Click HERE to see this thread with all of the graphics, features, and links.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20060530/od_nm/dutch_pedophiles_dc;_ylt=Asec. ygrrX52O3WqWBkuZR6s0NUE;_ylu=X3oDMTA3NW1oMDRpBHNlY
wM3NTc-



I fear for the human race .

The fact that these numbers are less than 99 is quite disturbing.

Oh sweet....there's this cute 10 year old I got a thing for....GO PAEDOPHILES

that figure is based on whether or not such a political party should be outlawed, not whether or not its ok to watch kiddie porn and date children.

I think for the first time, i really genuinely feel that the Dutch are taking their idea of human rights too far.

Originally posted by PVS
that figure is based on whether or not such a political party should be outlawed, not whether or not its ok to watch kiddie porn and date children.

Yes, I agree...I actually find it rather disturbing that the figures are that high....

I always wondered why statements from these groups didn't garner Probable Cause for officials to investigate.

Like the rapper who boasts in his song: "I smoke 3 ounces a day, biatch!" and admits to a publication of doing live shows high...how does that not garner probable cause for a narcotics squad?

Originally posted by Bardock42
Yes, I agree...I actually find it rather disturbing that the figures are that high....

same here. however it gives me a sense of relief that americans are truly not the idiots of the earth. we just tend to be the mouthpiece for the practice of stripping our own civil liberties and begging our government to control us so that we dont have to decide whether or not to be a peadophile, nazi, kkk, communinst etc. it just seems that the western world in general is just plain sick of liberty.

Originally posted by PVS
same here. however it gives me a sense of relief that americans are truly not the idiots of the earth. we just tend to be the mouthpiece for the practice of stripping our own civil liberties and begging our government to control us so that we dont have to decide whether or not to be a peadophile, nazi, kkk, communinst etc. it just seems that the western world in general is just plain sick of liberty.

I suppose you could say it is one part of freedom to decide that you don't want it anymore....

Disfrigginturbing

Originally posted by Bardock42
I suppose you could say it is one part of freedom to decide that you don't want it anymore....

dont want what? kiddie porn and molestation? they are illegal already, so whats to decide? in a truly free society, people dont have the legal right to shut someone up just because they find their words offensive.

now, if it was something infectious, like a person riling up a mob and convincing them to do murder, thats another issue entirely. but really, who is going to decide to be a paedophile based on what some political party says? for that matter, how can you decide to have a mental disorder?

though they are in open support of an illegal activity, that in itself is not illegal.
if it was, then where is the line? should supporters of marijuana law reformation be banned and penalized?

We should be protecting children, not...

Originally posted by PVS
dont want what? kiddie porn and molestation? they are illegal already, so whats to decide? in a truly free society, people dont have the legal right to shut someone up just because they find their words offensive.

now, if it was something infectious, like a person riling up a mob and convincing them to do murder, thats another issue entirely. but really, who is going to decide to be a paedophile based on what some political party says? for that matter, how can you decide to have a mental disorder?

though they are in open support of an illegal activity, that in itself is not illegal.
if it was, then where is the line? should supporters of marijuana law reformation be banned and penalized?

I was talking about their freedom to be able to say that they would like kiddie porn. People seem to not want free societies anymore. They want societies that agree with their beliefs.

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
We should be protecting children, not...

there are laws set firmly to protect children.

what i find truly shocking is people's lack of trust and faith in their own community. the logic seems to be that all their friends, families, and neighbors will suddenly decide to be kiddie fondlers because of what some political party has to say.

Originally posted by PVS
there are laws set firmly to protect children.

what i find truly shocking is people's lack of trust and faith in their own community. the logic seems to be that all their friends, families, and neighbors will suddenly decide to be kiddie fondlers because of what some political party has to say.

Are you sure we disagreed on free speech at some point?

It almost sounds as if they want an anarchy.

Originally posted by Bardock42
Are you sure we disagreed on free speech at some point?

if you're referring to our debate on the illegal nazi salute in germany, then i guess we have disagreed.

Originally posted by Phoenix2001
It almost sounds as if they want an anarchy.

Not at all...to be honest, I found their arguments rather reasonable even.

Originally posted by Bardock42
Not at all...to be honest, I found their arguments rather reasonable even.

you cant possibly mean that
or are you just baiting the next EMOTIONAL RANT MEMBER!!!!!!!!!11111

Originally posted by PVS
you cant possibly mean that
or are you just baiting the next EMOTIONAL RANT MEMBER!!!!!!!!!11111

Bardock, you realize what you're about to do here. One more comment like that, and we're going to start seeing the mocking ZOMG! ROFL!!!1111's from PVS. We've already got the "111"'s.

WTF is wrong with Deutch people...?

Originally posted by botankus
Bardock, you realize what you're about to do here. One more comment like that, and we're going to start seeing the mocking ZOMG! ROFL!!!1111's from PVS. We've already got the "111"'s.

ok, im going to do an impression of a particular member's response to the freedom of speech point:

how can you POSSIBLY support CHILD MOLESTERS!?!??!??!??!?!?!?!?
why not just let MURDERERS and RAPISTS have their own party???!?!?!?
im sorry, but kiddie porn is just WRONG and if you disagree then your INSANE!!!!!!!!!

Originally posted by PVS
ok, im going to do an impression of a particular member's response to the freedom of speech point:

how can you POSSIBLY support CHILD MOLESTERS!?!??!??!??!?!?!?!?
why not just let MURDERERS and RAPISTS have their own party???!?!?!?
im sorry, but kiddie porn is just WRONG and if you disagree then your INSANE!!!!!!!!!

I right alongside of Nino, and I commend PVS' insightful patterns of exclamation points and question marks. Genius.

Originally posted by PVS
you cant possibly mean that
or are you just baiting the next EMOTIONAL RANT MEMBER!!!!!!!!!11111

Hmm, well, I actually think some of the things they say are reasonable:

"The party said it wanted to cut the legal age for sexual relations to 12 and eventually scrap the limit altogether."

I believe that there is not just one line for legal consent. There might be 12 year olds that are emotionally strong enough to decide it, while there are 16 year olds that just shouldn't hve sex.

"It also supports allowing pornography to be broadcast on daytime television, with only violent pornography limited to the late evening."

I see nothing wrong with that at all.

"youths aged 16 and up should be allowed to appear in pornographic films and prostitute themselves."

Sure, whatever floats their boat.

"Sex with animals should be allowed although abuse of animals should remain illegal"

Also, why not, we can slaughter animals but not have sex with them....weird.

"The party also said everybody should be allowed to go naked in public and promotes legalizing all soft and hard drugs "

FREEDOM

"free train travel for all"

****ing socialists....

Now, I realize they do that for selfish reasons and most their ideas are oretty ridiculous, but with some mI do indeed agree.


Originally posted by botankus
Bardock, you realize what you're about to do here. One more comment like that, and we're going to start seeing the mocking ZOMG! ROFL!!!1111's from PVS. We've already got the "111"'s.

Hehe....that will be fun.

Wow...okay this is a tough one.



You guys know there is a difference between a non-active Pedophile and an active Pedophile.


Active Pedophiles have already molested children, while non-active pedophiles simply HAVE the desire but never acted on it.



Anyways,

Personally, i don't see anything wrong with a 16 year old having a sexual relation with someone above 18, as long as its mutually consentual. Most Sixteen year olds are perfectly fine having sexual relationships, its not like they are going to be traumatized by sexual encounters, nor is it like they don't have the ability to give consent.


But a 12 year old ? Most 12 year olds are just STARTING to become sexual beings, not fully aware of what sex is really about..they usually go by thier own impulses and by influences from freinds, TV, etc.


I don't beleive 12 year olds have the FULL ability to give consent to a sexual relation with an adult who is so much smarter, simply because most 12 year olds don't even know who they are yet, they are just starting to get thier own idenitities....they'll usually say YES to any sexual advance from someone they find attractive.

(Not to stereotype....but the decision to be responsible for sexual activity is almost an impossibility for 12 year olds to handle)




I still think a 12 year old is too young, sorry guys.


Should Pedilfiles be BARRED from trying to push some rights? Ofcourse not, they should be heard.....but they should also understand that any relationship they take should be that of absolute mutual consent.

curve ball and a strike

"We're under siege from a militant paedophile organisation known as Milit-Pede."

-AC

I dont completely disagree with these guys. I disagree with the child molestation bit, but legally walking around naked and free train rides for all?

Count me in. Minus the sex with a 12 year old thing.

I'm cool with public nudity as well.

I think the naked body is a beautiful thing.

Originally posted by Lord Urizen
I'm cool with public nudity as well.

I think the naked body is a beautiful thing.
And what if a disgustingly ugly old fat dude completely naked came walking into you're view? With grease from the last Zip burger he had just eaten?

Get my point?

Originally posted by Lord Urizen
I'm cool with public nudity as well.

I think the naked body is a beautiful thing.

Ugh. I get grossed out when half of the people have clothes on. Besides, full nudity would invite all kinds of harassment.

12 is too low.

But PVS is right; we cannot muzzle someone calling for a change in the law.

It is also worth noting that screaming out that they are encouraging child abuse and paedophilia is a very relative thing. I suspect people would say the same if their target age was 14, yet that already IS the age in a lot of countries, including Canada. 13 in Spain, I believe.

So you cannot pretend this is something the human race is universal on. It is cultural attitude. I also seem to remember the age was 12 in the Netherlands not so long ago, though the particulars of how that worked escape me. So in their culture it is not so foreign.

Originally posted by Janus Marius
Ugh. I get grossed out when half of the people have clothes on. Besides, full nudity would invite all kinds of harassment.

Still, I think as free people everyone should decide if they like to wear clothes or not.

I heard about it today while eating breakfast.
Most people wave it away,but here you American people are,making a COMPLETE thread about it.
What a surprise.

Originally posted by Slay
I heard about it today while eating breakfast.
Most people wave it away,but here you American people are,making a COMPLETE thread about it.
What a surprise.

half the people posting in it are not american. nice job, frikin eletist.

nice avatar btw. anthrax rules. although they are just stupid americans.

I'd rather have threads like this where the issue can be discussed, rather than:

"Plane kills 3 people." "Sad huh?" "Yeah." "..."

-AC

Anthrax is from New York, which is a part of America. Most people who first discover Anthrax in the 21st century don't realize that.

Originally posted by PVS
half the people posting in it are not american. nice job, frikin eletist.

nice avatar btw. anthrax rules. although they are just stupid americans.
Sorry about that post.
I didn't mean it like that,at all.

But as you sad half the people posting here are not American meaning the other half are.
That is why I posted it like that.
Again,no harm meant.

Originally posted by Jonathan Mark
And what if a disgustingly ugly old fat dude completely naked came walking into you're view? With grease from the last Zip burger he had just eaten?

Get my point?

They should only allow hott people to walk around naked

LOLOL

Ne ways im totally kidding. They alraedy have nude beaches for that kind thing, and i love it !!!!!

So no harm done.

Originally posted by Ushgarak
12 is too low.

But PVS is right; we cannot muzzle someone calling for a change in the law.

It is also worth noting that screaming out that they are encouraging child abuse and paedophilia is a very relative thing. I suspect people would say the same if their target age was 14, yet that already IS the age in a lot of countries, including Canada. 13 in Spain, I believe.

So you cannot pretend this is something the human race is universal on. It is cultural attitude. I also seem to remember the age was 12 in the Netherlands not so long ago, though the particulars of how that worked escape me. So in their culture it is not so foreign.


Age 12 IS TOO LOW.....



Most kids just STARTED developing thier sexual physical being at Age 12. They are in NO WAY ready to make sexual decisions, they are not even sexual BEINGS yet.


16....better. They're not sexual genuises, but can handle sex muchh better than a 12 year old, AND 16 year olds have a better ability to give full consent to an adult.

I cannot help thinking you didn't quite get the point of my post there. Seeing as I started by saying it is too low, yeah?

My point is that people seem to think that there is a consensus- certainly people tend to think that the Age of Consent in the environment they grow up in is some kind of moral absolute. Nothing could be fuirther from the truth. There is no consensus over what the age of consent should be, or even what factors it should be based upon.

Which is why I find it odd that a man can legally and morally be accepted for having sex with a 13 year old in Spain, yet be a paedophile here as soon as he lands in a plane.

-AC

It is, it is VERY odd, and the tabloids don't help by calling for the castration of someone who slept with a 15 year old whilst parading 16 year old breasts every so often, along with the occasional article on how hot Emma Watson is.

It is an area of total moral confusion- but twinned with very strong feeling. Very dangerous combination.

It happens the world over also, yet the biggest case is always overlooked.

Eg: Lindsay Lohan, Mary Kate/Ashley Olsen etc. All of these girls were "cute" until they became legal. The day they hit 18, Maxim and FHM were knocking on their door.

Attraction doesn't just happen, a girl doesn't magically become sexy overnight. If you find a girl to be attractive, say so. It doesn't mean you're going to attempt rape. Yet as you said, the tabloids force the belief that people have to shut up until they are legal. Then it's ok.

-AC

Originally posted by Ushgarak
I cannot help thinking you didn't quite get the point of my post there. Seeing as I started by saying it is too low, yeah?

My point is that people seem to think that there is a consensus- certainly people tend to think that the Age of Consent in the environment they grow up in is some kind of moral absolute. Nothing could be fuirther from the truth. There is no consensus over what the age of consent should be, or even what factors it should be based upon.


DUDE...i was AGREEING with you.

Zijn er om het even wat de Nederlanders is tegen?

Originally posted by Lord Urizen
DUDE...i was AGREEING with you.

Wasn't quite addressing the point that you don't really have an objective basis to tell other cultures that though.

I'm for almost all forms of perversion...but 12 is way way too low even by my standards.

Originally posted by Ushgarak

It is an area of total moral confusion- but twinned with very strong feeling. Very dangerous combination.

hey!!! i said that first!!!

Originally posted by Alpha Centauri
Attraction doesn't just happen, a girl doesn't magically become sexy overnight. If you find a girl to be attractive, say so. It doesn't mean you're going to attempt rape. Yet as you said, the tabloids force the belief that people have to shut up until they are legal. Then it's ok.

-AC

That's an excellent point.

I'm just waiting for someone to say this is what happens when a country heads down that slippery slope of allowing boys to get married.

Boys get married to each other...then men wanting to marry their 13 year old daughter...the men wanting to marry their goat....and eventually it'll be the man who married his goat that wants to legally adopt a child.

It's coming, wait for it.

Originally posted by Ushgarak
Wasn't quite addressing the point that you don't really have an objective basis to tell other cultures that though.


True, my stance was totally one of personal bias.

But what scientific or hardcore facts could back up ANYBODY's opinion in this kind of situation?


I honestly beleive that 12 years old is just too young. I don't beleive a 12 year old can fully give consent to an adult on anything sexual, because 12 year olds don't even have a full grasp of what SEX is and what it's about, simply because they are JUST starting to become sexual beings.

A person who already has a few years experience thinking and feeling sexual has more leverage when it comes to giving consent to sexual activity.


I'm not saying that EVERY teenager grows the same rate. But age 16 is definately more likely for a teenager to have a stronger concept of sex, then one who is 12.

That's a bit flawed. I know people older than 16 who haven't got the faintest idea of how to safely and responsibly conduct themselves sexually.

The main reason younger kids have no clue about sexual issues is because every time they try to raise a question, it's like some controversial issue. I've witnessed it myself. My niece said something about two people talking about sex on this TV show, literally just mentioned it like I did, said barely anymore than the word "sex" (because I'm not even sure she's aware of what it means yet), and my mother quickly said in a half-jokingly half-serious tone "Don't you say that word!" I was thinking, "How the f*ck are they meant to grow up and be responsible, intelligent and knowledgeable on the subject if you do nothing but make them feel that it's a taboo or embarassing subject?"

As Bill Hicks said "When did sex become a bad thing? Did I miss a meeting?"

I'm NOT saying anything good about paedophilia here, I'm just saying that in 2006 maybe we collectively need to loosen up on the whole issue of sex being taboo, because at the end of it all, we're here because of it. Parents tell their kids they love them and that they're little miracles out of one side of their mouths, while often berating them for asking how it happened with the other.

Then people wonder why girls and guys are off being sexually curious at younger ages. It's because they're not taught. I didn't go off and become an alcoholic at 18 for the simple reason that my parents let me have alcohol at as young as 16, in moderation and sensibly ONLY around them. At which point I realised it was shit, pointless and therefore didn't have this whole "OH MY! I'm 18! I CAN GO DO THAT DRINKING THING!" Same applies to sex.

-AC

Originally posted by Lord Urizen
True, my stance was totally one of personal bias.

But what scientific or hardcore facts could back up ANYBODY's opinion in this kind of situation?



Depends what you mean by 'this kind of situation'

Details vary, but pretty much everyone agrees in the general idea of the appropriateness of laws against murder, rape, arson etc.

And whilst many cultures still do not share it, it is generally- and I believe correctly- being accepted by most cultures that laws against homosexuals are wrong.

All in all, there is a kind of shared vague consensus, even if, as I say, the details vary. Even if there is no such thing as an absolute fact, the relative opinions that cultures that people generally accept as as good thing tend to coincide. And so it is on this basis that we might normally lecture another country on bad law.

But not here. Everyone agrees that sex with underage children is wrong, and the concept arouses strong feelings, but the problem is that no-one can hammer out a definition of what 'underage' is. Not even the voting age is this controversial and variable, and not even the voting age is this volatile.

So... what I am saying is, in a world where cultural values are increasingly being shared, this one is WAY out of whack, sometimes just by crossing a nearby border.

Which is creating this sizeable moral void. There is no clear direction, and the instinctive reaction of many people when exposed to the difference in other cultures is revulsion.

Mind you, I don't meet many Canadians that even known what their AOC is. American culture has pervaded them to think it is the same as in the US, which of course doesn'tt have a single AOC, even though that point is often lost on people.

Talking of which, checked out Iowa's laws? Sex legal at 12 within marriage, legal at 14- alebit fuzzily- outside of it. You really don't have to go far before you get this sudden moral shift.

Originally posted by Alpha Centauri
That's a bit flawed. I know people older than 16 who haven't got the faintest idea of how to safely and responsibly conduct themselves sexually.

The main reason younger kids have no clue about sexual issues is because every time they try to raise a question, it's like some controversial issue. I've witnessed it myself. My niece said something about two people talking about sex on this TV show, literally just mentioned it like I did, said barely anymore than the word "sex" (because I'm not even sure she's aware of what it means yet), and my mother quickly said in a half-jokingly half-serious tone "Don't you say that word!" I was thinking, "How the f*ck are they meant to grow up and be responsible, intelligent and knowledgeable on the subject if you do nothing but make them feel that it's a taboo or embarassing subject?"

As Bill Hicks said "When did sex become a bad thing? Did I miss a meeting?"

I'm NOT saying anything good about paedophilia here, I'm just saying that in 2006 maybe we collectively need to loosen up on the whole issue of sex being taboo, because at the end of it all, we're here because of it. Parents tell their kids they love them and that they're little miracles out of one side of their mouths, while often berating them for asking how it happened with the other.

Then people wonder why girls and guys are off being sexually curious at younger ages. It's because they're not taught. I didn't go off and become an alcoholic at 18 for the simple reason that my parents let me have alcohol at as young as 16, in moderation and sensibly ONLY around them. At which point I realised it was shit, pointless and therefore didn't have this whole "OH MY! I'm 18! I CAN GO DO THAT DRINKING THING!" Same applies to sex.

-AC

I agree, my parents allowed me to drink when I was 14, 15 but in moderation. For example I would ask if I can have 1 beer and sometimes they would say yes but most of the time they would say no.

How would kids know about the risks of sex if they didnt speak to them about it.

Originally posted by Ushgarak
Talking of which, checked out Iowa's laws? Sex legal at 12 within marriage, legal at 14- alebit fuzzily- outside of it. You really don't have to go far before you get this sudden moral shift.
Actually according to THIS the age of consent is 14 and you must be 16 to marry.

Yes, but you can be married from a state where the marriage age is lower. I think Kansas?

As Iowa law says that if you are married you can have sex regardless of Age, BUT it also has a general five year apart clause for anyone under 18 being the legal limit- more precisely, LESS than 5 years...

Then we find that a 16 year old married person in Kansas could legally have sex with his partner if she was 12.

Admittedly that is only because their law is cocked up. Their target AOC is still 14.

Originally posted by Ushgarak
Yes, but you can be married from a state where the marriage age is lower. I think Kansas?

As Iowa law says that if you are married you can have sex regardless of Age, BUT it also has a general five year apart clause for anyone under 18 being the legal limit- more precisely, LESS than 5 years...

Then we find that a 16 year old married person in Kansas could legally have sex with his partner if she was 12.

Admittedly that is only because their law is cocked up. Their target AOC is still 14.

Some how, you know a lot about American laws...

This subject comes around normally once or twice each year. I keep accumulating little facts each time.

It always seems to be a shock to people when they realise the AOC is not universal, and all the more so if pointed out that a difference is not on the far side of the world, but relatively speaking just down the road.

It's definitely just a mind-boggling concept.

I remember going to Mallorca (which conforms to Spain's laws I'd imagine) and thinking that I could be perfectly untouchable having sex with a 13 year old there, then fly home and by this country's standards, be branded a paedophile.

It's crazy.

-AC

Originally posted by Alpha Centauri
It's definitely just a mind-boggling concept.

I remember going to Mallorca (which conforms to Spain's laws I'd imagine) and thinking that I could be perfectly untouchable having sex with a 13 year old there, then fly home and by this country's standards, be branded a paedophile.

It's crazy.

-AC
You had sex with a 13-year-old?

If you can find where I said/implied that, I'll give you money.

I thought I said: "and thinking that I could be perfectly untouchable having sex with a 13 year old there, then fly home and by this country's standards, be branded a paedophile."

-AC

Originally posted by Alpha Centauri
If you can find where I said/implied that, I'll give you money.

-AC
Ack my bad I misread you're post, but I'll still take the money...

No problem.

-AC

Okay, i understand that fact AC....

It's true. NOT ALL 16 year olds can grasp the concept of sex, but those are the ones who were never even exposed to sexual lessons or education about it, much less probably unexposed to OTHER people thier age.


My point is age 12 is too young. I mean physically...most 12 year olds are just beginning thier sexual stages.

Mentally ? Their STILL KIDS......

Emotionally? ...hello hormones...



Does this mean that a 12 year old cannot give consent? Ofcourse they CAN, but is thier consent equivalent to the consent that an average 16 year old can give ?


Most 12 year olds are just starting to feel these urges and impulses. They need to learn more about them before they can make responsible decisions.

An adult pedophile knows full well a lot about his/her own sexuality, and regardless of whether this is thier intention or not: they are taking advantage of a young pre teen who is just starting to develop a sexual identity and may not even know what he or she truly wants yet.

It doesn't really matter if the consent is equal, it's consent.

If a girl says "Yes, I want you to do that, it's ok", I think it's rather pathetic for society to say: "Nah, you don't know what you were saying yes to." "I did." "No you didn't."

Whether she fully grasped it or not, she gave consent, she agreed. She didn't resist. You can't just ignore that in favour of nailing the guy who did it.

-AC

Originally posted by Alpha Centauri
It doesn't really matter if the consent is equal, it's consent.

If a girl says "Yes, I want you to do that, it's ok", I think it's rather pathetic for society to say: "Nah, you don't know what you were saying yes to." "I did." "No you didn't."

Whether she fully grasped it or not, she gave consent, she agreed. She didn't resist. You can't just ignore that in favour of nailing the guy who did it.

-AC

I agree

Originally posted by Alpha Centauri
It doesn't really matter if the consent is equal, it's consent.

If a girl says "Yes, I want you to do that, it's ok", I think it's rather pathetic for society to say: "Nah, you don't know what you were saying yes to." "I did." "No you didn't."

Whether she fully grasped it or not, she gave consent, she agreed. She didn't resist. You can't just ignore that in favour of nailing the guy who did it.

-AC


How OLD is this girl you are using for an example ?


Children often give consent to the stupidest and most harmful things without realizing it.

For me, this is not about nailing someone.

There are a LOT of things that young teenagers cannot grasp: IE. Bullying...one kid finds pleasure in socially tormenting another kid his age for whatever selfish reasons come with it. The other kid usually takes it, if he's too afraid to fight back, and thinks its just normal for other kids to act this way, without realizing that his rights as a human, especially a human child, are being violated horribly.


There are young teenagers who think about suicide, not fully understanding what kind of damage they will do to thier family and those who love them if they go through with it. Often, they don't even know exactly WHY they are suicidal. They just recognize the depression and pain over things that in the end dont matter......




to be continued......

Originally posted by Lord Urizen
How OLD is this girl you are using for an example ?


Children often give consent to the stupidest and most harmful things without realizing it.

For me, this is not about nailing someone.

There are a LOT of things that young teenagers cannot grasp: IE. Bullying...one kid finds pleasure in socially tormenting another kid his age for whatever selfish reasons come with it. The other kid usually takes it, if he's too afraid to fight back, and thinks its just normal for other kids to act this way, without realizing that his rights as a human, especially a human child, are being violated horribly.


There are young teenagers who think about suicide, not fully understanding what kind of damage they will do to thier family and those who love them if they go through with it. Often, they don't even know exactly WHY they are suicidal. They just recognize the depression and pain over things that in the end dont matter......




to be continued......

No, no, no. You are getting really baffled here, you're confusing the issue purposefully.

Read my post again. Whether they realise it or not, whether their giving of consent holds much weight or not, don't be so gung ho as to overlook the crucial fact that she gave consent.

You can't treat it as not giving consent. She gave concent and that needs to be accepted and kept in mind at all times.

If I had sex with a 12 year old but didn't force, harm or threaten her and was, infact, given her consent, I'd be pretty pissed if you tried to act like I did all those things.

-AC

Originally posted by Alpha Centauri
No, no, no. You are getting really baffled here, you're confusing the issue purposefully.

Read my post again. Whether they realise it or not, whether their giving of consent holds much weight or not, don't be so gung ho as to overlook the crucial fact that she gave consent.

You can't treat it as not giving consent. She gave concent and that needs to be accepted and kept in mind at all times.

If I had sex with a 12 year old but didn't force, harm or threaten her and was, infact, given her consent, I'd be pretty pissed if you tried to act like I did all those things.

-AC



Dude, i wouldn't punish you for doing such a thing (unless it was my sister or sumthing LOL)


But I think children give consent based more on impulse and curiosity than anything else.


You don't think an adult who has sex with a child who had given consent in that way, is taking advantage of the child ????


The adult knows fully well what he or she is doing.

The 12 year old doesn't fully know what they are getting into, they just know what they are curious to find out.

For crying out loud, I actually feel like I'm talking to a brick wall.

Read carefully:

Regardless of why or how they gave consent, do not overlook that they gave consent. Ok? Obviously consider the issues, but don't overlook that the girl wasn't forced, harmed or threatened.

Recognise that she did give consent. That is crucial.

-AC

Originally posted by Alpha Centauri
For crying out loud, I actually feel like I'm talking to a brick wall.

Read carefully:

Regardless of why or how they gave consent, do not overlook that they gave consent. Ok? Obviously consider the issues, but don't overlook that the girl wasn't forced, harmed or threatened.

Recognise that she did give consent. That is crucial.

-AC


Did you READ my post ?

I thought I made it clear i did recognize the lack of force, and i do recognize an existance of consent, but i feel this consent is HALF ASS consent.


Consent only based on impulse and curiosity, not on any prior maturity or knowledge.....


No matter what the adult is taking advantage of the situation. That's all.

Yes, but there's no resolve or progression to be found in ignoring the fact that she did give consent.

-AC

Originally posted by Alpha Centauri
Yes, but there's no resolve or progression to be found in ignoring the fact that she did give consent.

-AC

Ofcourse not. It should definately be considered, and not referred to as "RAPE"....


I beleive RAPE is the wrong word when consent is involved.

However, the LAW recognized it as such, and you argued on the abortion thread that since the LAW recognizes murder in only one definition, and abortion as seperate, that THOSE Are the facts.

And since the Law recognizes a sexual relation between a 12 year old and someone above the age of 18, RAPE.....


Who are you to argue against the FACTS of LAW ?


You are sort of contradicting yourself here bro.

I'm not saying it's not rape to a degree, it is.

What I'm saying is that consent is all too often disregarded, it shouldn't be. No man should be treated like the worst kind of rapist if it was only technical rape. Not forceful or harmful.

-AC

Originally posted by Alpha Centauri
I'm not saying it's not rape to a degree, it is.

What I'm saying is that consent is all too often disregarded, it shouldn't be. No man should be treated like the worst kind of rapist if it was only technical rape. Not forceful or harmful.

-AC


I agree with you there. Sadly pedophiles are COMPLETELY misunderstood and given the "i like raping little kids" stereotype.

Not all pedophiles are like that. Pedophiles ALSO have a fixed sexuality, like Homosexuals and Bisexuals do.


I saw an interview with a Pedophile on Oprah, he is a virgin I beleive, but he said he only gets aroused by thoughts of young girls.


When he was 11 he was still attracted to 9 year old girls, and as he got older, the ATTRACTION never evolved with his age.


That's sad.




But it is still statuatory rape. The Consent a 12 year old gives in terms of sexual activity is still an immature and impulsive one, not a consent that is equal to someone who is 16 or up.

Understand, the NATURE of the consent also has to be considered, not just the EXISTANCE of the consent.

Originally posted by Alpha Centauri
It doesn't really matter if the consent is equal, it's consent.

If a girl says "Yes, I want you to do that, it's ok", I think it's rather pathetic for society to say: "Nah, you don't know what you were saying yes to." "I did." "No you didn't."

Whether she fully grasped it or not, she gave consent, she agreed. She didn't resist. You can't just ignore that in favour of nailing the guy who did it.

-AC

So you would not have a problem if you had a 13 year-old daughter who consented to sex with a 26, 30 or even 50 year old man, right ?

I'm not saying take the consent as adult consent am I? I'm saying consider that there was consent and maybe a guy doesn't have to be treated like a forced rapist when no such thin occured.

Does it go in one eye and out the other with you? Seriously? I make a post, you say you agree, then go on to recycle what I've said.

-AC

You guys mentioning 'rape' in the form of a minor giving consent are missing the crutial 'statutory' bit in front of it. Like manslaughter is not murder, statutory rape is not actual rape and there's less punishment for it.

That's what I said above, more or less.

-AC

Guys, i think Pedophila is the wrong word.


Isn't there a separate term for adults who enjoy having sex with young teenagers ?

I thought Pedophile is the term for adults who enjoy having sex with children who are not teenagers yet ?

Paedophilia is defined as an attraction to children. There's no specific age range.

It could be applied to a 17 year old, although that's hardly practical.

-AC

Yes but there is a HUGE different between a CHILD and a TEENAGER....



Most Teenagers understand what sex is......they think about it enough, any teenager who is willing to give consent pretty much knows what he or she is doing to a large extant, and an Adult who engages in sexual activity with them should not be treated like some sicko.




OMG....if i were enough of an a$$hole i could easily report the multitude of adults ive messed around with starting at age 17.

Originally posted by Alpha Centauri
That's what I said above, more or less.

-AC

That does not give any a response to whether or not you would have a problem with your 13 year old boy or your 11 year old girl having consentual sex with a 26, 30 or a 50 year old man.

I am asking you a specific question. A yes or a no, followed by a reason will suffice.

Originally posted by Lord Urizen
Yes but there is a HUGE different between a CHILD and a TEENAGER....

If you're not a legal adult, you count as a child. That includes 17 year olds, technically. You're a teen for 7 years, 5 of which are as a child.

Originally posted by GCG
That does not give any a response to whether or not you would have a problem with your 13 year old boy or your 11 year old girl having consentual sex with a 26, 30 or a 50 year old man.

I am asking you a specific question. A yes or a no, followed by a reason will suffice.

Considering that this is the first time you've asked me, I'd suggest chilling out.

I personally would have a problem with my 11 year old girl having sex with a 26, 30 or 50 year old man, because I think upward of a decade age gap is miles too much at that age. However, if they had consentual sex and I found out, I would want him charged with full-on rape, purely because he didn't full-on rape her. I'd want him charged with what he deserves, statutory rape. I would fully recognise that she gave consent regardless of if her consent holds any true weight. I wouldn't treat it like the consent of a 20 year old, but it's still consent that needs to be considered.

Same with a boy.

-AC

Originally posted by Lord Urizen
OMG....if i were enough of an a$$hole i could easily report the multitude of adults ive messed around with starting at age 17.

I hope they were all MILFs, you stud. Pff.

As for this group, it's a weird one. If paedophilia is illegal, how can they be allowed to become a recognised party based on such an agenda? Although, I guess as the article states, it's just a means of raising the topic.

The age of consent in most countries is between 16 and 18 years of age, although there are many countries that have lower base ages. Click here for the list.. It seems a little strange that some countries have a lower age for males, as our physical and mental development is slower than girls. Although, I guess it's based on the fact that guys aren't going to be burdened by a bun in the oven at such a young age.

Personally, I think 16 is a fair age as it leaves enough time for innocence to be maintained and childhood to be just that. Most people don't pay strict attention to the exact age, but at least it helps as a guideline.

On a personal note, when I lived in the US my girlfriend was 17, while I was 19. She was smart, and had big boobs, so I don't think there was anything wrong with that.

Forget the statutory part- its just rape.

A person who finds it acceptable to believe that consent given by a 11-14 year old is a credible reason to have sex with him/her is seriously messed up. Adults do understand these emotions and feelings that children go through and know that they can abuse this power to satisfy themselves. Its abuse of power and its rape.

No-one is mature enough especially at that age; yes people mature at different times in their lives and people have different upbringings and laws and things but in my country its 16 and over and thats how I see it.

The statutory rape law is stupid, I mean really unless there is a third party then who knows who did or didn't give consent in the sittuation. The adult could be lying for example to escape the rape charge and given his experience in life can easily manipulate him/her into believing that they gave consent. The adult deserves all the shit he/she gets from society if he feels its necessary to have sex with a child and if the adult is the slightest bit unsure of the persons age then he/she should just not do it.

Originally posted by Lord Shadow Z
Forget the statutory part- its just rape.

No, it's not. It's called statutory rape for a reason, do you know what that reason is? The reason is because if it's not forced, harmful or threatening, and the "victim" is only such because she is underaged, then it's statutory.

Originally posted by Lord Shadow Z
A person who finds it acceptable to believe that consent given by a 11-14 year old is a credible reason to have sex with him/her is seriously messed up. Adults do understand these emotions and feelings that children go through and know that they can abuse this power to satisfy themselves. Its abuse of power and its rape.

Yeah, statutory rape. Not the rape that is most commonly known.

Originally posted by Lord Shadow Z
No-one is mature enough especially at that age; yes people mature at different times in their lives and people have different upbringings and laws and things but in my country its 16 and over and thats how I see it.

It's 16 and over here, but regardless of how young a person is, if consent is given, that has to be taken into account and investigated as to why she gave consent. If she gave consent because she was threatened, harmed or other, then it's obviously worse. If she wasn't harmed, forced, or threatened, then it's a different plate of fish.

Originally posted by Lord Shadow Z
The statutory rape law is stupid, I mean really unless there is a third party then who knows who did or didn't give consent in the situation. The adult could be lying for example to escape the rape charge and given his experience in life can easily manipulate him/her into believing that they gave consent. The adult deserves all the shit he/she gets from society if he feels its necessary to have sex with a child and if the adult is the slightest bit unsure of the persons age then he/she should just not do it.

So your rationale is "If you're not sure that the man did it or not, just go with a serious rape charge"? That's incredibly dangerous and stupid. That's as bad as saying "We're not sure if he did anything, she's just saying he did, so we'll not follow it up."

In the event that he didn't do it, you've just tagged him with a label that he will never be able to shake off. That's why it's crucial that we don't do that.

-AC

It's helpful to remember what rape technically means and what statutory technically means.

Rape, by definition, is sex without consent.

Now, literally, speaking, anyone who can express themselves can give consent. There is no dictionary definition of the term that says that only adults can do it.

But most rape laws have a clause that reads something like:

"It is not a defence that the victim consented if the victim is x years or younger"

In a purely legal sense, the option for a person of that age or younger to consent is removed.

That is why it is called statutory- the literal logic of consent is irrelevant, legally speaking it was rape. hence, statutory rape- rape purely under the terms of the law. Technically there is no reason why such a term has to apply only to the consent issue, but that is how it is commonly used.

So it is very difficult to not have statutory rape laws. You need some means to legally confront the issue that, literally speaking, consent might have been given. The law can take the position that it can be left to psychologists to decide whether that person could give reasonable consent, but legally speaking the option simply does not exist.

I'm not a law student, but I am under the impression that very often if there is no consent given, they probably wouldn't treat it as statutory, just as a rape. The statutory clause is only needed if a defence of consent is being used.

It probably varies wildly by country.

Originally posted by Alpha Centauri
No, it's not. It's called statutory rape for a reason, do you know what that reason is? The reason is because if it's not forced, harmful or threatening, and the "victim" is only such because she is underaged, then it's statutory.






So you don't think using your experience and understanding as an adult of how to play around with the feelings and emotions of a child to satisfy a physical need is harmful or threatening? ...right ... okay.

Originally posted by Lord Shadow Z
So you don't think using your experience and understanding as an adult of how to play around with the feelings and emotions of a child to satisfy a physical need is harmful or threatening? ...right ... okay.

Yeah, I know that we as adults see it as harmful or threatening, but the fact that the child may very well come out of it mentally and physically unharmed is enough to consider.

Regardless of whether the consent is considered credible or not, the fact that it may very well have been there calls to question the ability to give consent. I don't think it should ever be overlooked. I'd not want to be treated on the same level as a man who abducts, abuses and rapes females if all I did was sleep with a girl who gave me her consent. Not saying I would ever do that, to all the anal people out there, but my biggest problem with law and people dealing with it, is that there are tags that- once attached- can never be removed. Paedophila, rapist etc.

No man deserves to be branded either unless he is one, because in today's society that can result in drastic action.

-AC

Most legal definitions of 'consent' are rather ambiguous. It can have a wide variety of meanings, and such meanings are strictly dependant upon culture. Such a term should not be used to characteristically describe sexual relations between persons of a particular age.

Moreover, recent studies conducted in the US, UK, and Germany have demonstrated a gradual decrease in the dating pool for single males and females over the age of 54. A lowering of the consensual age limit would allow for more individual opportunity and freedom in many societies. Presumably, these freedoms would allow for those individuals who have difficulty finding loving life partners due to the current age constraints imposed upon them by the present legal definition of 'consent.'

pedophiles need to not be alive.

I believe people with your sort of view need to not be alive either. Swings and roundabouts eh?

-AC

Originally posted by Alpha Centauri
I believe people with your sort of view need to not be alive either. Swings and roundabouts eh?

-AC

I must apologize for that statement Mr. Pedophile.

The odd thing is, it is probably less controversial to abolish the AOC than to lower it to 12.

Abolish it and- I would hope- the idea would be to replace it with legislation designed to prevent the exploitation of children for sexual means.

But lower it to 12 and you are actively condoning sexual activity between children and adults at that age, which is far more worrying.

Originally posted by Ya Krunk'd Floo
I hope they were all MILFs, you stud. Pff.

Yeah a few. Some of them were DILF's 2. But most of them were SWILF's and SMILF's.

I've never done it with a PWILF though. I don't think I'll ever go that far.

have you done it with chilfs?

Originally posted by Alpha Centauri
Paedophilia is defined as an attraction to children. There's no specific age range.

It could be applied to a 17 year old, although that's hardly practical.

-AC

if you want to be anal over it, you can say that. however the true nature of paedophilia is to be aroused by a child's immaturity and under/undevelopment, physically and/or mentally...that is as it applies to the psychiatric disorder and not to technical law, which is far less specific.

lets say you sleep with a 14/15 year old girl, but she has the physical and mental characteristics and maturity of a woman well within age. the court will tag the title 'peadophile' on you, and yet you were not attracted to any immature or under/undeveloped qualities. so although you broke the law, the law then labels you with an incorrect and inappropriate title.

so its a term which overly demonises the common 'statutory rapist' (as if tagging on 'rapist' isnt intense enough, right?) , and thus trivialising the very dangers to society for which the term, rooted in psychology, was even conceived: paedophiles.

A child just doesnt do anything for me, and im glad.

Phillip, murdering people doesn't do anything for me, and I'm glad.

Originally posted by PVS
if you want to be anal over it, you can say that. however the true nature of paedophilia is to be aroused by a child's immaturity and under/undevelopment, physically and/or mentally...that is as it applies to the psychiatric disorder and not to technical law, which is far less specific.

lets say you sleep with a 14/15 year old girl, but she has the physical and mental characteristics and maturity of a woman well within age. the court will tag the title 'peadophile' on you, and yet you were not attracted to any immature or under/undeveloped qualities. so although you broke the law, the law then labels you with an incorrect and inappropriate title.

so its a term which overly demonises the common 'statutory rapist' (as if tagging on 'rapist' isnt intense enough, right?) , and thus trivialising the very dangers to society for which the term, rooted in psychology, was even conceived: paedophiles.

Which is why I said it's hardly practical to include girls or boys of say, 17. Just that it could be said technically.

-AC

Originally posted by PVS
lets say you sleep with a 14/15 year old girl, but she has the physical and mental characteristics and maturity of a woman well within age. the court will tag the title 'peadophile' on you, and yet you were not attracted to any immature or under/undeveloped qualities. so although you broke the law, the law then labels you with an incorrect and inappropriate title.

A generalisation: a girl who has sex at young age ends up being a bit f*cked-up later in life. Therefore, regardless of whether you believe they are physically and mentally mature, they probably aren't. Sure, it's not the same as paedophillia, but it's something to support the application of a reasonable age of consent. Of course, what is 'reasonable' is subjective, but I think most people would agree that it shouldn't be below 16.

End of generalisation.

Originally posted by Ya Krunk'd Floo
A generalisation: a girl who has sex at young age ends up being a bit f*cked-up later in life. Therefore, regardless of whether you believe they are physically and mentally mature, they probably aren't. Sure, it's not the same as paedophillia, but it's something to support the application of a reasonable age of consent. Of course, what is 'reasonable' is subjective, but I think most people would agree that it shouldn't be below 16.

End of generalisation.
I know I'm not waiting to be sixteen to have sex. Or do you mean you think anyone below the age of 16 should not have sex with an adult?

Originally posted by Templares
http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20060530/od_nm/dutch_pedophiles_dc;_ylt=Asec. ygrrX52O3WqWBkuZR6s0NUE;_ylu=X3oDMTA3NW1oMDRpBHNlY
wM3NTc-





I fear for the human race .


You and me both babe.

Originally posted by Eis
I know I'm not waiting to be sixteen to have sex. Or do you mean you think anyone below the age of 16 should not have sex with an adult?

It might seem sexist, but what I said mainly applies to girls. However, in the case of it being a homosexual relationship between two men, then I think it applies in a parallel manner. Adult males generally have a far more predatory sexual nature than adult women.

Originally posted by Ya Krunk'd Floo
It might seem sexist, but what I said mainly applies to girls. However, in the case of it being a homosexual relationship between two men, then I think it applies in a parallel manner. Adult males generally have a far more predatory sexual nature than adult women.
So you don't think girls below the age of 16 should have sex. But it's ok for men to?
Also, is it that you don't think girls below 16 should have sex with adults or sex at all?
And, what do you mean it works in a parallel way for homosexual cases?

Lol I just want to understand your point of view.

The general protection of girls, in my opinion, comes from the idea that not only are they physically more vulnerable, but the psychological influence of females having to be penetrated. It's more of a violation, to most people.

It's taking a male's penis into your body and being in a position where a man could force it. A man has a better chance of defending himself against another male than a female does.

-AC

Originally posted by Eis
So you don't think girls below the age of 16 should have sex. But it's ok for men to?
Also, is it that you don't think girls below 16 should have sex with adults or sex at all?
And, what do you mean it works in a parallel way for homosexual cases?

Lol I just want to understand your point of view.

No, I think most kids should wait, but girls more so.

Both, but if they must, then with someone around their own age.

Gay kids shouldn't get frisky with older dudes. If they must, then with someone around their own age.

Ya get me now?

Originally posted by Ya Krunk'd Floo
No, I think most kids should wait, but girls more so.

Both, but if they must, then with someone around their own age.

Gay kids shouldn't get frisky with older dudes. If they must, then with someone around their own age.

Ya get me now?
Yeah, I get it and I agree.

Originally posted by Alpha Centauri
The general protection of girls, in my opinion, comes from the idea that not only are they physically more vulnerable, but the psychological influence of females having to be penetrated. It's more of a violation, to most people.

It's taking a male's penis into your body and being in a position where a man could force it. A man has a better chance of defending himself against another male than a female does.

-AC

Exactly. Alot of people don't realize this bit.

Originally posted by Philip_ll
have you done it with chilfs?

HELLZ No...and i never would.

Word from The Netherlands on this; this political party's right to exist has been denied by the public, parlements, govnerments, first chamber and the prime-minister.
The whole of The Netherlands is against the believes and demands of this party of sickos, exept for the few bastards that uphold their ideas.
And with them being only a very small fragment of society and the common desire to stop these monsters amoung the rest of us, this problem will be silenced soon.

Originally posted by Philip_ll
A child just doesnt do anything for me, and im glad.

Your definition of 'child' does not represent the legal definition of 'consent' in many societies. Some children develop both physically and mentally quicker than others, which further blurs the line on what governing authorities should determine the 'consentual' age limit to be. Recent studies conducted on Catalan females give examples of young women who are fully capable of breeding before 9 years of age.




The argument against 'consentual' sex amongst younger age groups is fatally flawed. Flawed in the respect that it seeks to place legal restrictions on the love one individual can feel for another. Should the government be able to determine who one can fall in love with?

"Love, like a river, will cut a new path. whenever it meets an obstacle."

No obstacle, be it gender, race, age, or the legal definition of one's ability to give consent, can overcome the unstoppable gushing force of nature known as love.

this is one of those subjects that has been taken too far. this is a terrible thing, in my own opinion people should wait until they are 18 to have sex, not as a legal age, but just out of common sense. i do think that the molestation of children and teenagers under the age of 16 should mean that the offender recieve a harsher punishment here in the uk.

one thing though... i dont agree with parents who let their daughters dress in short skirts and the like, as i feel children are taught to grow up far too young these days. girls aged 10 think they're too old to play with a barbie doll, and start experimenting with make up etc. whether this has anything to do with pedophilia i dont know.

Originally posted by darth_royke
this is one of those subjects that has been taken too far. this is a terrible thing


How is it a 'terrible thing' for two individuals to be in love with one another?

Originally posted by darth_royke
in my own opinion people should wait until they are 18 to have sex


That is only your opinion, and your opinion is based on the societal standards which you are accustomed to.

Originally posted by darth_royke
not as a legal age, but just out of common sense. i do think that the molestation of children and teenagers under the age of 16 should mean that the offender recieve a harsher punishment here in the uk.


As reiterated to you and others countless times, what one considers to be a 'child', is dependant upon various cultural standards. Moreover, as also mentioned before, scientific studies on Catalan women have demonstrated that some 'children' mature much earlier than others.



A question for you and others of like minded rationale, do you believe the law should put a legal definition on who an individual can fall in love with?

The law is actually about sex, not love, and the problems of sexual exploitation of children means that, yes, the law does indeed have the right- even the duty- to legislate.

The law may not be perfect but the intent is appreciable.

let me guess...whob again?

Originally posted by She - Ra
"Love, like a river, will cut a new path. whenever it meets an obstacle."

No obstacle, be it gender, race, age, or the legal definition of one's ability to give consent, can overcome the unstoppable gushing force of nature known as love.


So I guess you beleive a toddler could have sexual relations with an adult ?

Originally posted by PVS
let me guess...whob again?

Of course.

Originally posted by She - Ra
How is it a 'terrible thing' for two individuals to be in love with one another?



That is only your opinion, and your opinion is based on the societal standards which you are accustomed to.

firstly i said this is a terrible thing about the original title of this thread.

secondly, i did state this was an opinion so well done for noticing.

She-ra, a child is a child, and the bottomline is that pedos best stay away from them.

Originally posted by Philip_ll
A child just doesnt do anything for me, and im glad.

now let's be reel here. if an 11 year old girl who had a body like this came up to you, don't tell me you would'nt be attracted to her...

hell i got a stiffy just from googling to find the pic...

Originally posted by Bush Whacker
now let's be reel here. if an 11 year old girl who had a body like this came up to you, don't tell me you would'nt be attracted to her...

hell i got a stiffy just from googling to find the pic...

See, thats the thing. If i am not aware that she is a child, i will definately be horny, but once i find out her true age, i am turned off completely. Unlike yourself.

Originally posted by Philip_ll
See, thats the thing. If i am not aware that she is a child, i will definately be horny, but once i find out her true age, i am turned off completely. Unlike yourself.

I didn't know that people are sexually attracted to age.

Originally posted by Ushgarak
The law is actually about sex, not love, and the problems of sexual exploitation of children means that, yes, the law does indeed have the right- even the duty- to legislate.

The law may not be perfect but the intent is appreciable.

actually the law is about 'age of consent' not sex..people mature at different rates. the law needs to recognize that their's no absolute age limit to when a person can make an informed decision about what to do with their bodies. i do agree with you however about stricter laws being put in place so that people won't take advantage of those not mature enough to give consent.

Originally posted by Philip_ll
See, thats the thing. If i am not aware that she is a child, i will definately be horny


stop..freeze frame..take a picture, wasn't that my point all along?

now ask yourself this question..why would a person who looks like that be considered a 'child'?

and then ask yourself this question..is it possible for some children to develop emotionally and phyically quicker than others?

Originally posted by Bush Whacker
actually the law is about 'age of consent' not sex

That is sheer contradiction.

The 'Age of Consent' is entirely and 100% about sex.

Originally posted by Bush Whacker
actually the law is about 'age of consent' not sex..people mature at different rates. the law needs to recognize that their's no absolute age limit to when a person can make an informed decision about what to do with their bodies. i do agree with you however about stricter laws being put in place so that people won't take advantage of those not mature enough to give consent.

Agreed. Stricter laws need to be put in place, but personal freedoms need not be compromised.

the reason i say that 18 is the best age to wait until, is people cant go out and drink alcohol until they are 18 in the uk... but they can have sex and potentially have kids? if people fdo not have the responsibility to go out and have a drink while they are 16 they should not have the responsibility of having sex, as there are many more consequences.

in another way, films are given an 18 rating here if it contains explicit sex, though i'm not on about porn. yet people can still have sex while they're 16 but not buy or access it? the laws messed up.

Originally posted by She - Ra

"Love, like a river, will cut a new path. whenever it meets an obstacle."

No obstacle, be it gender, race, age, or the legal definition of one's ability to give consent, can overcome the unstoppable gushing force of nature known as love.

Love is not real. It is just teh emotion that peeple make up. It's aboot as real as what you want it to be. Love, emotionism, reality, or morality of any kind should not dictate the laws made by government.

If you conceed to having sex, regardless of age, thant that is your choice. Not the governments.

Originally posted by Goku69
Love is not real. It is just teh emotion that peeple make up. It's aboot as real as what you want it to be. Love, emotionism, reality, or morality of any kind should not dictate the laws made by government.

If you conceed to having sex, regardless of age, thant that is your choice. Not the governments.

Love is not real ?

I guess that means Hate isn't real either.

Originally posted by Lord Urizen
Love is not real ?

I guess that means Hate isn't real either.

Nope hate is not real either. Made up by humans to control each other. They're are only two types of peeple, those who control and those who are being controlled.

Teh government does not have the rite to control a persons right to consent to sex.

Originally posted by darth_royke
the reason i say that 18 is the best age to wait until, is people cant go out and drink alcohol until they are 18 in the uk... but they can have sex and potentially have kids? if people fdo not have the responsibility to go out and have a drink while they are 16 they should not have the responsibility of having sex, as there are many more consequences.

in another way, films are given an 18 rating here if it contains explicit sex, though i'm not on about porn. yet people can still have sex while they're 16 but not buy or access it? the laws messed up.

That's only teh law where you live. Not an absolute law. Diferrent countries have diferrent laws.

Love isn't an emotion but rather a state of mind.

Also:

"The 'Age of Consent' is entirely and 100% about sex."

Not in America - Age of Consent is used as a borderline for a lot of things that have nothing to do with sexual things. Age of Consent for a cigarrette. You must be the Age of Consent to consent in most contracts as well (here), and must be of the Age to Consent to work that can get you killed.

If someone has to get off with lusting after children, then there's a problem......keep in mind........I haven read any of the thread.........

Originally posted by Goku69
Nope hate is not real either. Made up by humans to control each other. They're are only two types of peeple, those who control and those who are being controlled.

Teh government does not have the rite to control a persons right to consent to sex.


Hate doesn't exist.

LOL what WORLD do you live on ?

Originally posted by Lord Urizen
Hate doesn't exist.

LOL what WORLD do you live on ?

It's called reality. You have heard of it have'nt you. Teh world is not aboot black and whites. Morality is not real. Their is no good and evil, Hate or Love. These thing exist to control us.

Their is nothing wrong with a 8 year old sleeping with a 54 year old, as long as the 8 year old is mature enough. The law has no rite to control an 8 year old who wants to have sex with.

Originally posted by NineCoronas
Love isn't an emotion but rather a state of mind.



That's what I meant..And people control their states of mind. Love and hate do not exist outside of teh mind. Thanks for stating it in better words.

Originally posted by Goku69
It's called reality. You have heard of it have'nt you. Teh world is not aboot black and whites. Morality is not real. Their is no good and evil, Hate or Love. These thing exist to control us.

Their is nothing wrong with a 8 year old sleeping with a 54 year old, as long as the 8 year old is mature enough. The law has no rite to control an 8 year old who wants to have sex with.

Okay Morpheus. Let me know when to plug out of the Matrix.



I also beleive that is is RARE when there are black and whites, but they do exist. They just aren't as frequent as all the greys.

There may be no good or evil (and thats a HUGE MAYBE), but there is hate and love. Racism, Sexism, Envy, Violent acts of discrimination...all registers under the existance of Hate.

Admiration, Obsession, Infatuation, the love that exists between a mother and son, the love that a female lion has for her cubs, the love that CAN develop between the young of one animal and the elder of another animal species (watch animal planet), ALL EXISTS.

Dude, you are deluded. Sorry. WAKE UP




A 54 year old can have sex with an 8 year old and its all dandy?


Ever heard of Dissassiative Identity Disorder ? Caused by repeated sexual molestation at an early age. Many rapists and serial killers develop that way out of early sexual encounters before adolescence. There was a report of a Satanistic cult where a child was having enjoyable sex with adults, however he grew up to murder the same women he had sex with as a child, he grew up abdnormally, unhealthy, and unhappy.


You SERIOUSLY need to read more, watch more news, do your research on stuff....you come out of NO WHERE with this Idealistic Matrix Reloaded bullsh*t, and have nothing to back up your point of views.


ATLEAST use some facts to back up your personal theories, okay ?

Originally posted by Lord Urizen
Okay Morpheus. Let me know when to plug out of the Matrix.


Teh Matrix is a movie...its not part of REALITY..so your point is moot.

Originally posted by Lord Urizen

I also beleive that is is RARE when there are black and whites, but they do exist. They just aren't as frequent as all the greys.



Black and whites exist in race...thats aboot it..microscopically even then melannin is only shades of gray.

Originally posted by Lord Urizen

There may be no good or evil (and thats a HUGE MAYBE), but there is hate and love. Racism, Sexism, Envy, Violent acts of discrimination...all registers under the existance of Hate.

Admiration, Obsession, Infatuation, the love that exists between a mother and son, the love that a female lion has for her cubs, the love that CAN develop between the young of one animal and the elder of another animal species (watch animal planet), ALL EXISTS.

Dude, you are deluded. Sorry. WAKE UP

A 54 year old can have sex with an 8 year old and its all dandy?

Ever heard of Dissassiative Identity Disorder ? Caused by repeated sexual molestation at an early age. Many rapists and serial killers develop that way out of early sexual encounters before adolescence. There was a report of a Satanistic cult where a child was having enjoyable sex with adults, however he grew up to murder the same women he had sex with as a child, he grew up abdnormally, unhealthy, and unhappy.


You SERIOUSLY need to read more, watch more news, do your research on stuff....you come out of NO WHERE with this Idealistic Matrix Reloaded bullsh*t, and have nothing to back up your point of views.


ATLEAST use some facts to back up your personal theories, okay ?

I have facts..and teh biggest fact is that you just are to pathetic to come up with a descent argument to refute me. Look up pathetic in the dictionary, and youll see you're picture. And by the way "ATLEAST" is two words..not one. Learnt to spell.

YOU TELL HIM WHOB!!!! oops....sorry....

Originally posted by Bardock42
I didn't know that people are sexually attracted to age.

You have a lot to learn.

Originally posted by Bush Whacker
stop..freeze frame..take a picture, wasn't that my point all along?

now ask yourself this question..why would a person who looks like that be considered a 'child'?

and then ask yourself this question..is it possible for some children to develop emotionally and phyically quicker than others?

Just becuase a person looks fully mature, does not mean that the person IS fully mature. Secondly, yes it is possible for children to develop quick, in fact, as the human race continues to evolve...women are developing quicker and will continue to develop quicker. But just becuase a woman develops quicker, does not mean that people like you have the right to have sex with them or in fact rape them.

Originally posted by Goku69
Teh Matrix is a movie...its not part of REALITY..so your point is moot.



Black and whites exist in race...thats aboot it..microscopically even then melannin is only shades of gray.



I have facts..and teh biggest fact is that you just are to pathetic to come up with a descent argument to refute me. Look up pathetic in the dictionary, and youll see you're picture. And by the way "ATLEAST" is two words..not one. Learnt to spell.


Hmmmm....well considering your account has been restricted, I doubt you'll be able to supply me with any facts to back up your arguments now.

Damn....and I was looking 4ward to it.

Originally posted by Goku69
Teh Matrix is a movie...its not part of REALITY..so your point is moot.



Black and whites exist in race...thats aboot it..microscopically even then melannin is only shades of gray.



I have facts..and teh biggest fact is that you just are to pathetic to come up with a descent argument to refute me. Look up pathetic in the dictionary, and youll see you're picture. And by the way "ATLEAST" is two words..not one. Learnt to spell.

Haha, I just realized,...pretty good whob, pretty good.

Originally posted by Goku69
Teh Matrix is a movie...its not part of REALITY..so your point is moot.



Black and whites exist in race...thats aboot it..microscopically even then melannin is only shades of gray.



I have facts..and teh biggest fact is that you just are to pathetic to come up with a descent argument to refute me. Look up pathetic in the dictionary, and youll see you're picture. And by the way "ATLEAST" is two words..not one. Learnt to spell.

Whob your one funny person...

Can we just agree that whenever someone makes a fescecious response to a matrix reference that they also have to include an aside mentioning how godawful that movie was?

Originally posted by Darth Jello
Can we just agree that whenever someone makes a fescecious response to a matrix reference that they also have to include an aside mentioning how godawful that movie was?

It wasn't godawful...just not as great as many people make it out to be...well, that's my opinion on this totally unrelated topic....

This is OT, but I was told on CNN that the running govener of NV is Bi and had sex with G.W. Bush.......in a naughty way.......Is this true..........