Lutheran pedophiles

[JimC]

"Study Finds Pedophiles’ Brains Wired to Find Children Attractive" ... No shit Sherlock... I'd have guessed that without the study, and there's no need of a study to say that lechers have their brains wired to find girls attractive.

The key question is whether the wiring involves nature or nurture...

[Svartalf]

From what age is it no longer possible to tell one from the other? can we test infants for nascent pedophilia?

[Seth]

"Study Finds Pedophiles’ Brains Wired to Find Children Attractive" ... No shit Sherlock... I'd have guessed that without the study, and there's no need of a study to say that lechers have their brains wired to find girls attractive.

The key question is whether the wiring involves nature or nurture...

If it's nature then it's "normal," right? Just like homosexuality.

If it's nurture, then it's a disability and the ADA requires accommodation, right?

Bah.

I don't care why kiddie fiddlers fiddle kiddies, they aren't allowed to do so and must be put away if they do.

[Animavore]

The problem is kiddie fiddling will always be rape. It can never be consensual because children can't consent. So even if paedophilia is natural in the same way as hetero/homosexuality it can never be tolerable or acceptable.

Tough deal I guess.

[JimC]

The problem is kiddie fiddling will always be rape. It can never be consensual because children can't consent. So even if paedophilia is natural in the same way as hetero/homosexuality it can never be tolerable or acceptable.

Tough deal I guess.

[mistermack]

The problem is kiddie fiddling will always be rape. It can never be consensual because children can't consent.

This is true, when you have children who ARE children.

But we have a situation where a person who is aged 15 years and 364 days is a child, incapable of consent, but in just one day's time will be an adult, who can consent to all sorts of sex from any angle, with anyone they fancy.

A friend of mine had an affair with an underage girl, years and years ago. He was married, and about 22, and she was 15, I think. Under 16 anyway.
He said that she left him standing, in the sexual experience dept. And he was married and nearly fifty percent older !

She knew damn well that she was old enough, and had been ''consenting'' for years.

[Seth]

The problem is kiddie fiddling will always be rape. It can never be consensual because children can't consent. So even if paedophilia is natural in the same way as hetero/homosexuality it can never be tolerable or acceptable.

Tough deal I guess.

Depends on how you define "children."

Anything under puberty and you're right.

After puberty (menarche for girls) and it becomes a matter of social policy not biology.

[JimC]

It's social policy informed by biology, or should be...

The point at which informed consent becomes a reality is variable, but societies need to form arbitrary cut-off points, if only for legal reasons. It has been argued here and at other threads that the cut-off should reflect the age of the i-other party: a 14 year old girl and a 15 year old boy shouldn't create a big legal deal, compared to the same girl with a 30 year old man...

[Tero]

People who are less than 1 year apart in age and physically mature should never be punished for sex.

[Seth]

People who are less than 1 year apart in age and physically mature should never be punished for sex.

Why not? Sauce, goose, gander. Is an age-peer's dick less harmful than an older man's dick? Is a mature woman's pussy more harmful than a teenage girl's?

And why should consenting parties who are sexually mature be punished for consensual acts regardless of their relative ages?

[Seth]

It's social policy informed by biology, or should be...

If social policy were informed by biology, May-December romances would be viewed with respect and perhaps amusement, as they tend to be in, say, France, where it doesn't seem that 15 year old girls having their first sexual experiences with older, more experienced mature men is doing the French any harm, society wise.

The point at which informed consent becomes a reality is variable, but societies need to form arbitrary cut-off points, if only for legal reasons.

Why? Why is it not appropriate for each case to be judged on it's individual merits, regardless of the ages of the participants (assuming sexual maturity)? If a particular young woman is physically and emotionally mature or a particular young man is the same and no harm comes from a sexual relationship with an older man or woman, why should the law not look for actual harm of some kind rather than setting arbitrary "ick factor" boundaries?

It has been argued here and at other threads that the cut-off should reflect the age of the i-other party: a 14 year old girl and a 15 year old boy shouldn't create a big legal deal, compared to the same girl with a 30 year old man...

Who is more likely to be concerned about the girl's safety and pleasure, a 15 year old boy or a 30 year old man? I'd say the latter, because having been a 15 year old boy once I know full well that a stiff dick, especially in a 15 year old, has no conscience. At least the older man has some experience in controlling his urges for the pleasure and safety of his partner.

No 15 year old boy I've ever met cares about anything other than getting his dick in and having an orgasm, if he's the kind of boy who doesn't respect a girl enough not to try to put his dick in her at all.

[pErvinalia]

People who are less than 1 year apart in age and physically mature should never be punished for sex.

Why not? Sauce, goose, gander. Is an age-peer's dick less harmful than an older man's dick? Is a mature woman's pussy more harmful than a teenage girl's?

And why should consenting parties who are sexually mature be punished for consensual acts regardless of their relative ages?

It's about the power imbalance (in underage teens). Once you are of age, you are considered to be mature enough to handle that imbalance. Of course that's not always going to be the case, but the law has to set arbitrary limits.

[pErvinalia]

The point at which informed consent becomes a reality is variable, but societies need to form arbitrary cut-off points, if only for legal reasons.

Why? Why is it not appropriate for each case to be judged on it's individual merits, regardless of the ages of the participants (assuming sexual maturity)? If a particular young woman is physically and emotionally mature or a particular young man is the same and no harm comes from a sexual relationship with an older man or woman, why should the law not look for actual harm of some kind rather than setting arbitrary "ick factor" boundaries?

Because it could cause too much uncertainty for the older person, and the younger person is too easily able to be taken advantage of for them to judge if it is a good thing.

[JimC]

The point at which informed consent becomes a reality is variable, but societies need to form arbitrary cut-off points, if only for legal reasons.

Why? Why is it not appropriate for each case to be judged on it's individual merits, regardless of the ages of the participants (assuming sexual maturity)? If a particular young woman is physically and emotionally mature or a particular young man is the same and no harm comes from a sexual relationship with an older man or woman, why should the law not look for actual harm of some kind rather than setting arbitrary "ick factor" boundaries?

Because it could cause too much uncertainty for the older person, and the younger person is too easily able to be taken advantage of for them to judge if it is a good thing.

The second point is the vital one...

[Seth]

The point at which informed consent becomes a reality is variable, but societies need to form arbitrary cut-off points, if only for legal reasons.

Why? Why is it not appropriate for each case to be judged on it's individual merits, regardless of the ages of the participants (assuming sexual maturity)? If a particular young woman is physically and emotionally mature or a particular young man is the same and no harm comes from a sexual relationship with an older man or woman, why should the law not look for actual harm of some kind rather than setting arbitrary "ick factor" boundaries?

Because it could cause too much uncertainty for the older person, and the younger person is too easily able to be taken advantage of for them to judge if it is a good thing.

Why does it have to be a "good thing?" Isn't it not being actually physically harmful sufficient? We allow kids to ride bikes and they skin their knees and elbows all the time. How is sex any different? Sometimes it's good, sometimes not so much, although I will say I've never regretted any skin time I've spent with any woman. I've regretted other things about the relationship, but not the sex itself.

If it's socially acceptable for two horny teenagers to screw in the back seat of Dad's borrowed car why is it socially unacceptable for a May-December couple to do the same thing...back pain and creaky joints notwithstanding? How is a young dick different from an old dick in the actual use and placement thereof?

As for uncertainty in the older person, that's an appropriate check on irresponsible behavior don't you think? Who is likely to be more responsible in a situation of mutual sexual attraction, an older, experienced partner or a raging-hormone peer? I know I'm way more responsible and careful in my sexual behavior now than I was 40 years ago.

I'm far LESS likely to agree to screw a horny sixteen year old girl with a crush on me than her horny sixteen year old boyfriend is. And if I do agree, I'll undertake the event with due regard for her physical and emotional safety and satisfaction, whereas her boyfriend will likely get it in, unload, and then move on to the next one without a second thought.

If anybody ought to go to jail for screwing and screwing up teenage girls, it's teenage boys. We need to make saltpeter a part of their steady diet from puberty till they turn 25.

And don't think the girls get off scot-free either. Bunch slutty cock-teases these days. Bags. Big black bags, that's what they need.