Why do we tolerate "talented" Pedophiles? (stats, Canada, crimes)
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
You agree that it's not that simple, and then you immediately jump right back in and tell me that you know what motivated him to do what he did.
Of course, it would have been perfectly OK, in your estimation, for Soon Yi to have married a wealthy man her own age as an "arrangement" in order to receive all those lavish perks, but the lavish perks themselves become the reason for denying her the discretion to marry an older man. I don't understand your logic there.
None of it was "OK".
It was not OK for Woody Allen to start a sexual realtionship with his girlfriend's underaged daughter (who was also his children's sister)
It was not OK for Woody Allen (older man) to manipulate a young girl then "clean it up" simply because they get married later
It was not OK for an older man (Woody) to destroy his family by sexually pursing a child (his children's sister)
Its not OK that all of this is justified by some simply because they are still "together" especially when these people ignore the existence of a sick, codependent energy that surrounds this "couple".
Its all so very immoral. And yes, I am judging them.
An interview with Woody Allen reveals just how callous he was/is regarding placing his sexual desires above all else. The Heart Wants What It Wants - TIME
This is the type of lack of control that so many child molesters and sexual deviants exhibit.
Its all so very immoral. And yes, I am judging them.
This is the type of lack of control that so many child molesters and sexual deviants exhibit.
Well, I guess our disagreement is that you think it is OK to assassinate the character of a man you don't know, on the basis of lurid headlines you see on the tabloids as you stand in line at the supermarket, and I don't.
How do you know so much about the mind of molesters and sexual deviants?
Well, I guess our disagreement is that you think it is OK to assassinate the character of a man you don't know, on the basis of lurid headlines you see on the tabloids as you stand in line at the supermarket, and I don't.
How do you know so much about the mind of molesters and sexual deviants?
I was a victim of a predator and I know of many others who were similarly victims of predators.
The use of children as a means of sexual gratification must end. The protection of children should outweigh the "character" of the abusers.
A friend asked me if I wanted to go see the movie "Vicky Cristina Barcelona" to which I replied "Isn't that a Woody Allen film?" Her response, "Yeah, I know, but he's just soooo talented."
Why do we as a society tolerate pedophiles, just beacaue they are talented? The names that immediately come to mind are: Woody Allen, R Kelly, Michael Jackson and Roman Polanski.
I think about all of the celebrities that have lined up to work with Woody Allen after the incident with his step-daughter and accusations regarding molesting his other children. I also think about how many songs by R Kelly have topped the charts since the long line of accusations about him having sex with one underaged girl after another have been known.
Would we give these men a free pass if they were mechanics, bus drivers or school teachers? Why do we tolerate (or even celebrate) them?
I don't watch Woody Allen movies for this very reason. I refuse to support something that has been produced by someone I believe to be a pedophile.
In Yemen, thousands of women of all ages die in childbirth, owing to the lack of modern obstetric facilities and a cultural resistance to using them when they are available at hand. For all we know, the child bride may very well have been brutally raped and beaten by the husband, which, in the hands of that man, would have resulted in death regardless of the age of the bride.
No useful purpose is served by scouring the world to find isolated cases of human brutality among the 6.5 billion people outside the USA and saying "There, see, only Americans are civilized". It's like finding a news report of a car crash in Bolivia, and saying "Look, see, here is proof that only American roads are safe."
OK, i just wanted to get across the fact that children are not ready, mentally or physically for sex at this age. Thats when it becomes abuse.
To civilised point of vew crime is a crime and should be delt with by the law.
Regardles who it is, when and why.
I have no simpathy for this cind of crime.
I was suprised to here a perant say,"you can't be 24
hours, seven day a week wathching your shild"
Yes you can. Your child is now part of your life.
It is your job to teach it acording to its age all that
means life, death, or, kontact with straingerd.
Children should not be alone with straingers anyway.
Once fear protected us from harm.
Today, fear has chainged into disobedionce, You are
not the bos of me, I am old enough, I know what I am doing mom, or daddy. Parents shoul be togather
with their children on social events, and call friends over to teach children social behavior, by example.
New programs on TV are appoling productions.
No wonder I stil wach Bugs Buny.
OK, i just wanted to get across the fact that children are not ready, mentally or physically for sex at this age. Thats when it becomes abuse.
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 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.
Your perspective on these issues is quite disturbing....and perverse.
Your perspective on these issues is quite disturbing....and perverse.
And anthropologically correct.
The more humans artificially alter our nature and substitute behaviors inconsistent with nature, the thinner the ice becomes beneath our skates.
This is not a value judgment. We have committed ourselves to the very heavy baggage of our culture, and when it clashes with nature, the load can be backbreaking. But that's the trade-off, and we have chosen our culture, and have to live with the consequences of doing so. They are not all pretty.
My quarrel with you is that you try to assign our cultural mores to nature, and that simply is not the case. You're asking sexual human beings to conform with culture, which is OK, but you cannot at the same time say our cultural rationalizations conform with nature. That is just not true. Our cultural mores conflict with nature, which is exactly why we need to enforce them.
The more humans artificially alter our nature and substitute behaviors inconsistent with nature, the thinner the ice becomes beneath our skates.
This is not a value judgment. We have committed ourselves to the very heavy baggage of our culture, and when it clashes with nature, the load can be backbreaking. But that's the trade-off, and we have chosen our culture, and have to live with the consequences of doing so. They are not all pretty.
My quarrel with you is that you try to assign our cultural mores to nature, and that simply is not the case. You're asking sexual human beings to conform with culture, which is OK, but you cannot at the same time say our cultural rationalizations conform with nature. That is just not true. Our cultural mores conflict with nature, which is exactly why we need to enforce them.
You can attempt to intellectualize this argument all you want but the bottom line is that human adults (who have sexual access to many other adults) should not sexually prey upon children.
This is not about "anthropology" or "cultural mores", this is about sexual deviants not being able to exercise self control and using manipulation to get what they want from those who are not yet their emotional, intellectual, life/sexual experience equals.
Just because a 11 year old girl has reached puberty does not mean that a 65 year old man (or woman) is "entitled" to have sexual access to her. And just because a 12 year old boy has hit puberty does not mean that a 37 year old man (or woman) should be able to have sexual access to him.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
