Born this way

[del]

The difference is a choice between consenting adults

So if I go to a drug dealer and he consents to selling me drugs and I consent to buy them, that is okay?

fine by me.

 

[Avatar4321]

The difference is a choice between consenting adults

So if two people choose to rob a bank, because they are consenting adults, their actions are now good?

are you really this simpleminded?

The question here is are you?

They idea that something somehow becomes right becaues consent is involve simpleminded and illogical. There are alot of things people consent that arent right.

 

[del]

So if two people choose to rob a bank, because they are consenting adults, their actions are now good?

are you really this simpleminded?

The question here is are you?

They idea that something somehow becomes right becaues consent is involve simpleminded and illogical. There are alot of things people consent that arent right.

consensual sex between adults isn't one of them, thumper.

try again

 

[rightwinger]

So if two people choose to rob a bank, because they are consenting adults, their actions are now good?

are you really this simpleminded?

The question here is are you?

They idea that something somehow becomes right becaues consent is involve simpleminded and illogical. There are alot of things people consent that arent right.

No harm, no foul

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Negging you for printing that shit.

Thanking you for the rep.

The whole subject is interesting if you can separate your natural aversion for it from the moral and legal ramifications. It is particularly hard for those that want to pretend there is a difference between being attracted to an adult of either sex and being attracted to a child. The state obviously has a legitimate role in defining some of the behavior, but doctors have to approach the subject from a completely different perspective.

One interesting thing most people probably aren't considering, California currently has a law making it illegal to treat a minor in order to change their sexual orientation. Suppose the parents learn their 15 year son has tendencies toward pedophilia and wants to get him treatment. Would that be illegal under California law? Should it be?

 

[AmyNation]

Negging you for printing that shit.

Thanking you for the rep.

The whole subject is interesting if you can separate your natural aversion for it from the moral and legal ramifications. It is particularly hard for those that want to pretend there is a difference between being attracted to an adult of either sex and being attracted to a child. The state obviously has a legitimate role in defining some of the behavior, but doctors have to approach the subject from a completely different perspective.

One interesting thing most people probably aren't considering, California currently has a law making it illegal to treat a minor in order to change their sexual orientation. Suppose the parents learn their 15 year son has tendencies toward pedophilia and wants to get him treatment. Would that be illegal under California law? Should it be?

This is the stupidest thing I've ever seen you write.

Rape is not a sexual preference, and trying to suggest it is makes you look like a total wacko.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Negging you for printing that shit.

Thanking you for the rep.

The whole subject is interesting if you can separate your natural aversion for it from the moral and legal ramifications. It is particularly hard for those that want to pretend there is a difference between being attracted to an adult of either sex and being attracted to a child. The state obviously has a legitimate role in defining some of the behavior, but doctors have to approach the subject from a completely different perspective.

One interesting thing most people probably aren't considering, California currently has a law making it illegal to treat a minor in order to change their sexual orientation. Suppose the parents learn their 15 year son has tendencies toward pedophilia and wants to get him treatment. Would that be illegal under California law? Should it be?

This is the stupidest thing I've ever seen you write.

Rape is not a sexual preference, and trying to suggest it is makes you look like a total wacko.

I am not going to debate your strawman. I never said rape is a sexual preference, what I said that, if pedophilia is a sexual preference, there is no legitimate medical difference between pedophilia and any other sexual preference one has.

 

[FA_Q2]

Thanking you for the rep.

The whole subject is interesting if you can separate your natural aversion for it from the moral and legal ramifications. It is particularly hard for those that want to pretend there is a difference between being attracted to an adult of either sex and being attracted to a child. The state obviously has a legitimate role in defining some of the behavior, but doctors have to approach the subject from a completely different perspective.

One interesting thing most people probably aren't considering, California currently has a law making it illegal to treat a minor in order to change their sexual orientation. Suppose the parents learn their 15 year son has tendencies toward pedophilia and wants to get him treatment. Would that be illegal under California law? Should it be?

This is the stupidest thing I've ever seen you write.

Rape is not a sexual preference, and trying to suggest it is makes you look like a total wacko.

I am not going to debate your strawman. I never said rape is a sexual preference, what I said that, if pedophilia is a sexual preference, there is no legitimate medical difference between pedophilia and any other sexual preference one has.

Sure but that has no bearing on actions taken by either one. The law in CA is rather inane as though they can actually enforce such drivel. Of course, any ‘treatment’ for being gay has actually been shown to be an adjunct failure.

I would wonder what people would say if there was a successful and noninvasive treatment though. Would the people here be behind treating gays? It goes without saying that consent is a requirement.

 

[L.K.Eder]

ah, windbag logic

 

[Wry Catcher]

Thanking you for the rep.

The whole subject is interesting if you can separate your natural aversion for it from the moral and legal ramifications. It is particularly hard for those that want to pretend there is a difference between being attracted to an adult of either sex and being attracted to a child. The state obviously has a legitimate role in defining some of the behavior, but doctors have to approach the subject from a completely different perspective.

One interesting thing most people probably aren't considering, California currently has a law making it illegal to treat a minor in order to change their sexual orientation. Suppose the parents learn their 15 year son has tendencies toward pedophilia and wants to get him treatment. Would that be illegal under California law? Should it be?

This is the stupidest thing I've ever seen you write.

Rape is not a sexual preference, and trying to suggest it is makes you look like a total wacko.

I am not going to debate your strawman. I never said rape is a sexual preference, what I said that, if pedophilia is a sexual preference, there is no legitimate medical difference between pedophilia and any other sexual preference one has.

There is, pedophilia is a medical (psychiatric) diagnosis (DSM 302,2).

 

[Avatar4321]

No harm, no foul

And how do we determine what is harmful?

 

[del]

No harm, no foul

And how do we determine what is harmful?

lottery

 

[manifold]

No harm, no foul

And how do we determine what is harmful?

Did you get hurt?

No.

So how bout a nice warm cup of shut the fuck up?

 

[Avatar4321]

No harm, no foul

And how do we determine what is harmful?

Did you get hurt?

No.

So how bout a nice warm cup of shut the fuck up?

In other words, you dont know

 

[manifold]

And how do we determine what is harmful?

Did you get hurt?

No.

So how bout a nice warm cup of shut the fuck up?

In other words, you dont know

Wrong.

Did you get hurt?

No you did not. (therefore it is not harmful to you dipshit)

So take that stick up your ass and go read some more bible verses you stupid twat.

 

[rightwinger]

No harm, no foul

And how do we determine what is harmful?

Victimless crimes

 

[Quantum Windbag]

This is the stupidest thing I've ever seen you write.

Rape is not a sexual preference, and trying to suggest it is makes you look like a total wacko.

I am not going to debate your strawman. I never said rape is a sexual preference, what I said that, if pedophilia is a sexual preference, there is no legitimate medical difference between pedophilia and any other sexual preference one has.

There is, pedophilia is a medical (psychiatric) diagnosis (DSM 302,2).

That us based on the same logic that defined homosexuality as a mental disorder.

 

[waltky]

They move to mobile home parks where sorry-assed managers allow `em to move in as long as they got 1st and last month's rent in cash...

How do sexual abusers cover their tracks?
16 October 2012 - As allegations mount against Sir Jimmy Savile, more and more people are asking how he was able to act with apparent impunity. How do predators escape detection?

Jimmy Savile has been described as an expert at "hiding in plain sight". He was the eccentric who seemingly joked openly about his sex life, the knight who surrounded himself with children and spent part of his life living in hospitals. But despite this, Savile's alleged sexual abuses went uninvestigated in his lifetime. Scotland Yard says it is following up 340 lines of inquiry following complaints of abuse and sexual assault by Savile. And yet Savile was hardly a furtive figure, hiding in the shadows. His 1974 autobiography boasts of having taken home an "attractive" runaway from a remand home before he handed her to the police. As columnist Hugo Rifkind observed in The Times: "It was right out there, in plain view, and nobody wanted to see."

In a 2000 BBC interview with Louis Theroux, Savile said he told journalists he didn't like children to put newspapers "off the hunt". Equally, a persona forged on a love of children can be a common disguise for a sexual predator. Journalist Malcolm Gladwell wrote in the New Yorker how former football coach Jerry Sandusky concealed years of grooming and sexual abuse behind his "loveable goofball" personality and a life that was "all about the kids". According to David Wilson, professor of criminology at Birmingham City University and a former prison governor, the allegations against Savile "match the classic profile of a predatory paedophile operating within institutional structures that support their fantasy life".

Not only do such offenders tend to be adept at hiding their crimes, they will often use their social status to deter complaints against them. "Sexual abusers can hide behind their position," says Christiane Sanderson, a counsellor and expert on child sexual abuse. "If someone is in a position of authority, or if they have become a pillar of the community, it is very difficult for victims to come forward. They will be afraid of repercussions and the reprisals in terms of whether they will be believed." Sanderson draws on comparisons with the Catholic Church and the cover-up of sexual abuse in Ireland. "There is a record to say that people did try to come forward and try to actually make some allegations and they were not believed because it was so difficult to believe that somebody with such status, power and authority would abuse this power and sexually abuse," she says.

While academics are keen to stress that there is no stereotype for a sex offender, there are common techniques employed by abusers to cover their tracks. It is often the case that they will draw on their power and position, the fear that their victims have, and the shame and guilt that victims feel. Just as Savile reportedly did, many abusers tell their victims that they will not be believed if they ever tell anyone what has happened to them. "Abusers use a combination of fear and threats, they cover their tracks by telling the victim that it's their fault," says Sarah Nelson, a specialist researcher in childhood sexual abuse, from the University of Edinburgh. "Everyone who has spoken about the Jimmy Savile case talks of feeling ashamed. Abusers are often very clever at making their victims feel complicit, that it was partly their fault." Nelson adds that the careful choice and grooming of the victims is another way in which abusers can attempt to conceal their behaviour. Victims are often vulnerable, handpicked by someone who has a sense of power over them.

More BBC News - How do sexual abusers cover their tracks?