This isn't really a defense of pedophiles, just something I don't quite understand. I posted something about this in another thread but felt it deserved it's own thread (in no small part because nobody replied).
Pedophiles claim they can't help it. They are born that way. Like people who claim to be gay. Why is one abnormal outlet of sexuality which people are predisposed to by birth demonized and another tolerated and even celebrated? Well the easy answer is one is illegal and the other is not. But that seems artificial. We could lower the age of consent to 10. Would so doing make it acceptable? People don't seem to be mad about pedophiles because they are breaking the law, but because what they are doing is repellant. Even the age thing is kinda weird. Here's a hypothetical scenario:
Grallon seduces a young boy. He uses no force, just his immense physical presence and his natural loathsome charm. The boy does so willingly. The boy tells his parents and the police pick grallon up and he faces charges of sexually abusing a minor. What grallon didn't know what that the previous day the same young boy took some of daddy's guns to school and shot up several teachers and students. The boy is arrested shortly after grallon is. The prosecution chooses to try the boy as an adult due to how heinous the crime is.
So is grallon guilty of statutory rape?
:lmfao:
Quote from: Razgovory on November 16, 2011, 10:30:58 AM
Pedophiles claim they can't help it. They are born that way. Like people who claim to be gay. Why is one abnormal outlet of sexuality which people are predisposed to by birth demonized and another tolerated and even celebrated?
:lol:
Cute Raz.
Pedophiles are demonized because we consider minors unable to give meaningful consent. I don't know that there's all that much more to it.
I'm not trolling. :(
Shirley you can't be serious, Raz.
It's because we hate childrens & are feeling guilty.
I read that in a BBC article that I cant find anymore.
Homos are celebrated because they: are more handsome than hetero men; love to shop for clothes (thereby sharing much in common with women); and like to sit around with women and talk about art, girls who aren't present, share decorating tips and other gay girlie shit. Despite all of these innate competitive advantages, the homo thenselects himself right out of the competition for hot eager pussy.
I celebrate the homo because he opens the door for an ugly neanderthal like me to play above my league.
Conversely Pedos should be shot or castrated before they relapse with their compulsive behavior.
Quote from: Caliga on November 16, 2011, 10:45:38 AM
Shirley you can't be serious, Raz.
Don't call me that.
Quote from: dps on November 16, 2011, 10:37:30 AM
Pedophiles are demonized because we consider minors unable to give meaningful consent. I don't know that there's all that much more to it.
Yea, one is consensual, the other is not. Now you can argue about what the age of consent should be. Most people would set it above 10 though.
Quote from: Maximus on November 16, 2011, 10:54:02 AM
Quote from: dps on November 16, 2011, 10:37:30 AM
Pedophiles are demonized because we consider minors unable to give meaningful consent. I don't know that there's all that much more to it.
Yea, one is consensual, the other is not. Now you can argue about what the age of consent should be. Most people would set it above 10 though.
Yep. Non-consensual sex is demonized for every flavor of sexuality.
I'm not sure what the mystery is, Raz.
Hmm.. did somebody here read the Explainer in Slate on how Are Child Molesters Really the Most Hated People in Prison? (http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/explainer/2011/11/jerry_sandusky_out_on_bail_are_child_molesters_tormented_in_american_prisons_.html)
The answer is, It's complicated; but sort of.
It's sort of how I was picked on in school not for having a banana sandwitch, but rather because I reacted to bullying badly. If I'm going to pick on a paedophile in prison I'm gonna justify that bullying with his paedophilia. The real reason is usually related to the fact that I can get away with picking on that paedophile. If you get sent to protective custody you can't build up that relationship with the Aryan Nation gang leader you are going to need to stay safe.
When I stopped reacting to bullys in school I stopped being picked on. It was very simple.
I'd guess that snitches are more hated.
Quote from: Valmy on November 16, 2011, 11:07:47 AM
Quote from: Razgovory on November 16, 2011, 10:45:06 AM
I'm not trolling. :(
It sure smelled like: Marty bait.
I really hope everyone's rationality hasn't ruled out the chance of a Martyexplosion. Hopefully he'll only read the OP :)
Quote from: Sheilbh on November 16, 2011, 11:50:53 AM
Quote from: Valmy on November 16, 2011, 11:07:47 AM
Quote from: Razgovory on November 16, 2011, 10:45:06 AM
I'm not trolling. :(
It sure smelled like: Marty bait.
I really hope everyone's rationality hasn't ruled out the chance of a Martyexplosion. Hopefully he'll only read the OP :)
...and he'll be annoyed that it was Grallon rather than himself that got to suck the little boy's cock.
:lol:
Raz's trolling aside (yeah it's so blatant I don't even go for it), I think it is a more interesting question why pedophiles (and sex offenders, in general) are so vilified, compared even to murderers, for example.
For example, why there is a public interest in me knowing that someone living next door was once arrested for indecent exposure, than knowing he killed 5 people.
Quote from: Valmy on November 16, 2011, 11:05:11 AM
Quote from: Maximus on November 16, 2011, 10:54:02 AM
Quote from: dps on November 16, 2011, 10:37:30 AM
Pedophiles are demonized because we consider minors unable to give meaningful consent. I don't know that there's all that much more to it.
Yea, one is consensual, the other is not. Now you can argue about what the age of consent should be. Most people would set it above 10 though.
Yep. Non-consensual sex is demonized for every flavor of sexuality.
Yes, but it's non-consensual because of an arbitrary line in the sand. Other cultures, like the ancient Greeks didn't have such a problem with this. As I pointed out in my example, the law plays with that line. The same person can be simultaneously an adult as a perpetrator and a minor as a victim.
Quote from: Martinus on November 16, 2011, 11:59:58 AM
Raz's trolling aside (yeah it's so blatant I don't even go for it), I think it is a more interesting question why pedophiles (and sex offenders, in general) are so vilified, compared even to murderers, for example.
For example, why there is a public interest in me knowing that someone living next door was once arrested for indecent exposure, than knowing he killed 5 people.
It's very easy to demand ever stronger punishments for sex offenders. Even if people don't agree with you, the vast majority won't hold you in contempt for that position. It's very hard to demand roll-back of sex offender laws, for obvious reasons. Therefore, there is an assymetry of intensity, and lack of open debate.
Sex offender laws are the kind of laws that Supreme Courts were made to strike down, because they're nearly impossible to strike down by political process. Unfortunately, the shortcomings of the US Supreme Court are also very obvious, and lately the trend hasn't been one of supporting the rights of individuals (unless the individuals are just legal fictions).
Okay, maybe I should step back. What do board members think of the claims that a pedophile is predisposed toward his sexual peculiarity? That the pedophile lusts for small children because that's the way his head is wired. He was born that way. Is this a legitimate statement?
Quote from: Razgovory on November 16, 2011, 12:13:22 PM
Okay, maybe I should step back. What do board members think of the claims that a pedophile is predisposed toward his sexual peculiarity? That the pedophile lusts for small children because that's the way his head is wired. He was born that way. Is this a legitimate statement?
Tricky given the large percentage of them that were victims of sexual predators when they were kids.
Quote from: Razgovory on November 16, 2011, 12:13:22 PM
Okay, maybe I should step back. What do board members think of the claims that a pedophile is predisposed toward his sexual peculiarity? That the pedophile lusts for small children because that's the way his head is wired. He was born that way. Is this a legitimate statement?
Born that way? Maybe in some cases.
Quote from: Razgovory on November 16, 2011, 12:04:34 PM
Yes, but it's non-consensual because of an arbitrary line in the sand. Other cultures, like the ancient Greeks didn't have such a problem with this. As I pointed out in my example, the law plays with that line. The same person can be simultaneously an adult as a perpetrator and a minor as a victim.
It is a question I have wondered about. Today we can point to, convincingly I think, the large amount of social damage sexual abuse of kids causes. But were the ancient greeks somehow insulated from it? Is it our cultural taboo that creates the damage in someway? Or, conversley, did it cause large amounts of social damage in ancient Greece?
I think on these lines with regards to child physical abuse, once so common, as well. Was it this tendency that created the violent societies in the past or was the very fact those societies were so violent somehow made the physical abuse less damaging?
Not sure.
Quote from: Martinus on November 16, 2011, 11:59:58 AM
Raz's trolling aside (yeah it's so blatant I don't even go for it), I think it is a more interesting question why pedophiles (and sex offenders, in general) are so vilified, compared even to murderers, for example.
For example, why there is a public interest in me knowing that someone living next door was once arrested for indecent exposure, than knowing he killed 5 people.
A person who murdered another many years ago may, depending on his reasons, never murder again, but a guy whose only way of getting off is to have sex with kids strikes me as more of a problem, because he will always be tempted to go for kids.
Besides I am pretty sure serial killers and sadists are more vilified than sexual predators. I mean organizations like the Catholic Church and Penn State would never have covered for murders and somebody who kidnapped and tortured people.
Quote from: Razgovory on November 16, 2011, 12:13:22 PM
Okay, maybe I should step back. What do board members think of the claims that a pedophile is predisposed toward his sexual peculiarity? That the pedophile lusts for small children because that's the way his head is wired. He was born that way. Is this a legitimate statement?
It is a relevant question only to the extent of whether they should ever be released from prison (or in capital punishment land simply executed). If they are just born that way and nothing can help them then the answer is pretty straight forward imo.
Quote from: Valmy on November 16, 2011, 12:18:46 PM
It is a question I have wondered about. Today we can point to, convincingly I think, the large amount of social damage sexual abuse of kids causes. But were the ancient greeks somehow insulated from it? Is it our cultural taboo that creates the damage in someway? Or, conversley, did it cause large amounts of social damage in ancient Greece?
I think on these lines with regards to child physical abuse, once so common, as well. Was it this tendency that created the violent societies in the past or was the very fact those societies were so violent somehow made the physical abuse less damaging?
Not sure.
The Spartans deliberately abused their children to make them effective warriors. The Spartans valued being a psychopath as a worthy trait (kids were trained to do stuff to helots which these days would qualify as psycopathic).
Quote from: Valmy on November 16, 2011, 12:21:04 PM
I mean organizations like the Catholic Church and Penn State would never have covered for murders and somebody who kidnapped and tortured people.
Ouch.
Quote from: Valmy on November 16, 2011, 12:18:46 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on November 16, 2011, 12:04:34 PM
Yes, but it's non-consensual because of an arbitrary line in the sand. Other cultures, like the ancient Greeks didn't have such a problem with this. As I pointed out in my example, the law plays with that line. The same person can be simultaneously an adult as a perpetrator and a minor as a victim.
It is a question I have wondered about. Today we can point to, convincingly I think, the large amount of social damage sexual abuse of kids causes. But were the ancient greeks somehow insulated from it? Is it our cultural taboo that creates the damage in someway? Or, conversley, did it cause large amounts of social damage in ancient Greece?
I think on these lines with regards to child physical abuse, once so common, as well. Was it this tendency that created the violent societies in the past or was the very fact those societies were so violent somehow made the physical abuse less damaging?
Not sure.
Obviously when expectations change social costs of various activities change.
Quote from: Valmy on November 16, 2011, 12:21:04 PM
I mean organizations like the Catholic Church and Penn State would never have covered for murders and somebody who kidnapped and tortured people.
I'm sure the Church has done that many times. Dunno about Penn St.
Quote from: crazy canuck on November 16, 2011, 12:23:48 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on November 16, 2011, 12:13:22 PM
Okay, maybe I should step back. What do board members think of the claims that a pedophile is predisposed toward his sexual peculiarity? That the pedophile lusts for small children because that's the way his head is wired. He was born that way. Is this a legitimate statement?
It is a relevant question only to the extent of whether they should ever be released from prison (or in capital punishment land simply executed). If they are just born that way and nothing can help them then the answer is pretty straight forward imo.
Why only to that extant?
Quote from: Razgovory on November 16, 2011, 12:13:22 PM
Okay, maybe I should step back. What do board members think of the claims that a pedophile is predisposed toward his sexual peculiarity? That the pedophile lusts for small children because that's the way his head is wired. He was born that way. Is this a legitimate statement?
Mostly bullshit is my guess. History is full of examples of pseudo-science being invented to justify persecution of undesirables.
Quote from: Valmy on November 16, 2011, 12:18:46 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on November 16, 2011, 12:04:34 PM
Yes, but it's non-consensual because of an arbitrary line in the sand. Other cultures, like the ancient Greeks didn't have such a problem with this. As I pointed out in my example, the law plays with that line. The same person can be simultaneously an adult as a perpetrator and a minor as a victim.
It is a question I have wondered about. Today we can point to, convincingly I think, the large amount of social damage sexual abuse of kids causes. But were the ancient greeks somehow insulated from it? Is it our cultural taboo that creates the damage in someway? Or, conversley, did it cause large amounts of social damage in ancient Greece?
I think on these lines with regards to child physical abuse, once so common, as well. Was it this tendency that created the violent societies in the past or was the very fact those societies were so violent somehow made the physical abuse less damaging?
Not sure.
Or is it not as damaging as we are led to believe? How many children are abused sexually? How many go on to become abusers? I'm beginning to suspect the "ick" factor is a major part of it. I'm wondering if that as homosexuality becomes more acceptable, people who are disgusted by that sort of behavior are shifting their hate to pedophiles who in their mind are similar and a safer target of hatred. It seems the mass awareness and moral panic concerning pedophilia coincides with the mainstream acceptance of homosexuality.
Quote from: Razgovory on November 16, 2011, 12:36:37 PM
Quote from: crazy canuck on November 16, 2011, 12:23:48 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on November 16, 2011, 12:13:22 PM
Okay, maybe I should step back. What do board members think of the claims that a pedophile is predisposed toward his sexual peculiarity? That the pedophile lusts for small children because that's the way his head is wired. He was born that way. Is this a legitimate statement?
It is a relevant question only to the extent of whether they should ever be released from prison (or in capital punishment land simply executed). If they are just born that way and nothing can help them then the answer is pretty straight forward imo.
Why only to that extant?
What else is that question relevant to?
Quote from: DGuller on November 16, 2011, 12:44:01 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on November 16, 2011, 12:13:22 PM
Okay, maybe I should step back. What do board members think of the claims that a pedophile is predisposed toward his sexual peculiarity? That the pedophile lusts for small children because that's the way his head is wired. He was born that way. Is this a legitimate statement?
Mostly bullshit is my guess. History is full of examples of pseudo-science being invented to justify persecution of undesirables.
Please clarify.
Quote from: Razgovory on November 16, 2011, 12:44:56 PM
Quote from: Valmy on November 16, 2011, 12:18:46 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on November 16, 2011, 12:04:34 PM
Yes, but it's non-consensual because of an arbitrary line in the sand. Other cultures, like the ancient Greeks didn't have such a problem with this. As I pointed out in my example, the law plays with that line. The same person can be simultaneously an adult as a perpetrator and a minor as a victim.
It is a question I have wondered about. Today we can point to, convincingly I think, the large amount of social damage sexual abuse of kids causes. But were the ancient greeks somehow insulated from it? Is it our cultural taboo that creates the damage in someway? Or, conversley, did it cause large amounts of social damage in ancient Greece?
I think on these lines with regards to child physical abuse, once so common, as well. Was it this tendency that created the violent societies in the past or was the very fact those societies were so violent somehow made the physical abuse less damaging?
Not sure.
Or is it not as damaging as we are led to believe? How many children are abused sexually? How many go on to become abusers? I'm beginning to suspect the "ick" factor is a major part of it. I'm wondering if that as homosexuality becomes more acceptable, people who are disgusted by that sort of behavior are shifting their hate to pedophiles who in their mind are similar and a safer target of hatred. It seems the mass awareness and moral panic concerning pedophilia coincides with the mainstream acceptance of homosexuality.
It coincides with a lot of things.
Yes, I occasionally check for perverts within a mile. Especially for Tier III's.
Quote from: crazy canuck on November 16, 2011, 12:45:10 PM
What else is that question relevant to?
Well if the statement is true or not. Or why it occurs.
Quote from: Valmy on November 16, 2011, 12:21:04 PM
Besides I am pretty sure serial killers and sadists are more vilified than sexual predators. I mean organizations like the Catholic Church and Penn State would never have covered for murders and somebody who kidnapped and tortured people.
:lol:
So you assume Penn state put a hit out on that D.A. that went missing?
Quote from: Valmy on November 16, 2011, 12:18:46 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on November 16, 2011, 12:04:34 PM
Yes, but it's non-consensual because of an arbitrary line in the sand. Other cultures, like the ancient Greeks didn't have such a problem with this. As I pointed out in my example, the law plays with that line. The same person can be simultaneously an adult as a perpetrator and a minor as a victim.
It is a question I have wondered about. Today we can point to, convincingly I think, the large amount of social damage sexual abuse of kids causes. But were the ancient greeks somehow insulated from it? Is it our cultural taboo that creates the damage in someway? Or, conversley, did it cause large amounts of social damage in ancient Greece?
I think on these lines with regards to child physical abuse, once so common, as well. Was it this tendency that created the violent societies in the past or was the very fact those societies were so violent somehow made the physical abuse less damaging?
Not sure.
The issue of whether a person will be tried in the juvenile or adult legal systems isn't a matter of informed consent, like the issue of sexual age of consent is. They are apples and oranges. A ten-year-old tried as an adult doesn't
become an adult (doesn't get to vote, for instance, or drive or buy cigarettes and booze); they are tried in the adult legal system because the juvenile legal system lacks the ability to inflict a suitable sentence if found guilty. I'm not a big fan of the whole "try as an adult" concept to begin with, but I understand how it differs from treatment as an adult as regards consent to sex.
Pedophiles are reviled more than most criminals, IMO, because they strike at the most vulnerable. I think they were reviled before it was recognized that they had such high recidivism rates. They don't get a pass because they are 'wired that way" any more than any other serial rapist or drunk driver gets a pass because they are "wired that way." If you are "wired wrong," you are expected to compensate for it; if you cannot, then society will put you someplace where your lack of self-control doesn't harm others.
Quote from: Razgovory on November 16, 2011, 12:48:46 PM
Quote from: crazy canuck on November 16, 2011, 12:45:10 PM
What else is that question relevant to?
Well if the statement is true or not. Or why it occurs.
Whether it is true or not is only relevant to the question of whether they can be rehabilitated. If true then no and if not true then maybe yes. I dont know why else the question might be relevant.
Quote from: Razgovory on November 16, 2011, 12:13:22 PM
Okay, maybe I should step back. What do board members think of the claims that a pedophile is predisposed toward his sexual peculiarity? That the pedophile lusts for small children because that's the way his head is wired. He was born that way. Is this a legitimate statement?
I think this is like most statements regarding nature vs. nurture, a question that can be answered with 50% certainty.
Quote from: Valmy on November 16, 2011, 12:18:46 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on November 16, 2011, 12:04:34 PM
Yes, but it's non-consensual because of an arbitrary line in the sand. Other cultures, like the ancient Greeks didn't have such a problem with this. As I pointed out in my example, the law plays with that line. The same person can be simultaneously an adult as a perpetrator and a minor as a victim.
It is a question I have wondered about. Today we can point to, convincingly I think, the large amount of social damage sexual abuse of kids causes. But were the ancient greeks somehow insulated from it? Is it our cultural taboo that creates the damage in someway? Or, conversley, did it cause large amounts of social damage in ancient Greece?
I think on these lines with regards to child physical abuse, once so common, as well. Was it this tendency that created the violent societies in the past or was the very fact those societies were so violent somehow made the physical abuse less damaging?
Not sure.
People who were violently abused as a child are more likely to use violence as adults so I'm going with the bolded bit.
Quote from: The Brain on November 16, 2011, 12:47:21 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on November 16, 2011, 12:44:56 PM
Or is it not as damaging as we are led to believe? How many children are abused sexually? How many go on to become abusers? I'm beginning to suspect the "ick" factor is a major part of it. I'm wondering if that as homosexuality becomes more acceptable, people who are disgusted by that sort of behavior are shifting their hate to pedophiles who in their mind are similar and a safer target of hatred. It seems the mass awareness and moral panic concerning pedophilia coincides with the mainstream acceptance of homosexuality.
It coincides with a lot of things.
And doesn't coincide with widespread acceptance of gays. There were a series of cases about thirty years ago (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Day-care_sex-abuse_hysteria (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Day-care_sex-abuse_hysteria) that involved moral panic that makes today's commentary seem quite tame (maybe a dozen innocent people went to prison for extended periods because hysteria overcame the judgement of even prosecutors and juries charged with judging only the facts). Gays weren't widely accepted back then; the whole Anita Hill/Florida voter rejection of anti-gay-discrimination laws had been only four years prior.
I don't think we need to equate intolerance of child sexual abuse to anything else whatever in order to understand it.
Quote from: Razgovory on November 16, 2011, 12:44:56 PM
Or is it not as damaging as we are led to believe?
Well I would point to two things: first non-consensual sex is damaging enough to adults is it not? I mean we have all these rape counselors and shelters for a reason. Why would it be less damaging to children?
Secondly: statistics show it correlates to all sorts of anti-social behaviors both as a child and as the abused child becomes an adult.
Now it kind of goes back to my chicken and egg question. Does the psychological reaction come from the social taboo? If we declared sex with children ok today would the damage disappear tommorow? It seems hard for me to believe that.
But in any case that is a fantasy scenario. In our society today, as it stands, it is appears to be very damaging.
Quote from: Valmy on November 16, 2011, 01:11:08 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on November 16, 2011, 12:44:56 PM
Or is it not as damaging as we are led to believe?
Well I would point to two things: first non-consensual sex is damaging enough to adults is it not? I mean we have all these rape counselors and shelters for a reason. Why would it be less damaging to children?
Secondly: statistics show it correlates to all sorts of anti-social behaviors both as a child and as the abused child becomes an adult.
Now it kind of goes back to my chicken and egg question. Does the psychological reaction come from the social taboo? If we declared sex with children ok today would the damage disappear tommorow? It seems hard for me to believe that.
But in any case that is a fantasy scenario. In our society today, as it stands, it is appears to be very damaging.
I already answered this. Jesus.
Quote from: Valmy on November 16, 2011, 01:11:08 PM
Now it kind of goes back to my chicken and egg question. Does the psychological reaction come from the social taboo? If we declared sex with children ok today would the damage disappear tommorow? It seems hard for me to believe that.
Hard for me to believe, as well. Back when marriages were arranged, and sometimes involved girls in their teens or even younger, the marriages were not consummated until the girls came of age, and sometimes even later than that. Below a certain age, people are simply not able to comprehend what is happening, and sex at that age creates responses enormously at variance with what these people are then told sex is supposed to be like. That feeds an "I am really different and weird and unacceptable" feeling among the victims, which inhibits later attempts to have a normal sex life.
I don't think the Greeks had sex with boys who were unable to really comprehend sex, like Sandusky did, so they probably aren't a good counter-example.
Quote from: grumbler on November 16, 2011, 01:06:12 PM
And doesn't coincide with widespread acceptance of gays. There were a series of cases about thirty years ago (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Day-care_sex-abuse_hysteria (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Day-care_sex-abuse_hysteria) that involved moral panic that makes today's commentary seem quite tame (maybe a dozen innocent people went to prison for extended periods because hysteria overcame the judgement of even prosecutors and juries charged with judging only the facts). Gays weren't widely accepted back then; the whole Anita Hill/Florida voter rejection of anti-gay-discrimination laws had been only four years prior.
I don't think we need to equate intolerance of child sexual abuse to anything else whatever in order to understand it.
Just because you didn't tolerate gays back in the 1980's doesn't that was the same for everyone. When were the first sodomy laws struck down in the US? Looking around a lot of them were struck down between 1970 and 1990. As it was, I was thinking of those high profile cases of child abuse in the 1980's. They happen to coincide with the first real fruits of the gay rights movement. Take for example this http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gay_Student_Services_v._Texas_A%26M_University
Quote from: grumbler on November 16, 2011, 01:19:20 PM
I don't think the Greeks had sex with boys who were unable to really comprehend sex, like Sandusky did, so they probably aren't a good counter-example.
Why not?
Quote from: Razgovory on November 16, 2011, 01:31:00 PM
Just because you didn't tolerate gays back in the 1980's doesn't that was the same for everyone. When were the first sodomy laws struck down in the US? Looking around a lot of them were struck down between 1970 and 1990. As it was, I was thinking of those high profile cases of child abuse in the 1980's. They happen to coincide with the first real fruits of the gay rights movement. Take for example this http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gay_Student_Services_v._Texas_A%26M_University
I am not sure what you are arguing here; are you saying that, because you struck down some sodomy law in 1970, you sent people to prison for sex with children in 1984?
Homosexuality was not widely accepted by you in the early 1980s, when you first started to get hysterical over sex and satanism in preschools. In fact, when you look at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gay_Student_Services_v._Texas_A%26M_University (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gay_Student_Services_v._Texas_A%26M_University), for example, you will see that your local courts agreed with Texas A&M's position barring gay organizations right up through 1984, when the USSC refused to hear the case after the Fifth Circuit overturned the local courts - and that this case remained controversial with you even after the USSC ruled.
So, the assertion that you care more about child sex abuse because you accept homosexuality seems an entirely un-evidenced assertion, and seems contrary to the evidence available.
Quote from: dps on November 16, 2011, 10:37:30 AM
Pedophiles are demonized because we consider minors unable to give meaningful consent. I don't know that there's all that much more to it.
Close, but you've reversed it. The truth is that we consider minors unable to give meaningful consent so that pedophiles can be demonized.
Quote from: grumbler on November 16, 2011, 01:50:53 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on November 16, 2011, 01:31:00 PM
Just because you didn't tolerate gays back in the 1980's doesn't that was the same for everyone. When were the first sodomy laws struck down in the US? Looking around a lot of them were struck down between 1970 and 1990. As it was, I was thinking of those high profile cases of child abuse in the 1980's. They happen to coincide with the first real fruits of the gay rights movement. Take for example this http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gay_Student_Services_v._Texas_A%26M_University
I am not sure what you are arguing here; are you saying that, because you struck down some sodomy law in 1970, you sent people to prison for sex with children in 1984?
Homosexuality was not widely accepted by you in the early 1980s, when you first started to get hysterical over sex and satanism in preschools. In fact, when you look at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gay_Student_Services_v._Texas_A%26M_University (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gay_Student_Services_v._Texas_A%26M_University), for example, you will see that your local courts agreed with Texas A&M's position barring gay organizations right up through 1984, when the USSC refused to hear the case after the Fifth Circuit overturned the local courts - and that this case remained controversial with you even after the USSC ruled.
So, the assertion that you care more about child sex abuse because you accept homosexuality seems an entirely un-evidenced assertion, and seems contrary to the evidence available.
I was three in 1984. You were an adult. I know you like to throw everything back into someone's face, but c'mon.
IIRC sodomy and bestiality laws were removed in 1944 in Sweden.
Quote from: Martinus on November 16, 2011, 11:59:58 AM
For example, why there is a public interest in me knowing that someone living next door was once arrested for indecent exposure, than knowing he killed 5 people.
depends whom he killed, how and why.
There's a difference between a serial killer and mafia hitman, imho.
Someone who's found guilty of raping and strangling a woman or a child seen as physically weaker, or abusing someone emotionally weaker is seen as a form of predation, and as such frowned upon in our societies.
A guy murdering someone his own size, either as an accident or as a premeditated murder is seen as the survial of the fittest, simply.
It's hard for you to understand, because like many homos you seem to dislike children, but really, it's hard to feel pity for a well educated men who admitted stabbing repeatedly his kids while they begged him to stop.
Quote from: Razgovory on November 16, 2011, 12:13:22 PM
Okay, maybe I should step back. What do board members think of the claims that a pedophile is predisposed toward his sexual peculiarity? That the pedophile lusts for small children because that's the way his head is wired. He was born that way. Is this a legitimate statement?
I believe it seems legitimate, based on what I saw lately. Doesn't mean it's ok to do it because the pedo was born that way. Many people are born one way or the other and as a society we try to change certain behavior wich are seen as having bad consequences for other members of the society.
Reconginizing that a pedophile can not be cured is, imho, one way to better control them.
Quote from: Razgovory on November 16, 2011, 01:59:40 PM
I was three in 1984. You were an adult. I know you like to throw everything back into someone's face, but c'mon.
I have no clue as to what your age in 1984 has to do with anything. When you say to me "Just because you didn't tolerate gays back in the 1980's..." I assumed you were using the word "you" as a synonym for "some people," (since that was the only way it made sense) and in reply to you used "you" in exactly that way.
If, on the other had, you are actually making the claim that you, personally, at the advanced age of three years, somehow came to the evidenced conclusion that I personally "didn't tolerate gays" in 1984, I can only conclude that this pretty much robs your entire argument of any shred of cred. In that case, the response from me is completely unnecessary, and hence withdrawn.
You know, if someone were take a random sampling of your posts and mine they would have a difficult time figuring out who was the lunatic and who was the respected teacher.
Quote from: The Brain on November 16, 2011, 02:07:37 PM
IIRC sodomy and bestiality laws were removed in 1944 in Sweden.
"If you remove them, He will come..."
Quote from: Razgovory on November 16, 2011, 06:14:34 PM
You know, if someone were take a random sampling of your posts and mine they would have a difficult time figuring out who was the lunatic and who was the respected teacher.
Says the lunatic...
Quote from: The Brain on November 16, 2011, 02:07:37 PM
IIRC sodomy and bestiality laws were removed in 1944 in Sweden.
Thats about the same time Sweden stopped sending ball bearing to German. You gotta do something to placate Swedish Nazis when you stop giving Hitler his preciouss ball bearings.
Quote from: grumbler on November 16, 2011, 07:07:25 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on November 16, 2011, 06:14:34 PM
You know, if someone were take a random sampling of your posts and mine they would have a difficult time figuring out who was the lunatic and who was the respected teacher.
Says the lunatic...
Indeed. I know crazy.
I wonder if Marti thinks eating meat is worse? :hmm:
Quote from: Habsburg on November 17, 2011, 03:02:25 AM
Quote from: Razgovory on November 16, 2011, 10:45:06 AM
I'm not trolling. :(
Then fucking thank you. :bleeding:
Sorry, you don't like it. I simply find it out that if two people act on a natural inclination one goes to jail and one does not. If gays can say "It's not our fault. We were born this way. You should simply accept that and let us be", surely pedophiles could claim the same. You can talk about consent, but that seems an arbitrary legal concept. You could write consent laws that say no man can consent to sex with another man. Or that no man can consent to sex with another man five years his senior.
:rolleyes:
Raz is doing an excellent job trolling in this thread.
Just an inconsistency I see in how we view one form of abnormal sexuality and another.
To make myself clear, I'm not really anti-gay or pro-pedophile. It just seems odd that such a bright line is drawn between them, when the line isn't as bright as some would have us believe. If people are really born gay or a pedophile or whatever then it may be just a roll of the dice to decide if your sexual preference is legal or not. People who would scoff at the idea of "curing" a gay person, will sometimes seriously consider the idea of "curing" a pedophile.
It's also interesting that the gay communities views pedophiles the same way the civil rights era black community (and still much of the modern black community) viewed gays.
Honestly, I'm not sure what to think. I'm working this all out in my head. Really it's Tim's fault. His revulsion in the Penn State thread has made me think a bit about this.
Raz does have a point in that being attracted to kids probably isn't a choice. First of all, for virtually everyone else the idea is just plain "ick." But also, it's so socially/morally abhorrent and so difficult and fraught with hazard to engage in that who would honestly choose such a life-style?
Of course, where they do ultimately have a choice is to supress their sexuality and abstain from having sex. That is the most morally upright route, but I am sure it wouldn't be easy. And even if you do succeed, you're still stuck with your urges and self-loathing all the time. How many would have the balls (hyuk, hyuk) to go through with chemical castration? Probably not a lot.
In short, it's an aberration that is just a shitty deal for all around.
First of all I don't think anyone gives serious thought to curing paedos. There's a general acknowledgement that their behaviour's compulsive and they are pretty likely to offend again. That's why they're required to register and there's quite a lot of support for policies like chemical castration.
Secondly you talk about 'born this way' as the great justification of homosexuality, but I think you're putting the horse before the cart. The reasoning behind the decriminalisation of homosexuality, certainly, in this country wasn't because 'the gays are okay, they're just born like this', it was more of a negative liberty. The Wolfenden Report, which recommended the legalisation of gay about 10 years before it happened, basically said this behaviour is sad and depraved, but if it isn't exploitative and corrupting then it shouldn't be illegal. I think it's very difficult to argue that paedophilia isn't exploitative and corrupting. I'd argue that those are probably its defining features.
The 'born this way' idea comes later. I think that was far more a part of the struggle of legalised gays to get general acceptance. That idea and the AIDS epidemic were, I think, hugely important in increasing general sympathy and tolerance for the homos. Personally I've always thought it's a blind alley and there's something a little cringing about it. Sexuality isn't a choice, but even if it were I don't think that should matter. My view is that tolerance should generally sort of branch out from a 'well it's not hurting anyone' view.
Thirdly I think you dismiss 'consent' way too easily. It is only a legal concept and you're entirely right that it could be shifted as you describe. But then almost everything is ultimately an arbitrary legal concept. Having a problem with that is like having a problem with 'murder' as an idea. I'd argue that the legal acceptance of honour killings (which springs to mind due to G's thread) is ultimately due to a culture's moral position on, among other things, the importance of the individual. Our moral philosophy gives a great deal of importance to the autonomy of the individual, if they're viewed as less important than a family or group identity then it's easy to see how you can get to a position in which honour killings are culturally and legally acceptable.
The arbitrary legal nature is really, I think, an imperfect map of the moral. I'd suggest the importance of consent as the defining characteristic of allowed sexual activity is a reflection of the weakening of the patriarchy. The position of the parties and their relationship are of less importance than their consent, which should protect the weaker party. I think this is what's behind the criminalisation of marital rape, for example, and an end (at least in theory) to the idea that a prostitute can't be raped.
Finally I think we always instinctively reach for the Greeks when discussing paedophilia, which I don't think is helpful. We're very distant from Greek culture and we can't even go and speak to them to realise what's going on as is the case with, say, the sperm ingesting tribe in Indonesia.
What matters is that we've had a huge change in our view of children. Boswell's diary mentions a few times him sleeping with a prostitute. What's really striking is that he has almost no sympathy for them, they're a service that exists like any other, and there's pretty strong hints that they're effectively children, I believe other diarists from the same period have similar unremarkable experiences. So this was standard in the late 18th century and viewed as something not worth commenting on. If you look in rural England and America I imagine you're pretty heavily into the 19th century before what we'd consider child brides become unacceptable, far less illegal.
I think there's a shift in how children are viewed. We move from Boswell's unpleasant acts under Waterloo bridge to Little Nell in less than a century. The 19th century I think starts the sentimentalisation of childhood and the emphasis on its innocence. This is far more important in how paedophilia's viewed than any comparison with a 'born this way' attitude to homosexuality.
gotta agree with Sheilbh, you can't get an "ought" from an "is" to quote Johnsons scottish contemporary. Just because a paedophile or homosexual "just is that way" that doesn't mean that it is ok to act on those impulses. The act itself has to be judged apart from the actor. Only then can the actors nature be taken for mitigation.
I don't think there can ever be mutual consent between adults and children or between relatives.
However, today we do know more about the effects of paedophilia and exploitation than we did in 400 BC or 1700 AD. So what Johnson or Socrates though about girl and boy fucking is beside the point; what matters is what we, in the light of better knowledge than Johnson and Socrates, think about girl and boy fucking.
Another thing Raz doesn't get is that no one has criminalized, nor could likely criminalize in this country, "being a pedophile." Status is not criminalized,
conduct is criminalized.
Homosexual conduct between adults is not criminalized because, like heterosexual conduct, it hurts no one in a legally cognizable manner, if it even hurts anyone at all. Indeed, utility arguably tends to increase if consenting adults are permitted to partner as they wish.
Pedophilic conduct is criminalized because it hurts someone in a legally cognizable manner, and generates negative utility for its victims in all cases of which I am aware, certainly in our society, and some research (which I don't have on hand right now, but it's not essential to the argument) indicates it causes psychological/neurological harm from an objective standpoint.
In any event, this isn't rocket science here. I can't imagine anyone is actually confused by this.
Finally, to head off the criticism, while the harm is legally cognizable because of our consent regime, consent is not an arbitrary construction. Or, rather, you cannot say that it is "arbitrary" or "not arbitrary" in binary fashion. Ages of consent are rules of administrative convenience, to be sure, and thus, like all such rules, have an element of arbitrariness to them by necessity. However, the alternative is to demand an inquiry as to whether each alleged individual victim at issue was capable of forming legal consent to sexual activities; and perhaps it would be better, but the decision that, given the burden of proof, it is not better, is not an arbitrary decision. The laws are based on some rational basis, even when they are wrong (states with an AoC above 16 being "flabbergastingly wrong.").
Quote from: SheilbhI think this is what's behind the criminalisation of marital rape, for example, and an end (at least in theory) to the idea that a prostitute can't be raped.
Nah. That's just a contract dispute.
Quote from: Ideologue on November 17, 2011, 07:35:08 AM
Another thing Raz doesn't get is that no one has criminalized, nor could likely criminalize in this country, "being a pedophile." Status is not criminalized, conduct is criminalized.
Even if he got this, he would have to ignore it for the sake of his troll. It's a point I made above, and he ignored.
QuoteIn any event, this isn't rocket science here. I can't imagine anyone is actually confused by this.
I don't think anyone is. Force-fitted analogies are the hallmarks of the troll.
What if the kid has anililagnia or graeophilia? :p
(I kid I kid, the case is already closed)
Well, I do intend ignore one thing.
Quote from: Sheilbh on November 17, 2011, 06:31:04 AM
First of all I don't think anyone gives serious thought to curing paedos. There's a general acknowledgement that their behaviour's compulsive and they are pretty likely to offend again. That's why they're required to register and there's quite a lot of support for policies like chemical castration.
Secondly you talk about 'born this way' as the great justification of homosexuality, but I think you're putting the horse before the cart. The reasoning behind the decriminalisation of homosexuality, certainly, in this country wasn't because 'the gays are okay, they're just born like this', it was more of a negative liberty. The Wolfenden Report, which recommended the legalisation of gay about 10 years before it happened, basically said this behaviour is sad and depraved, but if it isn't exploitative and corrupting then it shouldn't be illegal. I think it's very difficult to argue that paedophilia isn't exploitative and corrupting. I'd argue that those are probably its defining features.
The 'born this way' idea comes later. I think that was far more a part of the struggle of legalised gays to get general acceptance. That idea and the AIDS epidemic were, I think, hugely important in increasing general sympathy and tolerance for the homos. Personally I've always thought it's a blind alley and there's something a little cringing about it. Sexuality isn't a choice, but even if it were I don't think that should matter. My view is that tolerance should generally sort of branch out from a 'well it's not hurting anyone' view.
Thirdly I think you dismiss 'consent' way too easily. It is only a legal concept and you're entirely right that it could be shifted as you describe. But then almost everything is ultimately an arbitrary legal concept. Having a problem with that is like having a problem with 'murder' as an idea. I'd argue that the legal acceptance of honour killings (which springs to mind due to G's thread) is ultimately due to a culture's moral position on, among other things, the importance of the individual. Our moral philosophy gives a great deal of importance to the autonomy of the individual, if they're viewed as less important than a family or group identity then it's easy to see how you can get to a position in which honour killings are culturally and legally acceptable.
The arbitrary legal nature is really, I think, an imperfect map of the moral. I'd suggest the importance of consent as the defining characteristic of allowed sexual activity is a reflection of the weakening of the patriarchy. The position of the parties and their relationship are of less importance than their consent, which should protect the weaker party. I think this is what's behind the criminalisation of marital rape, for example, and an end (at least in theory) to the idea that a prostitute can't be raped.
Finally I think we always instinctively reach for the Greeks when discussing paedophilia, which I don't think is helpful. We're very distant from Greek culture and we can't even go and speak to them to realise what's going on as is the case with, say, the sperm ingesting tribe in Indonesia.
What matters is that we've had a huge change in our view of children. Boswell's diary mentions a few times him sleeping with a prostitute. What's really striking is that he has almost no sympathy for them, they're a service that exists like any other, and there's pretty strong hints that they're effectively children, I believe other diarists from the same period have similar unremarkable experiences. So this was standard in the late 18th century and viewed as something not worth commenting on. If you look in rural England and America I imagine you're pretty heavily into the 19th century before what we'd consider child brides become unacceptable, far less illegal.
I think there's a shift in how children are viewed. We move from Boswell's unpleasant acts under Waterloo bridge to Little Nell in less than a century. The 19th century I think starts the sentimentalisation of childhood and the emphasis on its innocence. This is far more important in how paedophilia's viewed than any comparison with a 'born this way' attitude to homosexuality.
I will have to think on this.
Quote from: Sheilbh on November 17, 2011, 06:31:04 AM
First of all I don't think anyone gives serious thought to curing paedos. There's a general acknowledgement that their behaviour's compulsive and they are pretty likely to offend again. That's why they're required to register and there's quite a lot of support for policies like chemical castration.
:huh:
You're really quite mistaken. Plenty of people give a lot of serious thought towards curing paedos. Plus they aren't "pretty likely" to offend again. I believe recidivism rates are on par with any number of other offences.
Being sexually attracted by young people is not in and of itself a crime. It is of course acting on those impulses that is criminal. Research has shown that there is a respectable % of the population who have that kind of impulse, but would never act on that impulse and are really not a risk to anyone.
The psychiatrist I heard speak on these topics said there are two components at work - the type and level of attraction, and the impulse control of the individual. If you have someone with somewhat 'compromised' impulse control they are much more likely to act on their impulses in a criminal manner. On the other hand you can have the Sanduskys of the world - someone whose sexual impulses were so great he acted in what he knew to be an illegal and immoral manner.
Sex offender registries are politically popular, but really ineffective in acheiving anything other than harassing sex offenders. Similarily I believe chemical castration has been shown to be fairly ineffective in reducing recidivism.
Quote from: grumbler on November 17, 2011, 07:52:51 AM
Force-fitted analogies
:bleeding: Enough with the pedo jokes already.
:XD:
Quote from: viper37 on November 16, 2011, 02:51:52 PM
It's hard for you to understand, because like many homos you seem to dislike children, but really, it's hard to feel pity for a well educated men who admitted stabbing repeatedly his kids while they begged him to stop.
Depends. If he was suffering from extreme mental illness and wasn't really "in control" of his actions, I could feel pity for him.
Quote from: Barrister on November 17, 2011, 12:18:57 PM:huh:
You're really quite mistaken. Plenty of people give a lot of serious thought towards curing paedos. Plus they aren't "pretty likely" to offend again. I believe recidivism rates are on par with any number of other offences.
Really? I didn't know that. Prior to them getting caught are they more likely to be repeat offenders (again my understanding)?
QuoteSex offender registries are politically popular, but really ineffective in acheiving anything other than harassing sex offenders. Similarily I believe chemical castration has been shown to be fairly ineffective in reducing recidivism.
I should clarify that I don't support chemical castration and by sex offender registry I mean the sort maintained in this country that's for the probation service and the police, not the public.
Quote from: garbon on November 17, 2011, 01:38:45 PM
Depends. If he was suffering from extreme mental illness and wasn't really "in control" of his actions, I could feel pity for him.
It's a temporary insanity case. And I have zero pity for the guy. The jury came to their conclusions without hearing all the facts, unfortunately. Some evidences weren't allowed in court, the defense managing to have them excluded, and buying some psys offering a mental illness defense.
If that man is crazy, than all criminals on earth are crazy, at the time of their crimes, and should be set free.
Quote from: Barrister on November 17, 2011, 12:18:57 PM
Sex offender registries are politically popular, but really ineffective in acheiving anything other than harassing sex offenders. Similarily I believe chemical castration has been shown to be fairly ineffective in reducing recidivism.
What about execution? Would that be effective?
Quote from: Ideologue on November 17, 2011, 04:28:38 PM
What about execution? Would that be effective?
Just as effective as nuking New York would be in eliminating any kind of fraud in Wall Street.
Quote from: viper37 on November 17, 2011, 05:03:03 PM
Quote from: Ideologue on November 17, 2011, 04:28:38 PM
What about execution? Would that be effective?
Just as effective as nuking New York would be in eliminating any kind of fraud in Wall Street.
I didn't say execute them and whoever happens to be standing next to them. That's not a very good analogy.
Quote from: DGuller on November 16, 2011, 12:44:01 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on November 16, 2011, 12:13:22 PM
Okay, maybe I should step back. What do board members think of the claims that a pedophile is predisposed toward his sexual peculiarity? That the pedophile lusts for small children because that's the way his head is wired. He was born that way. Is this a legitimate statement?
Mostly bullshit is my guess. History is full of examples of pseudo-science being invented to justify persecution of undesirables.
Leaving aside the question of whether or not the claim that a pedophile is "predisposed to his sexual peculiarity" is "pseudo-science", wouldn't the opposite argument--that it's a conscious choice--be even a more powerful argument to justify demonization of pedophiles? After all, no one (or at least almost no one) argues that a counterfeiter is genetically predisposed to print phony $20 bills, yet there is little support for legalizing counterfeiting.
Quote from: dps on November 17, 2011, 08:37:29 PM
Leaving aside the question of whether or not the claim that a pedophile is "predisposed to his sexual peculiarity" is "pseudo-science", wouldn't the opposite argument--that it's a conscious choice--be even a more powerful argument to justify demonization of pedophiles? After all, no one (or at least almost no one) argues that a counterfeiter is genetically predisposed to print phony $20 bills, yet there is little support for legalizing counterfeiting.
it's a choice to act on these impulses, always.
Quote from: viper37 on November 17, 2011, 10:49:35 PM
it's a choice to act on these impulses, always.
That's the key, I think.
Gay behavior used to be criminalized too. The pedos time will come.
Quote from: Sheilbh on November 17, 2011, 02:36:54 PM
Quote from: Barrister on November 17, 2011, 12:18:57 PM:huh:
You're really quite mistaken. Plenty of people give a lot of serious thought towards curing paedos. Plus they aren't "pretty likely" to offend again. I believe recidivism rates are on par with any number of other offences.
Really? I didn't know that. Prior to them getting caught are they more likely to be repeat offenders (again my understanding)?
QuoteSex offender registries are politically popular, but really ineffective in acheiving anything other than harassing sex offenders. Similarily I believe chemical castration has been shown to be fairly ineffective in reducing recidivism.
I should clarify that I don't support chemical castration and by sex offender registry I mean the sort maintained in this country that's for the probation service and the police, not the public.
Most criminals repeat their behaviour until / unless they get caught. Shoplifters, drunk drivers, wife beaters - all of those tend to be repeat behaviours.
We have a similar sex offender registry in this country - only accessible by police. And I still maintain its only useful in terms of harassing sex offenders. I haven't seen a single case where it was useful in an investigation (unlike the DNA databank, which is hugely useful).
Quote from: Barrister on November 17, 2011, 11:13:59 PM
Quote from: Sheilbh on November 17, 2011, 02:36:54 PM
Quote from: Barrister on November 17, 2011, 12:18:57 PM:huh:
You're really quite mistaken. Plenty of people give a lot of serious thought towards curing paedos. Plus they aren't "pretty likely" to offend again. I believe recidivism rates are on par with any number of other offences.
Really? I didn't know that. Prior to them getting caught are they more likely to be repeat offenders (again my understanding)?
QuoteSex offender registries are politically popular, but really ineffective in acheiving anything other than harassing sex offenders. Similarily I believe chemical castration has been shown to be fairly ineffective in reducing recidivism.
I should clarify that I don't support chemical castration and by sex offender registry I mean the sort maintained in this country that's for the probation service and the police, not the public.
Most criminals repeat their behaviour until / unless they get caught. Shoplifters, drunk drivers, wife beaters - all of those tend to be repeat behaviours.
We have a similar sex offender registry in this country - only accessible by police. And I still maintain its only useful in terms of harassing sex offenders. I haven't seen a single case where it was useful in an investigation (unlike the DNA databank, which is hugely useful).
The authorities of course have files on criminals convicted of crimes other than sex crimes as well (though generally other criminals are not required to inform the authorities when they move after having served their time--at least in the States). Are those files not useful in investigations?
Pedophilia should be an automatic death sentence.
If any faggot comes near my future baby I will put a million bullets through his filthy heart. And lungs. And head.
Quote from: Siege on November 19, 2011, 11:00:53 PM
Pedophilia should be an automatic death sentence.
If any faggot comes near my future baby I will put a million bullets through his filthy heart. And lungs. And head.
See? Hatred of pedophiles is for bronze ages tards.
Good thing for Siege his father-in-law didn't think the same.
Quote from: Peter Wiggin on November 20, 2011, 05:26:39 AM
Good thing for Siege his father-in-law didn't think the same.
My wife is only 7 years younger than me.
that is nothing.
Quote from: Siege on November 20, 2011, 06:30:41 AM
Quote from: Peter Wiggin on November 20, 2011, 05:26:39 AM
Good thing for Siege his father-in-law didn't think the same.
My wife is only 7 years younger than me.
that is nothing.
Yeah, but didn't you rape a ten-year old Palestinian once, or was that OK because it was a boy?
Quote from: grumbler on November 17, 2011, 10:55:22 PM
Quote from: viper37 on November 17, 2011, 10:49:35 PM
it's a choice to act on these impulses, always.
That's the key, I think.
someone here (Quebec) started a 'pedo hotline', where pedophiles who feel they are about to act on their impulses can call and have a chat with someone (supposedly, not other pedos...) who will dissuade them. I don't know if it'll work.
Quote from: viper37 on November 22, 2011, 10:05:11 AM
Quote from: grumbler on November 17, 2011, 10:55:22 PM
Quote from: viper37 on November 17, 2011, 10:49:35 PM
it's a choice to act on these impulses, always.
That's the key, I think.
someone here (Quebec) started a 'pedo hotline', where pedophiles who feel they are about to act on their impulses can call and have a chat with someone (supposedly, not other pedos...) who will dissuade them. I don't know if it'll work.
It might be worth a shot, but I suspect that people won't use it unless they have a pretty strong guarantee of confidentiality, and the authorities are probably not going to want to ensure confidentiality.