Pedophilia

[Justforfun000]

I can think of another reason why it is unethical for adults to have sex with children. Disease. Passing on even non-lethal ones like Herpes or Chlamydia is still harmful.

Quite frankly, it should be just common sense that it is wrong because the sex organs are underdeveloped. Obviously horseplay between kids their own age is to be expected and is probably even a natural developmental stage, but a fully grown adult doing something sexual with a child? It just doesn't make sense.

Even in the "mildest" of cases that might involve someone doing light touching with no penetration or oral, this is something the child is going to influenced by. Sexuality is not a completely immutable thing. It could scare and revolt the child, or it could even create a fetish for older men or women. All in all, I can't see any good reason to consider it morally neutral. It has far too many dangerous consequences. It should be considered both immoral AND illegal.

Now of course the waters grow incredibly mucky when dealing with a teenager. Technically speaking, they are not a child. Plus they have their own mind, and I know many people who played around as teenagers and wanted to. Many recount fondly their past dalliances and look at it as valuable formative experiences, even when it was with older individuals.

I personally never had anything happen that way in my own teenage years, but I definitely would have wanted to, so I'd be a hypocrite to say I was just against it because it's easier to go overboard and look moral. I don't know what is the best way to resolve that issue to tell you the truth. murky waters.

But this is where our age of consent issues come into play and I suspect we'll be fighting over this issue back and forth for many centuries to come. In any event, that is a different classification anyway. Technically it's ephibophilia.

[Darth Wong]

Smoking is more addictive than McDonald's. While a lot of people have problems with obesity and food cravings, it is not for a particular kind of food, and food (unlike smoking) is an actual necessity of life.

Food is necessary but it could easily be argued that fast food isn't

True. However, defining the difference between "fast food" and "food" would be an absurd exercise in semantic bullshit and loopholes. Not so with "smoking" vs "not smoking".

[Zero]

Pedophilia is wrong for reasons already stated in this thread. Taking advantage of children and potentially causing them a myraid of psychological problems is wrong.

Pedophilic 'art' or pornography that shows adults fucking kids is wrong for a few simple reasons. Allowing it promotes acceptance of the behaviors shown. The existance of pedophilia in hentai will get the user to realize that he's not the only market, and this his abnormal sexual desires may be accepted by a portion of the population. It also 'feeds the beast' so to speak. It feeds sexual desires that a pedophile ought to be working hard to eliminate, or at least control.

Besides all that, IIRC, on CSPAN, the issue of government involvement with child pornography on the internet was discussed. One of the peoples they brought in to talk to the committee said that many pedophiles first begin with internet pornography, and proceed to actual child abuse later, when they find acceptance in a broader online community. I couldn't find a website with similar information, but it was an interesting discussion.

If action A can be shown to have a correlation with action B, and action B causes considerable harm, then why doesn't it make sense to regulate action A if action B isn't so easy to regulate?

[Flagg]

Is there any evidence that illustrated child pornography will lead a pedophile to molest children? I'm not trying to argue a point, I'm just honestly curious. I would think it might act as a kind of "pressure valve", or is that completely wrong?

[GrandMasterTerwynn]

Is there any evidence that illustrated child pornography will lead a pedophile to molest children? I'm not trying to argue a point, I'm just honestly curious. I would think it might act as a kind of "pressure valve", or is that completely wrong?

I tend to disagree. I suspect those who seek out kiddie porn tend to be those who have gotten past the urge to keep their pedophilic desires suppressed, and are now indulging those desires. And don't forget, that in order to produce child pornography, beyond some particularly distasteful hentai and erotica, requires that some other pedophile abuse children so that it can be filmed or photographed.

[Seggybop]

Pedophilia is wrong for reasons already stated in this thread. Taking advantage of children and potentially causing them a myraid of psychological problems is wrong.

Pedophilic 'art' or pornography that shows adults fucking kids is wrong for a few simple reasons. Allowing it promotes acceptance of the behaviors shown. The existance of pedophilia in hentai will get the user to realize that he's not the only market, and this his abnormal sexual desires may be accepted by a portion of the population. It also 'feeds the beast' so to speak. It feeds sexual desires that a pedophile ought to be working hard to eliminate, or at least control.

Violence is wrong for reasons already stated in this thread. Going on a rampage and potentially killing dozens is wrong.

Violent 'art' or games/movies that show people blowing stuff up is wrong for a few simple reasons. Allowing it promotes acceptance of the behaviors shown. The existence of violence in games will get the user to realize that he's not the only market, and this his abnormal violent desires may be accepted by a portion of the population. It also 'feeds the beast' so to speak. It feeds violent desires that a killer ought to be working hard to eliminate, or at least control.

[Flagg]

Is there any evidence that illustrated child pornography will lead a pedophile to molest children? I'm not trying to argue a point, I'm just honestly curious. I would think it might act as a kind of "pressure valve", or is that completely wrong?

I tend to disagree. I suspect those who seek out kiddie porn tend to be those who have gotten past the urge to keep their pedophilic desires suppressed, and are now indulging those desires. And don't forget, that in order to produce child pornography, beyond some particularly distasteful hentai and erotica, requires that some other pedophile abuse children so that it can be filmed or photographed.

We're not talking about real child pornography.

[Zero]

Pedophilia is wrong for reasons already stated in this thread. Taking advantage of children and potentially causing them a myraid of psychological problems is wrong.

Pedophilic 'art' or pornography that shows adults fucking kids is wrong for a few simple reasons. Allowing it promotes acceptance of the behaviors shown. The existance of pedophilia in hentai will get the user to realize that he's not the only market, and this his abnormal sexual desires may be accepted by a portion of the population. It also 'feeds the beast' so to speak. It feeds sexual desires that a pedophile ought to be working hard to eliminate, or at least control.

Violence is wrong for reasons already stated in this thread. Going on a rampage and potentially killing dozens is wrong.

Violent 'art' or games/movies that show people blowing stuff up is wrong for a few simple reasons. Allowing it promotes acceptance of the behaviors shown. The existence of violence in games will get the user to realize that he's not the only market, and this his abnormal violent desires may be accepted by a portion of the population. It also 'feeds the beast' so to speak. It feeds violent desires that a killer ought to be working hard to eliminate, or at least control.

That's why I don't watch television, or play violent video games. That's also why I object to the 'gangsta' subculture, as it promotes violent actions. I never claimed that promoting violence through media is good, or even okay.

That being said, violence and pedophilia are fundamentally different. One is so widespread that avoiding the psychological damages from it is nearly impossible. Some minor form of violence will either be observed or be directed towards any individual in the world who doesn't live in a box. More extreme forms of violence can lead to several disorders, though.

Pedophilia isn't the same. It's something that's done by a small minority of the population, and demonstratably will fuck up the children involved. Pornography supporting pedophilia is worse than media that promotes violence simply because violence is too widespread to realistically be avoided by most individuals, whereas pedophilia certainly isn't. Anything that promotes either is shit as far as I'm concerned, but since violence is too widespread to control and pedophilia isn't, promoting pedophilia is still worse, near as I can tell.

[lazerus]

Pedophilia is wrong for reasons already stated in this thread. Taking advantage of children and potentially causing them a myraid of psychological problems is wrong.

Pedophilic 'art' or pornography that shows adults fucking kids is wrong for a few simple reasons. Allowing it promotes acceptance of the behaviors shown. The existance of pedophilia in hentai will get the user to realize that he's not the only market, and this his abnormal sexual desires may be accepted by a portion of the population. It also 'feeds the beast' so to speak. It feeds sexual desires that a pedophile ought to be working hard to eliminate, or at least control.

Violence is wrong for reasons already stated in this thread. Going on a rampage and potentially killing dozens is wrong.

Violent 'art' or games/movies that show people blowing stuff up is wrong for a few simple reasons. Allowing it promotes acceptance of the behaviors shown. The existence of violence in games will get the user to realize that he's not the only market, and this his abnormal violent desires may be accepted by a portion of the population. It also 'feeds the beast' so to speak. It feeds violent desires that a killer ought to be working hard to eliminate, or at least control.

A nice compairison, but one that is ultimatly flawed. I do not have the statistics on hand (but I can get them if you wish), but there is no statisticly-meningfull corilation between violent videogames and actual violent behavior.

Taking a more logical/anicdotal approach, I play violent video games but would never actually hurt anyone with one. Most violent video games are too "cartoony" to be mistaken for real violence, and as for the more realistic games, if anything, I'm a little be more afraid of guns thanks to them.

Violence is a culturally accepted form of entertainment that's understood not to actually cause you to murder anyone. Pedophialic porn is not, and the mere posession of it indicates the desire to commit illegal acts, unlike violent media.

[Kazuaki Shimazaki]

It feeds sexual desires that a pedophile ought to be working hard to eliminate, or at least control.

Just for the record, can't the same argument be made for something else, such as homosexuality or masturbation? And what if that guy's control vent just happens to be watching and thus fantasizing it rather than actually executing it.

Besides all that, IIRC, on CSPAN, the issue of government involvement with child pornography on the internet was discussed. One of the peoples they brought in to talk to the committee said that many pedophiles first begin with internet pornography, and proceed to actual child abuse later, when they find acceptance in a broader online community. I couldn't find a website with similar information, but it was an interesting discussion.

If action A can be shown to have a correlation with action B, and action B causes considerable harm, then why doesn't it make sense to regulate action A if action B isn't so easy to regulate?

But a correlation does not equate a cause. I'd guess at least some rapists watched porn before heading to rape someone, and killers may well have played GTA3 before taking GTA3 into the real world. After all, they are on the "far end" of the group of people likely to be interested in these. Nobody seems to be interested in getting these banned.

Has a real study, of the kind done with violence, been done among the pedophiles among us to get the ratio between those with interest and those who actually will do it and between those and those that will force the kid to do it against their (at least short-term) will?

[Keevan_Colton]

Pedophilia is wrong for reasons already stated in this thread. Taking advantage of children and potentially causing them a myraid of psychological problems is wrong.

Pedophilic 'art' or pornography that shows adults fucking kids is wrong for a few simple reasons. Allowing it promotes acceptance of the behaviors shown. The existance of pedophilia in hentai will get the user to realize that he's not the only market, and this his abnormal sexual desires may be accepted by a portion of the population. It also 'feeds the beast' so to speak. It feeds sexual desires that a pedophile ought to be working hard to eliminate, or at least control.

Violence is wrong for reasons already stated in this thread. Going on a rampage and potentially killing dozens is wrong.

Violent 'art' or games/movies that show people blowing stuff up is wrong for a few simple reasons. Allowing it promotes acceptance of the behaviors shown. The existence of violence in games will get the user to realize that he's not the only market, and this his abnormal violent desires may be accepted by a portion of the population. It also 'feeds the beast' so to speak. It feeds violent desires that a killer ought to be working hard to eliminate, or at least control.

A nice compairison, but one that is ultimatly flawed. I do not have the statistics on hand (but I can get them if you wish), but there is no statisticly-meningfull corilation between violent videogames and actual violent behavior.

Taking a more logical/anicdotal approach, I play violent video games but would never actually hurt anyone with one. Most violent video games are too "cartoony" to be mistaken for real violence, and as for the more realistic games, if anything, I'm a little be more afraid of guns thanks to them.

Violence is a culturally accepted form of entertainment that's understood not to actually cause you to murder anyone. Pedophialic porn is not, and the mere posession of it indicates the desire to commit illegal acts, unlike violent media.

Re-read the begining of your own post then think about the end. Carefully.

[Kazuaki Shimazaki]

Quite frankly, it should be just common sense that it is wrong because the sex organs are underdeveloped.

Uh, how do those two link up? Don't hide behind "common sense". Common sense is based on experience and often historical prejudices.

Even in the "mildest" of cases that might involve someone doing light touching with no penetration or oral, this is something the child is going to influenced by. Sexuality is not a completely immutable thing. It could scare and revolt the child,

Why would it "scare and revolt the child" if the child liked it at the time. And if he/she DIDN'T like it, then his/her participation is involuntary, and that qualifies as sexual harassment leading up to rape, which is unacceptable at any age, no?

[Zero]

It feeds sexual desires that a pedophile ought to be working hard to eliminate, or at least control.

Just for the record, can't the same argument be made for something else, such as homosexuality or masturbation? And what if that guy's control vent just happens to be watching and thus fantasizing it rather than actually executing it.

How are homosexuality and masturbation similar to pedophilia at all? Pedophilia creates traumatized and fucked up kids. Masturbation, on the other hand, is perfectly normal. There's also nothing at all that points to homosexuality being a bad thing.

But a correlation does not equate a cause. I'd guess at least some rapists watched porn before heading to rape someone, and killers may well have played GTA3 before taking GTA3 into the real world. After all, they are on the "far end" of the group of people likely to be interested in these. Nobody seems to be interested in getting these banned.

Yes, but what if rapists were instead very interested in pornography depicting brutal rape, and harm towards women? Most porn features consenting adults. Rapists get off on control, and harm, not the sexual act itself.
And some rapists watching porn before going off and raping someone sounds like a coincidence, so why would there be any significant correlation?

Has a real study, of the kind done with violence, been done among the pedophiles among us to get the ratio between those with interest and those who actually will do it and between those and those that will force the kid to do it against their (at least short-term) will?

How would such a study be conducted? Pedophiles desire illegal acts, and as such aren't likely to come out and be part of a study done to test how likely they are to comitt such acts.

Why would it "scare and revolt the child" if the child liked it at the time. And if he/she DIDN'T like it, then his/her participation is involuntary, and that qualifies as sexual harassment leading up to rape, which is unacceptable at any age, no?

Okay, now I know you're a goddamned idiot. All sex with children could be classified as involuntary. Young children don't have the mental faculties necessary to really understand what's happening, and they sure as fuck aren't capable of making rational choices as adults do. Why do you think that the same rights aren't given to children as those given to adults?

[Kazuaki Shimazaki]

How are homosexuality and masturbation similar to pedophilia at all? Pedophilia creates traumatized and fucked up kids. Masturbation, on the other hand, is perfectly normal. There's also nothing at all that points to homosexuality being a bad thing.

All three happen to be things that a great proportion of society thinks is unacceptable or at least undesirable (yes, even today).

Furthermore, I see you have just stated your conclusion as a premise.

Yes, but what if rapists were instead very interested in pornography depicting brutal rape, and harm towards women? Most porn features consenting adults. Rapists get off on control, and harm, not the sexual act itself.

That may well be the case considering their tastes. But I don't see anybody trying to ban even that - sure, one doesn't like it, but one isn't going to ban it.

And some rapists watching porn before going off and raping someone sounds like a coincidence, so why would there be any significant correlation?

Precisely, without cause you have no idea whether something is a coincidence or not. And without a real study you can't even say how strong the correlation is statistically.

How would such a study be conducted? Pedophiles desire illegal acts, and as such aren't likely to come out and be part of a study done to test how likely they are to comitt such acts.

In other words, you really have no hard evidence.

Okay, now I know you're a goddamned idiot. All sex with children could be classified as involuntary. Young children don't have the mental faculties necessary to really understand what's happening, and they sure as fuck aren't capable of making rational choices as adults do. Why do you think that the same rights aren't given to children as those given to adults?

Even if I grant this definition of "voluntary", you still failed to even theorize how a child would be traumatized. Certainly, if the child would be traumatised, then that actually would fall under the general statutes about preventing harm to other people in general.

Sure, the kid may not fully understand everything. But if he/she agrees to it, even only in the sense of playing a strange game, and enjoys the experience, how is she going to get traumatized? Do you get traumatized by things you agreed to and enjoyed as a child? That's the important question.

[Pint0 Xtreme]

Just for the record, can't the same argument be made for something else, such as homosexuality or masturbation? And what if that guy's control vent just happens to be watching and thus fantasizing it rather than actually executing it.

How are homosexuality and masturbation similar to pedophilia at all? Pedophilia creates traumatized and fucked up kids. Masturbation, on the other hand, is perfectly normal. There's also nothing at all that points to homosexuality being a bad thing.

All three happen to be things that a great proportion of society thinks is unacceptable or at least undesirable (yes, even today).

What the fuck does social acceptance have anything to do with the validity of satisfying certain desires? Not only is this a blatant red herring but it itself does a shitty job of arguing this irrelevant point by appealing to popularity.

Even if I grant this definition of "voluntary", you still failed to even theorize how a child would be traumatized. Certainly, if the child would be traumatised, then that actually would fall under the general statutes about preventing harm to other people in general.

Sure, the kid may not fully understand everything. But if he/she agrees to it, even only in the sense of playing a strange game, and enjoys the experience, how is she going to get traumatized? Do you get traumatized by things you agreed to and enjoyed as a child? That's the important question.

Are you seriously arguing that sexually molested children do not experience trauma? I would suggest you quit while you're head or, in this case, quit before your current status drops below retarded, pedophiliac-apologist asshole.

[Zero]

Okay, I'll admit that hentai featuring pedophilia doesn't necessarily have the adverse effects I stated earlier, although actual child porn is definitely bad, as it requires an actual victim. I still don't think pornography featuring pedophilia is a vent of any kind, and there's no possible way to show that pedophiles who view porn or hentai featuring child abuse actually are less likely to fuck kids.

That being said, Kazuaki, you are a fucking moron if you don't think child abuse leaves traumatized kids. It takes approximately 6 goddamned minutes to find information relating to how abusing children sexually generates fucked up kids.

http://www.prevent-abuse-now.com/stats.htm#Impact
http://www.aifs.gov.au/nch/issues9.html


Oh, and one other snippet of your bullshit:

How are homosexuality and masturbation similar to pedophilia at all? Pedophilia creates traumatized and fucked up kids. Masturbation, on the other hand, is perfectly normal. There's also nothing at all that points to homosexuality being a bad thing.

All three happen to be things that a great proportion of society thinks is unacceptable or at least undesirable (yes, even today).

Furthermore, I see you have just stated your conclusion as a premise.

Whether society accepts something or not has no relevance to whether it's a moral action or not. A society could accept murder, but that doesn't make it ethically correct. A more contemporary example: many americans don't give a fuck about the thousands of Iraqis killed in Iraq as a result of the war, but that has no bearing on whether the action of killing them was moral or immoral.

Besides just that, I never stated a conclusion as a premise you fucking idiot, unless you're claiming that my point when I wrote that snippet was to claim that child abuse actually traumatized children. Most of that post was about trying to defend a correlation between viewing pornography featuring child abuse and going on to actually abuse children. After a bit of research and a sharp realization, I've given up on that, but you truly are a goddamned idiot if you hadn't known that child abuse might actually harm children.

[Justforfun000]

Justforfun000 wrote:
Quite frankly, it should be just common sense that it is wrong because the sex organs are underdeveloped.


Uh, how do those two link up? Don't hide behind "common sense". Common sense is based on experience and often historical prejudices.

Well in this case I think common sense still applies. To attempt to utilize a bodily organ that is not matured enough to actually be used properly in a sexual manner with a FULLY matured adult? How can you see that as being righteous in any way from a purely biological standpoint?

Why would it "scare and revolt the child" if the child liked it at the time. And if he/she DIDN'T like it, then his/her participation is involuntary, and that qualifies as sexual harassment leading up to rape, which is unacceptable at any age, no

?

Re-read what I said. I was giving two polar opposite reactions. In any case, the point here is that there is not a fair balance of individuality. There is a power issue here, and a child is automatically going to be disadvantaged because they will not be as strong in personality in comparison to the adult. They can be coerced and easily led even if they really don't feel comfortable. This is the reason why it is considered statutory rape in the first place.

Even if I grant this definition of "voluntary", you still failed to even theorize how a child would be traumatized. Certainly, if the child would be traumatised, then that actually would fall under the general statutes about preventing harm to other people in general.

This is a sticky area only because of course not EVERY child would have traumatization. Some may not even be "harmed" in any way by it. The world is never that black and white. However it's one of those issues you kind of have to err on the side of caution because of the very serious potential of harm. There is no way to know or control the actual outcome of such a situation.

It would be similar to doing tests of alertness and reflexes in relation to alcohol consumption. I have no doubt in my mind you could find a percentage of people that even when over the limit would STILL have better reflexes and perform as if they were sober compared to other people without a drink in them. But do we allow these people to drive drunk?

Sometimes you have to draw a line indiscriminately for the greater good.

[Justforfun000]

Edit: In relation to my saying not every kid would be harmed by sexual play with an adult, I'm stretching in a very very mild form of horseplay that would still be extremely inappropriate for reasons I brought up earlier, but I'm giving him the most fair POSSIBILITY that he seems to be demanding a concession about. Even something as reprehensible as sexual activity with children could conceivably happen without any physical or emotional detriment to a child if he wasn't freaked out by it and didn't take anything away as a memory that was negative. Irregardless of this, I still don't think it's an argument that it can be ok. Ever.

[Zero]

Edit: In relation to my saying not every kid would be harmed by sexual play with an adult, I'm stretching in a very very mild form of horseplay that would still be extremely inappropriate for reasons I brought up earlier, but I'm giving him the most fair POSSIBILITY that he seems to be demanding a concession about. Even something as reprehensible as sexual activity with children could conceivably happen without any physical or emotional detriment to a child if he wasn't freaked out by it and didn't take anything away as a memory that was negative. Irregardless of this, I still don't think it's an argument that it can be ok. Ever.

You can't know the eventual effects on any specific child. Even if one child isn't damaged, most will be, and the effects can't be known ahead of time.

It's like with murder. On the very rare occasion, you may murder someone who would otherwise have killed several people, but the vast majority of the time, it's an evil act.

[Cairber]

Why would it "scare and revolt the child" if the child liked it at the time.

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.

[Kazuaki Shimazaki]

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?

What the fuck does social acceptance have anything to do with the validity of satisfying certain desires? Not only is this a blatant red herring but it itself does a shitty job of arguing this irrelevant point by appealing to popularity.

Actually, I don't think homosexuality is all that popular even today, though it is better than 100 years ago. 50 years ago, I may sub in "homosexuality" into "pedophilia" and say "women's rights" for "Homosexuality".

Are you seriously arguing that sexually molested children do not experience trauma? I would suggest you quit while you're head or, in this case, quit before your current status drops below retarded, pedophiliac-apologist asshole.

No, I'm pointing out the harm mechanism (other than future indoctrination, see above) is unclear.

Okay, I'll admit that hentai featuring pedophilia doesn't necessarily have the adverse effects I stated earlier, although actual child porn is definitely bad, as it requires an actual victim. I still don't think pornography featuring pedophilia is a vent of any kind, and there's no possible way to show that pedophiles who view porn or hentai featuring child abuse actually are less likely to fuck kids.

Thank you for that small concession.

That being said, Kazuaki, you are a fucking moron if you don't think child abuse leaves traumatized kids.

Actually, I completely agree child abuse fucks up kids. That's its definition!

Whether society accepts something or not has no relevance to whether it's a moral action or not.

What makes you think I disagree with this? Why did you think I pointed out two things that were (and often still "are") societally unacceptable but upon close inspection are rather morally harmless?

I've given up on that, but you truly are a goddamned idiot if you hadn't known that child abuse might actually harm children.

Nice of you to have broken from reflexive thinking, but you just did it again - this time, you automatically defined pedophilia as child abuse.

The rest later.

[CarsonPalmer]

Kazuaki Shimazaki, pedophilia is wrong because whether the child likes or dislikes it at the time, he does not have the mental maturity to understand what is happening.

[Cairber]

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

[Cairber]

Sorry to add after the fact, but I also saw you state the position of it not hurting the child because of ignorance here:

Sure, the kid may not fully understand everything. But if he/she agrees to it, even only in the sense of playing a strange game, and enjoys the experience, how is she going to get traumatized? Do you get traumatized by things you agreed to and enjoyed as a child? That's the important question.

Masterbation is one thing, being touched by an adult is another.

[Zero]

Nice to see that Kazuaki ignored the bit of evidence posted that says that sexual abuse as a child leads to being fucked up as an adult. Pedophilia apologists... I never thought I'd actually have to talk to someone about why fucking little kids is wrong.

Kazuaki, are you a troll, or just someone who doesn't quite see that taking advantage of the innocence of a child, and tricking them into playing 'games' that they will later feel forced into irreguardless of societal values is wrong? Basically, are you a troll, or just an idiot?