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!
Mad Poster
#26 Old 26th Nov 2011 at 9:46 PM
Quote: Originally posted by Saturnfly
Paedophiles and sex offenders won't change. It's like the saying goes, once an alcoholic, always an alcoholic, all you can do is stay away from your addiction.
This is what I've always heard too, but the article I reference above has made me consider that change is possible. It's a fascinating read - please give it a go. As I stated before, even with that possibility, I wouldn't rely on it nor want anyone who had harmed others in that way to have the same chance again.

Addicted to The Sims since 2000.
Advertisement
Scholar
#27 Old 27th Nov 2011 at 12:36 AM
Quote: Originally posted by wickedblue
That's a really broad brush you're painting with there.

Not all convicted felons are hopeless causes. Some of us make a mistake when we are young that gets us a felony conviction that we have to carry around for life but have since become exemplary citizens and even good people (and GASP! parents too). So no, I don't think we should just automatically assume that all convicted felons are not going to be fit parents.


I realize that not all felons are going to repeat whatever crime they committed. I am concerned about the lack of rehabilitation in our prisons, though. When someone is treated like they aren't a real person for years, it tends to screw up the psyche. I realize that that isn't the fault of those sent to jail and I think that our prison system should focus more on rehabilitation, but I think it is risky to allow someone who's spent 20 years in prison to adopt a child. I think it is reasonable that some individuals that can demonstrate that they are capable of raising a child be allowed to adopt, but I think the responsible thing to do would be to take a much stricter look at those who have been convicted of a felony.
Banned
#28 Old 27th Nov 2011 at 3:48 AM Last edited by Lance : 27th Nov 2011 at 4:20 AM. Reason: english articles are pain in my ass
Someone's noted about the age of 12-13 when person physically becomes able to feel sexual attraction. I believe this is where the age of consent should be set and people having sex with 12-years old and older shouldn't be considered paedophiles. Because the older side often has no idea how old their partner is - they see fully developed body, and they don't really care about actual age, and the younger side would often lie as sexual desires are new and overwhelming to them and they are not experienced enough to control their physical urges or think it properly through.

VerDeTerre, while some peadophiles have parental instincts - or some remnant of it which has not been changed/perverted by their disorder, they will still have sexual urge for their children. Even if we'll be able to prove that they will never touch a child again, the atraction still remains and even in repressed form - and even in its subconscious state (which is, I believe, often the case for women whose parental instincs usually overrule possible paedophilia thus hiding it from conscioussness) - it will still hurt the child. Child's psyche is developed in response to emotional interactions with parents. When this area is corrupted, the whole proceess goes awry.
The very article you linked says: "For the pedophile, we cannot hope to control whether he is attracted to children. That he never acts on the attraction may be the best we can hope for, especially as a society that respects individual rights and freedom of thought."
Inventor
#29 Old 27th Nov 2011 at 4:49 AM
So because pedophiles just can't help themselves getting all excited over a 12 year old child's body, we should just stop making it a crime for them to have sex with a 12 year old?

You really think it's just acceptable to take away the responsibility of you know, finding out how old your potential partner is and gaining their enthusiastic consent before proceeding with any sexual acts?

I mean we are talking about adults vs. children here. The burden is on the adult. No matter how tempting a 12 year old's body is (and what the fuck?!) I see lots of girls around this age every single day and no matter how they may try to look older, the fact that they are just children is pretty clearly obvious. If in doubt, DO NOT TOUCH. It's not that difficult.

kittens!
Banned
#30 Old 27th Nov 2011 at 4:56 AM
Since the moment you're physically developed enough to have sex and sexual desires you're not a child anymore.
Inventor
#31 Old 27th Nov 2011 at 5:05 AM
Some children enter puberty at around age 9. Are you seriously suggesting that at age 9 because they have undergone some changes in their body that results in sex hormones being created and are therefore able to reproduce that they are no longer children? Or is it only that they have sexual urges that makes them not children? In that case, then I suppose at 5 years old some stop being children. Yes, children that young do develop sexual urges. They do not understand them and have no capacity to consent, which is why we make it a crime to have sex with children.

I can't believe I'm even having to explain this.

kittens!
Banned
#32 Old 27th Nov 2011 at 5:08 AM
Who would want to have sex with a child in the first place?!
Banned
#33 Old 27th Nov 2011 at 5:12 AM
wickedblue, you're talking of exceptions here. Such childrens should be watched very closely as they often do try to get sex and sometimes force other children to it.

You should also add that some don't enter puberty and don't have sexual urges until they hit 20. In this case having sex with 18 years old who in theory should have capacity to consent would be terribly wrong and sick.
Scholar
#34 Old 27th Nov 2011 at 5:51 AM
My opinion is that it shouldn't be illegal for teenagers to have sex with each other, but it becomes much more grey (not to mention creepy) when adults pursue teenagers. It's too easy for that sort of relationship to become imbalanced and coercive. With the exception of relationships where there is only a difference in age of a couple of years, I think adults should just steer clear of teenagers.

Also, I was one of those who went through puberty at age 9 and I reached my full adult height and close to my adult proportions at 11. I can tell you for a fact that I wasn't ready for sex, no matter how much I may have looked like an adult. Many people aren't ready for sex until years after they hit puberty. Physical appearance isn't the only thing that plays a role in consent.
Inventor
#35 Old 27th Nov 2011 at 5:51 AM
No, I am not talking of exceptions here and your second argument also fails. Once a person becomes a legal adult, at the age of 18, they can give informed consent about their own choices, including the choice to have sex. Whether they have the sexual urges or not is completely irrelevant. If someone has sex with a person that does not give their consent, that person is committing rape.

You are trying so very hard to justify the unjustifiable. You don't just make it legal to have sex with a child because some people just can't control their urges to have sex with children.

And yes, they are children. No matter how hard you try to twist facts to suit your own reality, it doesn't work that way. They are children and in the eyes of the law cannot give informed and enthusiastic consent.

kittens!
Banned
#36 Old 27th Nov 2011 at 6:11 AM Last edited by Lance : 27th Nov 2011 at 6:27 AM.
wickedblue, my firm belief that at the age of 13 a person who is psysically and psychically developed adequatly to their age should be able to understand implications of "yes" and "no".
Whether they should say "yes" or "no" is THE WHOLE OTHER MATTER.

Edit: Since in your rage you're obviously ready to admit me a vicious paedophile, I'll tell you something.
I've had my first sex at the next day of my 14th birthday with a girl who was 1,5 week away from her 18th birthday. As a couple of days matters not, I was 13 and she was 18. If we are to follow wickedblue's definitions and those very laws she defends without any thought, then we are to admit the girl is a paedophile and should've been jailed. Actually, according to the laws she should have been jailed.
Inventor
#37 Old 27th Nov 2011 at 6:42 AM
Well, Lance, I am not in a rage at all, and I certainly never said that you were a pedophile, that is a conclusion you have jumped to on all your own. What I did was point out that there was a serious flaw in your argument that we should make it legal to have sex with children because some people just can't control themselves. I will tell you something, I really don't give a damn if a grown person finds a child with a pubescent body to be sexually attractive, I can and will expect that person to control themselves and if they do not I fully expect the law to hold them accountable for their actions.

And yes, she should have been jailed.

kittens!
Banned
#38 Old 27th Nov 2011 at 6:47 AM Last edited by Lance : 27th Nov 2011 at 7:04 AM. Reason: overreacted
Quote: Originally posted by wickedblue
Well, Lance, I am not in a rage at all, and I certainly never said that you were a pedophile, that is a conclusion you have jumped to on all your own. What I did was point out that there was a serious flaw in your argument that we should make it legal to have sex with children because some people just can't control themselves. I will tell you something, I really don't give a damn if a grown person finds a child with a pubescent body to be sexually attractive, I can and will expect that person to control themselves and if they do not I fully expect the law to hold them accountable for their actions.
My entire point was that teens aren't childs.
Inventor
#39 Old 27th Nov 2011 at 6:49 AM
They are children and I honestly can't fathom why you are trying so hard to erase that fact.

I do not understand your second statement at all. Did you have sex with a child? If so then yes you should be jailed. If you are talking about the incident you have described, you were the child, so why would you be jailed for that?

kittens!
Inventor
#40 Old 27th Nov 2011 at 6:55 AM
Seriously? I was trying to give you the benefit of the doubt that you didn't mean what I thought you meant but by your reaction that then I suppose the only conclusion here is that you are admitting to having had sex with a child. And now, Lance, I am perfectly clear on why you are so determined to make the children to blame for what is done to them. It's probably the only way you can justify your own actions.

I'm done. This conversation is making me physically ill.

kittens!
Banned
#41 Old 27th Nov 2011 at 6:56 AM
LOL

Mildly put, I was saying I would harm any person who would want to insult my first love.
Inventor
#42 Old 27th Nov 2011 at 6:59 AM
Quote: Originally posted by Lance
LOL

Mildly put, I was saying I would harm any person who would want to insult my first love.


Even though I find it to be bad form to use quotes to reply to a comment directly above yours, I want to make sure that this is not going to disappear when you decide to edit your comment. I want the mods to see that you just threatened me.

kittens!
Banned
#43 Old 27th Nov 2011 at 7:01 AM
Quote: Originally posted by wickedblue
Seriously? I was trying to give you the benefit of the doubt that you didn't mean what I thought you meant but by your reaction that then I suppose the only conclusion here is that you are admitting to having had sex with a child. And now, Lance, I am perfectly clear on why you are so determined to make the children to blame for what is done to them. It's probably the only way you can justify your own actions.

I also want mods to see you were insulting me saying I am a paedophile.
Scholar
#44 Old 27th Nov 2011 at 7:13 AM Last edited by CinderEmma : 27th Nov 2011 at 7:16 AM. Reason: Adding a bit more
I very much disagree with your view Lance, though I do respect your right to say it as long as you don't take it into action. I can't tell if you have from your statements, though they are worrisome. I'm sorry it has happened to you, though I wish you could understand that it wasn't alright for your "first love" to do that to you. She knew better then to take advantage of you, she could have any of-age person she wanted, yet she picked a 13, almost 14 year old.
I had puberty at age 11, before I knew what sex even was. I just wasn't emotionally ready. Even now, I have only just gotten sexual urges of any kind at the age of 17, despite being being at a mature biological state (boobs, hair down there, pretty much everything sexual that needs to be there) since 13. Even now, I am a virgin because I don't believe I'm emotionally ready for such an encounter.
But I'm 19, able to make that decision. If I were somehow in a sexual encounter at the age of 11-17, despite the fact that I knew that I wasn't even having urges, let alone wanting to lose my virginity, f I were being touched the right way...I wouldn't be able to look at the long-term consequences. And I'm somebody who has a super strict mentality (morels and stuff like that) that is hard to break, even from a super young age, which is abnormal.
There are reasons why you can't drive until 16, because a child, preteen, or young teenager doesn't have the concept of what their actions can do in the long term. Same with alcohol, smoking, and other age restricted activities. They just don't psychically have that piece to their mentality yet, I've read that it doesn't fully develop until mid-20s. And no, I don't think you need to stay a virgin that long, but for older children and younger teenagers, it's impossible to them give proper consent.
I don't think my words will make a difference, as your mind is made up. I'm not wanting to attack you. I just wish to show you my opinion, as you have shown yours.
Banned
#45 Old 27th Nov 2011 at 7:16 AM
CinderEmma, no, no, I think it's completely wrong to impose sex on someone who is not yet ready. You're not ready yet being 17 and you know it, I was ready when I was 13 and I knew it. Everyone is different.
Instructor
#46 Old 27th Nov 2011 at 7:18 AM
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. I do think that sometimes what is considerd a sex offender is inacruate such as peeing in a public fountain infront of kids because your drunk, But real Sex offenders should not be given the chance to harm children. I don't even think pedophiles should be aloud visitation rights to current children because even with supervision those bas-s-pro-shop-terds are crafty and if they want to abuse a child they will.
Scholar
#47 Old 27th Nov 2011 at 7:34 AM
But were you ready for the consequences of said actions? Did you use protection? If not, were you ready for the chance of having a child, at the age of 13? Those are things that kids and young teens don't think of, but biology doesn't really care if you want a baby, only that the opportunity was available. If you did have protection, were you prepared for the aspects of an STD? At 13, you probably didn't ask if your partner was tested, even if she wasn't sexually active with anybody else but you, she could have had something from previous experiences.

Back on topic, I completely agree that if a 43 year old person or somebody single is unable or struggles to adopt a child, a felon certainly should not. It's not fair for the many people who want to adopt and have followed the law completely (or haven't been caught at breaking it I suppose).
Banned
#48 Old 27th Nov 2011 at 7:36 AM
She was a virgin, we used protection and we actually did a lot of research on how to choose it and how to use it properly.
Scholar
#49 Old 27th Nov 2011 at 7:38 AM
Lance, if I understand you correctly, you are saying that some people are emotionally ready to have sex before the legal age of consent. I agree. That doesn't mean that it's right for a much older person to pursue that minor, though, because an older person typically has a sort of authority by virtue of being older and may abuse that authority. I think there's no problem with two 15-year-olds who both feel ready for sex having sex with each other, but when a 25-year-old pursues a 15-year-old, it can be difficult to determine to what degree the 15-year-old is able to consent vs. feeling coerced into a sexual relationship.

I know it seems weird that the ability to consent can change depending on the partner, but consider an example that applies among two adults: an employer pursuing an employee is walking a fine line of consent when s/he has the power over the employee's job. The employee can be pressured into doing things that s/he doesn't feel comfortable with because s/he wants to ensure job security. In a similar manner, children tend to feel that it is necessary to listen to those who are older than they are and an older partner can take advantage of that.
Scholar
#50 Old 27th Nov 2011 at 7:39 AM
While that may be, that is the exception, not the rule. So while perhaps your situation worked out, I still feel like the typical 13 year old would not do such actions and susceptible to the situation going completely wrong when they aren't ready for it.
Now I'm going to sleep, hopefully this conversation will go back on topic. Though a new debate board on this subject would definitely be interesting.
Page 2 of 5
Back to top