hey - what about pedophilia, is it wrong?

To Mystech:

Quote: "OH! and one more thing, just for the record, I'm a man. I don't mind feminine pronouns directed at me in the bedroom, but please, not in public."

I have no idea what you are referring to.

You said: "Well, I fully understand that the responsibility of ones own wellbeing always rests with themselves, however some people truly are in mental states in which they can not fully understand this idea. I don't like the term mentally weak, though you could use it, psychology generally recognizes these people as codependents. They will make their own choice to stay in an abusive relationship, because they feel they have no other choice, be it from a fear of abandonment, or what have you, but still, just because someone is willing to stay with someone who treats them wrong, doesn't mean that it's right for them to be abused. "

I never said being a codependent means it is okay to be abused. I simply stated that an adult (no matter what their mental state) has to take the responsibility of an adult. Once childhood has past no one who will solve ones problems but oneself. It is the responsibility of an adult to either accept or change their life circumstance. Feeling one has no choice is not the same as having no choice. I never said that a someone in an unhealthy relationship has the right to be abused. If they change and leave the abuse will end, if they remain unhealthy then they remain unhealthy. Simple as that!

You said: "Children, by nature, are codependents, that's just the relationship they have with adults, they genuinely can not survive on their own, and need an adult to care for them. As such they very easily look at adults with an almost godlike awe, don't you remember thinking that your dad was the strongest man in the world, when you were a kid, or that nothing bad could ever happen to you so long as your parents were around? This is the way children see things, and that's why it's very very wrong to try to engage in any sexual activity with them, if you're such a big authority figure in their life, and they really don't have any other experience in life other than obeying and trusting adults, then what kind of relationship do you think that's going t form? It's completely self serving to the adult, and to the child mentally damaging. Kids aren't sex toys, and if you try to use your position as an adult to make them do lewd things with you, that's how you're treating them. "

Would you please respond to statements I have actually made!!!
Where did you read that I said it was right for an adult to mistreat a child? Or that a child was a "living sex toy"? Certainly not from my post. I responded that among consenting adults one can be a "living sex toy". It's called fun sex among grown ups!!

Here is what I said for your clarification:

Lucysnow: Well...between adults...there is nothing wrong than having or being a "living sex toy".


Children are not naturally co-dependent they are naturally dependent. Codependency is a term for aberrant behaviour whereby an individual fails to set healthy boundaries with another human being. If you bothered to read any of my posts you would realize that I do not believe there is anything correct, right, healthy or justified in having sexual contact with children. I don't understand why you think it necessary to remind me what it is like to be a dependent child because I do...most of us do.

Next!
 
"Kids, just like adults have sexually attractive features, there is no known reason why adults would not be attracted to kids any less than adults."

"If you watch men's eyes around female kids who you percieve as beautiful or pretty, you will notice they give the beautiful ones they same type of stares and attention they would a sexually attractive woman."

Men, and I mean psychologically healthy men, do not look upon the innocence of a child (no matter how beautiful) and equates it sexually with grown woman. Kids do not have sexually attractive features! They have not physically matured to have the "sexually" enticing physical features of an adult, to think otherwise is an aberration, an illness. I don't know a grown man who would look at a young Shirley Temple in the same way he would a Marilyn Monroe...except of course a pedophile, and most men are not paraphilic in nature. To try and rationalize the behaviour seems to me absurd.
 
I'd have to agree with that, children are lacking in sexualy appealing features. They are short, usualy pretty round, their gender is almost always much more ambiguous than an adult (which isn't to say that you can't tell a boy from a girl, but there are really not a lot of secondary sexual characteristics). Frankly there just isn't anything sexualy appealing at them. I'd have to agree the only person who would be attracted to a little girl or would be a pedophile, this isn't a normal thing.
 
Originally posted by Lucysnow
To Mystech:

Quote: "OH! and one more thing, just for the record, I'm a man. I don't mind feminine pronouns directed at me in the bedroom, but please, not in public."

I have no idea what you are referring to.
Click to expand...

In previous posts you refered to me as "she" I just want to clarify that I'm a he. As for that other stuff, it's probably best if I don't elaborate.

You said: "Well, I fully understand that the responsibility of ones own wellbeing always rests with themselves, however some people truly are in mental states in which they can not fully understand this idea. I don't like the term mentally weak, though you could use it, psychology generally recognizes these people as codependents. They will make their own choice to stay in an abusive relationship, because they feel they have no other choice, be it from a fear of abandonment, or what have you, but still, just because someone is willing to stay with someone who treats them wrong, doesn't mean that it's right for them to be abused. "

Originally posted by Lucysnow
I never said being a codependent means it is okay to be abused.
Click to expand...

And I never said that you did. If anything my words could be misconstrued as ME trying to say that. What I mean to say is that not everyone is in a mental state to take charge of their life as you describe, there are conditions which can prevent a person from getting out of an abusive relationship, and which can make them want to stay in it even though they know it's not in their best interest. This situation isn't so simple as you portray it.


Originally posted by Lucysnow
I simply stated that an adult (no matter what their mental state) has to take the responsibility of an adult.
Click to expand...

You're right, this is what they have to do if they want out of a bad relationship, however some people are in mental states which prevent them from taking responsibility of their own life. I'm not saying that this is right or natural, because it's not, but you should keep in mind that even if someone is in this pathetic state, it is still wrong to take advantage of them, and that is my point.


Originally posted by Lucysnow
Once childhood has past no one who will solve ones problems but oneself. It is the responsibility of an adult to either accept or change their life circumstance. Feeling one has no choice is not the same as having no choice. I never said that a someone in an unhealthy relationship has the right to be abused. If they change and leave the abuse will end, if they remain unhealthy then they remain unhealthy. Simple as that!
Click to expand...

Do you have any self help books on the market, by any chance? I agree with what you have to say here in principal, yes if someone just gets themself together and takes the initiative then they can get themself out of a relationship, but the same thing could be said about poor people, if they just took repsonceabillity and got things done, they could all be millionares. The fact is that in practise this isn't going to happen all the time, because many people just don't have the same view on things. There are people out there who feel they NEED someone else, and as such hey will not take action to get out of a bad situation.

Originally posted by Lucysnow
Would you please respond to statements I have actually made!!!
Where did you read that I said it was right for an adult to mistreat a child?
Click to expand...

You didn't say that, and I didn't say that you did. My whole post was not a responce to what you said, I dealt with that and just moved on, calm down, it's not all about you.
 
Everprince-

I won't reply or read anything that is an opinion, opinions are worthless and misleading.
Click to expand...

There is no inherent basis when determining whether it is good/bad, it is open to interpretation. Therefore we can only give our "opinions"

Maybe this is what you are looking for?

There is a universal taboo for peodophilism. Children under the age of their respective puberty are reproductivly useless at the moment. Also add the fact that they are underdeveloped in the cognitive department and this leads to a vulerable person that cannot make educated decisions on the issue of sex.
 
To Mystech:

I apologize if I have referred to you as a female. I think we are in agreement mostly. No I do not think it is "all about me", I just misunderstood the direction and intent of your post.

PS: I don't write self-help books I work within different genre.
But there are good books about people who "need". If it is severe codependency then it is a personality disorder ie. Borderline
 
Last edited:
lolita.jpg


do I make u horny baby
 
Last edited:
For Spookz:

What you fail to realize is that for a healthy person the beauty of this young girl fails to arouse in the same way as it would if she were fully adult (physically speaking). If one wants to consider the Lolita complex, all human beings are sexual (which includes children), but admiring beauty and the urge to defile it are two different issues.
 
Originally posted by Lucysnow
To Mystech:

I apologize if I have referred to you as a female.
Click to expand...

It's no problem at all, I get that a lot using this name. People often think it's supposed to be "Miss tech" and it's nothing to apologies for. for the record it's a play on words, Mystic + Technology = Mystech, heh.
 
these crazy ass dutch pedo freaks

NETHERLANDS LAWS:
1. Has no sodomy laws, the age of sexual consent is 16 for all, sex between an adult and a young person between the ages of 12 and 16 is permitted by law, as long as the young person consents. It may only be prosecuted by complaint from the young person or the young person’s parents. The question remains whether the public prosecutions department would proceed to prosecute if the young person themself had consented and their parents filed the complaint.
2. Has a national gay rights law that bans some anti-gay discrimination, including labour, housing, medical care and access to goods and services.
3. Allows homosexuals in its military. Dutch laws permit members of the armed services to engage in consensual homosexual relationships when off duty and away for military premises, be it with a civilian or a member of the armed services of the same or another rank.
4. The Royal Dutch Air Force requires everyone entering the force to undergo an innovative training program to increase sensitivity to Gays in the Air Force. The Dutch armed forces appear to be the most sensitive to gays in the world, although the Army and Navy do not have similar training programs.
5. Allows foreign partners of its homosexual citizenry to receive residency permits.
6. Many cities have instituted Domestic Partner registrations for same-sex couples.
7. Offers many legal rights for same-sex partners, however it excludes the right to Alternative Insemination for lesbian couples.
8. Allows homosexuals to adopt children.
9. On 12-19-00 the Dutch Parliament approved a bill converting the country's "registered same-sex partnerships" into fully recognized marriages, granting gay couples complete parity with married heterosexual couples. Same-sex couples will be able to marry at city hall and adopt Dutch children. They will be able to divorce through the court system, like heterosexual couples. The law is expected to take effect in April 2001.
 
Spookz:

I have been to Holland many times and I am quite aware of all this. The question still remains, Is it that she makes YOU horny?
 
Originally posted by Lucysnow
By the way Spookz:

Is it that she makes you horny? That is really more to the point isn't it?
Click to expand...

lighten up girlfriend. (headshots do nothing for me)

;)
 
Just out of curiosity does anyone know what prompted the age of consent laws in Holland? And what was the age of consent before?
 
Are children inherently sexual beings?

Wow. Three of the four words in this question (all except "are") could inspire -- indeed, have inspired -- ten libraries-full of debate.
____ What's a "child"? Somebody who's two, eleven, seventeen? A seven-year-old miner in Liverpool in 1860? A 10-year-old prostitute in Bangkok in 1998? Your brother-in-law in Cleveland, who's thirty-six?
____ "Sex"? Is that what the fetal fingers do when they diddle the fetal penis? (Or is it, as some biologists argue, just a form of self-soothing, like thumb-sucking?) Is sex Johnny and Janey pulling down their Osh Kosh B'goshes and poking each others' anuses? (Or is that, as the child-raising columnists always put it, "curiosity"?) Is sex kissing? (Not to the Burmese.) Fellatio? (Not to the President.) Intercourse? (Not, perhaps, to a rape victim.)
____ Okay, "inherently": Was a girl in the eighteenth century, who was married, bedded and nursing a baby by thirteen, living out some biological -- that is, natural, genetically inherited -- instinct of desiring, copulating and reproducing when puberty struck? What about the flat-chested 1998 nine-year-old dolled up like a Spice Girl and sucking face with the boy (or girl) next door like they do on "Dawson's Creek," but who will wait until she's twenty-six and married to lose her virginity because first she was busy with basketball, then with business school, and then she converted to fundamentalist Christianity? Both girls are creatures of culture, and there's little if anything inherent in how they behave.
____ The answer to the question, then: yes and no, but mostly no. Yes, humans have bodies, which from birth appear to seek pleasurable touch as surely as slugs seek moisture; and yes, that pleasure-generating touch eventually finds the genitals and other culturally designated erogenous zones. But beyond that, as the sexologist Leonore Tiefer says, the only thing natural (or inherent) about humans is culture. That goes for both childhood and sex, which are historical and cultural artifacts, with myriad variations around the globe, in flux through time, and under almost continual contest. (levine)
 
Well, those are some pretty progresive laws, thogh the age of consent is pretty damn young. An adult is alowd to have sex with a person who isn't even yet qualified to get a job in a McDonnalds, or drive a car, yet they are expected to be able to wisely chose sexual partners, and be ready for everything that this entails? Doesn't make much sence!
 
To Spookz:

You sasked: Was a girl in the eighteenth century, who was married, bedded and nursing a baby by thirteen, living out some biological -- that is, natural, genetically inherited -- instinct of desiring, copulating and reproducing when puberty struck?

Consider the average life-span of a woman during the eighteenth century and you will find the answer to the question. If women waited till their late twenties or early thirties to marry or have children such as today...well, they just did not live that long. Women for the most part in that time were protected because to 'ruin' a girl before marriage....well it was difficult to marry her off at that point.

You asked: "What's a "child"? Somebody who's two, eleven, seventeen? A seven-year-old miner in Liverpool in 1860? A 10-year-old prostitute in Bangkok in 1998? Your brother-in-law in Cleveland, who's thirty-six?"

Well a seven year old miner in liverpoos is a child and was considered a child even in 1860. The need for economic survival necessitated families using their children as additional means of support (The same goes for the 10 year old in Bangkok in '98. Using a child as a commodity to support a poor family). My hypothetical brother-in-law is immature but not a "child".

You asked:"Sex? Is that what the fetal fingers do when they diddle the fetal penis? (Or is it, as some biologists argue, just a form of self-soothing, like thumb-sucking?)

It is to self-sooth, a means of comfort. An infant or toddler has no sexual consciousness, they know touch.

"Is sex Johnny and Janey pulling down their Osh Kosh B'goshes and poking each others' anuses? (Or is that, as the child-raising columnists always put it, "curiosity"?)"

Curiosity. Johnny and Janey are beginning to discover their own bodies, it is the beginning of sexual consciousness

"Is sex kissing? (Not to the Burmese.)"

Not to me either. It is foreplay.

"Fellatio? (Not to the President.)"

It is sex to the president he just lied.

"Intercourse? (Not, perhaps, to a rape victim.)"

It is sex to the rape victim just not consensual sex. Rape is a violently forcing sex.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top