You can't use the system working exactly the way it is supposed to for casting doubt on its ability to work.
Sexual abuse allegations- how best to protect when the truth is unknown
- Thread starter scott3x
- Start date
- Status
You can't use the system working exactly the way it is supposed to for casting doubt on its ability to work.
You don't understand; ancientregime was saying that even if his friend hadn't had sex with the girl, he would have still gone to jail because he believed that she would have carried out her threat of accusing him of having sex with her even though he hadn't done so. The system is supposed to 'rehabilitate' those who actually do crimes, not to those who are only accused of doing them.
i know of a case that i was actually a witness in court for, a family member said that a certain family member abused her sexually, and because the girl caused so much trouble to me and my family i was asked to stand up in court and give a statement now the person who apprently abused her was actually with me the day he was supposed to ahve abused her, and he was cleared of all charges on my statemen, he lost his wife, house job everything because of that lieing bitch,
It may be that your testimony saved him from jail; you provided the alliby. However, even so, he still lost out on a lot. Based on your anecdote and what I read in noted Canadian Lawyer Eddie Greenspan's book, "The Case for the Defense", I think it's fair to say that accusations of this nature are very hard to defend against. However, it's good to point out that he is, atleast, not in jail. I think it's fair to say that ancient's friend might also not be in jail if he'd not done anything and braved whatever the girl had said about him.
On the other side, I think we should be somewhat more compassionate for people who invent tall tales. I firmly believe that everything a person does is to minimize pain and maximize happiness. Not sure why the girl thought it would be best to lie about something like that, but I think that she had those goals in mind when she did it.
Holy shit, what a cunt. I think if someone did that to a family member of mine I'd beat her into something resembling dog food.
Nothing catastrophic is caused by arousal, and never has in the history of humankind. Pleasurable chemicals occur do to arousal. You are definitely confusing arousal with something else.
Mind you, I'm only talking about arousal here, not physical acts. Well, approximately 2 to 3% or men are turn on by the penis and this is not considered a deviant type of arousal[1]. But 25% of men are turn on by preteen girls, but this is considered deviant arousal.[2]
Things are popular and do not cause harm to anyone, yes, are normal.
I know both people. Please do tell me the severity. What severity do you speak of. What should I look for?
So you don't believe the punishment should fit the crime? So if you cut someone off in traffic it's okay for them to just go ahead and shoot you? You are not reasoning, you are having an emotional outburst.
Why call the police? No one is hurt! Maybe you can provide evidence of this so called catastrophic harm that she went through. You must be confusing sex with violence, threat, or force. Sorry. They don't coexist.
You pointed out a difference. Big deal. Your point?
Your memory is bad. As I stated before he was not going to do it out of respect for the law.
Your argument is circular. You are ranting.
Protect them? You haven't shown one bit of damn evidence that my friend hurt her. Prove cunnilingus is abuse.
That's an outrageous question. Any reason, like to kill them, rape them. You out of line and are making no sense at all.
You are only name calling. Baseless claims. No evidence.
'And by god", huh? I new this stunk of a religious agenda. No evidence and outrageous claims.
He never cried foul. He did his time without any proof that he hurt a damn soul.
She understood what she wanted, she orgasmed. You have no evidence an orgasm is sexual abuse.
Bells, according to the scientific tests (the link above) one out of four men in in everyone's family, INCLUDING YOURS, gets hards for preteen girls. Wake up to reality.
No, sex didn't cause seven years of imprison. Let me inform you with a little sex education seeing you never picked up the book apparently. Sex causes orgasms. Abject morals caused the prison sentence. There was no crime. Crime requires harm.
It is not rape. Force is required for rape. No force was involved.
There were no options. He was jailed for a claim that he didn't even do. She didn't even tell the truth, as I said before. You may want to get a memory book, because this is getting old having to remind you of so much.
Whatever. Mine wouldn't be little bitches and he has respect for the law. I'd defiitely tell they that you were not the kind of person to listen to. And I'd be able to back up my claim with evidence like you haven't this whole nonsense commentary you made.
You are missing the point. He was charge for something he didn't do and was foudn guilty. How many time does this have to be said before you get it?
Now you're confusing even me ancient. I thought you said that he -did- have sex with her.
You do have a memory problem if you can't think back to a moment that did occur and feel the feelings you had then.
An no, there is no fundamental difference between the memories in your mind and the memories in digital memory; they both represent the same event.
My advice to you is if you don't like the coming legislation that will protect the documentation of peoples natural lives, don't look at the media that it protects. Thank's to the digital age, it is unstoppable and there is nothing you or any other person suffering from moral outrage can do about it.
He did, but they only did oral sex. She said they went all they way.
Now this is exactly what I am talking about. He was cleared only because he proved he was somewhere else. If he'd been out that day walking through a field watching the clouds, he'd be jailed and labeled for the rest of his life.
the courts don't mind though. it guarantees to generate traffic and occupational security. Faith based reasoning is very, very lucrative to pseudo-scientists.
Oh believe me I know exactly how I felt. Stop denying facts because they don't fit your opinions.
Yes there are differences. Your memories are entirely private, unless you have telepathic abilities.
I see. While I have heard of a canadian case where a man got probation instead of jail time for oral sex with a girl who was 12, I don't think that it was by any means assured that your friend would have gotten off if she had told the truth. In the particular case I mention, the girl was unhappy about testifying against the man and it would appear that the man in question made much of this. The man in question also had a wife and kids of his own and it seemed that he may have been their source of income as well.
What are you saying instinct? That certain memories shouldn't be allowed to be recorded by anything other then brain cells even if all participating parties wouldn't mind? If so, why?
Things like 'one out of four men' are called statistics. Aside from the fact that statistics are not always to be trusted, statistics are generally samples of a population; unless it's a question in the U.S. census, they're generally considerably smaller then the size of the nation they're supposed to represent. In the statistic you mention, it was a sample of 80 men, drawn from a larger sample of volunteers. The study wasn't exactly U.S. census size and questions could certainly be raised that the volunteer sample may have been biased.
Even if this wasn't the case, however, there is another very important issue: even accurate statistics only play out averages. That is, even if, on average, about 1 in 4 men are attracted to minors, this doesn't mean that all families would be uniform; for starters, all families don't come in units of 4; if a family is comprised of 2, 3, 5, 6, etc. individuals, the amount of individuals sexually attracted to minors isn't going to break out into fractions
. What's more, in one family, 2 men could be attracted to minors, whereas in another none of them might be attracted to minors. For this reason, I really think that Bells would have a better idea of the attractions of the men in her family more then any given statistics.This doesn't mean that the statistics don't give food for thought, but one thing is food for thought and another is erroneous extrapolations.
Bells
Staff member
Yes. And your friend felt all of that for an 11 year old child.
At some point, you will hopefully grasp the simple fact that 11 years of age is still considered a child. And that your friend went further than that and had sex with said child. Unless you are insinuating that children should be fair game and that it is acceptable to have sex with children?
And?
It still does not take away from the simple fact that your friend wanted to and did have sex with a child.
So twiddling little girls is not a severe crime for you?
Interesting.
I believe the punishment did not fit the crime in this instance. Your friend is out of jail, is he not?
Okay. Again. Your adult friend was entrusted with the care of a child. He then had sex with her because as you stated, he also wanted to. Is there something I'm missing here that you're just not getting?
He considered not doing it to save his hide. Had he not done it, had he done the right thing and called her mother immediately and left the house, he would have most probably not gone to jail. There would have been an investigation if she had leveled the accusations against him, but with all probabilities, he would not have gone to jail. But he did none of that. Instead he had sex with her because he wanted to. In other words, he didn't feel threatened, nor was he afraid. Instead, he had sex with a child. Again, what part of the wrongness of that act aren't you getting?
No, I am pointing out to you that an adult male finding a child sexually attractive and having sex with said child is wrong.
:bugeye:
Are you now saying that an adult who performs oral sex on a child is not sexually abusing that child?
Okay. Your friend had sex with a child. Oral sex is still sex. To be crude, he went down on a child and had a child go down on him. And he got off on it.
While you might think that no harm exists to the child because she wanted it as well, time and again, research has shown that children who are sexually abused (which she was, by your friend) have adverse affects that go on into adulthood. Your friend was her babysitter (if you are to be believed, which is doubtful at the moment since the story keeps changing), entrusted with her care and well being. He then had sex with her, at her invitation.. which makes one suspect that there is something not quite right with the child since she was "hot to trot" for adult men, which indicates that your friend took advantage of her instead of acting like a responsible adult and saying no and leaving immediately.. But no, he had sex with her.
Not an outrageous question at all. Do you think children should be protected from adults who want to have sex with them?
Fairly straight forward and simple if you ask me.
So why can't you answer it?
No evidence? The only evidence I have to go on is what you are providing. And so far you have told us that your adult male friend had sex with an 11 year old girl. In most people's books, your friend is a pervert and a paedophile.
Try again poppet. I am an atheist.
I stand corrected. You are crying foul for him. Poor poor man who had sex with an 11 year old child.
No, he didn't hurt anyone at all. What he did was normal according to you. Kind of says more about you in a way.
Oh dear.
Dude. It is sexual abuse because he had sex with her. Rape victims and child sex abuse victims often have orgasms. That is the body's natural response to sexual stimulation. Orgasm does not mean that no harm was done. It just means that he had sex with her.
She was 11 years of age. She might have understood she wanted to have sex, but your friend should have known better and not done it. But he wanted to do it, which says what about him exactly?
No, in my family, we actually try to protect our children from harm and the men in my family would probably castrate themselves if they ever did become aroused at children. Maybe in your reality it is normal to become aroused at children and to act on it, but in my family and my reality, it's not a done thing.
You think he was jailed because he had an orgasm?
Let me tell you something about the law and having sex with children. Whether the abuser has an orgasm is of little relevance. What is relevant is that the abuser had sex with a child.
Do you think it is only harmful and thus a crime if there is no orgasm? Do you think there is no harm if there is an orgasm?
Oh my.
No. Lack of consent = rape. The girl was 11 and therefore not legally able to consent. So yes, it was rape.
So he was jailed for not touching her at all?
No.
He was jailed because he had sex with her. Yes, oral sex is still sex. And oral sex with a child is still sex with a child.
If your friend had respect for the law, he would not have had sex with a child. Plain and simple really.
No just that there's a difference between a memory in your skull and a photograph that can be passed around to anyone.
I don't think certain memories should be kept only to the self. So long as things are consensual, go ahead, do what you like with em.
Ancient, a little point for you to consider.
There is a reason why children are treated as children.
11 year olds generally don't have a sexuality of their own. They might think they do, but in reality they are confused because they are about to leave childhood behind.
This is assuming she even did actually blackmail him into having sex with her, which I doubt he did. He probably made it up, truth be told. Normal 11 year old girls usually do not yet have a sex drive.
There is a reason why children are treated as children.
11 year olds generally don't have a sexuality of their own. They might think they do, but in reality they are confused because they are about to leave childhood behind.
This is assuming she even did actually blackmail him into having sex with her, which I doubt he did. He probably made it up, truth be told. Normal 11 year old girls usually do not yet have a sex drive.
If remember your lovemap exactly how it was, when you recall it is will create arousal. The fact you say you are not aroused proves you have a memory inaccuracy. You lovemap is not intact, which is memory-based.
Studies similar to this provide similar results.[1] I agree, more studies like it would definitely helpful. It is hard not to think the extrapolation is not true, when you can just go around doing it and et near results. I know of two others, but I don't have the link and book reference available.
There are logical psychological factors one can rely on support these observations. Such as the fact that the human form itself only changes in proportion during it's pre-adult years. The body itself is anatomically nearly exact. There is absolutely no reason why a person should think that merely because of proportion a naked body should not be seen as sexy as other proportions.
There doesn't seem to be a classification called vaginaphila, so it can be assumed a vagina is a normal lovemap and not a paraphilia. Perhaps a man is especially turned on by the vagina. The vagina itself is nearly identical in appearance from childhood to adulthood (minus peach fuzz, then pubic hair). Why would a man not be turned on by the vagina merely because it circled the sun a few year less than another vagina, if indeed his love map is the vagina?
Women who aren't well read on the psychological sexual differences between men and women may misunderstand this statistic. Men's sexual fantasies have a very high visual aspect to them, whereas women primarily fantasize situationally. Men can be turned on by differentiating human proportion quite easy (all anatomy is near identical), whereas women trying to image a romantic interlude makes it less likely to be appealing.
Even if this wasn't the case, however, there is another very important issue: even accurate statistics only play out averages. That is, even if, on average, about 1 in 4 men are attracted to minors, this doesn't mean that all families would be uniform; for starters, all families don't come in units of 4; if a family is comprised of 2, 3, 5, 6, etc. individuals, the amount of individuals sexually attracted to minors isn't going to break out into fractions
I think you are restricting family to the nuclear sense, in which you would be right. But I mean family in the over all sense, uncles, grandfathers, cousins, etc. Every family has four males. Most men get turned on by vagina's. They just love them.
- Status