Dutch Pedophile Party?

najmelliw wrote:

I see no need for a party of pedophiles, but by our own laws they have the right to express their opinion and form a party, so I am not opposed to it. It will, however, never receive a vote from me... Ever.

And you wouldn't mind if the money you pay in taxes went to subsidize such a party?

(Not sure if taxes are mandatory in the sixth layer of hell)

0 Replies

I think that the point that should be made is this:

We have drifted from one man and one woman sex to polygamy in Utah to homosexuality in many states. Why do we have to stop there?

The arguments about consensuality are not persuasive since there is a great deal of nonconsensuality going on within present sexual lliasons.

The age limits seem to be to be arbitrary since Sweden lists the age of 15 as the age of consent

0 Replies

SierraSong,

I disagree with the way a lot of those tax euros are spend. If this becomes a legal party, then I cannot fault them for getting funds and/or subsidy. After all, the 'pedophiles' in that party also pay their taxes, and those euros are also spend in ways they may or may not like.
And I think there is no more perfect place for meaningless taxes then in the sixth layer of hell.

BernardR :

bernardr wrote:

The arguments about consensuality are not persuasive since there is a great deal of nonconsensuality going on within present sexual lliasons.

What kind of argument is that? Nonconsensual sex constitutes rape, and should be reported as such. It is punishable by law, and rightly so. If someone does not report it, for one reason or another, it's their decision and this in no way lessens the vital importance(IMHO) of consensuality.

I could just as well state: The arguments about child beating are not persuasive since there is a great deal of child beating going on in present family circles.

The age limit should be fixed worldwide, but I doubt this will ever happen.

0 Replies

BernardR wrote:

The age limits seem to be to be arbitrary since Sweden lists the age of 15 as the age of consent

I don't know at all why you just and only mention Sweden - 15 is the age of consent in some dozen countries. (The age of consent was equalised in Sweden at 15 for all sexual acts in 1978 and has remained so since - in Germany it's 14, Spain 13... since a couple of years more.)

The age of consent in Canada generally is 14.

etc. etc.
[Pennsylvania:
16 if partner is four or more years older than complainant - 18-31B-3122.1 and 3123 of PA Code.
13 under all circumstances - 18-31B-3121 of PA Code.]

0 Replies

SierraSong wrote:

And you wouldn't mind if the money you pay in taxes went to subsidize such a party?

najmelliw wrote:

If this becomes a legal party, then I cannot fault them for getting funds and/or subsidy. After all, the 'pedophiles' in that party also pay their taxes, and those euros are also spend in ways they may or may not like.

Ehm, ehm, wait with this - Sierra Song - where's the question come from? Unless I'm much mistaken, they won't get any subsidy at all. The only parties who receive some state funding are those with parliamentary representation - and chances of this party taking part in the national elections, let alone winning seats, are entirely hypothetical. Just registering your party does not make you eligible for subsidy - in fact, it costs you money.

0 Replies

dupre wrote:

I was an anthropology student in college.

Different cultures define "children" and "adults" at different ages.

Many cultures do allow sexual contact at ages that would seem too young or obscene by our standards.

Many cultures define / defined adulthood at 13 years of age.

Our "adolescent" period has no counterpart for many people.

And it is a particularly difficult time. An adult body with absolutely no priviledges.

I wonder if we are holding a whole group of people down for a period of time, and I wonder if the reason isn't economic.

I mean, if we ended compulsory education at 13 years of age, and those students could enter the workforce and have a home of their own, and have full legal rights, that'd be a lot of competition in the workforce, wouldn't it?

A lot of teachers and institutional education facilities would be out of work, too, wouldn't they?

If we educated better and faster, we could tap into this age group for some ROI.

I've just wondered about it for a long time.

It seems unnatural and perhaps unhealthy what we do to and require from our "adolescents."

You don't notice too many college males bringing guns to class.

There is a rage in the junior high and high school age group.

So ... something's not right.

I did.
We were all called upon to prepare n deliver speeches
to " show n tell " about something to the class.

I brought in and field stripped an M-1 Carbine,
while describing the process and how the weapon functions.
I got a good grade.
I had to carry it around for a while b4 and after the class: no problem.
David

0 Replies

Quote:

You don't notice too many college males bringing guns to class

Wearing a gun strapped on one's leg, covered by long pants, could make it hard to "see" the gun.

I suspect, that most kids in large cities carry knives for protection.
As a kid growing up in a major city, I carried a knife and I still do.

Be prepared! Laughing

0 Replies

blacksmithn wrote:

dupre wrote:
I realize what I'm saying is "unheard of."

Not really. No disrespect but I imagine these are arguments commonly advanced by those with an "interest" in the young.

Not every adult who engages in sex is predatory.

That's not the argument. Not every adult who engages in sex is predatory, but every adult who engages in pedophilia is.

Your use of the word "teens" here seems a bit "ageist" to me.

Uhh, I never used the word "teens." And define ageist, please.

Many cultures do see people from the age of 13 on as adults.

Yes, and many cultures practice female circumcision and think children laboring in sweatshops is just fine, too. What's your point?

Why are we different?

That's beyond my scope of expertise.

Could it be economic?

Possibly. Again, is there a point here?

Is it in the 13+ age group's best interest?

I have both dealt with and have personal knowledge of a number of victims of pedophilia and so would answer with an unqualifed "yes!"

Thinking back to my 11th year,
it was occasionally necessary for me to travel from Arizona to California
and back. Incidental thereto,
I remember encountering a young lady of 17,
who had some sexual adventures in mind for us,
and on other occasions, a young lady of 23.
In candor, if I cud change my life experiences
about those encounters, I wud retain them.

I can see the point of protecting girls from early pregnancy,
but if this were extended to boys ( as it has been, in some states ),
to stop them from " getting lucky " as I did,
in my opinion, that is removing some of the happiness of life and reducing its value.
David

0 Replies

Miller wrote:

Quote:
You don't notice too many college males bringing guns to class

Wearing a gun strapped on one's leg, covered by long pants, could make it hard to "see" the gun.

I suspect, that most kids in large cities carry knives for protection.
As a kid growing up in a major city, I carried a knife and I still do.

Be prepared!

I carried a knife for the value of being able to cut ( like a Boy Scout ).

For protection, since my arrival in Phoenix, Arizona several decades ago,
at the age of 8,
I armed myself with a 2 inch .38 revolver.

Some years later, I upgraded to a 2" .44 special revolver
loaded with hollowpointed slugs for better stopping power.
As it turned out, I never needed it in emergency circumstances.
The kids in my neighborhood enjoyed target shooting
with our rifles, pistols n revolvers.
We never had any trouble.
David

0 Replies

Dupre wrote:

**********************************************************

I was an anthropology student in college.

Different cultures define "children" and "adults" at different ages.

Many cultures do allow sexual contact at ages that would seem too young or obscene by our standards.

Many cultures define / defined adulthood at 13 years of age.

Our "adolescent" period has no counterpart for many people.

And it is a particularly difficult time. An adult body with absolutely no priviledges.

I wonder if we are holding a whole group of people down for a period of time, and I wonder if the reason isn't economic.

I mean, if we ended compulsory education at 13 years of age, and those students could enter the workforce and have a home of their own, and have full legal rights, that'd be a lot of competition in the workforce, wouldn't it?

A lot of teachers and institutional education facilities would be out of work, too, wouldn't they?

If we educated better and faster, we could tap into this age group for some ROI.

I've just wondered about it for a long time.

It seems unnatural and perhaps unhealthy what we do to and require from our "adolescents."
*********************************************************

He is correct. In University, I read the writings of Margaret Mead who wrote:

"We are forced to conclude that human nature is almost unbelievably malleable, responding accurately and contrastingly to contrasting cultural conditions.

***********************************************************

Dupre is correct.-Different cultures define adults and children at different ages. How can we be so dismissive of other cultures. Their ideas and customs are certainly as good as ours.

0 Replies

I just saw an old Oprah show about female sexual predators (mostly school teachers sleeping with 13 to 15 year old pupils). There was talk of the double standard, why these "rapists" were not punished as severely as male pedophiles, etc.

However, the impression I got was that the boys involved got a trauma forced upon them, that they had been the victim of unspeakably awful rape. None of them had ever accused the women of anything untoward. The accusations came from the boys' parents. I think this overreacting only makes the problem worse.

It is utterly unethical for an educator to engage in sexual relations with a pupil/student and the law defines sex between an adult and a minor as statutory rape, so the adult must in such cases be sanctioned for breaking the law and the professional code of conduct, but not at the detriment of the interests of the minor.

I had my first sexual experience when I was on holiday at the age of 16 with a woman that was about twice as old as I was. I loved it and not a hair on my head would ever dream to consider the cherished memory as rape of any kind. I do not think I would have felt any different if the encounter had taken place when I was 15. However, the law states that in that case I would have been, strictly speaking, a rape victim instead of a lucky teenager. All teenage boys dream of getting laid; I for one do not think it conducive to their future mental health and sexual security to impress on them that their first sexual encounters were something nasty and evil just because it happened to be with an experienced mature woman instead of a clueless fellow teen.

0 Replies

Paaskynen wrote:

All teenage boys dream of getting laid; I for one do not think it conducive to their future mental health and sexual security to impress on them that their first sexual encounters were something nasty and evil just because it happened to be with an experienced mature woman instead of a clueless fellow teen.

But then you cant say that, when its a girl, its suddenly all the opposite, rape, nasty, etc.

(I do think there's a big difference between a 13-year old boy (or girl) and a 16-year old, btw)

0 Replies

Why are we still harboring the old cultural supremacy ideas?

Margaret Mead wrote:

"We are forced to conclude that human nature is almost unbelievably malleable, responding accurately and contrastingly to contrasting cultural conditions."

Western Culture is not superior to other cultures--just different.

Look at the progress in American Society. Just twenty five or thirty years ago, the APA declared that homosexuality was a mental disease- an aberration. Today, that neanderthal thinking is discarded. Soon, Man-Boy love, beastiality, incest, polygamy, polyandry and, yes, necrophilia, will be lawful. That is how society progresses--from slavery to FREEDOM!!!

0 Replies

This thread provides the reasoning behind why so many people are against same-sex marriages.

It is not all about homophobia.

It often is about setting societal limits.

Let one slip away and the rest are sure to, eventually, follow.

This group of Dutch pederasts are precisely what many opponents of same-sex marriages fear.

Despite all of the glib discussion about Rome and Age of Reason, these Nederlanders are aggressive perverts in a nation that takes pride in casting off societal limitations.

Perhaps, just perhaps, one might concede that addressing the age of consent as a single plank in a political platform might be legitimate, but making it the core of one's ideology?

When we find ourselves accepting that a 12 year old can "consent" to sex with a 25 year old, we have become hedonistic husks.

Who are these 12 year olds who are consenting to sex with adults? Your children? If the thought enrages and repulses you then you have no right to even consider the issue as possibly legitimate. Whose 12 year old boys will be buggered by Pietr van der Perv?

This is beyond outrageous! That something like 18% of the Dutch are not for snuffing such a notion completely out is sad testimony to Holland.

0 Replies

Finn dAbuzz wrote:

Despite all of the glib discussion about Rome and Age of Reason, these Nederlanders are aggressive perverts in a nation that takes pride in casting off societal limitations. [..]

This is beyond outrageous! That something like 18% of the Dutch are not for snuffing such a notion completely out is sad testimony to Holland.

Curb your indignation. The party couldnt even gather enough signatures to make it onto the ballot. So its not even taking part in the elections. As I already warned back then. The system worked.

This whole thread and the furore about the news item in question was a hype, a story to fill the mid-summer news void.

Gotta grant the party their success in attracting publicity though. Considering how miniscule the group is.

Quote:

'Pedoparty' does not take part in elections

(NRC Handelsblad, my translation)

10 October

The Charity, Freedom and Diversity Party (PNVD, better known as the pedoparty) will not participate in the parliamentary elections of 22 November. The party did not gather enough declarations of support [..]. A political party needs a total of 570 signatures to be allowed to take part in the elections (thirty signatures in each of the ninteen districts).

It is unknown how many signatures the PNVD did collect. The founding of the party earlier this year caused uproar, also abroad. [..]

0 Replies

The group would have needed around 60,000 votes to win a single seat in the 150-member Dutch parliament, and pollsters estimated it would have gotten fewer than 1,000 votes

The original press release reads as folows:

Quote:

9 oktober 2006
PERSBERICHT
PNVD neemt niet deel aan verkiezingen

Leiden, 9 oktober 2006

De PNVD heeft niet genoeg ondersteuningsverklaringen ontvangen en zal derhalve niet deelnemen aan de komende Tweede Kamer verkiezingen. Over vier jaar doet zij een nieuwe poging. Het bestuur van de PNVD hoopt dat in die periode de mentaliteitsverandering in de massamedia doorzet. Hopelijk berichten zij straks niet alleen over minderheidsstandpunten, maar berichten ze ook objectief over de argumenten ervoor.

EINDE

(In this statement the PNVD said it hoped for a "change of mentality in the mass media", hoped they would "report not only minority viewpoints but also objectively report the arguments in their favor")

0 Replies

Arguments in favor of pedophilia?

0 Replies

blacksmithn wrote:

Arguments in favor of pedophilia?

No, obviously their other topics in their program, like to eliminate marriage in the law, permit public nudity anywhere in the country, make railway travel free, institute a comprehensive animal rights platform, allowing individuals rom the age of 12 to vote, have sex, gamble, choose their place of residence, and use soft drugs.

0 Replies

Paaskynen wrote:

I just saw an old Oprah show about female sexual predators (mostly school teachers sleeping with 13 to 15 year old pupils). There was talk of the double standard, why these "rapists" were not punished as severely as male pedophiles, etc.

However, the impression I got was that the boys involved got a trauma forced upon them, that they had been the victim of unspeakably awful rape. None of them had ever accused the women of anything untoward. The accusations came from the boys' parents. I think this overreacting only makes the problem worse.

It is utterly unethical for an educator to engage in sexual relations with a pupil/student and the law defines sex between an adult and a minor as statutory rape, so the adult must in such cases be sanctioned for breaking the law and the professional code of conduct, but not at the detriment of the interests of the minor.

I had my first sexual experience when I was on holiday at the age of 16 with a woman that was about twice as old as I was. I loved it and not a hair on my head would ever dream to consider the cherished memory as rape of any kind. I do not think I would have felt any different if the encounter had taken place when I was 15. However, the law states that in that case I would have been, strictly speaking, a rape victim instead of a lucky teenager. All teenage boys dream of getting laid; I for one do not think it conducive to their future mental health and sexual security to impress on them that their first sexual encounters were something nasty and evil just because it happened to be with an experienced mature woman instead of a clueless fellow teen.

I never had sex with any teachers,
but when I was 11,
I had 2 incidents that I wud not change,
with older women; ( that means older that I was ).

The first was when I was on a Grayhound Bus from L.A.
to Phoenix, Arizona. A nice looking 17 year old girl sat next to me
and opened up a conversation.
She suggested that when it got dark we cud kiss.

At one of the bus's rest stops,
we took a room at a nearby motel,
occupying ourselves in the satisfactions of lust.
A few hours later, we continued the trip on another bus.
One night stand.

The second incident that year was in California,
when I visited the home of a 23 year old girl.
Neither incident included anything beyond ordinary sex.

I considered myself FORTUNATE during and since both of those experiences
and wud not change either of them.

Call me a supporter of personal liberty ( which is true ), but
I favor the older legal paradigm,
that existed for eons,
wherein females were free to invite boys to sex
( no statutory rape law being applicable )
and boys cud GET LUCKY with them.
I continue to opine that statutory rape laws
shud NOT apply against older FEMALES
making love to boys.

As a freedom-loving citizen of America,
I take comfort in knowing that LUST WILL OVERCOME.
Emotions will overrule the law
( which is repugnant to the essence of liberty that is the cornerstone of Americanism )
and the boys will continue to get lucky anyway.
I empathize with the boys.
I may be old on the outside,
but inside I 'm still a boy at heart.
Let 's just hope that thay r gentleman enuf to protect the ladies.

Even the repressionists THEMSELVES who enacted the broader
statutory rape law do not follow similar laws.
If I remember correctly, Sol Wachtler led the NY Court of Appeals
in a decision ( that he wrote ) making statutory rape applicable also to boys,
was subsequently disgraced by his own sexual aberations,
dragged away in chains by the FBI.
Good for him: he DESERVED it.

When anti-sexual prohibitionists
pretend to explain what harm results to boys
from sex with any female,
thay express themselves in hopelessly vague generalities,
like that its bad for " moral fiber " or bad for the boys' future
psychological health with no proof of anything.

If there had been a referendum among the disenfranchised victims
of this sexual repression law,
it wud have no chance of enactment.

( Candor compels me to admit
that the US Constitution does not say that a boy
has the right to get luky, but IT SHUD. )

By the time that the law changed I was much too old
to be affected, but I feel sorry for the boys now.
If I were below the legal sexual age,
I wud be outraged and hostile to the legislature, IN THE EXTREME,
feeling that it had SCREWED me,
in an unnatural way that I did not wish to be screwed.
I wud hold it in contempt, most foul.
If I were below the legal age for sex
and got lucky with some lady who was willing to take her chances
with the law, FOR SURE I 'd be man enuf at any age
to protect her from prosecution; that is common decency.

The only benefit which I attribute to
prohibitions against sex
are possible reductions of some instances
of sexually transmitted diseases; if no one
has sex, then presumably no one will get them any more.
That has nothing to do with anyone 's youth.

The statute in NY ( the Penal Law ) now applies equally
to girls and boys, concerning statutory rape.
My best assessment of the reason for the change in the law
is that the boys are not represented in the government
that screwed them, and their PARENTS ARE,
the latter entertaining vague and negative emotions
against their boys having sexual relations of any kind
( including sexual relations when thay r alone ),
in that, so to speak: thay just DON 'T LIKE IT,
but logical justification against it does not exist.

If there really ARE logical specific reasons
that sexual encounters are harmful to young boys ( as I was )
I 'd sure like to know what thay are.

David

0 Replies

I'm no shrink, but maybe your adolescent obsession with firearms and childlike spelling stem from these encounters.

Assuming of course that they actually occurred...

0 Replies

Dutch Pedophile Party?

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know