Why do we tolerate "talented" Pedophiles? (regular, solution, abortion)

[jtur88]

My point was not that we should not offer protection to children. My point was that it is hypocritical to protect children, but have no mercy for other people whose various weaknesses and deficiencies make them easy to victimize and exploit. And the hypocrites among you know who I am pointing the finger at.

[DMoon]

Originally Posted by jtur88

That is absolutely not true. Throughout the existence of the human species (and for that matter, all species), right up until a few centuries ago, reproduction began to occur as soon as individuals were capable of conception. Cultures that arrange marriages still, to this day, do it as soon as the girls attain puberty, and have always done so. The young women are perfectly capable, physically, mentally and sexually, of bearing healthy babies and caring for them, and for tens of thousands of years, it has been the norm.

The fact that humans in recent centuries have rationalized artificial, emotional and social barriers to early conception does not mean that the young female human is no longer capable of naturally reproducing normally and successfully.

That is somewhat untrue. Why would you use cultural relativism as a means to justify that just because a child hits puberty they are adult enough to handle pregnancy and sexual relationships with older people. Catamites were considered normal. Would you be comfortable with old men opening a club for the specific purpose of having sex with young boys? That was accepted in Ancient Greece (with parental consent) but it is not accepted now. Same with ritual human sacrifices et al.

Until within the last 50 years, women were in constant danger of dying of childbirth. In addition, the life expectancy was much lower than the 75+ years that western countries now enjoy. In fact, prehistoric humans would live at the most 20-25 years (menopause and andropause was unheard of)and it was often men that outnumbered women due to the fact that so many women died in child birth, were brutally murdered, enslaved, or raped. Even at the turn of the 20th century the life expectancy hovered at around 35-45 years old.

Moreover, hunter gatherer societies often had it so that men who hunted had access to all the food and women were often malnourished based on the bone evidence. As a result malnourished women are less likely to attain puberty until much later. Thus the average age for puberty was 15-16 for both girls and boys for thousands of years until within the last 40-50 years in which now girls are able to reach puberty at younger levels. As it stands the average now is 12-13 years old and that is due to improved nutrition and quality of life. Thus, by the time a young girl reached puberty at 15, she had only about 5 years to reproduce in the hopes that the offspring would survive and often times her male counterpart was within the same age bracket—there was no huge gaps in age. If she died, it was left to the other women of the tribe to care for her offspring.

The huge gaps didn’t become apparent until agrarian and written based civilization such as the Egyptians and Greeks came into the picture and often times it was regulated to the upper and ruling class for obvious reasons. Poor folks were usually closer in age and often times a man simply could not get married unless he had the means to support a wife. Even then a woman’s lot was bleak because of the threat of death at child birth and a lower life expectancy. She may have had many children, but child mortality rates were equally chilling, very few made it past the magical number 5 years to increase the likelihood that they would reach adulthood. Men in ancient times thus outnumbered women for centuries for that very reason as well as the fact that girl children were often abandoned and/or murdered in favor of male children. Women outliving men now is unprecedented in human history, because of advances in medicine and technology that has made it possible for women to bare children without dying, even when you factor in huge wars, disease, and displacement that may have diminished male numbers. The only time child brides (younger than 12 and before puberty) were a cultural tradition were in places like India in which the girl child was married off to someone often times at least 25+ year older than her.

Lastly, children were seen as property by men. They were sold into slavery, used as sex workers, labored in mining camps and treated as objects to be used for those in society, which further cut down on a child’s life expectancy due to abuse, disease, and malnutrition. Therefore I am glad there are supports in place in this country—especially when children make up the bulk of victims in the multi-billion dollar sex trafficking ring as well as the rape stats on girls between the ages of 2-19 are also pretty bad. The laws in place are hardly draconian--since sexual abuse, incest,and rape of children are one of the most underreported crimes in this country. Just look at the adult victims of the catholic church. To deny protections for children just becuase they hit puberty is unconscionable.

[jtur88]

DMoon, everything you say is defensible. But nothing that you said supports this statement by Cushla, which is what my comment addressed:

"children are not ready, mentally or physically for sex at this age."

It may be so that girls of this age are not ideal candidates for marriage and motherhood in today's society. However, they are often perfectly capable of having a fulfilling and satisfying sexual relationship early in puberty. It is not unusual at all for girls that age to initiate sexual relationships themselves, and seek to perpetuate them for their own pleasure. About a third of all American girls state that they voluntarily have their first sexual experience before the age of 14, which certainly does not reflect a physical or mental inability to do so. The age of their partner, obviously, is not a factor in their own physical or mental capacity to express sexuality.

[calipoppy]

Originally Posted by jtur88

DMoon, everything you say is defensible. But nothing that you said supports this statement by Cushla, which is what my comment addressed:

"children are not ready, mentally or physically for sex at this age."

It may be so that girls of this age are not ideal candidates for marriage and motherhood in today's society. However, they are often perfectly capable of having a fulfilling and satisfying sexual relationship early in puberty. It is not unusual at all for girls that age to initiate sexual relationships themselves, and seek to perpetuate them for their own pleasure. About a third of all American girls state that they voluntarily have their first sexual experience before the age of 14, which certainly does not reflect a physical or mental inability to do so. The age of their partner, obviously, is not a factor in their own physical or mental capacity to express sexuality.

Disgusting.

Seriously, is the source your data...NAMBLA?

Why are you advocating so vehemently for the acceptance of children as "fair game" sexual partners for adults?

What I am seeing here is a person attempting to intellectualize their desire to have free sexual access to anyone, no matter the age.

So are 4, 5 and 6 years also initiating sexual relationships, too.

[jtur88]

Originally Posted by calipoppy

Why are you advocating so vehemently for the acceptance of children as "fair game" sexual partners for adults?:

I'm not, and I never said anything from which that could be inferred.

[Bulldogdad]

Originally Posted by calipoppy

Disgusting.

Seriously, is the source your data...NAMBLA?

Why are you advocating so vehemently for the acceptance of children as "fair game" sexual partners for adults?

What I am seeing here is a person attempting to intellectualize their desire to have free sexual access to anyone, no matter the age.

So are 4, 5 and 6 years also initiating sexual relationships, too.

I have daughters and we started talking to them about real life sex not just stay away from perverts, when they got their periods. This is a real issue. jtur88 is stating facts. physiological facts. You cant stick your head in the sand and pretend females physically don't sexually mature before 18. None of my daughters are sexually active (THAT I KNOW OF) as of yet. Pedophilia is a horrible crime against children I agree. I would shoot the nuts off someone who molested my daughters. Well they know how to do that themselves. But to digress while jtur88 comments maybe offensive in how they are presented to you. None the less they are true. You can't deal with a problem unless you are willing to face it's unpleasant and all to repulsive facts. Females and Males are sexually mature before 18. Deal with it. Children have to be taught that delaying the NATURAL impulse to procreate is better left to when mentally and emotionally they are more mature. Are Woody Allen and Polanski sicko's?. You bet.

[DMoon]

Originally Posted by jtur88

DMoon, everything you say is defensible. But nothing that you said supports this statement by Cushla, which is what my comment addressed:

"children are not ready, mentally or physically for sex at this age."

It may be so that girls of this age are not ideal candidates for marriage and motherhood in today's society. However, they are often perfectly capable of having a fulfilling and satisfying sexual relationship early in puberty. It is not unusual at all for girls that age to initiate sexual relationships themselves, and seek to perpetuate them for their own pleasure. About a third of all American girls state that they voluntarily have their first sexual experience before the age of 14, which certainly does not reflect a physical or mental inability to do so. The age of their partner, obviously, is not a factor in their own physical or mental capacity to express sexuality.

No one is denying physical development of pubescent girls or is not being pragmatic to the realities of teens/girls having sex. Biological determinism is clear---however just because they are developed does not give carte blanche for older adults to engage young girls no matter what type of Lolita stunt she may pull to indicate she’s so much more advanced and mature for her age. The evidence that I cited is that throughout human history, even though pubescent girls had the ability to have sex and after menarche have children doesn’t mean that it was prudent, safe, or ethical to do so—even if you factor in biological imperative to produce. In most instances of human history due the short life span and active danger from other humans, simple survival took precedence over worrying about if your genes will carry over to the next generation.

OF course teens can enjoy sex but at what cost. Emotional and mental readiness is a valid observation about pubescent engagement with sex. Brain development for humans actually does not complete until well into our thirties and even then–the middle age brain is constantly rewiring new pathways.. The mental capacities of the teenage brain and ability to make decisions are hampered by the dynamic changes that are occurring. There is enough research out there to indicate that although the frontal loves of adults is well developed—that particular area is still underdeveloped and in fact in a constant state of flux for teenagers—which is the area that governs executive functions and the ability to make informed well thought out decisions. In addition, the amygdala, the seat for deep gut emotions such as fear and hate is far more pronounced in the teen brain then in the adult brain. This indicates that many teenagers will often rely heavily on subjective emotions to guide them in objective decisions. Eventually in the prime of adult years, decision making switches from the amygdala to the frontal lobe in which executive function can assert themselves but the tempest of emotions are quite pronounced in in teens.

As a result STD’s has risen to shocking levels with 1 in 4 teens most likely to be infected with an STD. Teens only make up about 25% of the population that is having sex—yet they are the largest group being infected by STD. Gonorrhea is the highest reported STD followed by Chlamydia, herpes simplex virus type 2 and human papillomavirus (HPV) and there is now a super bug gonorrhea that cannot be neutralized with conventional antibiotics. Teen girls are still the highest risk group to contract an STD—which has been reported to occur usually after their first encounter. U.S. teen pregnancy and birth and STDs rates are considerably higher than most other developed countries.

Therefore for all the information and technology modern teenagers have access to make informed decisions about their health and their body—overwhelmingly teens still choose to endanger their lives even though they are biologically ready to have sex with any and everyone else.

Again, just as abuse is not talked about and children are disproportionally often victims of rape and assault, sexual health is also rarely discussed which makes it less likely that just because a pubescent is able to have sex, doesn’t follow that they should—especially when older adults should know better. Lastly, this is not to indicate that teens are helpless pawns or advocate for a useless, ridiculous abstinence only policy, but they are still foremost children and they deserve protection under the law and the consideration and empathy for adults who should only have their best interests at heart.

[cathy J.]

Originally Posted by calipoppy

Disgusting.

Seriously, is the source your data...NAMBLA?

NAMBLA, the meaning has somewhat changed a bit within the last year or two. Last year when Radio 77 WABC's George Webber was murdered by a 16 year old boy over a gay hook-up gone bad, people were blowing up the forums on the NY Daily News screaming NAMBLA !!! NAMBLA !!! NAMBLA !!! However a huge number of those posters said that every unmarried man over the age of 25 is in "secret" a member of NAMBLA !!! Love to get some of those funny cigarettes these people had to be smoking. UGH !!!


OK to the question "why do we tolerate "talented" pedophiles? Its simple...they are celebrities and way too many people put them on a higher plane. It doesn't matter if we are talking child sexual abuse, murder, drugs, spouse abuse ( remember what happened to Phil Hartman?) petty crime, whatever...regardless how "big" the stars are, there will always be those poor souls out there who will stick up for them and many of them do make it known no matter what because they simply can't/won't accept when these people go bad.

Hell there are still people today who give money to Jim Bakker dispite him spending time in prison. I myself have a co-worker who had the you-know-what to tell us that she wouldn't mind having unprotected sex with Magic Johnson because he is so "hot"....never mind the fact that Magic has HIV. Last night at the supermarket my husband actually saw a grandmother telling her own grandkids that they were "worthless trash" and how Tom Cruise's daughter Suri is "better" then her own kids. Like this woman in West Virginia had actually met Tom Cruise, Katie Holmes, much less Suri.

Some people really need to get a life. The celebrities are just that..celebrites, not members of one extended family.

[calipoppy]

Originally Posted by jtur88

It may be so that girls of this age are not ideal candidates for marriage and motherhood in today's society. However, they are often perfectly capable of having a fulfilling and satisfying sexual relationship early in puberty. It is not unusual at all for girls that age to initiate sexual relationships themselves, and seek to perpetuate them for their own pleasure. About a third of all American girls state that they voluntarily have their first sexual experience before the age of 14, which certainly does not reflect a physical or mental inability to do so. The age of their partner, obviously, is not a factor in their own physical or mental capacity to express sexuality.

You still have not provided any (credible) source for your statements.

I take issue with a grown man implying that young girls are "often perfectly capable of having a fulfilling and satisfying sexual relationship early in puberty. "

Girls can have their first menstrual periods by the age of 10 or 11 (even as early as 9) - are these girls, who have an early onset of puberty, having "fulfilling and satisfying sexual relationships"? Are they really able to fit an active and "fulfilling" sexual relationship in between their school work and playing with their Barbies?

Is an 11 year old really able to deal with the biological, emotional, psychological consequences of having sex - pregnancy, understanding the parameters and dynamics of a relationship, understanding their power (or lack of) within a relationship, the possibility of sexually transmitted diseases, being able to negotiate within the relationship, having the fortitude to make demands or establish boundaries, etc?

I also take issue with the statement "It is not unusual at all for girls that age to initiate sexual relationships themselves, and seek to perpetuate them for their own pleasure." It is very self-serving for those who would view children as viable sexual partners to interpret any type of sexual curiosity as "intiating" a sexual relationship. A girl or boy being curious about the sexual body parts of the opposite sex in natural. What is unnatural is for an older person to take advantage of any type of curiosity for their own sexual gratification and use it as "justification".

[Bulldogdad]

Very true about the famous people though by today's standards. That's what makes that posters argument a dead on arrival. Who cares what the sexual moray's of the past where. You have got to deal with what is accepted by today's standards. But, you can't close your eyes to the truth that females and males become sexually mature before the current age of consent. Once you accept that then you can deal with how to educate and protect them. If you don't underage sex will continue at an alarming rate. Lets not stick our heads in the sand.