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.
I was really hoping that at the end of your post you were going to conclude that everything you have written is of course the way molesters justify their illegal and reprehensible behavior.
Children do not enjoy when their elders, be they strangers or relatives, molest them. The sense of it being wrong and invasive often DOES strike the child's mind. NOTHING about an adult engaging in sexual activity with a child is normal, enjoyable or right.
Molesters do invade and force themselves on unwilling subjects, as well as manipulate them into participating. Why do so many victims of this abuse keep silent because the pedophile warned them that they would hurt (or even kill) them or someone they loved if they "told." Why do you think society so greatly values the idea of adults not being permitted to force their disgusting sexual fantasies on sexually immature children.
Molested children often do not know the "law" but know it's not right. That's why they cry themselves to sleep and withdraw socially. Children do not enjoy being molested. Your post is vile.
Yes, as you say, molesters do invade and force. But are you saying that ALL of them do? My remarks addressed those who are not in your generalization, and I would challenge you to produce rational and logical arguments there are no such cases, or even that the numbers are insignificant.
Not only do children sometimes enjoy "being molested" as much as an adult can, but are quite often the instigators. (You apparently define "being molested" as ANY activity that is sexual in nature.)
Your characterization of forced rape is not the norm, but it does occur and it is as reprehensible as any other behavior that is forced upon an unwilling victim. I've neither said nor implied that it is not reprehensible and deserving of appropriate prosecution. Being shot by one of our posters with his own gun and ammo is not the appropriate punishment.
"A person who is sexually attracted to children is no more evil than a person who is sexually attracted to adults."
You cannot be serious! Are you trying to spark conversation???? Because there is no way you can honestly believe your above statement. Children? If you seriously believe your statement then you need to see a specialist. Children!
]"A person who is sexually attracted to children is no more evil than a person who is sexually attracted to adults."[/b]
You cannot be serious! Are you trying to spark conversation???? Because there is no way you can honestly believe your above statement. Children? If you seriously believe your statement then you need to see a specialist. Children!
Is'nt this Great Debates, that's the purpose....to spark a dialog
They may not be evil, but pedophiles are sick pups.
Not only do children sometimes enjoy "being molested" as much as an adult can, but are quite often the instigators. (You apparently define "being molested" as ANY activity that is sexual in nature.)
Any activity that is sexual in nature with a child is molestation.
As for children being the instigators. I'd love to see that in a courtroom. An adult on trial for alleged sexual abuse of a child. "Oh, but your honor, the child did instigate it."
If you were the parent of a child I worked with and I heard you make these statements, I'd waste no time reporting you to both my supervisor and CPS.
What does your wife think of your opinion on child molestation?
Last edited by NomadScribe; 03-07-2010 at 12:55 PM..
A person who is sexually attracted to children is no more evil than a person who is sexually attracted to adults. Just out of step with social values. Most people who sexually "abuse" children have no intention whatsoever to harm the child, and in fact actually believe the child is enjoying the advance. In many cases, the child does enjoy it, just as an adult would in the same circumstances.
The typical "child molester" does not force himself on unwilling subjects, but watches for opportunities to engage with willing ones.
The "harm" that is done is not in the sexual act itself, but in the memory that is being planted, which will be construed at a later date as something "terrible" that happened during the childhood, as society convinces the grown child to reflect on the incident as something awful and shameful. In societies that have not constructed child sex as reprehensible, the fact does no harm at all to the children.
The above generalization does not, or course, apply to every situation, but a very large number of so-called 'child abuse' cases would fit that description.
wow. I think that victims of child molestation would disagree. I'm pretty sure they don't just think it was horrible because someone else said it was...You've GOT to be a troll.
I believe that most child predators who do snatch kids off of the street or from some other place do so due to the fact that they do not have access to children in the above listed manner.
I agreed with everything you said before this conclusion, but am fairly certain that going to such extremes as to make elaborate plans for abducting children and raping them is not what the vast majority of "Chesters of opportunity" are about. Often a father, uncle, cousin, family friend or other trusted adult will have had something to drink and be a bit off their usual game when they commit a minor molestation offense against an easy target. This type of act is a far cry from the premeditated atrocity of kidnapping children and raping them.
I think there's a lot of gray area in the case of adults behaving sexually toward children, and our courts should recognize this. It's totally reasonable to administer extreme punishment to those who kidnap and rape children (or adults, for that matter), but justice is not served by punishing a drunk cousin, who playfully fondles a kid and later regrets it, with harsh sentences that should be reserved for those who intentionally inflict extreme damage on defenseless victims.
I do not believe using a micro chip is a solution due to the fact that you are still giving them the opportunity to commit the crime again. All you would really be doing is making it easier to catch the person once the evil deed is done. I hold the opinion that anyone convicted of any sexual offense towards a child should spend the rest of their life in prison. There is no rehabilitation for a pedophile. All one can hope is that the sleaze bag does not act upon his desires once he is released from prison. It is my opinion that there is too much of a risk involved in letting them loose after acting upon their desires even after one incident.
Although I do not agree with using micro chips for the reason already stated; I also do not agree with mysticaltyger's opinion of why micro chips should not be used on these people. If you follow his or her way of thinking there would be states that give the death penalty for offenses other than murder.
I would also say that a rapist should be given much more jail time than they presently serve as well; a life sentence would be fine with me. There are many more rapists who commit rape one time and never commit the offense again once released than pedophiles who commit offenses one time and never do it again, but even so, a rape victim's life is usually (I do not like to use the words never or always since there are usually some exceptions to the rule) not the same as before the rape occurred. Some may say that people that are robbed or have their home burglarized are not always the same as before it happened as well but the level of mental trauma is completely different.
I happen to be retired from the NYPD and have been unfortunate enough to have seen a number of rape victims as well as a number of children whom were sexually abused and I would actually have no problem with seeing the perpetrators of these heinous acts receive the death penalty once convicted but I know that there is an abundant amount of people who would be against it in our liberal society who would never allow this to happen so I would settle for life in prison for them. Of course, I do believe there is a difference between someone who commits a consensual statutory rape involving two teenagers as different than someone dragging a woman in the woods and forcing himself upon her. It is the latter offense I am referring to.
I agree with the retired nypd gentleman with some exceptions.Anyone who rapes a minor or an adult is actually killing the original minor or adult.The physical body may be alive but the soul (ego,id,super ego)has been killed.There are some incredible victims who have overcome this but it is a small percentage.If they plead guilty life in prison.If going to trial and convicted the death penalty.Obviously we must understand the difference of a 17yr.old having consensual sex with a 15yr.old.What should be the age where there is a possibility of consent? Perhaps 15 or,...i can't say younger.I also would have no problem being part of the firing squad.Priests,rabbis,imans and anyone gets no free pass.Rape is 90% murder.So being green,i say feed the fish and crabs with the remains.
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.
Are you serious?
