'Paedophilia is natural and normal for males'

[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.

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?

Because biologically at elast, humans are capable of reproducing from the onset of puberty onwards. Further, they're capable of having orgasms from about month 8 in the womb onwards. Further still, when sex isn't stigmatized and negatively stereotyped cultures benefit from such positive depictions. So the longer we put sex off the more we suffer for it because it's paints the picture that sex is bad, unless you're an adult, then it's good. Doesn't take a fully developed brain to see the absurdity of that.

Pleanty of countries having considerably lower ages of consent than we do. And they flourish. They don't exhibit the same rape epidemic behaviuour we have here with existing aoc's, they're far more peaceful, they don't have a criminal justice problem like we do.

Where ever a society stigmatizes sexuality, controls it to excess, and stereotypes sexual behaviours, that society is suffering because of it. US isn't in the top 10 of happiest countries. Happiest country consistently is Denmark. If we wanted our country to be happy, we'd be more like Denmark. If we wanted our country to prosper we'd be more Hong Kong (no. 1 economic freedom.) Instead, we seem to want our country to suck not adopting the policies of countries where their way of doing things are proven to work beter than our's.

It's mind boggling.

 

[JimH52]

It IS horrible how religions have excused pedophilia over the centuries. And it's good to see that as we get farther away from being chained to religion, the age of consent is going up......except in the Bible belt.

Paedophilia is a sick depraved disease. Please don't try to connect legitimate religion with a sick disease.

 

[strollingbones]

well looks who is back....lol...i normally dont care about socks but this is just too amusing.....i wonder if lgs has forgotten she did a thread like this a few months ago

 

[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?

Because biologically at elast, humans are capable of reproducing from the onset of puberty onwards. Further, they're capable of having orgasms from about month 8 in the womb onwards. Further still, when sex isn't stigmatized and negatively stereotyped cultures benefit from such positive depictions. So the longer we put sex off the more we suffer for it because it's paints the picture that sex is bad, unless you're an adult, then it's good. Doesn't take a fully developed brain to see the absurdity of that.

Pleanty of countries having considerably lower ages of consent than we do. And they flourish. They don't exhibit the same rape epidemic behaviuour we have here with existing aoc's, they're far more peaceful, they don't have a criminal justice problem like we do.

Where ever a society stigmatizes sexuality, controls it to excess, and stereotypes sexual behaviours, that society is suffering because of it. US isn't in the top 10 of happiest countries. Happiest country consistently is Denmark. If we wanted our country to be happy, we'd be more like Denmark. If we wanted our country to prosper we'd be more Hong Kong (no. 1 economic freedom.) Instead, we seem to want our country to suck not adopting the policies of countries where their way of doing things are proven to work beter than our's.

It's mind boggling.

I'm not talking about prohibiting "sex." I'm talking about age limits for both involved parties. And you are wrong about your assumptions about other countries. Sweden has one of the HIGHEST rape statistics.

Now, just because a man wants to have sex with a teen, that is NOT a good enough reason to put that teen at risk of being manipulated, coerced, etc. Sorry, but your argument does not hold water.

 

[Delta4Embassy]

It IS horrible how religions have excused pedophilia over the centuries. And it's good to see that as we get farther away from being chained to religion, the age of consent is going up......except in the Bible belt.

Paedophilia is a sick depraved disease. Please don't try to connect legitimate religion with a sick disease.

Pedophilia isn't a disease. You can't catch it from a pedophile. It's a mental disorder.

 

[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?

Because biologically at elast, humans are capable of reproducing from the onset of puberty onwards. Further, they're capable of having orgasms from about month 8 in the womb onwards. Further still, when sex isn't stigmatized and negatively stereotyped cultures benefit from such positive depictions. So the longer we put sex off the more we suffer for it because it's paints the picture that sex is bad, unless you're an adult, then it's good. Doesn't take a fully developed brain to see the absurdity of that.

Pleanty of countries having considerably lower ages of consent than we do. And they flourish. They don't exhibit the same rape epidemic behaviuour we have here with existing aoc's, they're far more peaceful, they don't have a criminal justice problem like we do.

Where ever a society stigmatizes sexuality, controls it to excess, and stereotypes sexual behaviours, that society is suffering because of it. US isn't in the top 10 of happiest countries. Happiest country consistently is Denmark. If we wanted our country to be happy, we'd be more like Denmark. If we wanted our country to prosper we'd be more Hong Kong (no. 1 economic freedom.) Instead, we seem to want our country to suck not adopting the policies of countries where their way of doing things are proven to work beter than our's.

It's mind boggling.

What is ABSURD is you claiming that they are "biologically" capable of having sex. ANYONE is biologically capable of having sex. That is no excuse.

 

[Delta4Embassy]

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?

Because biologically at elast, humans are capable of reproducing from the onset of puberty onwards. Further, they're capable of having orgasms from about month 8 in the womb onwards. Further still, when sex isn't stigmatized and negatively stereotyped cultures benefit from such positive depictions. So the longer we put sex off the more we suffer for it because it's paints the picture that sex is bad, unless you're an adult, then it's good. Doesn't take a fully developed brain to see the absurdity of that.

Pleanty of countries having considerably lower ages of consent than we do. And they flourish. They don't exhibit the same rape epidemic behaviuour we have here with existing aoc's, they're far more peaceful, they don't have a criminal justice problem like we do.

Where ever a society stigmatizes sexuality, controls it to excess, and stereotypes sexual behaviours, that society is suffering because of it. US isn't in the top 10 of happiest countries. Happiest country consistently is Denmark. If we wanted our country to be happy, we'd be more like Denmark. If we wanted our country to prosper we'd be more Hong Kong (no. 1 economic freedom.) Instead, we seem to want our country to suck not adopting the policies of countries where their way of doing things are proven to work beter than our's.

It's mind boggling.

I'm not talking about prohibiting "sex." I'm talking about age limits for both involved parties. And you are wrong about your assumptions about other countries. Sweden has one of the HIGHEST rape statistics.

Now, just because a man wants to have sex with a teen, that is NOT a good enough reason to put that teen at risk of being manipulated, coerced, etc. Sorry, but your argument does not hold water.

Can cite supporting sources for everything, just don't do it everytime since in this case I have in prior threads about it and I know you and others have read them so clearly the sources don't matter.

 

[ChrisL]

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?

Because biologically at elast, humans are capable of reproducing from the onset of puberty onwards. Further, they're capable of having orgasms from about month 8 in the womb onwards. Further still, when sex isn't stigmatized and negatively stereotyped cultures benefit from such positive depictions. So the longer we put sex off the more we suffer for it because it's paints the picture that sex is bad, unless you're an adult, then it's good. Doesn't take a fully developed brain to see the absurdity of that.

Pleanty of countries having considerably lower ages of consent than we do. And they flourish. They don't exhibit the same rape epidemic behaviuour we have here with existing aoc's, they're far more peaceful, they don't have a criminal justice problem like we do.

Where ever a society stigmatizes sexuality, controls it to excess, and stereotypes sexual behaviours, that society is suffering because of it. US isn't in the top 10 of happiest countries. Happiest country consistently is Denmark. If we wanted our country to be happy, we'd be more like Denmark. If we wanted our country to prosper we'd be more Hong Kong (no. 1 economic freedom.) Instead, we seem to want our country to suck not adopting the policies of countries where their way of doing things are proven to work beter than our's.

It's mind boggling.

I'm not talking about prohibiting "sex." I'm talking about age limits for both involved parties. And you are wrong about your assumptions about other countries. Sweden has one of the HIGHEST rape statistics.

Now, just because a man wants to have sex with a teen, that is NOT a good enough reason to put that teen at risk of being manipulated, coerced, etc. Sorry, but your argument does not hold water.

Can cite supporting sources for everything, just don't do it everytime since in this case I have in prior threads about it and I know you and others have read them so clearly the sources don't matter.

That is meaningless. The fact is that teenagers are still children. NO, you cannot have sex with children. They are not prepared for the emotional aspects of an adult physical relationship.

 

[LindaVance826]

Pedophiles are the worse of the worst of sexual predators. They are trying to become an alternate lifestyle in the eyes of the world. They say they are perfect to teach children about sex. Read up on this shit, and always know where your kids are. I hope you take advantage of the police web sites where you live. Convicted molesters are placed in all kinds of neighborhoods, and you can find out if there are pedophiles and other molesters living close by.
Pedophiles are not victims, they turn children into victims. If there ever comes a time when they can be hunted and killed, I will be in line for a license.

 

[Delta4Embassy]

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?

Because biologically at elast, humans are capable of reproducing from the onset of puberty onwards. Further, they're capable of having orgasms from about month 8 in the womb onwards. Further still, when sex isn't stigmatized and negatively stereotyped cultures benefit from such positive depictions. So the longer we put sex off the more we suffer for it because it's paints the picture that sex is bad, unless you're an adult, then it's good. Doesn't take a fully developed brain to see the absurdity of that.

Pleanty of countries having considerably lower ages of consent than we do. And they flourish. They don't exhibit the same rape epidemic behaviuour we have here with existing aoc's, they're far more peaceful, they don't have a criminal justice problem like we do.

Where ever a society stigmatizes sexuality, controls it to excess, and stereotypes sexual behaviours, that society is suffering because of it. US isn't in the top 10 of happiest countries. Happiest country consistently is Denmark. If we wanted our country to be happy, we'd be more like Denmark. If we wanted our country to prosper we'd be more Hong Kong (no. 1 economic freedom.) Instead, we seem to want our country to suck not adopting the policies of countries where their way of doing things are proven to work beter than our's.

It's mind boggling.

What is ABSURD is you claiming that they are "biologically" capable of having sex. ANYONE is biologically capable of having sex. That is no excuse.

Said biologically capable of reproducing beginning at puberty. Either you don't care about the specifics, or you don't understand the difference.

 

[ChrisL]

Pedophiles are the worse of the worst of sexual predators. They are trying to become an alternate lifestyle in the eyes of the world. They say they are perfect to teach children about sex. Read up on this shit, and always know where your kids are. I hope you take advantage of the police web sites where you live. Convicted molesters are placed in all kinds of neighborhoods, and you can find out if there are pedophiles and other molesters living close by.
Pedophiles are not victims, they turn children into victims. If there ever comes a time when they can be hunted and killed, I will be in line for a license.

When my child was young, I always searched the registries to see exactly WHO my neighbors were. That is great advice to every parent with young children and teens. Check the sex offender registry in your area.

 

[ChrisL]

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?

Because biologically at elast, humans are capable of reproducing from the onset of puberty onwards. Further, they're capable of having orgasms from about month 8 in the womb onwards. Further still, when sex isn't stigmatized and negatively stereotyped cultures benefit from such positive depictions. So the longer we put sex off the more we suffer for it because it's paints the picture that sex is bad, unless you're an adult, then it's good. Doesn't take a fully developed brain to see the absurdity of that.

Pleanty of countries having considerably lower ages of consent than we do. And they flourish. They don't exhibit the same rape epidemic behaviuour we have here with existing aoc's, they're far more peaceful, they don't have a criminal justice problem like we do.

Where ever a society stigmatizes sexuality, controls it to excess, and stereotypes sexual behaviours, that society is suffering because of it. US isn't in the top 10 of happiest countries. Happiest country consistently is Denmark. If we wanted our country to be happy, we'd be more like Denmark. If we wanted our country to prosper we'd be more Hong Kong (no. 1 economic freedom.) Instead, we seem to want our country to suck not adopting the policies of countries where their way of doing things are proven to work beter than our's.

It's mind boggling.

What is ABSURD is you claiming that they are "biologically" capable of having sex. ANYONE is biologically capable of having sex. That is no excuse.

Said biologically capable of reproducing beginning at puberty. Either you don't care about the specifics, or you don't understand the difference.

Again . . . that is irrelevant. Physically capable and emotionally capable are TWO different things.

 

[ChrisL]

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?

Because biologically at elast, humans are capable of reproducing from the onset of puberty onwards. Further, they're capable of having orgasms from about month 8 in the womb onwards. Further still, when sex isn't stigmatized and negatively stereotyped cultures benefit from such positive depictions. So the longer we put sex off the more we suffer for it because it's paints the picture that sex is bad, unless you're an adult, then it's good. Doesn't take a fully developed brain to see the absurdity of that.

Pleanty of countries having considerably lower ages of consent than we do. And they flourish. They don't exhibit the same rape epidemic behaviuour we have here with existing aoc's, they're far more peaceful, they don't have a criminal justice problem like we do.

Where ever a society stigmatizes sexuality, controls it to excess, and stereotypes sexual behaviours, that society is suffering because of it. US isn't in the top 10 of happiest countries. Happiest country consistently is Denmark. If we wanted our country to be happy, we'd be more like Denmark. If we wanted our country to prosper we'd be more Hong Kong (no. 1 economic freedom.) Instead, we seem to want our country to suck not adopting the policies of countries where their way of doing things are proven to work beter than our's.

It's mind boggling.

What is ABSURD is you claiming that they are "biologically" capable of having sex. ANYONE is biologically capable of having sex. That is no excuse.

Said biologically capable of reproducing beginning at puberty. Either you don't care about the specifics, or you don't understand the difference.

Some girls start menarche as young as 9 years old. The youngest recorded pregnancy and delivery (via cesarean section) was a 5-year-old Peruvian girl.

 

[Delta4Embassy]

Pedophiles are the worse of the worst of sexual predators. They are trying to become an alternate lifestyle in the eyes of the world. They say they are perfect to teach children about sex. Read up on this shit, and always know where your kids are. I hope you take advantage of the police web sites where you live. Convicted molesters are placed in all kinds of neighborhoods, and you can find out if there are pedophiles and other molesters living close by.
Pedophiles are not victims, they turn children into victims. If there ever comes a time when they can be hunted and killed, I will be in line for a license.

Here in Missouri at least convicted sex offenders are relegated to certian areas as per the "may not live within however far of a school, playground, places where kids congregate' thing. From what I've noticed here in Springfield, that's 2 or 3 apartment complexes. Not familar with them though so assume they're on the "bad side" of town.

 

[Delta4Embassy]

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?

Because biologically at elast, humans are capable of reproducing from the onset of puberty onwards. Further, they're capable of having orgasms from about month 8 in the womb onwards. Further still, when sex isn't stigmatized and negatively stereotyped cultures benefit from such positive depictions. So the longer we put sex off the more we suffer for it because it's paints the picture that sex is bad, unless you're an adult, then it's good. Doesn't take a fully developed brain to see the absurdity of that.

Pleanty of countries having considerably lower ages of consent than we do. And they flourish. They don't exhibit the same rape epidemic behaviuour we have here with existing aoc's, they're far more peaceful, they don't have a criminal justice problem like we do.

Where ever a society stigmatizes sexuality, controls it to excess, and stereotypes sexual behaviours, that society is suffering because of it. US isn't in the top 10 of happiest countries. Happiest country consistently is Denmark. If we wanted our country to be happy, we'd be more like Denmark. If we wanted our country to prosper we'd be more Hong Kong (no. 1 economic freedom.) Instead, we seem to want our country to suck not adopting the policies of countries where their way of doing things are proven to work beter than our's.

It's mind boggling.

What is ABSURD is you claiming that they are "biologically" capable of having sex. ANYONE is biologically capable of having sex. That is no excuse.

Said biologically capable of reproducing beginning at puberty. Either you don't care about the specifics, or you don't understand the difference.

Some girls start menarche as young as 9 years old. The youngest recorded pregnancy and delivery (via cesarean section) was a 5-year-old Peruvian girl.

I'm familar with it. That's precocious puberty. An unusual occurence, not biologically "average."

 

[ChrisL]

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?

Because biologically at elast, humans are capable of reproducing from the onset of puberty onwards. Further, they're capable of having orgasms from about month 8 in the womb onwards. Further still, when sex isn't stigmatized and negatively stereotyped cultures benefit from such positive depictions. So the longer we put sex off the more we suffer for it because it's paints the picture that sex is bad, unless you're an adult, then it's good. Doesn't take a fully developed brain to see the absurdity of that.

Pleanty of countries having considerably lower ages of consent than we do. And they flourish. They don't exhibit the same rape epidemic behaviuour we have here with existing aoc's, they're far more peaceful, they don't have a criminal justice problem like we do.

Where ever a society stigmatizes sexuality, controls it to excess, and stereotypes sexual behaviours, that society is suffering because of it. US isn't in the top 10 of happiest countries. Happiest country consistently is Denmark. If we wanted our country to be happy, we'd be more like Denmark. If we wanted our country to prosper we'd be more Hong Kong (no. 1 economic freedom.) Instead, we seem to want our country to suck not adopting the policies of countries where their way of doing things are proven to work beter than our's.

It's mind boggling.

What is ABSURD is you claiming that they are "biologically" capable of having sex. ANYONE is biologically capable of having sex. That is no excuse.

Said biologically capable of reproducing beginning at puberty. Either you don't care about the specifics, or you don't understand the difference.

Some girls start menarche as young as 9 years old. The youngest recorded pregnancy and delivery (via cesarean section) was a 5-year-old Peruvian girl.

I'm familar with it. That's precocious puberty. An unusual occurence, not biologically "average."

Regardless, there are many girls who start their periods around 9 or 10 years old. That in NO WAY indicates they are ready for a sexual relationship, and especially with an ADULT.

 

[ChrisL]

Pedophiles are the worse of the worst of sexual predators. They are trying to become an alternate lifestyle in the eyes of the world. They say they are perfect to teach children about sex. Read up on this shit, and always know where your kids are. I hope you take advantage of the police web sites where you live. Convicted molesters are placed in all kinds of neighborhoods, and you can find out if there are pedophiles and other molesters living close by.
Pedophiles are not victims, they turn children into victims. If there ever comes a time when they can be hunted and killed, I will be in line for a license.

Here in Missouri at least convicted sex offenders are relegated to certian areas as per the "may not live within however far of a school, playground, places where kids congregate' thing. From what I've noticed here in Springfield, that's 2 or 3 apartment complexes. Not familar with them though so assume they're on the "bad side" of town.

Exactly how it SHOULD be. We need to keep predators AWAY from our children.

 

[Delta4Embassy]

Because biologically at elast, humans are capable of reproducing from the onset of puberty onwards. Further, they're capable of having orgasms from about month 8 in the womb onwards. Further still, when sex isn't stigmatized and negatively stereotyped cultures benefit from such positive depictions. So the longer we put sex off the more we suffer for it because it's paints the picture that sex is bad, unless you're an adult, then it's good. Doesn't take a fully developed brain to see the absurdity of that.

Pleanty of countries having considerably lower ages of consent than we do. And they flourish. They don't exhibit the same rape epidemic behaviuour we have here with existing aoc's, they're far more peaceful, they don't have a criminal justice problem like we do.

Where ever a society stigmatizes sexuality, controls it to excess, and stereotypes sexual behaviours, that society is suffering because of it. US isn't in the top 10 of happiest countries. Happiest country consistently is Denmark. If we wanted our country to be happy, we'd be more like Denmark. If we wanted our country to prosper we'd be more Hong Kong (no. 1 economic freedom.) Instead, we seem to want our country to suck not adopting the policies of countries where their way of doing things are proven to work beter than our's.

It's mind boggling.

What is ABSURD is you claiming that they are "biologically" capable of having sex. ANYONE is biologically capable of having sex. That is no excuse.

Said biologically capable of reproducing beginning at puberty. Either you don't care about the specifics, or you don't understand the difference.

Some girls start menarche as young as 9 years old. The youngest recorded pregnancy and delivery (via cesarean section) was a 5-year-old Peruvian girl.

I'm familar with it. That's precocious puberty. An unusual occurence, not biologically "average."

Regardless, there are many girls who start their periods around 9 or 10 years old. That in NO WAY indicates they are ready for a sexual relationship, and especially with an ADULT.

Didn't say they were. You've already said you don't care about what I did say and the difference doesn't matter. So you're kinda talking to yourself here.

 

[Delta4Embassy]

Pedophiles are the worse of the worst of sexual predators. They are trying to become an alternate lifestyle in the eyes of the world. They say they are perfect to teach children about sex. Read up on this shit, and always know where your kids are. I hope you take advantage of the police web sites where you live. Convicted molesters are placed in all kinds of neighborhoods, and you can find out if there are pedophiles and other molesters living close by.
Pedophiles are not victims, they turn children into victims. If there ever comes a time when they can be hunted and killed, I will be in line for a license.

Here in Missouri at least convicted sex offenders are relegated to certian areas as per the "may not live within however far of a school, playground, places where kids congregate' thing. From what I've noticed here in Springfield, that's 2 or 3 apartment complexes. Not familar with them though so assume they're on the "bad side" of town.

Exactly how it SHOULD be. We need to keep predators AWAY from our children.

What I wonder is do the non-offender people moving in get told, "Hey btw, this apartment isn't within (however many) feet of any place with lots of kids, so all the sex offenders move here."

 

[Delta4Embassy]

Keeping offenders away is good. Preventing offenders by understanding what's going on with them so as to prevent offending is better.