Empowering pedophiles & NAMBLA

[Delta4Embassy]

If it's legal in a given locality I think it's legal. Ill-advised, but what I'd do is another matter than what may or may not be legal in a given place.

What I think about things begins and ends with the law. I may have reservations and disagreements about the law, but ultimately I'm sworn to uphold the laws. We don't get to pick and choose which we abide by.

 

[martybegan]

If it's legal in a given locality I think it's legal. Ill-advised, but what I'd do is another matter than what may or may not be legal in a given place.

What I think about things begins and ends with the law. I may have reservations and disagreements about the law, but ultimately I'm sworn to uphold the laws. We don't get to pick and choose which we abide by.

So basically you are the "slippery slope" person the gay rights movement swears does not exist.

 

[Delta4Embassy]

Dunno, not familar with what that implies or entails. I'm not actively involved with any movements or organizations concerned with US issues. Israeli issues yes, US ones, no.

 

[JakeStarkey]

You might well see the day when a child who doesn't want to have sex with an adult is not normal, needs therapy, and counseling to make them more accepting and tolerant.

Baloney. Those that are required by law to report have now expanded to college and university staff too....tho' I dunno why it wasn't mandated for them before now.

Mandatory reporting means if you even have a hint of a whiff of the merest shadow of abuse you must report. This includes teachers and nurses and doctors and ministers and counselors.....professionals in professional contact with children..

If you should have known, as a professional, but ignored obvious signs, you too could be held criminally and civilly liable.

Most professionals report suspicions to their superiors and the school or the office as an institution reports. That protects the professional in many ways.

The tendency is, and has been, more protection for children and more uncovering of abusers.....not less as you falsely claim. People may be wrong when they report; but they are protected when they do.

If people who work with children have nothing to hide then an abuse investigation won't pan out, will it.

Regards from Rosie

All of which can be easily changed. After all what you describe was also how homosexuality was once treated.

Or black equality, or black-white marriage, or female equality.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Anyone who claims pedophilia springs from homosexuality, when in fact pedophiliacs are normally heterosexual, can be ignored as having any relevance to this discussion.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Sex among adults is based on consent and is not criminal.

Children can't consent to sex, which makes adult-child sex criminal.

 

[Delta4Embassy]

Evolution of sexual acceptance wont, I'd think, ever extend to adult-child sexual relationships. Below a certain point, as with pedophilic ages there's just no way to defend or rationalize or legitmize it. A child who hasn't yet begun puberty isn't going to have the desires someone who is will. So science wont help anyone make the case for that ever becomming legal.

But, stranger things have happened. We elected a black guy named Obama President. Woulda lost money if I'd bet on that outcome.

But even older more socially mature countries haven't legalized pedophilia. Holland came close but didn't. The Arab countries almost universally outlaw any non-marital sex so isn't a fair comparison.

 

[Luddly Neddite]

A normal guy, academics say: Sandusky arriving in court last week.

Empowering pedophiles​

By ANNE HENDERSHOTT
Last Updated: 12:38 AM,
January 16, 2013

Attorneys for convicted child sex-abuser Jerry Sandusky last week went to court to get their client’s 30- to 60-year prison sentence overturned, while other Penn State officials may yet escape prosecution for failing to protect young boys from Sandusky. But the real outrage on the child-abuse front is occurring in academia — a drive to redefine pedophilia as innocuous “intergenerational intimacy.”

J. Michael Bailey of Northwestern University last year published a paper in the Archives of Sexual Behavior arguing that “persuasive evidence for the harmfulness of pedophilic relationships does not yet exist.”

The revisionists even argue that efforts to protect children are the real danger. In her 2002 book “Harmful to Minors: The Perils of Protecting Children from Sex” (University of Minnesota Press), Judith Levine offered a “radical, refreshing and long overdue reassessment of how we think and act about children’s and teen’s sexuality.” In interviews, she claimed that, while “we do have to protect children from real dangers, that doesn’t mean protecting some fantasy of their sexual innocence.”

...

The American Psychological Association also helped to define down pedophilia in 1998 when its Psychological Bulletin published “A Meta-analytic Examination of Assumed Properties of Child Sexual Abuse.” The study’s three authors (Bruce Rind, Phillip Tromovitch and Robert Bauserman) suggested that such abuse does not cause harm and recommended that pedophilia should instead be given a “value neutral” label like “adult-child sex.”

NAMBLA quickly posted what it called the “good news” on its Web site, gushing that the “current war on boy-lovers has no basis in science.”

But NAMBLA is hardly the only non-academic enabler of this poisonous nonsense. The ACLU rushed to NAMBLA’s defense against a 2000 federal civil-rights lawsuit. The $200 million wrongful-death suit claimed that writings on NAMBLA’s site caused NAMBLA member Charles Jaynes to torture, rape and murder a 10-year-old Boston boy. The ACLU’s intervention eventually helped persuade the murdered boy’s parents to drop the suit.

And now there are media enablers, too. In the wake of Britain’s outrage over Jimmy Savile, the late BBC mega-star music host who has been accused of sexually abusing “hundreds” of children over the past four decades, the Guardian this month published Jon Henley’s article “Pedophilia: Bringing Dark Desires Into the Light.”

...

Jerry Sandusky?s academic enablers?Anne Hendershott - NYPOST.com

Can't compare to hundreds of years and thousands and thousands of victims of the catholic church.

Anybody care?


`

 

[martybegan]

Anyone who claims pedophilia springs from homosexuality, when in fact pedophiliacs are normally heterosexual, can be ignored as having any relevance to this discussion.

But most of what we are discussing, i.e. the Sandusky case as a prime example, is not true pedophilia. The attraction is to PUBESCENT boys, not pre-pubescent children.

Sandusky is at his base, a homosexual, but one that denies his homosexuality. His sexual development stopped in his adolescence due to his denial of this, and that's where his sexual attraction fixed.

The true pedophiles are all those sick fucks they keep busting in those file sharing groups, for some reason mostly based in Scandinavian countries.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Anyone who claims pedophilia springs from homosexuality, when in fact pedophiliacs are normally heterosexual, can be ignored as having any relevance to this discussion.

But most of what we are discussing, i.e. the Sandusky case as a prime example, is not true pedophilia. The attraction is to PUBESCENT boys, not pre-pubescent children.

Sandusky is at his base, a homosexual, but one that denies his homosexuality. His sexual development stopped in his adolescence due to his denial of this, and that's where his sexual attraction fixed.

The true pedophiles are all those sick fucks they keep busting in those file sharing groups, for some reason mostly based in Scandinavian countries.

You sound like some sick liberal discussing this issue.

 

[martybegan]

Anyone who claims pedophilia springs from homosexuality, when in fact pedophiliacs are normally heterosexual, can be ignored as having any relevance to this discussion.

But most of what we are discussing, i.e. the Sandusky case as a prime example, is not true pedophilia. The attraction is to PUBESCENT boys, not pre-pubescent children.

Sandusky is at his base, a homosexual, but one that denies his homosexuality. His sexual development stopped in his adolescence due to his denial of this, and that's where his sexual attraction fixed.

The true pedophiles are all those sick fucks they keep busting in those file sharing groups, for some reason mostly based in Scandinavian countries.

You sound like some sick liberal discussing this issue.

I sound like someone who realizes the truth about this. Its the same issue the catholic church has, it attracted Pious men who wanted to deny their sexuality in a morally acceptable way, and couldn't resist their physical urges.

In both the Sandusky case and the Church Scandal, the additional crime was the ignorance and the willful cover-up.

It still doesn't change the fact that most of these men in the church were not "pedophiles" but were ehebrophiliacs (post pubescent) or hebephiliacs (pubescent).

 

[JakeStarkey]

But most of what we are discussing, i.e. the Sandusky case as a prime example, is not true pedophilia. The attraction is to PUBESCENT boys, not pre-pubescent children.

Sandusky is at his base, a homosexual, but one that denies his homosexuality. His sexual development stopped in his adolescence due to his denial of this, and that's where his sexual attraction fixed.

The true pedophiles are all those sick fucks they keep busting in those file sharing groups, for some reason mostly based in Scandinavian countries.

You sound like some sick liberal discussing this issue.

I sound like someone who realizes the truth about this. Its the same issue the catholic church has, it attracted Pious men who wanted to deny their sexuality in a morally acceptable way, and couldn't resist their physical urges.

In both the Sandusky case and the Church Scandal, the additional crime was the ignorance and the willful cover-up.

It still doesn't change the fact that most of these men in the church were not "pedophiles" but were ehebrophiliacs (post pubescent) or hebephiliacs (pubescent).

You sound just like a liberal know it all.

 

[martybegan]

You sound like some sick liberal discussing this issue.

I sound like someone who realizes the truth about this. Its the same issue the catholic church has, it attracted Pious men who wanted to deny their sexuality in a morally acceptable way, and couldn't resist their physical urges.

In both the Sandusky case and the Church Scandal, the additional crime was the ignorance and the willful cover-up.

It still doesn't change the fact that most of these men in the church were not "pedophiles" but were ehebrophiliacs (post pubescent) or hebephiliacs (pubescent).

You sound just like a liberal know it all.

Actually I sound like a libertarian strict constructionist that refuses to deny reality, but thanks for playing.

 

[Delta4Embassy]

Instead of mocking people for knowing what they're talking about (pedo vs ephebo vs hebephilia) how about instead those who're still a little fuzzy on the correct terms admit their ignorance, alleviate it listening to those who know the differences, and move on? Why cling to being ignorant?

I don't know much at all about the Sandusky case. Chose not to follow it when breaking preferring more academic discussions than prosecutorial. What I did get though was his partners didn't seem to consent as per the thing about being in a basement with one, his wife upstairs and the boy pleading for help. That's not anything having to do with pedophilia or variations, that's just rape. So tying that to a discussion on a clinical diagnosis of pedophilia is wrong. Rape is about domination, power, and violence, not love, or attraction, or arrested emotional development.

I get that to be watchable news stories sensationalize things blurring distinctions, but in order to have a profitable discussion on such things addressing the correct topic works best. Rape is rape. But if wanting to discuss adult-teen relationships you're not talking about pedophilia nor, if the minor consented (arguements aside) are you talking forcible rape.

 

[FA_Q2]

NOTE: the criminal illness and addiction involved in predatory stalking and also chronic rage etc, CAN BE CURED through spiritual diagnosis and therapy.

Uhhh....right.

There's no such thing as "spiritual diagnosis and therapy". Pedophilia can't be "cured". There hasn't been one successful "curing" of a pedophile, like ever. It's impossible.

It's like trying to "cure" homosexuality through prayer and other unscientific practices, never has been done, never will be.

Therapy in this case wouldn't be used to cure anything, just help manage behavior.

I've seen enough studies and interviews where even the pedophiles will tell you they are incurable.
I'm waiting for the hip music crowd to start belting out catchy tunes begging acceptance because pedophiles were "born that way". Then they can appear at some swanky WH party and spew their filth.

The difference, of course, being that gay's have no victim and pedophiles do.

That is a key difference that makes one just fine and the other a horrendous crime.

 

[FA_Q2]

Just as homosexuality was once illegal, and has now been legalized and whitewashed, as " normal
lifestyle choice" , so now we have pedophiles in academia, trying to whitewash pedophilia, and to
get the American Psychiatric Association to noramlize it, just as they did with homosexuality.

I have seen this all before. What should be done , is the criminalization of homosexaulity, just as
pedophilia is a crime. This man Sandusky is a homosexaul first, and then included pedophilia into
his repitoire. It is the acceptance, and normalization of homosexuality, that is now leading
to people wanting to legalize pedophila. Both acts must be criminalized.Homosexuality , and pedophila
must be made into criminal offenses.

Not all pedophiles are homosexual, however. They prey on girls and boys, or even both.

More importantly, the sex of the victim has NOTHING to do with the sexuality of the perp when talking about pedos.

The idea that because a boy was the victim that means the man was gay is completely incorrect. Pedos are not about the sexual act. It is a sick and demented mind that prays on children.

 

[FA_Q2]

If it's legal in a given locality I think it's legal. Ill-advised, but what I'd do is another matter than what may or may not be legal in a given place.

What I think about things begins and ends with the law. I may have reservations and disagreements about the law, but ultimately I'm sworn to uphold the laws. We don't get to pick and choose which we abide by.

Cop out. This just sounds like you don’t want to face the opposition to what you think the law should be. What do YOU think the AoC should be? That is all that really matters on a message board where the goal is to debate how things should be rather than what they are.

We do not get to pick and choose what laws to enforce but we sure as hell do get to fight for what we think the law should be. AoC should not be this asinine piecemeal approach thought the states. Either you are an adult who can give consent or you are not.

Personally, I think that 18 is a proper AoC. 15 is FAR too young as it is in some localities. By the time you are 18 you have grown sufficiently to be capable of not only making decisions but also living with the ramification of those decisions. Under that age – you should only be messing with those of the same age as you.

 

[gallantwarrior]

Just as homosexuality was once illegal, and has now been legalized and whitewashed, as " normal
lifestyle choice" , so now we have pedophiles in academia, trying to whitewash pedophilia, and to
get the American Psychiatric Association to noramlize it, just as they did with homosexuality.

I have seen this all before. What should be done , is the criminalization of homosexaulity, just as
pedophilia is a crime. This man Sandusky is a homosexaul first, and then included pedophilia into u
his repitoire. It is the acceptance, and normalization of homosexuality, that is now leading
to people wanting to legalize pedophila. Both acts must be criminalized.Homosexuality , and pedophila
must be made into criminal offenses.

Not all pedophiles are homosexual, however. They prey on girls and boys, or even both.

More importantly, the sex of the victim has NOTHING to do with the sexuality of the perp when talking about pedos.

The idea that because a boy was the victim that means the man was gay is completely incorrect. Pedos are not about the sexual act. It is a sick and demented mind that prays on children.

Indeed and agreed.

 

[Delta4Embassy]

If it's legal in a given locality I think it's legal. Ill-advised, but what I'd do is another matter than what may or may not be legal in a given place.

What I think about things begins and ends with the law. I may have reservations and disagreements about the law, but ultimately I'm sworn to uphold the laws. We don't get to pick and choose which we abide by.

Cop out. This just sounds like you don’t want to face the opposition to what you think the law should be. What do YOU think the AoC should be? That is all that really matters on a message board where the goal is to debate how things should be rather than what they are.

We do not get to pick and choose what laws to enforce but we sure as hell do get to fight for what we think the law should be. AoC should not be this asinine piecemeal approach thought the states. Either you are an adult who can give consent or you are not.

Personally, I think that 18 is a proper AoC. 15 is FAR too young as it is in some localities. By the time you are 18 you have grown sufficiently to be capable of not only making decisions but also living with the ramification of those decisions. Under that age – you should only be messing with those of the same age as you.

When we begin puberty, our bodies are producing sex hormones creating the desire for sex within us. Thus, the age of consent for sex (with those also in puberty and within a year or two of yourself) should be about 13 but with parental consent. Without parental consent, 16 is sensible. I realize puberty's onset can occur a great deal earlier than 13, but the first 'teenaged' year seems a good compromise.

Having an arbitraily assigned age to consent to pleasure is in and of itself ludicrous, but sex does carry some life and death implicaitons, and understanding STI to say nothing of making new life bumps the age up a bit. But there's pleanty of young people who understand these concepts and their importance LONG before age 18 as you propose.

For the record, some US states already have the AoC at 15 (New Hampshire,) and here in Missouri, though the AoC is 17, you can marry (with parental consent) at 15 which retroactively lowers the AoC. So lowering it a couple years for those around that age isn't a huge change. My primary desire for such laws is simply giving ultimate authority to parents instead of the state. How it is in many other countries, one higher AoC for without consent, but a lower one if parents do consent. Very sensible I think.

Would also propose eliminating adult charges for juvenile offenders of statutory rape crimes. If an adult's involved fine, but two 12 year-olds consented to sex with one another shouldn't be a criminal matter. Some kind of 'binding arbitration' like thing maybe, but charging one or both with 'statutory rape' is outrageously unfair.

Would like to abolish statutory rape as a crime altogether. If you 'rape' someone, just because they're under the local AoC shouldn't make it a less serious offense. Charge anyone who does with regular forcible rape (which has harsher penalties.) If you have an AoC, though close-in-aged parties are exempted from any kind of criminal charge, anyone not in that category should be charged with full-blown rape.

Very existence of the charge reveals those even under the AoC CAN consent to sex, hence it not being forcible, but statutory rape. Get rid of that and call a spade a spade. If those under an AoC can't legal give consent then all infractions of that age are forcible rape.

 

[FA_Q2]

If it's legal in a given locality I think it's legal. Ill-advised, but what I'd do is another matter than what may or may not be legal in a given place.

What I think about things begins and ends with the law. I may have reservations and disagreements about the law, but ultimately I'm sworn to uphold the laws. We don't get to pick and choose which we abide by.

Cop out. This just sounds like you don’t want to face the opposition to what you think the law should be. What do YOU think the AoC should be? That is all that really matters on a message board where the goal is to debate how things should be rather than what they are.

We do not get to pick and choose what laws to enforce but we sure as hell do get to fight for what we think the law should be. AoC should not be this asinine piecemeal approach thought the states. Either you are an adult who can give consent or you are not.

Personally, I think that 18 is a proper AoC. 15 is FAR too young as it is in some localities. By the time you are 18 you have grown sufficiently to be capable of not only making decisions but also living with the ramification of those decisions. Under that age – you should only be messing with those of the same age as you.

When we begin puberty, our bodies are producing sex hormones creating the desire for sex within us. Thus, the age of consent for sex (with those also in puberty and within a year or two of yourself) should be about 13 but with parental consent. Without parental consent, 16 is sensible. I realize puberty's onset can occur a great deal earlier than 13, but the first 'teenaged' year seems a good compromise.

I would disagree. The entire thing seems rather overly complicated and unnecessary. Parental consent should not even figure in at all tbh. Basically, if two children are playing with each other than that is two children playing with each other. As you voice later in your post, having such illegal is rather asinine. At that point, it is a parental issue and NOT a legal one.

I set the age of 18 as a line that should not be crossed. IOW, you only get to play in your group. I can see that another line might need to be set – a 17 year old with a 12 year old would be just as revolting but if it is tow 12 year old children then that is not a matter for the state.

Having an arbitraily assigned age to consent to pleasure is in and of itself ludicrous, but sex does carry some life and death implicaitons, and understanding STI to say nothing of making new life bumps the age up a bit. But there's pleanty of young people who understand these concepts and their importance LONG before age 18 as you propose.

For the record, some US states already have the AoC at 15 (New Hampshire,) and here in Missouri, though the AoC is 17, you can marry (with parental consent) at 15 which retroactively lowers the AoC. So lowering it a couple years for those around that age isn't a huge change. My primary desire for such laws is simply giving ultimate authority to parents instead of the state. How it is in many other countries, one higher AoC for without consent, but a lower one if parents do consent. Very sensible I think.

I know but I disagree with that tact entirely. You either are or are not an adult and although legal lines in the sand are always problematic they have to be established because that is how law works. There needs to be a point when something is and is not illegal in this instance. Like I said earlier though, I think we are close to the same mind here but arguing different things. For me, the reprehensible act is NOT the sexual behavior – that is a natural part of growth. Instead, the reprehensible act is taking advantage of that by an older individual from one that is too young. Teens are going to be teens but they sure as hell don’t need to be with the 40 year old that is simply trying to take advantage of youthful ignorance.

Would also propose eliminating adult charges for juvenile offenders of statutory rape crimes. If an adult's involved fine, but two 12 year-olds consented to sex with one another shouldn't be a criminal matter. Some kind of 'binding arbitration' like thing maybe, but charging one or both with 'statutory rape' is outrageously unfair.

Agree but I am not sure that is even necessary. The cases where such a thing might happen I imagine are EXTREMELY rare because no jury would convict without obvious evidence of abuse.

This is what jury nullification is about imho. Whether you agree with the concept or not, if a jury thinks that a law is being wrongfully applied they have the ultimate power to acquit. Quite frankly, I don’t think a prosecutor in their right mind would charge a pair of children with statutory rape if they are both minors – the very concept is asinine.

Would like to abolish statutory rape as a crime altogether. If you 'rape' someone, just because they're under the local AoC shouldn't make it a less serious offense. Charge anyone who does with regular forcible rape (which has harsher penalties.) If you have an AoC, though close-in-aged parties are exempted from any kind of criminal charge, anyone not in that category should be charged with full-blown rape.

Very existence of the charge reveals those even under the AoC CAN consent to sex, hence it not being forcible, but statutory rape. Get rid of that and call a spade a spade. If those under an AoC can't legal give consent then all infractions of that age are forcible rape.

Reasonably stated and I can’t argue with the logic but I was under the impression that it was the OPPOSITE case. IOW, statutory rape was a WORSE offence then rape. Not only are you committing the act but you are also doing so to a minor. If that is somehow a lesser crime then forcible rape then yes, they should can the entire idea.

Again, this is where the jury comes into play as well. If it is a 19 year old and a 17 year old I don’t see such an event coming to a conviction because the ‘crime’ would be silly and purposeless. They did nothing wrong.