2008-01-28 TVO/The Agenda: Rethinking Pedophilia (1/4)

[Stereophonics81]

@XPsychoBurgundyX (2) - Yes, I use terms like 'intergenerational sex' ... so what? Explain to me how I'm wrong, about anything, by citing a specific post I made and then explaining why I'm wrong. Can you do it?

I won't hold my breath since you NEVER write anything of substance. No, I'll just get more of the same from you: you'll kick and scream and carry on like you're 12. Get all that anger and frustration out here on YouTube; it's safer that way.

[Stereophonics81]

@XPsychoBurgundyX (1) - Just what I thought. I aske you to copy and paste just one post where I ever wrote that it's okay for 'grown men to have their way (rape) little kids,' as you accused me of writing in your previous post, and of course you couldn't do it ...

[realzoomy]

@Stereophonics81 You are a first rate creep. You are trying to legalise child rape. I will be glad when the Lord comes back and takes me away from this wicked world that is dominated by wicked evil people like you. I do not want to see the judgement that is going to come upon this wicked world for allowing wicked people like you to do whatever you like to innocent little children and even babies.

[Stereophonics81]

@realzoomy - "I won't go away." Fighting words, friend. You would fit in perfectly with those who stood against black people who tried to attend all-white schools, or conservatives who opposed homosexuality. I believe they said the very same thing :)

First, it's impossible to "legalize" or pedophilia. Pedophilia is simply a sexual attraction to someone under a certain age. It has existed since the beginning of time and will always exist, and there's nothing you (or anyone) can do about it ...

[trumanlevine]

2:05

SOUNDS LIKE MY FRIDAY NIGHT

CAN I GET A WHAT WHAT

[realzoomy]

You paedoscum are trying to legalise child rape, and then you would throw victims of child abuse into jail for "hate crime". Well I do hate you. I think paedophiles are wicked and selfish. Paedophiles are so full of crap and they dont love anyone except their own selfish selves, they are users, they leave a wake of wreckage everywhere they go.

[realzoomy]

You paedoscum have the cheek of the devil to come here trying to justify your lust for children. I am a victim of child abuse and it blighted my life. You have a choice, you dont need to lust after children, you choose to do so. You mess peoples lives up, you rape kids then you blame them. I dont feel sorry for you, I think you are repulsive.

[popgrafix]

@4boySonic That sounds a little more realistic.

[realzoomy]

James Cantor is another of the Kinsey Institute diciples, and Alfred Kinsey based his "scientific" studies on research obtained from criminals, prostitutes and paedophiles, so why is he being given any creedence?

[popgrafix]

@realzoomy Interesting, where did you get that info from? (or was it mentioned in the discussion? it's been a while since I saw it)

I agree that Kinsleys methods were unscientific and I thought most modern researchers agreed with me on that.

[realzoomy]

@popgrafix I noticed him quoting Kinsey's work in a discussion, using it as scientific evidence, I am in a hurry but will come back and look for it again and post you the link.

[realzoomy]

I am a survivor of child abuse and my life has been a nightmare. I dont have any sympathy for paedophiles. Why should I, when their victims get none? All I have had is more and more abuse and persecution to shut me up. The Catholic survivors are being threatened with jail if they talk about the abuse! Its actually in the compensation awards contracts!

[Stereophonics81]

@popgrafix - Are you serious? *This* is your only point? Wow, what a brave and original soul you are. Pointing out that adult/child sexual relations are problematic in this day and age. And you honestly thought I (or anyone else) was disagreeing with you? What world are you living in?

The REASONS for the problems are everything, and the whole point of the debate.

[Stereophonics81]

@popgrafix (7)

But the question that needs to be asked here is; what is the true source of the majority of harm that results from adult/child sexual interactions? Is it the actual sex? Or the stigma / condemnation toward the sex?

Common sense should provide you with the answer in spite of social norms which are likely preventing you from viewing this objectively.

[Stereophonics81]

@popgrafix (6) My belief that safe intergenerational sex is perfectly normal & healthy has nothing to do with toddlers touching their genitals. Thanks for putting more words in my mouth, though.

Funny you mention google when you didn't even know that sexuality is innate or that babies / toddlers rub their private areas because the feels good (because sexuality is innate.)

You got a loooong way to go bud. My advice? Stop believing things based exclusively on ignorance, hysteria, & superstition.

[popgrafix]

@Stereophonics81 You came up with the babies and toddlers to support your argument. Which indeed they don't.

We differ in our definition of innate. Being innate in your sense of the word is irrelevant because you also agree that child sexuality, even if it is innate, is different from adult.

You have lost all your arguments to support your claim that "safe intergenerational sex is perfectly normal & healthy". So it indeed is not more than a “belief”.

[popgrafix]

@Stereophonics81 Let me put it even clearer: sexuality being innate doesn't prove that child/adult sex is harmless. For the same reasons that it doesn't prove rape is harmless.

The things you would have to prove is that child/adult sexual relations are innate and that being innate is the same as being harmless.

[Stereophonics81]

@popgrafix (4) RE: a child's sexuality is the same as an adult's sexuality - stop putting words in my mouth. What I said is that there is absolutely no rational premise that children are not naturally drawn to experience sexual pleasure in much the same way adults are. Yes, that is correct. Remember, children do not start behaving sexually in response to some adult interference or pressure. The opposite is true. They STOP behaving sexually in response to adult interference / pressure to abstain.

[popgrafix]

@Stereophonics81 We're not talking about "being drawn to sexual pleasure". We're talking about child/adult sex.

Rational premises:

• A child has to develop faculties that are needed for any responsible, safe and pleasurable social conduct, including sex.

• There are masses of people that suffer emotionally from having sexual contact with adults while they were a child

You agree that child sexuality is different from adult. Then what exactly is your argument for child/adult sex being harmless?

[Stereophonics81]

@popgrafix (8)

What I said is that sex is usually a bigger priority for adults than it is children. (Except when you turn 12ish and begin masturbating eight times a day and begin to experiment sexually. Teenagers fuck like rabbits.) But this by no stretch of the imagination means that children aren't equipped to enjoy their natural, built-in sexuality. It by no stretch of the imagination means that we should force children to abstain...

[Stereophonics81]

@popgrafix (9)

In fact ... what you presumably want to do (force kids to abstain) and if they don't, explain to them how dirty / sick / evil their behavior is ... is tantamount to child abuse. In fact I would argue that is child abuse.

Inflicting unhealthy and repressive views toward sex in our children is never an acceptable role for an adult. You speak about 'massive emotional trauma' ... well, look no further for the reason.

Your views are hurting children.

[Stereophonics81]

@popgrafix (2) - I'm not even sure you know what the word 'innate' means, by the way. Innate means that something is built in. It means you don't need to develop it. It already exists. And by every definition and meaning of the word, sexuality ***is*** unquestionably and undeniably innate. You are BORN with sexual feelings. You don't need to 'develop' sexual feelings as you would with speech or walking or learning to use the toilet. Okay? Are we clear now? Can we move on?

[popgrafix]

@Stereophonics81 By your definition all human emotions, thoughts and actions are innate. Even if I'd agree to that, being innate does not make the innate attribute the same for all ages. If it did smoking, drinking alcohol, driving cars, voting, marrying, shooting guns etc. should all be okay for children.

Why aren't they? Because children have to develop the physical, emotional, social, intellectual, cognitive skills to do these things without causing harm to themselves or others. 

[Stereophonics81]

@popgrafix (4) Uhm, no, I never said those things. Your attempt to equate smoking / drinking / driving / etc. with the fact that sexuality is innate makes no sense whatsoever.

So, you're saying that kids aren't as intellectually developed as adults? Groundbreaking observation!

I completely agree that children have yet to develop the 'physical, emotional, intellectual, cognitive, social' skills to drink / smoke / drive / vote / marry / shoot guns without causing harm to themselves or others.

[Stereophonics81]

@popgrafix (5) - Completely agree.

My question to you is, WHAT DOES ANY OF THAT HAVE TO DO WITH SEX? I suggest to you that you're putting sex on a pedestal and not understanding the reality of what is. Safe sex is no more fundamentally harmful than sneezing. For some reason you put it on the same level as shooting a gun or driving a car or getting married or drinking alcohol or smoking cigarettes. Why?

Stop subconsciously linking sex with violence or harm. That's your problem.

[Stereophonics81]

@popgrafix Ok do me a favor. Forget about the word 'masturbation' as it has nothing to do with sexuality being innate. You're waaaaay too caught up on the word 'masturbation' and I've even said (about nine times now) that they don't 'masturbate' in the way teens / adults do. They DO, however, rub their genitals and repeat it since they know it feels good - and THAT WAS THE POINT. Infants feel sexual pleasure, and sexuality is innate. Stop quibbling about the word 'masturbation' - not the point.

[popgrafix]

@Stereophonics81 You brought it up, but I'm glad you're letting it go, because it is no argument for children being sexually mature or for the claim that child/adult sex is harmless.

However, enjoying the feeling of rubbing your genitals is no proof for that either, so you should let that one go too.

Your words "they don't 'masturbate' in the way teens / adults do" prove however that sexuality is not the same for all ages and that it develops over time. You're contradicting yourself.

[Stereophonics81]

@popgrafix (1) No, no, no. The whole point was whether or not sexuality is innate, remember? You stated numerous times that it wasn't. I'm glad you're finally realizing that it is. It'd be nice if you could be a man and say "I was wrong," but I won't hold my breath.

"Sexually mature" ... hmm. What the hell does this mean? You throw these wild statements out there but see you never actually explain them or back them up. It's very frustrating.

[Stereophonics81]

@popgrafix (2) - You're still not explaining what it means for sexuality to 'develop' over time, either. That's another one of those statements you make without any substance behind it.

You're confusing sexual development with intellectual development. Because just because an infant or a toddler isn't aware that they have a penis or a vagina and that those things are sexual organs doesn't mean that they aren't playing with them to get sexual satisfaction the same way adults do.

[Stereophonics81]

@popgrafix (3) What I said wasn't a contradiction at all. In fact all it means is that they haven't developed the knowledge or awareness of what sex is, but this intellectual development, not sexual development. The truth is, we are all born with sexuality already built in (hence, sexuality is innate) so you're going to have to explain yourself when you say that children need to 'develop' their sexuality before engaging in any type of sexual behavior, because that flat out makes no sense.

[Stereophonics81]

@popgrafix (2) Sexual feelings exist without development. That is the whole point. Sexual organs develop, yes, but sexual feelings are innate and do not need 'developing.' What an absurd premise.

How in god's name do my own articles NOT support the FACT that babies and toddlers masturbate? What the hell are you reading? Every article clearly states that babies and toddlers will rub their genitals because the sensation feels good. There is even a 3D sonogram of an infant in the womb doing it.

[popgrafix]

@Stereophonics81 I think it's time for you to Google. Try 'sexual development' and be amazed!

According to you babies rubbing genitals is the same as masturbating. The article on 'Human Sexuality: An Encyclopedia' that you recommended states that "Infants in their first year are generally not capable of the direct, volitional, rhythmic movement that characterizes masturbation".

[Stereophonics81]

@popgrafix (5) - Is this harmful to children? Common sense should provide you with the answer in spite of social norms which are likely preventing you from viewing this objectively.

Now, sex is unquestionably seen as a different priority by children and is usually much more important to adults. So how do we go from this bit of logic all the way to some wild assumption that children should abstain from sex altogether or never permit sexual encounters when opportunities arise?

[Stereophonics81]

@popgrafix - You're not getting it. It's just not sinking in. I will try ONE last time with you:

Whether or not babies have sex have absolutely nothing to do with whether or not sexuality is innate (like sleeping or breathing.) The very fact that infants have sexual feelings (hence, they masturbate) is proof that sexuality begins at birth and therefore is innate. And sexual feelings do not need 'developing' -- that is absurd...

[popgrafix]

@Stereophonics81 Children are developing physically. They are developing intellectually. They are developing emotionally. They are developing socially. All factors that contribute to a persons sexuality.

People being born with a fully developed sexuality is simply impossible.

You say yourself that babies "don't know what 'masturbation' is the way you and I do". The article from 'Human Sexuality: An Encyclopedia' agrees. And that is obvious: their sexuality still has to develop.

[Stereophonics81]

@popgrafix (2) - If you are so caught up in irrational anti-sex hysteria that you cannot even admit that sexuality IS INNATE and that babies and toddlers DO MASTURBATE (common knowledge by any medical or psychological professional) then there is no way I will continue this. It's a waste of time and you are embarrassingly ignorant. If you ever choose to stop preserving ignorance and at the very least can admit the truth about sexuality being innate, let me know. Otherwise I won't reply.

[Stereophonics81]

@popgrafix (3) - To argue children do not want to engage in sexual behavior until they reach a certain age; therefore leading to some wild conclusion that if children do engage in sex before this magical age it can only be because they were coerced against their will or forced is plainly wrong, ridiculous, illogical and against overwhelming evidence to the contrary.

The onus is clearly on you to prove how sexual pleasure / an orgasm is harmful (in any way) to a child, not the other way around.

[Stereophonics81]

@popgrafix (2) - (What is the difference between a sexual 'need' and sexual 'desire' by the way - explain that to me.)

Secondly, what I am saying to you in addition to the fact that sexuality is innate is that there is absolutely no rational argument that supports any premise children are not naturally drawn to experience sexual pleasure in much the same way adults are.

[Stereophonics81]

@popgrafix (3) - But what do any of these things have to do with having an orgasm? Sure, it should be done in a safe way, but safe sex can be conveyed to a child by a good teacher in about an hour. There are more than enough preventative measures / resources to guard against unwanted pregnancy and disease.

Safe sexual pleasure is no more fundamentally harmful than scratching your ear, quite frankly.

Please explain.

[popgrafix]

@Stereophonics81 Indeed this discussion has got nothing to do with orgasms, unwanted pregnancies, diseases, masturbation, harmless sexual experiences with peers or between consenting adults. It has to do with long term mental problems stemming from safe, unsafe, forced or willing childhood sexual experiences with adults. As long as these mental problems are so abundant the law has a responsibility to protect children from these effects.

[Stereophonics81]

@popgrafix (2) Indeed no one is arguing that safe sex (not rape which is altogether different) involving a child and someone older than some magical age is not problematic in today's society ... but again the question that I am raising here, "What is the true source of this harm?" The sexual pleasure or the stigma / condemnation toward it? Common sense should provide the answer.

:::sigh:::

Still waiting for that logical answer that explains how an orgasm is fundamentally harmful to a child...

[supersaiyanjesus]

@popgrafix You didn't say that children were inferior and knowledge and experience but mentally. Mental "strength" encompasses much more than that. If what you meant to say is this than you should have stated so at first. As for saying that it's immoral to squat I suggest you have a read some of proudhons work. Also, there are quite a few children that have vast amounts of knowledge far overreaching either of ours. Sex and abuse aren't necessarily the same thing. Just like punishment and abuse.

[popgrafix]

@supersaiyanjesus Let me see your definition of mental strength then and let's compare it to that of an adult. I need some pretty good arguments to be convinced that a child's is equal or more than an adult's.

I don't need to read anyone's work to know that making use of someone's property without permission is immoral. Give me some arguments why it isn't.

I'm generalizing and that's also the only thing the law can do. Generally adult/child sex and abuse are the same.

[supersaiyanjesus]

@popgrafix Hoarding property without making use of it automatically deters someone else from using it as a means of survival. No one person deserves any more property than some other person so that we allow people to simply own property without any form of action is immoral because of what it prevents other people from doing.

The law doesn't have to generalize. If it did then every murder case would be the same but self defense can get a person no sentencing due to circumstances.

[popgrafix]

@supersaiyanjesus According to you theft is morally acceptable. It isn't. People can do with their property what they want. Just because they have something that I don't doesn't give me the right to take it. Actually I agree with you about laws not always being logical or moral, but your example is a bad one. It has no relevance to child sex/child abuse and its morality and legality.

Self defense always justifies murder. Always, not sometimes. Therefore it's a generalization.

[supersaiyanjesus]

@popgrafix If i drop a knife on the ground, and forget about it for weeks, and somebody else procures it for their own uses; is that theft? What you're saying is that it is which is ludicrous. Once again, all the argument is showing is that legality does not equate morality in order to show the fallacy of that argument. Self defense murder is still a murder though, just a justifiable one. There are also judges to dictate exactly what is self defense for every different case.

[popgrafix]

@supersaiyanjesus Unless you sell it to that person, give it away, rent it or lend it to him/her it's theft. Suggesting that you lose ownership over something that you don't use for a while won't hold up in any court

You need judges to determine what is self-defense. But when it is, you are NEVER guilty of murder. How general can you get? There are no excuses for child molestation because even when a child agrees to sex it can feel coerced later in life with all mental problems that brings.

[supersaiyanjesus]

@popgrafix The fact that it won't hold up in court is what highlights the separation of legality and morality. Suggesting that it's moral to kick people out of a house that is "owned" by a bank or rich persons who already has multiple houses that he uses not including the multitudes of homes he has simply using space that could be used by others is ludicrous. Space is not a commodity that was created by someone and therefore has no basis of ownership. The law has simply created a means by which-

[popgrafix]

@supersaiyanjesus If you keep insisting that using other people's property without their consent is morally acceptable this discussion is over.

Even if cases exist wherein the law is immoral it says absolutely NOTHING about morality or legality of having sex with children.

Your argument is completely worthless.

[supersaiyanjesus]

@popgrafix the rich may hoard means to survival. Whose to say what it is that causes these feelings of coercion later on though? Is it that the child innately sees the coercion later on or that over years of social programming it is lead to believe that it was victimized in a crime? Of course you'll say that it is absolutely one cause for every case instead of the collective influences that will greatly change a persons perspective.

[Stereophonics81]

@popgrafix (4) - Children are naturally drawn to experience sexual pleasure in much the same way adults are. To argue children do not want to engage in sexual behavior until they reach a certain age; therefore leading to some wild conclusion that if children do engage in sex before this magical age it can only be because they were coerced against their will or forced is plainly wrong, ridiculous, illogical and against overwhelming evidence to the contrary.

[popgrafix]

@Stereophonics81 The sexual experiences children look for naturally are with themselves and with their peers, not with adults.

The age of consent is not a magical number. It's purely the average age where most children will not experience sex mainly as negative anymore.

Also, I'm very interested in the research that shows that most children that have sex experience no negative results from it. The wikipedia page on Child Sexual Abuse offers an enormous amount of research that concludes otherwise

[Stereophonics81]

@popgrafix - Legality does not always equate morality by any stretch of the imagination. One just look at a myriad of past examples. Laws against homosexuals, laws against women's rights, laws against minorities, etc, etc, etc. It wasn't long ago.

[popgrafix]

@Stereophonics81 "I've already shown that legality IN GENERAL equates morality. "

"Being illegal doesn't make rape of children wrong. Hurting defenseless children physically and mentally does. Scarring them emotionally for life does."

[Stereophonics81]

@popgrafix - Rape is one thing, and anyone who rapes another person - let alone a child - should be punished to the fullest extent of the law. But no one (as I can see) is discussing that. It's completely different.

Sex is the topic. And it would be highly irrational for anyone to claim sex between adults and children today is not problematic. The question that should be asked, however, is; what is the true source of the majority of harm that results from adult/child sexual interactions?

[popgrafix]

@Stereophonics81 Agreed

[greycloud24]

@Stereophonics81 research shows that "consenting" adult/child sex relationships cause more harm than non-consenting (rape) cases. the statistics bear out that children who have sexual relations are significantly more likely to experience a host of undesirable effects later on in life. currently this is believed to be caused by retardation of inter-relational skills, social skills, and self blame to social conditioning. even if we remove social conditioning the other two remain.

[supersaiyanjesus]

@popgrafix You've shown nothing of the sort. Like I said, is it right to kick homeless people out of unused shelters? The obvious answer is no and yet it is illegal to squat in most places. The law in this case should be regarded as morally wrong.

Give me research that supports your claims and wait for me to call it biased. Kinsey was extremely unbiased in his research and simply showed a rough percentage of sexual activities in america.

You regard it as rape because you believe they are -

[popgrafix]

@supersaiyanjesus It is immoral to make use of others' property without permission. That's why it's illegal.

Squatting doesn't scar the victims emotionally for life. Again, this comparison is ridiculous.

A mass of research in the footnotes of the wikipedia page on Child Sexual Abuse.

A disproportionately large part of Kinsley's subjects were prisoners, prostitutes and sex offenders. A skewed representation of the population. That explains his astonishing conclusions.

[Stereophonics81]

@popgrafix (2) - Is it the actual safe sexual pleasure? Or the stigma / condemnation toward the behavior?

Common sense should provide you with the answer in spite of social norms which are likely preventing you from viewing this objectively.

[popgrafix]

@Stereophonics81 That question is irrelevant. Even if is stigma/condemnation is part of the equation, people are getting scarred for life by having sex at a young age. We can't punish society for their ideas, we can punish adults who have sex with children for their actions.

[Stereophonics81]

@popgrafix (1) The question is anything but irrelevant. The truth is never irrelevant. Just some 25 years ago homosexuality was classified as a mental disorder and there was an enormous stigma against engaging in homosexual behavior which caused incalculable guilt, shame, self-hatred, etc. Should we have not looked at the ignorance / irrational fear / ignorance that was causing these problems? Should we have instead said, "It's irrelevant. It's easier and more convenient this way. Don't think" ?

[supersaiyanjesus]

@popgrafix Also, it's impossible to say for each individual case that child/adult sexual relations will actually scar a child for life. Remember, this was not a comparison of squatting and child/adult sexual relation MUCH less rape of children. This was simply showing the fallacy of saying something being illegal in the united states makes it wrong.

[Stereophonics81]

@popgrafix (2)

Also, I agree that the disproportionate media coverage of so-called 'abuse' definitely adds fuel to the fire, but the media is not the reason why people are irrationally hysterical and ignorant over this issue. The media simply reflects what the perception already is, and then sensationalizes it to make money.

The fear, ignorance, and superstition comes from repressive sexual views which stem from religious principles. Just look at homosexuality; especially 20-25 years ago.

[yomama629]

@Stereophonics81 the word is repressed, not repressive

[Stereophonics81]

@yomama629 - Um, no, the way I used the word 'repressive' was absolutely correct.

re·pres·sive/riˈpresiv/Adjecti­ve

1. (esp. of a social or political system) Inhibiting or restraining the freedom of a person or group of people.

2. Inhibiting or preventing the awareness of certain thoughts or feelings

Thanks, though..

[yomama629]

@Stereophonics81 using this form of the word is gramatcially incorrect in that sentence. Repressed works better

[Stereophonics81]

@yomama629 - No, because 'repressed' refers to what is deeply seated within a person. I can see where you'd think that would have been the appropriate word in my sentence, but I purposely was referring to something is occurring openly right now. In other words, repressive refers to the conscious mind; repressed refers to the subconscious mind. I wasn't talking about the subconscious although it would've fit my sentence just the same.

[Stereophonics81]

@popgrafix

I definitely agree that there are 'psychological problems' that arise later as a result of engaging in sex at a young age (sex, mind you, not abuse/violence -- that is altogether different.)

However the question I would ask you is,

What is the true source of these 'psychological problems'? The actual sex? Or the condemnation / stigma that's associated with it? Common sense should provide you with answer.

[greycloud24]

@Stereophonics81 actually it is neither, you have proposed a false dichotomy. the problem stems from relationship forming patterns and learned roles within a relationship. this is why age disparity causes greater negative symptoms as an authority figure has entered the relationship. preoccupation with sex retards the ability to learn other inter-relational skills.

[Stereophonics81]

@greycloud24 (2) - Again, I agree with you from a current societal standpoint. Sex can undoubtedly hinder inter-relational skills, but this has nothing to do with the actual sex, and everything to do with how we perceive sex. We tend to ignore the overwhelming positives of sex (when it comes to children) and prefer to pretend that kids are not sexual beings in much the same way you and I are.

[Stereophonics81]

@greycloud24 (3) - So is it any wonder why a child's emotional or social development may be hindered as you put it? (Of course, plenty of people have had sexual relations as a child with an adult and look back upon the experience as nothing but positive, *especially* before society became overrun with irrational fear and hysteria toward sex and children.)

Still waiting for that logical answer that explains how giving somebody an orgasm is *fundamentally* harmful ...

[greycloud24]

@Stereophonics81 the orgasm is distracting for children and they need to stay focused on other things. good sex for children can become an obsessive compulsion that overwhelming their life and retards development in other areas. the damage isn't as sever when a sex abuse victim dislikes the sex compared to when the sex abuse victim enjoys the sex which is much more harmful.

[Stereophonics81]

@greycloud24 - Wait, wait. Let me get this correct now. You're actually sitting there with a straight face and trying to tell me that the damage from rape isn't as bad as the damage from a pleasurable sexual experience? Are you crazy?

To say that sexual pleasure 'retards' a child's development is ludicrous. They're going to be thinking of sex / masturbating frequently (they're human, afte rall) regardless; why is actually engaging in it any worse or any more 'overwhelming' as you put it?

[greycloud24]

@Stereophonics81 having a hard time finding the study (i have read lots of them because my views are controversial on this topic as well even though they don't advocate for sexual relationships with children). i read a study that showed that raped children blame the attacker and recover more quickly than "consenting" children who suffer through guilt and self blame for extended periods of time. it has to do with social development, failed relationships, revictimization, and self blame.

[Stereophonics81]

@greycloud24 - Again ... the 'guilt and self blame' you speak of is certainly legitimate, but the question that needs to be asked is where does it come from? Until you (or anyone else) can put forth any real evidence that shows how an orgasm is harmful, I will continue to believe that the societal stigma / condemnation is the root cause of these problems.

[greycloud24]

@Stereophonics81 i believe it is a major contributing factor. we tell these kids that they are victims and we repeat that message until they believe it. we unconsciously use body language to program them to believe they were coerced and deceived and taken advantage of. we allow them to blame other problems in their life on this victim status, we encourage them to blame it. however there still is a preoccupation with sex that diverts their attention away from other important development.

[Stereophonics81]

@greycloud24 - I agree with the first part of what you said, obviously, but you lost me on the second part. Like I previously mentioned, the 'preoccupation with sex' is going to exist whether they're sexually active or not. Sexuality is innate. So I do not agree that sex (fundamentally) in any way shape or form hinders a child's development or 'alienates them from their peers.' There is no evidence at all that supports the theory that sexual pleasure does this. Quite the contrary.

[greycloud24]

@Stereophonics81 what age are we talking about here? i was thinking pre-pubescent in which case they do not have an innate preoccupation with sex. if you are talking about post pubescent teens than that is a different story altogether. however having an authority figure in a sexual relationship than becomes a problem with relationship skill development.

[greycloud24]

@Stereophonics81 continued. the development that they miss out on sets them behind their peers. during adolescence this can alienate them from their peers which in turn causes depression and many other disorders. humans are social animals and it is important that we do not alienate children from their peers. during puberty and following for two years girls are especially sensitive to these problems.

[MetaMorphy]

Therapists are liars---even if they are sometimes noble lies. They tell people with anemia that eating when you are hungry is the ideal, they tell fat people that sticking to a diet is ideal (When the answer is a medically determined diet with some fudge room is the ideal).

[robfuturemd]

@popgrafix Depends on the maturity, right? That is one thing that American's lack! If at 14 you are not able to judge who you should or should not sleep with, then your parents have done a very poor job raising you. This is espically the case in the US. In Europe, especially Eastern Europe ( i know cause I am from that are), the maturity of a 13 or 14 year old like that af an 18 or 19 year old american. Young eastern europeans are better able to judge then their American counterparts

[popgrafix]

@robfuturemd I'm from Europe too and I think you only see things that you want to see.

Furthermore maturity is not the only factor that decides how sexual intercourse is experienced. A 14 year old might feel comfortable having sex with somebody of his/her own aged, but feel coerced by somebody older.

Finally, even if on average children would be sexually mature at 14, the law will want to protect children that are not mature by that age, so the age of consent will be higher than 14.

[NoTrueFace1]

@robfuturemd erm, that would be one heck of a shocking maturity gap. have you ever been to america or do you just get your information from hollywood? heck that doesn't even matter. american culture varies so dramatically from region to region and by class that your statement is probably completely true in some places and the furthest thing from true in others.

[Synergistik]

Are we making it worse? watch?v=ir8BO4-7DkM

[Synergistik]

This is similar to the issue of homosexuality 30 years ago? Is it a choice? It is really wrong? There is a much more significant stigma with pedophilia because it's with children, so there's an element of consent and maturity to consider. In the end it's not about what society thinks, but rather the influences on societal thinking. Simply look at the media (TV, Movies) to see the direction we're going. The sexualization of younger and younger girls is start. Empathy for pedophiles is another.

[guyincognito84]

This sounds a lot like how people viewed homosexuality decades ago......i wonder if pedophelia will be "accepted" like homosexuality one day......i mean let's be honest.....many religions think being homosexual is fine but acting on your desire is a sin....this is basically exactly what this psychologist is saying....you can't choose who/what you're attracted to, but what you do about it.....that's the same argument people made about homosexuality.

[popgrafix]

@guyincognito84 Except that homosexuality deals with consenting, sexually mature adults and with pedosexuality there's a very big chance that the parties involved differ hugely in emotional and sexual needs, desires, feelings, activity and development. It's a little too easy just to look at the situation of the pedophile's and leave the consequences for the child out of the equation.

[guyincognito84]

@popgrafix Yes but it's also rather arbitrary to say that right up until 17 years and 11 months the individual doesn't know what they want and can't consent but as soon as they hit 18 then they know what they want and can conset.....there's no scientific evidence on when people actually mature....hence the variety of consent ages around the world.

[popgrafix]

@guyincognito84 It's silly to say that the law thinks that a child suddenly matures on his or her 18th birthday. It's the age at which a society thinks a child IN GENERAL is mentally ready to engage in sexual relationships. Perhaps there are children that mature sooner, but of course the law is there to protect those who don't. From people with mental problems due to premature sex there's quite a good scientific idea about what the age of consent should be. It's not arbitrary at all.

[dansamper83]

higher protein diet/ketogenic diet with lots of green tea and antioxidants over a period of prolonged period of time. must clean the blood, glucose like alcohol has brain developmental effects!

[HippieGuitarBoy]

I agree. Pedophilia is a mental disorder, but in that sense, so is homosexuality. If it varies from the social/sexual norm, it's a disorder. The difference is that the gays took a stand, and gained acceptance.

Just because you're gay, doesn't mean you rape people of the same sex. Just because you're a pedophile, doesn't mean you rape children.

[satanasgirl]

By this logic, I could say that African American slaves who ran away from their plantation owners had a mental disorder too (drapetomania).

I agree with you that behaviour that deviates from the "norm" is considered a disorder, or abnormal, but there's a value judgment that comes into play too. A genius kid is "abnormal", but that's considered a good thing. Homosexuality isn't really a mental disorder (it's been removed from the DSM), it's the cultural intolerance that creates the pathology.

[elgaed69]

Homosexuality is a genetic anomaly, but paedophilia, although it might have genetic influences, is basically a physical and psychic disease and illness. The paedophile, depleted of his own Kidney-yin, seeks out children, who usually have very strong kidney-essence, in order to vampirize off them. Unfortunately this just complicates their problem. They should be treated with acupuncture, and gene therapy when that is possible.

[elgaed69]

Clearly, despite your pretences, you to not know much about the occult. The child is the symbol of Mercury, of virgin energy (Virgo), and is sought by the paedophile because he is lacking in vigour. Usually paedophilia is coupled with impotence and memory-problems, and other mercurial Qliphoth.

[HippieGuitarBoy]

Vampirize them for their "Kidney-yin"? You're joking, right?