Pedophilia is not a mental disease.

[_Keno_]

You've just used the Argument from Ignorance fallacy, unfortunately.

"...absence of evidence is not evidence of absence." -Carl Sagan

It would be an argument from ignorance, had it actually been part of any argument. I was just stating that no evidence had been put forth that leaned towards either possible consent or impossible consent. (Ballin ninja'd me).
And no, my premise is not built upon the idea that children can consent, its built upon is not knowing whether or not children can consent. You think that I'm taking the opposing side, when I'm actually taking a neutral stance to it.

The only thing that link shows is that children are harmed during abuse, but isn't that the definition of abuse? I thought we were talking about completely consensual sex.
Lastly, you seem to not be distinguishing between children having sex and child abuse.

 

[Dre89]

Not at all. The BoP lies on the accuser to prove his case that something immoral happened. Things are okay until shown to be wrong, not wrong until shown to be right.

You are allowed to do something until it is shown that what you're doing is wrong, just as you are innocent until proven guilty.

This is just word games. I could easily just say "you are not allowed to do something until it is proven ok". It's just arbitrary. You're just making statements without proving them.

You have to prove or show how something is wrong before it can be judged as wrong.

And you have to show equally that my stance is wrong before it can be judged as wrong....

What you're pretty much saying is "before we have formulated an opinion on the issue, we should be of the opinion that it is ok" which is like saying "until we decide whether the answer is yes or, we should just assume it's yes", yet there is no reason for that all.

Until an argument can be articulated for either side, the act should be considered morally neutral, because neutral, or "on the fence" is the stance of someone who does not yet have an opinion, which is the position we're in at the moment.

If you can't prove that something that doesn't harm others is wrong, then there is nothing wrong with it.

Is that justification enough?

No. The fact you think it's so simple shows the influence of modern culture on your thinking. That viewpoint most originiated from the Enlightenment Period, it's not some universal stance that's ingrained in our biology or something like that.

 

[ballin4life]

Dre what point are you making?

He thinks it is ok because it doesn't harm anyone else.

What is your position?

I mean, it seems like you are asking him to prove his moral system and solve the is-ought problem.

 

[Sucumbio]

It would be an argument from ignorance, had it actually been part of any argument. I was just stating that no evidence had been put forth that leaned towards either possible consent or impossible consent.

While children may be able to give consent, a more complex question applies in terms of informed consent: whether children are developmentally and otherwise able to give informed consent, in particular to an adult, bearing in mind power relationships, maturity, experience and mental development. For this and other reasons most states have an age of consent under which a child is deemed unable to give consent. As evaluation of maturity, mental maturity, child development, child communication, and child intelligence are further explored, this may be based on psychological and medical evaluation of status for sexual activity instead of chronological age. -source

I mean really, folks why are we even questioning this? This goes back to my first post. You can either accept that psychology and medicine are right or wrong. I honestly don't feel like citing medical journals and case studies going back 130 years, lol. There's no point. It's summarized nicely in any of the links I've provided, which clearly show a child cannot consent to sex, nor should an adult try to get a child to consent. And again we're not talking about simply agreement to have sex. Obviously this is possible. We're talking about informed consent, as defined by the law, something that becomes available to kids as they develop.

And no, my premise is not built upon the idea that children can consent, its built upon is not knowing whether or not children can consent. You think that I'm taking the opposing side, when I'm actually taking a neutral stance to it.

Well now you know! They cannot. Taking a neutral stance in this is frankly lazy. It's like saying you aren't sure whether or not eating cyanide is poisonous or not. There's been ample case studies in both the consumption of poison and the manipulation of children into performing sexual acts. They both result in harm and even death. (refer again to above link showing how a child having sex can die as a result).

you seem to not be distinguishing between children having sex and child abuse.

Finally, you're understanding. A child who is having sex is being abused. If it's two children having sex with each other, that's not the subject at hand. We're talking about an adult and a child. And because of the child's physical developmental stage, the act of intercourse causes bodily harm to the child in the form of tearing, lesions, infections... it causes neurological damage in terms of brain chemistry and growth, and it causes mental harm, in terms of power relationships, trust and ambiguity. It's emotionally damaging, resulting in the need for years of therapy as adults.

Basically your argument boils down to "I'm ignorant about this subject matter so I'm going to take no side and require everyone else to do my homework for me." No, lol. You are quite capable of putting two and two together. It's not a gigantic leap to understand that, medically speaking, kids should not have sex, so if they do, and with an adult, the adult is by default abusing them. Instead of taking the easy way out, why don't you argue against this premise. Tell me how kids having sex is NOT dangerous to the child. Tell me how it's NOT abuse. That's debate. What you're doing now is turning a blind eye to what's being presented and "sticking to your guns" that nothing substantial has been provided. You can't hope to learn anything if you don't follow through and challenge the things that are presented to you.

Oh and "consent" has nothing to do with this tbh. Even though legally a child cannot give informed consent, even if we ignore that (which is ludicrous, because it's a medically influenced law) a child's decision does not suddenly change their physiology thereby making sex safe for them to participate in.

 

[_Keno_]

For this and other reasons most states have an age of consent under which a child is deemed unable to give consent. As evaluation of maturity, mental maturity, child development, child communication, and child intelligence are further explored, this may be based on psychological and medical evaluation of status for sexual activity instead of chronological age.

So what is our huge consensus on AoC? The AoC ranges from 12 to 18 in the United States, why is it that there is such a huge difference in age? The mind of a human changes greatly between 12 and 13, yet it isn't even conclusive whether the age should be near 12 or near 18? Seems like these unprovided reasons are up to a lot of interpretation.

And again we're not talking about simply agreement to have sex. Obviously this is possible. We're talking about informed consent, as defined by the law, something that becomes available to kids as they develop.

What exactly is implied by informed consent in dealing with, lets say, oral sex? Is there anything other than "feeling good temporarily"?

Finally, you're understanding. A child who is having sex is being abused. If it's two children having sex with each other, that's not the subject at hand. We're talking about an adult and a child. And because of the child's physical developmental stage, the act of intercourse causes bodily harm to the child in the form of tearing, lesions, infections... it causes neurological damage in terms of brain chemistry and growth, and it causes mental harm, in terms of power relationships, trust and ambiguity. It's emotionally damaging, resulting in the need for years of therapy as adults.

This paragraph seems to imply that the only type of sex you've ever thought about in this matter is anal or vaginal, which your descriptions may fit. If that is the case, then let us exclude those types. Do other sexual acts cause harm? I cant imagine that any that can.

 

[Dre89]

Ballin- My problem is that he just assumes not harming others= morally permissable, simply because that's the thinking of his times.

Moral assumptions need justification.

 

[A Pimp Named Slickback]

I'd hardly call "not harming others = morally permissable" the thinking of my times.


Very well then, if we are going to argue semantics over definitions, then I will simply use yours.

An act that doesn't harm others cannot be shown to be wrong. If it can be, it is up the accuser to show that it is wrong, as they are the one who is making the claim that something is wrong. The burden of proof lies on the accuser to show that something is wrong, and I assume you only punish actions that are wrong.

 

[Dre89]

It is the thinking of the times, it began in the Enlightenment Period with people like Locke and Mill.

And you just repeated the same argument as before, to which I answered in a previous post.

 

[A Pimp Named Slickback]

If it can be, it is up the accuser to show that it is wrong, as they are the one who is making the claim that something is wrong.

Is this an assumption that you reject? This is the basis for "innocent until proven guilty" my friend. I did not know you were supportive of totalitarian ideals.

 

[Dre89]

That's just word games.

The opposite to "innocent until proven guilty" is "guilty until proven innocent" which would mean we lock a person accused of something away until proven innocent.

The equivalent in morality would be "morally wrong until proven right" which is not what I argued. I argued that we assume an act is morally neutral until an argument is articulated for either side, not that it is assumed wrong until proven right.

The legal equiavlent of assuming moral neautrality (not sure if that is even a word) would be with regards to whether A committed the murder or not. We assert that we do not know whether A committed it or not, until evidence is brought forward for either side.

 

[A Pimp Named Slickback]

There is a difference between neutrality and uncertainty.

Also, if such an act is not "wrong," then why would it be prosecutable? In all this time, you have yet to state your own view. Do you agree that possessing or creating fictional child pornography is prosecutable?

 

[Dre89]

I never said pedophilia or using children, in whatever manner, for sexual gratification is permissable, or should not be punished.

I haven't put my view across because I didn't come here to shove my opinion down everyone's throat. What I took issue with is people just assuming not harming others= moral permissiabilty as self-evident, without prior justification.

I've explained this multiple times in previous posts. I don't have an issue with you asserting that conclusion, I just have an issue with you asserting it without justification, because it is a highly contentious point.

 

[ballin4life]

On "children can't consent"

So why is it that someone that is 17 years old and 364 days cannot consent, yet one day later they can? Does that one day really make a difference? What factors establish whether someone can consent or not?

Dre,

You can't fully justify moral beliefs. Eventually, they come down to a statement that cannot be justified.

 

[A Pimp Named Slickback]

ballin you can say that about any age restriction

it's just an arbitrary age restriction that has to be put SOMEWHERE.

 

[Dragoon Fighter]

ballin you can say that about any age restriction

it's just an arbitrary age restriction that has to be put SOMEWHERE.

http://www.avert.org/age-of-consent.htm It really is kind of arbitrary the only constancy is a number some where above 12 and under 21.

As for my opinion on this matter I really do not have anything that has not already been said. I just thought I would throw this information out there if it has not been already.

 

[Sucumbio]

So what is our huge consensus on AoC? The AoC ranges from 12 to 18 in the United States, why is it that there is such a huge difference in age? The mind of a human changes greatly between 12 and 13, yet it isn't even conclusive whether the age should be near 12 or near 18? Seems like these unprovided reasons are up to a lot of interpretation.

Incorrect. It just so happens that Maine was the last state to have a legal age of less than 15. They're all now 16-18, which is far closer in range than 12-18.

What exactly is implied by informed consent in dealing with, lets say, oral sex? Is there anything other than "feeling good temporarily"?

This is two ideas. Firstly the above sources do not distinguish because any form of sex is dangerous. But that aside, you're still missing the point. There is no such thing as a child who gives informed consent. Informed consent is something that becomes available to children once they've grown past a specific developmental stage. At that point, I'd say sure, they can consent to sex, oral sex, sex with animals, dead people, objects, what-have-you. What age is that? Dunno... 13? 16? 18? It's NOT 5. So there IS a key point in time, but as was mentioned in another thread regarding when a person becomes a person, you have to look at the individual's developmental stage, and assess if they've reached the point in which they can give informed consent. In some super-rare case you may find this in a person who's only actually lived 6 years. Fine. But you're talking about 1 in 1 billion, so it's fairly pointless to think about. It's far more relevant to simply accept that most kids shouldn't have sex with adults, in any form.

This paragraph seems to imply that the only type of sex you've ever thought about in this matter is anal or vaginal, which your descriptions may fit. If that is the case, then let us exclude those types. Do other sexual acts cause harm? I cant imagine that any that can.

See above. Again the damage is going to be caused regardless of sex act. Sexuality in children is a sacred thing, that kids experience -on their own-. Trying to mix adult sexuality with child sexuality is devious, dangerous, and will only lead to suffering.

 

[ballin4life]

ballin you can say that about any age restriction

it's just an arbitrary age restriction that has to be put SOMEWHERE.

Yes, my point was that it is arbitrary. If you use some criteria of "maturity" then different people will satisfy this at different ages.

I also think that 18 is too high in general, especially given the attitude of adolescents today (that they are going to have sex regardless of any age restrictions).

 

[1048576]

Well, you want to make sure as few children have sex as possible, even if that means some adults can't have sex, since a child having sex is much worse than an adult being forced to abstain (since, y'know, its ****.)

Like, there's a bunch of criminals that go free because our laws want to reduce the chance of wrongful conviction as much as possible.

 

[Mike]

@sucumbio: So you agree that children COULD give informed consent to sexual actions, but it is impractical to legalize it because it is such a small population, right?

And I don't see how RESPONSIBLE (consensual) sex with children harms the child in any way (i.e. making sure things fit right, no STDs, etc.). And it can be easily argued that sexuality in children is sacred because society deems it that way. But regardless, if a child viewed sex as sacred, he wouldn't give informed consent until he was ready.

 

[Dre89]

When you say child, what age bracket are you talking about?

I can understand if you're referrring to 13 or 14 upwards, but a 6 year old, even supposing they had the maturity just isn't biologicall yready for sex.

 

[Mike]

I mean even before they hit puberty. What do you mean by biologically ready for sex? They are definitely physically capable. Does it really matter if they are able to orgasm or not as long as they agree to it the whole time?

 

[Fried Ice Cream]

I mean even before they hit puberty. What do you mean by biologically ready for sex? They are definitely physically capable. Does it really matter if they are able to orgasm or not as long as they agree to it the whole time?

Being physically capable of sex doesn't mean if you can orgasm, it also has to be taken into consideration wether the act itself will hurt the child. A grown man having sex with an 11 year old child; I am certain the child is not developed enough to have sex with him without damaging her body.

 

[Mike]

That's why two posts above, i said RESPONSIBLE sex. Part of that means making sure things fit right.

 

[Fried Ice Cream]

EDITED: Yes, this did sounds wrong >_<

 

[Mike]

I'm not sure if you seriously think that refutes my point.

 

[Kanelol]

You're not gonna fit in a ten-year-old.

wow



10wows

 

[Sucumbio]

@sucumbio: So you agree that children COULD give informed consent to sexual actions, but it is impractical to legalize it because it is such a small population, right?

More like, if a person is capable of giving informed consent, then they're not a child anyway, they're just a really young adult. REALLY young. So it's moot. That's my point. A child, cannot give informed consent, because they are physically incapable. Their brains and body have not passed the necessary developmental stage to be an adult, hence why they're called a child (duh). So no, children cannot consent. Ever. They can agree to have sex! But that's NOT the same thing as "giving informed consent" which is what is really at stake, and why there are laws forbidding sex with kids, and why it's called "statutory ****." Automatic ****, in other words.

I will agree with the above poster that 18 seems too old. Most teens are ready for sex, biologically (they won't be damaged permanently), mentally (they won't suffer brain damage)... emotionally? Arguable. And why it's deemed unlawful until such an older age. Main issue here is capability to sustain a family. Teen pregnancy is a drain on resources.

And I don't see how RESPONSIBLE (consensual) sex with children harms the child in any way (i.e. making sure things fit right, no STDs, etc.). And it can be easily argued that sexuality in children is sacred because society deems it that way. But regardless, if a child viewed sex as sacred, he wouldn't give informed consent until he was ready.

This is a horrible argument for one main reason. You've conflated responsible with consensual. They're not the same thing, not even remotely. You can painstakingly take every precaution, use tons of lube, spend months widening the orifice bit at a time, take plenty of measures to ensure the child believes what's happening is safe and okay, etc etc. They're still not giving informed consent. They're still kids, see.

Also the sanctity of child sexuality is in the act itself. A child's sexual exploration is part of the learning experience. Infants masturbate, for example. This does not mean it's right for an adult to practice -adult- sexual behavior with a child. Prepubescent children cannot breed. So an adult having sex with them is doing so only for sexual gratification. The child may think they're getting something out of it too, it may feel good, of course, because that's how sex organs work. But this exchange of good-feeling is not safe for the child. The increase in hormone levels and other natural chemicals released during sexual activity beyond what the child experiences naturally (on their own or with other children) can lead to cancer of the uterus or testicles, neurological damage, emotional scarring, etc.

For sources on any of this information simply refer back to my recent few posts w/Cheap Peach, which explain all of this.

 

[Mike]

More like, if a person is capable of giving informed consent, then they're not a child anyway, they're just a really young adult. REALLY young. So it's moot. That's my point. A child, cannot give informed consent, because they are physically incapable. Their brains and body have not passed the necessary developmental stage to be an adult, hence why they're called a child (duh). So no, children cannot consent. Ever. They can agree to have sex! But that's NOT the same thing as "giving informed consent" which is what is really at stake, and why there are laws forbidding sex with kids, and why it's called "statutory ****." Automatic ****, in other words.

So you are defining a child as someone who cannot give informed consent. Obviously it would then not be okay!

Also the sanctity of child sexuality is in the act itself. A child's sexual exploration is part of the learning experience. Infants masturbate, for example. This does not mean it's right for an adult to practice -adult- sexual behavior with a child. Prepubescent children cannot breed. So an adult having sex with them is doing so only for sexual gratification.

I don't see why this is true. Where is the harm in introducing adult sexual behavior? Why does the child have to learn only alone or with other children? You simply stated this as fact, but you don't explain your reasoning behind it.

The child may think they're getting something out of it too, it may feel good, of course, because that's how sex organs work. But this exchange of good-feeling is not safe for the child. The increase in hormone levels and other natural chemicals released during sexual activity beyond what the child experiences naturally (on their own or with other children) can lead to cancer of the uterus or testicles, neurological damage, emotional scarring, etc.

For sources on any of this information simply refer back to my recent few posts w/Cheap Peach, which explain all of this.

I can't find where in your posts you link to information on the cancer. But the neurological damage and emotional scarring from your link was due to ****, so it doesn't apply here.

 

[Sucumbio]

I don't see why this is true. Where is the harm in introducing adult sexual behavior? Why does the child have to learn only alone or with other children? You simply stated this as fact, but you don't explain your reasoning behind it.

I directed you to the sources from which this information is derived. Interfering with a child's natural development by showing your 5 year old german scat porn is damaging. You're starting to fall down the same path as Cheap Peach. Instead of jumping the gun and looking for a single hole to punch your whole argument through, do some researching of your own and offer ME an alternative to what I've claimed, and sourced. That is debate.

I can't find where in your posts you link to information on the cancer. But the neurological damage and emotional scarring from your link was due to ****, so it doesn't apply here.

**** is automatic, so it does apply. Agreeing to have sex is not equal to giving informed consent. And you have to give informed consent in order for the sex to not be ****.

An adult that has sex with a child is automatically ****** them, and abusing them. This is regardless of what is said or felt between them, on any level. No amount of maturity, understanding, or agreement can erase the prevailing damage that will ensue. If a child somehow doesn't end up damaged in some way, however small, then they weren't a child to begin with, just a really young adult, and that's not what we're talking about in this thread.

And here's some more sources for you:

http://www.2womenshealth.com/05-Chi...d-Sexual-Abuse-Gynaeecological-Conditions.htm

http://www.medicalnewstoday.com/articles/188567.php

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cervical_cancer#Cofactors

Basically you'll find tons of evidence that it's bad, but you'll find little to no evidence that it's good. If you do, please post it, so that I can consider your next post a proper rebuttal.

 

[ballin4life]

I don't understand what you are saying Succumbio.

You seem to be just repeatedly asserting your conclusion.

Also, posting correlated illnesses isn't really a good argument, if that is what you are doing. The matter is one of whether an act is voluntary. It's like saying "ban soda because it gives you illnesses". Well if I voluntarily agree to drink soda anyway, then that's not a good argument for banning soda.

 

[Mike]

I directed you to the sources from which this information is derived. Interfering with a child's natural development by showing your 5 year old german scat porn is damaging. You're starting to fall down the same path as Cheap Peach. Instead of jumping the gun and looking for a single hole to punch your whole argument through, do some researching of your own and offer ME an alternative to what I've claimed, and sourced. That is debate.

In debates, the person making the claim needs to back his statements up. You have not shown me WHY "interfering" with a child's sexual development is harmful to that child (ignoring negative societal influences).

**** is automatic, so it does apply. Agreeing to have sex is not equal to giving informed consent. And you have to give informed consent in order for the sex to not be ****.

An adult that has sex with a child is automatically ****** them, and abusing them. This is regardless of what is said or felt between them, on any level. No amount of maturity, understanding, or agreement can erase the prevailing damage that will ensue. If a child somehow doesn't end up damaged in some way, however small, then they weren't a child to begin with, just a really young adult, and that's not what we're talking about in this thread.

Again, you are simply defining terms for your own convenience! You claim that if one is not damaged by a sexual act, he is not a child. Why should we accept this criterion?

And here's some more sources for you:

http://www.2womenshealth.com/05-Chi...d-Sexual-Abuse-Gynaeecological-Conditions.htm

http://www.medicalnewstoday.com/articles/188567.php

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cervical_cancer#Cofactors

Basically you'll find tons of evidence that it's bad, but you'll find little to no evidence that it's good. If you do, please post it, so that I can consider your next post a proper rebuttal.

All this evidence is for ****. Yes, I'm sure we ALL agree that ****** a child is very harmful to it. But not all sex with children is ****. As long as the adult is makes sure he doesn't physically harm the child and the child voluntarily agrees to (and perhaps enjoy) performing sexual actions with the adult, where is the harm?

 

[Sucumbio]

Sexual abuse happens when an adult or older child uses a younger child for sexual stimulation. -source

Do you see, now, Mike why I seem to be repeating myself? Your idea stems from the assumption that a child isn't limited in some fashion. That they're capable of making healthy informed decisions for themselves. But as you can see from this article, a child need only be involved somehow, not even intercourse, just stimulation, like... if an adult rubs up against a child in public because it feels good, that child has just been sexually abused. You see? I realize it's incredibly broad to look at it this way, but we're not talking specifically about child ****, molestation, incest, or the like. We're talking about all forms of sexuality and sexual encounters between adults and kids, and how it correlates to the mental health of the adult perpetrator.

Again, you are simply defining terms for your own convenience! You claim that if one is not damaged by a sexual act, he is not a child. Why should we accept this criterion?

>.> I'll write it out the long way for you.

If a child person incapable of giving informed consent somehow doesn't end up damaged in some way, however small, then they weren't a child to begin with technically were able to give informed consent, and that's not what we're talking about in this thread (people who are capable of giving informed consent).

Syntactically that's a horrible sentence which is why I didn't write it like that to begin with, but in order for you to understand what I'm saying you'll need to drive it into your head this one simple equation. Child = person who cannot give informed consent. Notice I have not mentioned age here. Child. Not 10 year old, 3 year old, 13 year old. Child. In a court, when the perp is being arraigned for molestation or statutory ****, the question before the court is "was the person able to give informed consent." If the answer is no, then the perp's a pedophile. It just so happens that legally speaking in the US people between the ages of 16-18 can, but lower cannot. I do not necessarily agree with this. I think there are plenty of 14 yo's and maybe even younger that can indeed give informed consent. Can a 6 year old? MAYBE... in a super rare case (as I said earlier). But that's not what we're addressing. We're only talking about people who cannot give informed consent. And you yourself have already agreed with me on this.

"So you are defining a child as someone who cannot give informed consent. Obviously it would then not be okay!" -You

In debates, the person making the claim needs to back his statements up. You have not shown me WHY "interfering" with a child's sexual development is harmful to that child (ignoring negative societal influences).

Okay before I go on any further I am just going to say this one more time. Based on what I just said, a child is someone who cannot give informed consent. Therefore a child who engages in sexuality with an adult is being abused.

I don't know why it's like that. I am not God, I didn't create the human body, lol. Those sources do clearly show what happens to a child when they are molested, *****, sodomized, etc. These are examples of interference. The "why" is in biology. If you cannot see why by reading what I've linked to, I'd suggest asking your doctor for it may be easier to hear it explained than to read through some of those links.

All this evidence is for ****. Yes, I'm sure we ALL agree that ****** a child is very harmful to it. But not all sex with children is ****. As long as the adult is makes sure he doesn't physically harm the child and the child voluntarily agrees to (and perhaps enjoy) performing sexual actions with the adult, where is the harm?

Ta-da. The underlined is the problem with your argument. You used the word "children" see, so... yeah. Wrong. All sex between adults and children is ****. This idea you have that a child can voluntarily agree to have sex completely ignores what I've already established, which is that informed consent is not the same as agreement. As I said earlier, obviously a child can say "sure, lets have sex." But do they REALLY know what they're saying okay too? Coercion of this sort is one of the biggest issues with pedophiles. They spend a great deal of time disarming children to the idea of sex, warming them up to it, convincing them it's okay to keep it a secret, etc. This is the opposite of informed consent. It's trickery.

Now as I said earlier I've spent a great deal of time presenting my case for why adults and -children- (ergo people who cannot give informed consent) should not have sex, and you've technically agreed. So now I'd like for you to show me some evidence that there's a such thing as a child who CAN give informed consent. If you do that, we'll have something more substantial. And in this case I'll retract my assertion that such a person is just not a child to begin with so it's moot. I'll bite for now, and allow the idea to be present that it's possible a person of child-age may somehow have the emotional, mental and physical maturity to be capable of proper consent and to participate in sex without it causing harm, thus not resulting in abuse. (Good luck finding even one example in this that's been documented.)

I don't understand what you are saying Succumbio.

You seem to be just repeatedly asserting your conclusion.

Well hopefully I've spelled it out now to the point that I don't have to keep repeating myself. It's not even that hard a premise to wrap one's head around, and yet it has eluded now two people so far. I think he gets it now though, but we'll see.

Also, posting correlated illnesses isn't really a good argument, if that is what you are doing. The matter is one of whether an act is voluntary. It's like saying "ban soda because it gives you illnesses". Well if I voluntarily agree to drink soda anyway, then that's not a good argument for banning soda.

Eh, not really. Whether or not the act is voluntary is not as important, because it's definitely possible for a child to be convinced to do something, thus making their actions voluntary in the strictest sense. What's really the matter at hand at this point is whether or not there's some form of safe sex with kids, and due to the constraints of legal definitions there's not. Now if we ignore these definitions for a moment, and simply look at a study of say, 100 children ranging in age from 5 - 15 all having sex with adults ranging from ages 18-30, and say for a 3 month period, and none of them forced, but agreed to, and all using safe practices and none of them causing physical pain or harm... how would all those 100 kids turn out?

These links and studies I've pointed out suggest that they'd more than likely still develop mental, emotional or physical illness. I'm sure there's a reason that these definitions have been so carefully constructed so as to make sex between adults and children legally and morally impermissible. But it's not as if the definitions came first. The definitions of "child," "informed consent," "statutory ****" in a legal context were so coined in order to give a vocabulary for the real-world occurrences taking place. It just so happens that I agree with this decision and these definitions, because I trust the science, psychology and studies behind them.

And remember this all goes back to an earlier root premise which is that a pedophile either does or does not suffer from a mental illness. The reason for the last few pages' diatribe on what is and isn't abuse is because the difference between a pedophile and a homosexual is that a homosexual isn't harming anyone with their sexual practice, whereas a pedophile is.

 

[1048576]

Later when the kid grows up he'll be a different person in the head, he'll realize that it was a bad idea, and he'll have traumatic visions of a naked, hairy, greasy old dude convincing him that this is how people show they love each other.

That's how the argument goes anyway. It's better to make sure the child isn't going to be doing any more biological maturing, so the consent bar is set high.

Ooops, epic ninja'd... that was a response to this:

All this evidence is for ****. Yes, I'm sure we ALL agree that ****** a child is very harmful to it. But not all sex with children is ****. As long as the adult is makes sure he doesn't physically harm the child and the child voluntarily agrees to (and perhaps enjoy) performing sexual actions with the adult, where is the harm?

The different-person-in-the-head idea doesn't just apply to sex. US society feels in a lot of areas that adult you should not be held responsible for the actions of child you. Our legal system deletes your criminal record upon turning 18, and many states have laws saying that parents are responsible for any civil damages caused by their children.

 

[ballin4life]

Later when the kid grows up he'll be a different person in the head, he'll realize that it was a bad idea, and he'll have traumatic visions of a naked, hairy, greasy old dude convincing him that this is how people show they love each other.

That's how the argument goes anyway. It's better to make sure the child isn't going to be doing any more biological maturing, so the consent bar is set high.

Yeah I agree with this. But I think it's due to the place that sex has in our society. It's possible to imagine a society where children could have sex without this later trauma.

Succumbio,

Defining words differently from everyone else is not furthering the argument. Mike already said that, given your definition of child, that he agrees with you.

 

[Sucumbio]

Except unlike Dre. I'm not defining the word differently than everyone else, just using the legal vernacular that would of course be the most relevant in cases against pedophiles.

 

[Mike]

There is no discussion if we accept your definition of "child".

 

[Sucumbio]

Well I could have told you that from the get go but it wouldn't have been as poignant if you'd not realized it yourself. You're quite correct, there's really nothing to discuss in terms of the effects of adults having sex with kids. It's clearly documented in cases of ****, molestation, etc. And it's been clearly documented that even if a child has agreed to the sex act, they're still confronted with problems as adults, because it wasn't informed consent, so even if it's not molesting in their mind, it's still molesting. It's still ****.

As far as not being a mental disease, well there's not much to discuss there either. This isn't necessarily because of what I've outlined, however. The real reason it's a silly notion to say that it's not a mental disease is because psychologists and doctors are the ones who said it is, so saying it's not is to basically be jamming your thumbs in your ears while waving your fingers and sticking your tongue out blurting "nyah nyah!" It's akin to trying to tell a football player that what they're playing isn't a sport. Or telling a fire fighter what they're doing isn't fighting fires.

What the OP was really trying to raise with this topic is what is the difference between homosexuality, heterosexuality, and pedophilia?

On the surface the only difference is the object of the person's affection: same-sex, opposite-sex, child. Once you go beyond this things start to break down. Sure, one can leave it at that and go on about their day. But by doing so they're ignoring the fundamental difference between a child and an adult - developmental stage. By introducing adult sexuality during a child's early developmental stages, all kinds of problems occur, whether they manifest themselves right away, after awhile, or years later as adults. This means that there's really no way for a pedophile to elicit sex from a child without harming the child in the process, and this turns their sexual preference from being a viable option.

From a devil's advocate standpoint this could be considered a slippery slope. It's true that homosexuals bare the brand "deviant" in many places, even still in the US depending on who you're talking to (fred phelps for example). And just as much "evidence" has been brought forth by these people to support their claims that homosexuals are monsters. However this is not exactly genuine. The fact is that doctors and other professionals who are sworn to uphold a level of compassion while simultaneously exerting in rigorous form the scientific method, have shown time and again that homosexuality is not dangerous for anyone involved, at least in medical terms. Pedophilia is. Though both homosexuality and pedophilia has drawn scrutiny in lab tests trying to explore the different chemical and neurological makeups of the brains of people in both categories, and differences have been found in both, this is not evidence enough to suggest that they're both okay, because as doctors, it is their job to help establish a normative set of criterion for brain chemistry. As a mental disease, pedophilia can be treated as an abnormality (which I'm sure you'll agree is absolutely the case in society), and so too can treatments be rendered. It just so happens that no effective treatment has been discovered, and so preventative care is the only viable option.

Contrary to Love by Dr. Patrick Carnes, is one of the most fascinating reads on this subject. He's probably the most renowned in work related to sexual abuse, child sexual abuse, sexual addiction and mental health. He also still practices privately and is doctor to a lot of celebrities and VIPs. As it turns out some people who have mild sexual addiction due to childhood molestation respond well to various SSRI's (Selective Serotonin Reuptake Inhibitors) but this is a far cry from helping the deep seeded issues of most pedophiles.

There are dozens of causes of pedophilia in adults. It's not always just "bad brain chemistry." There are things like Lolita Syndrome which normally stems from an obsession at a young age over another person the same age, such as a couple seven year-olds playing doctor. What tends to happen is as they get older, the sufferer will continue to obsess over people the age of the original obsession, rather than progressing normally.

Another cause is hypersexualization, which stems mainly from frequent sexual stimulation. Because the child's sex organs are stimulated beyond normalcy, the child begins to become obsessed, even addicted to sexual actions. The body craves the natural endorphins released during sexual activity, and when absent can result in a depressed state or other neurological disorders.

Then of course there's the obvious results from childhood ****, which often results in repeating patterns, in an attempt to gain a sense of normalcy. This is not unlike "the gene" or other pathologies passed down through generations, and is common among incest pedophilia.

There are quite a few more known causes of pedophilia, but this just highlights some of the more common ones. In essence, it is something that can be avoided. Unlike homosexuality or heterosexuality from which the "wiring" is there from birth, pedophilia is essentially a learned behavior, relying on environment or conditioning to become manifest. Its practice is detrimental to the child for all the reasons aforementioned, and it cannot be practiced even once without risking the health of the child.

 

[Mike]

It was obvious that you presented your stance in a way that can't be countered. "Unable to give informed consent" is NOT the usual definition of child. Child usually refers to physical age rather than mental age. If we accept your definition, there is no debate. It is boring! It should be accepted here by everyone that performing sexual actions on another requires informed consent (in all but the most ridiculous cases we won't consider here), and that **** is harmful to the victim. But if you accept the usual definition of child, there is a lot more to consider and discuss.

 

[Dre89]

Except unlike Dre. I'm not defining the word differently than everyone else, just using the legal vernacular that would of course be the most relevant in cases against pedophiles.

What do I define differently to everyone else?

Also, I want to get this straight. People here think that a day before a kid's 16th birthday, they're not capable of consent, then a day after they are?

People aren't capable of consent because a certain group of people defined an arbitrary age at which it becomes consent?

 

[1048576]

Nobody thinks that. It's different for every person. The reason it's legally set at 18 is because it's too costly for courts to determine whether the person is capable of consent on an individual basis, and it's also too unreliable without bringing in a smorgasbord of psychologists. The bar is set high to minimize type 2 error. Forced abstinence is bad. **** is really bad.