Nonetheless the a person finding himself with those sort of feelings has to respond to the wishes of the society as a whole.
There might be a great deal of justification in the thought that such persons receive unwarranted vilification; but all those arguments are made mute and ridiculous by the abuse of a single child, whose rights, as an individual with no power to protect themselves, are paramount over the feeble bleating of a Paedophile, who thinks himself powerless to avoid abusing a child.
A paedophile is one thing, an abuser is another thing altogether.
The only valid argument of this thread has to be deontological.
Well said, but in practice it's a different story. The Michael Jacksons and they Penn State coach are only the very thin veneer of what's going on out there. Vilification is only toward high profile cases.
The fact is like most other nice people, pedophiles go to church like everyone else. What they do on their own time, they do not consider any of society’s business.
~I don’t think so.
If a 18 year old has sex with a 15 year old and she successfully accuses him of rape then he stays on the sex offenders register for the rest of his life; the same list occupied by people who perform multiple abuse on numerous children.
There are a range of paedophile watch schemes which hound people out of their homes without regard for the crime or the punishment already received.
You can find a list of names and addressed quite easily.
Yes, Lev, quite right, except what aboutthose not on any list? I would bet that those noton the list as opposed to those in, would garner a fraction of , easily , 10 to 1. Pedophiles’s intellignce is not to be underestimated, i would think, though not prevy to any statistics here.
…good to know Lev 
The number of paedophiles is completely unknown. It could be huge, a significant percentage of the population.
The only known is the number of convicted, (or acquitted) abusers. But what’s your point?
Some of those convicted might want to reform; what chance is there of that? What help?
The hysteria is so high in the UK that the simple act of downloading an illegal image attracts a charge of “Making an obscene image”. Going for help is tantamount to crime.
Seriously I don’t know what the help would look like, but some degree of sexual re-orientation is possible, of coping mechanisms, so that paedophilia does not turn into abuser.
Sorry guys,
Here in India, the festival of Diwali is going on, which almost means what Christmas and New Year to Christians.
Hindus use this occasion to clean and paint their houses. I and my family were busy with this since last two days. It will take one day more.
with love,
sanjay
“Most of you” is quite a widespread disgusting insult actually.
Please show where ANYONE has said it’s okay to fuck others’ kids!
It is…
Disputing the age of consent is akin to it…
Unless you’re fucking Adam and Eve, you’re always fucking others’ kids.
Reminds me, …public display
In the throes of a new romance, I was smitten, every opportunity to kiss this man, I sought. Once we were both in an elevator, with one other man. As the elevator descended, I said to my man, “kiss me”, he suddenly became very reticent about this as the other man would no doubt see us. I persisted and persisted and he refused and refused, pointing out we were not alone, which made me desire him more. This went on for about four floors, until the other man who had been silent, suddenly said, “kiss her mate, because if you don’t, I will”.
Ground Floor.
We three tumbled out laughing, me still “unkissed”.
Is this considered a public display? I thought it is was rather stingy on his part, needless to say we did not last the distance.
No. Even if we discuss the age of consent, this is not warrant to “:Fuck another’s child.”
As far as I remember the age of consent argument has concerned matters of legal fact.
The age of consent is basically what determines whether one is officially a child or not (that is, not an adult; not nobody’s offspring). So the statement “Disputing the age of consent [namely, saying it should perhaps be lower] is akin to saying it’s okay to fuck others’ kids” is a truism.
The age of consent should be idally, whatver age a person regardless he or she is an adult or a child, consents to with a reasonable amount of education and information there unto. Usually it’s other’ who draws artificial lines, not withstanding, that some
children mature at faster rate than others. Limits should be set by one effected, not the one effecting.
No, because if the dispute is about the “legal age”, then anyone over that age is ipso facto NOT a kid. For the suggestion “it is okay to fuck another’s child” to be true, would entail fucking children REGARDLESS of the age of consent, as disputing the legal age of consent successfully would render those people adults and therefore legal.
Do keep up.
Exactly. Hence the truism.
I have been keeping up. If the age of consent is 18, fucking anyone under 18 is fucking another’s kid. However, if I dispute that age, in the sense of saying it should perhaps be lower, this is tantamount to saying that, say, a 17 year old should not be considered a kid. So yes, disputing the age of consent in this sense is akin to saying it’s okay to fuck others’ kids, because at the time of the dispute those people are, indeed, still legally kids–namely, under the age of consent. This is the truism I was talking about.
There is one overlooked thing here: Aside from the fucking, regardless of whether or not the issue of the age of consent was properly disposed of, the constant survallience of the possible parent behind the kid becomes constant preoccupation. There is no telling,
what strange apparitions of threatening and oft dangerous relations may seek retribution.Therefore an indulgance into those of questionable age, fragility and naivete, carries with it
an element of risk.
This risk may too, severly limit liberties taken, and many have gone down this path, sorry of this relation.
Bollocks.
The age of consent is what the current government says it is.
That is 16 in the UK, 12 in the Vatican, and various other places on earth.
Discussing the reasoning behind the law, has fuck all to do with people on this thread wanting to fuck children.
If the age of consent were lower, they might not be children (e.g., if it were 0, none of them would be). Anyway, I don’t know what people you’re talking about. If the age of consent were 25, I for one would want to fuck a child.
The age of consent is not a determinative of what constitutes a child. It is the sexual, psychological, and social determinates which is.