 |
| |
|
|
Spiffor
|
 |
CPA - Evil Clone brigade
Nov 2001
time: 06:31
|
|
Well, what I'll be saying here won't be exactly popular, but I guess this thread will be much more interesting with a devil's advocate in play (and we're talking about quite a devil !)
I am not a pedophile, nor do I condone sexual relationships or sexual violence with children. I loathe the NAMBLA articles referred in Blackice's opening post (it is clearly intended for child abusers who want to escape the law). But I think the reaction towards pedophilia in our societies (France included, don't think my opinion comes from my nationality) is way over where the line should be.
Every advanced society has laws to prevent adults to have sex with children, no matter if the kid thinks he consents or not. That's because the average kid is assumed not to be able to formulate his consent or lack thereof, AND because it would be near impossible for the judge to know if the individual kid is mature enough for informed consent or not. As such, the law is something cautious: since most kids can't express informed consent, we'll just say all kids can't express consent, and they'll have to wait a few years before that.
It is only a recent trend to consider sex with children as an abomination. Before that, the topic was taboo, and as such many people felt allowed to do it as long as they could hide it. We are today experiencing the exact opposite of this: sexual intercourse with kids is seen as an utter abomination, no matter the circumstances.
I'll tell you what: I don't think the very idea of sexual intercourse with children is an utter abomination. I sure think it is bad, and I'll tell why later.
Now, for me, a "child" (as opposed to a baby) is someone who can expresses clear preferences and have an understanding of reality, even though these can be misguided or misinformed. It is not like a baby (or a very small child) who cannot produce any clear and cohesive preference. Besides, I think the very idea of having sex with kids too young to physically support the consequences of a sexual activity is an abomination too.
Now, about the emotional scars left by sexual interaction with children: it depends entirely on the adult. You can have child molesters, who only think about emptying their balls into a defenseless person. You can have child abusers, i.e people who want to lure the kid into accepting. You can have child lovers, i.e people who want the kid to be happy, and who think a physical and sexual relationship is the way to achieve it. These kind of adults have a very different behaviour toward children, and the resulting emotional scars will be different.
Besides, kids are "innocent" in the meaning that they don't exactly understand the consequences of some acts. For example, if a child abuser remains nice with the kid he has sex with, and if no external adult will panic and explain to the kid that he was victim of a monstruosity, the kid may very well not imagine having sex is a big deal. According to a study I've read (I don't know how biased it was), the emotional scar highly depended on the surrounding adults' reaction when hearing about the intercourse. It was said the kids were very much more scarred when the surrounding adults flipped out when hearing the news.
To the ancient Athenians, the father was the one who taught the kid its way into sexuality, i.e pedophily was institutionalised. Things have changed, but the Greek example show that people can have sex with kids when thinking about their own good.
Now, I'm against having sex with kids in every circumstances, even when the adult has the best intentions for the kid.
The reason to that is very simple: libido is a voyage of discovery. You get to learn by yourself how you percieve your sexuality. And I think that being "taught" sexuality at a young age, especially by a person who has authority over you, is a very wrong idea, for the kid cannot develop its own sexuality after that.
Besides, not only libido is a voyage of discovery, social relationships are too. It takes a long time for the kid to know what to expect from social relationships. And these expectations should be developed by the kid's own experiences as well. Having sex with a kid at a too young age will have bad effects on his social skills, because he'll expect sex in daily relationships (especially when his sexual parner is a close one). I've heard the story of this girl, reapetedly raped by her uncle as she was 6-7, who now can't imagine a non-sexual relationship with a man 
With such examples in mind, that's why I think pedophily is always bad.
But I still can think the overreaction of society toward pedophily is wrong as well: it prevents us for having a rational point of view on the matter, it makes us confuse child molesters, child lovers and people attracted to children but who don't act. To our society, all of these people are the exact same scum, which they are not IMHO. We also tend to over-dramatize sex with children, and this overdramatization is one of the reasons of the deep emotional scars.
I'll support anyday a lobby asking for a rational reflexion on the issue. But I'll continue to loathe the NAMBLA publications for explaining how to lure a kid into sex and get away with it 
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Dr Strangelove
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by chegitz guevara
Or should the government shut down High Times as well as any organization which advocates the overthrown of the government? |
Well, actually it is illegal to advocate the overthrow of the government.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Dr Strangelove
|
|
Spiffor: You left out one other reason why sex with a chiled id bad: It hurts. First of all kiddie openings, male and female, are much smaller than adult utensils, so attempting to put an adult utensil into a kiddie opening will certainly stretch the kiddie opening to the point of inducing pain. Secondly, though kiddie bodies have pretty much the same neural connections as and adult's, some of those connections don't work in the kiddie the way they do in an adult. Therefore, while stroking the utensil of certain Apolyton members of the third persuasion might induce them to shout "Yippee", doing the same thing to a kiddie will almost invariably result in tears and screams of pain. Of course, you might consider the possibility of requesting that the kiddie stroke the adult, but then you have to consider the size difference. How many here would fantasize about "servicing" a giant? Picture that in your mind, the physical size difference between a six year old and an adult. Third, consider the consequences of eliciting a positive sensation from the kid while playing with him. How will a six year old cope with the knowledge that that sort of play produces an extraordinary pleasure? What happens when that kid goes to play with his friends? You can expect only a limited degree of rational restraint from a school aged child. Finally, consider the most horrible possibility of all (short of the abuser murdering the kid), that the child may experience both the physical pain of having his delicate anatomy mangled and the pleasure of having certain areas of his body stimulated. What do you think that will do to the kid's psyche?
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Dr Strangelove
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by chegitz guevara
What part don't you understand? I could, for example, say, it ought to be legal to kill gays. I cannot, however, go kill gay people nor can I tell anyone that they should go kill gay people. That last example is an incitement to commit a crime while the first example is a political demand. |
What if your speech influences people to do that? Should you have liability for the consequences of your speech? In the real world you might just have such a liability.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Dr Strangelove
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Japher
Nope, that was on Law and Order. Saying "it ought to be illegal to kill gays" is not illegal while saying "everyone should kill gays, go out and get your frag today" is illegal... See the difference? |
Who the heck cares about what is said on "Law and Order"? Good Lord, I hope you're not using them as your legal advisor.
In the case a few years ago that I mentioned earlier, the KKK chapter being sued for inciting the murder of a black man, the "grand wizard" of the chapter argued that he had indeed warned his audience that the law was against what he advocated. The judge ruled that despite his token warnings he had so presented his arguement to the perpetrator that the perp had come to believe that he had a duty to disobey the law.
If you advocate that child molesting is actually healthy and good for the kid, well then, might some reader come to the conclusion that he had a sort of duty to fiddle around with little Johnny?
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Drogue
|
 |
Omnipresent conscience
Oct 2002
time: 05:31
|
|
I have to say I agree most with Spiffor that people have posted here. I think hysteria has gripped much of the UK certainly, in we way peadophilia is perceived. By that I mean I know parents that won't allow 14 and 15 year olds out because they are scared of peadophiles, when they are over 100 times (according to an article I read in the Times a week or two ago) more likely to die of an accident at home. It is extremely rare. The fact they band camera phones from swimming pools because they might be used to take pics of kids swimming is ridiculous. You can go to the pool and see kids swimming. It's a public area. That's like saying cameras should be banned on beaches or in schools, etc.
I think that there should be seperate laws regarding rape and consensual sex with an underage partner. The second should still be illegal, IMHO, but consensual sex with a minor is not as damaging, from all I know, as forced sex. It may still be damaging, and thus should be illegal, but not as damaging as rape.
As Spiffor said, I think we should seperate child abusers from child lovers. If we still decide that the latter should be illegal, for reasons such as the Dr. mentioned, then it should not have as high a penalty as the former, since that does the damage the doctor mentioned, as well as the physical and emotional pain of abuse.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Dr Strangelove
|
|
What NAMBLA advocates is simple and straightforward sexual exploitation of male children. You can get a pretty good idea of what they stand for just reading the first post in this thread. I've heard of some of their activities. Several decades ago, before they became notorious they actually managed to run a sort of perverted Big Brothers-like scam in New Jersey. They paired off dozens of male children with pedophiles. I remember this stuff hiting the papers. From the testimonies of the children it was apparent that the men offered little if any nurturing or guidance to the children, they simply used the kids for sex, giving the lads a few trinkets here and there in exchange for sexual favors. After their New Jersey office was crushed they began arranging tours of East Asia for their members. These tours included contacts with criminal rings offering male children for sexual services. It took Interpol and the UN to quash this activity.
I might also add that one of NAMBLAs mottos is "eight is too late". This means that comments about 14 year olds have nothing to do with NAMBLA, they prefer to take their victims almost as soon as they're fully potty trained and able to dress and undress themselves.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Dr Strangelove
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by chegitz guevara
He's a real Doctor. He has to know about such things, so that when he sees eveidence of them, he can report it to the police. |
There's more to it than that. I was six once. 'nough said.
|
|
| |
|
| |
All times are GMT. The time now is 05:31.
Apolyton Time is 00:31. |
top of page
|
| archivepost |
|
Forum Rules:
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
|
HTML code is ON
vB code is ON
Smilies are ON
[IMG] code is ON
|
|
|
|
|
|
22-09-2003 09:25
How stupid is that!
|