Yeh, Muslims never have had a tradition of snagging young wives.
Is America too damn religious?
- Thread starter Syzygys
- Start date
Sure, why not.
That's one possibility, but it still doesn't condone child pornography. But, I'm more concerned with your views on ones fantasies leading to violence and abuse.
If an adult were acting the child, is it no longer offensive?
Close the thread.
Oh boy.
The fear begins.
superluminal:
Just want to add my 2 cents here. Pardon me for jumping in.
Not every male is into child porn. Most, in fact, are not.
There's a distinction between a young woman and a child.
I suggest you take the legislated age of consent as a guide, since I'm not sure I trust you to be able to make your own discriminations, given your comments.
Can you think of any other reason it might be damaging to the child, other than social stigma?
Are you seriously saying that men who fantasise about sex with children are NOT more likely to enact those fantasies than those who do not have them?
A strange position to take.
People died by age 30 throughout the vast majority of human history, too.
But, more to the point, why do you think the stone age was the glorious past which we should resurrect in our modern society?
The age of consent in many places is 16.
Kiddie porn is images of children engaged in sexual activities or posed in sexually provocative poses (often naked).
Are you really not aware of this?
Just want to add my 2 cents here. Pardon me for jumping in.
Not every male is into child porn. Most, in fact, are not.
There's a distinction between a young woman and a child.
I suggest you take the legislated age of consent as a guide, since I'm not sure I trust you to be able to make your own discriminations, given your comments.
Can you think of any other reason it might be damaging to the child, other than social stigma?
Are you seriously saying that men who fantasise about sex with children are NOT more likely to enact those fantasies than those who do not have them?
A strange position to take.
People died by age 30 throughout the vast majority of human history, too.
But, more to the point, why do you think the stone age was the glorious past which we should resurrect in our modern society?
The age of consent in many places is 16.
Kiddie porn is images of children engaged in sexual activities or posed in sexually provocative poses (often naked).
Are you really not aware of this?
No problem. Your comments are always welcome.
Clearly. The point is that what a vague description in a report of "child porn" could easily be referring to (in the US at least) is a man looking at a picture of a naked 16 or 17 year old lying on a bed.
Yes. The question is, what arbitrary line are we referring to and why?
I'm fully aware of what my government considers child pornography and I largely disagree with it. Despite that, I'm perfectly capable of making the distinction, thanks. It's the zealots that would throw a 40 year old in jail for 10 years for looking at nudes of a 16 year old that seriously worry me.
If sexuality was not demonized the way it is in the US, can you think of reasons why it would be? As you well know, children are quite aware of their sexuality from a very early age. I have no real data to suggest that in the absence of a parent and a society that has an apoplectic fit at the mere appearance of a breast on TV that children would be harmed by sexual contact with an appropriate adult.
This is not the same as an adult taking a child and exploiting that child with photographs and public exposure. That, in my opinion is heinous.
First, I explained the difference between fantasy and compulsive illness (the real definition of pedophilia). Is there data to support the idea that non-compulsive fantisizing leads to acting out?
I don't think so.
I find that irrelevant. There are extremely good evolutionary reasons that I'm sure you're aware of that explain why many men, despite this vague and erroneous definition of "child" and "pedophile", find young girls (typically beginning at the age of puberty) attractive.
Obviously I don't. What I do find disturbing is the wholesale adoption of the attitude that sexuality, at any age, is demonized far more than murder and violent abuse. Just watch some prime-time US TV programming.
Yes. And 14 in some areas. In these areas, people who are living happy, productive lives would be imprisoned here for many years and stigmatized for their whole lives. And I know, it's the law. So what?
Of course I am. It's the definition of "kiddie" I've been trying to get at (with sam especially).
I'm convinced she thinks "kiddie" means anyone under the age of 18.
So, a couple of things.
1) I am not advocating child porn. Just as I wouldn't advocate child coal miners or child ditch diggers. At what age should a person be able to say "I'm going to do thus-and-such" and not be interfered with? I would say that when a person is able to function in society, as it currently exists, as an autonomous individual.
That would be the ability to live alone and generate an income and understand the rules that allow reasonable navigation of the societal landscape. It seems to me that the this age is already widely recognized in the west as around 16 years. We allow people to work, and drive. Yet we irrationally withold the right to drink or vote.
2) Men who find developed females attractive are not sick, based solely on an age. The test is easy. You show a photograph of a clearly young woman to a male. She is, by any definition, physically attractive and reasonably developed. The man says so, and then you explain that this is a picture of a thirteen year old. He demonstrates the required response of moral outrage (most of the time) despite being attracted to the image itself. This is clearly societal conditioning.
Anyway, my entire interest in this subject stems from an abhorrance of injustice, of any kind. And when I see males being labeled sick and pervert for an attribute that almost all males share (occasional attraction to pubescent and post-pubescent girls) it irritates me. The same way that that anti-atheist bigots (xians) irritate me.
Rant over.
Well you're anti Christian.
No, I'm not. The huge difference you xians miss is that all we atheists really want is for you to keep your religion out of the public sphere. We know xians and have no problem with them. Xians (and theists in general) are highly discriminatory toward atheists. Did you read the links I posted in the other thread? There are many more like that.
"Congress shall make no law regarding the establishment of religion, nor prohibiting the free exercise thereof," you'll have to move to Europe.
superluminal:
I don't have a problem with most of what you've said in your last post. Except this part:
Can you please clarify which "children" you believe it is ok to have "sexual contact" with an "appropriate adult"?
In your opinion, would it be permissible for a 40 year old man to convince, say, a 13 year old girl to have sex with him? Let's assume she is post-pubescent and he finds her sexually attractive.
If sex with the 13 year old would not be appropriate, in your opinion, please explain where and how you would seek to draw an appropriate line.
What is required for a "compulsion", in your view? Multiple instances of sex with young people? Multiple instances of sex with the same young person? The 40 year old who has sex once with a 13 year old is ok, but having sex with a series of different 13 year olds would be wrong? Or what?
What makes the fantasizing compulsive? Is it how often the fantasies are indulged in? If the 40 year old man fantasizes about sex with children every night, is that compulsive? What about if he only does it every time he sees a child he finds attractive in the street? What if he is going out of his way to download pictures of children onto his computer (even if he only does that, say, once a week)?
Your idea of "compulsive behaviour" seems conveniently loosely defined, to me.
The US has some funny attitudes to sex, I agree. Many of them have been seriously skewed by the religious nature of much of American society.
I think you are. By saying that it is acceptable for adults to view child porn, you are, in fact, supporting the child porn industry's continuing existence.
A common response in this type of situation would be "Eww! I didn't realise she was only 13! That changes everything. I thought she looked older, but now I know she's 13, I wouldn't even contemplate having sex with her."
Don't you think? As opposed to:
"She's only 13? Well, she's a damn fine looking 13 year old, and I certainly wouldn't mind having sex with her!"
I don't have a problem with most of what you've said in your last post. Except this part:
Can you please clarify which "children" you believe it is ok to have "sexual contact" with an "appropriate adult"?
In your opinion, would it be permissible for a 40 year old man to convince, say, a 13 year old girl to have sex with him? Let's assume she is post-pubescent and he finds her sexually attractive.
If sex with the 13 year old would not be appropriate, in your opinion, please explain where and how you would seek to draw an appropriate line.
What is required for a "compulsion", in your view? Multiple instances of sex with young people? Multiple instances of sex with the same young person? The 40 year old who has sex once with a 13 year old is ok, but having sex with a series of different 13 year olds would be wrong? Or what?
What makes the fantasizing compulsive? Is it how often the fantasies are indulged in? If the 40 year old man fantasizes about sex with children every night, is that compulsive? What about if he only does it every time he sees a child he finds attractive in the street? What if he is going out of his way to download pictures of children onto his computer (even if he only does that, say, once a week)?
Your idea of "compulsive behaviour" seems conveniently loosely defined, to me.
The US has some funny attitudes to sex, I agree. Many of them have been seriously skewed by the religious nature of much of American society.
I think you are. By saying that it is acceptable for adults to view child porn, you are, in fact, supporting the child porn industry's continuing existence.
A common response in this type of situation would be "Eww! I didn't realise she was only 13! That changes everything. I thought she looked older, but now I know she's 13, I wouldn't even contemplate having sex with her."
Don't you think? As opposed to:
"She's only 13? Well, she's a damn fine looking 13 year old, and I certainly wouldn't mind having sex with her!"
That's not Congress doing it.
That was in the old Soviet constitution.