'Paedophilia is natural and normal for males'

[saintmichaeldefendthem]

Pretty soon, they'll seek acceptance and demand equal rights.

Then we'll start hearing how bestiality is normal...

Just because the voices in your head are saying that doesn't mean we all will hear it.

It's really no surprise clown car supports raping children. No surprise at all

It doesn't. And that's a disgusting thing to say. Perhaps you can show us some data on how liberals support child molestation otherwise admit that you are full of shit.

I never said "liberals" I said clown car. Keep up

The first time was a gimmie. Reported

MOD EDIT - implying that a person supports child molestation or pedo is no different than implying or accusing them of being pedo in terms of the rules.

Discuss the topic.

Any more of this will be dealt with more strongly.

 

[Coyote]

What the hell is the matter with these people? There is nothing natural and normal about it, it's a mental disorder

'Paedophilia is natural and normal for males'

How some university academics make the case for paedophiles at summer conferences

"Paedophilic interest is natural and normal for human males,” said the presentation. “At least a sizeable minority of normal males would like to have sex with children … Normal males are aroused by children.”

Some yellowing tract from the Seventies or early Eighties, era of abusive celebrities and the infamous PIE, the Paedophile Information Exchange? No. Anonymous commenters on some underground website? No again.

The statement that paedophilia is “natural and normal” was made not three decades ago but last July. It was made not in private but as one of the central claims of an academic presentation delivered, at the invitation of the organisers, to many of the key experts in the field at a conference held by the University of Cambridge.

Other presentations included “Liberating the paedophile: a discursive analysis,” and “Danger and difference: the stakes of hebephilia.”

Hebephilia is the sexual preference for children in early puberty, typically 11 to 14-year-olds.

Paedophilia is natural and normal for males - Telegraph

Pretty soon, they'll seek acceptance and demand equal rights.

Then we'll start hearing how bestiality is normal...

Just because the voices in your head are saying that doesn't mean we all will hear it.

It's really no surprise clown car supports raping children. No surprise at all

It doesn't. And that's a disgusting thing to say. Perhaps you can show us some data on how liberals support child molestation otherwise admit that you are full of shit.

Right now we're at a disadvantage, as is everyone in history who was 2 steps ahead of the curve. What was the saying? If you're one step ahead of everyone, you're considered brilliant, if you're two steps ahead you're considered a nut. It's not that Leftists will immediately start supporting pedo rights, it's that the pedo movement will find purchase among the Left to promote its cause. They will use the exact same playbook, bypassing democracy and gaining power through court decisions that overturn the will of the people. The opposition to pedos will be strong on the Left, but it will lack endurance and soon wither to nothing. This is because the Left lacks the strong moral and religious foundation by which to withstand the incessant march of the armies of depravity.

I don't see that at all. Anyone can use the same playbook, but that doesn't mean they'll be successful - what's being engaged in is a slippery slope fallacy that assumes that all of our child protection laws, consent laws, etc. will be overturned and enough of the public would accept this as well, acceptable.

Defining it as "normal" is one thing. Legalizing it is another.

Here's another example: rape is normal. It's hard wired to a degree as a biological emperative in animals and that includes humans. But we're more civilized than that. We recognize that rape is hugely damaging and we, as a society, no longer look the other way and blame the victim or suggest that "boys will be boys".

So we can accept that some people fantasize about rape, but that doesn't mean we will legalize it.

The key difference between issues like same sex marriage or for that matter polyamy and pedophilia is that only consenting adults are involved.

 

[BULLDOG]

Just because the voices in your head are saying that doesn't mean we all will hear it.

It's really no surprise clown car supports raping children. No surprise at all

It doesn't. And that's a disgusting thing to say. Perhaps you can show us some data on how liberals support child molestation otherwise admit that you are full of shit.

I never said "liberals" I said clown car. Keep up

The first time was a gimmie. Reported

Report all you like. There's no rule against pointing out your support for pedo rights because one does not necessarily need to be a pedophile to support pedophile rights, just like straight people can, and do, support gay rights. Good luck floating your argument that a rule has been broken, ass-clown.

How exactly do you believe I support pedophilia in any way? A disgusting accusation like that deserves a little proof.

 

[Delta4Embassy]

Just because the voices in your head are saying that doesn't mean we all will hear it.

It's really no surprise clown car supports raping children. No surprise at all

It doesn't. And that's a disgusting thing to say. Perhaps you can show us some data on how liberals support child molestation otherwise admit that you are full of shit.

I never said "liberals" I said clown car. Keep up

And what exactly is the clown car? Don't play semantics here (particularly in light of some of your other posts).

If you want to debate, debate. If you want to be some bully I have no interest. I responded to an attempted insult. You misread my comment and now are trying to save face

Ladies! Ladies! If you're going to argue fine. But take off your clothes first. Otherwise it's just annoying.

 

[Coyote]

This is beginning to cross lines folks. No implying or accusing a member of pedo. Period.

 

[ChrisL]

I don't know if you guys realize this, but 150 years ago girls got married between age 9-12 to adult men. Not only was it not frowned upon, it was accepted as normal. My grandmother got married at 13 to a 19 year old. And that was after they dated for 2 years. They were only happily married for about 70 years until he passed away.

I think the problem is we love to label people. You're a this, she's a that, he's a that. Labels are too common in our society. Human beings love to compartmentalize people and things. We like groups. We love to be part of a group and we want to know what groups others are part of. People don't realize that we are the only species on earth that doesn't begin procreation as soon as one becomes a viable fertile female. We put an artificial age on when someone can legally do what mother nature intended. We're also the only species with laws, and some of the laws go against human nature. Do dogs wait years after they are fertile before they mate? How about gorillas? Chimps? Horses? Cows? There is a reason that men could be attracted to children, post pubescent of course. That being that a teen girl has more energy, is likely to create healthier children and can keep up with a house full of kids and raising them. It's not pedophilia, it's biology. Men naturally want to find a healthy young female to carry his children. It's the best for the child. I mean there are doctors that say don't get pregnant much past 30, yet if a child gets pregnant at 17 someone's going to jail. That leaves her 12 years to have kids. The risks go up exponentially with age past 30, with almost no risks for a teen girl. I mean how many times do you hear about a teens pregnancy complications? Almost never. They make the best mothers. Just biology. What normal guy isn't more attracted to an 18yo college girl than a 40yo woman? There is a reason for that. And for most, the attraction doesn't magically turn off if she's under 18.

When you criminalize behavior that was normal just a 100 years ago, you end up with a million people in prison for something that everyone did before. Just like a great number of people are not attracted to same sex partners, a great number of people are not attracted to children. I don't see anything in a 12 year old but if someone else does, that's their business, not mine. People need to worry about themselves before they worry about others.

Hmm. Interesting. Defending pedophilia, eh?

 

[saintmichaeldefendthem]

Pretty soon, they'll seek acceptance and demand equal rights.

Then we'll start hearing how bestiality is normal...

Just because the voices in your head are saying that doesn't mean we all will hear it.

It's really no surprise clown car supports raping children. No surprise at all

It doesn't. And that's a disgusting thing to say. Perhaps you can show us some data on how liberals support child molestation otherwise admit that you are full of shit.

Right now we're at a disadvantage, as is everyone in history who was 2 steps ahead of the curve. What was the saying? If you're one step ahead of everyone, you're considered brilliant, if you're two steps ahead you're considered a nut. It's not that Leftists will immediately start supporting pedo rights, it's that the pedo movement will find purchase among the Left to promote its cause. They will use the exact same playbook, bypassing democracy and gaining power through court decisions that overturn the will of the people. The opposition to pedos will be strong on the Left, but it will lack endurance and soon wither to nothing. This is because the Left lacks the strong moral and religious foundation by which to withstand the incessant march of the armies of depravity.

I don't see that at all. Anyone can use the same playbook, but that doesn't mean they'll be successful - what's being engaged in is a slippery slope fallacy that assumes that all of our child protection laws, consent laws, etc. will be overturned and enough of the public would accept this as well, acceptable.

Defining it as "normal" is one thing. Legalizing it is another.

Here's another example: rape is normal. It's hard wired to a degree as a biological emperative in animals and that includes humans. But we're more civilized than that. We recognize that rape is hugely damaging and we, as a society, no longer look the other way and blame the victim or suggest that "boys will be boys".

So we can accept that some people fantasize about rape, but that doesn't mean we will legalize it.

The key difference between issues like same sex marriage or for that matter polyamy and pedophilia is that only consenting adults are involved.

As I said, I'm at a disadvantage because what I'm predicting has not come true yet and there's insufficient evidence that it will come true. For now, you can write me off as a nut. But that's going to change. Think about how advanced Greek and Roman societies were. Like the United States, they had a senate with elected representatives, welfare and food for the poor, the ability to project power over much of the globe, and multi-culturalism. Yet they were destroyed from inner weakness, both economic and moral. Homosexuality became well accepted and pederasty was the natural next step, boy prostitution. My prognostications are based on history, but most people are so short sited they are not pupils of history as I am.

I'm right in what I'm predicting, but it will take about 2 decades...perhaps much less...for what I'm saying to be evident to all. Until then, I accept the scorn of the ignorant as does everyone in history who was proven correct.

 

[ChrisL]

This is beginning to cross lines folks. No implying or accusing a member of pedo. Period.

I can still point out when someone is "defending" it though, right? That is not implying that they are a pedo, it is just stating a fact.

 

[Delta4Embassy]

Just because the voices in your head are saying that doesn't mean we all will hear it.

It's really no surprise clown car supports raping children. No surprise at all

It doesn't. And that's a disgusting thing to say. Perhaps you can show us some data on how liberals support child molestation otherwise admit that you are full of shit.

Right now we're at a disadvantage, as is everyone in history who was 2 steps ahead of the curve. What was the saying? If you're one step ahead of everyone, you're considered brilliant, if you're two steps ahead you're considered a nut. It's not that Leftists will immediately start supporting pedo rights, it's that the pedo movement will find purchase among the Left to promote its cause. They will use the exact same playbook, bypassing democracy and gaining power through court decisions that overturn the will of the people. The opposition to pedos will be strong on the Left, but it will lack endurance and soon wither to nothing. This is because the Left lacks the strong moral and religious foundation by which to withstand the incessant march of the armies of depravity.

I don't see that at all. Anyone can use the same playbook, but that doesn't mean they'll be successful - what's being engaged in is a slippery slope fallacy that assumes that all of our child protection laws, consent laws, etc. will be overturned and enough of the public would accept this as well, acceptable.

Defining it as "normal" is one thing. Legalizing it is another.

Here's another example: rape is normal. It's hard wired to a degree as a biological emperative in animals and that includes humans. But we're more civilized than that. We recognize that rape is hugely damaging and we, as a society, no longer look the other way and blame the victim or suggest that "boys will be boys".

So we can accept that some people fantasize about rape, but that doesn't mean we will legalize it.

The key difference between issues like same sex marriage or for that matter polyamy and pedophilia is that only consenting adults are involved.

As I said, I'm at a disadvantage because what I'm predicting has not come true yet and there's insufficient evidence that it will come true. For now, you can write me off as a nut. But that's going to change. Think about how advanced Greek and Roman societies were. Like the United States, they had a senate with elected representatives, welfare and food for the poor, the ability to project power over much of the globe, and multi-culturalism. Yet they were destroyed from inner weakness, both economic and moral. Homosexuality became well accepted and pederasty was the natural next step, boy prostitution. My prognostications are based on history, but most people are so short sited they are not pupils of history as I am.

I'm right in what I'm predicting, but it will take about 2 decades...perhaps much less...for what I'm saying to be evident to all. Until then, I accept the scorn of the ignorant as does everyone in history who was proven correct.

Call it a 'prophecy' then. Then people will accept it absent evidence or accuracy.

 

[saintmichaeldefendthem]

It's really no surprise clown car supports raping children. No surprise at all

It doesn't. And that's a disgusting thing to say. Perhaps you can show us some data on how liberals support child molestation otherwise admit that you are full of shit.

I never said "liberals" I said clown car. Keep up

The first time was a gimmie. Reported

Report all you like. There's no rule against pointing out your support for pedo rights because one does not necessarily need to be a pedophile to support pedophile rights, just like straight people can, and do, support gay rights. Good luck floating your argument that a rule has been broken, ass-clown.

How exactly do you believe I support pedophilia in any way? A disgusting accusation like that deserves a little proof.

Because of the rule on this forum, which is like an invisible elephant everyone has to tip toe around, I insist you stop misquoting me. I accused you of supporting pedo rights, not pedophilia. If you're only strategy here is to try to get people in trouble, I'll just follow suit with Sassy and place you on ignore.

 

[ChrisL]

I don't know if you guys realize this, but 150 years ago girls got married between age 9-12 to adult men. Not only was it not frowned upon, it was accepted as normal. My grandmother got married at 13 to a 19 year old. And that was after they dated for 2 years. They were only happily married for about 70 years until he passed away.

I think the problem is we love to label people. You're a this, she's a that, he's a that. Labels are too common in our society. Human beings love to compartmentalize people and things. We like groups. We love to be part of a group and we want to know what groups others are part of. People don't realize that we are the only species on earth that doesn't begin procreation as soon as one becomes a viable fertile female. We put an artificial age on when someone can legally do what mother nature intended. We're also the only species with laws, and some of the laws go against human nature. Do dogs wait years after they are fertile before they mate? How about gorillas? Chimps? Horses? Cows? There is a reason that men could be attracted to children, post pubescent of course. That being that a teen girl has more energy, is likely to create healthier children and can keep up with a house full of kids and raising them. It's not pedophilia, it's biology. Men naturally want to find a healthy young female to carry his children. It's the best for the child. I mean there are doctors that say don't get pregnant much past 30, yet if a child gets pregnant at 17 someone's going to jail. That leaves her 12 years to have kids. The risks go up exponentially with age past 30, with almost no risks for a teen girl. I mean how many times do you hear about a teens pregnancy complications? Almost never. They make the best mothers. Just biology. What normal guy isn't more attracted to an 18yo college girl than a 40yo woman? There is a reason for that. And for most, the attraction doesn't magically turn off if she's under 18.

When you criminalize behavior that was normal just a 100 years ago, you end up with a million people in prison for something that everyone did before. Just like a great number of people are not attracted to same sex partners, a great number of people are not attracted to children. I don't see anything in a 12 year old but if someone else does, that's their business, not mine. People need to worry about themselves before they worry about others.

Was about to say 'nothing he said was factually incorrect.' Unfortunately you went off the rails here,

"There is a reason that men could be attracted to children, post pubescent of course. That being that a teen girl has more energy, is likely to create healthier children and can keep up with a house full of kids and raising them. It's not pedophilia, it's biology. Men naturally want to find a healthy young female to carry his children. It's the best for the child. I mean there are doctors that say don't get pregnant much past 30, yet if a child gets pregnant at 17 someone's going to jail. That leaves her 12 years to have kids. The risks go up exponentially with age past 30, with almost no risks for a teen girl. I mean how many times do you hear about a teens pregnancy complications? Almost never. They make the best mothers. Just biology.

When you criminalize behavior that was normal just a 100 years ago, you end up with a million people in prison for something that everyone did before. Just like a great number of people are not attracted to same sex partners, a great number of people are not attracted to children. I don't see anything in a 12 year old but if someone else does, that's their business, not mine. People need to worry about themselves before they worry about others."

Young women do not have healthier children. That's actually incorrect. Endless variations in health of course, but being younger in and of itself, does not make healthier children.

Incarcerated child sexual abusers often say they thought younger children were healthier and less likely diseased. So I'd wonder if the myth that they make healthier children is related.

Law's the law. As happened in 2008 in Canada they raised their aoc from 14 to 16. Having sex with a 14 year-old (above 18 or 21 or whatever they use) is illegal. Doesn't matter if it used to be legal. Aoc in the US used to be 10. And one state had it at 7. Doesn't make it a good idea just because it was once legal.

Yes we do have to worry about it. It is our responsibility to protect children from potential predators, sexual or otherwise. A 12-year-old, a 14-year-old, a 15-year-old, are CHILDREN in their minds. They are easily coerced, they are naive to the ways of "men", they don't make good decisions, etc. This is just one reason why they cannot legally sign a contract. If they cannot sign a legally binding contract because of their immaturity, then they cannot and should not be married either. Marriage IS a legally binding contract.

Since we've learned the frontal lobes of a teenager's brain do not function to their full potential until a person is into their 20s, then the age of consent should be raised to 18, for sex and marriage, of course with the Romeo and Juliet exceptions.

 

[Coyote]

This is beginning to cross lines folks. No implying or accusing a member of pedo. Period.

I can still point out when someone is "defending" it though, right? That is not implying that they are a pedo, it is just stating a fact.

It's a fine line Chris. It's like porn - we can't always define it, but we know it when we see it. A lot of threads on this topic tend to degenerate into accusations of pedo or supporting child molestation (which in my mind is the same thing). Let's try to discuss the topic and not each other ok?

 

[ChrisL]

This is beginning to cross lines folks. No implying or accusing a member of pedo. Period.

I can still point out when someone is "defending" it though, right? That is not implying that they are a pedo, it is just stating a fact.

It's a fine line Chris. It's like porn - we can't always define it, but we know it when we see it. A lot of threads on this topic tend to degenerate into accusations of pedo or supporting child molestation (which in my mind is the same thing). Let's try to discuss the topic and not each other ok?

OKay.

 

[saintmichaeldefendthem]

Just because the voices in your head are saying that doesn't mean we all will hear it.

It's really no surprise clown car supports raping children. No surprise at all

It doesn't. And that's a disgusting thing to say. Perhaps you can show us some data on how liberals support child molestation otherwise admit that you are full of shit.

I never said "liberals" I said clown car. Keep up

The first time was a gimmie. Reported

MOD EDIT - implying that a person supports child molestation or pedo is no different than implying or accusing them of being pedo in terms of the rules.

Discuss the topic.

Any more of this will be dealt with more strongly.

Then you have made discussion of this topic impossible and I'm going to abandon this thread. If people can't be held accountable for their own words, then no fruitful discussion can be had. Pointing out somebody is supporting pedophile rights is NOT calling them a pedophile because, as I said, one does not need to be a pedophile to support pedo rights. . But if you insist on such a broad, unjustified interpretation of your own rule, then you might as well prohibit all threads of this nature because nobody can guess what the rules are when it goes beyond what's actually stated.

I'm out of here.

 

[SassyIrishLass]

It's really no surprise clown car supports raping children. No surprise at all

It doesn't. And that's a disgusting thing to say. Perhaps you can show us some data on how liberals support child molestation otherwise admit that you are full of shit.

I never said "liberals" I said clown car. Keep up

The first time was a gimmie. Reported

MOD EDIT - implying that a person supports child molestation or pedo is no different than implying or accusing them of being pedo in terms of the rules.

Discuss the topic.

Any more of this will be dealt with more strongly.

Then you have made discussion of this topic impossible and I'm going to abandon this thread. If people can't be held accountable for their own words, then no fruitful discussion can be had. Pointing out somebody is supporting pedophile rights is NOT calling them a pedophile because, as I said, one does not need to be a pedophile to support pedo rights. . But if you insist on such a broad, unjustified interpretation of your own rule, then you might as well prohibit all threads of this nature because nobody can guess what the rules are when it goes beyond what's actually stated.

I'm out of here.

Agreed, I'm out also. This is stupid, if you can't defend your statements then don't make the statement.

 

[Coyote]

It doesn't. And that's a disgusting thing to say. Perhaps you can show us some data on how liberals support child molestation otherwise admit that you are full of shit.

I never said "liberals" I said clown car. Keep up

The first time was a gimmie. Reported

MOD EDIT - implying that a person supports child molestation or pedo is no different than implying or accusing them of being pedo in terms of the rules.

Discuss the topic.

Any more of this will be dealt with more strongly.

Then you have made discussion of this topic impossible and I'm going to abandon this thread. If people can't be held accountable for their own words, then no fruitful discussion can be had. Pointing out somebody is supporting pedophile rights is NOT calling them a pedophile because, as I said, one does not need to be a pedophile to support pedo rights. . But if you insist on such a broad, unjustified interpretation of your own rule, then you might as well prohibit all threads of this nature because nobody can guess what the rules are when it goes beyond what's actually stated.

I'm out of here.

Agreed, I'm out also. This is stupid, if you can't defend your statements then don't make the statement.

Bulldog has 6 posts in this thread, none of which appear to support pedophiles or their rights to do their acts.

 

[Delta4Embassy]

I don't know if you guys realize this, but 150 years ago girls got married between age 9-12 to adult men. Not only was it not frowned upon, it was accepted as normal. My grandmother got married at 13 to a 19 year old. And that was after they dated for 2 years. They were only happily married for about 70 years until he passed away.

I think the problem is we love to label people. You're a this, she's a that, he's a that. Labels are too common in our society. Human beings love to compartmentalize people and things. We like groups. We love to be part of a group and we want to know what groups others are part of. People don't realize that we are the only species on earth that doesn't begin procreation as soon as one becomes a viable fertile female. We put an artificial age on when someone can legally do what mother nature intended. We're also the only species with laws, and some of the laws go against human nature. Do dogs wait years after they are fertile before they mate? How about gorillas? Chimps? Horses? Cows? There is a reason that men could be attracted to children, post pubescent of course. That being that a teen girl has more energy, is likely to create healthier children and can keep up with a house full of kids and raising them. It's not pedophilia, it's biology. Men naturally want to find a healthy young female to carry his children. It's the best for the child. I mean there are doctors that say don't get pregnant much past 30, yet if a child gets pregnant at 17 someone's going to jail. That leaves her 12 years to have kids. The risks go up exponentially with age past 30, with almost no risks for a teen girl. I mean how many times do you hear about a teens pregnancy complications? Almost never. They make the best mothers. Just biology. What normal guy isn't more attracted to an 18yo college girl than a 40yo woman? There is a reason for that. And for most, the attraction doesn't magically turn off if she's under 18.

When you criminalize behavior that was normal just a 100 years ago, you end up with a million people in prison for something that everyone did before. Just like a great number of people are not attracted to same sex partners, a great number of people are not attracted to children. I don't see anything in a 12 year old but if someone else does, that's their business, not mine. People need to worry about themselves before they worry about others.

Was about to say 'nothing he said was factually incorrect.' Unfortunately you went off the rails here,

"There is a reason that men could be attracted to children, post pubescent of course. That being that a teen girl has more energy, is likely to create healthier children and can keep up with a house full of kids and raising them. It's not pedophilia, it's biology. Men naturally want to find a healthy young female to carry his children. It's the best for the child. I mean there are doctors that say don't get pregnant much past 30, yet if a child gets pregnant at 17 someone's going to jail. That leaves her 12 years to have kids. The risks go up exponentially with age past 30, with almost no risks for a teen girl. I mean how many times do you hear about a teens pregnancy complications? Almost never. They make the best mothers. Just biology.

When you criminalize behavior that was normal just a 100 years ago, you end up with a million people in prison for something that everyone did before. Just like a great number of people are not attracted to same sex partners, a great number of people are not attracted to children. I don't see anything in a 12 year old but if someone else does, that's their business, not mine. People need to worry about themselves before they worry about others."

Young women do not have healthier children. That's actually incorrect. Endless variations in health of course, but being younger in and of itself, does not make healthier children.

Incarcerated child sexual abusers often say they thought younger children were healthier and less likely diseased. So I'd wonder if the myth that they make healthier children is related.

Law's the law. As happened in 2008 in Canada they raised their aoc from 14 to 16. Having sex with a 14 year-old (above 18 or 21 or whatever they use) is illegal. Doesn't matter if it used to be legal. Aoc in the US used to be 10. And one state had it at 7. Doesn't make it a good idea just because it was once legal.

Yes we do have to worry about it. It is our responsibility to protect children from potential predators, sexual or otherwise. A 12-year-old, a 14-year-old, a 15-year-old, are CHILDREN in their minds. They are easily coerced, they are naive to the ways of "men", they don't make good decisions, etc. This is just one reason why they cannot legally sign a contract. If they cannot sign a legally binding contract because of their immaturity, then they cannot and should not be married either. Marriage IS a legally binding contract.

Since we've learned the frontal lobes of a teenager's brain do not function to their full potential until a person is into their 20s, then the age of consent should be raised to 18, for sex and marriage, of course with the Romeo and Juliet exceptions.

While it's true our brains don't finish developing until our mid-20s, it's a bad reason to dramatically raise the age of consent. What about driving and military service then? Both pretty major decisions but if we don't let kids have sex until 25 or so why on earth would we let them drive a two-ton motor vehicle or shoot guns at other people? To say nothing of voting.

What we should do is at the least, and in the short-term, unify the US ages of consent. Then spend some imaginary money (all money's imaginary hehe) and study the decision-making processes of various ages of people to see if there's any empiricism behind whether such n such an age can make "good decisions" or if by virtue of the age they're neurologically incapable. Then come up with an age of consent that's consistent with scientific reality.

 

[SassyIrishLass]

I never said "liberals" I said clown car. Keep up

The first time was a gimmie. Reported

MOD EDIT - implying that a person supports child molestation or pedo is no different than implying or accusing them of being pedo in terms of the rules.

Discuss the topic.

Any more of this will be dealt with more strongly.

Then you have made discussion of this topic impossible and I'm going to abandon this thread. If people can't be held accountable for their own words, then no fruitful discussion can be had. Pointing out somebody is supporting pedophile rights is NOT calling them a pedophile because, as I said, one does not need to be a pedophile to support pedo rights. . But if you insist on such a broad, unjustified interpretation of your own rule, then you might as well prohibit all threads of this nature because nobody can guess what the rules are when it goes beyond what's actually stated.

I'm out of here.

Agreed, I'm out also. This is stupid, if you can't defend your statements then don't make the statement.

Bulldog has 6 posts in this thread, none of which appear to support pedophiles or their rights to do their acts.

Whatever, I'm out. Your "rule" makes it impossible to continue the discussion. Have a great day

 

[Delta4Embassy]

Rules only inhibit the trolls from what I've seen. If you can't discuss subjects like this without becomming frustrated and resorting to unfounded statements, find another thread.

 

[ChrisL]

I don't know if you guys realize this, but 150 years ago girls got married between age 9-12 to adult men. Not only was it not frowned upon, it was accepted as normal. My grandmother got married at 13 to a 19 year old. And that was after they dated for 2 years. They were only happily married for about 70 years until he passed away.

I think the problem is we love to label people. You're a this, she's a that, he's a that. Labels are too common in our society. Human beings love to compartmentalize people and things. We like groups. We love to be part of a group and we want to know what groups others are part of. People don't realize that we are the only species on earth that doesn't begin procreation as soon as one becomes a viable fertile female. We put an artificial age on when someone can legally do what mother nature intended. We're also the only species with laws, and some of the laws go against human nature. Do dogs wait years after they are fertile before they mate? How about gorillas? Chimps? Horses? Cows? There is a reason that men could be attracted to children, post pubescent of course. That being that a teen girl has more energy, is likely to create healthier children and can keep up with a house full of kids and raising them. It's not pedophilia, it's biology. Men naturally want to find a healthy young female to carry his children. It's the best for the child. I mean there are doctors that say don't get pregnant much past 30, yet if a child gets pregnant at 17 someone's going to jail. That leaves her 12 years to have kids. The risks go up exponentially with age past 30, with almost no risks for a teen girl. I mean how many times do you hear about a teens pregnancy complications? Almost never. They make the best mothers. Just biology. What normal guy isn't more attracted to an 18yo college girl than a 40yo woman? There is a reason for that. And for most, the attraction doesn't magically turn off if she's under 18.

When you criminalize behavior that was normal just a 100 years ago, you end up with a million people in prison for something that everyone did before. Just like a great number of people are not attracted to same sex partners, a great number of people are not attracted to children. I don't see anything in a 12 year old but if someone else does, that's their business, not mine. People need to worry about themselves before they worry about others.

Was about to say 'nothing he said was factually incorrect.' Unfortunately you went off the rails here,

"There is a reason that men could be attracted to children, post pubescent of course. That being that a teen girl has more energy, is likely to create healthier children and can keep up with a house full of kids and raising them. It's not pedophilia, it's biology. Men naturally want to find a healthy young female to carry his children. It's the best for the child. I mean there are doctors that say don't get pregnant much past 30, yet if a child gets pregnant at 17 someone's going to jail. That leaves her 12 years to have kids. The risks go up exponentially with age past 30, with almost no risks for a teen girl. I mean how many times do you hear about a teens pregnancy complications? Almost never. They make the best mothers. Just biology.

When you criminalize behavior that was normal just a 100 years ago, you end up with a million people in prison for something that everyone did before. Just like a great number of people are not attracted to same sex partners, a great number of people are not attracted to children. I don't see anything in a 12 year old but if someone else does, that's their business, not mine. People need to worry about themselves before they worry about others."

Young women do not have healthier children. That's actually incorrect. Endless variations in health of course, but being younger in and of itself, does not make healthier children.

Incarcerated child sexual abusers often say they thought younger children were healthier and less likely diseased. So I'd wonder if the myth that they make healthier children is related.

Law's the law. As happened in 2008 in Canada they raised their aoc from 14 to 16. Having sex with a 14 year-old (above 18 or 21 or whatever they use) is illegal. Doesn't matter if it used to be legal. Aoc in the US used to be 10. And one state had it at 7. Doesn't make it a good idea just because it was once legal.

Yes we do have to worry about it. It is our responsibility to protect children from potential predators, sexual or otherwise. A 12-year-old, a 14-year-old, a 15-year-old, are CHILDREN in their minds. They are easily coerced, they are naive to the ways of "men", they don't make good decisions, etc. This is just one reason why they cannot legally sign a contract. If they cannot sign a legally binding contract because of their immaturity, then they cannot and should not be married either. Marriage IS a legally binding contract.

Since we've learned the frontal lobes of a teenager's brain do not function to their full potential until a person is into their 20s, then the age of consent should be raised to 18, for sex and marriage, of course with the Romeo and Juliet exceptions.

While it's true our brains don't finish developing until our mid-20s, it's a bad reason to dramatically raise the age of consent. What about driving and military service then? Both pretty major decisions but if we don't let kids have sex until 25 or so why on earth would we let them drive a two-ton motor vehicle or shoot guns at other people? To say nothing of voting.

What we should do is at the least, and in the short-term, unify the US ages of consent. Then spend some imaginary money (all money's imaginary hehe) and study the decision-making processes of various ages of people to see if there's any empiricism behind whether such n such an age can make "good decisions" or if by virtue of the age they're neurologically incapable. Then come up with an age of consent that's consistent with scientific reality.

Let's take a look at some of your claims. For one thing, everyone KNOWS why the military pursues 17 year old children. Because they have no fear. This is directly related to the frontal lobe development. Remember being a teen and thinking "that wouldn't happen to ME?" Yeah, I'm sure you do.

Driving. Teens driving make up only about 10% of the entire driving population, yet they are responsible for more than 30% of all car accidents. Hmm. Interesting, right?

The age of consent should be 18 across the board, perhaps even federally mandated. And it should be an automatic felony if one breaks that law (not sure if it already isn't - if not then it should be).

Now, WHY would you object to the age of 18 for age of consent? Any GOOD reasons?