170 replies to this topic

[MiddleClassCentrist]

I'd call it a mental illness to be attracted to members of the opposite sex who are prepubescent. Scientifically, the norm would be to desire sexually mature companions to produce offspring. It should be legislated against and punished criminally because that's what our laws do, prevent behaviour that our civilized society deems repugnant that remains from our evolutionary times (Theft, Physical Assault, etc).


That being said, I think we spend too much time legislating sexually mature encounters. I had a 16 yr old friend who really wanted to bang older women and would have taken that offer up, had it arisen. I knew 15 yr old girls who swore they'd give "really hot college boy" a BJ, if they had a chance. When I was 16, I liked girls my own age. Younger was gross, older was gross. That was me. My wife is only 9 months apart since we met in high school.

Teenagers aren't completely retarded, they have desires and act on them. I sought someone my age, some wanted older, some wanted younger. They will seek out that end. There was the one girl who had an affair with her married 33 year old driving instructor and it suddenly made sense as to why she always argued that "love has no age boundary" the Canadian Family course.


If it is abusive in nature (physical, psychological) punish it.

If it is consensual in nature and both people are of sexual maturity, what does it matter? We are meant to have sex, it's not like the act of sex is permanently damaging or people would be having much less sex.

Edited by MiddleClassCentrist, 05 January 2012 - 07:10 AM.

[cybercoma]

I'd call it a mental illness to be attracted to members of the opposite sex who are prepubescent.

How about members of the same sex?

For pedophiles, it usually doesn't matter what sex the child is. They're attracted to them for the fact that they're androgynous before puberty.

[MiddleClassCentrist]

How about members of the same sex?

For pedophiles, it usually doesn't matter what sex the child is. They're attracted to them for the fact that they're androgynous before puberty.

Absolutely, my wording was off.

[Scotty]

Huh?

You can download pics all day of 16 yr olds. No problem.

But go and have sex with one , you will be in trouble

Clearly I meant naked pictures, sexually explicit pictures.

And sixteen is the age of consent, so it's entirely legal for adults to have sex with them.

[Scotty]

The problem is that demand for child pornography creates victims.

I realize that's the party line, but I've seen nothing whatsoever to indicate any truth in that. All child porn I'm aware of, having looked into this matter and read quite a few studies, is made up of the 'souvenirs' taken of their victims by child molesters, or of teen pictures taken willingly by themselves and their friends, or of old pictures from the seventies or earlier.

The theory is that reducing the demand, by making it criminal, will reduce the number of children that are victimized by the "industry."

There is no "industry". And reduce demand for what? For kiddy porn? Well, I suppose you can reduce demand for anything by making it criminal. But what's it all in aid of? It's not going to reduce the interest of pedophiles in children. We're talking about a mental illness here, right? A mental illness which causes certain people to have their sexual wires crossed so that they lust after per-pubesent children. I mean, if we have no gay porn, does that mean it will reduce the number of gay people?

This applies to pictures of 16 year olds as well. However, if a 16 year old sends pics of herself to another minor, who she could legally have sex with, I don't believe that should be a crime.

But what is the purpose? Are we trying to reduce the interest in adult men of lusting after sixteen year old girls? If so, why is it legal to sleep with them? And besides, you can't eliminate a normal human sexual response, which is what an attractive sixteen year old girl produces in adult men.

Edited by Scotty, 05 January 2012 - 04:56 PM.

[Scotty]

Doesn't mean pedophiles aren't guilty of crimes.

Well, no, but it doesn't automatically mean they ARE either.

The legal test isn't the presence of mental illness ... "mental defect" ... but knowingly committing a crime ... forming the intent and carrying out an action that the perpetrator knows is wrong.

Don't get me wrong here. I'm not speaking of those who molest children. In my opinion, we don't come down hard enough on such people.

What I'm talking about is some guy downloading a picture in his basement. I just don't see that as being such a horrific thing that we need to destroy them and put them in prison. Maybe it's simply because I have a lot of empathy and imagination. I can imagine what would happen if some bluenose decided that anyone who had naked pictures of women must go to prison. I mean, huh? Why? Because you're lusting after what you're hard-wired to lust after?

I think that society was so disgusted with these people, that it basically criminalized their fantasies. But these people can't control their fantasies, they can't control what they find sexually attractive. It's not like they wanted to find themselves sexually attracted to children, after all.

[Scotty]

How about members of the same sex?

For pedophiles, it usually doesn't matter what sex the child is. They're attracted to them for the fact that they're androgynous before puberty.

I dunno. It seems to be boys far more than girls.

[jacee]

I dunno. It seems to be boys far more than girls.

Accessibility ... and boys are less likely to talk than girls.

[Bonam]

I'd call it a mental illness to be attracted to members of the opposite sex who are prepubescent. Scientifically, the norm would be to desire sexually mature companions to produce offspring. It should be legislated against and punished criminally because that's what our laws do, prevent behaviour that our civilized society deems repugnant that remains from our evolutionary times

How about homosexuality? After all, evolutionarily, it's a dead end, since partners of the same gender cannot have offspring with one another.

As to desiring someone of a younger age, it actually makes a lot of evolutionary sense for a male to want a younger female. With the lack of any medical knowledge and technology, human birth is very traumatic on the mother. A woman in ancient times would lose the capability to successfully bear a child long before the age where a male would no longer be able to sire one. Even today, pregnancy in one's 50s or 60s would be quite dangerous and most physicians would recommend against it, and not naturally possible at all much later than that. The oldest known woman to succesfully give birth was 70 years old and died shortly thereafter. Meanwhile a man can still be physically capable of impregnating a woman well into his 80s or even 90s, with several examples of fathers in their 90s.

This bears out throughout historical times in a majority of human civilizations, too. Specifically,
wealthy and powerful males would most often find female partners that were significantly younger than themselves. Again, this remains true to some extent even today.

Anyway, this is all a bit beside the point. I'm just disputing the notion that modern day morality is rooted in evolutionary necessity or efficiency. Common notions of morality are cultural in nature, having only weak roots in biology if any at all. Pedophilia is considered revolting and criminal in modern Western culture, while marrying off girls of 12 or 11 years, or even younger, was a common practice worldwide until recently and still is in some places. Homosexuality is considered acceptable in most Western countries today and discrimination against homosexuals is considered wrong, and yet most other cultures find it abhorrent, as did Western nations until recently.

[Moonlight Graham]

Thread Q Part 2:

Viewing Adult Porn - For Lonely Losers or Completely Awesome?

[jacee]

I realize that's the party line, but I've seen nothing whatsoever to indicate any truth in that. All child porn I'm aware of, having looked into this matter and read quite a few studies, is made up of the 'souvenirs' taken of their victims by child molesters, or of teen pictures taken willingly by themselves and their friends, or of old pictures from the seventies or earlier.



There is no "industry". And reduce demand for what? For kiddy porn? Well, I suppose you can reduce demand for anything by making it criminal. But what's it all in aid of? It's not going to reduce the interest of pedophiles in children. We're talking about a mental illness here, right? A mental illness which causes certain people to have their sexual wires crossed so that they lust after per-pubesent children. I mean, if we have no gay porn, does that mean it will reduce the number of gay people?

The idea is to reduce harm to children.

[MiddleClassCentrist]

How about homosexuality? After all, evolutionarily, it's a dead end, since partners of the same gender cannot have offspring with one another.

Well, something to think about: Fertile mothers are linked to a higher chance of bearing homosexual children. (read: natural population control)

[jbg]

I think I agree with jbg here that there can be treatment. While you can't treat someone to change their sexuality, you could treat them to control their urges and not act on them. In other words, you can help someone remain celibate. You're not going to change their sexualit; you just want them not acting on it.

And I want people to understand what I'm getting at.

It is very hard for someone in need of help to seek it before they intersect with the penal system. This is what needs to change. By the time the law is involved, these people would have difficulties in, among other areas, maintaining marriages or employment. People need to be able to get help and go on with their lives before,not after, a catastrophe.

[guyser]

And sixteen is the age of consent, so it's entirely legal for adults to have sex with them.

Not entirely. It depends on the nature and circumstances of the relationship.

[jacee]

I realize that's the party line, but I've seen nothing whatsoever to indicate any truth in that. All child porn I'm aware of, having looked into this matter and read quite a few studies, is made up of the 'souvenirs' taken of their victims by child molesters, or of teen pictures taken willingly by themselves and their friends, or of old pictures from the seventies or earlier.

There is no "industry". And reduce demand for what? For kiddy porn? Well, I suppose you can reduce demand for anything by making it criminal. But what's it all in aid of? It's not going to reduce the interest of pedophiles in children. We're talking about a mental illness here, right? A mental illness which causes certain people to have their sexual wires crossed so that they lust after per-pubesent children. I mean, if we have no gay porn, does that mean it will reduce the number of gay people?

But what is the purpose? Are we trying to reduce the interest in adult men of lusting after sixteen year old girls? If so, why is it legal to sleep with them? And besides, you can't eliminate a normal human sexual response, which is what an attractive sixteen year old girl produces in adult men.

"Adult men" who lust after young teenagers are not the norm. Most are disgusted by men who do.

Of course there is a child porn "industry".
"Child sex rings spike during Super Bowl week"

An adult viewing child porn in his basement IS LOOKING AT A CRIME!
If pedophiles can sell the video of them abusing a child, it increases their motivation to molest children for profit.

Possessing or viewing child porn is a crime, is not a victimless crime and should be aggressively investigated and punished , in my opinion. It is part of the customer base of the lucrative industry that includes child sex trafficking and sex crimes from which children may never recover, and may become damaged and dysfunctional adults themselves.