A Place for Paedophiles

[Midgeorge]

Just watch the whole video and discuss.



Reaidng through some of the youtube comments, I'm really starting to lose faith in society.

I'd like to hear other people's opinion on the situation before I put forth mine. My opinions on things are generally a lot more extreme than people seem to think.

[Concept]

Side note (20 minutes in) - laughing at how stereotypical they all look (so many moustaches!)

[Doppleganger]

Hey I just got here, and this is crazy, but please condense this, I'm really lazy.

(just kidding, got a test and studying, but I don't have 58:00+ to watch that vid).

[Amras.MG]

Without watching the video...

This sounds like a good thing, because then we could just drop one bomb on them instead of having to use police stings all the time?

[Mercutio]

Originally Posted by Doppleganger

Hey I just got here, and this is crazy, but please condense this, I'm really lazy.

(just kidding, got no wi fi or laptop, but I don't have 58:00+ to watch that vid).

Hi there.

[unownmew]

So, they test their "curedness" by re-submitting the patient to similar stimuli as they were put there for? Interesting.

What I don't understand is, why almost all of the patients are there for male-male paedophilia, and grouped up with even more males. Seems more like a problem with homosexuality than pedophilia, or likely to evolve pedophilia into homosexuality instead.


For discussion:
Is it pedophilia if both participants are underaged? For example, King Tut married, not only his sister, but, she was about 9-10 at the time as well. Why would it be different for an adult with an underaged person, as opposed to both being underaged?

Islam permits marriage of girls as young as 12 and sometimes younger. Is this pedophilia? Why or why not?

[Midgeorge]

Originally Posted by unownmew

So, they test their "curedness" by re-submitting the patient to similar stimuli as they were put there for? Interesting.

Silly right?

What I don't understand is, why almost all of the patients are there for male-male paedophilia, and grouped up with even more males. Seems more like a problem with homosexuality than pedophilia, or likely to evolve pedophilia into homosexuality instead.

This is severe generalisation. Not all of the people at coalinga are there for Homosexual molestation, however a lot of them are. This is only what the BBC shows us anyway; there are probably a lot more cases linked with heterosexual paedophilia than there are homosexual, but the BBC shows us the ones that would probably rattle the public the most.

For discussion:
Is it pedophilia if both participants are underaged? For example, King Tut married, not only his sister, but, she was about 9-10 at the time as well. Why would it be different for an adult with an underaged person, as opposed to both being underaged?

Islam permits marriage of girls as young as 12 and sometimes younger. Is this pedophilia? Why or why not?

Well, pedophilia is defined as a psychiatric disorder of people of 16 years or older, who are attracted to prepubescent children, generally ages 13 or younger. So by the definition, no.

What I question the most though, is why the definition refers to it as a psychiatric disorder. Is it? Or is it just simply that persons particular taste? Don't get me wrong, I don't think its right to molest underaged children or anything, but I don't understand why pedophilia is classed as a disorder rather than just unusual behaviour.

[Concept]

Originally Posted by Midgeorge

What I question the most though, is why the definition refers to it as a psychiatric disorder. Is it? Or is it just simply that persons particular taste? Don't get me wrong, I don't think its right to molest underaged children or anything, but I don't understand why pedophilia is classed as a disorder rather than just unusual behaviour.

Suppressing your sexual identity/having strong social stigma against it is a recipe for serious mental health issues, but expressing your "tastes" when they're something like pedophilia is obviously some pretty horrific abuse.

Which is kind of the problem with having the stigma we have associated with pedophilia. Don't get me wrong - actually sexually abusuing a child is terrible under any circumstances, but the sitgma goes too far in that it makes people with that inclination too ashamed to seek help because the moment they admit to anyone "I'm attracted to children" the immediate and ingrained reaction is revulsion. It's cutting off the only potentially good option here - seeking to change. Also means I get to crack out one of my favourite quotes :p;

"Never let your sense of morals prevent you from doing what is right."

Our immediate, visceral, emotional reaction - our morals - tell us that someone sexually attracted to kids is a bad person. But acting on that view is doing more harm than good.

Originally Posted by unownmew

So, they test their "curedness" by re-submitting the patient to similar stimuli as they were put there for? Interesting.

I'm assuming you're thinking of its obvious drawbacks, and you're right - but I struggle to think of another way to do it.

For discussion:
Is it pedophilia if both participants are underaged? For example, King Tut married, not only his sister, but, she was about 9-10 at the time as well. Why would it be different for an adult with an underaged person, as opposed to both being underaged?

It's an interesting question. I suppose one could argue that an adult with an underaged person could be somewhat more damaging because it's an abuse of trust that's bound to lead to trust issues. I guess it depends on the relative maturity levels? Idk, it's somewhat a moral gray area because whether it does harm or not depends on a lot of things that aren't easily or objectively measurable. I guess that's why we feel the need for age of consent laws without (or with very limited?) exceptions - erring on the side of caution.

Islam permits marriage of girls as young as 12 and sometimes younger. Is this pedophilia? Why or why not?

Yup. This is one of those things that western muslims now reject, thankfully. Woo for not blindly adhering to tradition.

[unownmew]

Originally Posted by Midgeorge

This is severe generalisation. Not all of the people at coalinga are there for Homosexual molestation, however a lot of them are. This is only what the BBC shows us anyway; there are probably a lot more cases linked with heterosexual paedophilia than there are homosexual, but the BBC shows us the ones that would probably rattle the public the most.

Well, it's was a question from a culmination of things. Almost all heavily reported Pedophilia cases are male-male, and for some reason male-female pedophilia never quite seems to garner as much outrage as the other one. And of course, if there was ever a female-male or female-female case it would most certainly be far less criticized or reported. And I just don't understand why that would be if they were all equally grotesque.

Well, pedophilia is defined as a psychiatric disorder of people of 16 years or older, who are attracted to prepubescent children, generally ages 13 or younger. So by the definition, no.

What I question the most though, is why the definition refers to it as a psychiatric disorder. Is it? Or is it just simply that persons particular taste? Don't get me wrong, I don't think its right to molest underaged children or anything, but I don't understand why pedophilia is classed as a disorder rather than just unusual behaviour.

It doesn't make any sense whatsoever. How can it be a mental disorder if it only occurs in those 16 and older? And if it's a mental condition, why it is any different than homosexuality, which allegedly is also a mental condition.

If it were a "taste" or "fetish," I could understand it being considered "evil," but if it's a naturally occurring condition (be that condition a disorder or simply different mental wiring), why should it be considered any worse than any other naturally occurring condition?


Of course molesting children is wrong, but, what constitutes molestation? If someone was married to a 12 year-old, why should normal marital behavior be considered molestation? And if that sort of behavior normally reserved only between marital partners or "consenting adults" is condoned between unmarried consenting teenagers, why should there be any difference between "adults" and "underaged" to begin with?

Originally Posted by Concept

Suppressing your sexual identity/having strong social stigma against it is a recipe for serious mental health issues, but expressing your "tastes" when they're something like pedophilia is obviously some pretty horrific abuse.

Which is kind of the problem with having the stigma we have associated with pedophilia. Don't get me wrong - actually sexually abusuing a child is terrible under any circumstances, but the sitgma goes too far in that it makes people with that inclination too ashamed to seek help because the moment they admit to anyone "I'm attracted to children" the immediate and ingrained reaction is revulsion. It's cutting off the only potentially good option here - seeking to change. Also means I get to crack out one of my favourite quotes :p;

"Never let your sense of morals prevent you from doing what is right."

Our immediate, visceral, emotional reaction - our morals - tell us that someone sexually attracted to kids is a bad person. But acting on that view is doing more harm than good.

I agree, for the most part.

I'm assuming you're thinking of its obvious drawbacks, and you're right - but I struggle to think of another way to do it.

Well, that and it's simply too easy to fake. Of course there's also the problem that, if they show all the various stimuli in the same session, build-up of hormone could cause 'stimulation' at a point where the patient is not fond of the stimuli.

I personally wouldn't be very pleased with having to be subjected to all sorts of other deviant sexual behavior. And it doesn't even measure the worst of the worst for what the people are there for.

And the Polygraph test... polygraph is not reliable at all, yet it's used as an end-all be-all solution.

It's an interesting question. I suppose one could argue that an adult with an underaged person could be somewhat more damaging because it's an abuse of trust that's bound to lead to trust issues. I guess it depends on the relative maturity levels? Idk, it's somewhat a moral gray area because whether it does harm or not depends on a lot of things that aren't easily or objectively measurable. I guess that's why we feel the need for age of consent laws without (or with very limited?) exceptions - erring on the side of caution.

But an abuse of trust can occur at any age. Simply because adults command the greater authority, doesn't mean teenagers can't/don't pressure or attempt to take advantage of their girlfriend/boyfriend also.

If an adult was married to a 12 year old, why would there be an abuse of trust? Abuse, of course, can occur in any relationship, and should be addressed as such, but I don't see any relational difference between an adult and underaged with regards to trust.

Does age of consent include parental consent? or must it be strictly age? In Islam with parental consent, and if I'm not mistaken, even on the lawbooks of some US states, with parental consent, underaged (from 12), are allowed to be married.

Yup. This is one of those things that western muslims now reject, thankfully. Woo for not blindly adhering to tradition.

But it's still strictly legal, even if looked down upon.

[Concept]

Originally Posted by unownmew

Well, it's was a question from a culmination of things. Almost all heavily reported Pedophilia cases are male-male, and for some reason male-female pedophilia never quite seems to garner as much outrage as the other one. And of course, if there was ever a female-male or female-female case it would most certainly be far less criticized or reported. And I just don't understand why that would be if they were all equally grotesque.

At least partially societal bias - regardless of whether such bias is justified or not, society is biased against homosexuality (in a very loose sense of the word bias - I'm not getting into an argument on whether this bias is right, like bias against rape, or wrong, like bias against black people, merely stating that there is a bias. My views on it are well known, let's leave it at that).

It doesn't make any sense whatsoever. How can it be a mental disorder if it only occurs in those 16 and older? And if it's a mental condition, why it is any different than homosexuality, which allegedly is also a mental condition.

If it were a "taste" or "fetish," I could understand it being considered "evil," but if it's a naturally occurring condition (be that condition a disorder or simply different mental wiring), why should it be considered any worse than any other naturally occurring condition?

Bolded part - not a mental condition because of the complete and utter lack of evidence that it causes any particular harm.

As for the other part, whether something is natural or not is entirely irrelevant as to whether it's good or not. Typhoid and smallpox are naturally occuring - pacemakers and dialysis machines aren't. What is relevant is whether it causes harm or not - acting on pedophlic tendencies causes serious mental health issues to the victim. Other sexualities I could name (heterosexuality, homosexuality, asexuality) don't.

Of course molesting children is wrong, but, what constitutes molestation? If someone was married to a 12 year-old, why should normal marital behavior be considered molestation?

Again, because it causes harm. What constitutes "normal marital behaviour" between mentally capable consenting adults causes mental health issues to children, and should thus be considered molestation.

And if that sort of behavior normally reserved only between marital partners or "consenting adults" is condoned between unmarried consenting teenagers, why should there be any difference between "adults" and "underaged" to begin with?

See above for the whole "causes harm" thing. Where the age of consent should lie is, I suppose, up for debate (16 in the UK), but no-one's condoning it in cases where it causes harm.

Well, that and it's simply too easy to fake. Of course there's also the problem that, if they show all the various stimuli in the same session, build-up of hormone could cause 'stimulation' at a point where the patient is not fond of the stimuli.

Fair point. I guess you'd have to do it in multiple sessions.

But an abuse of trust can occur at any age. Simply because adults command the greater authority, doesn't mean teenagers can't/don't pressure or attempt to take advantage of their girlfriend/boyfriend also.

I think I must be missing your point here. Condemning acts of pedophilia does not imply we're condoning sexual abuse in other situations. That's not how it works. The thing with pedophilia is it causes major issues for the victim in essentially every case, so a blanket ban doesn't prevent any legitimate situations.

If an adult was married to a 12 year old, why would there be an abuse of trust? Abuse, of course, can occur in any relationship, and should be addressed as such, but I don't see any relational difference between an adult and underaged with regards to trust.

It's to do with brain development, and it's the same reason we don't let six year olds vote - they're simply not capable of understanding the rammifications, and as I said previously, sexual contact with minors causes serious issues in essentially every case. I'm generally against people doing things that will seriously screw someone up.

Does age of consent include parental consent? or must it be strictly age? In Islam with parental consent, and if I'm not mistaken, even on the lawbooks of some US states, with parental consent, underaged (from 12), are allowed to be married.

But it's still strictly legal, even if looked down upon.

Marrying 12 year olds is legal in parts of the US? Oh dear god your country is even more backwards than I thought.

I'd say it should absolutely not include parental consent, for the reasons above - there's no legitimate reason for them to ever give consent, it will screw the child up, so why let them? Allowing parents to consent to their child being made sick in the head is like allowing people to go round beating their children with a baseball bat at will - in both cases, it's allowing someone to cause serious harm to another person where otherwise there would be none

I'm all for letting stupid people do things that harm themselves, but letting them do things that harms someone else? I do not approve.

[Talon87]

Why do you allow yourself to get distracted by his lies again and again, people? >_> Obvious troll is obvious whether he's doing it on purpose or not. You can look up the legal age of consent if you want for yourself but I'm going to save you the trouble if you'd like by telling you that it's 16, 17, or 18 years old in every single one of the fifty states.

In unownmew's own home state of Texas (source: http://www.statutes.legis.state.tx.u...E.21.htm#21.11 ), the legal age of consent is 17. It is considered aggravated sexual assault in his state (source: http://www.statutes.legis.state.tx.u....22.htm#22.021 ) to have sex with someone under the age of 14. No surprises here.

As for the legal age of marriage, again, not a surprise, it's even higher: in his home state of Texas (source: http://usmarriagelaws.com/search/uni...ws/index.shtml ), it's 18 years of age. Minors ages 15 to 17 can legally marry but parental consent is required. Parental consent for minors ages 14 and younger is not sufficient to permit legal marriage in Texas. Period.

[Slash]

This should really go without saying, and is the logical conclusion, but obviously some people need a reminder. Here goes.

*ahem*

Homosexuality and paedophillia are not the same thing.

Thank you.

Now, to what Midge said, I must say I do understand. I have a huge problem with people who victimise the innocent, particularly abusers of children and animals. That said, I know I have to put some of my hatred aside and note when the victimiser is also in need of help. Obviously, the horrible stigma prevents most with those inclinations from seeking help, which builds up into an action that can't be undone. This can be hard to see sometimes, however, and even I, a pacifist, would rather kill a man (or woman) than allow him (or her) to victimise the innocent. And I honestly feel literally ill when I have to kill roaches. Roaches.

Now, as long as the parties consent and are of sound enough mind to reasonably do so, I'm fine with it. The legal age of consent thing I am a bit iffy on, and I'll admit I have never really stayed around my age group sexually. I guess what I am trying to say here is that age difference doesn't matter to me, except in the case of one or more parties not being able to give informed consent. And I realise I've gone on a tangent, so.

[Concept]

>Talon

A brief scan down the website you linked brings up New Hampshire with the incredibly dodgy minimums of 13 (for girls) and 14 (for boys) under certain conditions, and a few others at 14. Still think your country is backward, but then again so is mine in its own way :p.

[Midgeorge]

On a side note, and a somewhat relevant one, Louis Theroux sounds like a patronising dickhead like all of the time.

[unownmew]

Originally Posted by Concept

At least partially societal bias - regardless of whether such bias is justified or not, society is biased against homosexuality (in a very loose sense of the word bias - I'm not getting into an argument on whether this bias is right, like bias against rape, or wrong, like bias against black people, merely stating that there is a bias. My views on it are well known, let's leave it at that).

I'm not saying it has anything to do with homosexuality, or anything, and I was certainly not looking to argue on homosexuality in this thread, I was just noting the evident bias there is between male-male pedophilia, and female-male, female-female, as well as the male-female, and stating I don't see how any of them are any less reprehensible than the others.

Bolded part - not a mental condition because of the complete and utter lack of evidence that it causes any particular harm.

I stated specifically mental "condition" because I was not referring to it as a disorder, which is harmful to the person who has it, but instead as a different method of mental wiring, which would place pedophilia, homosexuality, heterosexuality, and personality, on the same mental development field. Regardng for the detriments associated with pedophilia, I wasnot involving them at this time or on this level of the assessment.

As for the other part, whether something is natural or not is entirely irrelevant as to whether it's good or not. Typhoid and smallpox are naturally occuring - pacemakers and dialysis machines aren't. What is relevant is whether it causes harm or not - acting on pedophlic tendencies causes serious mental health issues to the victim. Other sexualities I could name (heterosexuality, homosexuality, asexuality) don't.

We could argue this all day regarding the others you listed causing harm as well, but I'd rather not.

Again, because it causes harm. What constitutes "normal marital behaviour" between mentally capable consenting adults causes mental health issues to children, and should thus be considered molestation.

See above for the whole "causes harm" thing. Where the age of consent should lie is, I suppose, up for debate (16 in the UK), but no-one's condoning it in cases where it causes harm.

So your entire argument is that it can cause serious mental health issues in the "victim"?
I have to say this could be debateable.
Firstly, what constitutes a mental health issue? And is this issue caused because of the trauma of the "rape/molestation" that occurred, or because of the age of the victim?

There's likely not much data regarding the mental health of children who have been married at age 12. And such a marital relationship, could create far different effects than forced molestation for all we know. But of course stigma and bias are never going to allow a serious discussion for that.

For your perusal:
http://www.nairaland.com/450419/age-...es-paedophilia
http://womenofhistory.blogspot.com/2...hildbirth.html
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greek_love#Ancient_Rome
http://www.roman-empire.net/society/soc-marriage.html
http://web.nickshanks.com/history/roman-marriage
http://www.jewfaq.org/marriage.htm

I think I must be missing your point here. Condemning acts of pedophilia does not imply we're condoning sexual abuse in other situations. That's not how it works. The thing with pedophilia is it causes major issues for the victim in essentially every case, so a blanket ban doesn't prevent any legitimate situations.

In essentally every case. *points up* Of course, of course.

I never meant to imply condoning other forms of sexual abuse, I was simply stating that, is it the "sexual abuse" that causes these mental issues, or, the age?

It's to do with brain development, and it's the same reason we don't let six year olds vote - they're simply not capable of understanding the rammifications, and as I said previously, sexual contact with minors causes serious issues in essentially every case. I'm generally against people doing things that will seriously screw someone up.

Is it really to do with brain development? Or is it more to do with current knowledge? We don't let 6 year olds vote because they're not legally considered adults. If 6 year olds were legally considered adults, then we would let them vote. We don't let them vote because we haven't finished filling their brains with all the facts and figures that they'll apparently "need" to make informed decision.

Marrying 12 year olds is legal in parts of the US? Oh dear god your country is even more backwards than I thought.

Used to be the same for the UK in case you weren't aware of it. *points to link*

I'd say it should absolutely not include parental consent, for the reasons above - there's no legitimate reason for them to ever give consent, it will screw the child up, so why let them? Allowing parents to consent to their child being made sick in the head is like allowing people to go round beating their children with a baseball bat at will - in both cases, it's allowing someone to cause serious harm to another person where otherwise there would be none.

You seem to be obsessing over this "mental health" issue a little too much. What will you do if/when scientific evidence says otherwise?

Originally Posted by Talon87

Why do you allow yourself to get distracted by his lies again and again, people? >_> Obvious troll is obvious whether he's doing it on purpose or not. You can look up the legal age of consent if you want for yourself but I'm going to save you the trouble if you'd like by telling you that it's 16, 17, or 18 years old in every single one of the fifty states.

In unownmew's own home state of Texas (source: http://www.statutes.legis.state.tx.u...E.21.htm#21.11 ), the legal age of consent is 17. It is considered aggravated sexual assault in his state (source: http://www.statutes.legis.state.tx.u....22.htm#22.021 ) to have sex with someone under the age of 14. No surprises here.

As for the legal age of marriage, again, not a surprise, it's even higher: in his home state of Texas (source: http://usmarriagelaws.com/search/uni...ws/index.shtml ), it's 18 years of age. Minors ages 15 to 17 can legally marry but parental consent is required. Parental consent for minors ages 14 and younger is not sufficient to permit legal marriage in Texas. Period.

Originally Posted by Concept

>Talon

A brief scan down the website you linked brings up New Hampshire with the incredibly dodgy minimums of 13 (for girls) and 14 (for boys) under certain conditions, and a few others at 14. Still think your country is backward, but then again so is mine in its own way :p.

Thanks for doing the work for me.

[unownmew]

Addressing Kaisap112s post from another thread.

Originally Posted by kaisap112

Just a little note here: people reach puberty at very different stages in their lives. For example, it hit me around age 11 but there are people in the world who have reached puberty at age 8 and even younger.

Now, would you want 8-year-old mothers and fathers running around?

King Tut married and ruled Egypt at age 10, I think running a family is a little less difficult than ruling an entire country. Furthermore, American child labor laws (among other restrictions) have essentially made it impossible for an 8 year old to support a family, even if he was mentally and physically capable of it. So while I agree, I don't want to see it, it's not an issue of physical or mental ability.

As well, families have been far more coddling of their children this current and past century than any other. Children learn responsibility and the value of work far later in life than they used to, and sometimes even not at all. Rather than trying to teach the child how to enter adult society and be a functional and mature adult, parents are content with letting their children play around and remain childish for far longer than is good for them in the long run. So, while I agree an 8 year old would not be able to mentally handle marriage, it's not for a lack of mental capability, but rather a lack of training.


If an accomplished adult were to marry this 8 year old child, however, (be this a man marrying a young girl, or a woman marrying a young boy), we negate the previously mentioned economic problem of children marrying (being unable to support themselves or their family), as well as we provide an avenue for the child to learn their particular household responsibilities, and grow better and faster mentally in a safe and protected environment, negating the mental challenges of children marrying as mentioned above.

Beyond that, we give this "child" a chance to learn and grow together with their lifelong partner, ensuring better compatibility between the two (assuming there was at least some compatibility to begin with), as well as a more unified household, where the two parties grow together, rather than growing apart, which is a leading cause of divorce.

From all sorts of media coverage and stories I've gathered that having kids at younger than age 18 (or even younger than 25!) is not a good idea. That you are ready to mate physically does not mean that you are ready mentally as well (for sex or for having children).

I agree with this, however, this is a direct result of societal evolution, and not an inherent biological weakness.
As stated above, due to certain laws and regulations, it is practically impossible to economically support a family before reaching a certain age (can't work to earn money at some places until you are age 15-16) and without a full education you will be severely disadvantaged in pay. Due to particular government regulations, cost of doing business is increased, which directly increases the average cost of living beyond what a below average earning person can afford easily. This is a problem with society however, and not an inherent disadvantage of age.

And also as stated above, mental development of children is being retarded with the excessive coddling they are receiving. They are not learning how to function maturely in society until late in the teens, if at all. They are not being taught effectively how to be responsible, nor are they taught how the "real world" works until they have reached the arbitrary legal age of adulthood. This directly impacts their maturity and ability to capably handle a marriage at younger ages. This again, is a problem with society, and not an inherent biological disadvantage based on an arbitrarily decided legal age.

Thankfully, the modern society has realized this and the law has evolved - which religion rarely, if ever at all, does. I certainly hope that when presented with the idea of starting a family with a little child, solely based on them having reached puberty, you wouldn't go for it.

Modern Society has actually caused the above problems, but, not recognizing it's own effect on itself, it attempts to attribute it to something else, and further legislates to "curb" it's own effects, which, unfortunately, just continues to exacerbate the problem.

You gave the arbitrary age of 8, and I used it for purposes of the discussion, but I personally would not seek out such a young age (In the US, nothing less than 12 has been legal anyway). I recognize the futility of finding a young bride, but if such an opportunity were actually presented, I see no reason why to decline. Though my work would be cut out for me given the mental state of most young teens as I above mentioned, I would be happy to accept her, cherish her above everything, and I'd never seek to offend or harm her in any way.

Also, sexual abuse comes in many forms, rape isn't the only one.

Sexual Abuse Definition. Sexual abuse is any sort of non-consensual sexual contact. Sexual abuse can happen to men or women of any age. Sexual abuse by a partner/intimate can include derogatory name calling, refusal to use contraception, deliberately causing unwanted physical pain during sex, deliberately passing on sexual diseases or infections and using objects, toys, or other items (e.g. baby oil or lubricants) without consent and to cause pain or humiliation.

And I abhor all of this.

Child Sexual Abuse. Medem defines child sexual abuse as "any sexual act with a child performed by an adult or an older child."

And this is simply putting the word child in front of "sexual acts." and calling it "abuse".
Abuse is abuse, which is the first definition, something which is harmful or derogatory, and unconsensual. Child Sexual abuse is simply creating a double standard where people above a certain age are prohibited while anyone below the age is welcome to do whatever they please. It is ridiculous to permit such actions when both parties are under-aged, but to forbid and criminalize them when one party does not meet some arbitrary "legal age standard for permissiveness." It's like saying 30-year-olds can not engage in sexual contact with anyone 40 years or older.

I abhor child abuse, just as I do all forms of abuse, however, abuse is abuse and it retains a strict definition regardless of whether a child is involved or not. Consensual sexual actions within a marriage is not abuse, regardless of the age.

And, while I believe that all sexual relations should only be permitted within the bounds of matrimony, if consensual sexual actions between two unmarried 13-year-olds is not abuse, neither can it be considered abuse if one of the unmarried parties is 19-20 years old and it remains 'consensual.'

[Emi]

I am not exactly sure how much of this I am going to be able to contain. Pedophilia is a big issue in my family, mostly because my mother was raped when she was a little girl. Now, to cut through some of the bullshit I have seen.

Originally Posted by unownmew

Addressing Kaisap112s post from another thread.


King Tut married and ruled Egypt at age 10, I think running a family is a little less difficult than ruling an entire country. Furthermore, American child labor laws (among other restrictions) have essentially made it impossible for an 8 year old to support a family, even if he was mentally and physically capable of it. So while I agree, I don't want to see it, it's not an issue of physical or mental ability.

King Tut was from a completely different day and age unownmew. In his time, it was okay to marry and screw your sister because being a pharaoh meant that you were god. And plus, the massive amount of riches he had kinda made it easy for him. AND he was not ruling the country at all during his lifetime, even when he was 18-19, because he was TOO YOUNG!!! Kinda screw up that argument huh?

American child labors laws were put in place so that the growing bodies of kids would not have to be exposed to the rigors of an adult based workplace. Many kids at that time came out with crooked backs and defects that stayed with them their entire lives. Child labor was not good unownmew, and you trying to use it to justify whatever the hell you are justifying is insane. Are you justifying the back-breaking, and deforming, labor just so kids can have families when the mental capacity is not there? You're nuts. Just truly fucking nuts. It is an issue of mental and physical capacity unownmew.

Originally Posted by unownmew

As well, families have been far more coddling of their children this current and past century than any other. Children learn responsibility and the value of work far later in life than they used to, and sometimes even not at all. Rather than trying to teach the child how to enter adult society and be a functional and mature adult, parents are content with letting their children play around and remain childish for far longer than is good for them in the long run. So, while I agree an 8 year old would not be able to mentally handle marriage, it's not for a lack of mental capability, but rather a lack of training.

I don't remember the average eight-year-old in the 17-19th century being able to run a business or how to manage a farm. They simply lack the capacity to do so. No amount of training is going to benefit them for this. Marriage is basically like running a business, except you have the all the emotional junk in there as well, which an eight-year old is not going to understand. An 8 year old is not going to be able to function in an adult society because he does not have the experience or the mental capacity of an adult. Children are not just born with an adult brain unownmew. Or, maybe you were. That might explain your overly large head.

Originally Posted by unownmew

If an accomplished adult were to marry this 8 year old child, however, (be this a man marrying a young girl, or a woman marrying a young boy), we negate the previously mentioned economic problem of children marrying (being unable to support themselves or their family), as well as we provide an avenue for the child to learn their particular household responsibilities, and grow better and faster mentally in a safe and protected environment, negating the mental challenges of children marrying as mentioned above.

Except no. Adults do not treat children like adults unownmew. It has been known for god knows how long that an eight year old kid is simply not an adult. And can never be one. The average age for maturity is about 15-20 unownmew. If you are so keen to bring in historical precendence into the equation, then, unownmew, your argument falls apart. Do you think that the 8 year old would be the in consent? She would not have a clue unownmew. It is more likely that the father sold her off for a dowry. And then, the child has to deal with the abuse of the husband because Adults do not treat children like adults.

Originally Posted by unownmew

Beyond that, we give this "child" a chance to learn and grow together with their lifelong partner, ensuring better compatibility between the two (assuming there was at least some compatibility to begin with), as well as a more unified household, where the two parties grow together, rather than growing apart, which is a leading cause of divorce.

Wow, again, your fucking stupidity is annoying me. RANGEET? USE THAT PICTURE IN YOUR SIG ON SPPF PLEASE!

But really, an eight year old kid is not going to have any real compatatibility with an adult unownmew. The mental, physical, and emotional levels here are so different. This would be a case of "daddy wants to get rich" more than "I want to marry this person." This argument is illogical.

Originally Posted by unownmew

I agree with this, however, this is a direct result of societal evolution, and not an inherent biological weakness.
As stated above, due to certain laws and regulations, it is practically impossible to economically support a family before reaching a certain age (can't work to earn money at some places until you are age 15-16) and without a full education you will be severely disadvantaged in pay. Due to particular government regulations, cost of doing business is increased, which directly increases the average cost of living beyond what a below average earning person can afford easily. This is a problem with society however, and not an inherent disadvantage of age.

Again, unownmew, those laws were put into place to keep kids from experiencing the physical pains and emotional pains of a workplace for grown human beings. It was unsafe, and cruel. Not to mention unownmew that you made JACKSHIT because of the fact that you did not need to paid much. How much of fucking history class did you sleep through? Really? Or, are you just deliberately ignoring facts so you Argument looks Stronger? Children are making more money compared to when child labor laws did not exist then they ever were unownmew. What you are saying here is just plain wrong.

Originally Posted by unownmew

And also as stated above, mental development of children is being retarded with the excessive coddling they are receiving. They are not learning how to function maturely in society until late in the teens, if at all. They are not being taught effectively how to be responsible, nor are they taught how the "real world" works until they have reached the arbitrary legal age of adulthood. This directly impacts their maturity and ability to capably handle a marriage at younger ages. This again, is a problem with society, and not an inherent biological disadvantage based on an arbitrarily decided legal age.

Coddling unownmew is normal. We are not an r-selected species, where we just throw our young into the wild. We are K-selected, Meaning that we try to Raise out young so that they can be the Fullest Mentally and Physically they can Possibly be. And, truthfully, this is completely wrong unownmew. your school systems must have sucked some Royal Ass. Schools have more business and child Development classes now combined that art or music. You are so fucking blind unownmew that you choose to ignore these facts. Parents do try to teach their kids responsibility. Your parents must have set the other example for you.

Originally Posted by unownmew

Modern Society has actually caused the above problems, but, not recognizing it's own effect on itself, it attempts to attribute it to something else, and further legislates to "curb" it's own effects, which, unfortunately, just continues to exacerbate the problem.

So, yeah, let us go back to the seventeen hundreds, when disease was rampant, law enforcement was shitty, government was shitty, and everything else was just plain shitty. Problem solved!

Originally Posted by unownmew

You gave the arbitrary age of 8, and I used it for purposes of the discussion, but I personally would not seek out such a young age (In the US, nothing less than 12 has been legal anyway). I recognize the futility of finding a young bride, but if such an opportunity were actually presented, I see no reason why to decline. Though my work would be cut out for me given the mental state of most young teens as I above mentioned, I would be happy to accept her, cherish her above everything, and I'd never seek to offend or harm her in any way.

This has nothing to do with the argument unownmew. We really don't care what you would do. You seem to be a nice enough guys, although whoever built you probably ate the screws that are missing in your skull, but it is the rest of the humanity that we are concerned about unownmew. Not everyone is like you. A lot of people are much, much worse.

Originally Posted by unownmew

And this is simply putting the word child in front of "sexual acts." and calling it "abuse".
Abuse is abuse, which is the first definition, something which is harmful or derogatory, and unconsensual. Child Sexual abuse is simply creating a double standard where people above a certain age are prohibited while anyone below the age is welcome to do whatever they please. It is ridiculous to permit such actions when both parties are under-aged, but to forbid and criminalize them when one party does not meet some arbitrary "legal age standard for permissiveness." It's like saying 30-year-olds can not engage in sexual contact with anyone 40 years or older.

Let me put into good words how bad this really all is:
Harmful: In most cases, pedophilia causes mental issues with the child. Look at my mother. She has so many problems, it is not funny.
Derogatory: Children cannot understand what sex really is, and, it often makes them feel used or taken advantage of. Which is derogatory. More teen relationships are broken up because of sex than you probably realize.
Unconsnesual: A child does not consent to sex the same way an adult does. It is a power situation, and when a women is forced to have sex with someone she does not want to, it is just as bad. Adults=/=Children.

And the 30 year old argument is strawmaning it. Stop.

Originally Posted by unownmew

I abhor child abuse, just as I do all forms of abuse, however, abuse is abuse and it retains a strict definition regardless of whether a child is involved or not. Consensual sexual actions within a marriage is not abuse, regardless of the age.

And, while I believe that all sexual relations should only be permitted within the bounds of matrimony, if consensual sexual actions between two unmarried 13-year-olds is not abuse, neither can it be considered abuse if one of the unmarried parties is 19-20 years old and it remains 'consensual.'

Again, it is a power situation. Children look up to and fear adults. When a difference in power is presented, it is abuse. Two 13 year olds do not have an unfair balance of power. In most cases.

[DaveTheFishGuy]

I have no interest in this thread other than 'Paedophilia is bad', but for the record, sexual interest in sexually-mature 'children' is called Ephebophilia.

That is all.

[unownmew]

Firstly, addressing all the crap from the other thread:

Originally Posted by Blastoise

Yeah, who could possibly think you're a potential Megan's Law candidate when you think homosex is "the icky" but you're defending pedophilia?

Is no one allowed to have a valid opinion if it contradicts your own? That's why it's impossible to to have a debate with you guys, because you refuse to even allow a topic to be discussed, you immediately determine "wrong, he's bad/dumb/troll/whatever, without allowing the argument to even be considered.

What is pedophilia? It's defined by an arbitrary age of consent statue that differs in several different countries. I don't disagree that children should be protected. What we disagree on is at what age that protection need no longer apply.

And if we're going to be arguing human sexuality based on animal behavior, I have a fascinating link you may or may not have been shown yet.

Already addressed that in the gay marriage thread. You're a bit late, but you can still see my response to it there.

Pedophilia = okay, because laws can be changed

Homosexuality = not okay, because laws can be changed (?)

Wrong.
Pedophilia = sexual attraction
Homosexuality = sexual attraction

abuse = violent or otherwise physically or mentally harmful actions against a person without consent.

sexual abuse = abuse of a sexual nature, whether in or out of a marriage

child sexual abuse = defined by law as someone "too old" doing something to someone of a certain age that someone of that same age is perfectly allowed to do with someone of the same age.

marriage = lawful sexual conduct between two people, regardless of societal norms, excluding abuse.

I do not approve of any sort of extramarital affairs, whether they be pedophilic or homosexual in nature. I also do not approve of abuse or coercion in sexual encounters. However, if there is love, kindness, understanding, education, and consent, I see no reason to exclude certain ages from marriage.

And there were a lot of things that were considered "acceptable" until the 20th century, like treating the Negro as personal property. Is this really the logical avenue you want to pursue?

Yes, because it's a different argument. Marriage does not cause the devaluation of an individual person.

And if you really want to get into your slavery argument, Your precious 13th amendment whereby slavery is abolished, does not abolish it entirely. Involuntary servitude is retained as a possible punishment of crimes committed and duly convicted, and voluntary servitude is entirely allowable.

Pedophilia = okay, because with sex education children are suddenly empowered to give proper informed consent

Homosexuality = not okay, because with sex education homosexuals are still bad people who should have their sins absolved by God and proper faith-based counseling (?)

You're comparing apples and oranges. The issue with pedophilia is the age of consent laws, the issue with homosexuality has nothing to do with consent.

But if you really want to go religious, Mary the mother of Jesus was a virgin around the age of 12 years old when she was espoused to Joseph the Carpenter (who conceivably was far older than she), and bore her first child.

In summary, I fucking hate you and I hope you are raped to death by wolves.

And I wish no ill upon you. Your reaction is entirely normal, and understandable, due to the stigma that's been socially built up against my position. But I respectfully disagree with you.

Originally Posted by kaisap112

It gets worse, although in another thread. I hate to ask, but how f*cked up do you have to be to think sex with kids is desireable?

No one here is suggesting sex with kids is appropriate. What we disagree on is the definition of what a kid is, and the age at which they cease being so.

Originally Posted by Talon87

It will be less fucking disgusting the day Kuno finally bans unownmew. Because unownmew is almost certainly a troll and thus is not going to take the hint that nobody here wants him to stay. Quite the contrary! The more hatred people throw his way, the more he's energized to keep on trolling. He was almost gone but then people started defending him again (thanks a lot, Kush ) and he decided he could still squeeze some shits and giggles out of this community.

The only way he will leave is when 1) he's banned, 2) he inevitably makes a new troll account proclaiming he can't be gotten rid of that easily, and then 3) he's finally exposed making it VERY easy to persuade everybody to QUIT REPLYING TO HIS INCENDIARY REMARKS.

I'm quite offended. I am not a troll. I am sincere in my remarks, but since you and so many others so greatly abhor my positions, while I have not broken a single rule. Nor have I sought in any way to bring up these particular beliefs of mine, but have only replied to others who brought them up before me with my honest opinion on the matter. YOU were the one who accused me of pedophilia to begin with, I merely stated my position and corrected you, yet you can't accept that I have different positions than you.
If I was interesting in trolling, I'd do it in a religious forum, or a political forum, not a pokemon forum.

I do not find this debate "fun" in any sense of the word. I have only ever been completely serious about sharing my personal opinions. You don't ever see me deriding your opinions on large breasted women Talon, though I personally dislike them. I would have liked to have been shown the same amount of respect.

I registered here to this forum because I desired, in all my social inadequacy, to become a part of the community, but the more I open up to people, the more you reject me. Because I never conformed to your world views, I am ostracized and insulted. So, am I really then, the one at fault here?

[Jerichi]

EDIT: I'd also like to point out to how your logic boils down to "I really like murder and I am actively trying to defend his desire to murder people and I think that I should should be legally able to murder even if it's blatantly obvious that it hurts people."

Is no one allowed to have a valid opinion if it contradicts your own? That's why it's impossible to to have a debate with you guys, because you refuse to even allow a topic to be discussed, you immediately determine "wrong, he's bad/dumb/troll/whatever, without allowing the argument to even be considered.

The irony is palpable.

But if you really want to go religious, Mary the mother of Jesus was a virgin around the age of 12 years old when she was espoused to Joseph the Carpenter (who conceivably was far older than she), and bore her first child.

oh my god

so like

historical and biblical precedence is not okay with you when it deals with something involving consenting adults, like homosexuality

but when it's kiddysex it's totally legitimate

wow it's like you're not even trying anymore

I registered here to this forum because I desired, in all my social inadequacy, to become a part of the community, but the more I open up to people, the more you reject me. Because I never conformed to your world views, I am ostracized and insulted. So, am I really then, the one at fault here?

You are, from pretty much anyone's perspective aside from those pretty close or meeting the level of lunacy you engage in, an ignoramus and a lunatic. We don't reject you because you're not conformed to our world views, we reject you because your world views are so twisted and backwards that we feel you detract from our community.

Frankly, I'm extremely uncomfortable interacting with ANYONE who harbors paedophilic desires, whether they act on them or not. But it's even worse when said person is frequenting a forum about a game marketed and made for children, especially when a large number of its members are well under the age of consent or have been for most of their time here (like myself).

If Kuno doesn't finally drop the banhammer on you, I'd like to be the first to ask you to kindly get the fuck out.

[Blastoise]

Originally Posted by unownmew

Is no one allowed to have a valid opinion if it contradicts your own? That's why it's impossible to to have a debate with you guys, because you refuse to even allow a topic to be discussed, you immediately determine "wrong, he's bad/dumb/troll/whatever, without allowing the argument to even be considered.

I WANT TO FUCK UNDERAGE GIRLS WHY DOES NO ONE UNDERSTAAAAAAAAAAAAND

What is pedophilia? It's defined by an arbitrary age of consent statue that differs in several different countries. I don't disagree that children should be protected. What we disagree on is at what age that protection need no longer apply.

I WANT TO FUCK UNDERAGE GIRLS BUT THE LAW WON'T LET ME

I'm going to take a shot in the dark here and say that an "arbitrary age of consent" is a much easier gauge of measurement in legal terms than "sexual maturity" or whatever bullshit metric you feel should entitle you to be a cradle robber.

I do not approve of any sort of extramarital affairs, whether they be pedophilic or homosexual in nature. I also do not approve of abuse or coercion in sexual encounters. However, if there is love, kindness, understanding, education, and consent, I see no reason to exclude certain ages from marriage.

And this logic does not apply to homosexual relationships because...?

PS you don't get to fall back on the Bible/Book of Mormon for your justification

PPS Reproductive arguments don't count either unless you believe that sexual intercourse is only for the purpose of baby-making and never solely for pleasure

PPPS oh fuck who am I kidding you're a batshit insane Mormon

Yes, because it's a different argument. Marriage does not cause the devaluation of an individual person.

I think the greater point is that arguing that pedophilia is okay "because it was okay a long time ago" is dangerous, and arguably ignores the context of the eras in which that practice was accepted ("marrying young" means something quite different when you're considered exceptional if you live to your mid-40's). It also opens up an uncomfortable can of worms for some of your other beliefs, such as why you think homosexuality is wrong even though there are plenty of cultures and times where homosexual behavior was not afforded the stigma it has in Judeo-Christian cultures.

Basically that logic is full of shit, and so are you.

And I wish no ill upon you. Your reaction is entirely normal, and understandable, due to the stigma that's been socially built up against my position. But I respectfully disagree with you.

Yeah, we know. You want to be a kiddie fucker, but you want to move the goalposts so that you aren't a kiddie fucker for a very specific definition of kiddie fucking.

Spoiler: show

PS you're still a pedophile

I'm quite offended. I am not a troll. I am sincere in my remarks,

I agree. You're such an ideologically blindered retard that it would not surprise me to see you earnestly argue that the earth is flat based on the fact that science says it's round and the mainstream science establishment cannot be trusted because gay liberal media

I do not find this debate "fun" in any sense of the word. I have only ever been completely serious about sharing my personal opinions. You don't ever see me deriding your opinions on large breasted women Talon, though I personally dislike them. I would have liked to have been shown the same amount of respect.

Did you seriously just equate liking well-endowed women = fucking underage girls

really

Really

Really?

but the more I open up to people, the more you reject me. Because I never conformed to your world views, I am ostracized and insulted. So, am I really then, the one at fault here?

Somewhere Jerichi is playing you a sad song on a tiny violin.

[Jerichi]

[Emi]

Have i maybe found an argument even unownmew can't lash back on?

No, but its nice to hope.

[unownmew]

Originally Posted by blazeVA

I am not exactly sure how much of this I am going to be able to contain. Pedophilia is a big issue in my family, mostly because my mother was raped when she was a little girl. Now, to cut through some of the bullshit I have seen.

I am sorry for your mother. I abhor all forms of Rape

King Tut was from a completely different day and age unownmew. In his time, it was okay to marry and screw your sister because being a pharaoh meant that you were god. And plus, the massive amount of riches he had kinda made it easy for him. AND he was not ruling the country at all during his lifetime, even when he was 18-19, because he was TOO YOUNG!!! Kinda screw up that argument huh?

"Different day and age." That's definitely acknowledging that it's society that's changed and is at fault here, and not biological differences or any sort of arbitrary age mechanic.

If Tut was not ruling, what was he doing? I thought he died fairly young. Also having riches does not make you good at managing things.

Anyway, you've just acknowledged my point. In "this day and age", pedophilia has a massive stigma against it. In a future day and age, I have no doubt that such beliefs will fall away and the old practices will again be used. What makes us so prideful that we think WE are the ones who know better than our forefathers? Is that not exactly what our Forefathers thought of their forefathers as well? Which then of the hundreds of generations of humanity is right? How can you prove that WE are right, and they were wrong? And what then does that say of our future generations? will they somehow be 'more right' than us? But doesn't that completely invalidate our assertion that "We" are the ones in the right? Food for thought.

American child labors laws were put in place so that the growing bodies of kids would not have to be exposed to the rigors of an adult based workplace. Many kids at that time came out with crooked backs and defects that stayed with them their entire lives. Child labor was not good unownmew, and you trying to use it to justify whatever the hell you are justifying is insane. Are you justifying the back-breaking, and deforming, labor just so kids can have families when the mental capacity is not there? You're nuts. Just truly fucking nuts. It is an issue of mental and physical capacity unownmew.

Correction, they were put into place to prevent the rigors of assembly line, sweatshop standard safety, and heavy machinery working conditions, which are very very different from the past farming and craftsmen professions of the previous generations. Funnily enough, the "rigors of an adult-based workplace" never bothered past generations which had very different professions.

Child labor is good, it teaches them responsibility, and maturity. Or did your parents never make you do household chores and cleaning when you were young? What is not good is unsafe and unnatural working conditions. Child labor laws still don't apply to farm labor, so you can't use them as an argument against. Any child can dig a hole, plant a shrub, trim a bush, harvest a plant, why prevent them from getting paid for it? Why should a child be unallowed to be a secretary or database entrant, or a household maid, or a cook? There are plenty of jobs a child can do and get paid for that are safe. Laws need only prevent a child from performing tasks they are not suited for, that are dangerous to their health. You don't have any qualms with permitting children from running lemonade stands do you? That's business management, and it's a great way to teach it to them too. Ever read Rich Dad Poor Dad? That talks about child labor, and minimum wage too.

It is not an issue of physical ability, as I have just demonstrated, and yet children are prohibited still.

I don't remember the average eight-year-old in the 17-19th century being able to run a business or how to manage a farm. They simply lack the capacity to do so. No amount of training is going to benefit them for this. Marriage is basically like running a business, except you have the all the emotional junk in there as well, which an eight-year old is not going to understand. An 8 year old is not going to be able to function in an adult society because he does not have the experience or the mental capacity of an adult. Children are not just born with an adult brain unownmew. Or, maybe you were. That might explain your overly large head.

Actually running a business is far far harder. Have you ever tried? I can assure you, the regulations are insane, to the almost impossible.

Average 8 year old able to run a farm... hmm. I'm 100% certain it was done in the middle ages, what with very often likelihood of the father to have died or sent to war before a child "came of age." It's even more likely that 8 year olds apprenticed under tradesmen for carpentry, milling, and blacksmithing.

This may not be 8 years old, and it may not be a true story, but it illustrates the point to a degree. 15 years old and attempting to do all the early morning household chores on a farm No doubt he knew what to do and how to do it long before this age, but he was never required to perform alone before. Does not mean he could not have done so earlier if conditions had required it.

Anyway, the fewer experiences in adult life is the entire reason the young ought to marry the older, because the older person is knowledgeable about the world, and can teach their spouse. No one is born an adult, you are right, that is why they need the experiences as soon as possible.

Except no. Adults do not treat children like adults unownmew. It has been known for god knows how long that an eight year old kid is simply not an adult. And can never be one. The average age for maturity is about 15-20 unownmew. If you are so keen to bring in historical precendence into the equation, then, unownmew, your argument falls apart. Do you think that the 8 year old would be the in consent? She would not have a clue unownmew. It is more likely that the father sold her off for a dowry. And then, the child has to deal with the abuse of the husband because Adults do not treat children like adults.

You've clearly never lived in the middle ages as a peasant, not ever thought of their plight. Life is not all butterflies and roses, nor should it be. Live is hard, life sucks, life is unfair, and children not only need to learn that, but they have often been forced to grow up before they would have liked. Deaths in the family, fathers being sent off to war... historical precedent actually favors my side.

Adults don't treat children as adults? Since when? I thought the whole learning process was something required to become an adult. If you're not teaching the child to act like an adult, what's the point?

The average age of maturity is 15-20? In which age? Today? Because I can assure you it was far different in a different day and age, children were forced to grow up fast, because the family needed every available asset to survive. And simply because this is no longer the case in society, does not mean the practices are inherently immoral.

Furthermore, you reveal your ignorance by saying a girl was sold off for the dowry price. The dowry is actually the bride's part of her families inheritance, given with the bride to the groom for homemaking. It was a "bride price" that a man paid for a wife, and the two were never used in conjunction with the same culture.

She would not have a clue? I dunno. This girl seemed to know what she was doing. (in how to take care of herself)

And this girl, now a wisened old woman, having been a young bride herself, highly praises the practice. What abuse occurred there?

Is this moral?

But really, an eight year old kid is not going to have any real compatatibility with an adult unownmew. The mental, physical, and emotional levels here are so different. This would be a case of "daddy wants to get rich" more than "I want to marry this person." This argument is illogical.

On the contrary, the younger one is, the more compatible they are. The older one becomes, the more 'set in their ways' they become, but if one marries younger, there is less "mold braking" the person has to do to align with their spouse.

Again, unownmew, those laws were put into place to keep kids from experiencing the physical pains and emotional pains of a workplace for grown human beings. It was unsafe, and cruel. Not to mention unownmew that you made JACKSHIT because of the fact that you did not need to paid much. How much of fucking history class did you sleep through? Really? Or, are you just deliberately ignoring facts so you Argument looks Stronger? Children are making more money compared to when child labor laws did not exist then they ever were unownmew. What you are saying here is just plain wrong.

I agree with laws that ensure safe workplaces for children, I disagree with laws that prohibit children from working professional jobs period. I'm not sure what wages have to do with anything though, I'm unaware of any professional jobs that allow younger than 14 years old to apply and work, so children are not making more money than ever before. Minimum wage laws are the reason those who are allowed to work, make more money than what used to be paid back in the day.

Coddling unownmew is normal. We are not an r-selected species, where we just throw our young into the wild. We are K-selected, Meaning that we try to Raise out young so that they can be the Fullest Mentally and Physically they can Possibly be. And, truthfully, this is completely wrong unownmew. your school systems must have sucked some Royal Ass. Schools have more business and child Development classes now combined that art or music. You are so fucking blind unownmew that you choose to ignore these facts. Parents do try to teach their kids responsibility. Your parents must have set the other example for you.

I guess my schools must have sucked than, as there has never been any focus on business or development in my public schooling. I am not blind however, perhaps I was just raised in a different generation. As I have clearly seen a lack of responsibility in many in generations close to mine.

I do not mean to say however, that teaching responsibility is not something that parents try to do for their shildren, nor am I saying we should accept r-selection. What I am saying is that society has bred it's children to be generally unfit for marriage at younger ages, while past societies had done so successfully.

So, yeah, let us go back to the seventeen hundreds, when disease was rampant, law enforcement was shitty, government was shitty, and everything else was just plain shitty. Problem solved!

No, there's no need to do that. It is my belief that current societal accomplishments (such as the ease of living) can coexist with young marriage. But societal customs and education do need to change for such to be a full success.

This has nothing to do with the argument unownmew. We really don't care what you would do. You seem to be a nice enough guys, although whoever built you probably ate the screws that are missing in your skull, but it is the rest of the humanity that we are concerned about unownmew. Not everyone is like you. A lot of people are much, much worse.

I agree, and find it a great misfortune that humanity is that way. However, I don't see that as a reason to prohibit it entirely. It is ultimately the parents that would be at fault if they give their girl to one who would be harmful to her. Unfortunately I fear some parents wouldn't care enough, but that is why there are laws to penalize such abhorrent behavior, on the part of the parents, as well as the offender.

Hopefully, you understand that while it is my position to support young marriage, and I desire the stigma to descend away from the practice and parents to not immediately dismiss the idea, I am not unaware of the potential dangers, and find all abuse reprehensible and worthy of criminal penalty, and desire parents to take a heavy role in ensuring the protection of their child in all such cases as may arise.

Let me put into good words how bad this really all is:
Harmful: In most cases, pedophilia causes mental issues with the child. Look at my mother. She has so many problems, it is not funny.
Derogatory: Children cannot understand what sex really is, and, it often makes them feel used or taken advantage of. Which is derogatory. More teen relationships are broken up because of sex than you probably realize.
Unconsnesual: A child does not consent to sex the same way an adult does. It is a power situation, and when a women is forced to have sex with someone she does not want to, it is just as bad. Adults=/=Children.

Harmful: I mentioned this before. Are these alleged mental issues due to the sexual conduct engaged in, or because of the abuse? You said your mother was raped. I am truly sorry she was subjected to that, but I suspect is it the trauma of that rape that caused the issues, how different would she be if instead of rape at that age, she had been treated as an equal, esteemed as a woman, married, and not looked down upon socially for her age, and then, when both she and her husband agreed it was right, engaged in consensual, loving, and respectful relations together?

Derogatory: Is it really? Truly loving and consensual sexual relations, within the bonds of matrimony, is derogatory? Does the partner feel used? I'd argue that depends entirely on how the relations are approached. How well a child understands sex also depends entirely upon how they are educated. I am well aware that sex often destroys teen relationships, however, there is a large difference between these relations.
One, it's out of wedlock, so naturally it is derogatory, regardless of the age.
Two, teens are often left to their own devices, it's not their fault their parents did not instil in them the values of abstinence, or marriage, and without a protected environment such as marriage, it's only a matter of time before emotions get hurt.
Three, both parties are immature, and while this for some reason is legal, it only ensures that feelings will get hurt, whereas if one party is mature, though this is for some reason illegal, it is a far better relational situation where the immaturity of the one party can be guided and corrected by the more mature party.
Unconsensual: you bring up being forced to engage in relations, but if it was consensual there was no forcing involved. Neither is coercion an option for true consent. You say it is a power play, but, is that not always the case? Is it not always the more "powerful" in an adult relationship which initiates such relations? Power of course can involve many different things, and a wife denying sex is just as much power playing as a man demanding it. And yet when this sort of power play occurs in a marital relationship, we consider it consensual in all cases except physical rape and abuse, even when it's not.
Not every child acknowledges positions of power either, and if one approaches the child as an equal, rather than an adult, there is no power play involved.

Really, in all honesty, all the problems that would be problematic in a young marriage are just as common, and just as problematic in adult marriages, so it's kind of hard to say young marriage should not be allowed because it subjects the child to the same exact things they'd be subjected to in an adult marriage.

Again, it is a power situation. Children look up to and fear adults. When a difference in power is presented, it is abuse. Two 13 year olds do not have an unfair balance of power. In most cases.

By your logic, when any difference in power is presented it's abuse, regardless of the age of the parties. I do not disagree, but arguing against young marriage on the basis that it's will have the same problems that plague adult marriages seems rather pointless. Children do not always look up to or fear adults, and neither does an adult need to present themselves to the child as a power over them. Ideally in any marriage the two parties ought to come together as equals, and this is just as possible in a young marriage as in an adult marriage.

Also, I highly doubt that two thirteen year olds do not have in unfair balance of power. No doubt they do not sit down and talk about things maturely and attempt to come together as equals, but rather one party heavily presses the other for the relations before they yield to the pressure, and no doubt most of the time they are worried more about their own pleasure than their partner's. It's far less likely to get this problem in a relationship with at least one mature adult.

[Treepandaone]

Originally Posted by unownmew

No, there's no need to do that. It is my belief that current societal accomplishments (such as the ease of living) can coexist with young marriage. But societal customs and education do need to change for such to be a full success.

And it's my belief that current societal accomplishments can coexist with gay marriage. There doesn't need to be any change other than churches allowing it.