'Paedophilia is natural and normal for males'

[shart_attack]

Two things.

1.) Contemporary Western societies not only condone pedophilia: they promote it. Say what you will about how backward Islamic societies are, but you hafta concede that Muslims don't actively encourage little girls who haven't even had their first menstrual cycles to dress like strippers and take pole-dancing classes before they've hit the age of 18.

2.) Contemporary Western societies—in particular, the United States—have anachronistic ideas about the legality of pedophilia as it is defined in the Judiciary. By that, what I'm saying is that how can Western cultures on the one hand encourage children to dress and act like strippers, and on the other not allow them to have consensual intercourse with an adult? During the American Industrial Revolution, it was actually the norm—not a taboo or more—for teenage girls like Laura Ingalls Wilder to have married men who were either at or well over the ages of 18. And girls weren't emulating strippers and listening to Miley Cyrus back then.

 

[Silhouette]

People are born pedophiles just like they are born gay. They can't help the fact that they are attracted to whom they are attracted to.

Exactly. Except that having sex with a minor is illegal as they cannot consent, so they have to learn how to control their urges.

Having sex with a minor is illegal the same way sodomy used to be illegal. Until Lawrence v Texas, gay sex was just as illegal as sex with a minor.

Oh but one can't possibly lead/be connected to the other! [See my signature for details].

The socio-sexual icon of the LGBT cult is a man who was an unapologetic predator of minor teen homeless boys made vulnerable and incapable of consent by their mental condition, living situation, drug addiction and young age. His biography said specifically that he preferred them in that condition as sex partners. He sodomized them at the same time he assured them he was their "father figure/guardian". And that ushered in a whole other crime of psychological abuse.

The connections are already there. We just need money in the media to expose them plainly for what they are.

 

[Delta4Embassy]

People are born pedophiles just like they are born gay. They can't help the fact that they are attracted to whom they are attracted to.

Exactly. Except that having sex with a minor is illegal as they cannot consent, so they have to learn how to control their urges.

Having sex with a minor is illegal the same way sodomy used to be illegal. Until Lawrence v Texas, gay sex was just as illegal as sex with a minor.

Worth mentioning modern age of consent laws are radically higher than where they started, even if just in the US. Initially, age of consent in the US was 10. Religious folk got it up to 16 where it remains to this day, in the federal code at any rate. Individual states adjust it up and down, and usually even more if married. Think the lowest aoc for non-marital sex is 15 in New Hampshire. Here in Missouri it's 17, though with parental consent you can marry at 15 and the aoc is adjusted retroactively. And a provision exists to marry under 15 if with judicial consent (not sure when or why that'd come up but there it is.)

Biblically, the age to marry was 12 for girls, 13 for boys (ages of adulthood for each.) One of the Mexican states has it at 12, though the rest are 18. The Netherlands notoriously had it at 12, as did Spain. Japan is 13 I believe.

Pedophilia proper, sexual attraction to prepubescents I would think is mostly about desiring that which is forbidden. Although in interviews with law enforcement researchers, convicted child rapists (who may or may not be strict pedophilies) convicts have listed as their reasoning the belief a child is more healthy and free from STIs than an adult partner. In child sexual slavery, this isn't the case however and the children being exploited have the same glut of infections their adult counterparts do.

I don't think there's any evolutionary imperative to seek prepubescent sexual partners. Generally, by definition they can't yet make children so they're not suitable for reproduction, and oweing to the fragile nature of their sexual organs with adult genitals intercourse isn't likely anything fun.

Children should be allowed to remain children and enjoy their non-sexual childhoods. Be pleanty of time for fooling around eventually. But I think many of us would enjoy our adulthoods more minus all the sexual competition and tension.

 

[peach174]

hey a cut and paste

You would be the first to say link if she hadn't.
How else do you want us to put news articles up and discuss them?

 

[Silhouette]

Worth mentioning modern age of consent laws are radically higher than where they started, even if just in the US. Initially, age of consent in the US was 10. Religious folk got it up to 16 where it remains to this day, in the federal code at any rate. Individual states adjust it up and down, and usually even more if married. Think the lowest aoc for non-marital sex is 15 in New Hampshire. Here in Missouri it's 17, though with parental consent you can marry at 15 and the aoc is adjusted retroactively. And a provision exists to marry under 15 if with judicial consent (not sure when or why that'd come up but there it is.)

Biblically, the age to marry was 12 for girls, 13 for boys (ages of adulthood for each.) One of the Mexican states has it at 12, though the rest are 18. The Netherlands notoriously had it at 12, as did Spain. Japan is 13 I believe.

Pedophilia proper, sexual attraction to prepubescents I would think is mostly about desiring that which is forbidden. Although in interviews with law enforcement researchers, convicted child rapists (who may or may not be strict pedophilies) convicts have listed as their reasoning the belief a child is more healthy and free from STIs than an adult partner. In child sexual slavery, this isn't the case however and the children being exploited have the same glut of infections their adult counterparts do.

I don't think there's any evolutionary imperative to seek prepubescent sexual partners. Generally, by definition they can't yet make children so they're not suitable for reproduction, and oweing to the fragile nature of their sexual organs with adult genitals intercourse isn't likely anything fun.

Children should be allowed to remain children and enjoy their non-sexual childhoods. Be pleanty of time for fooling around eventually. But I think many of us would enjoy our adulthoods more minus all the sexual competition and tension.

You know, I've been watching your "logic" in your last couple of posts before I was going to comment. But looking at them, it appears as if you are making an argument for lowering the age of consent or at least making adult sex with some minors legal so that it wil, in your reasoning, remove the titilating-temptation factor for the forbidden.

Which is a disturbing argument. And the near-identical argument published by the American Psychological Association in their journal in the 1990s won the dubious award of being the first professional institution/article to be officially censured by Congress for its odious proposition: that some sex with children by adults is OK....doesn't harm them.

You cite biblical precedent as a means for your softening the minds reading your posts to agree with your couched-conclusions. Couched of course under the shroud of "naturally sex with minors isn't a good idea". You forget though that a person born in those times could expect to expire in their 30s, surely no later than their 40s and often many years before their 30s if they were a woman in childbirth. In order to keep the population from fizzling completely out, girls were gotten quite young, as soon as they started cycling. But their unfortunate life-expectancy didn't afford cultures back then the time to protect their developing MINDS as well.

Now in advanced times we can protect their developing minds. And we do. We enact laws keeping a protective barrier around children and adolescents until they are 18 [in most states]. I'd bump it up to 23 or 25 if it were up to me. Their bodies may be ready for sex at 12, but their minds are not. And especially they are not with an older, grifting predator who has nothing but physical jollies and emotional abandonment on his mind..

Adolescents need the time to experiment with each other, at an equal emotional level where one isn't a seasoned sociopathic predator and the other a vulnerable piece of meat. The two adolescents can experience real compassion for each other because they are in the same boat: lack of worldly experience and a jaded affect. So their sex with each other is legally different than their sex with an adult. As well it should be. And in many states, the older an adult predator is than the minor, the worse the penalty at sentencing. As well it should be.

The laws against sex with minors are not laws based in the physical act of sex. They are law based in the emotional and psychological act of sex. No matter what the body looks like on the outside or whether or not an adolescent is already sexually active with another adolescent, they are HANDS OFF to adults seeking quick emotionless sex.

 

[mal]

some are saying, who didn't see this coming...
a video and pictures of the (academics) at the site with the rest of the lovely article

SNIP:
How some university academics make the case for paedophiles at summer conferences


Paedophilic interest is natural and normal for human males,” said the presentation. “At least a sizeable minority of normal males would like to have sex with children … Normal males are aroused by children.”


Some yellowing tract from the Seventies or early Eighties, era of abusive celebrities and the infamous PIE, the Paedophile Information Exchange? No. Anonymous commenters on some underground website? No again.


The statement that paedophilia is “natural and normal” was made not three decades ago but last July. It was made not in private but as one of the central claims of an academic presentation delivered, at the invitation of the organisers, to many of the key experts in the field at a conference held by the University of Cambridge.
Other presentations included “Liberating the paedophile: a discursive analysis,” and “Danger and difference: the stakes of hebephilia.”


Hebephilia is the sexual preference for children in early puberty, typically 11 to 14-year-olds.

Another attendee, and enthusiastic participant from the floor, was one Tom O’Carroll, a multiple child sex offender, long-time campaigner for the legalisation of sex with children and former head of the Paedophile Information Exchange. “Wonderful!” he wrote on his blog afterwards. “It was a rare few days when I could feel relatively popular!”


ALL of it here
'Paedophilia is natural and normal for males' - Telegraph

It's not just overseas Liberal Academics making the case for Adult/Child Sex... There are plent of Liberals here in the US doing the same thing.

Before it hurt them Politically, the Homosexuals used to March with NAMBLA and were actively Advocating for the end of Age of Consent Laws.

The IGLA was removed from the World Conference on Disease and Population for it's Alliance with NAMBLA.

They all want that History to go away now that they've almost got their goal of calling Man/Woman equal to Man/Man and Woman/Woman in Law.

Wait until after they get that cookie.



peace...

 

[Bush92]

Typical liberal bullshit...but hey, they want gay marriage so I'm not surprised by progressive stance on child molesters.

 

[shart_attack]

Worth mentioning modern age of consent laws are radically higher than where they started, even if just in the US. Initially, age of consent in the US was 10. Religious folk got it up to 16 where it remains to this day, in the federal code at any rate. Individual states adjust it up and down, and usually even more if married. Think the lowest aoc for non-marital sex is 15 in New Hampshire. Here in Missouri it's 17, though with parental consent you can marry at 15 and the aoc is adjusted retroactively. And a provision exists to marry under 15 if with judicial consent (not sure when or why that'd come up but there it is.)

Biblically, the age to marry was 12 for girls, 13 for boys (ages of adulthood for each.) One of the Mexican states has it at 12, though the rest are 18. The Netherlands notoriously had it at 12, as did Spain. Japan is 13 I believe.

Pedophilia proper, sexual attraction to prepubescents I would think is mostly about desiring that which is forbidden. Although in interviews with law enforcement researchers, convicted child rapists (who may or may not be strict pedophilies) convicts have listed as their reasoning the belief a child is more healthy and free from STIs than an adult partner. In child sexual slavery, this isn't the case however and the children being exploited have the same glut of infections their adult counterparts do.

I don't think there's any evolutionary imperative to seek prepubescent sexual partners. Generally, by definition they can't yet make children so they're not suitable for reproduction, and oweing to the fragile nature of their sexual organs with adult genitals intercourse isn't likely anything fun.

Children should be allowed to remain children and enjoy their non-sexual childhoods. Be pleanty of time for fooling around eventually. But I think many of us would enjoy our adulthoods more minus all the sexual competition and tension.

You know, I've been watching your "logic" in your last couple of posts before I was going to comment. But looking at them, it appears as if you are making an argument for lowering the age of consent or at least making adult sex with some minors legal so that it wil, in your reasoning, remove the titilating-temptation factor for the forbidden.

Which is a disturbing argument. And the near-identical argument published by the American Psychological Association in their journal in the 1990s won the dubious award of being the first professional institution/article to be officially censured by Congress for its odious proposition: that some sex with children by adults is OK....doesn't harm them.

You cite biblical precedent as a means for your softening the minds reading your posts to agree with your couched-conclusions. Couched of course under the shroud of "naturally sex with minors isn't a good idea". You forget though that a person born in those times could expect to expire in their 30s, surely no later than their 40s and often many years before their 30s if they were a woman in childbirth. In order to keep the population from fizzling completely out, girls were gotten quite young, as soon as they started cycling. But their unfortunate life-expectancy didn't afford cultures back then the time to protect their developing MINDS as well.

Now in advanced times we can protect their developing minds. And we do.

So why aren't we protecting their developing bodies by not encouraging them to look and act like strippers when they're teenagers, too, then?

We enact laws keeping a protective barrier around children and adolescents until they are 18 [in most states]. I'd bump it up to 23 or 25 if it were up to me.

Good thing it isn't, with regard to this issue in particular.

That is insane.

America probably wouldn't last another 30 years if we had some kind of federal mandate that girls couldn't have consensual sex with anyone over the age of 25.

Their bodies may be ready for sex at 12, but their minds are not. And especially they are not with an older, grifting predator who has nothing but physical jollies and emotional abandonment on his mind..

Two things:

1.) How do you know their minds aren't ready for it at that age? Because of the Internet and other tools, kids have the potential to be more knowledgeable about a lot more things than Generation Xers and Baby Boomers did. And it isn't necessarily the faults of either Gen Xers or Baby Boomers—who are their teachers in academia—if they're not. Just the fact that there is more information readily available to teens today says that their minds have more potential than ours did when we were their ages.

2.) Every adult who sees hypersexuality in a minor is not an "older, grifting predator". That is yet another anachronism of Western culture, and a broad sweeping generalization which lends itself to witch hunts.

Adolescents need the time to experiment with each other, at an equal emotional level where one isn't a seasoned sociopathic predator and the other a vulnerable piece of meat. The two adolescents can experience real compassion for each other because they are in the same boat: lack of worldly experience and a jaded affect.

Yet, you just yourself said that their minds aren't ready for intercourse with an adult yet.

So if two children, neither of whom have minds which in your view are equipped to deal with hypersexuality at the most or intercourse at the least, have sex with each other, what does that say about your argument, hmmf?

So their sex with each other is legally different than their sex with an adult. As well it should be. And in many states, the older an adult predator is than the minor, the worse the penalty at sentencing. As well it should be.

The laws against sex with minors are not laws based in the physical act of sex. They are law based in the emotional and psychological act of sex. No matter what the body looks like on the outside or whether or not an adolescent is already sexually active with another adolescent, they are HANDS OFF to adults seeking quick emotionless sex.

That may have worked in the 1950s.

It is an egregiously anachronistic argument in today's age of hypersexuality.

 

[Silhouette]

Worth mentioning modern age of consent laws are radically higher than where they started, even if just in the US. Initially, age of consent in the US was 10. Religious folk got it up to 16 where it remains to this day, in the federal code at any rate. Individual states adjust it up and down, and usually even more if married. Think the lowest aoc for non-marital sex is 15 in New Hampshire. Here in Missouri it's 17, though with parental consent you can marry at 15 and the aoc is adjusted retroactively. And a provision exists to marry under 15 if with judicial consent (not sure when or why that'd come up but there it is.)

Biblically, the age to marry was 12 for girls, 13 for boys (ages of adulthood for each.) One of the Mexican states has it at 12, though the rest are 18. The Netherlands notoriously had it at 12, as did Spain. Japan is 13 I believe.

Pedophilia proper, sexual attraction to prepubescents I would think is mostly about desiring that which is forbidden. Although in interviews with law enforcement researchers, convicted child rapists (who may or may not be strict pedophilies) convicts have listed as their reasoning the belief a child is more healthy and free from STIs than an adult partner. In child sexual slavery, this isn't the case however and the children being exploited have the same glut of infections their adult counterparts do.

I don't think there's any evolutionary imperative to seek prepubescent sexual partners. Generally, by definition they can't yet make children so they're not suitable for reproduction, and oweing to the fragile nature of their sexual organs with adult genitals intercourse isn't likely anything fun.

Children should be allowed to remain children and enjoy their non-sexual childhoods. Be pleanty of time for fooling around eventually. But I think many of us would enjoy our adulthoods more minus all the sexual competition and tension.

You know, I've been watching your "logic" in your last couple of posts before I was going to comment. But looking at them, it appears as if you are making an argument for lowering the age of consent or at least making adult sex with some minors legal so that it wil, in your reasoning, remove the titilating-temptation factor for the forbidden.

Which is a disturbing argument. And the near-identical argument published by the American Psychological Association in their journal in the 1990s won the dubious award of being the first professional institution/article to be officially censured by Congress for its odious proposition: that some sex with children by adults is OK....doesn't harm them.

You cite biblical precedent as a means for your softening the minds reading your posts to agree with your couched-conclusions. Couched of course under the shroud of "naturally sex with minors isn't a good idea". You forget though that a person born in those times could expect to expire in their 30s, surely no later than their 40s and often many years before their 30s if they were a woman in childbirth. In order to keep the population from fizzling completely out, girls were gotten quite young, as soon as they started cycling. But their unfortunate life-expectancy didn't afford cultures back then the time to protect their developing MINDS as well.

Now in advanced times we can protect their developing minds. And we do.

So why aren't we protecting their developing bodies by not encouraging them to look and act like strippers when they're teenagers, too, then?



Good thing it isn't, with regard to this issue in particular.

That is insane.

America probably wouldn't last another 30 years if we had some kind of federal mandate that girls couldn't have consensual sex with anyone over the age of 25.



Two things:

1.) How do you know their minds aren't ready for it at that age? Because of the Internet and other tools, kids have the potential to be more knowledgeable about a lot more things than Generation Xers and Baby Boomers did. And it isn't necessarily the faults of either Gen Xers or Baby Boomers—who are their teachers in academia—if they're not. Just the fact that there is more information readily available to teens today says that their minds have more potential than ours did when we were their ages.

2.) Every adult who sees hypersexuality in a minor is not an "older, grifting predator". That is yet another anachronism of Western culture, and a broad sweeping generalization which lends itself to witch hunts.

Yet, you just yourself said that their minds aren't ready for intercourse with an adult yet.

So if two children, neither of whom have minds which in your view are equipped to deal with hypersexuality at the most or intercourse at the least, have sex with each other, what does that say about your argument, hmmf?


That may have worked in the 1950s.

It is an egregiously anachronistic argument in today's age of hypersexuality.

1. Because I was a child and adolescent once myself and I shudder in horror to think that what I thought I knew from the "internet of the past" [television and portrayed-roles] was an acceptable substitute for wisdom...and..

2. It sounds as if you are in allegiance with Delta-Embassy to soften the idea of adults having sex with kids as "not such a bad thing"...."because look, they're already hypersexual so?...fair game". Please illuminate me as to how I'm wrong about that in what you said.

I am in agreement with you on the lowering of the age of sexualizing girls with scimpy outfits etc on TV. So I am confused at how you profess alarm at that and then go on to soften the minds of readers here that preparing children at younger ages for the idea of their being sex objects for adults "isn't such a bad thing"?

You and Delta's walking both sides of the fence on this is a red flag IMHO.

This is exactly how pedophiles groom their targets. They get in tight with the adults in charge of the children they're after and then they soften their guard by "statements of likemindedness" and only so those custodians will let their guard down and grant the predator access to their own children.... all in the name of "fitting in with the group".

Predators are adept manipulators of people's perceptions of them. And I'm smelling that here bigtime in these dual-stances. Either you're for adults having sexual access to kids or you aren't. You don't walk both sides of the fence on this issue.

 

[Silhouette]

Worth mentioning modern age of consent laws are radically higher than where they started, even if just in the US. Initially, age of consent in the US was 10. Religious folk got it up to 16 where it remains to this day, in the federal code at any rate. Individual states adjust it up and down, and usually even more if married. Think the lowest aoc for non-marital sex is 15 in New Hampshire. Here in Missouri it's 17, though with parental consent you can marry at 15 and the aoc is adjusted retroactively. And a provision exists to marry under 15 if with judicial consent (not sure when or why that'd come up but there it is.)

Biblically, the age to marry was 12 for girls, 13 for boys (ages of adulthood for each.) One of the Mexican states has it at 12, though the rest are 18. The Netherlands notoriously had it at 12, as did Spain. Japan is 13 I believe.

Pedophilia proper, sexual attraction to prepubescents I would think is mostly about desiring that which is forbidden. Although in interviews with law enforcement researchers, convicted child rapists (who may or may not be strict pedophilies) convicts have listed as their reasoning the belief a child is more healthy and free from STIs than an adult partner. In child sexual slavery, this isn't the case however and the children being exploited have the same glut of infections their adult counterparts do.

I don't think there's any evolutionary imperative to seek prepubescent sexual partners. Generally, by definition they can't yet make children so they're not suitable for reproduction, and oweing to the fragile nature of their sexual organs with adult genitals intercourse isn't likely anything fun.

Children should be allowed to remain children and enjoy their non-sexual childhoods. Be pleanty of time for fooling around eventually. But I think many of us would enjoy our adulthoods more minus all the sexual competition and tension.

You know, I've been watching your "logic" in your last couple of posts before I was going to comment. But looking at them, it appears as if you are making an argument for lowering the age of consent or at least making adult sex with some minors legal so that it wil, in your reasoning, remove the titilating-temptation factor for the forbidden.

Which is a disturbing argument. And the near-identical argument published by the American Psychological Association in their journal in the 1990s won the dubious award of being the first professional institution/article to be officially censured by Congress for its odious proposition: that some sex with children by adults is OK....doesn't harm them.

You cite biblical precedent as a means for your softening the minds reading your posts to agree with your couched-conclusions. Couched of course under the shroud of "naturally sex with minors isn't a good idea". You forget though that a person born in those times could expect to expire in their 30s, surely no later than their 40s and often many years before their 30s if they were a woman in childbirth. In order to keep the population from fizzling completely out, girls were gotten quite young, as soon as they started cycling. But their unfortunate life-expectancy didn't afford cultures back then the time to protect their developing MINDS as well.

Now in advanced times we can protect their developing minds. And we do.

So why aren't we protecting their developing bodies by not encouraging them to look and act like strippers when they're teenagers, too, then?



Good thing it isn't, with regard to this issue in particular.

That is insane.

America probably wouldn't last another 30 years if we had some kind of federal mandate that girls couldn't have consensual sex with anyone over the age of 25.



Two things:

1.) How do you know their minds aren't ready for it at that age? Because of the Internet and other tools, kids have the potential to be more knowledgeable about a lot more things than Generation Xers and Baby Boomers did. And it isn't necessarily the faults of either Gen Xers or Baby Boomers—who are their teachers in academia—if they're not. Just the fact that there is more information readily available to teens today says that their minds have more potential than ours did when we were their ages.

2.) Every adult who sees hypersexuality in a minor is not an "older, grifting predator". That is yet another anachronism of Western culture, and a broad sweeping generalization which lends itself to witch hunts.

Yet, you just yourself said that their minds aren't ready for intercourse with an adult yet.

So if two children, neither of whom have minds which in your view are equipped to deal with hypersexuality at the most or intercourse at the least, have sex with each other, what does that say about your argument, hmmf?


That may have worked in the 1950s.

It is an egregiously anachronistic argument in today's age of hypersexuality.

1. Because I was a child and adolescent once myself and I shudder in horror to think that what I thought I knew from the "internet of the past" [television and portrayed-roles] was an acceptable substitute for wisdom...and..

2. It sounds as if you are in allegiance with Delta-Embassy to soften the idea of adults having sex with kids as "not such a bad thing".

I am in agreement with you on the lowering of the age of sexualizing girls with scimpy outfits etc on TV. So I am confused at how you profess alarm at that and then go on to soften the minds of readers here that preparing children at younger ages for the idea of their being sex objects for adults "isn't such a bad thing"?

You and Delta's walking both sides of the fence on this is a red flag IMHO.

This is exactly how pedophiles groom their targets. They get in tight with the adults in charge of the children they're after and then they soften their guard by "statements of likemindedness" and only so those custodians will let their guard down and grant the predator access to their own children.... all in the name of "fitting in with the group".

Predators are adept manipulators of people's perceptions of them. And I'm smelling that here bigtime in these dual-stances. Either you're for adults having sexual access to kids or you aren't. You don't walk both sides of the fence on this issue.

Harvey Milk used to use the old "the child is already ruined [almost always by adults molesting them] and is promiscuous already [he and his friends called these children "hustlers"], so therefore they are fair game" argument. That's like saying because you were successful at raping a young girl, her parents should allow you to marry her.

 

[PratchettFan]

People are born pedophiles just like they are born gay. They can't help the fact that they are attracted to whom they are attracted to.

Most men have violent fantasies as well. We are born that way. That doesn't make it right for me to start shooting people.

 

[shart_attack]

You know, I've been watching your "logic" in your last couple of posts before I was going to comment. But looking at them, it appears as if you are making an argument for lowering the age of consent or at least making adult sex with some minors legal so that it wil, in your reasoning, remove the titilating-temptation factor for the forbidden.

Which is a disturbing argument. And the near-identical argument published by the American Psychological Association in their journal in the 1990s won the dubious award of being the first professional institution/article to be officially censured by Congress for its odious proposition: that some sex with children by adults is OK....doesn't harm them.

You cite biblical precedent as a means for your softening the minds reading your posts to agree with your couched-conclusions. Couched of course under the shroud of "naturally sex with minors isn't a good idea". You forget though that a person born in those times could expect to expire in their 30s, surely no later than their 40s and often many years before their 30s if they were a woman in childbirth. In order to keep the population from fizzling completely out, girls were gotten quite young, as soon as they started cycling. But their unfortunate life-expectancy didn't afford cultures back then the time to protect their developing MINDS as well.

Now in advanced times we can protect their developing minds. And we do.

So why aren't we protecting their developing bodies by not encouraging them to look and act like strippers when they're teenagers, too, then?

Good thing it isn't, with regard to this issue in particular.

That is insane.

America probably wouldn't last another 30 years if we had some kind of federal mandate that girls couldn't have consensual sex with anyone over the age of 25.

Two things:

1.) How do you know their minds aren't ready for it at that age? Because of the Internet and other tools, kids have the potential to be more knowledgeable about a lot more things than Generation Xers and Baby Boomers did. And it isn't necessarily the faults of either Gen Xers or Baby Boomers—who are their teachers in academia—if they're not. Just the fact that there is more information readily available to teens today says that their minds have more potential than ours did when we were their ages.

2.) Every adult who sees hypersexuality in a minor is not an "older, grifting predator". That is yet another anachronism of Western culture, and a broad sweeping generalization which lends itself to witch hunts.

Yet, you just yourself said that their minds aren't ready for intercourse with an adult yet.

So if two children, neither of whom have minds which in your view are equipped to deal with hypersexuality at the most or intercourse at the least, have sex with each other, what does that say about your argument, hmmf?


That may have worked in the 1950s.

It is an egregiously anachronistic argument in today's age of hypersexuality.

1. Because I was a child and adolescent once myself and I shudder in horror to think that what I thought I knew from the "internet of the past" [television and portrayed-roles] was an acceptable substitute for wisdom...and..

2. It sounds as if you are in allegiance with Delta-Embassy to soften the idea of adults having sex with kids as "not such a bad thing".

Yet another sweeping generalization from you.

No, I am not necessarily in "allegiance" with anyone: I am simply a functional pragmatist, sociologically speaking.

I am in agreement with you on the lowering of the age of sexualizing girls with scimpy [sic] outfits etc on TV. So I am confused at how you profess alarm at that and then go on to soften the minds of readers here that preparing children at younger ages for the idea of their being sex objects for adults "isn't such a bad thing"?

Because, again, the laws of most states with regard to the hypersexualization of teens are egregiously anachronistic.

I am in favor of having a federally-mandated across-the-board age of consent upon which is agreed by all 50 states.

We can stop hypersexualization of teens via the steroids and whatnot that the USDA condones and promotes to be put into the foods our children eat.

We cannot stop hypersexualization of teens in our culture via those who actively promote it with regard to the First Amendment. Morality is something that cannot be legislated, period.

You and Delta's walking both sides of the fence on this is a red flag IMHO.

Paint the flag any color you frick'n want it, champ.

Just because someone sees a double standard between hypersexualized teens and laws regarding the age of consent doesn't necessarily make him/ her an advocate of pedophilia, as pedophilia is a term which is both cumulative and evolving.

This is exactly how pedophiles groom their targets. They get in tight with the adults in charge of the children they're after and then they soften their guard by "statements of likemindedness" and only so those custodians will let their guard down and grant the predator access to their own children.... all in the name of "fitting in with the group".

Predators are adept manipulators of people's perceptions of them. And I'm smelling that here bigtime in these dual-stances. Either you're for adults having sexual access to kids or you aren't. You don't walk both sides of the fence on this issue.

Interesting. I did not know that.

 

[Silhouette]

People are born pedophiles just like they are born gay. They can't help the fact that they are attracted to whom they are attracted to.

Most men have violent fantasies as well. We are born that way. That doesn't make it right for me to start shooting people.

EXACTLY. Homo sapiens, the quintessential monkey-angel, is born with lots and lots of unacceptable "natural urges". The urge to steal [to stave off hunger ultimately], the urge to beat the crap out of and kill rival males for females [to promote his genes over another's], the urge to force females to have sex with him [to promote his genes over the widest range possible], the urge to become addicted to behaviors and substances that cause endorphine-addiction [probably as a means of dulling pain always present in a high-functioning animal that's a member of a troop with stressful social rankings]. Etc. etc. etc.

Even if pedophiles were "born that way" [they aren't, we have the evidence to say they aren't but that they learned "adult estrus female" was "a child that cannot reproduce with me"., it's no excuse to mainstream what they do as "normal". It isn't. The majority in a democracy of higher thinkers has deemed that this is so. We don't let our monkey sides make laws. We defer to our angel side instead.

"... pedophilia is a term which is both cumulative and evolving..."

As Larry the Cable Guy would say: "There's your sign..."

I think we now know definitively where this deviant sex cult agenda is heading. As to children at least, that choir is signing the "pedophilia is a term which is both cumulative and evolving" tune.

There it is folks. In black and white. You saw it here first.

ie: look for the age of consent being lowered entering the appeals system the nanosecond gay marriage is passed...assuming it makes the 14th hurdle and sets a new precedent for minor behaviors objectionable to the majority having legal-dominance to dictate to the majority.

 

[shart_attack]

"... pedophilia is a term which is both cumulative and evolving..."

As Larry the Cable Guy would say: "There's your sign..."

I think we now know definitively where this deviant sex cult agenda is heading. As to children at least, that choir is signing the "pedophilia is a term which is both cumulative and evolving" tune.

There it is folks. In black and white. You saw it here first.

ie: look for the age of consent being lowered entering the appeals system the nanosecond gay marriage is passed...assuming it makes the 14th hurdle and sets a new precedent for minor behaviors objectionable to the majority having legal-dominance to dictate to the majority.

Whatever you say, Senator McCarthy.

But see, I understand human psychology. And I'm not convinced that you understand anything save painting those with whom you disagree with a broad, self-aggrandizing brush as some kind of deflection indigenous to what you like to portray yourself as.

I don't care what you think of me. I know what I am — and contrary to your attempts to rekindle the "Red Scare," it isn't a pedophile.

Everyone needs a good attorney.

Did you know that people often imitate the behaviors of those of whom they are most afraid, Silhouette?

 

[Zmrzlina]

People are born pedophiles just like they are born gay. They can't help the fact that they are attracted to whom they are attracted to.

No one is born gay.

[citation needed]

 

[September]

Exactly. Except that having sex with a minor is illegal as they cannot consent, so they have to learn how to control their urges.

Having sex with a minor is illegal the same way sodomy used to be illegal. Until Lawrence v Texas, gay sex was just as illegal as sex with a minor.

Oh but one can't possibly lead/be connected to the other! [See my signature for details].

The socio-sexual icon of the LGBT cult is a man who was an unapologetic predator of minor teen homeless boys made vulnerable and incapable of consent by their mental condition, living situation, drug addiction and young age. His biography said specifically that he preferred them in that condition as sex partners. He sodomized them at the same time he assured them he was their "father figure/guardian". And that ushered in a whole other crime of psychological abuse.

The connections are already there. We just need money in the media to expose them plainly for what they are.

You are the only person out of every human being I have ever encountered who talks about this Harvey Milk guy. I never even heard of "Harvey Milk" until I read your posts about you obsessing over him.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

In the first case they failed to make the case they guy had intent to kidnap and cannibalize a grown woman.

The second case the guy possessed child pornography images not movies. The 2 are not related in anyway. You must be drunk right now. From your link.

2nd Circuit upholds conviction in virtual child-porn case | First Amendment Center ? news, commentary, analysis on free speech, press, religion, assembly, petition

From the Dept of Justice

USDOJ: CRM: Child Exploitation and Obscenity Section



You argue about the most random crap for no reason only to be wrong.

I posted a link to the Supreme Court ruling that virtual porn passes Constitutional muster and you respond with the fact that the DOJ ignores Supreme Court rulings.

Good job.

You posted a link to the Supreme Court ruling that had no relevance to the case you linked to. There were actual childrens pictures in the pornography the guy had. Did you read your own link?

Supreme Court Strikes Down Virtual Child Pornography Law : Silha Center : University of Minnesota



The DoJ and the SCOTUS agree.

USDOJ: CRM: Child Exploitation and Obscenity Section

Images of child pornography are not protected under First Amendment rights, and are illegal contraband under federal law. Section 2256 of Title 18, United States Code, defines child pornography as any visual depiction of sexually explicit conduct involving a minor (someone under 18 years of age). Visual depictions include photographs, videos, digital or computer generated images indistinguishable from an actual minor, and images created, adapted, or modified, but appear to depict an identifiable, actual minor.

2nd Circuit upholds conviction in virtual child-porn case | First Amendment Center ? news, commentary, analysis on free speech, press, religion, assembly, petition

While there was no evidence Hotaling distributed the images, the unanimous three-judge panel said the pictures showed the faces of six identifiable girls, who were “at risk” of damage to their reputations and psychological harm from knowing their images were exploited by a trusted adult.

What bothers you about this? I dont see where the DOJ ignored the SCOTUS. Can you point it out for me?

There were no children in the photos, their were faces of teenagers. The logic behind the decision is ridiculous, nothing in the law protects people from harm to their reputation before it occurs, nor is it a criminal act to harm someone's reputation.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

People are born pedophiles just like they are born gay. They can't help the fact that they are attracted to whom they are attracted to.

Most men have violent fantasies as well. We are born that way. That doesn't make it right for me to start shooting people.

We are born with violent fantasies? How the fuck do your genes know about guns?

 

[Quantum Windbag]

"... pedophilia is a term which is both cumulative and evolving..."

As Larry the Cable Guy would say: "There's your sign..."

I think we now know definitively where this deviant sex cult agenda is heading. As to children at least, that choir is signing the "pedophilia is a term which is both cumulative and evolving" tune.

There it is folks. In black and white. You saw it here first.

ie: look for the age of consent being lowered entering the appeals system the nanosecond gay marriage is passed...assuming it makes the 14th hurdle and sets a new precedent for minor behaviors objectionable to the majority having legal-dominance to dictate to the majority.

Whatever you say, Senator McCarthy.

But see, I understand human psychology. And I'm not convinced that you understand anything save painting those with whom you disagree with a broad, self-aggrandizing brush as some kind of deflection indigenous to what you like to portray yourself as.

I don't care what you think of me. I know what I am — and contrary to your attempts to rekindle the "Red Scare," it isn't a pedophile.

Everyone needs a good attorney.

Did you know that people often imitate the behaviors of those of whom they are most afraid, Silhouette?

No one understands human psychology. there are a lot of idiots that like to pretend they do, and they all sell snake oil.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

People are born pedophiles just like they are born gay. They can't help the fact that they are attracted to whom they are attracted to.

No one is born gay.

[citation needed]

Look it up yourself, I have discussed the issue thoroughly in various threads.