions as they walk to school or ride a bicycle? As I was suggesting to Brian, you seem to think sex is a dangerous thing. Its a wonder humanity survived if so.

Another strange thing about your point here is that you seem to think its harder to get by in today's world than prehistoric times! Therefore, more maturity is required with regards to sex! How completely preposterous! We can prevent pregnancies with drugs and condoms. Most diseases can be cured with a shot. STD testing can be done to ensure partners are disease free. I scarcely understand how more maturity is needed now than in the past.

I also don't see why sex has be such supreme danger. With an attitude like that, its a wonder you would let a 13 year old cross the road by themself.

Sex has real consequences that can change or end lives -- STDs, pregnancy, and emotional damage are all among them.

Well, I already addressed pregnancy and STDs. (And I still don't think they hold a candle to getting run over on a bicycle). But emotional damage? Where do you get this stuff?

Is it illegal for teens to have sex with eachother? No. So what of the emotional damage? Again, you seem to be saying that sex is extremely dangerous. Pah! You want emotional damage? Divorce. Death in the family. Moving away. Paralysis from a cheerleading accident.

For me, sex and sexual things have always been emotionally soothing. From playing doctor when I was a kid to bonking with my girlfriend today.

I wonder if you ever in your life considered the emotional damage of NOT having sex. I experienced plenty of that before I got out of college. It was a very painful time. I am grateful for every childhood and teen sexual experience I had, but I did not have nearly enough. Both my childhood and teen sexual experiences involved adults (though I wanted but did not have actual sex). The only thing that hurt me was have to wait for months and years before the next experience. Surely I am not alone.

If you ask me teens especially are being harmed emotionally by being cut off from the rest of the humanity in this way. I blame this state of affairs for things like smoking, binge drinking and runaways. Used to be a 13 year old could expect to be married soon. Now they are forced into celibacy essentially. Its inhuman cruelty and no wonder teens are viewed as being unstable when they are treated like this.

Maybe stoning is too harsh, but I'd have no problem seeing pedophiles castrated, if they're more than a few years older than their victims.

This sentence is mixed up 8 ways from Sunday. I have to assume that since you said pedophiles and victim, that you mean the younger party is twelve at the outside, since that is about average for puberty. A few years older would be 15. So you would not only call a 15 year old with a 12 year old partner a pedophile, you would have them castrated?

You also assume the younger party is upset or harmed and is a victim out of hand. And further you don't seem to realize that most age of consent violations are not committed by pedophiles.

Like BrianLewis, your viewpoints are based on unfounded assumptions that are very negative about sex and that have been feed to you by a sex negative society. Your viewpoints are contradictary and you don't seem to have examined anything in much depth at all. Yet it seems you have firmly made up your mind despite those horrible failings.

I had a couple friends, one girl of 14 and a man of 20. They fell in love. Their relationship was approved by her father, a man who is very strict and very protective of his children. Last I heard, they got married. I ask you, would you have my friend castrated?

---------- Post added at 02:37 ---------- Previous post was at 02:11 ----------

RolandtheHeadless said:

Amen. Adults who have sex with children are exploiting them, and they're rapists because children lack the capacity for consent.

Can a child consent to surgery? Can a child consent to eating mashed pototoes? Either could be life threatening. I find it strange where capacity to consent is touted as the end-all-be-all argument for sex issues, but completely ignored for pretty much all other issues.

I was a child once. I consented to a lot of things. I knew who I liked and who I didn't. I was very interested in sex and I knew who I would like to have sex with and who I wouldn't. I did not lack capacity. I lacked experience and knowledge. You don't gain either for doing nothing.

My view of your philosophy is that you first enforce ignorance. Then you say they can't consent because they are ignorant. Its extremely backward thinking.

I also don't like that you would call someone a rapist and exploiter just because of age even though they may well be kind and caring and generous to their sex partner, and would not dream of harming or tricking them. Rape has a real and serious meaning, and you dilute it with ideas like that.

It is preposterous to decide such issues on age alone at the expense of a million other details, including and especially the sentiments of the child or teen in question.

Pedophiles who act on their perversion make me want to punch their lights out.

They said the same of gays 50 years ago.

The only real perversion is asexuality.

Mark of Zorro #fundie jref.com

To answer the question of whether pedophilia is a sickness or a crime, it is neither. It is popular and common to use the word to mean both or either, but that is complete and total misuse of the concept and the word, and that misuse has a major effect in ensuring the very separate topics are not handled correctly or fairly in the slightest. And I have no hope that the knot of stupidity will ever be untied in my lifetime, because the topics are valued by so many people as topics where they can feel free to rant and not dedicate one ounce of critical thought. The whole thing is dominated by witch hunters and I have been attacked numerous times for daring to address related topics with fairness, justice and logic.

I will explain why it is neither a sickness or a crime. First, it is not a sickness because the only reason it causes mental distress is because of societal intolerance. The only kind of pedophilia I would call a sickness would be where its compulsive and the person just can't help themselves but to molest or rape children practically on sight. But that sort of pedophile is exceedingly rare, pretty much like serial rapists.

Your average run-of-the-mill pedophile, someone who simply prefers pre-pubescents as sex partners, would be perfectly happy if society left them free to date and have sex with who they wanted (as in Polynesian society before the Europeans came, or even American and British societies where the age of consent was ten for hundreds of years). So while some might call their desires sick, it does not mean they are sick. They are no more sick than homosexuals, and it took society and psychology a long time to conclude that homosexuals were not sick, and that delay was simply the product of societal taboo, same as with pedophilia today.

But it has to be said that a pedophile is best defined as someone who PREFERS prepubescents. Just finding yourself attracted to prepubescents does not make one a pedophile, because if that were true, 25 percent to 33 percent of all males would be pedophiles, and the word would lose all meaning.

Next, pedophilia is not a crime because pedophilia is not an act. Only acts can be crimes. Pedophilia is sexual preference, not an act. That is why I use the term "age of consent violation" rather than lump words like pedophilia, statutory rape and rape into one confusing jumble of overlapping concepts. Its just crazy to say that, for example, Mary Kay LeTourneau raped Villi Fualau. She didn't. They had consensual sex and they loved one another. In fact, they are now legally married. Its also crazy to say that Mary Kay is a pedophile. That is for many reasons. First, when they began sexual relations, Villi was not a prepubescent. So there is zero reason to think Mary Kay prefers prepubescents since she is not accused of ever sleeping with one. Next, she never even repeated her "crime" with another person underage, so she is certainly not compulsive in that sense.

Clearly what happened with Mary Kay is that she was in love. But some segments of society don't want to accept that and all others are too weak to speak against it. So Mary Kay gets labeled a pedophile out of hand and zero rational thought behind it.

All that said, I freely admit that Mary Kay is a bit off. I think she is compulsive, but just not toward underage boys. I believe her love is genuine, but allowing herself to get knocked up by a 13 year old, particularly when she has other children to care for, indicates someone without much foresight or self-control. The woman needed mental help for that. Instead, society gave her jail, all because witch hunters have contol of this topic.

So anyway, pedophilia is a sexual preference. A sickness would be compulsive pedophilia marked by a lack of self-control over the urge. A crime would be an age of consent violation, as that would be an act, as much as I think the label of crime is over-blown. Rape is just rape, hardly matters the age of the victim. The term statutory rape is absolute garbage and should be erased from the vernacular. And age of consent violations should be called precisely that, because calling consensual sex between a 15 year old and her 18 year old boyfriend as rape, pedophilia, sexual assault, or statutory rape is grossly and seriously unfair, injust and misleading to the point of me wanting to punch people's lights out.

The concept behind statutory rape is the general consensus from scientists that the brain is not developed enough to know the consequences of your actions at that age.

For starters, no, the concept of statutory rape began in the middle ages and no related legistlation, even modern, is based on any scientific study. Frankly, you just made that up.

Next, how does brain development translate into understanding the consequence of your actions? You cannot induce a baby into a coma, wake him up when he is 25, and expect him to understand the consequences of sticking his finger into a light socket even though his brain has fully developed.

My son is two years old. He understands the consequences of touching a hot stove.

In short, that whole brain development thing is complete red herring. The brain develops yes, but no one knows what effect that has on the decision making process. They only have guesses, and those guesses tend to conform toward agenda.

Further to that, if a child was refused a bicycle on the grounds of safety, how many people would say their parents are over-reacting? Kids ride around on bicycles all the time! Do you think they understand all the consequences, such as being hit by a car? Do you think they understand the dynamics of vehicular traffic well enough to truly be safe? Please! And a bicycle is more dangerous than sex.

How many 16 year olds are driving cars?! They could kill you. You could kill them. But if you loved them and had sex with them, there is some sort of massive danger??

That's subjective, of course, however I tend to believe that the law is more towards the younger end. Just out of personal experience, I have not met too many developed minds under 25.

The age of consent has only risen, and its now well beyond puberty, which is insane and unfair, as sex becomes an imperative after puberty.

I find it preposterous that anyone would consider an early teen to be mentally sound enough for sex with an adult.

So you are saying they are mentally sound enough for sex with eachother? Or are you saying they are raping, traumatizing and manipulating eachother? What do you mean by "mentally sound" anyway? What does it have to do with sex??

It's far too likely that such relationships are ones of manipulation.

Why? Why would you assume that any person's desire for a sexual relationship with a teen is based on manipulation? Do you think the human race is generally bent on manipulation? Do you know of any relationship based on manipulation?

For centuries teens were free to marry and age disparate couples were common. Many of our grandparents and great grandparents were in such a relationship. Now suddenly its wrong and all about manipulation?

I would question the ego of any adult that needs a relationship of manipulation.
So would I. But more than that I question your lack of faith in humanity. I do not believe that most people are out to manipulate the people they are attracted to, at least not maliciously. I do not believe that being minor attracted lends itself to a desire to manipulate maliciously.

In fact, if anything, I would say the tendency would be more toward a desire to protect and care for. But its usually the bad apples that get all the press isn't it? The news is rarely about people in love. So people who read the news tend to think people are evil at heart.

Mark of Zorro #fundie jref.com

real problem? And I mean a real psychological/ medical problem, not a moral one. Your morals are yours, and you can keep them at home.

Additional related questions:

1) Two 15 year olds are dating and having sex. They are both below the AOC (age of consent). Are they raping, hurting, traumatizing eachother?

2) A 15 year old and and 20 year old are dating and having sex. The 15 year old is below the AOC and the 20 year old over. Is the 20 year old raping, traumatizing, or hurting the 15 year old? Aside from the law and some people just not liking it, how is this automatically different from 1?

3) An eleven year old has entered and passed puberty. It happens. He or she wants to start having sex. How old of a partner can he or she choose without being raped, traumatized or hurt as a matter of course? Or, is it just impossible for an eleven year old to have sex with anyone without it being rape, trauma and anguish? Is that anything to compare to the trauma and anguish of not being able to have sex despite desiring it both physiologically and mentally?

I ask these because I find all these sex laws based on nothing but age to be completely and utterly preposterous. There is nothing in science or nature to clearly correlate age and sex to be connected to mental trauma or distress.

The AOC was not updated on those grounds. The AOC was orginally formulated to protect girls (not boys) from getting into something they did not understand. The age was set at 6. I kid you not. It was updated in order to protect the purity and value to potential suitors of girls and women (and also morality), which is why the marriage age and the age of consent are often different. It went from 6 to 10, then to 14, then to 16, and in some places now 18. And this trauma idea is not sound and its not the reason. Or prove me wrong and explain how it relates and how the updates came to be. Make my day

Overall I would say someone in their 20s or older should almost never be with someone under 20. It mostly comes down to when the individual develops that sense of handling adult situations but seeing as that would be different with everyone why take the risk of intensely damaging someone's psyche. That number isn't specific really, just a generalization. I don't think it's wrong for a 21 year old to date a 19 year old. That's just dumb.

Such strong opinions. So little to back it up.

Can you name one person who got a damaged psyche from dating? You know, where the reason for the damaged psyche was because one was 21 and if he or she were 19 instead, there would be no damaged psyche?

Mostly the people I know who got a damaged psyche from an age disparate relationship was the older one, as he or she was made to go knock on doors and announce "Hi! I am a pedophile!" and is not allowed to take his own kids to the park anymore. Not to mention the jail time.

Oh, but lets not forget about the younger ones who had to submit to a rape exam so the law could make a case against the man she loves.

God but I hope you don't think I am joking. 20/20 did a special on Frank and Nikki Rodriguez. If you have never seen it, you should watch it. Its enough to make you want to throw up what they did to these people. The only damaged psyches were caused by her parents and the police and courts. The Age of Consent: When Young Love Is a Sex Crime - ABC News

Their case is not unique by a long shot. And its all because distant, disconnected big shots in legislature made some numbers law that some sex negative wankers pulled out of a hat and lobbied them for.

If you use your senses though it's usually obvious what's acceptable and what isn't and if you're not sure than the answer is no.

In other words, give up. Bow down. Throw your love away because some wankers in the world want their power trip over you.

Most people's senses tell them what is acceptable is what the biggest, noisest puritan A-hole in the room will tolerate. I reject that idea totally. We should never let go of love and mutual sexual satisfaction for such poor reasons. We should never submit to "moral" bigotry.

The first rule should be to cause no harm. The second rule should be to leave them better than you found them.

---------- Post added at 13:44 ---------- Previous post was at 13:32 ----------

GaijinGolfer said:
Part of the problem you have when youre younger is that you cant comprehend the consequences of your actions.

Right. Adults never get STDs, accidental pregnancies or find themselves trapped in abusive relationships. I think you are applying a pretty big double standard. I think teens especially are smarter than you think, or would be if not for being stunted by society driving this wedge between them and the rest of the world.

Your hormones are raging and all you can think is how you want to have sex, how everyone else is doing it and how doing so will make you an adult.

In my case, when I was 15, I declined to have sex with a woman because I did not have a condom and I was concerned about her history. She was about 25.

When I was 19, I got drunk at a frat party and went home with a girl I just met and had unprotected sex because she said she was on the pill.

I got dumber in four years didn't I? I made a bad decision because of TIME. TIME is what made me frustrated. I would never have been that dumb if not for years of waiting. After four years my next chance finally came, and I was not about to let it slide.

You cant comprehend the issues that arise with STDs, your reputation, the complexity that sex brings into a relationship and the risks of pregnancy.

Yes you can, just as well as any virgin of any age. By what miracle would you expect a 20 year old with no sexual experience to understand those things better than a 14 year old who has been educated and has experience?