pedophilia debatins

[Dissonance]

Origin topic | This has been split off from another thread. The debate is: Adults having consensual sex with minors (such as, 12 yr olds): totally wrong or just a societal taboo for no reason or what?

tbh i'm less disgusted by the '12 year old' or 'cousin' parts as i am about the RAPE parts.

If despain had consentual sex with his 12 year old cousin i'd be fine with it as i don't really believe incest should be taboo nor do i believe that it can be called 'rape' if an underager actually says "hi please fuck me".

to me this is no different if he raped anybody else and it shouldn't be.

(course rape is pretty bad in itself but there's no reason for everybody to be reacting at the incest/underage parts, get over yourselves)

 

[Feldschlacht IV]

there's no reason for everybody to be reacting at the incest/underage parts, get over yourselves)

Are you fucking serious man?

 

[Dissonance]

he's gone, everything that should be said has been said, there's no need for this to stay open. let's leave it at that?

dissonance stop turning things into HEH TRADITIONAL SOCIAL VALUES? FUCK EM debates thanks.

you're gay

i'm unlocking it only for the reason that you specifically locked it - you keep saying you don't wanna be an admin anymore, well get your fingers the fuck off the admin panel fagote

(i still love you :3)

also yeah Feldy i'm serious, sorry dawge i just don't really believe in archaic taboos that have no reason to exist anymore - if you wanna carry it further though let's go to the symp because teloch was right in that this really isn't the place for it

despain your gay

 

[Glitchfinder]

Actually, there were many noble families in medieval Europe who had members marry their 1st cousins. Heck, I've traced my ancestry back to the Mayflower, and I found a set of married 1st cousins between now and then. The incest taboo is only really dangerous with immediate relatives, i.e. parents/children and siblings. (Although, with how DNA transfer works, it is technically possible that you and your sibling share absolutely no DNA, but extremely unlikely) Also, in many countries, 10 and older is considered marrying age, and people often have children by the time they are 14. (Historically, the "marrigeable age" has been about 1/4 of the average lifespan. So, in older times, when people were lucky to live to 40, people were being married at around 10. So, let's get over the artificial difference between children and adults. Let's face it, Despain's cousin is probably mature enough to actually have a kid at this point. (At least, she probably is physically. Our culture babies people so much she probably isn't emotionally ready, despite all those cabbage patch dolls) Did you know the USA has no minimum age limit on marriage? Parents could technically have 1-month old babies married to each other, if they wanted to, and they found a willing priest. The real problems Despain is having are those with social norms, and with self control. I hope he can get things straightened out.

Edit:

laern how to handle alchohol pussy

It all depends on body weight. I'm about 120 right now, and a single glass is enough to make me unfit to drive for at least an hour and a half, even if I drank it slowly. If I drank a couple glasses, I'd be roaring drunk. (Yes, I actually did my research on this one) (No, the research was not going to a local pub)

 

[Feldschlacht IV]

I can see him trying to fool us, but Wumpi quit over this. And he really cared for her a lot. I'm not sure what to think.

I haven't been here a long time, but from my viewpoint, it's fucking retarded and juvenile. And that's assuming what he says ISN'T true.

Actually, there were many noble families in medieval Europe who had members marry their 1st cousins. Heck, I've traced my ancestry back to the Mayflower, and I found a set of married 1st cousins between now and then. The incest taboo is only really dangerous with immediate relatives, i.e. parents/children and siblings. (Although, with how DNA transfer works, it is technically possible that you and your sibling share absolutely no DNA, but extremely unlikely) Also, in many countries, 10 and older is considered marrying age, and people often have children by the time they are 14. (Historically, the "marrigeable age" has been about 1/4 of the average lifespan. So, in older times, when people were lucky to live to 40, people were being married at around 10. So, let's get over the artificial difference between children and adults. Let's face it, Despain's cousin is probably mature enough to actually have a kid at this point. (At least, she probably is physically. Our culture babies people so much she probably isn't emotionally ready, despite all those cabbage patch dolls) Did you know the USA has no minimum age limit on marriage? Parents could technically have 1-month old babies married to each other, if they wanted to, and they found a willing priest. The real problems Despain is having are those with social norms, and with self control. I hope he can get things straightened out.

Ah cool dawg did you know many historical cultures also supported slavery??? I know it's not really comparable but point is that kids that are twelve years old aren't ready for the emotional, mental, and more or less physical demands of sex, especially from someone almost twice their fucking age. You don't need a psychology class (although one is recommended!) to come to that conclusion. I also feel incest is pretty fucked up, but at least that's assuming two consensual adults.

So, let's get over the artificial difference between children and adults.

*tosses psychology, child psychology, and fundamental stages in mental development between childhood and adulthood out the window*

 

[Glitchfinder]

Ah cool dawg did you know many historical cultures also supported slavery??? I know it's not really comparable but point is that kids that are twelve years old aren't ready for the emotional, mental, and more or less physical demands of sex, especially from someone almost twice their fucking age. You don't need a psychology class (although one is recommended!) to come to that conclusion. I also feel incest is pretty fucked up, but at least that's assuming two consensual adults.

As I said, our culture is radically different from the ones I mentioned. Back then, kids were not babied. Kids new what sex was, they knew that their parents were likely to die soon, and they had to grow up fast. Really fast. Compare that to our culture, where many parently won't let a kid learn anything about the hard facts of life till puberty or later. Our culture, for the most part, babies children, and makes them unfit to be a part of society for much longer. I know that people's brains aren't fully developed until the early twenties. I also know that, in the past, the full development of your brain wasn't nearly as necessary as now. Then, people did the same thing for generations, and you could learn from early childhood what you would do for your entire life. About the only profession that still has apprenticeships in America is that of plumbers. What most people did in times and places where they were likely to have children when we would still consider the parant to be a child was mostly stuff that didn't take hard decisions, and that could be done with out being nearly as prepared as you have to be in modern times.

As I said, incest is only truly dangerous between immediate relatives. 1st cousins share little to no DNA, and are only slightly more similar to each other than complete stangers. (On average) I've studied some of the genetics on this one, so I know what I'm talking about. And, incest os only dangerous becasue of heritable genetic diseases. And that is only for the female children, in most cases. Most of the heritable genetic diseases are more common in guys because they appear on the X chromosome, and the guys don't have a second X to counterbalance it.

 

[Venetia]

This was split from this topic. Discuss. Stop crapping up the original topic so i can lock it already and debate here. woo

 

[___]

Sex between an adult and a minor is dangerous precisely because of our social norms. When an adult coerces an inexperienced minor into sexual acts, the impact of the lessons the child is taught about sexuality in that context cannot be divorced from the act itself. Really even a naive but physically mature 'adult' can be damaged by a sexual encounter with someone who is sexually experienced. Most people have both a biological and social imperative to put undue concern on sexuality. Combine that with the unavoidable discomfort and confusion a person often experiences during a sexual encounter with someone much more experienced and you will almost always get psychological damage and distortion.

In that light any debate about it is completely irrelevant; even if you suppose in some ideal world there's no reason a sexually mature 12-year-old can't have sex with anyone of any age he pleases safely and without long-term consequences, acting as if we live in such a world is bound to result in harm. It also will only serve to further reinforce the huge body of evidence that serves to keep current social norms in place, in the form of people with serious personality disorders, chronic depression, low self-esteem or sexual inhibitions directly rooted in awkward sexual encounters during late childhood.

Sexual maturity is not just a matter of the body anyway; it's reached through safe exploration with people who are near the same level of maturity. As an extreme example, a naive young virgin is unlikely to develop a comfortable and personalized perspective on sexuality if his early sexual experiences are shaped by an experienced, practicing sadomasochist. Whether or not he is talked into consenting to it, he does not have the prior understanding to make an informed decision on the subject or to deal with it cognitively.

Really, any human relationship where there are serious disparities in knowledge, experience, intellect or taste is bound to be one-sided and unduly burdensome on the lesser individual. It's a basic consequence of human nature that we use what we know and what we're capable of to get what we want, and we are generally unequipped to practice moderation in this regard, especially considering our imperfect understanding of each-other. Social norms, though often imperfect or distorted, at least allow us a framework in understanding what actions are most likely to result in mutual satisfaction and ethical outcomes.

 

[Necro_100000]

Okay this is all well and good, but the one thing I'm tired about all of this are all of the false rape cases and how well they work...

Yes rape is wrong. BUT I've been to parties and being in a room with a women can get you 2 in the slammer on rape charges. (A lot of women have posted such incidence on their myspace) (BTW god bless myspace... such a waste of internet bandwidth.) (Also I've known a few cases)
Again I am one for justice however and believe that a true rape case with actual evidence and such should get you know repel. (It's like the no child left behind act for rapist... Damn congress!)

ANYWAY, back to sex. Sex is sex. It's part of our nature. Unless your gay in which case it's an activity of choose OR you've found out that YOUR sex knows how to please you more then the other. (*Sigh* lesbians, can't you just tell us what works?) Because of this I don't see the point in complaining over incest or underage/wide age gapes in sex. Hell, in your DNA it tells you to have sex for the sol purpose of procreation. So I'm all for w/e people do. BTW in bio last year we learned you have 25% ~ 75% chance (so 50% on average) of sharing ONE gene with a sibling. Seeing how that's about 10% ~ 40% chance of sharing two and also seeing how just from what I know of there are more then 100's if not thousands of genes. So I don't care about incest.

Again as Glitch 'em said it's all about social norms.

 

[Yaxor]

oh my fucking god i didnt knew despain raped his 12y/o cousin. Also was his cousing a male or a female?

because if you are a guy and rape a 12 y/o guy you  are a gigantic disgusting fucking faggot gay asshole.

Don't shitpost like this in the symposium.  This is for serious discussion of the abstract idea of pederasty, not prurient gossip about former members.  ~Mega Lenin

 

[Necro_100000]

oh my fucking god i didnt knew despain raped his 12y/o cousin. Also was his cousing a male or a female?

because if you are a guy and rape a 12 y/o guy you  are a gigantic disgusting fucking faggot gay asshole.

I love the Symposium Board

Don't encourage spam here. ~Mega Lenin

 

[rey meustrus]

I always seem to find myself on Dissonance's bandwagon in these social value debates...

It seems like in America, there's a lot A LOT of stigma with pedophilia.  Now I won't argue that molestation isn't bad; it's very damaging to small children, especially when committed by someone the child trusted.  But the stigma is associated with the wrong thing.  Why do we have to label them sexual offenders for the rest of their lives, and more importantly why must entire neighborhoods treat them like witches in the Middle Ages just for trying to live normally (read: not raping children).  People fear them because they're sexually deviant more than because they rape the children, I think.  It's just another part of the "culture war."  It's more important to be normal, and not have weird sexual fetishes, than it is to protect the children.  I honestly get the feeling that middle America would like to label homosexuals "sexual offenders" as well, just so they can keep track of them and prevent the children from catching their taint.  While we're at it, let's keep out the muslims, the pot-heads, and the lib-rils too.

The important thing to focus on is not berating and ostracizing the "predator" (let's start by not using such a leading word: would you call an alcoholic a "predator" of alcohol?).  We should focus on the children, trying to help them.  The children don't care half as much as the adults do about seeing "justice," they just want to see their world get put back together quickly.  And it's not about telling them constantly that what happened to them is wrong, either; that just reinforces that fact that we can't stop bad things from happening.  Part of reconstructing their world is explaining what happened, why the person would want to do it, why it was wrong, that it's a bad thing only because s/he wasn't ready for it, and not to hate the person who did it.  For all of the Christian backing of the culture wars, I'd like to see more focus on forgiveness: it has a healing quality to the victim's spirit that vigilantism just can't ever solve (one of the main themes of Batman, if that isn't too random, is that revenge never gives peace to the soul).

Oh and off-topic a bit, but I didn't post in Despain's thread for a reason.  Sounds like I avoided some argument based on the need to split this topic off.

 

[Feldschlacht IV]

Back then, kids were not babied. Kids new what sex was, they knew that their parents were likely to die soon, and they had to grow up fast. Really fast.

False. My sociology education and classes say wrong. Back then sex was as 'mysterious' and little discussed as it is now, especially with young people. No offense, but are you just making stuff up?

Other than that, ditto what Nphyx said. He/she makes a lot of sense.

 

[Necro_100000]

You talk about stigma on Pedophilia but you don't really see the point.

Right and wrong are just words and in your entire statement you took so much out of context it was almost sad. Children don't know what right and wrong is because they haven't learned what they need to do that's "Right" so they can function in OUR society. Trying to help them isn't doing anything more then saying, "What he did was wrong and you should never do because we say so." Wow! That's great and all but if you want to help the kid why not you know, do something? Just a thought.

Now what I did like was your point on the social war and marking pedophiles predators. The reason we call them predators are because there are some people that are just crazy when it comes to this kind of stuff and will commit... 10-20 acts of rape (Not pedophiles but rape pedos) and that's when you start to say okay back off the kids man. So we mark em. I hate how we call consensual pedos though... It seems a little redundant. People need to learn that sex is well sex. I hate how they say "The kid didn't know what he/she was doing, it's all the adults fault." FFS WOMEN ON LIFETIME, a 13 year old boy probably knows more about sex in our society then you do and if he didn't the first time, he did the 4th and 5th time's he did it! So STFU!!! (I hate lifetime and Oprah... *Also she's in the spell checker in word.....*) (On a side note all men don't want to rape women people! Damn. People need to read some books...)

-Matt (Necro)

 

[Glitchfinder]

Back then, kids were not babied. Kids new what sex was, they knew that their parents were likely to die soon, and they had to grow up fast. Really fast.

False. My sociology education and classes say wrong. Back then sex was as 'mysterious' and little discussed as it is now, especially with young people. No offense, but are you just making stuff up?

Other than that, ditto what Nphyx said. He/she makes a lot of sense.

Which age are you talkign about? I was talking about long before the dawn of Christianity in that statement. I guess I should have been more specific, but what I was talking about was before most of the major religions appeared, and you see religions that are focused on nature, and similar things. For example, if you look at the first known crvings, they are almost always of an overendowed, extrmemly pregnant women? Why? Because people of the time worshipped nature and fertility. From the origins of humanity, sex has been there, and the social norms to prevent children from knowing about it only appeared as people began to live in closer and tighter quarters, i.e. large towns and cities. In fact, if you look at many early cultures, you'll see a dominance in fertility worship, and many of them hid little to nothing from their children in that area.

Also, I agree that the children can be damaged by a much more experienced partner.

 

[Wolfgang]

What we are all missing is that Dissonance is right... social taboos are worth nothing when you are not actively social. Staying on your computer all day and night gives you the right to avoid normal social taboos, because you have obviously pulled far enough away from society to no longer care what they think. Back in the days when people used to marry thier cousins and have early age baby making (sex), people could be stoned to death for not following social norms. Nowadays they are given little internet crowns to keep them happy and silent. For they have the money... or atleast enough of it to crash our ecomony if we try to single them out. Isn't it odd? The socially deviant are no longer the exception, but the rule! How sad our lives have become when basic moral values come with an allow/disallow opitonal switch on the side.
*takes a bow*

 

[mawk]

*takes a bow*

dude please stop doing your arguments like this. no one is reading this and thinking "gosh Wolfgang he is such a cool guy"

 

[Wolfgang]

As you wish every berries... I am only trying to show how off the wall it is to have a 'serious' debate about this sort of thing.

 

[___]

As you wish every berries... I am only trying to show how off the wall it is to have a 'serious' debate about this sort of thing.

With poorly structured and frankly unfunny satire, awkward references to current events and a closing moral lament, followed by a bow? All you're accomplishing is to prove how off the wall it is for YOU to be participating in debate, serious or otherwise.

 

[Dr. Funk]

Dude, I feel like the only one who feels sorry for Despain, and I don't even know him! Jesus the guy's going through hard times, cut him some slack. (Quit calling him a sick fuck every two posts, I heard you the first time)

Anyway about the whole underage sex thing, screw it. Like Dissonance said, if a 12 year olds want to have sex, let them. But if they don't want to, it's still rape.