Why do we tolerate "talented" Pedophiles? (compared, state, support)

[TKramar]

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.

He's got a point. Throughout history, women who weren't married by the age of 21 were "old maids" destined to never find a man.

In America's colonial period, women married YOUNG. In fact, even up to the 40's or 50's or so. Loretta Lynn, for example, was married at 13. And in the state of Virginia, a woman can be married--even today--at the age of 12. Is it disgusting? Depends on the age of the groom, I'd suppose. I see less wrong with a 16 year old marrying a 12 year old, than I do a 40-year old marrying someone in his or her early 20s.

Anyone old enough to be MY child (and I'm not having them, but still...) is WAY too young for me. Anyone old enough to be my mother is WAY too old for me.

[Haaziq]

I'd just like to point out if we're going to be throwing stones at people, we should make sure they're doing what we say they are.

Pedophilia by definition is a sexual attraction to prepubescent children. A minor going through puberty is not prepubescent. Pedophiles are attracted to those who are sexually undeveloped. A girl (regardless of age) who has periods does not fit this criteria. A boy (regardless of age) who can ejaculate does not fit this criteria.

Also, age of consent is dictated by society and is not set in stone. 14-year old children getting married was considered normal at one point and is still considered normal in some cultures to this day. And no, not just "by men who wanted to prey on the weak", but everybody.

I was going to add more, but reading this whole thread changed my mind. Too many people are set on forming arguments based on emotions and societal standards that they have declared concrete facts in their own minds. I know there is no getting through to people who use such things as the basis for arguments. It's like somebody arguing "profanity is wrong", but they can't objectively define profanity and/or ignore the fact that what is considered profane changes with different time periods and cultures. It's a lost cause.

[LABART]

Originally Posted by Haaziq

I'd just like to point out if we're going to be throwing stones at people, we should make sure they're doing what we say they are.

Pedophilia by definition is a sexual attraction to prepubescent children. A minor going through puberty is not prepubescent. Pedophiles are attracted to those who are sexually undeveloped. A girl (regardless of age) who has periods does not fit this criteria. A boy (regardless of age) who can ejaculate does not fit this criteria.

Also, age of consent is dictated by society and is not set in stone. 14-year old children getting married was considered normal at one point and is still considered normal in some cultures to this day. And no, not just "by men who wanted to prey on the weak", but everybody.

I was going to add more, but reading this whole thread changed my mind. Too many people are set on forming arguments based on emotions and societal standards that they have declared concrete facts in their own minds. I know there is no getting through to people who use such things as the basis for arguments. It's like somebody arguing "profanity is wrong", but they can't objectively define profanity and/or ignore the fact that what is considered profane changes with different time periods and cultures. It's a lost cause.

I think we have figured out what the definition pedophilia is by now. There have been several posters who have been so nice already to enlighten us.
You yourself say that the age of consent is not set in stone, but then declare others ignorant because they are basing arguments on emotions. It is a very emotional argument that can not be based on one fact. I agree that the age of consent is 14 in some cultures and that the mother have no problem with this because they can not feed their children or they sell them because they have little value.
I think the OP is more concerned that Polaski is getting away with rape, which I know the victim has been payed off and not pursuing conviction. She is also concerned that Allen started dating his wifes adopted daughter. My question is what a beautiful, intelligent girl could see in a sniveling ugly old fart? Love is blind, huh?

[Haaziq]

Originally Posted by LABART

You yourself say that the age of consent is not set in stone, but then declare others ignorant because they are basing arguments on emotions. It is a very emotional argument that can not be based on one fact.

You can't be serious. Please tell me you're just joking. If you think that emotions are a valid basis for arguments, then do you think that people should be convicted for crimes just because people "have a feeling" that they did it, despite a lack of evidence?

[virgode]

Age of consent varies by state, this IMO is one of the biggest problems in definition, what could get a conviction in one state is legal in another.
Absolutely makes no sense.

[NVplumber]

Who revived this thread ?? I just get pi$$ed off all over again going back through it. Whenever the subject of pedophiles comes up there is always a couple wackos jumping out of a tree somewhere to defend the varmints. There is no defense for a pedophile. There is a solution to them, however. It travels at around 900 FPS and weighs in at around 230 grains. Cranial injection works best, but tossing one or two into other parts of the body before working up is OK. Let me be very clear that I am talking about pedophiles, kiddie porn makers and distributors, NAMBLA types and other such vermin. I make NO apology for my position on this. The mere thought of these creeps brings on a violent rage in me.

[jtur88]

Originally Posted by calipoppy

The question is....would you still believe that it is "acceptable" to have sex with a 14 year old boy or girl if you were 20, 30, 40, 50, 60 years old?
.

\
"Acceptable" is a cultural definition, not a physiological one. If your culture says it's not acceptable, then it's not acceptable to your culture. But don't try to convince intelligent people that there is anything wrong with it outside the orthodoxy of the culture that you embrace. There are cultures in which it is acceptable, and you have no right to pass judgment on other cultures than your own. Your culture insists that it is not acceptable for people to have extramarital sex, nor to eat horse or dog meat, nor for a doctor to participate in assisted suicide, and it is acceptable to execute prisoners and to drink alcoholic beverages to the point of inebriation. That does not make any of those things "naturally" right or wrong merely because your culture's priesthood had used those admonitions to scare the daylights out of you with threats of eternal torment..

In a free society, people have a right to voice disagreement with the cultural mores and folkways, which over time are changeable, and do change regularly. Are you going to deny me the right to voice opposition to capital punishment, merely on the basis of your assertion that "what our culture says is "acceptable", is immutably right, and it is either evil of psychotic to say otherwise"?

[calipoppy]

Originally Posted by jtur88

\
"Acceptable" is a cultural definition, not a physiological one. If your culture says it's not acceptable, then it's not acceptable to your culture. But don't try to convince intelligent people that there is anything wrong with it outside the orthodoxy of the culture that you embrace. There are cultures in which it is acceptable, and you have no right to pass judgment on other cultures than your own. Your culture insists that it is not acceptable for people to have extramarital sex, nor to eat horse or dog meat, nor for a doctor to participate in assisted suicide, and it is acceptable to execute prisoners and to drink alcoholic beverages to the point of inebriation. That does not make any of those things "naturally" right or wrong merely because your culture's priesthood had used those admonitions to scare the daylights out of you with threats of eternal torment..

In a free society, people have a right to voice disagreement with the cultural mores and folkways, which over time are changeable, and do change regularly. Are you going to deny me the right to voice opposition to capital punishment, merely on the basis of your assertion that "what our culture says is "acceptable", is immutably right, and it is either evil of psychotic to say otherwise"?

I could care less in what part of the world it happens to be....wrong is wrong. Your argument is ridiculous.

So if it was "acceptable" in "my culture" for me to just come into your home and take a whizz or you sofa, then light the house on fire upon my exit - is that "OK" because it is "acceptable" in "my culture" or would you just call the cops?

Or if "my culture" says that I can murder my husband and bury him in the backyard if he doesn't wash dishes, is that "acceptable"?

What about a culture where they eat babies? Is that OK?

Ridiculous.

[jtur88]

What about the "acceptable" practice in our culture of taking small children and holding them under water and bringing them up screaming in terror, in a bizarre religious ritual? OK?

How come in our culture male circumcision is OK, but not female? One is perfectly natural , and the other the most grotesque of all forms of torture. And that's not culturally-determined acceptability?

Tell me about capital punishment and abortion in the natural order of the universe. Are they acceptable or not? Our society accepts both capital punishment and abortion on demand. Are both "acceptable"? Explain.

What about eating pork? Is that "acceptable" or not. Come on, tell your verdict, so we can settle this matter once and for all. Come on---we can have eternal peace on earth, and end all wars, if you will just tell us what is "acceptable" and what is not.

[virgode]

Originally Posted by calipoppy

ETA: what really is bothersome about several of the responses in this thread is that they are openly attempting to justify sexual access to children with by arguing the minutia of child sexuality.

Seems to be the case in other threads debating pedophiles as well.

I'm just amazed by the "acceptable in other cultures" BS, this is the US, we live by US laws.