Pedophilia

[Surlethe]

I am not quite getting how you can say that its the teaching that this type of touching is wrong (the "indoctrination", as you call it) and not the touching itself

All right. Imagine otherwise kindly and nice Closet Pedophile Uncle A. He realizes one, say a 8 year old Niece B, hadn't quite been indoctrinated yet, so she won't get hurt by an advance (unlike his other nieces). He goes and makes his, uh, pitch. Understand this - there was no coercion involved, no blackmail (not even the usual kind of threats that parents use to get their kids to perform), nothing like that, OK? Just a 'game' invitation, almost as if they were going for baseball or something - "no" does mean "no". Fortunately, Niece B who likes Uncle A (they go way back) says "Yes", which freed him from the dilemma of what exactly to say if she demurred.

The game's name was "Strokeclit". Anyway, the experience was a bit ticklish and funny for Niece B, but nothing uncomfortable or anything like that - it was on the pleasant side of neutral at least. I suppose I don't have to say Uncle A got a release that was all the more valuable for the 15+ years he had wait for it. Uncle A sweetens it more by buying Niece B a nice present afterwards.

Now, so far, where is the harm to the niece. As far as she knew, she played a moderately amusing game with a beloved Uncle and even got a present out of it - and her Uncle is happy. No physical injuries. Tell me where she got traumatized or abused so far.

NOTE: If you could clearly ID a place above where you think real trauma took place, stop reading and write the reply. If you cannot clearly identify any, read on. Thank you.

Unfortunately, fuckwit, your implicit conclusion is based on the assumption that the activity is consensual. It is not; children are not mature enough to make rational decisions, which is why children possess neither legal nor intellectual equality with adults: your logic can be used to equally defend kidnapping and, at its extreme point, statutory rape. Your ignorance of the basic tenet of consensuality is astonishing, as is your disgusting defense of pedophilia.

[RedImperator]

What about when the child realizes what was happening? What about the shame, fear, doubt, and mistrust that come at that point? The child may be ignorant of what is happening at the time, but they won't always remain that way.

I was actually waiting for this mechanism, which is the only possible one I could easily see from an otherwise enjoyable, feel-good (child's ignorant POV) experience. Two years down the road, he'd receive the Indoctrination and realize she has committed Major Sin in agreeing to all this.

But is the problem in that case necessarily with what had happened, or with the Indoctrination itself? Suppose you, as a member of one of the more fundie Christian dominations, tried masturbation at 8. It felt pretty damn good. Then one day, you realize your great Religion, Priest and Parents consider it a Great Sin. You feel really guilty and start to hate your atheist friend who told you how great masturbation was (he tried it himself, and it felt pretty good, so he told you - and he had no idea how dimly it would be received by your group) was. But is the problem with your atheist friend or masturbation, or with your Indoctrination?

Wait, wait...when did we start talking about masterbation or religious indoctrination? I am talking about a child who is being touched inappropriately by an adult. They may not understand what is happening and might even "volunteer" in your definiton, but when they come to realize what has happened, they often have shame in that they did not realize what was really going on. They also have extreme problems trusting and expressing themselves. You can read on and on about this in many works on this subject; recently I read a lot on the subject in the book "Protecting the Gift."

I am not quite getting how you can say that its the teaching that this type of touching is wrong (the "indoctrination", as you call it) and not the touching itself

He's taking a page out of NAMBLA's playbook and claiming the only reason children who were molested are traumatized is because they're indocterinated to believe it's wrong for adults to have sexual contact with children. Which, ipso facto, means there's nothing actually wrong with sexual contact between adults and children.

Of course, he's too big a chickenshit to come right out and say that, but he's about as good at hiding his real argument as your average pedophile apologist, which is why his ban poll, as of this writing, stands at 21-0. Toodles, kaz.

[lazerus]

You assert both as facts without any actual statistical evidence. The same logic that you use to dismiss one can dismiss the other in exactly the same fashion (particularly, given what this has spawned from, the 'cartoony' argument). Logical and Anecdotal arent interchangable either just so you know.

I said I could get the statisics on violence, and I was using both, not suggesting that they are interchangeable.

However, I can't get you statistics on that kind of porn simply because they don't exist, however it would seem to follow given that the only people interested in it would be people who have natural urges to comitt those illegal acts.

By that same intuitive logic, the only people interested in violent media would be those who have natural urges to committ those illegal acts.

Its the same logic and as you said, just the numbers dont exist to prove it.

I'm sorry, but what you're touting is part of the general family of the "media effects" model, which is in itself bunk.

Except that we know that it's possible for someone to watch violent media without themselves being violent, whereas we have no such information with regards to Pedophelia. Also, given that only someone who allready has a desire to commit those acts would watch it, an apt compaison would be showing violent media to someone allready on the verge of comitting murder, not showing violent media to a normal person.

[Darth Wong]

Trim back the quote boxes, for fuck's sake.