Log In | Register
BODHI1
Either write something worth reading or do something worth writing.
Articles Posted: 117; Links Seeded: 1817
Member Since: 1/2006
Member Since: 1/2006
97 Comments
PrintThe Shadow Sexual Revolution - The Push to Legalize Pedophilia
News Type: Event — Wed Sep 5, 2007 5:59 AM EDT
advertisement
There is no law against being a pedophile. You can legally have a sexual interest in children. It is the action of that interest that is illegal. But that is going to change.
The Origins of the Pro-Pedophilia Movement
The modern pro-pedophilia movement has its roots in the controversial work of Alfred Kinsey. Kinsey's 1953 book Sexual Behavior in the Human Male has been a major resource for this movement. Kinsey collected data from pedophiles, including ex-Nazi commandant Dr. Fritz von Balluseck, who offered his victims a choice: rape or the gas chamber. With Dr. Balluseck's "research," and the information from other pedophiles, Kinsey charted the length and frequency of infants' and children's orgasms. He stated the children and infants reacted with "violent convulsions of the whole body; heavy breathing, groaning, sobbing, or more violent cries, sometimes with an abundance of tears (especially among the younger children)." That was how he measured their orgasms.
According to Janice Shaw Crouse,
Five of these infants and children were subjects for months or years, and it is reported that much of the "testing" occurred when they were either strapped or held down. There is no evidence that the institute followed up to see whether they were adversely affected as a result of this sexual abuse/experimentation. We do know that today many of the adult "subjects" refuse to discuss Kinsey's research; some 50 years later, they don't even want to talk about the horrific experience
Kinsey concluded that children as young as two months old "derive definite sexual pleasure" from sexual stimulation and that children needed sex with each other, and with adults.
From 1948 to 1972, pedophilia and homosexuality were both considered paraphilias by the American Psychiatric Association (APA.) A paraphilia is a term used to "describe a family of persistent, intense fantasies, aberrant urges, or behaviors involving sexual arousal to nonhuman objects, pain or humiliation experienced by oneself or one's partner, children or other nonconsenting individuals or unsuitable partners." In 1973, the APA removed homosexuality from the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders and the homosexual agenda exploded on the mainstream.
Neatly tucked away inside that agenda was the sub-agenda to legalize pedophilia. The "1972 Gay Rights Platform in the United States" called for the "Repeal of all laws governing the age of sexual consent." This platform was endorsed by liberal Democratic presidential candidate George McGovern, who sent a supportive telegram. There were other homosexual organizations, such as the Canadian Lesbian and Gay Rights Coalition and the Gay Alliance Towards Equality, that also opposed the age of consent laws. Their support of the cause would disappear in 1977.
There were several events in 1977 which shined a spotlight on pedophilia. A Toronto newspaper for homosexuals, The Body Politic, printed a story titled "Men Loving Boys Loving Men." That publication resulted in a raid of their offices.
Also, weeks apart, Judianne Densen-Gerber, director of New York's Odyssey House, a drug-addiction treatment facility and Anita Bryant of Save Our Children started separate campaigns attacking gays as child molesters and being involved in child pornography.
And police in Revere, MA, raided a house where it was discovered that boys were given beer and marijuana by the men in the house, who encouraged them to lounge around with their shirts off. Eventually, the boys were encouraged to have sex with each other, and with the men in the house. The raid lead to 24 indictments and massive media coverage. One member of the media took exception to the raid.
A now-defunct homosexual newspaper in the area, the Boston-based Fag Rag thought the raids were motivated by politics and decided to fight back. They formed the Boston-Boise committee, named because of a similar incident that happened in Boise in the 1950s. Their campaign was successful and the prosecuting District Attorney was not re-elected. The new DA said that no man should fear prison for having sex with a teenager. All charges were dropped. The Boston-Boise group would then spawn the North American Man Boy Love Association (NAMBLA). It would quickly become a pariah.
The Rise and Fall of NAMBLA
In 1979, the conference that organized the first gay march on Washington included "Full rights for gay youth, including revision of the age of consent laws" as one of its five demands. A contingent of lesbians at the National Coordinating Committee squashed that demand and substituted one that read: "Protect Lesbian and Gay Youth from any laws which are used to discriminate against, oppress, and/or harass them in their homes, schools, job and social environments." It appears these women did not want to be associated with the pro-pedophilia movement.
In 1980, another lesbian group called the Lesbian Caucus - Lesbian & Gay Pride March Committee urged women to separate themselves from the New York City Gay Pride March. They felt it was dominated by NAMBLA and NAMBLA supporters. A year later the Cornell University gay organization Gay PAC (Gay People At Cornell) rescinded an invitation to David Thorstad, founder of NAMBLA. He was to be the keynote speaker at the annual May Gay Festival. From then on, gay rights groups would take every opportunity they had to block NAMBLA from participating in gay pride parades. This motivated a leading gay rights figure, Harry Hay, to wear a sign saying "NAMBLA Walks With Me" in the 1986 gay pride march in Los Angeles.
Because of the attacks they had received, labeling them as child molesters and of recruiting teenagers to a life of homosexuality, gay rights groups distanced themselves from NAMBLA and ended the radical inclusive attitude of the early years of the movement. Support for NAMBLA disappeared. However, one homosexual rights group still allowed NAMBLA as a member, and it would cost them a powerful position.
In 1993 the United Nations conferred consultive status to the International Lesbian and Gay Association (ILGA). The ILGA included NAMBLA in its membership. As early as 1993, the ILGA wanted all its members to treat all sexual minorities with respect. It wrote, "The recognition of pedophiles as a distinct 'sexual minority' is a key demand of advocates of adult-child sex. By making claims as a 'minority,' pederasts can essentially follow in the footsteps of homosexual activists and demand legal and societal changes to guarantee their rights.' The UN appoiontment did not go over well in the United States. Senator Jesse Helms drafted legislation withholding $119 million in UN contributions until then President Bill Clinton could certify that "no UN agency grants official status, accreditation, or recognition to any organization which promotes, condones or seeks the legalization of pedophilia, that is, the sexual abuse of children." No senator opposed the bill and Clinton signed it into law in April 1994. Even though the ILGA adopted a resolution that stated "young people have the right to sexual and social self determination," they still voted to remove NAMBLA from the organization. The ILGA claimed the move was because it was decided that NAMBLA's "predominant aim is to support or promote pedophilia." How they missed that position before is unknown and unbelievable. The UN reversed its decision to grant the ILGA consultive status, and has refused to grant it to them since.
NAMBLA continued to take a beating in the 1990s. In 1994, the Gay and Lesbian Alliance Against Defamation (GLAAD) said it "Deplores the North American Man Boy Love Association's goals." Also in '94, the Board of Directors of the National Gay and Lesbian Task Force stated that: NGLTF condemns the organizational goals of NAMBLA."
NAMBLA was involved in a number of civil and criminal cases through the 1990s and early 2000s, the most controversial being Curley v. NAMBLA. In 2000, the parents of Jeffrey Curley, Robert and Barbara Curley, sued NAMBLA over the death of their son. Salvatore Sicari and Charlie Jaynes took Jeffery to the Boston Public Library where the two men accessed the NAMBLA website. Jaynes later tried to sexually assault Jeffery, who fought back. For his efforts, he was gagged with a gasoline soaked rag and later killed. Jaynes then sexually assaulted the boy's dead body. According to the lawsuit:
Jaynes and Sicari "stalked Jeffrey Curley... and tortured, murdered and mutilated [his] body on or about October 1, 1997. Upon information and belief immediately prior to said acts Charles Jaynes accessed NAMBLA's website at the Boston Public Library." According to police, Jaynes had eight issues of a NAMBLA publication in his home at the time of his arrest. The lawsuit further alleges that "NAMBLA serves as a conduit for an underground network of pedophiles in the United States who use their NAMBLA association and contacts therein and the Internet to obtain child pornography and promote pedophile activity."
The ACLU defended NAMBLA in this case, winning a dismissal "based on the specific legal issue that NAMBLA is organized as an association, not a corporation." A wrongful death suit remains against some individual NAMBLA members and the NAMBLA Steering Committee members. The ACLU is assisting the defendants in this case as well.
The media exposure of NAMBLA's goals and activities has been enough to do the association in. Today, I am unaware of any gay rights group that supports or condones NAMBLA or its goals. NAMBLA is today considered non-existent, composed only of a few members who maintain the website and publish a newsletter.
The movement to normalize and legalize pedophilia, however, continues.
Third Party Advocates
In 1977, Ruth Bader Ginsberg wrote "Sex Bias in the U.S. Code" for the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights. In it, Ginsberg advocated lowering the age of consent from 16 to 12. She writes:
"Eliminate the phrase "carnal knowledge of any female, not his wife, who has not attained the age of 16 years" and substitute a federal, sex-neutral definition of the offense. ... A person is guilty of an offense if he engages in a sexual act with another person. ... [and] the other person is, in fact, less than 12 years old."
She was an attorney for the ACLU at the time and later appointed to the Supreme Court by President Bill Clinton. She remains on the Supreme Court today.
In 1981 a study was done at the University of Utrecht, Netherlands by the co-director of the research program of the Department of Gay and Lesbian Studies. For the study, Dr. Theo Sandfort interviewed 25 boys ages 10-16 currently involved in sexual relationships with adult men. He interviewed them in the men's homes and concluded that "For virtually all the boys...the sexual contact was experienced positively..."
In 1982, the American Civil Liberties Union took a case to the Supreme Court to legalize the sale and distribution of child pornography. In New York v. Ferber, the ACLU fought to make the sale and distribution of child porn was safe under the First Amendment.
They made the same case later to the U.S. Attorney General's Commission on Pornography:
As legislative counsel for the ACLU in 1985, Barry Lynn told the U.S. Attorney General's Commission on Pornography (of which Focus on the Family President Dr. James C. Dobson was a member) that child pornography was protected by the First Amendment. While production of child porn could be prevented by law, he argued, its distribution could not be. A few years later (1988), Lynn told the Senate Judiciary Committee that even requiring porn producers to maintain records of their performers' ages was impermissible.
"If there is no federal record-keeping requirement for the people portrayed in Road and Track or Star Wars," he said, "there can be no such requirement for Hustler or Debbie Does Dallas."
The Journal on Homosexuality published "Male Intergenerational Intimacy: Historical, Socio-Psychological and Legal Perspective" in 1990. In its forward, Gunter Schimdt, Professor of Sex Research at the University of Hamburg in Germany details:
"successful pedophile relationships which help and encourage the child, even though the child often agrees to sex while really seeking comfort and affection. These are often emotionally deprived, deeply lonely, socially isolated children who seek, as it were, a refuge in an adult's love and for whom, because of their misery, see it as a stroke of luck to have found such an 'enormously nurturant relationship'."
Schimdt also wrote about how the legal prohibition of pedophilia was uncivilized:
It looks as though children who are not emotionally deprived are, so to speak, "immune" to the advances of an adult seeking sexual contact. Each individual case must be looked upon on its own merits and, for this reason the threat to make all pedophile acts punishable by law can barely be labeled civilized; on the contrary, it is unjust, for it implies the discrimination and persecution of a minority and should be abolished.
Richard Gardner, M.D., published "True and False Accusations of Child Sex Abuse." In it, he asserted that America's attitude toward sexual encounters with children were out of step with the rest of the world. He claimed the Bible was responsible for the American view of pedophilia and said, "...of all the ancient peoples it may very well be that the Jews were the only ones who were punitive towards pedophiles."
In a July 1998 issue of the American Psychological Association's Psychological Bulletin featured an article by authors Bruce Rind, Philip Tromovitch and Robert Bauserman titled: "A Meta-Analytic Examination of Assumed Properties of Child Sexual Abuse Using College Samples." In the article, the authors goal was "...to address the question: In the population of persons with a history of CSA [child sexual abuse], does this experience cause intense psychological harm on a widespread basis for both genders?"
They concluded that "the negative effects (of child sexual abuse) were neither pervasive nor typically intense and that men reacted much less negatively than women." It caused a firestorm of criticism in the mainstream.
Dr. Laura Schlessinger attacked the article in March of 1999 as a mainstream effort to normalize pedophilia. In typical swift fashion, a year after the article was published it was unanimously condemned in the Congress. The article was accused of sample bias, due to "excluding victims so traumatized that they did not go on to attend college." The authors were also accused of bias. In the 1990 article from the Journal of Homosexuality mentioned above, co-author Robert Bauserman asserted that the ideology that labels all boys as "victims" and all adult pedophiles as "perpetrators" was wrong. He also complained that objective research was impossible because of the social climate that condemns man-boy sexual relationships. Bruce Rind asserted that the terms "victims, survivors, offenders, and perpetrators were scientifically invalid." In their report, they actually use themselves as a reference to support these assertions.
Stephanie J. Dallum authored an argument denouncing the study titled: "Science or Propaganda? An examination of Rind, Tromovitch & Bauserman (1998)." She concluded:
After a careful examination of the evidence, it is concluded that Rind et al. can best be described as an advocacy article that inappropriately uses science in an attempt to legitimize its findings.
In 1999, Harris Mirkin wrote an article in the Journal of Homosexuality titled "The Patterns of Sexual Politics: Feminism, Homosexuality and Pedophilia." His position is that pedophilia is a "culture and class specific creation" and it can and should be made legal. He compares the fight for legalization of pedophilia to the civil rights effort of the Black community. Mirkin writes that if the legalization of pedophilia is to succeed, the discussion has to move past moral issues to the rights of children to enjoy sex. This shift would push the focus from "never allowed" to "when is this allowed." This, he supposes, would be the gateway to legalization.
An article simply title "Pedophilia" was featured in the Journal of American Medical Association in 2002. Peter J. fagen, Ph.D., et al., made the assertion that pedophilia is just another sexual orientation:
During psychosexual development, no one decides whether to be attracted to women, men, girls or boys. Rather, individuals discover the types of persons they are sexually attracted to, i.e., their sexual orientation.
Dr. Fred Berlin of the John Hopkins Department of Psychiatry supports that position. In an article that appeared in Behavioral Health Management, Douglas Edwards cites Berlin, stating that Berlin rejects the idea that pedophilia is a conscious choice, but rather a life-long sexual orientation.
Judith Levine published Harmful to Minors: The Perils of Protecting Children from Sex in 2002. The book featured a forward by former Surgeon General Joycelyn Elders. Levine writes, "Pedophiles are not generally violent, if there is such a thing as pedophiles at all. More important, sexual contact with a child does not a pedophile make."
Jan LaRue, chief council for Concerned Women of America and Mary Eberstadt, research fellow at the Hoover Institute, pointed out that Levine's assertions were based solely on pro-pedophilia sources, like the NAMBLA Bulletin.
The Los Angeles Times gave Levine an award for her book.
There are other instances where pedophilia is minimized, tolerated and ignored. The State of California passed a bill dubbed the Pedophilia Protection Act, removing the requirements of mandatory reporters. This was in reaction to the discovery of Planned Parenthood treating children as young as six for sexually transmitted diseases, yet not reporting it. It seems in California, the protection of Planned Parenthood takes precedent over the protection of children from abuse.
Hyper-atheist Richard Dawkins asserted that if a Catholic priest were to sexually abuse a child, the abuse would do less damage than if the priest taught him the Bible. In a short essay for The Dubliner, Dawkins wrote:
Regarding the accusations of sexual abuse of children by Catholic priests, deplorable and disgusting as those abuses are, they are not so harmful to the children as the grievous mental harm in bringing up the child Catholic in the first place.
Dawkins has allowed his hatred of religion to blind him to the damage of pedophilia. This does little to hurt religion, but plenty for the effort to legalize pedophilia.
Hungary was considering allowing children as young as 14 to be in porn, since they had already lowered the age of consent to that age. There was an outrage from the conservative members of Hungary's government. As of today, the change hasn't happened.
The current movement to legalize and normalize pedophilia may seem unrealistic to some. I have yet to have someone agree with me when I claim that it will be legal in the next 25-30 years. But there are many, as I have detailed here, who see pedophiles as an oppressed minority. They see the road to freedom as being the same road homosexuals marched down. The first step would be the removal of pedophilia as a mental illness, a move the APA has already considered. Then, using the research of Kinsey and others mentioned above, the move would be made to abolish the age of consent. With the seeming support of science, this could be possible and it would effectively legalize pedophilia. With the legal burden lifted, the effort would then shift to normalization and acceptance. This is done by pedophiles casting themselves as a minority, a victim of a culture that rejects them. March after march makes the sight of a fifty year old man giving a six year old boy a deep tongue kiss nothing more than a sign of America's tolerance, regardless of who gets hurt.
There are some things we should not tolerate. The legalization and normalization of pedophilia is one of those things.
39 Votes- Enjoy this article? Help vote it up the 'Vine.
Published to:
- Bodhi1's Column, All of Newsvine
- Groups: Activism, Endvines, Libertarians, Old viners, Parents and Parenting, Psych, Soc, Philos, rightwingers,
- Regions: none
- Public Discussion (97)
- Activism
- Endvines
- Libertarians
- Old viners
- Parents and Parenting
- Psych, Soc, Philos
- rightwingers
What's this?
Who's leading the conversation?
This visualization below allows you to see the impact that each user
has on the current conversation.
The top row contains the group of users who have had the most impact, the 2nd
row the group of users who have had the 2nd most impact (et cetera).
Users with similar impact are grouped together, and the average score of the group
is shown to the left of the group. The author of the article is also shown on the
left, in their corresponding group.
Each user's score is based on the number of comments the user has made plus the
number of votes their comments have received. The scores are calculated relative
one another, so while their absolute value is not particularly important, their
relative difference does indicate a larger difference in impact on the conversation.
95
51
18
{"commentId":1000000,"authorDomain":"PurelyPolitical"}
I will be sleeping most of the morning and look forward to your comments this afternoon. I don't think a person can really enjoy reading this, but I hope you find it compelling at least.
{"commentId":1000000,"threadId":"146660","contentId":"939874","authorDomain":"PurelyPolitical"}
- 13 votes
#1 - Wed Sep 5, 2007 6:01 AM EDT{"commentId":1002635,"authorDomain":"theottoshow"}
Brilliant and an issue hopefully all of us here can agree on.
Well done, sir.
I wrote last year about a pedophile group in Europe (Denmark I believe) putting forth a candidate with the intent of lowering or obliterating consent laws. This obsession that people have with children is truly one of the most sickening aspects of any society.
{"commentId":1002635,"threadId":"146660","contentId":"939874","authorDomain":"theottoshow"}
- 5 votes
{"commentId":1000148,"authorDomain":"eco-geek"}
An interesting and well-researched article, Bodhi.
Personally, I am of the belief that in a free society, all acts are, by default, legal unless we can find a compelling reason to make them illegal. As our society has deemed that for sex to be legal, it must be consensual, it's entirely fitting that the same restriction should fall on cases of pedophilia. So whether the person saying "no" is 8 or 80, the act should be illegal.
However, if we assume that there is consent, the difference becomes that many subjects of pedophilia don't entirely know to what they are consenting. This is why we have "age of consent" laws, by which we arbitrarily decide if someone is "old enough" to understand to what they are consenting. Now this is where I may start to go out on a limb. If someone is old enough to consent to sex with someone of the opposite sex, I would argue that they are old enough to consent to sex with someone of the same sex. If we are arbitrarily going to assign an age where sex is permissible, how can one justify setting different ages for hetero and homosexual sex?
But we're talking about pedophilia, which implies a significant age difference between partners. However, in cases where there is an age discrepancy, society's reaction varies widely with respect to the sex of those involved. Typically, if the older partner is male, regardless of whether the younger partner is male or female, these individuals are labeled pedophiles and often judged and sentenced harshly. However, if the older partner is female and the younger male, in such cases the older partner can sometimes receive only probation, as seen in the plethora of teacher-student sex scandals, even though the offender can often be classified as a "person of trust." Cases where both partners are female are relatively few (or at least less publicized) and reaction probably falls between the two extremes.
So...what is my point? Essentially, I feel we should do away with the double-standards and make our laws more consistent. While I never want to see sex with children (those not old enough to give informed consent) legal, I don't want to see disparate legal action in cases where the only difference is the sex of those involved. Does this make me pro-pedophilia?
{"commentId":1000148,"threadId":"146660","contentId":"939874","authorDomain":"eco-geek"}
- 10 votes
#2 - Wed Sep 5, 2007 8:26 AM EDT{"commentId":1000229,"authorDomain":"YuriyBilokonsky"}
You're definitely pushing their deadly agenda.
{"commentId":1000229,"threadId":"146660","contentId":"939874","authorDomain":"YuriyBilokonsky"}
- 14 votes
{"commentId":1000271,"authorDomain":"eco-geek"}
I guess I'm just a horrible, horrible person, then.
{"commentId":1000271,"threadId":"146660","contentId":"939874","authorDomain":"eco-geek"}
- 2 votes
{"commentId":1000543,"authorDomain":"kylen"}
I didn't think Bodhi made an argument that hetro and homo sexual acts by underage people should be treated differently. The talk earlier on about the homosexual movement highlighted how part of the movement was hijacked and since discarded by the homosexual community. The case is clearly that sex by adults with underage children is not permissible, no reference at all to orientation.
I agree that US society (at least) treats male and female offenders differently. I don't think that is a reflection on the idea of pedophilia and more instructive to gender sexual norms in this society. It seems to boil down to consent again, many people think teenaged boys automatically consent to any sex therefore it can't be that bad and they believe the exact opposite about teenaged girls that they automatically withhold consent for sex even despite actions to the contrary. The truth is as usual in the middle, many people that are teenaged are just about borderline on their ability to give consent making it a grey area. The US culture pushes them one way or the other, pedophiles prey on the gray aspect of it in some cases though others are just blatant such as children not yet even teens.
{"commentId":1000543,"threadId":"146660","contentId":"939874","authorDomain":"kylen"}
- 3 votes
{"commentId":1000934,"authorDomain":"eco-geek"}
I didn't think Bodhi made an argument that hetro and homo sexual acts by underage people should be treated differently. The talk earlier on about the homosexual movement highlighted how part of the movement was hijacked and since discarded by the homosexual community. The case is clearly that sex by adults with underage children is not permissible, no reference at all to orientation.
Sorry for being unclear. While Bodhi didn't make such an argument, from my limited research, I understand that in some US states the age of consent differs for hetero and homesexual acts. That's my issue here...in my opinion, there shouldn't be a difference.
I agree that US society (at least) treats male and female offenders differently. I don't think that is a reflection on the idea of pedophilia and more instructive to gender sexual norms in this society.
I'd agree that gender norms are a factor, but this is clearly related to pedophilia. If we are willing to give a 35-year-old woman a slap on the wrist for sleeping with a 15-year-old boy, we need to have a pretty good explanation why a 35-year-old man should be so harshly punished for sleeping with the same 15-year-old boy. I don't see how one can be labeled "pedophilia" without the other being so labeled, and all other things being equal, the punishments should match.
It seems to boil down to consent again, many people think teenaged boys automatically consent to any sex therefore it can't be that bad and they believe the exact opposite about teenaged girls that they automatically withhold consent for sex even despite actions to the contrary. The truth is as usual in the middle, many people that are teenaged are just about borderline on their ability to give consent making it a grey area. The US culture pushes them one way or the other, pedophiles prey on the gray aspect of it in some cases though others are just blatant such as children not yet even teens.
A reasonable explanation, though I wonder how much of it has to do with the sex of the victim, and how much has to do with the sex of the offender. I suspect there are other factors at play.
{"commentId":1000934,"threadId":"146660","contentId":"939874","authorDomain":"eco-geek"}
- 1 vote
{"commentId":1001089,"authorDomain":"kylen"}
I wasn't aware there were differences in the age of consent but agree they should all be the same, a sexual orientation doesn't make you more or less mature.
I think the punishment difference is more related to the gender of the offender than anything. Across the board females are not sentenced as harshly as males, part of the reason for the large prison population imbalance. That is an issue beyond pedophilia and not related at all to homosexuality. But I don't know of a specific study to cite to prove it, just seems logical that if women are punished less for everything else then it's in this case it's the same reason not crime-specific. I guess if I were designing a study I'd try and find cases of old man, young girl and old man young boy to try and hold the gender variable more constant in offenders.
{"commentId":1001089,"threadId":"146660","contentId":"939874","authorDomain":"kylen"}
- 4 votes
{"commentId":1001341,"authorDomain":"eco-geek"}
I wasn't aware there were differences in the age of consent but agree they should all be the same, a sexual orientation doesn't make you more or less mature.
Quoting Wikipedia, so take this for what it's worth:
"Due to homosexuality laws, some jurisdictions have different ages of consent for heterosexual and homosexual intercourse, while some jurisdictions outlaw homosexual intercourse altogether. These disparities are increasingly being challenged. Cases such as Lawrence v. Texas in the Supreme Court of the United States and Morris v. The United Kingdom in the European Court of Human Rights have set precedents for international law. For specific examples see the articles listed under Ages of consent in various countries below."
As for the difference in punishments, you've got a point with regard to the sex of the offender. I'd just prefer that we save the term "pedophile" for those who perform acts truly deserving of it, not those for whom society would judge them much less differently if they were simply a different gender.
{"commentId":1001341,"threadId":"146660","contentId":"939874","authorDomain":"eco-geek"}
- 1 vote
{"commentId":1002654,"authorDomain":"theottoshow"}
I'd just prefer that we save the term "pedophile" for those who perform acts truly deserving of it, not those for whom society would judge them much less differently if they were simply a different gender.
Can I ask, why is this so important to you? We have the issue of child rape at hand and you seem fixated on gay child rapists not getting a fair shake in comparison to straight child rapists. That's rather interesting. Not to say that it shouldn't be up for discussion, but it's really a side issue and seems to be a diversion from the real problems with pedophilia.
That having been said, what states have these differences and what is the reasoning behind it?
{"commentId":1002654,"threadId":"146660","contentId":"939874","authorDomain":"theottoshow"}
- 5 votes
{"commentId":1002970,"authorDomain":"eco-geek"}
Can I ask, why is this so important to you? We have the issue of child rape at hand and you seem fixated on gay child rapists not getting a fair shake in comparison to straight child rapists. That's rather interesting.
First, I never defended "child rapists." The first point I made was that there had to be consent, so the term "rapist" doesn't exactly apply. Second, as Div by Zero pointed out, there's a difference between pre-pubescent and post-pubescent, and my argument was wholly in the realm of the post-pubescent.
Given those two criteria, take, for example, sex with a willing 16-year-old male. If it's with a similar aged female, there is no issue. If it's with a similar aged male, while society may look down on it, it's not much of a criminal issue. Now if the person's partner is an older female, again society may look down on it, and it is a criminal act, but she's doubtful to be branded a "pedophile," and will probably receive a light sentence, if she receives one at all. But if the older partner is male, the courts throw the book at him while the crowd cheers on.
My issue, and why this is important to me, is the idea of equality under the law. I don't care who you are, or what the crime - justice should be blind, and it so rarely is in these cases.
As for what states have these differences, I can't put together a list right now, and as for the reasoning behind it, I couldn't say as I'm not the one who made the laws. But I have some ideas...
{"commentId":1002970,"threadId":"146660","contentId":"939874","authorDomain":"eco-geek"}
- 4 votes
{"commentId":1003356,"authorDomain":"theottoshow"}
Fair enough - but one reason for the discrepancies you are describing is that men and women are different. I'm not saying it's right or fair - but boys aren't generally considered victims for having sex with an older woman. Of course there are the issues of the recent rash of female teachers having sex with their teenage students - if it was my kid I would want the book thrown at her.
And some of these teachers who have been in the news have received pretty harsh sentences, so like all laws perhaps its based on geography - some states are harder on it than others.
You mention equality and I can concede this in that no adult should take it upon themselves to manipulate children. But we also have to take into consideration that not all acts are the same. A male on male child rape may be deemed worse than a female on male child rape. That's up for debate, but I can certainly see that side of it.
{"commentId":1003356,"threadId":"146660","contentId":"939874","authorDomain":"theottoshow"}
- 2 votes
{"commentId":1003444,"authorDomain":"eco-geek"}
Fair enough - but one reason for the discrepancies you are describing is that men and women are different. I'm not saying it's right or fair - but boys aren't generally considered victims for having sex with an older woman.
Agreed that men and women are different, but are those differences sufficient to warrant different treatment under the law? I'm not entirely convinced.
Of course there are the issues of the recent rash of female teachers having sex with their teenage students - if it was my kid I would want the book thrown at her.
And rightfully so, though I think there's a difference between a teacher having sex with a 7 and a 17 year-old. Unfortunately, some states don't make that distinction.
And some of these teachers who have been in the news have received pretty harsh sentences, so like all laws perhaps its based on geography - some states are harder on it than others.
True, and in-fact, in looking at some of the statutes, there are specific clauses for teachers or other "persons of trust" which make the crime more serious.
You mention equality and I can concede this in that no adult should take it upon themselves to manipulate children.
Agreed, though I have a feeling our definition of "children" may differ. If we can try a 15-year-old as an adult for murder, I think it's at least conceivable that the same 15-year-old can be considered enough of an adult to give informed consent to sex.
But we also have to take into consideration that not all acts are the same. A male on male child rape may be deemed worse than a female on male child rape. That's up for debate, but I can certainly see that side of it.
In general, I would probably agree with you (due to the violence of the act and physical damage that can be done), but I think it can vary from case to case.
{"commentId":1003444,"threadId":"146660","contentId":"939874","authorDomain":"eco-geek"}
- 2 votes
{"commentId":1005188,"authorDomain":"theottoshow"}
Well it's good to see that we have some general consensus on this though we may quibble over some of the details. One thing I would take exception with is your usage of murder to make a point. I don't think there is a correlation between murder and sex consent. We have an expectation that a 15 year old with the most basic level of intelligence should know that murder is wrong. We try some of them as a adults for various reasons, but one is public safety - we can take the kid off of the streets for a longer period of time if he's convicted as an adult.
One aspect of statutory laws is also public safety. Society should not encourage minor sex and removing or loosening the age of consent does in fact do that. I don't think all consent laws are necessarily right and some are just downright stupid (that Gnarlow case comes to mind).
A 15 year old may seem mature enough to consent but that isn't necessarily his or her decision to make, particularly with another adult. It's certainly shouldn't be that adults decision. 15 year olds may know where the parts go, but it's ultimately the parents who have to deal with consequences of their kids actions, whether it's raising their grandkids, paying for the abortion, taking extra measures to keep the teen in school, paying for STD treatment.
Maybe a good question would be - do we protect the kids who lives may be negatively impacted by sex (with an adult) by enforcing consent laws...or do we put those kids at risk to entertain the ones that we deem able to consent (based on what I'm not sure) and have no consent laws.
The issue to me are the adults who apparently have enough problems in the old attic that they can't find satisfaction in life by living within societies guidelines. I have no sympathy for adults who prey on children in any circumstance and am not looking for laws to change so they can be accommodated, regardless of the intent of abilities of the teenager in question.
Interesting perspective, eco-Geek. Thanks for the discussion.
{"commentId":1005188,"threadId":"146660","contentId":"939874","authorDomain":"theottoshow"}
- 2 votes
{"commentId":1005871,"authorDomain":"eco-geek"}
One thing I would take exception with is your usage of murder to make a point. I don't think there is a correlation between murder and sex consent. We have an expectation that a 15 year old with the most basic level of intelligence should know that murder is wrong. We try some of them as a adults for various reasons, but one is public safety - we can take the kid off of the streets for a longer period of time if he's convicted as an adult.
I definitely see your point, Otto, and part of me wants to agree with it. On the other hand, though, if we're willing to see a teen as an adult when the consequences are so severe, I should think we could do the same when the consequences are sufficiently lesser as well.
Frankly, I think there is far too much disparity in the responsibility we grant people at various ages, the worst case of which (that I can think of, at least) is how we can enlist to kill and die for our country at 18, but aren't responsible enough to drink a beer until we're 21. In many cases I feel we coddle people too much, which only hurts the development of the responsibility which the laws hope they develop by certain arbitrary ages. But that's a whole other discussion...
One aspect of statutory laws is also public safety. Society should not encourage minor sex and removing or loosening the age of consent does in fact do that. I don't think all consent laws are necessarily right and some are just downright stupid (that Gnarlow case comes to mind).
Tell me about it...I live in Georgia. That case is an embarrassment.
I don't think minor sex should be encouraged either. I guess all I'm trying to say is that, at least in this day and age, a sixteen-year-old (for example) is old enough to decide whether or not they want to have sex with someone, regardless of that person's age or sex. Whether they should or not is an entirely different question, and it's one that people get wrong often enough even after legally becoming adults.
In essence, maybe I'm arguing less in defense of pedophilia (or ephebophilia as spiffie pointed out), and more in support of lowering the age of majority.
Interesting perspective, eco-Geek. Thanks for the discussion.
Thank you, Otto. I've quite enjoyed it myself, and I appreciate that we can disagree without the discussion devolving, as happens a little too often around here for my tastes.
{"commentId":1005871,"threadId":"146660","contentId":"939874","authorDomain":"eco-geek"}
- 3 votes
{"commentId":1006295,"authorDomain":"eco-geek"}
I just saw (and seeded) this article today. I think the situation in this story highlights part of the reason for my stance on this issue.
Bodhi, if you want to remove this comment for linking back to my column, I completely understand.
{"commentId":1006295,"threadId":"146660","contentId":"939874","authorDomain":"eco-geek"}
- 1 vote
{"commentId":1007134,"authorDomain":"PurelyPolitical"}
{"commentId":1001233,"authorDomain":"divbyzero"}
I'll have to go back to what I recall from my abnormal psych classes in college, which defined pedophilia as an attraction to prepubescent youth. I don't believe there is any movement to legalize sexual behavior with prepubescent youth. There is no psychological deviance in being attracted to pubescent youth. We are supposed to be attracted to pubescent individuals. That's part of the nature of the sexual attraction necessary to propagate the species or satisfy normal sexual desire. There's no deviance in being attracted to pubescent individuals who are under the age of consent, but there is criminality in acting upon that attraction. Sometimes I think we confuse psychological deviance with criminal behavior.
{"commentId":1001233,"threadId":"146660","contentId":"939874","authorDomain":"divbyzero"}
- 12 votes
#4 - Wed Sep 5, 2007 2:53 PM EDT{"commentId":1001450,"authorDomain":"eSantiago"}
Reading this article, I did not see the distinction in pre/pubescent, mainly because the issue IS that pedophiles who prey on prepubescent children want to be able to do so legally (prepubescents should be LEFT ALONE sexually!). I personally favor a system of allowing pubescent teens (13+) their rights to sexual freedom. It really should not go lower than that, mainly because childbirth is 50% more dangerous for girls under 12. Does anyone realize that nearly 80 yrs ago it was commonplace for teen girls at 13 to be married (and most likely pregnant) in the US? Go watch "the color purple"... and read up on how old the main character is supposed to be, that was 20s US.
BTW, I am married to a woman who is my age (24), and we have a three yr old son, whom we both protect from pedos and miscreants.
{"commentId":1001450,"threadId":"146660","contentId":"939874","authorDomain":"eSantiago"}
- 7 votes
{"commentId":1001526,"authorDomain":"PurelyPolitical"}
{"commentId":1001599,"authorDomain":"YuriyBilokonsky"}
And the sinister shadow agenda of those in favor of reinforcing our borders is to establish Jim Crowe Laws against Mexicans.
{"commentId":1001599,"threadId":"146660","contentId":"939874","authorDomain":"YuriyBilokonsky"}
- 3 votes
{"commentId":1001786,"authorDomain":"YuriyBilokonsky"}
Just sayin'. So long as we're going to assume that everyone who supports sexual freedom, that the sexual freedom movement's agenda is, in favor of the eventual legalization pedophilia (fingers crossed, eh?) Then you can just as easily extrapolate, from the members of the movement to secure our borders (some of them being racist pricks) that their goal is the eventual institution of laws enforcing White dominance of all the Coloreds. And I wouldn't doubt that some of them dream of the day. In both movements.
{"commentId":1001786,"threadId":"146660","contentId":"939874","authorDomain":"YuriyBilokonsky"}
- 4 votes
{"commentId":1001876,"authorDomain":"PurelyPolitical"}
{"commentId":1001923,"authorDomain":"YuriyBilokonsky"}
I suppose I may have misconstrued. Was the point not that sexual liberation of homosexuals will lead to sexual liberation of pedophiles?
{"commentId":1001923,"threadId":"146660","contentId":"939874","authorDomain":"YuriyBilokonsky"}
- 1 vote
{"commentId":1002502,"authorDomain":"dustin44444"}
You know, maybe I'm naive, but I don't see this becoming legal. I mean general support for this is basically nil. But I guess in a slippery slope way it might eventually happen. It is quite sad to consider. Disturbing really.
Legal consenting adults should be able to do whatever they want with each other, but children are so easily taken advantage of that they rightfully fall into a different category. True, age of consent laws don't take varying levels of maturity into account, but its probably the best we're going to be able to do.
Good article.
{"commentId":1002502,"threadId":"146660","contentId":"939874","authorDomain":"dustin44444"}
- 1 vote
{"commentId":1002878,"authorDomain":"YuriyBilokonsky"}
Oh, I'm sorry Bodhi, I misunderstood grossly. I see what you're saying now. Apologies.
{"commentId":1002878,"threadId":"146660","contentId":"939874","authorDomain":"YuriyBilokonsky"}
- 7 votes
{"commentId":1001623,"authorDomain":"spiffie"}
A well-researched article, Bodhi. I think the one thing you left out is the attempt to distinguish pedophilia from ephebophilia, which I think is part of Eco-geek's point above.
{"commentId":1001623,"threadId":"146660","contentId":"939874","authorDomain":"spiffie"}
- 2 votes
#5 - Wed Sep 5, 2007 5:22 PM EDT{"commentId":1001840,"authorDomain":"YuriyBilokonsky"}
You know Bodhi, the answer is not Federal. I think we need to bear that in mind and you need to talk to your city council if you think something needs to change.
{"commentId":1001840,"threadId":"146660","contentId":"939874","authorDomain":"YuriyBilokonsky"}
#6 - Wed Sep 5, 2007 7:01 PM EDT{"commentId":1001877,"authorDomain":"PurelyPolitical"}
{"commentId":1001935,"authorDomain":"YuriyBilokonsky"}
I may be channeling a dead newsviner. :-)
But my point remains the same. We need to watch our own back yards and sculpt our own laws and lives, not worry about what those crazy Norwegians are up to. If you were to set up a local system for dealing with pedophiles it would be far, far more effective than anything that the federal government could do, as I'm sure you will agree, being a libertarian.
Of course you're not calling for any kind of government action here, if I know where you stand on most issues.
The legalization and normalization of pedophilia is one of those things.
But I would assume that without government intervention everything is legal, non?
So maybe I'm just confused. I kinda faded in and out as I read, so it's probably my fault. It was well-researched and well-written. But in the end it was very long. :-)
{"commentId":1001935,"threadId":"146660","contentId":"939874","authorDomain":"YuriyBilokonsky"}
- 2 votes
{"commentId":1001990,"authorDomain":"PurelyPolitical"}
We need to watch our own back yards and sculpt our own laws and lives, not worry about what those crazy Norwegians are up to.
I wish it were that simple, but I am sorry to say it isn't:
The practice of using foreign laws to make U.S. law is new and novel – and has only come into vogue since the 1990s.
This past May, NewsMax Magazine reported that Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg told a conference that she considers foreign laws, not just U.S. laws and the Constitution, in forming her legal opinions.
...
But her views about the use of foreign laws have apparently influenced both O'Connor and Kennedy – and may do the same for Roberts.Now, the eye-opening article in The New Yorker magazine explores how Justice Anthony Kennedy's passion for foreign laws could change the court in the years to come.
Toobin writes that over the past two years, Kennedy "has become a leading proponent of one of the most cosmopolitan, and controversial, trends in constitutional law: using foreign and international law as an aid to interpreting the United States Constitution."
"Kennedy's embrace of foreign law may be among the most significant developments on the court in recent years – the single biggest factor behind his evolution from a reliable conservative into the likely successor to Sandra Day O'Connor as the court's swing vote."
The use of foreign and international laws in deciding Supreme Court decisions has outraged many present and former policymakers in Washington.
It is probable that international law would influence the eventual legalization of this abuse.
{"commentId":1001990,"threadId":"146660","contentId":"939874","authorDomain":"PurelyPolitical"}
- 4 votes
#7 - Wed Sep 5, 2007 8:06 PM EDT{"commentId":1002876,"authorDomain":"YuriyBilokonsky"}
See, now this is why the Federal Government needs to be disbanded.
Or I need to move to Micronesia.
{"commentId":1002876,"threadId":"146660","contentId":"939874","authorDomain":"YuriyBilokonsky"}
- 3 votes
{"commentId":1004234,"authorDomain":"spiffie"}
Or I need to move to Micronesia.
Don't spend a lot on the land. It won't be worth much when it's underwater.
{"commentId":1004234,"threadId":"146660","contentId":"939874","authorDomain":"spiffie"}
- 3 votes
{"commentId":1004325,"authorDomain":"YuriyBilokonsky"}
What? Micronesia's gonna flood? I was gonna turn it into a anarcho-syndacratic island nation!
{"commentId":1004325,"threadId":"146660","contentId":"939874","authorDomain":"YuriyBilokonsky"}
- 3 votes
{"commentId":1004376,"authorDomain":"spiffie"}
You can still do that. It will just be an underwater anarcho-sydancratic nation instead. Or you can just build everything on giant pylons.
{"commentId":1004376,"threadId":"146660","contentId":"939874","authorDomain":"spiffie"}
- 2 votes
{"commentId":1004491,"authorDomain":"YuriyBilokonsky"}
I was thinking boats. That way, when America decided to invade, we could just move until they finished.
{"commentId":1004491,"threadId":"146660","contentId":"939874","authorDomain":"YuriyBilokonsky"}
- 3 votes
{"commentId":1004499,"authorDomain":"spiffie"}
Are you expecting to have fictional stores of WMDs?
{"commentId":1004499,"threadId":"146660","contentId":"939874","authorDomain":"spiffie"}
- 2 votes
{"commentId":1004688,"authorDomain":"YuriyBilokonsky"}
I think that's an occupational hazard of every leader not pursuing a War on Drugs.
{"commentId":1004688,"threadId":"146660","contentId":"939874","authorDomain":"YuriyBilokonsky"}
- 2 votes
{"commentId":1002364,"authorDomain":"barneysmith"}
Good article - people should be aware.
So much for Childhood innocence? But perhaps we should stop using Paris Hilton and Britney Spears as a role models - back to the trailer park with them!
Dawkins isn't saying pedophilia is cool - I believe he used the words "deplorable and disgusting". He merely states that a mind@!$%# - of leaving someone in fear of hell, and constant guilt for percieved "sins" their whole life - Is worse. Of course it's a generalisation. But if you look at ratio of abuse victims, to those small children made to believe that their best friend will burn in hell for eternity, cause they are not of the correct religion. Well there is far more of one than the other.
{"commentId":1002364,"threadId":"146660","contentId":"939874","authorDomain":"barneysmith"}
- 3 votes
#8 - Wed Sep 5, 2007 11:02 PM EDT{"commentId":1002663,"authorDomain":"theottoshow"}
What the?
Seriously, what the?
I think you were making an interesting point but you lost me about half way through your last paragraph. Are you pointing out that religion is worse than pedophilia?
Great handle, BTW.
{"commentId":1002663,"threadId":"146660","contentId":"939874","authorDomain":"theottoshow"}
- 4 votes
{"commentId":1002923,"authorDomain":"PurelyPolitical"}
{"commentId":1002944,"authorDomain":"YuriyBilokonsky"}
Well, I dunno, the bible can be pretty damaging. I mean it's what? Like ten pounds with hard corners?
{"commentId":1002944,"threadId":"146660","contentId":"939874","authorDomain":"YuriyBilokonsky"}
- 4 votes
{"commentId":1003515,"authorDomain":"eSantiago"}
YB... and its over 2000 pages, imagine a tiny version of "war and peace" hitting you in the face! That sh!t's gotta hurt!
All kidding aside, Dawkins' rationale was spot on. People can get over sexual abuse (albeit difficult and painful for many years), religion's decimation of a person's trust in humanity or science is far more permanent and may sometimes be unrecoverable (just think of all those lovely fundamentalist moron... erm... people who live in the Bible Belt, and how easily they are swayed on ANYTHING).
{"commentId":1003515,"threadId":"146660","contentId":"939874","authorDomain":"eSantiago"}
- 6 votes
{"commentId":1003549,"authorDomain":"globalized"}
Dawkins' rationale was spot on. People can get over sexual abuse (albeit difficult and painful for many years), religion's decimation of a person's trust in humanity or science is far more permanent and may sometimes be unrecoverable (just think of all those lovely fundamentalist moron... erm... people who live in the Bible Belt, and how easily they are swayed on ANYTHING).
It's hard to even respond to that statement. The idea that sexual abuse is "better" than religion in terms of the damage done... Religion does not decimate a person's trust in humanity and science, but even if it did is that worse than living your life feeling like a piece of trash, unable to value yourself? Religion does produce some bad results sometimes, but sexual abuse ALWAYS produces horrific results. As for those morons in the Bible Belt, they are far more human than you or Dawkins. You have lost your heart and mind.
{"commentId":1003549,"threadId":"146660","contentId":"939874","authorDomain":"globalized"}
- 4 votes
{"commentId":1003597,"authorDomain":"eSantiago"}
Its not "better". It is a lesser evil to sexually assault someone, than to turn them into a religious moron. Yes there IS damage for both. A person can overcome their doubts of self-worth, or cleanliness or "feeling like a piece of trash". It can be overcome... I am confident of that... but I am also confident that once a person's mind has been tainted by religion they will forever struggle with trusting science or humanity at large.
You obviously don't agree, and think I am heartless or mindless. Thank you, because Dawkins and I unlike you or the morons in the Bible belt actually believe in DOING something about what's wrong in this world, rather than praying or waiting for things to change by the benevolence of chance (aka God).
{"commentId":1003597,"threadId":"146660","contentId":"939874","authorDomain":"eSantiago"}
- 2 votes
{"commentId":1003656,"authorDomain":"globalized"}
When I say you've lost your heart and your mind I'm not reaching outside of your comments. I don't know you and don't assume anything, but your statements are clear.
You've leveled some accusations against me that aren't grounded in anything I've said. You don't know me. Try to respond to what I've said, rather than taking a stab into the dark.
It is a lesser evil to sexually assault someone, than to turn them into a religious moron.
Can you provide some examples of your history with both religious people and those that have been sexually abused? What are you basing your claims on? Please site experiential examples. Tell me about the religious morons that you have interacted with and diagnose their problem. Then tell me about those that have been sexually abused that you have interacted with and helped. You are DOING something, which is commendable. Tell us about it.
It can be overcome... I am confident of that...
Where does your confidence come from? What experience?
but I am also confident that once a person's mind has been tainted by religion they will forever struggle with trusting science or humanity at large.
Your description of "damage" here is "struggle with trusting science or humanity at large". Can you provide examples and tell me how this is a more grievous evil than not trusting yourself or anyone else as is the result of sexual abuse?
I still can't believe that this is something we are discussing. I look forward to hearing about your first hand experience with religious morons and those that have been sexually abused. A scientific analysis would be appropriate.
{"commentId":1003656,"threadId":"146660","contentId":"939874","authorDomain":"globalized"}
- 3 votes
{"commentId":1003697,"authorDomain":"PurelyPolitical"}
{"commentId":1003699,"authorDomain":"PurelyPolitical"}
{"commentId":1003788,"authorDomain":"eSantiago"}
@Matt B.
A scientific analysis would be appropriate.
First of all, I never claimed to be a psychological scientist (nor want to be one). I do KNOW people who have been assaulted, and have overcome it. I have assisted, through friendship and kindness the recovery of a specific person I knew who was raped... as a child. That person is happy and living a fruitful life now, free from guilt or feelings of self-hate.
Here's how it is more worse. People will pray, for years... for things to change. For their mother to get healthy, for money, for better life circumstances... instead of going out and taking that time and money contributed to a church and spending it on themselves to educate themselves, to make more money to better their life circumstances or educate themselves in medicine to HELP their dying mothers or fathers, or whomever they care for. It is pure waste, with little to no long term gain. Prayers have been proven to not work, its an illusion. The illusion of "Yes, No, or Wait", which all really mean the same thing... "look for the evidence to arise so that you may believe".
Can you honestly say that belief in mythology, that may fool you your whole life into donating countless dollars or hours to a cause that is dubious at best and criminal at worst, is better than living to your potential by spending those dollars on YOUR education and those hours helping your family, friends, or those in need (those friends, family members or people in need who have or had been sexually assaulted as a child and need moral support from YOU, a living person who cares)?
No, you cannot.
@ Bohdi1
It is a lesser evil to sexually assault someone, than to turn them into a religious moron.
Ideally, they would both be banned... but if your hypothetical question asks me to regulate the reading patterns of citizens, I won't be brought down to that level of discourse.
{"commentId":1003788,"threadId":"146660","contentId":"939874","authorDomain":"eSantiago"}
- 2 votes
{"commentId":1003906,"authorDomain":"jaybutler"}
Ideally, they would both be banned... but if your hypothetical question asks me to regulate the reading patterns of citizens, I won't be brought down to that level of discourse.
So, you would essentially ban religion? How would you, in reality, enforce such a ban on religious studies?
Bodhi's hypothetical question shows the absurdity of your "religious moron" ban. Why not ban health morons? Vehicle driving morons? And, so on.
Pedophilia must involve two individuals - one of whom is victimized by the other. Religious studies (or other studies) do not require anyone person studying the religion. So, to enforce such your "moron" ban, you would have to completely remove any religious thought, reading material and artifacts from society. Absurd.
{"commentId":1003906,"threadId":"146660","contentId":"939874","authorDomain":"jaybutler"}
- 3 votes
{"commentId":1004130,"authorDomain":"YuriyBilokonsky"}
How's this, "Some sorts sexual abuse are better than some sorts of religion."
Wouldn't you say matt, that it's less damaging for a child to be molested than to be raised as a Satanist?
{"commentId":1004130,"threadId":"146660","contentId":"939874","authorDomain":"YuriyBilokonsky"}
- 3 votes
{"commentId":1004208,"authorDomain":"eSantiago"}
@jay...
but if your hypothetical question asks me to regulate the reading patterns of citizens, I won't be brought down to that level of discourse.
Ok... let me spell that one out for you... I don't believe in regulating people's thought pattern. This is why I didn't want to debase this thread to hypothetical questions. Religion CAN'T be banned. If people want to practice foolishness, there is nothing you or I or anyone can tell them otherwise. I was being (i thought) quite clearly sarcastic by saying "Ideally".
@ YB
Yes!
@Bohdi1
Neither, they are both F'd up. AS I STATED THEY ARE BOTH EVIL. I know that is shouting but it seems I am not being clear. Again, this is lowering the discourse significantly to "what ifs" and "maybes" that are completely useless in a realistic debate. Teaching my child about Jesus, IS NOT what I want, NOR IS performing sex acts... is that giving you a grasp on my thought process? A two solution hypothetical situation is non-existent in the terms you provide, there IS always another option.
To humor you... I could potentially pick either scenario (or in Catholicism's case both simultaneously), because I would tell my child "Here, take this little knife and never go anywhere with (name), because if he/she so much as makes you feel uncomfortable... cut his fckin balls off, stab him, do whatever you have to, to defend yourself. Then call the police and report him."
I'd expect any parent to teach their children to defend themselves from bad people, by means of action, not obedience.
Let me guess your next BS hypothetical question... um... what if your child is too young? or weak? or (insert statement leading to Bohdi's success in asking a hypothetical situational question to which no answer is possible)?
{"commentId":1004208,"threadId":"146660","contentId":"939874","authorDomain":"eSantiago"}
- 3 votes
{"commentId":1004305,"authorDomain":"PurelyPolitical"}
{"commentId":1004313,"authorDomain":"eSantiago"}
They are both bad, very bad... but YES the teaching the Bible as fact is worse than sexual abuse.
{"commentId":1004313,"threadId":"146660","contentId":"939874","authorDomain":"eSantiago"}
- 3 votes
{"commentId":1004357,"authorDomain":"globalized"}
Yuriy
Wouldn't you say matt, that it's less damaging for a child to be molested than to be raised as a Satanist?
The issue was nailed by Jay:
Pedophilia must involve two individuals - one of whom is victimized by the other. Religious studies (or other studies) do not require anyone person studying the religion.
Teaching a kid about satanism doesn't force him to believe it. There are millions of people that grew up under a certain system of thought that rejected it. I would wager that eSantiago grew up in a home that taught some form of religion. That didn't make eSantiago a victim.
I think it is less damaging for a kid to be raised by a satanist than to be molested. Being taught a system of thought doesn't make you a victim. Pedophiles force themselves through physical and mental schemes, but religion can't be forced in the end. People embrace it because they need it. They use it as a tool. Whenever they discover it has no value, they discard it for something else. Not so with molestation. You carry the scar you didn't choose to receive.
{"commentId":1004357,"threadId":"146660","contentId":"939874","authorDomain":"globalized"}
- 4 votes
{"commentId":1004378,"authorDomain":"globalized"}
YES the teaching the Bible as fact is worse than sexual abuse.
Yes, let's review some of Jesus' damaging and sadistic teachings:
"love your neighbor"
"love your enemy"
"the greatest of you will be a servant"
and Paul:
But concerning brotherly love you have no need that I should write to you, for you yourselves are taught by God to love one another; and indeed you do so toward all the brethren who are in all Macedonia. But we urge you, brethren, that you increase more and more; that you also aspire to lead a quiet life, to mind your own business, and to work with your own hands, as we commanded you, that you may walk properly toward those who are outside, and that you may lack nothing.
eSanti, I share your contempt for loveless religion that creates mindless followers, but there are many more people in the world that embrace Jesus' teachings without becoming loveless, self-righteous, anti-scientists. Your sweeping generalizations glaze over huge tracts of people. Sadly, they are an acception rather than the norm. They're not out to destroy science and they are interested in nothing more than compassionate action.
{"commentId":1004378,"threadId":"146660","contentId":"939874","authorDomain":"globalized"}
- 3 votes
{"commentId":1004519,"authorDomain":"eSantiago"}
@Matt
Being taught a system of thought doesn't make you a victim. Pedophiles force themselves through physical and mental schemes, but religion can't be forced in the end.
Well, Nazism is a system of thought, Marxism is too, Communism also, umm... I consider those people victims of false promises of a Utopian dream. And I have a feeling some of the victims of the inquisition\crusades\holy wars would beg to differ, but you go right on thinking Christianity is PURE and GOOD, despite the fear it wrought on the world during the Dark Ages... nice job, not forcing religion on anyone D!CK.
Yes, let's review some of Jesus' damaging and sadistic teachings:
Let's shall we, Mark 3:29, "Whoever blasphemes against the Holy Spirit can never be forgiven." yeah really forgiving guy. Sorry kid, you are denying the holy spirit, but you will never be forgiven and you are going to hell forever! That's a lovely thing for a child to know, that if he ever denies the Holy Spirit he will go to hell and never be forgiven of his mistakes (aka sins).
They're not out to destroy science and they are interested in nothing more than compassionate action.
Ah, the baby and bathwater attitude, gotta love that. Well, religion is clinging to answers that people can get from reality, however bittersweet the victory will be one day when religion finally dies a slow death, it will be a sad day for compassion, empathy and good will toward all people... oh wait, we could still do that stuff without wasting time worshipping or wasting money on church offerings... couldn't we? Holy sh!t, we could actually stop the retarded sitting on pews! or trying to understand 1600 yr old texts that are written way beyond most people's reading level! OMFG, I can't believe it, we are free from feeling guilty WITHOUT asking for a damn thing (forgiveness) from an overbearing religious institution or fascist deity!!?! Wow. Let me outta here, I have some serious work to do for humanity's progress and evolution toward a super civilization, that its citizens never die, explore the far reaches of space, and seek understanding of the universe for themselves without having it "spelled out" in a mythic text. Sorry, I have some goals... you go ahead and find meaning in life by reading that fairytale about a man who died for you, I would rather discover the meaning for myself without it being handed to me.
OK rant over... sorry if you are offended, it just sad and frustrating that humanity won't live up to its potential (an ever rising ceiling of potential) in my lifetime... but you know what Matt, I don't need Jesus to tell me anything. Because you are human... I live for you, love you and if you are American, I have served you in the military... and I don't expect anything back for you, thank you for just being a decent human being.
{"commentId":1004519,"threadId":"146660","contentId":"939874","authorDomain":"eSantiago"}
- 2 votes
{"commentId":1004533,"authorDomain":"YuriyBilokonsky"}
They both forever change your world-view. Religion, however, is how you think. Molestation is trauma.
With religion you unlock doors to all kinds of hells of thought (without necessarily opening them), with molestation you tear one down.
So I dunno. I mean, being raised a Satanist can seriously @!$%# a person up. So can being molested some people have an easier time getting over molestation than belief in the Devil's tricks. (Which, personally, I think, is the most damaging aspect of a religious upbringing because it sets off a whole schema where no conclusion can be trusted because it could all be part of Satan's plan for the destruction of your soul so that you need to see a priest and pay your alms) Clearly molestation, as a one-shot gig is far worse than religion as a one-shot gig. But religion is conditioning, and molestation is trauma.
Our society has many of its problems because we're conditioned to see trauma as something far more important than conditioning (just look at degenerative disease and the reactions doctors have toward them or the conditions that child molesters grow up in leading to the molestation in the first place) but really conditioning is far harder to break. Here's an experiment: Get a two dogs. One dog give a treat to every time you come home. The other dog give a shock to every time you come home. After a year, see how the shocked dog reacts to your coming home and beat the living @!$%# out of the dog you've been treating once. See if he doesn't still come running the next day regardless (or the next time he's capable of running) and see which one is happier on the average.
The point is that conditioning is important. But... I'd argue that raising your child to hate himself, or to be dependent on others, or to just generally be unhappy, religion or no religion, is worse than molestation.
{"commentId":1004533,"threadId":"146660","contentId":"939874","authorDomain":"YuriyBilokonsky"}
- 3 votes
{"commentId":1004599,"authorDomain":"globalized"}
When I look at history, I see men utilizing any possible story to hijack their fellow man. Whether it's mythology, religion, "magic", nazism, utopianism, capitalism, whatever... Men are hijacking each other to take resources from one another. Money. Security. You blame religion... I blame men. We're the one's screwed up. That means that we need to embrace a philosophy that reverses the cycle of screwing and exploiting each other.
That philosophy will "advance humanity's progress. It is part of the "answer" to "understanding the universe". These are your statements. We are trying to understand the universe in order to advance humanity. How do we find these answers?
When you watch a movie or read a novel or listen to a friend tell you about a breakup with a girlfriend, do you learn something? Do you take lessons from the truth that you recognize out there? You probably do because you say,
answers that people can get from reality
The only way to get answers is to see them in the world around you. When Jesus says that we should love our neighbor, he's talking about a practical, workable principal that leads to a better life for humanity. You can reach that conclusion experientially by being in the military, reading a book, whatever. It doesn't matter if you get the answer from reading Jesus, Gandhi, or Dawkins. What matters is that you find answers and put them to work.
One answer we all agree on is that raping kids is wrong. It's a base, self-evident wrong for humanity. Most of the people in the world seem to need religion. They see it as something that gives them hope when they run out of answers. You seem to have all the answers, so you can't understand their position. Perhaps treating them with respect will help win them over to your side of clarity.
I say all that to address your comments, but the main point is the assertion you've made. Your assertion is that it is better to be raped as a child than it is to learn about the Bible, Quran or any religious text. I appreciate your deep hostility toward religion, your awareness of the damage that it can do, but at this point you are only projecting that hostility, not building an argument. Your sweeping generalizations about "the religious" are an inch deep. I sense that you want to change people and do some "good". Your going to have to move away from "group think" and sweeping generalizations if you want to do that.
Thank you for your service. My brothers and best friend all serve/served in the military.
{"commentId":1004599,"threadId":"146660","contentId":"939874","authorDomain":"globalized"}
- 4 votes
{"commentId":1004668,"authorDomain":"eSantiago"}
You seem to have all the answers, so you can't understand their position.
Far from it, but I believe that the answers can be found without mysticism, or mythology.
Your assertion is that it is better to be raped as a child than it is to learn about the Bible, Quran or any religious text.
It is more that, a child being raped is really bad, like horrible and unforgivable, but teaching blind faith is far worse because it encourages disbelief in reality.
Thank you for your service.
No need for thanks, I performed a standard task, of my own accord... but I accept your thanks graciously.
To move from group-think is a good analogy of what I aim for, I thought that was clear by:
...and seek understanding of the universe for themselves without having it "spelled out" in a mythic text.
Simply, people would do well to search for their answers to their questions in the natural world. A world without mysticism and free access to information (the world I envision will come to be beyond my lifetime) is a world where man is no longer a slave to another man, be it by religious, systemic or force-of-will enslavement. I understand your point about running out of answers, however, humanity and people in general should be more concerned with running out of questions that need answering. You see, if a religion has paramount authority on the answers, and everyone one day accepts that authority, we will run out of questions to seek the answers for ourselves.
That's why I generalize about the religious and I am harsh on religions, they have all the answers, and my questions that poke and prod at their claim to authority aren't exactly welcome, but they are still unanswered by God (or those who speak on God's behalf).
Now that we are off topic... I will end our discussion here... many thanks, and take care.
{"commentId":1004668,"threadId":"146660","contentId":"939874","authorDomain":"eSantiago"}
- 3 votes
{"commentId":1005202,"authorDomain":"theottoshow"}
eSantiago - it seems you are corrupting the comparison. You are using your ideological opposition and disagreement to a value system as a comparison to a physical, sexual violation of someone. Bodhi's questions I think were designed to get you to place a spot on the chart and address it from another perspective, not wonder what you would really do in a real situation. Your hatred of religion or Christianity is not really a valid comparison to a crime.
Religion has done and done wonderful things in the world and it has made millions of people live better lives. Does that not add to the equation? Can we say anything close to the same about sexual abuse or child rape? Modern religion helped end slavery and oppose tyranny and suffering. Is it really fair to say it's worse than sexual abuse?
And what happened in your own life to make you so jaded on this?
{"commentId":1005202,"threadId":"146660","contentId":"939874","authorDomain":"theottoshow"}
- 4 votes
{"commentId":1006060,"authorDomain":"eSantiago"}
Modern religion helped end slavery and oppose tyranny and suffering.
It is just a little ironic you use modern... Like the last 20 years? or the last 100? because its seems convenient to limit the scope of religion to a specific time. Last I remember, religion enabled slavery. There are actually rules for conduct when owning a slave WITHIN the bible, but let's no nevermind the f'd up parts of religion, let's focus on the GOOD, and ignore those who have perverted something "good". Like I said, religion asks you to depart from reality, which is never good... and that is worse than sexual abuse.
Jaded, no. Totally pissed off is more like it. And there isn't one defining moment in my life that made me this way, it is the constant religious BS I see around me.
{"commentId":1006060,"threadId":"146660","contentId":"939874","authorDomain":"eSantiago"}
- 3 votes
{"commentId":1014546,"authorDomain":"barneysmith"}
Thanks eSantiago,
Mad props.
I believe what Dawkins was saying, in "the god delusion" - that while there is outrage toward physical abuse suffered by children while in the hands of the church - the mental abuse from indoctrination to religious ideas is worse.
While both deplorable, I'm not prepared to say one is worse than the other.
But there are far more young lives being tainted by religious fundamentalisim, than by physical abuse.
A once knew a very talented artist, who then fell in with Jehovas Witness. Now she works part time in a call center, and the rest of her time is spent knocking on doors. Can't go 15minutes without bringing up religion, and the spouting of suedo science to try for another conversion. What a waste.
{"commentId":1014546,"threadId":"146660","contentId":"939874","authorDomain":"barneysmith"}
- 2 votes
{"commentId":1002718,"authorDomain":"dolores"}
This is exactly the types of things that Republicans want to see more of, so they can get their conservative base reenergized and to the polls. Watch it enter the political debate more and more...
{"commentId":1002718,"threadId":"146660","contentId":"939874","authorDomain":"dolores"}
#9 - Thu Sep 6, 2007 3:09 AM EDT{"commentId":1003524,"authorDomain":"eSantiago"}
Until a republican senator or congressman gets caught emailing a minor sexual advances... oh snap.
{"commentId":1003524,"threadId":"146660","contentId":"939874","authorDomain":"eSantiago"}
- 2 votes
{"commentId":1002721,"authorDomain":"adventurebooks"}
Excuse me for forcing certain commenters on this article to check into the Reality Hotel, but...
What politician in his right mind would be crazy enough to support pedophiles? Semantics and spinning on this issue cannot overcome basic common sense, which means this:
Children need to be protected. This is generally the responsibility of parents and authority figures. Children below a certain age do not always have the tools to fend off unwanted sexual advances from more experienced adults.
Adults make the laws. To make any law justifying such behavior is the worst form of irresponsibility, and an injustice to children. Get real...
{"commentId":1002721,"threadId":"146660","contentId":"939874","authorDomain":"adventurebooks"}
- 6 votes
#10 - Thu Sep 6, 2007 3:13 AM EDT{"commentId":1002728,"authorDomain":"dolores"}
I agree with you 100%. Children have to be our first priority. Sick people promoting this "movement" should be getting mental help!
{"commentId":1002728,"threadId":"146660","contentId":"939874","authorDomain":"dolores"}
- 4 votes
{"commentId":1003035,"authorDomain":"dustymuffin"}
To claim 40-years-olds should be allowed to get it on with 9-year-olds is sick.
That kind of disparity in a relationship invariably involves weird power issues. 9-year-olds are easily manipulated into whatever the folks in authority want them to be including sex slaves.
There are those who have deluded themselves into believing that this would be good for everybody- those people are confused and have shrouded their perversions with soft and pleasant language.
{"commentId":1003035,"threadId":"146660","contentId":"939874","authorDomain":"dustymuffin"}
- 5 votes
{"commentId":1003421,"authorDomain":"globalized"}
Children need to be protected.
Thanks Robert. That is the bottom line. I hate it when these clear cut issues get dragged into a discussion about legal ramifications, etc... If you have spent any time with an adult that had either consensual or forced sexual encounters as a young person, you will know that they carry deep emotional wounds. They would not be termed clinically crazy, but it poisons all of their adult relationships. We are trying to protect people from that.
I know that many people will say, "Well, people are allowed to choose to do anything in a free society, even it is harmful to them in the long run." Smoking, drinking, etc... In those cases an adult can clearly understand that certain habits will lead to physical harm. Eating too much fat, etc... they are free to do so, but it will lead to physical harm. They understand this choice and they eat and smoke what they want. Good. The issue is when we do not fully understand the harmful implications of an action. We know that sexual activity among teens and children, both forced and consensual, causes emotional problems later. Even if the kid is 16 and having a blast with their boyfriend/girlfriend, there are scars that cause for unhealthy relationships later in life. We have to keep that in mind. Kids cannot understand the harmful effects of this behavior, so they can't make an informed decision. Just like they can't fully understand the harmful effects of alcohol addiction. We have to protect kids from some "experimentation" that will leave them scarred as an adult. Adult experimentation is different because an adult can be informed of the harmful consequences of their actions. If you want to screw yourself up, go for it... but kids can't understand these consequences.
{"commentId":1003421,"threadId":"146660","contentId":"939874","authorDomain":"globalized"}
- 3 votes
{"commentId":1004331,"authorDomain":"chasing"}
The Ginsberg quote doesn't support the claim that she wanted to lower the age of consent to 12, though I can see how one could construe it that way. A quick search on the internet found nothing to support that claim, either, except use of that quote (and nothing else), especially in gay-baiting hate-sites (not surprising, considered the lavish attention given it, here). In fact, there is plenty of evidence that Ginsberg did not.
Seperately, the link used to support the notion that the APA "considered" removing pedophilia as an illness says nothing of the sort. Moreover, it also fails to understand the wording in the DSM - as written in the DSM IV, actual molestation is not required for a pedophilia diagnosis, but rather even if someone thinks about it to such an extent that it disrupts their day-to-day life they may still be diagnosed with it.
{"commentId":1004331,"threadId":"146660","contentId":"939874","authorDomain":"chasing"}
- 3 votes
#11 - Thu Sep 6, 2007 4:08 PM EDT{"commentId":1004567,"authorDomain":"jgprince"}
This sickens me to no end. I am a 39 year old male who has experienced sexual abuse as a chile. My wife is a 36 year old female who experienced sexual abuse as a child.
The mere fact that there is an article let alone a discussion that is so casual as to what is being discussed is a terrifying sign.
This is also one of the main reasons why I am one who is AGAINST homosexuality. This is a pervision that people CHOOSE to participate in. Some perverts decided to use a flimsy argument that they where born gay in order to have people stop debating or calling them on their perversian.
It sickens me to see how far down this nation has come on its moral compass...and to think that so many are naive as to what is happening.
This world is becoming more and more perverse, it's as if some cultish force is rulling this earth and turning it into a very dark world.
The way some of the people treat this topic, you would think that they breed and raise dogs for the sport of dog fighting. After all they are only children, they are not "Real" people. What about the right of the mother, father or adult to fulfill their sexual perverted desire with a child...isn't it the same as the right to a woman to kill the unborn child.
When will someone stand up for these children, when will someone stand up and draw a MORAL line to say enough is enough?
{"commentId":1004567,"threadId":"146660","contentId":"939874","authorDomain":"jgprince"}
- 5 votes
#12 - Thu Sep 6, 2007 5:51 PM EDT{"commentId":1004601,"authorDomain":"globalized"}
Well said. Thank you for speaking up. It's a clear issue. It's wrong. Period.
{"commentId":1004601,"threadId":"146660","contentId":"939874","authorDomain":"globalized"}
- 4 votes
{"commentId":1005035,"authorDomain":"chasing"}
This is a pervision that people CHOOSE to participate in.
I would agree with you if only that weren't totally untrue, and unless you've been in the mind of a homosexual, and thought their thoughts, you can't possibly tell me otherwise. I, however, being gay, know very well what is in my own mind. I have talked to others (being as I do not, as it happens, live under a rock) who concur. I have met no-one who has said they made it their "choice" - but if ever someone did, so what? Some choose to put their pants on, both legs at the same time! The horror! The perversion!
Welcome to 2007. Get yourself acquainted quickly, it'll be 2008, soon.
{"commentId":1005035,"threadId":"146660","contentId":"939874","authorDomain":"chasing"}
- 4 votes
{"commentId":1005179,"authorDomain":"spiffie"}
It might have been well said, Matthew, if he hadn't tried to equate homosexuality to pedophilia (well, maybe not). The two are not equivalent, and it's fairly insulting to try to make them so.
{"commentId":1005179,"threadId":"146660","contentId":"939874","authorDomain":"spiffie"}
- 3 votes
{"commentId":1005241,"authorDomain":"witchofthenorth"}
What about the right of the mother, father or adult to fulfill their sexual perverted desire with a child...isn't it the same as the right to a woman to kill the unborn child.
Um, no.
A woman's right to reproductive choice has exactly bugger-all in common with incest and/or pedophilia.
{"commentId":1005241,"threadId":"146660","contentId":"939874","authorDomain":"witchofthenorth"}
- 1 vote
{"commentId":1006989,"authorDomain":"rawfood"}
Yeah, at least the child's choice to be alive isn't stripped from them in the latter (they're not murdered).
{"commentId":1006989,"threadId":"146660","contentId":"939874","authorDomain":"rawfood"}
- 1 vote
{"commentId":1007084,"authorDomain":"globalized"}
When will someone stand up for these children, when will someone stand up and draw a MORAL line to say enough is enough?
This is what I was referring to in my "well said".
{"commentId":1007084,"threadId":"146660","contentId":"939874","authorDomain":"globalized"}
- 1 vote
{"commentId":1007948,"authorDomain":"witchofthenorth"}
@organica
Yeah, at least the child's choice to be alive isn't stripped from them in the latter (they're not murdered).
So you agree they're not related then? I could just as easily say "at least no aborted fetus has ever been sexually abused by a pedophile". See how that contributes nothing constructive to the discussion? The abortion debate has been and no doubt will again be debated here many times and perhaps we can discuss it another time. I think it's inappropriate to continue it here.
Bodhi's article is about a specific topic which has nothing to do with abortion; as a courtesy to the writer, let's stay on-topic.
{"commentId":1007948,"threadId":"146660","contentId":"939874","authorDomain":"witchofthenorth"}
- 1 vote
{"commentId":1005120,"authorDomain":"kayla"}
As a female that was abused at the age of 11 I am apalled by some of the comments made in this forum and the way some of the discussion diverged from the main issue. I can tell you at 11 I had romantic ideas about a young man of 22 who was my neighbour. I had a crush on him. But at 11 my idea of "love" with him involved kissing, hand-holding and a fairy tale ending. I did not have the capacity to understand what he intended to do with me or the harm that it would cause me.
So yes, children should be protected. I did not understand at 11 that it wasn't just a game, that this handsome young man would rape me and that he wasn't trying to just be my "special friend."
I did not understand then and I never reported the abuse. I thought it was my fault. After all, I befriended him. I went to his apartment willingly. After all, it must have been my fault.
I didn't understand until I was in my twenties and I refused to have sex with any man, shy to the core, always afraid to look back at anyone or speak up, what had happened to me.
You want to know what is worse: sexual abuse or religious indoctrination? I don't know. All I know is for ten years I woke up from nightmares, dreaming someone was trying to touch me while I slept.
{"commentId":1005120,"threadId":"146660","contentId":"939874","authorDomain":"kayla"}
- 3 votes
#13 - Thu Sep 6, 2007 10:38 PM EDT{"commentId":1005681,"authorDomain":"PurelyPolitical"}
{"commentId":1006088,"authorDomain":"eSantiago"}
I am sorry you had to endure that experience.
All I know is for ten years I woke up from nightmares...
I especially Identify with that (but in the religious context).
{"commentId":1006088,"threadId":"146660","contentId":"939874","authorDomain":"eSantiago"}
- 1 vote
{"commentId":1006319,"authorDomain":"jgprince"}
Chasing,
for what its worth I do have first hand knowledge and fortunately I escaped the nightmare.
I have also spent year in recovery and within the recovery circly have become friends with countles gay and straight people.
My knowledge of the Gay community is both firsthand as well as through my friends who continue to battle the homosexual lifestyle. Many are still in this style by choice and depending on what day you ask them, they will tell you it's a choice as well as the depressed stalking and intimidation that takes place.
I find that these are adults who continue to be abused from childhood.
The trauma experienced from Childhood sexual abuse is very real and very painful, for many this trauma is blocked out of memory as a coping mechanism.
My apologies, but I do not want to sugar coat any of this issue. I know this is an unpopular public stance, but it is reality and the truth can be very painful. However it is healing and in time can help others to reach a peace within themselves.
Homosexuality at one level is a stepping stone to Pedophelia (Child Abuse) and as we must stand strong for the Children of the world we must also be honest about homosexuality.
Yes I agree welcome to 2007 and beyond...we are bold in our stance and no longer allowing ourselves to continue being victims to our previous abusers.
{"commentId":1006319,"threadId":"146660","contentId":"939874","authorDomain":"jgprince"}
- 1 vote
#14 - Fri Sep 7, 2007 12:57 PM EDT{"commentId":1006587,"authorDomain":"spiffie"}
Homosexuality at one level is a stepping stone to Pedophelia (Child Abuse) and as we must stand strong for the Children of the world we must also be honest about homosexuality.
Just…wrong. Most pedophiles are straight men, not gay men. Homosexuality is no more a "stepping stone" to pedophilia than heterosexuality is. It's completely absurd to claim otherwise. It would be more accurate to state, maybe, that maleness is a "stepping stone" to pedophilia, given the overwhelming majority who are so gendered.
Regarding "choice" in homosexuality, I've often thought that there are multiple pathways to homosexuality, including biological and developmental pathways, which combine in most people to varying amounts. However, for the vast majority of homosexuals, biological and unconscious factors so completely and absolutely dominate that homosexuality cannot be considered a choice. For a very tiny minority for whom homosexual behavior is expressed pathologically, therapy with an honest professional should help. (By "honest professional" I mean a pyschologist or psychiatrist who is truly interested in helping the person figure out what's best for him or her without a predetermined "preferred outcome;" i.e. no reparative therapy.)
{"commentId":1006587,"threadId":"146660","contentId":"939874","authorDomain":"spiffie"}
- 4 votes
{"commentId":1007367,"authorDomain":"divbyzero"}
Homosexuality at one level is a stepping stone to Pedophelia (Child Abuse)
Bodhi1, I think you might want to weigh in with one of the logical fallacies on this one. Saying that homosexuality is a stepping stone to pedophilia is like saying caffeine consumption leads to prescription drug abuse. One has nothing to do with the other. There are some sick freaks out there who get sexually aroused by prepubescent children, both boys and girls. Their deviance is pedophilia, not homosexuality. There have been plenty of cases of heterosexual men and women who molested little boys and girls. Their sexuality wasn't an issue, but their deviance in seeking sexual release through prepubescent children was an issue, a psychological and criminal issue.
Let's be rational folks!
{"commentId":1007367,"threadId":"146660","contentId":"939874","authorDomain":"divbyzero"}
- 5 votes
{"commentId":1007640,"authorDomain":"kayla"}
Equating homosexuality with pedophilia is irrational. One does not lead to the other. Whatever your thoughts about homosexuality may be it is about two ADULTS attracted to each other. Pedophilia is about an adult and a child.
Some pedophiles may be attracted to people of their own sex bu that does not mean heterosexuals are immune to committing these acts or that a homosexual is more likely to be a pedophile.
I was abused by a heterosexual male. If homosexuality was the trigger to pedophilia as you claim, then how did that happen?
The only common denominator among pedophiles: the like to take advantage of children. Period.
{"commentId":1007640,"threadId":"146660","contentId":"939874","authorDomain":"kayla"}
- 4 votes
{"commentId":1012869,"authorDomain":"chasing"}
I'm sorry that you seem to have gone through a lot there, 92bDad, but your personal life events and/or loathings do not allow you to speak for the whole gay community, nor does it trump logic, reason, or scientific evidence. You may have built up homosexuality into something you can assail, the better to define yourself, and to provide you with an "other" you can assign blame to, but while that may be psychologically comforting, it does not make it particularly valid. It also, I would presume, shields you from making actual progress, about actual issues.
{"commentId":1012869,"threadId":"146660","contentId":"939874","authorDomain":"chasing"}
- 3 votes
{"commentId":1006974,"authorDomain":"rawfood"}
This is very scary. I heard this predicted years ago from people smarter than me who were observing the trends.
{"commentId":1006974,"threadId":"146660","contentId":"939874","authorDomain":"rawfood"}
- 2 votes
#15 - Fri Sep 7, 2007 4:47 PM EDT{"commentId":1007884,"authorDomain":"witchofthenorth"}
For the life of me, I don't see what is "scary" - some tiny minority is pushing through for 'rights' that no sane American legislator will ever grant.
How long did blacks and women fight for equal rights? If gay Americans cannot get the same rights as are granted in many other countries, what in the world makes you imagine these people will have any luck?
{"commentId":1007884,"threadId":"146660","contentId":"939874","authorDomain":"witchofthenorth"}
- 1 vote
#16 - Sat Sep 8, 2007 1:35 AM EDT{"commentId":1029824,"authorDomain":"jgprince"}
Respectfully, I disagree with many of you.
Homosexual acts for some is rather a step within the context of sexual addiction.
The "Human" value of worst act is Pedophilia so this is typically placed at the last rung of Sexual Addiction behavior.
No not ALL pedophiles are or have committed a homosexual act.
That being said, the permissive nature of our society continues to tolerate more and more and thus the environment is set up to allow these addicts to endulge in sicker and darker behavior.
Thus you have industries and communities who are so busy fighting for rights that they fail to get down to the issues behind the behavior.
I also through the Pornography industry into this mix with the homosexuality community.
Many if not most or all of the people involved have a pain inside that has not been dealt with. These people are dysfunctional in their own right and as such their denyal and subsequent permisiveness have allowed a community of pedophiles to grow into what we are seeing today.
Yes, many if not most or all of us are sickened to think of a child and an adult having sex, but for some this is how they deal with their dysfunctional lives. They would tell you that they where born this way and that it is natural...they use the same arguments that the homosexual uses.
Not to long ago we as an overall society held a clear boundary in regards to homosexuals, but with the advent and growth of pornography with lesbian and gay scenes and stories, we have numbed ourselves to the reality behind this activity. We have learned to 'Tolerate' this behavior.
Sure this existed before porn, so did pedophilia...but in recent decades they have grown to the point that now people are trying to govern our society into condoning such behavior sighting 'Scientific Reason' behind their behavior.
The reality is that many of these Homosexuals were victims of pedophilia as children and they do not want to deal with this in a recovery context...or they where sexually abused by another child.
It is a harsh reality that very few are willing to deal with in a healthy way, they prefer to take the easy way out and fight for 'Gay rights' and continue to live as a homosexual than to face the reality of whateve abuse they endured by the hands of ...
Please believe me, when I say that I hurt for these addicts, homosexuals and pedophiles...I grieve the very wrongs that they experienced, but I know that they choose this lifestyle. I care for them enough to hold strong to my own personal boundaries by NOT condoning these lifestyle choices.
The choices to participate in a homosexual act or a an act of pedophilia are or should be against the law. As such consequences of breaking the law should be enforced.
Loving someone but not holding a standard is not love, it's being complacent and lazy for lack of a better term.
Now person to person, I will listen and communicate with the individual and help to draw out a solution for them by asking them questions. In this forum environment, I am a bit more liberal to share my opinions directly.
I know that 99% of you will think that I am some crazy lunatic who simply doesn't get it...but for that 1% who reads through this and is looking for an alternative way to live, hopefully this will give them some insight and courage to face the reality of whatever pain is inside and that they will seek help through a safe loving support group.
{"commentId":1029824,"threadId":"146660","contentId":"939874","authorDomain":"jgprince"}
#17 - Mon Sep 17, 2007 9:46 AM EDT{"commentId":1030116,"authorDomain":"spiffie"}
No not ALL pedophiles are or have committed a homosexual act.
There is no classic profile of a sex offender. Studies have shown that most offenders are older men. However, up to 20 percent are adolescents, most of whom were sexually abused themselves.(1) In addition, adult women are offenders of one of every five sexually abused males and of one of every 20 sexually abused females.(5)
Most often, the offender is closely related to the child. Any adult who is in a position of authority (a friend of the parent, a relative, a baby sitter, day care or school personnel, etc.) may sometimes take sexual advantage of a child.(2)
The most common form of sexual abuse involves incest--sexual contact between nonmarried members of a family. Father-daughter and stepfather-daughter incest are the most commonly reported types. Father-daughter incest is used as a model for characterizing the incestuous family in Table 1.(6)
{"commentId":1030116,"threadId":"146660","contentId":"939874","authorDomain":"spiffie"}
- 2 votes
{"commentId":2058956,"authorDomain":"axeman1974"}
I am of the opinion that Pedophilia should never be legalized in the sense that adults should never have sexual contact with anyone, male or female, under the age of 16. However many states do have old laws that go unamended that allow for sexual contact with adults at the age of 14, or lower. I tend to believe that 16 should be the universal norm that any male or female should be allowed by law to engage in sexual contact with whomever they choose regardless of the gender of the partner they should choose. The reasoning for this is, most 16 year olds have had some instruction in human biology and sexual conduct (use of condoms, birth control, and other forms of contraception). The know, by the age of 16, the dangers that are out there in the form of communicable diseases and ways to prevent them. Also, in the modern era, there are more 16 year old females that are seeking out older males because older males have the capability to satisfy them not only sexually, also, emotionally beings that older males have sensitivities in that arena that younger partners may not. This leads to the older partner getting arrested, tried, and sent into some prison for years, or spend years on probation, wear a monitor on the ankle, and be branded a pedophile. All of this because a younger partner made "the first move" On the converse, the Mary Kay Latorneau case is apprapeau when the older person is the one to make the "first move" when both parties were obviously in concent of the act as they had a child together and Mary Kae broke her probation to see her love.
{"commentId":2058956,"threadId":"146660","contentId":"939874","authorDomain":"axeman1974"}
#18 - Thu Jun 26, 2008 5:40 PM EDT{"canLink":false,"threadId":"146660","isPrivate":false}
You're in Easy Mode. If you prefer, you can use XHTML Mode instead. |
As a new user, you may notice a few temporary content restrictions. Click here for more info.
Start Tracking
Stop TrackingCOMPANY STUFF:
LEGAL STUFF:
- © 2005-2009 Newsvine, Inc. |
- Newsvine® is a registered trademark of Newsvine, Inc. |
- Newsvine is a property of
