i love lamp

landfish, are you just looking at things in my office and saying you love them?

I LOVE LAMP

Can you...you know...a lamp?

Hell yes. They put a spark into any relationship.

Are you saying that even if a child consents, they don't really know what they are doing? That's probably almost always true.

Just to clear things up, I believe pedophilia is limited to prepubescent children, while ephebophile is postpubescent, like children in their teens. E.g. Quagmire.

"...when he moved to Hollywood he had to go door to door and tell everyone he was a pederast."

"What's a 'pederast' Walter?"

"Shut the **** up, Donny."

Yes, that's what I believe I said.

No comment in this thread.

So what was that post... spam?

(i had sex with zloc)

Spe...you never called me back!

If racism is immoral, regardless of whether by nature or nurture, why then would homosexuality be immoral in one case and not the other? Clearly, the morality surrounding homosexuality is independent of nature and nurture.

Likewise, it is the same case for pedophilia.


At least, this is what I believe.

There's so much sci-fi to demonstrate the problems with legislation/enforcement based on "thought crime" rather than actual acts, ex. 1984. If we make impulses towards committing acts we currently consider crimes as illegal in themselves (thought crime) then everyone will be a criminal. Surely, out of frustration alone, everyone has had the impulse to commit assault, destruction of private property, etc.

Similarly, I don't think we should legislate against the desire to have sexual relations with children, but against the actual actions.

Naturally, as a non-pederast pedophile, you won't want to go around bragging about your illicit desires, but neither would you want to brag about the people you want to murder but haven't, the cars you want to steal but haven't, and so on. Granted the pederast's crimes are taboo in a way that these others aren't, based on the child's inability to give consent ("innocence" in this case not being that you know something is wrong and avoid it, but that you don't know what's wrong).

As for homosexuality's origins, I really lean towards biological causes, possibly with environmental triggers. Just google "homosexuality in higher mammals" and check out the results - notably not just those hosted on geocities, but tons of .edu's that support the theory, such as these two studies. I don't mean to derail the thread with the biological homosexuality thing, so feel free to ignore that part.

Ummm, pederast only refers to a man and a boy, it doesn't encompass all of pedophilia.

That said, as Maevie has discussed, what is normally found as sexually attractive on people doesn't develope until puderty. However, a current trend is rather disturbing in this aspect, where many women in ads are extremely thin, have thin hips, flat chest, and soft faces with large eyes, things that tend to be child-like qualities.

get away from lamp you pervert

LOL

that's about all I have to say

>.>

*blink*

You've got to be kidding me.

Pedophilia or child abuse my stem from being abused as a child, but homosexuality? Not so much.

"Do unto others, what has been done to you."

I've heard somewhere that homosexuals growing up tended to have a bad father figure or no father figure at all, and so they were more apt toward feminine things because they relied so much on their mother. (This is not to say everyone with a bad/no dad is gay...)

That's ridiculous. I bet if you looked at the statistics, you'd find that kids with no father figure have the same homosexuality rate that kids with a father figure have. The same argument was used to explain why we shouldn't allow lesbians to adopt kids. I'm sure that argument has been debunked somewhere. Yes, I'm too lazy to look it up.

That has always sounded like bull**** to me, I think growing up gay would need more love for the penis than the vagina. Geez.

i really believe that both pedophilia and homosexuality are almost always the result of environment and upbringing. now before you start screaming "hater" let me explain. with homosexuality, i dont think its always a bad environment that is the cause. lets say little jimmy is made fun of by a girl in preschool and a friend that is a boy stands up for him or what ever so as he grows older he is always closer to guys than girls, forming stronger relationships with them and bla bla bla... or lets say a guy is older, has dated girls and just isnt having much luck, one day he meets a really cool guy, they get along great, really connect and the 1st guy begins to find he is attracted to the 2nd guy, does that mean this whole time he has just been denying his "inner gayness"? of course not! admitadly there will probably be a few times when "genetically" something is different and the kid ends up attracted to the same sex, however i dont think it happens nearly as often as alot of people will say it does. and no i dont have any studies on hand to back this up, its all just wild speculation, so sue me. :p

i believe the same can be said about pedophiles, only where as homosexuality between two consenting individuals does no harm to anyone, i KNOW molesting a child certainly does. while maybee not criminal i think even just having the desire for a prepubescent is unhealthy.

I'm open to the possibility of anatomical differences predisposing people to homosexuality, but it's still too early to take a stance on the subject. If it one day turns out that this is true, wouldn't this give rise to the claim that homosexuality is a disease? The only thing that I'm absolutely sure about is the fact that it isn't simply a "preference".

Actually, there is extensive evidence for there being distinct biological differences between heterosexuals and homosexuals. For instance, chemicals derived from female sweat that excite the brains of males also excites the brains of lesbian women, while straight women find it bothersome. The same thing applies for male sweat and homosexual/heterosexual men, respectively.

Yes, there are documented cases of environment being a factor in the development of homosexuality, but these tend to be the minority. An easy test would be to take a poll, asking them how they would rate their childhood, and, I imagine, you will find that there will be a similar distribution for heterosexuals as homosexuals in terms of their response.

Of course, that's ignoring the extensive evidence of naturally occuring homosexuality (Yes, it is natural, so let's avoid that as a topic of conversation) in the animal kingdom, which automatically suggests it's a much more genetic factor rather than environment. Of course, there are cases of environment predisposing animals towards homosexuality, such as when there is a significant imbalance between numbers of males and females, though this seems more an indication of the diversity of the animal kingdom, rather than an exception to be considered the rule.

I think the question whether homosexuality or paedophilia come from genetics or upbringing is simply irrelevant.

Homosexuals should be free to do whatever they want, even if they do so 'voluntarily'. (Although I personally believe people cannot really choose their sexual orientation)

Paedophiles may not be able to help their urges either, but the difference is that it is wrong to act upon them, because children cannot make responsible decisions about sexual relationships untill they have fully developed their sexuality/personality etc., etc.

Ok... but is there a certain age where you automatically become mature enough to make these decisions? I'm sure you wouldn't dispute that even adults often unwisely use their sexuality in a behaviorally immature manner.

Of course there is no 'certain age'. But surely you agree there are big differences in this respect between 16 year olds and 12 year olds. You need to draw the line somewhere, that's why we have laws for these things.



Of course, but that's different. An adult more or less 'chooses' to be irresponsible. A child still needs to learn what is and what isn't irresponsible, and therefore cannot be expected to make a fully responsible decision. That's also why we have different systems for handling juvenile criminals and adult criminals.

Ok, JoS.

Hypothetical Situation:

Cassandra is diagnosed with cancer. She is 32 years old and will die in 1 year. Timothy is 16 years old. He fully believes himself to be in love with Cassandra and desires to consumate such love physically.

According to our current statutes, were Timothy to commit to his desires, Cassandra would be raping him at any point until he reaches 18, at whcih point Cassandra will have been dead for 1 year.

Discuss.

That's just sad, LG. What is there to discuss? And who'd care for laws in such situations? But anyways,



Em, actually yes, it does mean that. The situation you described - upbringing, and all that - at extreme, would only lead to the guy hating women. Hating women does not make you physically want to have sex with men instead.

From what I understand, there are quite a few men who despise women 'cuz of some stupid psychological trauma, but are still very heterosexual. Love, or even LIKING someone (as a person, that is) and sexual needs and desires are very different things.

Timothy is a necrophile.

And as for a bad dad/lack of dad having an influence on a child's sexual orientation: no. There really hasn't been any remarkable childhood qualities found across the board in all gay people.

*shrug*

Technically, illegal.

But personally, under these circumstances, I wouldn't mind if they did it. But that doesn't mean I would do the same thing if I were Cassandra.

Let's hear your stance, then.

and what about a 32 year old man and a 16 year old girl?

Just wouldn't be convicted of it, is what would probably happen.

It's like getting into a real fight with a friend. Sure it's illegal (assult or whatever), but you can drop the charges.

[QUOTE=Mr. Stafford]and what about a 32 year old man and a 16 year old girl?[/QUOTE]
Everyone knows the girl would be scarred for life and the man is a horrible monster who deserves the terminal cancer...

This thread suddenly went from gays to remind me of Cloud's 2002 adventures.

:p

Obviously illegal. But I wasn't asking you to just recite the law. As for the rest of your response...

What I'm getting at is: where would you draw the line? When you make a blanket law that sets an age (18) for consent, situations such as this are possible. Your saying that although it's illegal, you wouldn't care if they did it is, in effect, your saying that you don't care much for complete enforcement of the law. Do some people get exceptions because of special cirumstances? Who should arbitrate these cases? What if you think it's ok but Timothy's parents don't?

My stance is: if it's illegal, it's illegal. He shouldn't do it and if he does, he is subject to the fullest extent of the law if he is caught and charged. Granted, neither of these may happen, but he'd no doubt take that risk.

However, think that the law shouldn't limit him in this case. I think that, instead of a static age of consent, we ought to reconsider our values. Since I'm at a loss for a better system, and one probably wouldn't be agreed upon within the year Cassandra has left to live, I guess I'd try to console Timothy since life deals us some tough cards. But I wouldn't condone him consciously breaking the law. I wouldn't do much if he did it, but I would not be outraged if he decided to do the deed and was prosecuted.

FGR, I also (unfortunately) remember Cloud's schoolboy fantasies. :em321:

Worse is probably the pornography industry, where it seems the norm for girls to have shaved their hairy bits bald and just end up looking like they're pre-pubescent. That and the constant portrayal of the naughty school girl theme.

Maybe, but I doubt it.