Hi there! You are currently browsing as a guest. Why not create an account? Then you get less ads, can thank creators, post feedback, keep a list of your favourites, and more!
Instructor
#76 Old 27th Nov 2011 at 9:39 PM Last edited by PhenethyaSim : 27th Nov 2011 at 9:51 PM.
Quote: Originally posted by BlakeS5678
Pedophilism is a mental disorder. For whatever it just occurs more often in men, like color blindness.


I must point out that All mental disorders are more common in men or at least mental disorders in general there may be some more common in women but not for the most part. Which explains why More pedos are male this does not mean women can't be pedos.
Advertisement
Scholar
#77 Old 27th Nov 2011 at 9:48 PM
I agree completely, kustirider2. Just because you have some features, (or even all the "features") of an adult does NOT mean you are ready or even capable for sex. You have to atleast be psycholigically and physically ready. And sometimes not even then should it be okay to have sex. And just that you're no longer considered a child because you have some charactaristics of an adult doesn't mean you should be having sex either! In my opinion you shouldn't even being having sex just because you're 18! Sex is a meaningful, intimate thing that shouldn't be so casual. Especially when the people doing it aren't even two adults.

Just call me Blake! :)
Hola, hablo español también - Hi, I speak Spanish too.
Instructor
#78 Old 27th Nov 2011 at 9:51 PM
^ I must agree Blake

Also I think that in-order to tell weather or not someone is a pedo not only should we be looking at weather the victim is a child and the ffender an adult but the age diffrence I think that a sixteen year old who is dating a Twenty year old is not a crime even if the relationship is sexual in nature. I think unless the underage person reports/admits unwanted sexual attention there could be a five year buffer zone for people OVER 14. Assuming they are infact ready.
Scholar
#79 Old 27th Nov 2011 at 9:53 PM
I agree, well again.

Technically it's a crime for a 18 year-old-boy to have intercourse with a 17 year-old girl. Or vice-versa Some things just don't make sense.

Just call me Blake! :)
Hola, hablo español también - Hi, I speak Spanish too.
Instructor
#80 Old 27th Nov 2011 at 10:06 PM
Quote: Originally posted by BlakeS5678
I agree, well again.

Technically it's a crime for a 18 year-old-boy to have intercourse with a 17 year-old girl. Or vice-versa Some things just don't make sense.


Well like a guy my mother went to high school with was dating a girl two years younger( he was 18 she was 16) and they got caught by her father and because he was black and she was white the father had him arrested. but he was a legal adult so even though the father was clearly racist the guy ended up being convicted as sex offender. So I would not begrudge HIM an adoption but Most sex offenders really arn't cases like this and they should not be aloud children.
Mad Poster
#81 Old 27th Nov 2011 at 10:30 PM
Quote: Originally posted by BlakeS5678
I agree, well again.

Technically it's a crime for a 18 year-old-boy to have intercourse with a 17 year-old girl. Or vice-versa Some things just don't make sense.
That depends on where you live. The age of consent is 16 in the UK so the above would be perfectly legal.
Scholar
#82 Old 27th Nov 2011 at 10:45 PM
Does the UK have issues with 15- and 16-year-olds dating? In my experience, it's about as common as 18-year-olds dating 17-year-olds, if not moreso, because 15- and 16-year-olds are pretty much guaranteed to go to the same type of school, where 18-year olds have often moved on to college.
Theorist
#83 Old 27th Nov 2011 at 10:54 PM
Quote: Originally posted by PhenethyaSim
Alright I think if being 43 makes you an unsuitable adoptive parent(as my aunt was told) The being a Pedophile or any othe kind of felon should definitly bar you from adopting. .


Exactly. Why would Theresa May allow sex offenders to adopt children when perfectly suitable couples who have the potential to provide stable and loving homes currently cannot adopt children of different ethnic backgrounds, or are ruled out because of their age etc.?

"Your life was a liner I voyaged in."
Instructor
#84 Old 27th Nov 2011 at 11:40 PM
Quote: Originally posted by Phoeberg
Exactly. Why would Theresa May allow sex offenders to adopt children when perfectly suitable couples who have the potential to provide stable and loving homes currently cannot adopt children of different ethnic backgrounds, or are ruled out because of their age etc.?

Exactly and My Aunt wasn't just an average 43 yearold woman either she is married and very successful she is more than able to provide for a child but normal adoption channels deemed her unsuitable. She was only able to adopt a fertilized frozen embryo because that is less scrutinized than regular adoption. So I agree when perfectly decent parents are being denied then why on earth would we give children to Unsafe homes?
Scholar
#85 Old 27th Nov 2011 at 11:58 PM
As I thought about this it made me chuckle, this is how I think the conversation will go.

Woman: Pedophiles are now allowed to adopt!

Pedophile Wanting to Adopt: Hello, I'd like to adopt a child.

Adoption Agency: Oh yes, of course, we'll put you on the waiting list, you'll be able to adopt in approxiamtely 35 years.

35 years later

Pedophile: Yes, I've waited long enough, now it's my turn to adopt!

Adoption Agency: I'm sorry you're now over the age of 50 and are in elidgible to adopt, NEXT!

Pedophile: Nooooooo!

Just call me Blake! :)
Hola, hablo español también - Hi, I speak Spanish too.
Test Subject
#86 Old 28th Nov 2011 at 12:05 AM
Quote: Originally posted by Lance
I always watch criminal news but so far I've seen only one case of female paedophile being accidentally caught. The trial over her didn't admit her to being a paedophile hence she got only standard child mistreatment charge.
Because she's a woman, you know, and the local psychiatry considers paedophilia to be exclusively male disorder. And it was not proved that putting her sex toys into the boy's anus was sexual in nature.


I'm not sure I want an answer to this but what could putting sex toys in anyone's anus be other than sexual in nature?

In the UK (where I am) we just had a huge scandal over three paedophiles using facebook to swap pictures of abuse, they were two women (one of whom was a nursery worker who had been taking pictures of the children at work and they were most definitely children) and a man, so yes women definitely can be sex offenders and definitely can be paedophiles.

Here's an article about them, it might upset people that haven't heard about this before because the kids were really young.
Instructor
#87 Old 28th Nov 2011 at 12:25 AM
^ I didn't read all of that for it was quite disterbing but I will say I think things like that should have no statute of limitationand be punishable by death. I mean Its been proven that a child abused even at that young of an age can remember and those who can't still suffer from effects of being abused.
Test Subject
#88 Old 28th Nov 2011 at 12:54 AM
I'd forgotten that they found two other women from photographs on the man's computer and charged them as well, so that's four women swapping vile pictures and engaging in child abuse that were brought together by the same man. I suppose the only good thing about this is because of his computer being seized they were able to track down the women, there is some argument that the first two women only acted on their sick fantasies after meeting and being egged on by him, they still had those thoughts in the first place though and who knows whether they'd have kept them in their heads without him. Sick, sick people and a very good example as to why the 'expert' in the OP's post is an idiot and needs to shut up.

Relax the regulations when it comes to none criminals and minor offenders, they are soewhat ridiculous but never ever should we trust someone that's proven they are a danger to children unless they can categorically prove they can be, the burden should be on them. It's not a human right to work with or adopt children, it's a privilage that needs to be earned. How many children in the care system have been abused either sexually, physically or emotionally? Who in their right mind would want to place those vunerable children with someone that might be tempted to do the same thing all over again, even if they didn't how would that child feel if they found out? Social services in the UK has a terrible record for looking after at risk children, just do a search for Baby P and see how reliable they'd be at making sure no abuse was happening or doing anything about if it was. Crass simile alert but putting a paedophile in charge of a child's wellfare is like making a pyromaniac the manager of a petrol station, ie the risks far outway the (very questionable) benefits.
Scholar
#89 Old 28th Nov 2011 at 1:54 AM
Quote: Originally posted by PhenethyaSim
I mean Its been proven that a child abused even at that young of an age can remember and those who can't still suffer from effects of being abused.


Actually, we don't form episodic memory until around the age of 2. Episodic memory is memory of specific events in one's life, as opposed to procedural or linguistic memory. A child younger than 2 cannot form memories of events in his/her life and would not remember that type of abuse. I'm not sure whether or not it's possible for the abuse to have an effect without memory of the event. The fact that these children won't remember what was done to them makes the case more difficult, but it is also probably for the best. The fact that they won't remember it certainly doesn't excuse it, though.
Instructor
#90 Old 28th Nov 2011 at 2:58 AM Last edited by PhenethyaSim : 28th Nov 2011 at 3:11 AM.
actually if a less two year old had myelinated nerves it is possible for them to have memorys its uncommon though for a child to But infact I have memories that predate my third birthday and maybe much younger . And I took a psychology class that focused heavaly on sexual abuse and even if they can't form memories what happens in the early stages of life does have long term affects. I have even read of cases in which children can't remember their personal abuse but could tell they had been. even at that young of an age you are subconciously aware of whats going on.

But yes even if they can't remember It can have long term affects.
this page explanes why and how http://jsassn.wordpress.com/2009/07...perry-m-d-ph-d/
The Great AntiJen
retired moderator
#91 Old 28th Nov 2011 at 3:10 AM
Quote: Originally posted by Oaktree
Does the UK have issues with 15- and 16-year-olds dating? In my experience, it's about as common as 18-year-olds dating 17-year-olds, if not moreso, because 15- and 16-year-olds are pretty much guaranteed to go to the same type of school, where 18-year olds have often moved on to college.

In the UK, 15- and 16-year-olds often go to the same school as 17- and 18-year-olds. Not always but it's not uncommon. Why would we have issues with 15- and 16-year-olds dating? Young persons go to university around 18-19.

I no longer come over to MTS very often but if you would like to ask me a question then you can find me on tumblr or my own site tflc. TFLC has an archive of all my CC downloads.
I'm here on tumblr and my site, tflc
Scholar
#92 Old 28th Nov 2011 at 4:04 AM
What I meant was that 16 is the age of consent and 15 is under that age. Is it anything like the problem in the US where sometimes an 18-year-old will be charged for having sex with a 17-year-old?
Site Helper
#93 Old 28th Nov 2011 at 4:11 AM
From: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Age_of...t_reform#Canada
Quote:
In June 2006, the Canadian government proposed a bill to raise the age of consent from 14 to 16 (in 1890 it was raised from 12 to 14), while creating a near-age exemption for sex between 14-15 year olds and partners up to 5 years older, and keeping an existing near-age clause for sex between 12-13 year olds and partners up to 2 years older. The initiative also maintains a temporary exception for already existing marriages of 14 and 15 year olds, but forbids new marriages like these in the future.[25] The law took effect 1 May 2008.
So, in Canada at least, the age difference is considered in these cases. This seems like a very reasonable solution.
Banned
#94 Old 28th Nov 2011 at 4:15 AM
Quote: Originally posted by kustirider2
I mentioned this. I very much have to disagree with you there though. I said 12 years old is, in the law, where a child understands sex. Not sexual attraction or 'love'. Understands that penis + vagina = sex.

Anyone who thinks a 12 year old has a 'developed body' is quite frankly sick. <...> When you're 12 you still play with dolls, barbie dolls and other things like that, you don't go around feeling intense sexual attractions to adults. Any man who either thinks a 12 year old have a proper developed body, or is attracted to them, obviously has a psychological problem.

Are you actually kidding me? A child is in no WAY physically developed to have sex. Let me go all science on you for a minute here; an adults vaginal canal is only 6 inches long at most. Most men have penises that are either close to - or over- this size. Now, a child's will obviously be much shorter, which means probably a lot of pain for her.

You've read my posts with the wrong set of eyes.

First off, most children understand penis+vagina=sex since 6. The whole other matter that they don't share their newly found knowledge with their parents (as children warn each other that speaking of such things will have them punished), so most parents honestly believe children don't have any idea about it until parents themselves reveal it.
Second, I was 12 once, you know. I remember it. Yeah, half of the kids were playing "barbies and tankies" still. The other half were not. I had prematurely developed female schoolmate... and she was attracted to adult men since 11 though she was mature enough not to act on the attraction. Instead she was hugging me in dark corners - just little innocent hugs, you know ^^
As for body, my class - which in no way can be considered a good one, mind you - had 13-years old prostitute (yeah, I was shocked then and still am) who easily passed for her clients as 17. She realized implications of her actions fully, though she was notoriously stupid. If she was smarter, she'd sue every single of her clients to guarantee her well-being for life. Which is not fair nor just, by my reckoning.
...yeah, and all other children in the class were still playing childish games and had no idea why we three behave so very different.

Now to the part where you misread my post.

This is my post:
Quote: Originally posted by Lance
Since the moment you're physically developed enough to have sex and sexual desires you're not a child anymore.

This is your post:
Quote: Originally posted by kustirider2
A child is in no WAY physically developed to have sex.


Didn't it occur to you that we mean the same thing? No?

Look, here it is:
Lance: you're developed = you're not a child
Kustirider2: you're child = you're not developed

No?
Mad Poster
#95 Old 28th Nov 2011 at 5:02 AM
Isn't the definition of a pedophile one that is sexually attracted to PREpubescents? Once the child hits puberty, the pervs aren't interested anymore.

A hundred years ago, you were a child, then you were an adult--no adolescence. Now college is referred to as "extended adolescence."

Interesting, isn't it?
Scholar
#96 Old 28th Nov 2011 at 6:14 AM
There are some physical differences between those in the process of puberty and adults. The different types of age attraction are as follows: pedophilia - attraction to prepubescent children; hebephilia - attraction to children in early pubescence; ephebophilia - attraction to late adolescents; teleiophilia - attraction to adults. Acting out pedophilic or hebephilic urges is definitely wrong. Ephebophilia is a bit of a grey area, with it being generally best to avoid children in this age range if you are a mature adult. Teleiophilia is the only fully acceptable type of age attraction.

Basically what I'm getting at is that, physically, there is a period of adolescence and during that period, a person generally isn't ready for sex. Though I do think that society has some influence on the period of psychological adolescence. If children are treated like children longer, they will probably act like children longer.
Mad Poster
#97 Old 28th Nov 2011 at 12:58 PM
That too, Oaktree. Hence my statement that college is extended adolescence. 200 years ago you had 16-year-old lads fighting wars. Times have really changed.
Instructor
#98 Old 28th Nov 2011 at 1:06 PM
There should be a licence to sex, imho!

None of these arbitrary age limits. You have to prove you actually understand it and can act responsibly.
Banned
#99 Old 28th Nov 2011 at 1:17 PM
Quote: Originally posted by Elyasis
There should be a licence to sex, imho!

Yeah, entry tickets.
The Great AntiJen
retired moderator
#100 Old 28th Nov 2011 at 1:26 PM
Quote: Originally posted by Oaktree
What I meant was that 16 is the age of consent and 15 is under that age. Is it anything like the problem in the US where sometimes an 18-year-old will be charged for having sex with a 17-year-old?

It's going to be one of those things taken on a case-by-case basis but if you mean if the pair were a couple and were having a sexual relationship or even mutually-agreed casual sex then I think the answer would be, properly, no. If there was evidence of coercion, violence or abuse, then that would generally be covered by the Sexual Offenses Act (in other words, it would be rape). But that's not to say it couldn't happen. I think the issue would become more pressing where the older of the pair was over the age of 18 - the age of majority in the UK. Once the older person is recognised as an adult, having sex with someone under the age of 16 is taken more seriously. Though again, I think it is going to be taken on a case by case basis.

I no longer come over to MTS very often but if you would like to ask me a question then you can find me on tumblr or my own site tflc. TFLC has an archive of all my CC downloads.
I'm here on tumblr and my site, tflc
Page 4 of 5
Back to top