Pedophilia not a ‘sexual orientation’ – Duma-proposed bill - Polidicks

If pedophilia is a sexual orientation then getting off to non-consensual sex with adults should also be considered a sexual orientation But it isn't, it's just called getting off to rape

[QUOTE='[sluggo];42989648']Just to set this straight: [B]Pedophilia[/B] - Attraction to pre-pubescent children [B]Hebephilia[/B] - Attraction to those early in adolescents, generally 13 and 14 [B]Ephebophilia[/B] - Attraction to those later in adolescents, generally 15+[/QUOTE] its still fucking kids and gross regardless of what its called

[QUOTE=SPESSMEHREN;42990225]Hebephilies and Ephebophiles are just pedophiles with dictionaries.[/QUOTE] oh yeah I forgot that people who are past puberty are pre-pubescent, thanks SPESSMEHREN! oh, wait

It's only okay when they do it to pedos because pedos aren't humans like gay people are!

[QUOTE=Blind Lulu;42991695]Homosexuality and pedophilia really aren't comparable in this sense. There's nothing inherently wrong with being attracted to the same sex but there is something wrong with being attracted to a child. Pedophilia really shouldn't be considered just a sexual orientation.[/QUOTE] There's nothing inherently wrong with being attracted to anyone. Attraction cannot be morally wrong, because it isn't an action, it isn't dictated by choice. Obviously action is a whole other can of worms, but attraction by itself isn't anything. It just is.

It doesn't matter what country it is, or what is being discussed, no government should ever be able to suppress academic debate.

I am fairly scared, this cannot be good. You guys just don't know the scale of pedohysteria in this country, do you guys? It wasn't once and it wasn't a few times either that a man got jailed for child molesting based on a "psychologist's evaluation". How the fuck does a psychologist equal evidence?

[QUOTE=SPESSMEHREN;42990225]Hebephilies and Ephebophiles are just pedophiles with dictionaries.[/QUOTE] From a psychological standpoint they are very different things. Your brain is wired to be attracted to those who are biologically ready to reproduce. You don't suddenly turn attractive when you turn 18. During adolescence teenagers begin have quite a few sexual feelings themselves, they aren't innocent of sexual thought anymore. Anyone who says they find 16 year old physically unattractive just because of their age is lying to themselves, they wouldn't even know the difference just from looking at them. From a social perspective, it probably isn't a good thing for a 14 year old to have a relationship with an adult, but it certainly isn't as bad as a pre-pubescent child, whom from their very nature can't have a sexual relationship.

[QUOTE=Beelzebub;42991610]its still fucking kids and gross regardless of what its called[/QUOTE] So fucking an 18 year old is totally acceptable and ok but if she's one year younger then its fucking gross. This is probably not what you ment but i felt like pointing this out. There is a big difference between sex with a sexually mature human being, and sex with a prepubescent child.

[QUOTE='[sluggo];42992224']From a psychological standpoint they are very different things. Your brain is wired to be attracted to those who are biologically ready to reproduce. You don't suddenly turn attractive when you turn 18. During adolescence teenagers begin have quite a few sexual feelings themselves, they aren't innocent of sexual thought anymore. Anyone who says they find 16 year old physically unattractive just because of their age is lying to themselves, they wouldn't even know the difference just from looking at them. From a social perspective, it probably isn't a good thing for a 14 year old to have a relationship with an adult, but it certainly isn't as bad as a pre-pubescent child, whom from their very nature can't have a sexual relationship.[/QUOTE] the point is that statutory rape is always equally bad regardless who it's with, whether it be a kid, a teenager, or someone passed out at a party. it doesn't matter what "your brain is wired" to do, it's rape and it's disgusting.

[QUOTE=Blind Lulu;42992294]I'm not necessarily speaking of the morality of having an attraction. I am talking about how having a physical attraction to people who ever acting out your desires on would be morally indefensible and illegal can be incredibly distressing for someone to the point where I think it should be considered a disorder. I can't imagine there is a pedophile out there who doesn't wish he wasn't a pedophile.[/QUOTE] If you don't think there's something wrong with the attraction, why did you phrase things the way you did? I don't like arguing semantics, but in regards to stuff like paedophillia (where you need to make sure there's a divorce between two concepts) the language used is really important. I'd equate it to mixing sex and gender up in a transgender debate, it's really important not to.

[QUOTE=Cone;42993103]the point is that statutory rape is always equally bad regardless who it's with, whether it be a kid, a teenager, or someone passed out at a party. it doesn't matter what "your brain is wired" to do, it's rape and it's disgusting.[/QUOTE] But how do you define statutory rape? I know allot of 16 year olds better able to consent mentally than allot of 20 year olds. Age is honestly pretty arbitrary. If it is actually manipulation with based of your position than it is certainly rape, but you can't for certain say that it is purely based off age.

[QUOTE=SilverBullet;42992936]So fucking an 18 year old is totally acceptable and ok but if she's one year younger then its fucking gross. This is probably not what you ment but i felt like pointing this out. There is a big difference between sex with a sexually mature human being, and sex with a prepubescent child.[/QUOTE] i'm going to tell you what i tell everyone else who argues that the age of consent is arbitrary: it [I]is[/I], but ideally it's set at the point where everyone - even the slowest among them - will be sexually ready. it's either that, or doing psycho/physiological analyses on a costly, in-depth case by case basis of everyone in every country for every year until they hit 18 (which might not actually work for everyone anyway). ultimately, the age of consent, arbitrarily set as it may be, is essential for insuring that everyone who has sex is properly prepared for it. in a utopian world, a better, more robust system might exist, but that isn't happening for a long time yet, if ever.

[QUOTE=Cone;42993103]the point is that statutory rape is always equally bad regardless who it's with, whether it be a kid, a teenager, or someone passed out at a party. it doesn't matter what "your brain is wired" to do, it's rape and it's disgusting.[/QUOTE] sorta. statuatory rape is considered bad because the person is not yet considered able to consent. but what really makes a person able to consent to sex? ideally, there would be some non-arbitrary method of determining when someone is at the "age of majority". i have no idea what such a method would look like though.

[QUOTE=Cone;42993173]i'm going to tell you what i tell everyone else who argues that the age of consent is arbitrary: it [I]is[/I], but ideally it's set at the point where everyone - even the slowest among them - will be sexually ready. it's either that, or doing psycho/physiological analyses on a costly, in-depth case by case basis of everyone in every country for every year until they hit 18 (which might not actually work for everyone anyway). ultimately, the age of consent, arbitrarily set as it may be, is essential for insuring that everyone who has sex is properly prepared for it. in a utopian world, a better, more robust system might exist, but that isn't happening for a long time yet, if ever.[/QUOTE] the point isn't to make sure people are "ready" for sex, otherwise underage sex would be banned entirely. that creates a messy situation. instead, we have laws where we define a person as being at an age where they can enter into consensual agreements with other adults without it being coercive.

[QUOTE=Cone;42993173]i'm going to tell you what i tell everyone else who argues that the age of consent is arbitrary: it [I]is[/I], but ideally it's set at the point where everyone - even the slowest among them - will be sexually ready. it's either that, or doing psycho/physiological analyses on a costly, in-depth case by case basis of everyone in every country for every year until they hit 18 (which might not actually work for everyone anyway). ultimately, the age of consent, arbitrarily set as it may be, is essential for insuring that everyone who has sex is properly prepared for it. in a utopian world, a better, more robust system might exist, but that isn't happening for a long time yet, if ever.[/QUOTE] I that it should just be handled by the situation if charges are brought, the same as any other case of statutory rape should be. If a court finds there to be manipulation involved, or one party is unable mentally to consent, or sex was forced through someones authority, or anything else, than it is rape. If nothing can be proven in a court however, then it shouldn't be classified as such. It may seem impractical, but isn't that what happens with every other charge brought up? If you are in a relationship with someone bellow a certain age of consent, a court should look over the merits of the case, not just put you on the sex offender registry for life because you had sex with someone a month to soon. That is pretty stupid.

[QUOTE=yawmwen;42993212]the point isn't to make sure people are "ready" for sex, otherwise underage sex would be banned entirely. that creates a messy situation. instead, we have laws where we define a person as being at an age where they can enter into consensual agreements with other adults without it being coercive.[/QUOTE] yeah thats basically what i mean. i think you still get my point though

[QUOTE=Cone;42993173]i'm going to tell you what i tell everyone else who argues that the age of consent is arbitrary: it [I]is[/I], but ideally it's set at the point where everyone - even the slowest among them - will be sexually ready. it's either that, or doing psycho/physiological analyses on a costly, in-depth case by case basis of everyone in every country for every year until they hit 18 (which might not actually work for everyone anyway). ultimately, the age of consent, arbitrarily set as it may be, is essential for insuring that everyone who has sex is properly prepared for it. in a utopian world, a better, more robust system might exist, but that isn't happening for a long time yet, if ever.[/QUOTE] I agree. I was just stating the difference.

[QUOTE='[sluggo];42993247']I that it should just be handled by the situation if charges are brought, the same as any other case of statutory rape should be. If a court finds there to be manipulation involved, or one party is unable mentally to consent, or sex was forced through someones authority, or anything else, than it is rape. If nothing can be proven in a court however, then it shouldn't be classified as such. [/QUOTE] this creates a situation that becomes incredibly tricky. not only is this method very vulnerable to politics and manipulation, but it is just plain messy. how do you define whether someone was manipulated or unable to mentally consent? it's obvious in the case of a child. a 5 year old surely cannot consent to sex. but what about a 12 year old girl who has started to sexually develop? can she consent to sex? what about a 14 year old? [editline]27th November 2013[/editline] while an age of consent is surely not the most nuanced or exact way of determining when someone can consent to sex, it is the only method i have ever heard of that makes sense from a legal standpoint.

[QUOTE=yawmwen;42993300]this creates a situation that becomes incredibly tricky. not only is this method very vulnerable to politics and manipulation, but it is just plain messy. how do you define whether someone was manipulated or unable to mentally consent? it's obvious in the case of a child. a 5 year old surely cannot consent to sex. but what about a 12 year old girl who has started to sexually develop? can she consent to sex? what about a 14 year old?[/QUOTE] That's the exact reason why an age of consent is messy. To simplify what I was trying to say before, hear is how I would do it: Have a "hard" and "soft" age of consent or something like this. Any case wear someone over and under the "soft" age of consent (also have a law stating this in unnecessary if they are close enough in age), the case should be reviewed as I stated. Anyone violating the "hard" age of consent (also with age buffer), which is placed at several years younger, is charged regardless. I think that would remove any persecution, while also keeping underage people safe from predators.

[QUOTE=SilverBullet;42992936]So fucking an 18 year old is totally acceptable and ok but if she's one year younger then its fucking gross. This is probably not what you ment but i felt like pointing this out. There is a big difference between sex with a sexually mature human being, and sex with a prepubescent child.[/QUOTE] if yer an adult, yeah. its gross.

[QUOTE='[sluggo];42993247']I that it should just be handled by the situation if charges are brought, the same as any other case of statutory rape should be. If a court finds there to be manipulation involved, or one party is unable mentally to consent, or sex was forced through someones authority, or anything else, than it is rape. If nothing can be proven in a court however, then it shouldn't be classified as such. It may seem impractical, but isn't that what happens with every other charge brought up? If you are in a relationship with someone bellow a certain age of consent, a court should look over the merits of the case, not just put you on the sex offender registry for life because you had sex with someone a month to soon. That is pretty stupid.[/QUOTE] well now we're kind of getting into the way penal system works, which i agree is fairly unsatisfactory and tends to screw people over a lot more than it should. like, ideally you wouldn't just put criminals on lists, lock them up for a few decades, and then let them run free and unsupported so that they can't hold a job or whatever. i agree that that isn't how things should be run, but i just don't think that an extra system running parallel to that, designed solely for the small amount of cases where the accused was only a few months or so from acting legally, would be very cost-efficient or entirely necessary. at the end of the day i think it's mostly more of a problem with the justice system than with the age of consent as a concept.

the problem is that consent is a legal issue and legal issues require some level of arbitrary lines because it is interpreted very literally. a legal system(at least as we envision one) cannot handle a lot of interpretation. there is already a ton of interpretation on the part of judges, and it makes the legal system...confusing sometimes. we need to drastically alter our ideas regarding legal structures and our concept of "justice" before things like age of consent can become anything but arbitrary lines.

[QUOTE=Beelzebub;42993356]if yer an adult, yeah. its gross.[/QUOTE] So if im 18 and my girlfriend, who I love dearly is 17 and we want to have sex it's gross? Come on dude, there you go again.

[QUOTE=SilverBullet;42993554]So if im 18 and my girlfriend, who I love dearly is 17 and we want to have sex it's gross? Come on dude, there you go again.[/QUOTE] Romeo and Juliet laws. There are laws protecting couples that are slightly over and under the limit for consent.

[QUOTE=sloppy_joes;42993560]Romeo and Juliet laws. There are laws protecting couples that are slightly over and under the limit for consent.[/QUOTE] Sorry, we weren't talking directly about laws here. We're talking about what is gross and what isn't :v:

Oh, well obviously it's not gross to have sex with somebody who is like a year or two from your age. [editline]26th November 2013[/editline] I don't think anybody seriously means that.

[QUOTE=sloppy_joes;42993582]Oh, well obviously it's not gross to have sex with somebody who is like a year or two from your age. [editline]26th November 2013[/editline] I don't think anybody seriously means that.[/QUOTE] I know, its just funny to me what this guy is saying. He basically did the same thing twice. I couldn't help it. Aren't you considered an adult at 18? At what age would you have to be for it to be gross to have sex with a 17 year old. Whats the limit here v:v:v. I agree though, an old wrinkly dude having sex with a 17 year old is pretty gross. But when you really think about it. Would a 20 year old having sex with a 17 yr old be gross? How about a 23 year old? 25? There should be a line chart with age and amount of grossness as the x and y values lmao.

17/18 fucking is cool. 17/21 fucking is gross. fucking people in your immediate age group(16/17, 17/18, 18/19), cool. fucking people below your age group (17/19+) kinda weird and definitely gets grosser the older you get. if yer 49 years old and attracted to 17 year olds, gross.

[QUOTE=Beelzebub;42993703]17/18 fucking is cool. 17/21 fucking is gross. fucking people in your immediate age group(16/17, 17/18, 18/19), cool. fucking people below your age group (17/19+) kinda weird and definitely gets grosser the older you get. if yer 49 years old and attracted to 17 year olds, gross.[/QUOTE] Not really. Would it be so gross if they were 21 and 25? Most people wouldn't say so. Of course you are going to be attracted to someone much younger than you if you are 49. You probably wouldn't have a chance to have sex with them, but they don't get less attractive because you get older.