Evil Genius

elric le tueur d'amis wrote: 12-16 years old females being married were an obligation when the average age of the death was 35 and/or when 90% of the kids were dying before reaching 10

As in the 1940's?

My grandmother was married to my grandfather when she was 14. I promise you they had sex on their wedding night. Both are now in their late 70's and have raised a hoard of children, grandchildren, and great-grandchildren.

Is that pedophilia? Obviously the average age of death was not 35 and there was not a 90% infant mortality rate.

Well,then your grandfather was +- 18 when he married;
for me,yes this is a kind of pedophilia in normal times (cause a 14 year old girl can't know what having sex really means) but you choose a ww period where people doesn't act normally : they don't have time to know if they are really in love cause the man can go to war soon and die;
if they married at age 18 for the girl,the case would be obviously not a phedophilia one;

my meaning is yes,you always can find some examples who won't be pedophilia due to the circonstances or due to the habits or whatever;
it doesn't change the fact that now,in 2006,having sex with a child is no more an obligation for the population,and that,even if you are in love with a cute 12 year old girl who say everyday she wants to be your wife and have sex with you,you need to wait some years,letting the girl the time to be less dumb.

elric le tueur d'amis wrote:Well,then your grandfather was +- 18 when he married;
for me,yes this is a kind of pedophilia in normal times (cause a 14 year old girl can't know what having sex really means) but you choose a ww period where people doesn't act normally : they don't have time to know if they are really in love cause the man can go to war soon and die;
if they married at age 18 for the girl,the case would be obviously not a phedophilia one;

So if it's the 1930's it's pedophilia but if it's the 1940's it's not?

That doesn't even remotely resemble logic.

You see, the problem is that you're at once trying to set a concrete age for consensual sex AND trying to adjust that, necessarily arbitrary, age in terms of context.

What makes an 18-year-old girl differnt from a 17-and-11-month-old girl? What a 14-year-old woman having sex with an 18-year-old man different from two 14-year-olds having sex?

A pedophile is a person who is sexually attracted to children BECAUSE they are children. A man who marries a young woman is not necessarily a pedophile, particularly demonstrated when he then spends 65 years of his life married to her.
We should distinguish between pedophilia as an exploitative act and sex between consenting individuals, even if one of those individuals, in -=your=- estimation, is too young to "know what having sex really means." The state has a compelling interest to protect children from exploitation. It does not, however, have the moral authority to draw absolute lines determining what is and is not love between individuals, their families, and their communities.

We've gotten off topic here but the point is important: the age of consent is a socially constructed and legally established arbitrary line. The political party in the Netherlands is, to my understanding, trying to establish two basic chages. First, they wish to lower the age of consent. Second, they wish to establish that a person at or above the age of consent is not a child for purposes of child pornography laws.

We can argue about the age (and personally I think they're trying to set it too low and I have concerns about that) but that's the point of political discourse. They are trying to move a politically determined arbitrary line. As citizens they have the right to pursue that political goal. Rival parties, of course, have the right AND the responsibility to fight against them.

okay I was wrong in my definition of "pedophilia"
but I still think that having sex with a 14 years old girl is not something that can be permitted;
knowing that it is done within the marriage rules is another thing (and I don't care about it),I am happy that your grandparents are still living together but that is not the question here;
Last thing,yes we have gotten off topic and it is normal since the main topic was almost totally explained in my point of view.

elric le tueur d'amis wrote:Well,then your grandfather was +- 18 when he married;
for me,yes this is a kind of pedophilia in normal times (cause a 14 year old girl can't know what having sex really means)

You've got to be kidding me. Go by your local high school when they let out. As sick as it sounds, look for the young girls. Then tell me they don't know what sex is.

I noticed as I moved through high school and still talk to a friend graduating this year, the kids are having sex at an incredibly early age.

I know,it is the same in Europe,kids know what sex is and how it works but not what it really means : they aren't ready to be parents and to work for their family;
if they have sex too early,the risk is higher to have unprotected sex or to marry with the wrong guy;
some of them know the risks and are ready at age 14 or 15 but not enough;
anyway this is another problem and it has nothing to do with the pedophilia party in the Netherlands .

elric le tueur d'amis wrote:I know,it is the same in Europe,kids know what sex is and how it works but not what it really means : they aren't ready to be parents and to work for their family;
if they have sex too early,the risk is higher to have unprotected sex or to marry with the wrong guy;
some of them know the risks and are ready at age 14 or 15 but not enough;
anyway this is another problem and it has nothing to do with the pedophilia party in the Netherlands .

No, I think we'll keep on this since it's where the discussion went. Just because you put a flawed point forth and are getting destroyed doesn't mean we should all shutup about it. You brought it up in the first place.

Honestly, age doesn't mean you "know what it means". I could name off a number of 20+ year olds I know that are just out to have meaningless sex and could care less about parenting. Age doesn't make one wise, sorry.

Believe it or not, as mentioned above... there is such a thing as sex before marriage. Just because two people are having sex doesn't mean they want to have kids. It doesn't mean you're going to have kids with that person, marry and start a family.

elric le tueur d'amis wrote:The Netherlands is a country with nice people and a lot of freedoms but the political intelligence of many citizen is near 0,that is why a bunch of stupid parties are allowed;
the worst of that situation is that some of those stupid parties are popular and get more vote at each election.

true that its getting a discussion of the day here. and the founder of the party lives in a trailer now and looks like shit . and thank god the most people think they are idiots. those guys can't handle the freedom

obi-pie wrote:true that its getting a discussion of the day here. and the founder of the party lives in a trailer now and looks like shit . and thank god the most people think they are idiots. those guys can't handle the freedom

This post does not make sense. Can you please explain what you are trying to add to the discussion so that others may reply?

psi29a wrote:... keep it on topic. This topic has nothing to do with Bush, so keep it that way.

Remember: Japan's age of consent is 13 nationwide.

I think I'm going to visit Japan sometime.

newbified wrote:Freedom of speech ends at an explicit point. The point where it begins to infringe on others rights granted to them via the constitution/bills set by their country.

Hahahahahahaha

i think he was just informing us on the current status of the pedophilia party and its leader. and i agree with daedelus. age doesnt always mean that you know what sex is supposed to mean, and for arguements sake, why does sex have to mean anything? why does one have to only have sex when there is meaning behind it? and daedelus, there is no reason to be so rough when you want to say lets keep discussing the topic.

I don't know what you guys are complaining about. It's a reality that kids have sex with each other at ages beginning at 12. Putting the age of consent too high just means that some people might get fucked over for not knowing or not asking exactly what age their new boy-/girlfriend actually is. A friend of mind was once almost seduced by a 14-year old, and I know she didn't look it. If he had had sex with her, that would have been a crime.

What is really much more important than changing that reality is making sure kids know both the biological and some psychological facts about having sex, as well as knowing how to protect themselves from unwanted pregnancy and disease. Perhaps we need societal acceptance for the XXS condoms for not quite developed boys. You will never be able to protect the children completely by disallowing sex with minors. The protection must come from the children themselves, they must be made aware that some 40-year old might want to have sex with them, and when they meet a person like that, how to react.
In addition, legalised sex with children of 12 could mean that hopefully no more children will have to die because a pedophile fears prosecution if he lets them go.

Now don't get me wrong. I don't personally condone having sex with 12-year olds, but sometimes legalising things will mean better protection. It will also mean that better education is a must.

The only thing I really disagree with is pornography and prostitution issue. I don't think anyone under 18 should be allowed to act in pornography or prostitute themselves. When money is concerned so much judgement is lost. Well, see this as a personal opinion, I don't have much of an argument base for it.

And Psi: In Britain (I think) a man was convicted "on Lolicon charges" for owning artwork depicting children in explicit positions. However, he had also previously been convicted for sexual harrassment of minors, I think.

Do you have to know what something means to do it? That some kind of rule now?

If sex for someone is genuinely traumatizing then that's when I would consider it to be questionable. As far as making an age assertion to when that is, that's purely an opinion you choose or choose not to take on in a manner that is a broad and sweeping generalization.

Personal, physical, and mental development occurs differently from person to person.

I've always thought age restrictions on things were simply retarded. Sure obviously certain age groups have been proven to be incapable of certain activities. Even so why aren't we measuring things by some method of qualification? That form of exclusion would naturally cover the obvious age ranges, but allow flexibility at the borders.

I just find it humorous that people are people, and that on both sides of a preference they do the same basic things cognitively.

Ha-ha, Shisho you do know what you are suggestion, don't you? You're suggesting some people should never be allowed to have sex.....

That's the really the same thing as Michael Jackson being a pedophile. The man can't even be a pedo, because he's still a child himself, even at 40+.

Right you are. I would also like to point out we put about 1000 times more money, time, and effort into the pedigree of our food than our actual population.

There are some people who don't have sex, and if they do it's usually with little boys.

I would have to say that less people should be permitted to breed stupid offshoot genetic rehashes of themselves. That would be more fundamentally linked to this whole sex discussion.

Sex is fine, just don't have the kids please.

Aargh I am dutch, it's embarrassing b/c there are lots of pedophiles here, we got some of the worst cases in the world. They should just lock those pedo's up for life, you can't heal that kind of sickness since they have almost no feelings at all. They say pedo's fuck little children b/c it gives them a feeling of power/dominance.

Devil_Dante wrote:Aargh I am dutch, it's embarrassing b/c there are lots of pedophiles here, we got some of the worst cases in the world. They should just lock those pedo's up for life, you can't heal that kind of sickness since they have almost no feelings at all. They say pedo's fuck little children b/c it gives them a feeling of power/dominance.

*high five*

Thanks for contributing your narrow-minded point of view to the thread. You have brought a new line of thinking to the table.

By your line, people that continually return to drug use (which, by the way, is impacted by their environment) should also just be thrown in jail forever. See also alcoholics (bars/pubs/et. al are some of the only establishments to BOOM during an economic depression).

Just because you see something as sick and wrong, doesn't mean the answer is to lock up said group and throw away the key. I mean, ignoring the problem... that works all the time, right?

ya, but putting them in jail is what most of the ppl demand, at least where i live. rapists should not ever roam the streets again unless supervised, sure most of them may be rehabilated after a while, but there will always be the few that go loose, and how can we ever face those victims, especially after letting such a person go?

you don't bring any solutions yourself(cause you have none),Daedalus,so please stop the "your position is shit,I am the best" comments,it is just annoying;
if you think that someone is wrong,explain your own view on the subject or shut up (sorry being rude but it seems that you only have fun destroying others comments and have no real interest for the main subject);last thing,your avatar is stupid.

thats true, his av does piss me off for some reason

people have it in their minds that if a sexually immature person is having sex with a sexually mature one, then obvious one party is exploiting the other.

but if a ridiculous age gap is not a good measure of when one party is exploiting another sexually, then what is a good measure?

Up here in Ontario they recently changed (or are changing) the age of legal sexual consent to 16 from 14. However, it would still be legal for a 14 year old to have sexual relationships with someone within a 5 year age gap. Meaning a 14 year old could have sex with someone up to 19, or a 15 year old with someone up to 20 without reprecussions (at least as far as the legal system goes).

At 16 it's legal for them to have sex with anyone.

It's quite a culture shock for me, as I originally come from a state in US where the age of legal consent was 18. Any sex involving someone younger than 18 with someone over the age of 18 would be considered statutory rape.

As to what Quest says, I would certainly agree to an extent that when a sexually immature person is having sex with someone who has fully matured in that area, it would indeed be a case of exploitation. But with all cases there is always a fine line to tread with how you make such a distinction. Truly the easiest way to determine where this line should be drawn is based on age of sexual maturity.

I honestly have no idea at what point a person should be considered sexually mature and worldly enough to make such a distinction of when and with who they should be having sex with, but I certainly don't think it should be 12 year olds who would be having sexual exploits with people who are 30+.

Once 12 year olds take up a petition for their right to have sex with older men and women...then we'll see where I stand. But when older men are filing petitions and attempting to gain political standing in order to have access to younger and younger children I believe that it shouldn't be allowed. Especially if they're making such standings their platform.

Daedelus wrote:By your line, people that continually return to drug use (which, by the way, is impacted by their environment) should also just be thrown in jail forever. See also alcoholics (bars/pubs/et. al are some of the only establishments to BOOM during an economic depression).

You're right man, we should put these pedos to good use. Let's make it into a market to get us out of our economic slump.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/5187010.stm#top

judge says yes to group