I know that I've had problems in the past of people saying that what I post really isn't news, but this is different. This is news. Big news. Big news that might finally just make me kill myself.

http://patdollard.com/2013/07/it-begins-pedophiles-call-for-same-rights-as-homosexuals/

The article states that pedophilia should be a sexual orientation that's called "minor-attracted people". They are claiming that they can't help themselves just like gays couldn't and gays got the okay, so why shouldn't they? There's already been trials in three states over this issue.

I'm begging you. Please. Find some kind of proof that these people are trolling. Please. Tell me that this is just some extreme anti-gay argument. What's next? Is bestiality a sexual orientation too?

Most of all. If this is true and people are serious, then someone help me put together a petition that I will personally pass around to everyone to sign.

Fuck, I'd even walk up to Westboro and personally shake each one of their hands if they protested against this.

Well, shit. What's with those people thinking that THAT could be an advantage for that?

Eh. It's probably true that they're naturally attracted to children. Does that make it alright? Eh. Although age differences don't bother me, and I consider the age of consent realistically more like 13 than 18, I think that stereotypical pedophilia has issues. Particularly young kids don't know what they're doing. There are also far too many rape cases (real rape, not just statutory) regarding pedophilia in the past. "But Bambi, there are more rapes with straight couples!" Yes, that is true.

It's a really weird argument, to be honest. The only thing that's really making pedophiles seem in the wrong is our personal morals, or more likely our protective instincts towards youth.

In nature, the age you're ready to have sex is the age you start your menstrual cycle and/or once you start to ejaculate. First world countries have unfortunately destroyed that with the hormones and preservatives they put in foods as well as other varying factors which have caused girls to start their menstrual cycles at seven or even younger. "But Bambi, aren't there a lot of stories in third world countries of little girls getting pregnant even younger!?" Yep, there are. But I'm pretty sure those are such big stories specifically because they're rarer cases. It's not natural nor normal for a human girl starting to menstruating before adolescence no matter what country she's from, though as with all of nature, there will be exceptions every now and again. (I haven't studied up enough about guys to know what age they're really supposed to start their nonsense at, btw.)

So even the naturalist debate is awkward because our own bodies are out-of-whack and not quite natural enough to fit the rules.

I'm not sure what realistic route to go to defend my opinions in a legitimate debate other than to stick with the standard morals everyone is going for and say, "It's just not right!" - which just isn't good enough. I can see why they're actually getting some ground in courtrooms.

My problem with it isn't that it's "just not right". I believe that they can't help who they are. My problem with it is the fact that there are people out there that prey on children of ten or younger. The fact that you can look at a kid who hasn't hit puberty and get turned on is just disgusting to me.

Let me guess. Someone's going to say that I just contradicted myself because saying that it's disgusting is under the "just not right" category. Am I correct? Well, let me finish.

Humans can't always safely have children once they hit their menstrual cycle. Often times, are bodies aren't fully developed with breasts and a body the can maintain a child in it for 9 months, much less push it out. This is one of the main biological problems with teen pregnancy.

According to this link, the best age to have a baby biologically is late teens and early twenties.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/robin-marantz-henig/whats-the-best-age-to-hav_b_2206136.html

Late teens and early twenties would be too old for pedophiles to seek after considering that's not really a child. Most children these days start their cycle around their early teens, but, as Bob said, that could be caused by the hormones that are put into the animals to make them produce more or get fatter. Personally, I know someone that developed breasts way bigger than what was natural (it hurt her back) because of the hormones in milk.

Wait! I hear another question in your heads. Why do I think that it was caused by that? Well, it's simple. Once she started drinking hormone free milk, they went back down. It wasn't like she ever ate something else that could cause it. Her diet was the same throughout. (More or less, she only ate crap food.)

Back to what I was saying. Some women don't even start their cycles until they're 18. I know someone. Not only that, but women have been starting their cycles earlier and earlier. My sister (Quite a bit older than me) started hers later than I started mine. My mother started her even later. This possibly could be caused by the shit that they put in food as Bob stated. I have no proof, but it makes sense.

Now, I bet by now someone's already said something along the lines of "They don't have to have sex!"

Well, let me clarify something. A sexual orientation (as pedophiles want to be listed under) is described a a sexual attraction. Sexual attraction (more or less. I haven't had any, so I wouldn't know exactly) is the desire to have sex with someone. If they are sexually attracted to children, then they won't be sexually attracted to them by the time that they can safely have children.

Do you ever hear doctors worrying about young pregnancy because the body can't handle it? Yeah, it's on the news, internet, and probably a lot of people saying it as well. Just because they hit their cycles mean that their body is built to handle it. Most often (as far as I've seen) they don't develop all of that until after their cycles start.

You can't even compare this to nature because of one thing. Animals have a gland in their nose to detect if a female is in heat. Humans used to and still have these glands, but it's not a functioning organ. Males in nature have sex ones their cycle starts because this gland makes them uncontrollably horny (have you even seen the stupid shit an not neutered male or nonspayed female does once the female goes into heat? Yeah, humans don't experience that.) That's because we are biologically different from them.

This doesn't even just go from the biological differences either. What about the trauma? Yeah, someone's going to say that they over dramatize the trauma that children face when they've been sexually abused. Let me tell you this. It's not over dramatized. You can't even understand what it does until you've either experienced it or seen someone you love and care about experience it and see how it tears them apart. You really can't.

It's easy to shrug off when you don't know anyone that's experienced it personally, but it's also easy to shrug off a lot of things unless you've seen it effect someone personally.

There's also the fact that some (sheltered) kids don't even know what sex is until they're over 15. I don't think that it's as plausible in today's times with the internet so strong, but it's still possible. Children can't actually know what they're saying when they consent.

If they do know what they're saying? Do you really want a kid that's not even in high school holding a steady relationship with someone out of college?

Again, someone's going to say that's juts an "It's just not right" argument. Let me finish.

Up until a certain age, girls think boys are icky. Then they his puberty and start experience their body changing. All the while, they're going through school. They have other things to do such as get into high school or college. Financially and psychologically, people can't even handle a kid until they are out of college. You'd understand if you stayed up all night studying for finals or looked into your wallet wondering where your next meal will come from. Yeah, good paying job that doesn't keep you up at odd hours of the night or require an absurd amount of time would probably be preferred before children.

Again, you say that they don't have to be having children. Well, there are very few methods to prevent children, and none of them work 100% of the time. Let's face it, mistakes happen.

It's true that you can't choose who you're attracted to,they're right about that, but you can choose what you'll do about it. The problem with pedophilia is not that it's not that usual, the main issue is that it can be harmful to other people. The age of consent varies from country to country, and it's more a legal thing than a moral one. But let's not forget that there is a difference between a consenting minor engaging in sexual intercourse and a child someone is taking advantage of, and probably traumatizing in the process. Unfortunately, the term 'pedophilia' can sometimes be applied to both kinds of cases, so that can cloud people's judgement a bit. If it's a case of a minor who knows what he(or she)is doing, then I'd be inclined to say it's ok, but in other cases it's no different than any other sort of abuse. Sure, the cited article claims that a lot of people are not as affected by things like that as society would have us think, but what about the others, who suffer the consequences for a long period of time? And that's the main reason why pedophilia should not be considered as 'just an alternative lifestyle', because if practiced, it partly includes activities that can cause serious harm to people involved.

>>4 You hit on a few points that I didn't go into depth about but covered loosely. As far as the body being mature enough to have a child, I agree that most children are not ready for that - which is why they're not supposed to be getting their menstrual cycle. It used to be that they got their menstrual cycle when they were ready; it's no that way anymore, which is why I said the naturalist argument can't quite be used but at the same time isn't so outdated that it can be blatantly rejected.

I agree that pedophilia itself is a sexual preference. It's a sexuality no matter what anybody says. Is it a "proper" sexuality in the eyes of society is the question in the end. We can preach all we want about science this and nature that and common sense this in regards to child maturity and birth, but there are plenty of adults that are not healthy enough to have children neither physically, mentally, nor emotionally, just as children are. There are too many counter arguments for those expected points.

>>5 Bondage has activities that can potentially cause serious harm to the people involved. Does that mean everyone who practices bondage should lose their right to do so? A lot of kids fall off playsets but get over themselves pretty quickly, but you know what? There are reported cases of some kids getting traumatized by it. Does that mean that all playsets should be outlawed? No more playgrounds for anybody?

Again, I don't agree with pedophilia against young children who don't know any better; I'm just playing the devil's advocate here to further show that making an argument against the rights of pedophiles is actually really hard to do without bringing personal morals into it.

>>6 It's a good point. A lot of things are potentially harmful, and even more can be a cause of trauma. But choosing to do something and suffering the consequences is different than suffering because of something that's been done to you. Sexual activity has to be consensual, otherwise it's abuse (and as such it may or may not be traumatizing). And children are hardly in a position to give informed consent. The reason why I mentioned potential harm is the fact that if there was none, it would be somewhat harder to make a case against pedophilia. I mean, it would still endanger the rights of others, but that wouldn't be so obvious and let's face it, we live in a society where people like to talk about human rights more than to actually respect them, and they usually need additional reasons to sanction certain kinds of behavior.

God is going to poor his anger on us because of: fags, baby killers, satan worshippers, Pedophiles, and any other wicked people. Romans 13:4 "For he is God's servant for your good. But if you do wrong, be afraid, for he does not bear the sword in vain. For he is the servant of God, an avenger who carries out God's wrath on the wrongdoer."

What is really interesting about this case is that it isn't related to church really at all.

I do agree that it is a sexual attraction and that they can't help it. I'm going to try to keep my morals out of this as much as possible.

However, the difference between pedophiles and homosexuals is that there is no laws saying that homosexuals aren't allowed to be homosexuals. By that I mean, say Dave and Larry have sex, there is no law saying that that isn't okay. But say Garret and little Suzie have sex, it's got a law saying it isn't okay because of age. One reason that they have this law is because if a person were to rape a young child aged 0-3, the child would more than likely die. Also, many pedophiles feel the need to abuse young children.

There was a psychiatrist named Richard von Krafft-Ebing. He made a few notes about pedophilia. Out of four cases, he noted the three most common traits:

1.The individual is tainted by heredity
2.The subject's primary attraction is to children, rather than adults.
3.The acts committed by the subject are typically not intercourse, but rather involve inappropriate touching or manipulating the child into performing an act on the subject.

The key word there is manipulates. With homosexuals, if they feel sexual attraction toward each other, then they have sex. But pedophiles "Manipulate" children so they can "preform an act on the subject".

Pedophilia isn't any different from heterosexuality or homosexuality, but it's considered a mental disorder because pedophilic acts can cause harm but they can get help via mental counselor to refrain from said acts.

Pedophilia is listed as a psychological disorder rather than a sexual orientation. In the 1950-1990, Pedophile groups tried to get age of consent laws lowered or abolished and make child pornography legal, but nothing happened and they really didn't get any attention by the public.

Also, to add on to the bondage post >>6 . Bondage is just something that gets you a little extra... shall we say "excited"? That is, if you're into that stuff. It's kinda like Viagra in a way. If that traumatizes a person, then it can be constituted as rape and they can get mental help for that as well, not saying that it's going to make them not be traumatized, but it may help just a little.

The playground part, though, is a little different. Personally, I'm traumatized by see-saws at the park because I was hit in the face and broke my tooth in half and it was stuck in my lip when I was eight at a birthday party with like eight other girls. However, playgrounds are meant for children and these children are by no means being "manipulated" by the see-saw, unless they were having hallucinations or something of that sort, which they should really have checked out.

So, where's that petition?

Pedophilia isn't a sexual preference. Homosexuality is a sexual preference. Asexuality is a sexual preference. Pedophilia isn't. It's a mental disorder.

There is something wrong with these people’s brains that make them attracted to children. The proof is here, here, and here.
Pedophiles all have similar traits: 30% of pedophiles are left-handed or ambidextrous- a trait established through some combination of genetics and the environment of the womb. Pedophiles have traits consistent with developmental problems, whether before birth or in childhood. Pedophiles also have had less white matter, the connective circuitry of the brain. It’s not like the lights are on and nobody’s home, it’s more like the power’s out in the whole block.

I agree that they can’t help it. It’s a disease and they need help or counseling. However, being a pedophile doesn't make someone a child molester. It’s acting on those impulses that make a person a criminal. Pedophiles have to come out of the shadows and get the help they need before they end up ruining a child’s life. There’s no rights to give them, just counseling.

>>10 *feels awkward being ambidextrous*
Right, so I've got nothing against anyone who wants to have sex with someone younger. Have sex with whatever you want, I truly don't care.
But one of my close friends has been molested by a pedophile for the past three years against her will. She has so many emotional problems at the moment because of it.
I don't care who you have sex with - I care if it's consensual. That's literally all that matters to me.
Having a sexual preference for younger people is fine - but taking advantage of them and doing something they are against? That shit is not okay under any circumstances.

I understand homos and stuff but pedo's HELL NO!

BWAHAHAHAAHAHAHAHAHAHAAHAAAAAA!!!
ohh wait, this is real.
ftw.

Pedobear approves!
But joking aside, I think that it won't happen since it is the choice of the children and if it does happen, they still have the kid to say no or yes.
There is still more to it as well.

tl;dr Homosexuality is a sexual orientation, pedophilia is a preference. Calm down everyone.

Right, so after thinking about this for a while, here's what I've got to say.
The fact is, us blatantly saying no to this is similar to saying no to people who are sexually attracted to certain body types. Actually (assuming the pedophile in question is attracted to the child's physical appearance rather than mental characteristics), it's the exact same.
Pedophilia comes down to a question of morality. Is it wrong to have sex with a child? To most people, yes. However, what constitutes wrong? Is there a universal definition of what is wrong or right?
Look, I'm not trying to defend child molesters. They are the scum of the earth, I agree. But I think we're being a bit too hasty dismissing this.
Homosexuality is a sexual orientation - pedophilia is a preference. A male may prefer dark-skinned women over fair women - he would be a heterosexual with an attractions to darker-skinned women. Pedophilia and homosexuality are two very different things, believe me.
Either way, we should not be shunning pedophiles in such a manner. As far as I'm concerned, you can want to stick your dick (or vagina, whatever reproductive organ you posses) in/around a light socket and I wouldn't care. Do you know why?
Well, for one, the light socket isn't a living this, as far as I know. But under the assumption the light socket gave it's consent, all's fine and dandy.
The point is: people should be able to have intercourse with whatever they want, as long as it's consensual. Unless you're into non-con, which is fine.
Pedophiles who molest and rape children are still molesters and rapists. I hope they're eviscerated and drowned in pits of tar. But I think that pedophiles (or anyone with 'unusual' sexual preferences, really) who don't take advantage of the objects of their affections/cop a feel in a very rude manner should not be treated this way.
//end rant. Feel free to get angry over this and snarl at me.
(Also I'm not proofreading this so excuse any incoherence/mistakes)

>>10 Uh, I don't think you read your own articles all the way through.

"But there is a growing number of researchers, many of them out of Canada, whose work suggests that pedophilia is an illness deserving of the public's sympathy the way any brain disorder is. Some of the scientists say pedophilia is a sexual orientation, meaning that it's unchangeable, regardless of how much jail time or beatings or therapy someone is dealt. Others have reason to believe that pedophiles are born that way, and that some of them will suffer through entire lives without hurting a single child."

So yes, it is a mental disorder, but homosexuality was also a mental disorder for a very long time prior to us admitting that there are sexual orientations other than heterosexuality. Pedophilia is just a sexual orientation they are born with - the only reason we're calling it a mental disorder is because it's "weird" and "wrong" and don't want to admit that it's no different than homosexuality because it's technically against the law. All of those sexualities you've listed are the same; they went through a period of time where they were "disgusting" and "inappropriate" prior to somebody coming out and saying, "Well fuck, how is it so wrong? I'm not doing it to you!" In many countries even in today's age, homosexuals are killed, imprisoned, and abused the way pedophiles are in our country.

>>15 How is it a preference if they are never attracted to full grown adults? You say they're just choosing children over adults, but what if they're just naturally not attracted to them? Does that mean they still like adults but are pretending that they like kids? No. It's not a preference - it's an orientation that most of them are born with.

It's very much so different than not liking a Latino woman over a Caucasian woman. You're not born with that preference; it's something you develop over time as you grow up. I have similar preferences, but its not something I was "born" with because they can change at a moment's notice. Pedophilia is different since it comes in its full state and stays there, like any other sexual orientation.

I will admit that there are times when other sexual orientations can be considered sexual preferences. Many of my friends have spontaneously decided to be homosexual/bisexual for the fun of it rather than because they've always felt that way. It all depends on the circumstances whether something is truly a preference or an orientation, imo.

I agree with basically all your other points though, Blinking.

>>9 What about pedophiles who don't take advantage of children? What about the ones who are attracted to kids around fourteen and those kids honestly like them back and consent? Do you still think they need therapy when they've never once thought of abusing them but just getting to know them like an adult would an adult? Yeah, I'd say most pedophiles are rapists, but what about the ones who aren't? Why not just apply the same laws we have to adults - if it's not consenting, enjoy your jailtime?

Again, I'm not applying this to kids under 11 or 12, because they really don't know what they're doing... Well, I say that practically but not realistically. Kids in my area started getting sexually active in their later years of elementary school x-x And this following generation has gotten active even earlier. So it's not like kids don't know about it or haven't done it before; it's a matter of whether or not adults should be the ones introducing it, which depends on the case.

And yes, bondage is something that gets you excited. If you get traumatized, you were probably raped through it or just had a bad experience. How that any different than sex with a minor? If a minor gets traumatized by it, they were probably raped through it or just had a bad experience. If the kid is consenting and enjoys it as well, is it rape? Are they traumatized? It depends on the case.

And to be honest, any sexual act runs the risk to negatively affect the other person, no matter their age or preference. There are manipulators, rapists, and molesters of every single sexual preference and orientation in regards to all ages. You say it's bad for a guy to cop a feel on a kid, but is it really any different than him copping a feel on a woman? It's molestation either way, so why don't we take it seriously when it's done against a full grown woman who speaks out against it?

I'm just throwing some things out there. I'm half awake though, so they might be awkward points lol

..... i really have no comment.. still thinking

>>16 I completely agree. I never really looked at it that way, so thank you for enlightening me! I didn't think about it as a from-birth thing (can't think of a better way to phrase it), more of an acquired taste, so to speak. But that makes total sense.
I was thinking of sexual orientations as a gender thing, which I guess it is. I guess I was thinking more along the lines of 'a heterosexual/homosexual/bisexual/whatever person who is only really attracted to children' rather than 'a person who is exclusively attracted to children of all classifications'. I'm not quite sure how to word it, really, but I see your point.

I agree with the "it's right only if it is consensual" statement: but still, a child starts to know his or her own sexuality naturally only at about 11 years, even if some kid starts more early. It isn't only about having the first menstrual cycle or the first ejaculation, but it's about knowing the meaning of the word "sex" without the bee&flower example.
The point is: very young kids aren't even conscious about the existence of sexuality, so how would they be consentient about it?

>>18 I guess it could be broken down, too. There are a lot of pedophiles who restrict themselves to girls or boys now that I think about it. It's really awkward to classify since it's technically an orientation but is in addition to or has additions which include other orientations.

Bump

Bump.

Okay, I think using pedophile as an all-encompassing term here is just dumb. The correct usage of pedophilia is for someone who is sexually attracted to people under the age of eleven (maybe it was a bit older, but you get the idea).
HOWEVER, if we are using it as a term to include people attracted to minors in general (let's say eighteen and under for now), I think they deserve some rights.
Fact is, kids now are growing up fast. I knew almost as much as I do about sex now as I did when I was nine. Maybe I just hung out with a shady crowd, but by the time I was eleven all my classmates had a good understanding of sex.
I believe that, if the child in question knows what is going on and has gone over it with their parents, ect, they should be taken seriously. Don't give me that 'But they're just a child; they don't know anything!' bullshit, because I've only been fourteen for a month and I know pretty god-damn well what I want to do with my life and with my body. And I'm not the only one.
I don't think you should be allowed to have sex with anyone under ten years old though. But anything over that should at least be considered, though it would vary with each individual.

Ew what the fuck? Im 100% against what Blinking just said. Thats fucked up. "I don't think you should be allowed to have sex with anyone under ten years old though. But anything over that should at least be considered". What.. You cant be serious right? You cant let a 40+ balding weirdos fucking my little sister. No, just no. Wait till the kid turns 18 you weirdos. Then you can do all of that weird kidd fucking all you want

/becauseapparentlyamericaslegalagelimitistheonlythingthatmatters

Alright now that Im calm, the legal age limit should be at lowest 16. Kids around the age 10-13 are too young and are still understanding their bodies. You cant make it legal to have some guy have the opportunity to persuade a kid a have sex. You'll be changing a lot and it'd be stealing the a child's innocence and confuse its feelings before he/she is even out of middle school.

>I just realized this is a board based off an anime.
>I just realized these are opinions coming from fucking kids like Blinking.
>I'm 19 years old
>It bothers me that these kids want to fuck old people.

>>24 I think the varying is what you need to account for. You can't just make it dependant on the induvidual, that wouldn't work. Because you can't do that, you are left with 2 choices: give children over 10 full consideration into sexual activities or give them no consideration. Personally, I am a lot happier with the second choice. You are obviously a lot more self aware than most 14 year olds I know. Sure, one of my close friends lost his virginity at 13, with another close friend. If we start giving people of that age full legal say in the matter, won't the age bar just lower again? We only have 13 year olds doing it now because the legal age is 16. If we start letting 13 year old's do it, what is next? Especially if it's with older men as you are implying (due to the fact this is a debate about pedophilia). They can be as intelligent as you like, 98% of 12-15 year olds can still be taken advantage of by older males. Are you just giving those people a free ticket? There is no use to lowering the law, I just don't see the point. Just think about it now, some 13 year old girl meets this really cool guy. He takes her round in his car, buys her alcohol when she wants it and makes her laugh all the time. Now this girl's parents are pretty laid back so they let her make her own decisions in life. The guy convinced her to have sex without condoms, then what do you have? A fucked up teen pregnancy to a sleazebag who will be out of there within the month. The possible situations are just too heavily in the negative. That's why we just can't trust people of that age to make perfect decisions with their body, you gotta let them all develop to the level of maturity it takes to decide what you want to do. Now, I understand, some will never reach that level. But you have to save what you can. That's why 16 is still a good age, I reckon.

>>27
>I realised long ago that this forum merely has a layout inspired by an anime
>I realised long ago that Blinking is a valued member of the community with intelligent and valid opinions
>You are 19, that doesn't make you any more intelligent than her
>You obviously aren't as intelligent as her if all you got from her post was "I want to fuck old people".
>You should learn to read properly/respect other valid opinions or you wont be here long

>>26
Well bro its there for a reason. First to protect youth, and to designate the point in which a child is legally an adult and can be legally bounded to a contract and a be charge in a regular court system.

I dont agree with alot about america. Theres alot I can argue about, human rights, social equality, healthcare etc. But I can agree with the the legal limit at least because its a necessary and reasonable law

>>28 Honestly, I think you're missing a lot of things right here. You talk about kids getting pregnant at 13 like it's something unusual... when it's not. I wish it was, but it's not. Even with the current laws we have, kids are having sex younger and younger. Legalities have nothing to do with sex between minors. In my middle school, we had at least four or five girls each year who were pregnant. In high school, the number is almost twice that. And these kids got introduced to sex in elementary school as I already said a few posts ago. I personally blame our elementary school have a sex ed class which only made the more curious, but w/e; that's beside my point.

Sex is not at all unusual between minors (again, at least not in this part of the country), so why is it such a big deal between a minor and an adult? If they were going to have sex with someone their own age anyway, why is it so bad for someone more experienced to get them into it? Wouldn't it be safer? I'd think that an adult male would be more likely to use a condom than a young boy.

One more point: just because the consent age is lowered doesn't mean every little girl is going to want to go out and fuck some guy that looks like her dad. That's gross. You guys are completely ignoring the personal preferences of the kids as if every case is going to be rape; if it is rape, then it will be charged accordingly. We're talking about consensual sex here once we bring the age of the consent law into it.

[Don't kill me guize; I'm just playing devil's advocate here for the sake of a debate.]

>>31 But none of those points prove why the legal age should be lowered, they just lesson the negative effects of what will happen.

Like it or not there will be older guys that take advantage of relatively stupid, attractive, young girls. That is already happening as we speak, why make it easier for them?

I'm not going to blame you for attempting to keep the debate alive; I just think when points are dead, there is no point in dragging them on for the sake of dragging them on.

Paedophiles are a thing, under-age sex is a thing, teen pregnancy is a thing, older men taking advantage of younger girls is a thing. Why make all these bigger things than they already are? It's like giving somebody with type 2 diabetes unlimited tickets the Willy Wonka's Chocolate Factory.

I like how you refuse to entertain the fact that there are young girls that go after adult males.

>>32 I'm not proving anything - I'm directly responding to points you've brought up. If you don't want to hear those responses again, then don't bring up points that have already been brought up in the thread before c:

Those things aren't getting any smaller any time soon whether you change the laws or not. They've been steadily getting worse and will continue to get worse; the consequences are also getting worse because these things are against the law. This would also bring the abortion debate in, as well - in areas where abortion is illegal, children who get pregnant have to go through with it when it's honestly not safe for them to do so.

And why do you say older men taking advantage of girls like it's not rape? Rape is rape. If the girl chooses to go along with it, she's not being taken advantage of. If the girl is forced or coerced into going along with it, she's being raped. Let's drop this "taking advantage of" shit because you're just talking about rape and molestation, which are chargeable offenses which will continue to be charged whether the laws change or not. It increasing is not the discussion because anybody that wants to rape someone is going to rape them whether the consent law is low or high.

We are talking about lowering the consent ages, so we talk about consensual sex. Rape will be charged no matter what ages are involved and has no place in the debate.

As for underage sex increasing, it's already increasing. It's not going to suddenly boom because they can have sex with adults, too. Teen pregnancy is already increasing. It's not going to suddenly boom because they can have sex with adults, too. (And if that's really a concern, there can be always laws against having a child with someone under x age.)

Just because someone with diabetes has tickets to the chocolate factory doesn't mean they're going to kill themselves eating everything there. And chances are, if they do, they were already eating themselves half to death elsewhere before getting those tickets.

>>33 We all know about that; it's just not a majority and won't be affected by this. If a girl wants to have sex with an adult guy and he's into it, the law isn't going to stop them from doing so anyway :I

It might make them put sex off if they're in a closer relationship, but that's not very likely if the girl is the pushy one.

>>33 And sooo...? We should just let 12 year old's run off into the arms of random 20 year old's? We should be worried that the particular 20 year old wants to hang around her in the first place. Also people who talk about "in nature, sex is intended from a very young age" don't have a very solid point. Last time I checked, this is civilisation, not nature, and it is highly unlikely somebody under the age of 16 will be able to support a child in the first place. What you're saying then is either get an abortion, dump it on relatives or put it up for adoption. None of those are very nice options. People have the ability to breed from a young age because it is suited into the whole 'live in a tribe and die very early, breed as much as you can before hand' lifestyle. We don't need to do that so why do we have to? It's like taking 5 litres of gasoline when you don't have a car. Sure, you technically could do stuff with it and sure, technically it's worth something, but in the end it's just 5 litres of a liquid you don't have a use for. That metaphor stood up a lot better in my head, by the way.

>>34 Oh and because under-age sex is increasing we should legalize it? Where is the logic in that? If anything we should be taking precautions to try and hinder it. It's not helping society in the slightest.

Also, I don't want to drop the 'taking advantage' point because it's completely valid. You can be taken advantage of without being raped or molested, it happens all the time. A guy chats up a dim girl in a bar, convinces her he wants a long term relationship and that they have something special. They go home, have sex and he leaves without speaking in the morning. Did he rape her? No. Did he molest her? No. Did he take advantage of her? Yes. See the difference? Barney Stinston off How I Met Your Mother for example. He is widely known for taking horrible advantage of women but not once is he called a rapist/molester. Calling it a non-valid point is just silly.

It's the exact same situation with young girls and guys, they are just much easier targets. As I said before, we shouldn't be making it easier for the guys to do this. If anything, we should be making it harder.



But I just want to clear this up. Is the majority of people on this thread saying that the age of legal sex should be lowered to above the age of 10? Because that was Blinking's original point. I just want people to get their sides straight before we continue this. I am saying that the age is fine as it is, it does not need to be lowered or raised, neither will have any positive effects. If we try to fix this situation like this, we will only break it more.

Just to be clear, that comment was directed at solace because his thing was pretty much just "its all the guys its always the guys no if ands or buts about it", or at least that is how it seemed to me. I would like to get in on this discussion, but im at work, so that is impossible.

holy moley. Everyone is looking at this wrong. The reason the age of consent is sixteen and adulthood is eighteen is because of the developmental process of the brain. Back 100 years ago no one would have thought twice about their twelve year old daughter going off to marry a 40 year old man, especially if he was rich. The reason the status quo changed was due to further research into the brain and how it develops. eighteen was chosen as it is a stage in development in which an individual can truly weight their actions, and their consequences. The synapses in the brain dont cease myelinating until around the age 25, so someone 18 is still not all the way developed, let alone a 13 year old.

even if a 13 year old was "consenting" they cant fully understand the act and the ramifications involved. Just because their body is ready for sex doesnt mean they as a whole are. Especially keeping in mind that most trauma as a result of these sort of incidences is emotional, meaning damage to the psyche, not the body. Even if the older individual has no ill intent, it is still a form of taking advantage of someone else as they cant process the act fully.

Okay, I'm going to start taking my own stances here instead of trying to figure out what arguments the pedophiles would use because I'm getting bored :I

>>37
>implying underage sex is illegal
Sex between children under the consent age is legal, brah. I agree that it's damn stupid to be having frequent sex at all when you're under twenty or so, but it's not my body, so it's not my say what they should do with it. You can't take away their right to do what they will to their body; sure they're underage, but if they want to have sex, it's not our place to say they can't.

The government should have no rule over your own body, especially regarding at what age you lose your virginity or to whom.

And there aren't any "sides" to clear up with; last I checked, I wasn't some extension of Blinking's existence and am not changing my argument to fit her opinion.

I will give my honest opinion here about the consent age real quick. I don't think there should be a written law about it at all. However, I don't think the current consent age should change. There should never have been one in the first place; it has only inspired child abusers to stay under the radar. It's too late to change it, though, and there will be a horrible backlash if it is pushed forwards or backwards. (Not to mention that if there was no age of consent law, my entire argument about legalizing prostitution might go down the toilet.)

As for the being taken advantage of part - that's called being tricked by an assholes,and there never has been and never will be any regulation of it because it's the girl's own fault for being a fucking idiot. (I'm a chick, so it's politically appropriate for me to say that.) There are plenty of assholes are own age to begin with; it wouldn't be anything new. Stupid girls will still get tricked by assholes their own age, so why is it such a bigger deal if they get tricked by an asshole who isn't their own age?

>>39 Why do you think a 13 year old doesn't understand what sex is? Because their brain isn't fully developed? 'tis bullshit, hun. At 13, I had the same understanding of the consequences that I have now. It all depends on the person; there are plenty of people who are well over 18 and still don't understand the consequences of their actions :I

their own age*

Mother of god this turned into a shitstorm while I was gone.

>>39 Look, I don't care if my brain has developed or not. I can speak and write an essay. I can multiply and understand subtle jokes. I can identify as myself and evaluate my morals. Therefore, I am my own person. I am not going to let someone else tell me what to do with my body because of my biology.
Don't treat me like I'm in a vegetative state because I'm not done growing yet. Choosing who I want to have sex with is like choosing between food items - some choices are better for my body than others are, and I have to deal with the consequences.

>>28 Yeah, I get what you mean. I don't think the laws need to change really, but it angers me that there are so many misconceptions about this entire subject. People tend to look at the bad side of things (pedophiles who have raped children are their basis for all pedophiles; stupid girls getting pregnant at age fourteen as their basis for all/most teenagers).
I think that raising awareness on this kind of thing is the most important part of this debate. Not everyone will fit the stereotype pushed on them - I certainly don't fit the blond teenage girl stereotype (I dyed over it though, hehe).

Also, saying all pedophiles want to take away a child's innocence is dumb. Look at it like a sexual orientation - a heterosexual male doesn't attempt to stick his dick in every attractive female he runs into. A pedophile isn't going to follow that same structure, only with children.
No matter what we do, rape and molestation are still major issues. No-one is really safe. Men, women and children are all subjected to abuse which may or may not be sexual every day. We can't play favorites with what's more or less important.
If you heard a twenty-something year old male was being raped and abused by an older man in the same way a pedophile might rape and abuse a child, where's the difference? One is older than the other. One is stronger and more developed than the other. But it's still rape and it's still abuse. Both might end up traumatized and be unable to fix their lives. Changing the age of consent or other laws concerning sex isn't going to stop sex offenders in the slightest, is what I'm getting at.
I'm probably not explaining this right though; just got home and I'm exhausted. Please do call me out on this if I made a GIGANTIC AND REALLY STUPID BLUNDER. Which I probably did.

I hate it when I see 'post deleted by user' and it isn't a double post. It makes me want to know the contents so badly.

>>45 usely its because they made somekind of spelling mistakes, and the fact we can't edit posts after they are made.

or may have been removed for other reasons.

Being attracted to younger people isn't a sexuality, it's a preference.
The body is a attracted to a certain gender while the mind thinks about the proper age you like for one reason or another, making it seem that mush more appealing or sexy.

But since having sex with some be that young is against the law not everybody that thinks it does it. Of course however, if its a law, there are going to be some people willing to break for the thriller the pleasure. Either way they don't give a fuck how they traumatizing the children they do it to. Kids under the ageof14 don't really know what exactly what they are doing when these situations are happening and even over 14 until the proper age of 21 is illegal and considered morally wrong. I myself hope this is just a sick prank, but if it is true. The the people who are saying pedophilia should be legal are just making a sad attempt to excuse themselves of their crime and guilt so they can keep doing it. It's Bly human nature to want to do what we want or who ever we want. And these are desperate and morally evil people who want to make they can in their own sick way. They are sick people who want to try to get pass the law. That's my input as someone who was a victim of molestation at the age of 11/12.

Pardon my horrible spelling in the last post.

asdf

I knew that this was gonna happen eventually, and who can blame them?

even if pedophillia isnt a sexual orientation (a preference) people will want to act it out the same way gays etc are doing it.but the problem here is that their sexual preference (or orientation) harms others which isn't acceptable.

I think that the smartest way to go about this is to create "alternatives" (e.g Holland wanted to make CG CP). Some may argue this is morally wrong but in my opinion this would be the best way to proceed. Also lets say someone is found with CP on their hard drive, is locking them up a good idea? sure they will be off the streets for 10 years but when they get out do you think their "urges" will stay in the prison? no, so therapy is the best option here (helping them get rid of the urges or learn to control them).

>>51 I'm guessing CP is child pornography. What's CG? Also, just because someone has child porn on their hard drive--even if they get off to it--that doesn't necessarily mean they're going out and preying on children. Of course, something like that depends entirely on the person, and differs from person to person. Some people may watch child porn and still go out and prey on children, others may use the porn as a way to keep their urges under control.

>>52

CG is Cinematic Graphics ( basicly drawing which resemble reality) and yes i do not agree with people being vanned for possesing images or videos, I mean the FBI is raiding TOR right now.

"Some people may watch child porn and still go out and prey on children, others may use the porn as a way to keep their urges under control."

Yes i agree but still some kind of therapy to help these people keep their urges under control would be a good idea. I feel sorry for pedophilles (not child molesters though) since they have to live constantly at battle with their urges

Again, with the arguments about preference versus orientation. How do you know that gender comes before age as a preference?

I have zero interest in people younger than me. Even if I go lesbian, that won't change. So in that case, wouldn't age be the orientation and sex be the preference? Your arguments about "well gender comes first, so age is the preference" don't work for a lot of people.

It all depends on the person. By default, all of the details of a persons sexuality are part of an orientation whether we agree with it or not. Saying that one part shouldn't be taken seriously just because you personally would take it into consideration afterwards and would thus call it a preference is just not realistic nor appropriate.

>>53 Oh, so it is that CG. For some reason when I read your post yesterday, it read odd to me in my head, so I thought that it was a different acronym. >.<

And I agree that therapy can be useful.

>>55 Sadly the current "Prison industrial complex" is making too much money for the government to think of alternatives (and imagine they would have to spend money on the people! the horror!), why help somebody when you can force them to do 10 years of labour for pretty much no money?

I definitely agree that paedophilia is an orientation not a preference. Somebody liking green eyes in a preference, somebody liking prepubescent children is an orientation. Orientations are just really extreme, often uncontrollable preferences. However, just because it is an orientation does not mean we should give them equal rights. If it endangers the other party, you must take safety into consideration. If somebody with paranoid schizophrenia felt the need to kill people around him, despite him feelings it's a need, and you can't change that, you still wouldn't let him murder anybody. Why? Because that would require somebody dying, and sometimes you just have to make a compromise and say no to certain mindstates. Of course this can be manipulated on a broader scale, but let's just keep it small for now.

Even with the issue of should CP be allowed to keep their needs under control. How the fuck are you going to make the CP, even with CG as somebody was saying before, that would just encourage them. I think what we need is to maintain the law aspects but encourage a safer, more accepting way of therapy for those suffering from paedophilia.

Let's face it though, often paedophiles aren't quite right in the head in other aspects as well. This orientation often comes with multiple other mental issues alongside. Comparing it to something like homosexuality just isn't right, it's much more radical and problematic. And don't say 'that's just a closed off mindstate' because it isn't, it's protecting the young against the old.

Opinion = stated

This bump is for a nobel cause.

Keeping up at least two threads.

I'm suffering here.

----

----

Nyar

Bump, to promote the discussion of actual news.

Bump i want to see what others think

Actually, I'm getting ready to read a book called "Lolita" and it's about a man who fancies this 12 year old girl and then he becomes involved with her after he becomes her stepfather. It's written in his point of view.

>>66 Oh yes, I've heard of this book.

And I do not believe that Pedophiles should have the same rights. Homosexuality is a sexual orientation with the opposite sex, while Pedophilia is with children. It's just wrong. I know a lot of people think that Homosexuality is just wrong, but I don't, and this is my opinion, not theirs.

Children shouldn't even be interested in sex or relationships of that kind, let alone with people much older than them. And most of the time, they aren't, which is why it's Pedophilia.

I'm just going to throw this out there. I've always liked a lot of guys that were older than me by like several years, but I'd never want to have sex with any of them just because I'm young and when it comes down to it, it's the sex that everyone doesn't like. I was discussing this with a friend one day and he said, "If they truly love them, they can wait." And I whole-heartedly agree with him on that. A lot of guys I like are seven-eight years older than me and I'm sixteen. And I know the consequences of sex, so therefore, I won't do it, but younger children wouldn't know the consequences.

>>68 You make very good points, sir.

>>68 >>69 I can agree.
>>67 Have you read Brave New World by Aldous Huxley? If it's the book I'm thinking of, everyone is pansexual and sex is a very normal act. Children engage in 'erotic play' at a young age, though generally with their own age group.

>>67 Also, just curious, but is your name a reference to We?

>>70>>71 No. I have not, I'm afraid. And I'm not sure what "We" is. If you want to know, I'm posting the origin of my name in the Origin of Nick or whatever thread.

well there is the dutch "pedophile party" https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Party_for_Neighbourly_Love,_Freedom,_and_Diversity

Heterosexuals and homosexuals are attracted to people and will love people whom they are attracted to for (possibly) forever. A pedophile however, to my understanding, will only be attracted to/love someone for a temporary time due to their young appearance/mentality. This to me is one of the reasons why it is wrong.

What I'm trying to say is, if a pedophile falls in love with someone who is 10, will they still love them when they're 20? 30? If a homo/heterosexual falls in love with someone who is 10 (assuming they are not a pedophile) will one: wait for them to be old enough to consent; and two: love them even when they are 20 or 30.

Some people are saying if the child consents, then it is okay, but to me if the child truly loves the older person they would wait until a better age to have sex. And by better age I mean an age where sex will not damage the body or mind.

Is what I'm trying to say confusing? Please offer up opinions/corrections to my thoughts.

>>75 "if the child truly loves the older person they would wait until a better age to have sex"

>implying children don't have sex with each other anyway
>implying they consider love and sex different things

"I mean an age where sex will not damage the body or mind"

>implying all sex under 18 will mentally and physically damage all the involved parties

>Implying that prepubescent children do have sex with each other anyway?
>Implying al of them have the maturity and mindsate to fully understand sex and love

I think people need to get the definition of paedophilia right-
paedophile or esp ( US ) pedophile (ˈpiːdəʊˌfaɪl)
A person who is sexually attracted to children

children, we are not talking about 13 year old's here. Often paedophiles lose interest as children enter puberty, for girls that can be as young as 11.

No, Bunny, not all sex under 18 will mentally and physically damage all the involved parties. I'm pretty sure at this point that we're not talking about people who are 16, even though it's still illegal, or even people as young as 14 or even 13. At that point, a child's mind may be formed well enough to make the decision to consent or not to. However, getting any lower than that gets into a much more gray area. Even though a ten or twelve year old could say yes, the mind isn't often formed enough for them to be making decisions that may affect their health. Although kids may be able to tell you they know the consequences, like catching STDs or getting pregnant, it's pretty hard to understand that it can happen to you. Even though many people will say they were clear-sighted enough to make those decisions as a child, they're really just looking at the past through rose coloured glasses.

>>76 I wasn't implying that children don't, but I don't expect 10 year olds to be having sex with each other. Also, sex under the age of 10 probably does some damage, especially if it's an adult male with an prepubescent female. I never said anything about 18, the legal age of consent where I am is 15.

>>78 >>79 Until the law changes it so the age of consent is under 18, yes, we are talking about ALL children under 18 unless otherwise is stated in the post.

>>79 Personally, I think people saying that kids don't understand anything are the ones who are looking at the past fogged up. I wrote a lot as a kid about one thing that I never wanted to forget, summarized as this: Kids aren't as stupid as everyone makes them out to be. They understand right and wrong even if they don't always act about it. They're not deaf, blind, or dense. Just because they can't spell a word doesn't mean they don't know what it means or how to use it. Just because their bodies haven't developed doesn't mean they don't feel self conscious. Just because their hormones aren't kicking doesn't mean they don't care about the other gender. Just because their parents are hiding the truth of something from them doesn't mean they never noticed it before.

Point is, there are plenty of kids out there who understand consequences, even at particularly young ages. It's narrow minded to say that no child under thirteen can make a clear minded decision, just as it's narrow minded to say that all adults over thirty always make clear minded decisions.

>>80 Sorry; I was under the impression that we were talking about America. Also, ten year olds do have sex with each other; at least, through my elementary school years many of them did, and I've heard from my younger relatives that it has gotten even more common now as puberty is starting earlier and earlier.

I'm not saying that a 40 year old having sex with a 12 year old is okay, nor do I think that 12 year olds having sex with each other is okay; I'm just pointing out things I've noticed in response to the comments.

>>81 Okay, if I have to explicitly say it in my post even though it's been heavily implied throughout, I'm not talking about all people under 18. I am talking about children. This would be around 11-13ish, but is open to interpretation. Not all people progress at the same rate so "child" is really a relative term.

I'm not saying that kids don't understand anything. I'm not saying that kids are stupid. But face it, at that age kids still have a lot of growing up to do, mentally, physically, and emotionally. Speaking from the experience that comes from attending three different elementary schools in two different countries, two different states, two on military bases and one off, kids can be damn smart. At the same time, they are still figuring out the world around them because they haven't been in it for very long. What did I learn about kids while growing up? Most of them know right from wrong but will chose wrong because it seems like more fun at the time, or because it will make them look cool, or because being bad sounds more interesting at the time. Most of the kids I knew would, 9 times out of 10, do something stupid because it got them attention. Many children will do what gets them attention even if they know it's not right.

Now, I noticed very few young children having sex with each other unless one was somehow manipulated or ignorant of what was going on. I don't know very many children in the elementary school age rang right now, so I can't really comment on that.

I'm also not saying no one under 13 can make a clear minded decision. As I said before, it's a very gray area. I was more using 13 as a place holder than anything else, mostly it's just the number I see cropping up as being a "child". It's a really flexible number. And did I ever say that all adults make clear minded decisions? You just kind of pulled that one out of nowhere. Adults are stupid, but by the time you're an adult, you are responsible for yourself. If you make stupid decisions about sex or whatnot, then you can't really blame lack of experience or knowledge for your mistake. Then it's just your problem.

>>81 I pretty much entirely agree with >>82 but just adding one thing on. This news article is about paedophiles calling for the same rights as homosexuals, paedophiles are sexually attracted to young children. They are the main subject of discussion on this thread.

>>82 You're taking my arguments way too seriously, Anu. I was just responding to a few points that piqued my interest.

As for my comment about adults, I never once suggested you had said otherwise. I was only bringing it up to suggest my own point: if there are plenty of adults who can't think level-headed and make proper decisions, then why is it trusted that all adults know what they're getting into, yet children, even those who are perceptive and understanding of consequences, are not?

I feel like every argument here is, "The children don't know what they're doing!" And in many cases, yeah, that's true. But I hold a personal belief that children't aren't so stupid that they don't understand what's happening to them in that serious of a situation (unless their parents shelter them, in which case we can only blame the parents). It's a belief that I'm basically positive don't align with any of yours, though, so it's pointless to debate on; I was only bringing it up for the sake of putting it out there.

>>83 So long as the child is at least five years younger and hasn't started puberty (or in some cases, simply hasn't shown physical signs of it), it is pedophilia. Also, in America, we consider pedophiles by law anyone who has sex with a minor, even if the psychological perspective of that limits it to the prepubescent. Because this is pedophile asking for legal rights, we have to take the country's legalities into honest consideration.

>>84 Are you totally sure about the whole 'having sex with any minor is paedophilia' deal? This is taken from the American Medical Dictionary: pedophilia /pe·do·phil·ia/ (-fil´e-ah) a paraphilia in which an adult has recurrent, intense sexual urges or sexually arousing fantasies of engaging or repeatedly engages in sexual activity with a prepubertal child.pedophil´ic.

Actually I was just looking it up more, and the term for sexual attraction towards anybody who has passed puberty (which is considered to begin at ages 11-13) is called ephebophilia.

>>85 >>86 The FBI acknowledges that a pedophile is one who has sex with prepubescent children; however, in most legal circumstances they do not specifically state the differences between pedophilia (pre-pub), hebephilia (pub), ephebophilia (post-pub), especially not in courts. Those who commit acts against minors are labeled as pedophiles; it's not broken up into the less common terminology you're thinking of, even though that is the correct terminology to use.

Didn't south park make a episode about something like this

Bump.

>>88 The episode about Butters and NAMBLA?

That was so cray.

I literally just coincidentally watched that episode, it's from season four. Such a good episode, and it really does address this entire issue.

I have something tangentially related to share. Don't worry, I eventually segue back on topic.

I was talking with my friend one day about how societal values were changing, as they always have been. With each new generation, their beliefs hold different from their parents due to their surroundings and upbringing. You'll find that much of the previous generation is against homosexuality not out of bigotry, but out of discomfort; this generation is infinitely more open to the idea that there's nothing abnormal about it, unless they were taught specifically by their parents.

Basically, social stigma is a selectively inherited trait that fades out when they start losing the logic battle. It's natural selection.

The reasons for homosexuality being a social stigma are losing this battle, and thus, things are changing in favor of it. But knowing that my parents aren't bigots by nature, and that it's impossible for the entirety of the country to be like that, it begs the question:
What are we going to be staunchly against, that the future generations are going to try and push for?

Without pause, she predicted it would be pedophilia. And here we are, discussing this!

Objectively speaking, the biggest argument people have against pedophilia is discomfort - and already that's a red flag. Other arguments I've seen, here or otherwise, are that children don't know better, or the older party can be abusive, etc etc.

But none of these are 100% either, nor are they truly objective.

Right now, legally, it's considered pedophilia for a person above 18 to have sex with someone under 16, or something like that. I don't know, I didn't read into it much. But the fact that people who are 16 can fuck each other, and people that are 18 can fuck each other, and people that are 20 can fuck people that are 18, and people that are 16 can fuck people that are 14... that line is rather arbitrary, isn't it?

Now, when we talk about something more radical - 30 on 12, for example - that's when the real discomfort sets in. That's what people usually think of when they hear "pedophilia." I'll just put it out there right now that I find it completely disgusting from a personal standpoint. But the 30 year old clearly doesn't, and I'm sure there are 12 year olds out there with gerontophilia (attraction to older people). I guess that's the cusp of this argument though - who are we to deny their respective preferences based on our personal feelings? Gerontophilia is a very real thing, same as pedophilia. Or homosexuality - though I wouldn't say that it's genetic, obviously. But does that matter?

Paraphilia aren't chosen; more often than not, they are accidental. Ask a foot fetishist to explain why they like feet more than someone who doesn't. Ask a pedophile why they like children. Ask a homosexual to explain why he or she likes people of the same sex. None will have truly direct answers - it's not really a choice.

And such was the premise of the LGBT movement - that they were being persecuted for something that was ultimately not their decision to make in the first place. Which in turn, came from debates of racism and sexism. It begs the question of just how far we're willing to extrapolate until we believe true freedom of expression has been reached.

With every freedom comes with dangers, and that's what opponents of this and every other civil rights issue would purport as reason enough to deny the freedom itself. Pedophiles will abuse children! Gays will disrupt the marriage system! Blacks will interfere with the white man in the work force!

It's as disturbing to me as it is to anyone else that I can't with a straight face truly argue that pedophilia is 100% wrong. So I guess we'll have to see if public opinion outweighs objectivity.

And it probably will. At least until our generation is out of the picture.

Also I guess I should clarify before I'm misinterpreted.

Lusting after little girls is still creepy regardless of the legality or objective morality. You know who you are.

>>92 This is what I've been trying to suggest, but you wrote it out a lot better than I did.

I really should've taken more effort to reference back to other posts in this thread; sorry if I did end up reiterating a lot of your previous points.

Honestly my post was supposed to be more anecdotal than it ended up being, it just reminded me of a conversation I had :x

that's like saying that homosexuality is the same as pedophilia
which isn't true pedos have a mental disorder homos are born that way you are gay when your a kid your not a pedo when your a kid. they shuld help the pedos thoe we shuld work on our mental hospitals more. just like taking away guns wont stop violence. just telling pedos to stay away from kids wont solve the problem.

>>96 You know, they used to say the same thing about homosexuals: that it was a mental disorder. And you don't know you're a homosexual until you're actually sexually developed; children don't even have a sex drive.

I'm just playing devil's advocate here, but you could say anything sexual could be considered as much a choice as a predisposition - the question is how society reacts. Homosexuality, for a time, was seen as a disease and an act of blasphemy. Pedophilia is treated in much the same way, despite being a sexual predisposition all the same.

>>97 Agreed indeed!
You sir (in my opinion)do have a point!

So what's next? Necrophiles begging for the same thing? C'mon guys

This is one of the reaons people (including myself) were against homosexuality being made legal, because it leads to dangerous doors being opened. If homosexuality is ok, why not pedophilia and necrophilia too?
P.S. I'm not the same shinigami who commented above.

>>100 People who compare the two are kind of dumb??
>>99 >>100 And honestly there isn't that much wrong with necrophilia; it's like rubbing your dick on a rock. It's not alive so consent isn't a huge issue, unless the person didn't want someone to have sex with their corpse of course.

And again, I'm just going to say that all sex is fine with me when it's consensual and all parties are aware (or as aware as they can possibly be) of the circumstances.

>>101 I'm pretty sure most people don't want someone to have sex with their corpse... o-o

I would agree with those people against homosexuality and pedophilia. If you allow pedophiles, it could be like a 40 year old man with a 5 year girl, or some other age difference but it's still disgusting.

Why don't pedophiles already have the okay like gays do? Consent. If two gay people consent to sex, there is no problem. The problem with pedophilia is that most of the time there is no consent and so that is not right. The main reason pedophilia doesn't have much backing like gay rights do is because we are talking about children, and people sort of assume sometimes that children can't consent. Well...hmm.

I really don't think pedophilia is 'just wrong'. If two people consent to sex, and both understand what's going on, I think it's fine. However, the problem is with the younger party, and whether they can be considered aware enough to consent. Some can, some can't. Some understand the true ramifications of what they are going through, and some just don't at all. There is no real way to prove that. So, to me, we shouldn't risk a situation where a child doesn't know what consenting even is simply to satisfy some people's urges. I don't consider pleasure or satisfying intense natural urges human rights.

Plus, I think gays were fighting not for the right to have sex, but more for the right to not be harassed and assaulted. I have no problem with granting pedophiles basic human rights, as well as letting them live lives without fear of being jumped in the street and beaten. However, to me sex is not a human right or moral right, so denying someone sex based on their preference isn't all that bad. To me, anyway.

>>105 Well, LGBT rights tend to rally for legal recognition as well, and that's also something that separates it from pedophilia - at least on the same level of urgency.

It's just as you say. It's not a legal right to satisfy an urge, because that's hilariously selfish - though some might argue that it's closer to the concept of true "freedom" that this country prides itself in, as controversial as it may be.

But then, on a social acceptance level, it's only a matter of understanding that bit about consent. But how do you prove a child is knowledgeable enough to do so, without an arbitrary age limit? The only things I can think of would also, at least at this point in time, more or less be putting them out there as candidates to be targeted by pedophiles, consciously. Like getting a license to fuck after taking sex ed before the legal age, or something.

And not only is that dangerous, it's also a hilarious concept. "Hey little man, ready to take your DTF test?" "You betcha!"

I lose as devil's advocate because now this is too silly to think about seriously. Things like social acceptance takes time, but it needs a start - that's where I'm lost as to how it can begin gaining acceptance.

>>106 This is exactly how my grandparents thought about homosexuality. They had no idea why it was accepted, and when I asked them why it shouldn't be they just said, 'Well, it's just wrong!' I can't imagine it ever gaining anything either, but look at racism, homophobia, sexism. They were all completely firmly held beliefs that were just commonplace, but now they are all slowly disappearing. Next it might be pedophilia, or maybe even necrophilia. Humans are a strange creature.

Although the main problem with pedophilia is of course the consent, that is a biggy. Consent with children is also marred by another point I forgot to bring up: authority. Children are told over and over that adults are always to be listened to. Most children I've met at the ages of 6-12 think of adults as authority figures, especially if they know them (like family). So, even if they do know how to consent, they may think they have to just because the person asking is an adult.

However, I really don't think there is a justifiable reason against the pure practice of pedophilia. The only arguments assume that there is some problem with consent of the younger party. However, consensual/non-consensual is no longer talking about pedophilia, but the sexual act itself. If consent is the only problem, then pedophilia itself isn't an issue.

I can't find a problem with the actual act, probably because there is none. Again, it is only a problem with the context, but right now the context is pretty bad. Usually pedophiles have trouble containing their urges, and often will resort to rape to satisfy their urges rather than a fully functioning consensual relationship. This is something else that I believe separates them from the LGBTQ community. Gay people weren't so unable to control their urges they started fucking people without consent. But, often with pedophiles that becomes the problem.

Basically, pedophilia in itself doesn't seem to be wrong. But, when you have sexual intercourse with a child, there is no way to tell whether they can consent or not, and there are problems with authority and consenting as well. So, we have an age limit, because generally people get more aware and able to consent as they get older. We just have to uphold that limit, I guess. Unless...they get a license to fuck?

As for that test, I am not sure about that. I know people above and below the 'age of consent' that both have no idea what is going on and have a perfect perception of it. There is no way to force education, especially education so important, but it seems relying on their ability to 'pick it up' over the course of their life seems worse than making them pass a course. Maybe you idea of a test isn't that bad. Although, I agree when I think about it seriously, it just turns into that Monty Python Sex-ed skit. (Johnson, pay attention!)

TL;DR - Problem is not with minor to adult sexual relations, but with consent problems inherit in young children. No effective way to prove ability to consent = no effective way to accept pedophilia, in my opinion.

Also, DTF test? Sorry, I'm a bit stupid.

Dam i see no way why someone would want to argue that pedophilia should be allowed. Kids under 11 or 12 dont fully know the things they are doing EVEN if they do consent, while that adult mostly do. so what if minors are having sex even with laws in place? it still doesnt mean its right( i shall exclude those above 15/16 because it doesnt seem to fit into the topic of pedophilia here), but its still better than a matured adult having sex with a little kid knowing fully well that that kid doesnt really know what shes doing. why are people fighting for pedophilia rights when they just want to satisfy their sexual urges towards little children, all they want are their bodies and children are sentient beings...

>>108 Like I said, the problem is when the child doesn't know what they are doing. I am arguing that if both parties know what they are doing, even though that is unlikely in the case of a child, it isn't morally wrong just because the child is under the age limit. The age limit is there just to set an approximate age when children know what they are doing when they consent. How can you say every child at the age of 11 or 12 doesn't know what they are doing? And, if children are 'sentient beings' as you said, who says all of them don't fully know what they are doing?

And as for 'fighting for pedophilia rights', I specifically said I don't fight for their right to have sex. Nobody has a right to satisfy any urges, sexual or otherwise. I would fight for their right to equal treatment. People shouldn't be harassed for their sexual orientation, no matter how 'messed up' you think it is.

Besides, they are just sexually attracted to prepubescent children, the same way anyone is sexually attracted to anyone. Do you 'just want to satisfy' YOUR sexual urges towards whoever you are attracted to? Are all you want their bodies, even though they are sentient beings? Just because they are attracted to young children doesn't mean all of them go around asking for sex all the time, same as you or I.

>>109 I like you. Everything you just said is just perfect.
With sexual attraction often comes romantic attraction. Pedophiles aren't soulless monsters - they're capable of caring about other human beings.
Rape and molestation are wrong, but pedophilia isn't. If you say pedophilia - being sexually attracted to something or someone - is wrong, then you're a gigantic fucking hypocrite.

Dont get offensive...i shall clarify myself: the reason i want to say that pedophiles are just trying to satisfy their sexual urges is because they arent really attracted to the children themselves, but their bodies, right? if the children grow out of the age range and their body change, can u still say that they will like that person? i dont think so. Im not saying that being sexually attracted to someone is wrong, i just dont think pedophiles should be put together with the LGBT people nor the straight ones.
Also, around that age of about 10-12, the child's body is going through changes and growing in both the mind and body ( of course, excluding special cases just in case someone would want to nitpick on these things), are you saying that during this period there will be a child who knows fully well that he/she is really ready to be together with and have sex etc with another? Moreover, such will have an extremely huge impact on the child's future and mind.....
I really dont see a point in arguing about pedophilia rights...

>>111 Why not put them together with the LGBT group? Let's use your own logic.

Let's say you're a girl. You're a self-declared lesbian, and you really like this other girl. But then that girl decides she's trans and gets a sex change. That girl is now a boy. But you're a lesbian; it would be against your sexuality to still like them.

If you want to argue that your attraction is only based on sexual urges if you like certain appearances, then only liking a certain gender is just as bad as only liking younger people.

>>111 I was ten a few years ago and I remember it very clearly. I knew what I wanted to do with my body and still do. Not all minors who have sex are scarred for life, either.
And you can't say they're all solely attracted to the body. They might not still be attracted to the child as they age, but you can't go and say you would still be attracted to your significant other if they were seven years old - because that's how a pedophile would feel. You might still love them, but you probably wouldn't be sexually attracted to them.
Saying pedophiles just want to satisfy an urge is ridiculous. That's like saying a heterosexual instantly wants to have sex with anyone of the opposite gender regardless of all other factors, really.
I'll say this for the millionth time - PEDOPHILES ARE ACTUALLY ABLE TO CARE ABOUT THE WELLBEING OF CHILDREN AND DON'T WANT TO HAVE SEX WITH EVERY KID THEY SEE. They're human beings who just happen to think children are hot.
I'm not saying we should allow pedophilia. But you shouldn't judge people based on what they like rubbing genitals with.

>>111 I agree with you that pedophiles don't have a right to sex. And I see your point about the age range. It's true, when children grow up and go through puberty pedophiles often lose their sexual attraction for them. However, that doesn't mean they will just not like them anymore.

Consider straight marriage. I would say that often starts with a sexual attraction towards each other, which after marriage fades into a romantic one (hopefully). Does everyone that is in a marriage and stops having sex just get a divorce right there? Just because someone is not sexually attracted to a person doesn't mean they won't like them. So, just because a pedophile stops being attracted to a child doesn't mean they won't like them anymore.

I don't think they are just attracted to their bodies. Some are, of course. Some straight people are too, some gay people are as well. That is a human thing, not specifically for pedophiles.

And yes, I think some children are aware and really ready to have sex with another. Saying 'children aren't ready' is a huge generalization of thousands upon thousands of individuals. There are a lot of different kinds of children with a very varied base of knowledge and awareness. Some, maybe even most aren't ready for sex. But that is not true for all of them.

>112 honestly, i dont really know, since im still small and young and inexperienced. Why dont u tell me? if pedophilia rights are allowed, and adults who are pedophiles will be dating small children and constantly switching after they grow out of the age range they like, is it the same as LGBT? Is it a romantic attraction? Are LGBT the same as pedophiles, only liking the body trait? Is gender and age the same and can be used for comparison? Will u still like that girl who had sex change even though u declared urself to be a lesbian(though, is there really a definite answer for that, since sexuality is just a title and you are your own self)?

u gotta be kidding me are they searous

u gotta be kidding me are they searous

>>115 "is it the same as LGBT?"
By the logic you were using before, yes. By anyone else's logic, no.

"Is it a romantic attraction?"
It could be. It could not be.

"Are LGBT the same as pedophiles, only liking the body trait?"
That depends on how you look at it. You're defining pedophiles as people only in it for sex with young kids. If that's what a sexuality is, then lesbians and gays are only in it for having sex with people of their own gender. By suggesting that there isn't a single pedophile who thinks with more than their dicks/pussy, you're saying the same thing about every other sexuality. There's more than sex.

"Is gender and age the same and can be used for comparison?"
If you're talking about basing a love life on appearances, then yes.

"Will u still like that girl who had sex change even though u declared urself to be a lesbian?"
It depends on the person. I was using that example from a real life story. Two of my friends were lesbian and liked each other; now one is getting a sex change, but they're still going to be together. This is because it's not just about the sex - it's about who you're initially attracted to. They got to like each other past their bodies, and now they don't care about gender.

>>118 In that same way, why do you think that all pedophiles are indiscriminate and only care about age? Maybe they legitimately like the kid? Maybe they only like one particular kid?

Maybe not every "pedophile" is a sexual deviant out to molest every little boy waiting at a bus stop?

People are fucking dumb. Homosexuality = consenting adults. Pedophilia = an adult and a minor = rape.

It's not that fucking hard. Jesus.

>>120 So it's rape even if a minor chooses to have sex with an adult. Alright, I'll go with that. It's even what the Statutory Rape law says.

Let's agree that they, "don't understand how to consent," because they are, "too young."

Since you specifically said consenting homosexual adults, what about consenting homosexual minors? Or even straight minors? Aren't they raping each other since neither of them, "understand how to consent," because they're, "too young?"

I guess we might as well make it illegal for minors to have sex at all? They might psychologically damage each other!

[I'm just playing Devil's advocate here.]

>>119 Paedophilia is nearly never person specific. The condition, preference, orientation, whatever you want to call it, is the act of feeling intense, sexual urges towards the prepubescent. Not 'a' prepubescent, 'the' pubescent. I'm sure there could be exceptions, but you have to go by the rule of thumb in these kinds of situations.

>>122 So if a straight woman feel an intense sexual urge at hot guys in general, does that mean she's a sexual deviant who wants to forcibly have sex with every male on Earth?

Well with the issue of paedophilia you also have to consider whether or not the child in the sexual relationship is one willing or two fully conscious of what excatly they are doing.

>>124 You just completely twisted my words and missed the point entirely, you should be doing better than that. Not even sure if I should credit that ludicrous question with a response but no, no it doesn't. However, what I was saying was the generalised person under the definition of pedophilia is one who is extremely sexually attracted towards all prepubescent children, whether they give consent or not. It would be fine if they could all give knowing consent (much like hot guys can), but if even a few of them have the potential to be horribly scarred from consequences they did not see arising, we have to protect them. Of course you might pull out the old 'plenty of children are conscientious about sex by that age' again, like you have been doing before; however, we have to protect those who don't before enabling those who do.

>>126 Can't disagree with that. I think the laws that are in place are fine as they are - I just have a problem with the horrible generalisations concerning pedophiles.

>>127 Exactly. I don't like it when people assume pedophiles are all sexual predators. That just isn't the case and it is very short sighted.

>>126 Very good point. I said the same thing in >>105. There may some children that can understand, but there are some that don't, probably even most. So, in order to avoid what would essentially be rape, we should not allow pedophilia. And, I didn't know that pedophilia meant attracted to all prepubescents. Thank you for clarifying that. That differs it largely from LGBT.

My final verdict is this: being attracted to children isn't wrong. Since children usually cannot fully understand the ramifications of sexual intercourse, however, acting on your attraction to children should not be allowed. Even though pedophiles are not all soulless, raving sexual predators, they should not be allowed to have sex with children.

It always comes down to a question of "we need to provide for those who can't" and "we need to give freedom to those who can" and it's always a parallel of the security vs. liberty quote that Ben Franklin said: "He who would trade liberty for some temporary security, deserves neither liberty nor security."

Though if we go by the words of a wise dead man all the time we could hardly call ourselves progressive, either; it's just a good example to bring up. Do we want to protect those who can't consent properly by disallowing it completely because we don't have a way of telling, or do we allow those who do consent to do their thing? Is it a cop-out to just throw on a broad restriction because we can't think of a method to prove legitimacy?

Compared to other social movements focusing on those who live their whole lives with their status (race or sexuality) though, in the interests of the child, their restriction from sexual activity with older people is a temporary one until they are of age, technically. This only leaves pedophiles getting the short end of the stick.

And then, we have to also take into account that it's a fetish, not a physical need - although arguably for some, paraphilia can go pretty far into skewing their sex lives. Do we screw those few people over even if they have found legitimately consenting individuals? For those that say "yes" - do you have a good reason other than finding it disgusting? For those that say "no" - is it really worth the risk?

We could just go in circles with these questions, and I feel like no matter what decision we come to someone will disagree. It's just a matter of which side gets the most momentum going.

>>126 I didn't twist your words at all; I just asked a question. Again, there's no reason to take everything I say as some kind of personal attack against you. It's not the first time you've reacted that way in this thread when I've tried to debate with you, and it's getting kind of old.

As for my response and opinion in general, see this: >>129.

I don't think this debate is going to go anywhere, honestly. Everyone is too locked into their opinions.

>>130 It's within my rights to point out when you have (purposefully or not) completely avoided the direct meaning of a post. Me reaction towards the way you paralleled attractive men to minors and pedophiles to women has some completely understandable points, the circumstances are completely different. You seem to love reacting aggressively, but hate when others feel indignant towards the way you post. Mostly I have seen this restrained to moral debates, but, it is still something that should be pointed out.

Oops, sorry, computer fucked and I double posted. Forgot to mention anyway, I find >>129 completely agreeable, it sums up both sides of this debate extremely well.

My opinion:

People can't help being a pedophile, but that doesn't mean they can't help acting on it. I call it a fetish, not a need like sexual orientation. The thing about having sex with children is:
1. Most of the time, it'll be through rape.
2. It's a child. They might give consent but not know really what they're doing, and they'll most likely regret the choice they made when they grow older. When I was younger, I dated an older man (though not old enough to be a pedophile) and I can tell you if I ever even did anything with a few years age difference I would regret it, let alone an adult...
3. Not to mention what other people will think of the child. People blame regular rape victims already, imagine what they'd do if they found out a child had sex with an older adult (consent given or not)? Being called a "slut" and a "whore" is the tip of the ice berg, and really; who wants a child to go through that?

Why should we give pedophiles rights to have sex with children when it will stain the children's lives? I'm more worried about their lives than the fact people have a fetish. Acting on pedophilia should not be okay.

>>131 There's a difference between responding aggressively to a debate versus responding aggressively to the debater.

The circumstances are completely different in your opinion. I don't believe they are, otherwise I wouldn't have brought it up.

I'm not pulling off topic questions out of my ass; I bring everything up for a reason. And I wasn't avoiding responding directly to your points at all - I've started just asking a couple questions at a time to see if people understand what I'm talking about on those points before writing up a full argument with them. I did it earlier as well. If it flies over their head, then I know to not use that particular argument when I go to respond in full to them, and I also don't waste my time writing up eighteen paragraphs that aren't going to be absorbed because of the angle I took.

But since we both agree on Misu's points, I guess there's no reason to really continue an argument on here about our own issues.

>>135 Not going to lie, they seem like an awful lot of superficial self justifications. But, they could quite possibly be right, and there is no reason to start a shit fight in a Mexican restaurant.

>>134 That has been the main anti-paedophilia argument, I pretty much agree with all of that.

It depends, I think from 14 onwards is okay, since teens at that age already show some interest in relationships and had any experience watched from novels or TV shows(I'm not saying that this is a great experience, but it's something). Below that age admiration can be interpreted wrongly as love, manipulation of sentiments can be used to reach sex.

Where I live, teen 14+ can have relationships with older people, if it is consent from both parts.

>>139
In no way should some 14 year old date some, say 25 year old. There is nothing to gain and by no means are they in love.

A 14 year old's experience is comparable to some baby learning to walk and thus shouldn't be used as a viable example as to why it'd be okay to let them date adults.

>>140 >>141 Again, some fourteen year olds are a lot more mature than their chronological age. I'd be more worried about the twenty-five year old being stupid.
I know a lot of kids my age who are dumb as shit and no more mature than a seven year old, but I also know a lot who are goddamn intelligent. You can't always assume the younger one is going to be the only dipshit in this equation, because I see an equal (if not greater) amount of 'adults' acting like four year olds all the time.
And you can't really say there's nothing to gain. Love is love; age, gander, race - none of that stuff really matters. If you have a conscious, working mind then you can (more than likely) love. Not to say you can't be tricked, but it can still be love - possibly a bit twisted, but that's love for you. If two people really, really love each other, then age isn't an issue.
Sex is the real issue. I still think that sixteen or eighteen is the minimum age when it comes to sex as a generalisation, but other than that I say it's fair game. An older person can be with a younger person as long as it doesn't get sexual until that point, as far as I'm concerned.
If a person really loves someone younger than them, they can obviously wait for sex. However, considering there are pedophiles who only experience physical attraction to minors, they would have to be ruled out.
Everyone makes mistakes, everyone has shitty relationships. Anyone can be manipulated, regardless of age, and it's up to that person to make the big choice, not us. Of course, their parents ought to know and approve of the relationship before anything happens as a precaution, but it's not like kids are the only ones who have fucked up relationships that don't last.

>>142 All of this.
And I'll bring up what Misu brought up again.

There's no doubt that there are younger people who are mature and older people who are immature. However, are we going to shelter all the kids because there are some who are immature and in turn deny necessary freedoms to those who are yet mature? Or are we going to give freedoms to those who are mature and put those who are more immature in less tasteful circumstances, left to learn on their own without our sheltering?

Also, as far as I know, there aren't any laws against dating minors. So long as the parents approve, it's fine if you don't have sex, so it's not something that really needs to be argued here.

Though I will put this out here: Rapists will still rape. Pedophiles will still like minors. Minors who are already in relationships with older people are still going to have sex behind closed doors. This will all continue to go no matter what the law is; we just have to figure out what sects of it we want to protect.

Are we protecting the stupid kids or the smart ones? Are we protecting the rapists or the pedophiles? Are we protecting the old men or the the young adults? Are we protecting the older kids or the younger ones? What about the teenagers who just get out of the age range of who they're dating, only to find out that their boyfriend's/girlfriend's parents are suddenly trying to get them charged with statutory rape? They haven't been brought up much in here either, even though they're labeled pedophiles by the court and treated as such in prison afterwards.

NO PEDO SHOULD HAVE RIGHTS LIKE THAT!!!! If the law is really considering this I dont want to live in america anymore. I will totally petion this with you

actually pedophile and homosexual is very different. Pedophile is a person who like a kid (boy or girl) but the like is just like care about the kids. Homosexual is a person who likes another person that have same gender (boy x boy).

So, it was different from the start.

After reading all these posts, I have come to my final conclusion.

There are too many risks involved in letting children under the age limit have sex with adults. If they don't fully understand what they are doing, the risk of damage is very high. However, there is almost no benefit from letting this happen. Some people 'getting off' is not enough to risk permanent serious physical or mental damage to a child. Some children could handle sex and understand it, but most couldn't and would wind up in very bad shape. So, I think we should just uphold the age limit. If some people can't have sex with who they want, I think this is a fair price to pay for the sexual protection of children.

Although I understand how hard it would be to never be able to satisfy yourself that way, I really think pedophiles should understand the reason it is a problem.

>146

I agree. homosexuality and pedophilia are by no means the same thing. not in nature or intention.

>144

I agree with you too. I haven't the slightest issue with homosexuality. pedophilia is much too serious and damaging

So I have read all the posts in this thread and I have seriously been thinking on this and I have come to this conclusion. You can't change how people think. No matter what you do...both homosexuals and Pedophiles will exist. The discussion at hand though...is rather pedophila should be a sexual orientation. And my opinion is strictly a no...It seems like so much of this thread is talking about the mentality of the adult in the situation and how their brain works. For a second lets talk about the child (and this is 13 or younger that I'm talking about here). Young children don"t have the mentality to handle sexual expeiances. They aren't ready or built for it yet. so many of you are talking as if the rules on age or age itself is just a number or a rule set by society...but there is a reason for it. I know several people affected by sexual abuse when they were children...and they were tramatized...completely. A couple of them feel as if they don't even know how to love. Tainted. They wonder how they felt at the time,...and are so conflicted with themself...one of the people I know was also abused by another child because that child was experiancing abuse. It's like a chain reaction. People can think what they wasnt to think...but acting on it is different

Unfortunately this article is legitimate , Pedophiles all over the U.S have been trying for 3 years now to get it to go to the Supreme court . I personally believe there should be a special form of punishment for pedophiles. or nanyone who Hurts a child .But these Idiots Believe they have a "right" now and are trying to get pedophillia legalized. One of the many reasons I question EVER having children.

My mother is a news hound and this story has her Pissed at the world in general . it does me as well

----

----

----

asdf

asdf

Sleepology you can say no go away all you want but im not going anywhere I have every right to come on this site as you do.

^

asdf