Is 'liking children' wrong, if you don't harm kids?

Mame wrote:

Glad to see all is well on the playground (excuse the unintended very bad pun).

0 Replies

Mame wrote:

Still haven't heard why everyone's so angry about Bill's position. What does it actually matter to anyone else what he thinks>

Aargh...again.....in a sense it doesn't matter, unless some poor bastard should take him seriously.....but, can't you see why people are calling him repeatedly on what he thinks, when his position is that what one thinks is so important that one should die for it if the thoughts are possibly leading to harm to others?

Killing oneself would be defined by most of us as rather harmful to oneself, no?

Advising someone that one thinks they should take their own life is pretty out there, in terms of thoughts, and BILL is the one who says people should die for bad thoughts.

Anyhoo, this is a ridiculous diversion on the thread, and I am cross with myself for wasting so much time over it already.

This is really my last comment on this particular bit of nonsense.

Cross my heart and hope to die.

:wink:

0 Replies

OCCOM BILL wrote:

So you're no longer demanding I kill myself or face your false charge of hypocrisy? Abandoning your blatantly false position for a deliberately wrong one is pretty shitty, Deb. You've had sufficient time to cool off, and reread if need be. Hate my avocation of suicide over molestation all you want; but show the decency to face my position head on already. YOU should be ashamed of yourself for this stupid dance. As Craven pointed out; I should have been given the benefit of the doubt, even if the thread wasn't plastered (which it IS) with the qualifier you denied and continue to ignore. I guess you reserve the benefit of the doubt for fellow liberals and the scum of the earth. (Amnesty period for not owing me an apology for your blatant BS is over.)

Lol!!!

Well, if you were consistent you would kill yourself , yes.

But, as I said before, I have more compassion than you.

I'd consider you killing yourself for the sake of a thought ridiculous, even as a demonstration of your integrity.

0 Replies

How can you continue to write that nonsense knowing full well that simple thoughts are neither what I wrote nor what I meant? You aren't fooling anyone but yourself. Is it that important to you to appear holier than thou that you refuse to face the obvious truth and admit the whole of your error? I'm beginning to see I hold you in too high of regard. People who don't admit the truth when it's pointed out over and over are dishonest people, Deb. That's what you are behaving like. Craven pointed it out pages ago, I provided you several quotes, and the thread remains available for anyone who wishes to read the simple truth. Wtf is the matter with you today?

0 Replies

Chai wrote:

Something Craven wrote about 25% of men.....

It got me wondering. In countries where it has been considered the norm for many, many generations for a grown man to marry a much younger girl, like 10, 11, 12 years old, is that considered pedophilia?

If the girl is willing, and not being coerced into marriage and their culture is arranged in such a way that is acceptable, is there a problem.

Now I know a number of these child brides are forced into the situation, but I'm sure many are not.

What if the husband is accepting her as a wife and does no harm?

Good question.

That's one of those goal posts that are going to move around from culture to culture and from time period to time period, I think.

Each culture has to make its own mind up, bearing in mind its own values and circumstances etc., I guess.

For example...when people died routinely very young, and many women died in childbirth, people did not have the very extended childhood that we have now....nor was there a large window for most folk to get their procreating done....and children, in subsistence cultures, mean wealth and care for one in one's forties, when one is aged and decrepit.

Also, those were and are, I believe, cultures that give women very little choice or power about marriage or anything else, and men as a group seem to have a high proportion who like very young women. How many of the guys here haven't had schoolgirl fantasies? I assume there is some kind of evolutionary benefit to screwing very young women, if they are fertile,...more marbles in the passing one's genes on lottery, or something?

I don't think it is physically good for kids to have babies...wears out their poor little bodies very young...and we might wish to consider whether they like having to have sex with a much older man..(irony, in case anyone didn't notice) .....I think there are lots of physical and emotional reasons to say that the practice of wedding children is not good, and most cultures that practice it seem to be experiencing a groundswell of opinion that it is bad, and/or it is being made illegal.

Also, we have no need for such forced fertility, goddess knows.

As to whether it is considered paedophilia...if it isn't illegal, I guess it isn't paedophilia in a legal sense.....and if it is the cultural norm, I am presuming it wouldn't have an "ick" factor to make people cry out against it.

I think it sucks, though.....on a number of bases...including that a 12 year old really cannot give informed consent, since their wee brains are nowhere near fully formed (most of us are neurologically fully mature at around 25), and are not physically mature to bear babes, though they can do so, and for all kinds of equa rights reasons.

0 Replies

OCCOM BILL wrote:

How can you continue to write that nonsense knowing full well that simple thoughts are neither what I wrote nor what I meant? You aren't fooling anyone but yourself. Is it that important to you to appear holier than thou that you refuse to face the obvious truth and admit the whole of your error? I'm beginning to see I hold you in too high of regard. People who don't admit the truth when it's pointed out over and over are dishonest people, Deb. That's what you are behaving like. Craven pointed it out pages ago, I provided you several quotes, and the thread remains available for anyone who wishes to read the simple truth. Wtf is the matter with you today?

You said thoughts + thoughts they might not be abe to control their impulses.

These are still thoughts, and there are many options other than death.

People have pointed out to you endlessly some of those options, and some have quoted you treatment success figures.

I have acknowledged you weren't quite as ridiculous in your prescription as I thought, but you are still advocating a terrible and cruel and outlandish thing.

I stand by my characterization of your thoughts.

I am commenting on your actual position.

It ends here, Bill, for me, post what you will in the thread.

I think it a disgusting one, and you contiinue to advocate it despite demonstrations of its unreasonableness.

Go ahead.

Your whole intrusion with this over the top nonsense has hijacked much of the entire debate here and continues to do, because there are those of us dumb enough to keep talking to you about it.

I have ceased to be amongst that number.

Bill, hate me, hold me in less high esteem, do what you will.

I esteem you for your good heart despite outbursts such as the one about people killing themselves here.

Yep, I have given you a hard time for your nonsensical notion...that is doubtess dumb of me.

I think most of your views are nuts (though we have managed to educate you a bit :wink: )...even this latest nonsense about liberals you have just spouted doesn't stop me from esteeming your heart....although the utter ignorance of what I am about you have shown by this nonsensical dragging of politics into what is, believe it or not, an area where my views are based on the fiercest of long analysis and learning about abuse and experience with struggling with what we can best do about it..some things actually transcend politics, you know.

Anyhoo.......I think your views are daft, but I am not angry with you.

Enjoy your rage with me....we can all enjoy a good righteous wrath, can't we? Like you do with paedophiles and such.

0 Replies

This is my LAST word on this.

I swear, my absolute and final LAST word.

After this, I will say nothing more on the subject.

So what you will with me; hang me by my eyeteeth, but I will say nothing else on this matter.

I make a solemn vow, I am done on this matter.

Even if you say somjething else to provoke me, I intend to demonstrate my superior discipline and maturity by refusing to answer, so I won't be saying anything else about this.

Ever.

Anymore.

I

promise.

0 Replies

Why do you say that, Snood?

0 Replies

Chai wrote:

It got me wondering. In countries where it has been considered the norm for many, many generations for a grown man to marry a much younger girl, like 10, 11, 12 years old, is that considered pedophilia?

For the most part is would not fall under the medical definition of pedophilia because the men do not have preferential or exclusive affinity for the young.

Quote:

If the girl is willing, and not being coerced into marriage and their culture is arranged in such a way that is acceptable, is there a problem.

It may not be part of the medical diagnosis of pedophilia but that doesn't mean it's right. I do not think it's a healthy societal structure.

0 Replies

neologist wrote:

Why do you say that, Snood?

Trying to be funny. Didn't work, obviously.

0 Replies

dlowan wrote:

OCCOM BILL wrote:
How can you continue to write that nonsense knowing full well that simple thoughts are neither what I wrote nor what I meant? You aren't fooling anyone but yourself. Is it that important to you to appear holier than thou that you refuse to face the obvious truth and admit the whole of your error? I'm beginning to see I hold you in too high of regard. People who don't admit the truth when it's pointed out over and over are dishonest people, Deb. That's what you are behaving like. Craven pointed it out pages ago, I provided you several quotes, and the thread remains available for anyone who wishes to read the simple truth. Wtf is the matter with you today?

You said thoughts + thoughts they might not be abe to control their impulses.

Deb, pretending you can interpret my thoughts and statements better than I can is as idiotic as it is dishonest. You'll notice Craven agrees with your views 100%, yet had no trouble interpreting precisely what I said. This is indicative of his honesty and integrity and your apparent lack of same (today). I haven't seen you behave so ignorantly before. I hope you enjoyed it as much as I didn't.

dlowan wrote:

These are still thoughts, and there are many options other than death.

I never said there weren't other options. You're pounding straw.

dlowan wrote:

People have pointed out to you endlessly some of those options, and some have quoted you treatment success figures.

And I've commented on them as I saw fit. It is you who's used a false interpretation of my words dishonestly, despite repeated attempts to show you how idiotic your lies were... and have been for many pages.

dlowan wrote:

I have acknowledged you weren't quite as ridiculous in your prescription as I thought, but you are still advocating a terrible and cruel and outlandish thing.

Gee, that's really swell of you to acknowledge I wasn't quite as ridiculous as your deliberate mischaracterizations, false accusations and pages of attacks on my character. That concession neither erases your several pages of dishonesty nor serves as any apology for undue abuse you've offered. You seem to think my cold feelings towards pedophiles justifies you treating me worse. I don't think it does.

dlowan wrote:

I stand by my characterization of your thoughts.

I am commenting on your actual position.

Idiocy. Read Craven's post to see what my position is. Nothing you've written is indicative of you having a clue.

dlowan wrote:

It ends here, Bill, for me, post what you will in the thread.

I will. With or without you permission.

dlowan wrote:

I think it a disgusting one, and you contiinue to advocate it despite demonstrations of its unreasonableness.

I knew you thought that before I posted it, and you know I knew that. That does not excuse the idiotic game you played here today.

Go ahead.

dlowan wrote:

Your whole intrusion with this over the top nonsense has hijacked much of the entire debate here and continues to do, because there are those of us dumb enough to keep talking to you about it.

Who do you think you are? I didn't intrude anywhere. I posted my opinion just as you did. Get over it... and yourself.

dlowan wrote:

I have ceased to be amongst that number.

If that means you're done accusing me hypocrisy for positions I don't hold, through your idiotic exaggeration for the sole purpose of aggravating me; that's fine with me. I'll remain astounded that you have so little respect for yourself you couldn't even admit your wrongdoing on your way out.

dlowan wrote:

Bill, hate me, hold me in less high esteem, do what you will.

I don't hate you, and I've never been one to hold grudges... but I do know you a little better today than I did yesterday... and I don't like you better for it.

dlowan wrote:

I esteem you for your good heart despite outbursts such as the one about people killing themselves here.

That feeling is mutual, as I pointed out in my opining post, and several along the way, even as you assailed my character.

dlowan wrote:

Yep, I have given you a hard time for your nonsensical notion...that is doubtess dumb of me.

I wish you had. We might have had an interesting discussion if you'd settled for my "nonsensical notion" instead of wasting both our time pretending it was a different position altogether... and insulting me instead of listening to the obvious truth.

dlowan wrote:

I think most of your views are nuts (though we have managed to educate you a bit :wink: )...even this latest nonsense about liberals you have just spouted doesn't stop me from esteeming your heart....although the utter ignorance of what I am about you have shown by this nonsensical dragging of politics into what is, believe it or not, an area where my views are based on the fiercest of long analysis and learning about abuse and experience with struggling with what we can best do about it. some things actually transcend politics, you know.

I wasn't attempting to bring politics into it so much as I was at a loss for why you wouldn't accept Craven's word for the obvious (remember; he feels the same as you about my actual position) that you were ignoring even while pounding me with your fantastic non-existent version. I know you consistently offer the benefit of the doubt to liberals, and there can be no question your entire departure from logical etiquette today was entirely about wanting to give the benefit of the doubt to pedophiles... but somehow I don't qualify... not even to interpret my own clearly written words... even when your mirror opinion pointed out the folly in your behavior. I still can't understand how that didn't stop you in your tracks.

dlowan wrote:

Anyhoo.......I think your views are daft, but I am not angry with you.

I am a little angry with you... and I'll likely stay that way for several minutes. :wink:

dlowan wrote:

Enjoy your rage with me....we can all enjoy a good righteous wrath, can't we? Like you do with paedophiles and such.

No, I don't enjoy it in the least. Perhaps if you figure out why you do, you'll be able to explain why you decided to treat me with such utter disrespect today.

0 Replies

Oh, Bill.

You have emotional certainty.

Dlowan works with victims untold hours a week over decades. She knows a lot of circumstances around all of this.

I am not going to follow all the nuances of the arguments, I'm not swift enough. I will say, I can see suggesting people with various thoughts, even thinking they are capable of acting, should do away with themselves, to an online forum, can be a troublesome call, a real call. I think you should stop it.

0 Replies

ossobuco wrote:

Oh, Bill.

You have emotional certainty.

Dlowan works with victims untold hours a week over decades. She knows a lot of circumstances around all of this.

I am not going to follow all the nuances of the arguments, I'm not swift enough. I will say, I can see suggesting people with various thoughts should do away with themselves, to an online forum, can be a troublesome call, a real call. I think you should stop it.

That's fair enough Osso... and I too have a healthy respect for Deb's expertise in the field. That is not at all what I took issue with. No biggie.

0 Replies

Nods.

0 Replies

snood wrote:

neologist wrote:
Why do you say that, Snood?

Trying to be funny. Didn't work, obviously.

I got it.

0 Replies

I think the mere suggestion itself is dangerous in the extreme. It only takes one unstable 16 year (and how many are?) to have a dream about his little sisters' best friend who happens to be 13, and looking for advice about what he feels....stumbles across this !!!

Such things are rarely reported in the media because of the enormous suggestibility of teenagers.

0 Replies

By that token any number of censorship endeavors can be rationalized from the violent acts in TV cartoons on up.

0 Replies

shewolfnm wrote:

Chai wrote:

I can recall several incidences in my life where I felt I was becoming close enough to someone, as in becoming friends, where I felt I wanted to share something of a personal nature. In some of these times, shortly before (sometimes within the same conversation) I suddenly get this message verbally from the person that, essentially "I could NEVER be friendly with someone who (whatever the behavior/feelings I was about to express was)"

Obviously, I didn't bring them into confidence, in some situations they remained friends, only they never knew that they were aquainted with, and actually LIKED, one of "those" people..

(excellent points by the way)

But I just wanted to add on that I am one of 'those' people that get lumped into a huge, disgusting category of folks due to some things I have done in my life. And many.....MANY times I have had people say just the same thing to me.
The most common example ( not derailing the topic or anything)
Is homelessness.
People look at homeless people and start calling them all kinds of names.
Insults will go on for hours. The supremacy they exude is astounding.
Then ... they finish with... " God I could never even get that CLOSE to a homeless person"

All the while, I am less then 3 feet away.
I used to be one of those smelly homeless people.

So, since someone WAS something before, but they are not now, do they still deserve to be treated as ****?
Homelessness is NOT any where NEAR a pedophile.
Please dont hear that in my post.

My point is that NO ONE knows ANYONE 100%.
(I know of people who have, on their death bed, confessed to ME of hurting children, and no one around them knew they were doing it. )

there is no way in the world to prove that once an offender( or insert any kind of title here -drug addict- alcoholic- thief-) of ANY KIND, will always offend again.

Nor is there a way to prove that everyone will act on anything they feel.
Thats just crap.

Aargh....Shewolfnm, I missed your post in the maelstrom (and I didn't read this thread at all for a couple of days.)

I just wanted to acknowledge your openness and your point, and I wasn't sure if anyone else had.

I hope that sort of hard time in your life is over for good.

0 Replies

ok, since this topic is all over the place anyway....

back to the young children getting married...

I agree with both dlowan and craven that this is not necessarily a good thing, particially (and note I say partically) for the fact it is too hard on a girls body to be having babies so early.

In this case, I'm wondering about the informed consent part.

Many little girls the world over, by the time they are of the age in question are having dreams and play acting getting married. Of course I know that it is all about the idea of wearing a fancy dress and being the center of attention, walking down the aisle and stuff.

They also may dream of after the wedding, in that they will be living in a house with a man and be having babies, etc. Even if these girls do have knowledge of what sex is, they are most likely not thinking of everything involved with making babies.

When I had throughts/dreams of this kind at that age, as for "when" this was going to happen, I was hazy. I knew it would be at sometime in the future, but since in play acting I couldn't really imagine the woman I'd become, I was always the person I was at that moment in my play.

Now, I guess this all points to the uniformed consent part, the not knowing the whole story of what marriage means.

But for a girl who from a much younger age knows that her time to be a wife will be much earlier, and IF she lived in a society that informed her of all that physically entailed, and she'd had time to think about this, talk to girls that were wives, could she not give informed consent?

Now the society I'm speaking of does not exist, as far as I know. One in which the girl has been informed long before, if able to ask questions, talk to her sisters who have gone through this, etc.....would she then be able to give informed consent?

dlowan, don't leave, you're providing us with good education.

Let the wind on the maelstrom just blow around you, best to just let them blow and not try to change their course. Eventually the wind will die down.

0 Replies

HokieBird wrote:

sozobe wrote:
You seem to be misunderstanding what dlowan was saying, Hokie.

Not "if you're abused, you'll become a pedophile."

but

"many people who are pedophiles were themselves abused."

And the studies indicate that only a minority of pedophiles were themselves abused - not 'many', as the poster indicated.

Quote:
Even among sex offenders against minors, only a minority experienced childhood sexual contact with an adult.

Mostly I'm reading along but wanted to clarify some semantics in this post.

Hokie, 'minority' does not preclude the use of 'many'. In statistical terms and study summary reports the word minority simply means less than 50%. Certainly there is no disagreement that upwards of 49% (or whatever the actual number is) represents 'many' individuals. The terms are not mutually exclusive.

0 Replies

Is 'liking children' wrong, if you don't harm kids?

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know