Maybe not to you
So you support consensual pedophilia then? You can’t equate that to normal straight people.
If they can’t overcome their problem with therapy then what other solution is there? Nobody says it’s wrong to neuter cats and dogs, why the exception for pedos?
Har Har. Under 24 hours ago for me.
Well pedophilia is only the attraction to children. It means nothing more. Consent is irrelevant to attraction.
There isn’t such a thing as consensual sex with a child, because a child can’t consent. They do not understand the situation.
You can. Rape is a good comparison. It is sex without consent.
Well if they can’t control themselves, they are breaking the law and prison would generally be the punishment. Maybe neutering could be a punishment in the case of sex crimes.
I’ll say it is terrible that some people are attracted to children. I don’t think attraction is a choice though. I think we should be able to accept that not all of these people even have a desire to have sex with a child as they understand how terrible it is.
Not legally, but they could be willing. For the comparison with rape, I feel the same way about people with fantasies or urges to rape people.
Anyway, let’s not derail this thread with our debate here. I have just seen some articles in recent times advocating for pedo rights and calling it a sexual orientation and such, I think it’s completely insane that this stuff is accepted while at the same time straight men are getting in trouble for showing their attraction to women with the metoo bullshit.
Being willing doesn’t make a difference if the person doesn’t understand what is happening.
Many old people are willing to give their bank account info to scammers on the phone. Are they consenting to the scammer taking their money?
I wish people didn’t have these thoughts too. At the same time, I don’t think it is right to punish thoughts.
Okay, agree. Last post on this subject.
Well, I can never support any sexual act towards a child. They can’t consent.
I have heard they want to add a P to the LGBTQ thing. This is a small amount of people and the LGBTQ community has with almost full support rejected it.
You’re talking about little kids, but technically it’s still statutory rape (or equivalent charge) if they are under legal age to consent which could be 16 or 18 or whatever depending on where you are.
They are, but it’s fraud. It would be like meeting an underage girl and convincing her you are 14 or something so you can fuck her. You would have to be a midget or something.
This could go the other way too. When I was about 20 there was this girl who was telling me that she was in fact her older sister who had just turned 15, I was friends with their mom’s boyfriend but I had never met either of the girls. I thought she was too young at 15 anyway (which would have been legal, it was 14+ at the time), but it turned out she was actually 13. I could have potentially gotten charged if I made the wrong move.
I don’t know what is going on in whose head, but obviously they know this would give them bad publicity and wouldn’t help to sway public opinion in their favor as they have been doing. But it’s a real thing, look up NAMBLA, the North American Man-Boy Love Association. You might think this will never go anywhere, but a few years ago the Canadian supreme court legalized non-penetrative bestiality so anything is possible these days. A few decades ago sodomy was a criminal offence, now the prime minister marches in gay pride parades.
Yeah, because the kid might be willing, but in essence they are being tricked.
Legal age is a made up number where most should be able to consent. Not all are at that point at 18 or whatever, and some of high intelligence and or maturity could potentially be earlier.
Maybe it is my babyface or something, but when I was around that age (early 20s), the 13-15 y/o girls were very aggressive in their pursuits of me. It was pretty uncomfortable.
I have heard of this. I don’t think it has support from many people outside of the group who are men wanting to have sex with boys.
What does this even mean? Oral sex? I can’t say I understand this.
I don’t think any national court will legalize sex with children. I am fully against it, and will protest if it is in the US.
If by sodomy you mean gay sex, I have no problem with others doing it, as long as both parties consent. Not my thing in the least bit, but I don’t care if others do it.
Not necessarily. I’m not even sure what the age of consent here is now because they changed it back and forth a few times (Trudeau lowered the age to consent to anal sex, the sick fuck) but back when I was a kid it was 14 with the exception that if one or both people were under 14 then the age difference had to be no more than 2 years. So if you were 15 and a half and you banged a girl who just turned 13 then you just committed a crime, but I don’t think you could really argue the 13 year old was tricked.
It all depends on the situation and age and all that, but the bottom line is that adults aren’t supposed to be fucking kids.
It’s not unusual for girls/women to go for older men, it’s just a problem when they start with that too early.
Which might unfortunately be more people than you realize.
Yep. The case where this was decided was some real fucked up shit, those judges had to be sick in the head to come to that conclusion.
It was perfectly acceptable in places like Rome and Greece. A lot of shit that is legal now was unthinkable in the past, nobody thought that a marriage between two men or two women would be considered equal to a normal marriage but here we are.
How is it not equal to a “normal” marriage? We’ve had different restrictions on marriage for years. I don’t think people thought interracial marriage would ever be legal and we aren’t worse off for it just like we aren’t worse off if two gay people marry. It has absolutely zero bearing on my marriage and doesn’t bother me in the least bit anymore than a different straight couple being married would bother me.
I don’t know if you are married but I can assure you as someone who is married that gay people don’t effect your marriage just like interracial marriage doesn’t. Doesn’t mean you have to like it, support it, or anything. It just doesn’t effect a straight marriage.
It’s fucking moronic and I only skimmed it. Politics has a huge pedophile problem. Let me give you an example…Storm Thurmond (ok well that was a long time ago). Let me give you another one. Jared Fogle! He was the mayor of Subway or something I think.
I skimmed the list does one mention that a guy who got in trouble for pedophilia was the 9th grade class treasurer?
Because it’s not a man and a woman.
There were times in the past that there were no such restrictions. The US is special.
That’s not even what I’m trying to argue about here, the point is that at one time gay marriage wasn’t even a thought in anyone’s mind and nobody would have imagined that it would happen. Just like nobody would have thought that non-penetrative bestiality or child molesting would be legal.
Does the law not view it as equal? Seems like “normal” is an attempt to put down gay marriage. Apologize if this wasn’t your intent. If it was then I’d like to once again assure you that gay marriage doesn’t put your marriage in any type of harms way. Been married for a while and I don’t think once have my wife and I thought “man our marriage is good but it sure would be nice if they didn’t let gay people have it.”
Wasn’t just the US.
And my point is bringing up something that has absolutely nothing to do with those two things doesn’t make much sense. Gay marriage has nothing to do with bestiality or child molesting.
I hadn’t heard of this but looking up I don’t see a problem with it. The article I read said it was a crime to have anal sex if you were under 18 unless you were married. Not sure why we would say oral sex or vaginal sex are fine but you need to be older for anal sex. Why should that be treated differently? Seems like the way I read it the law discriminated against gay people or the very large amount of heterosexual people who also have anal sex. Anal sex isn’t exactly uncommon for hetero couples.
I only skimmed the article so I might not understand the history of it or what exactly everything entailed but I’m not sure off hand that I see a big sick fuck thing. Seems like we should call sex sex to me. From what I read the change makes perfect sense and it would actually make less sense for the government to decide what types of sex you could and couldn’t consent to. Saying “well at this age you get a hand job, at this age a blow job, at this age you get vaginal, and finally at this age you can have anal” seems pretty fucking stupid for the age of consent.
Well, maybe not quite at the moment, that could never happen, but who knows maybe in a few years if you are lucky. First G &L, then LGB, then LGBT, perhaps LGBTP?
And before you can get in yes I am a bigot, and proud of it.
He didn’t say it wasn’t, and you are currently attacking him just to attack him. He was making a reference to historical norms.
Well at least you’re aware you’re an idiot.
Well he seems to be going down the road of we are getting more immoral with what is sexually accepted / legalized. At least that is what I inferred with this.
Maybe he was just stating a fact that these things were things that people did not think would be accepted, but I don’t see why he would just state those as fact for the sake of saying it.
Perhaps. Wasn’t my intention but when one targets gay marriage with that I usually assume they are completely opposed to it. Couple that with what he said about anal sex and I feel pretty confident he’s against it. Which as I said is perfectly fine but don’t do the whole “well gay marriage and then next marrying a horse” as if they are related in any way. That’s always been the homophobic attack line on gay marriage. “If we let gays marry then what’s next.” It’s weak and idiotic.
He was making a point. He also noted that sex with boys was okay in Rome and Greece. There are a lot of parallels if you study history, he was just noting some things. And Rome was pretty jacked up toward the end. The West is working on copying some of that history right now. It has been an admittedly huge swing in lifestyle acceptance from my youth to today. And people are working on insisting that no divergent opinions are permissible. There is a big difference between having a personal belief that something is okay or not okay, and trying to enforce that belief on others. It seems like maybe that right to hold divergent opinions and values should be a matter protected by law. Oh, wait…
And? He’s entitled to be for or against it. He doesn’t actually have to personally consider it acceptable or not acceptable. That doesn’t mean he’s telling other people what to do. I am personally opposed to plenty of things that are perfectly legal and people are free to do. I’m not trying to stop them, but that doesn’t change my feelings on it. For example, I really think political parties should be illegal, and lobbyists too. But they’re not, so i can just not be involved myself and that’s about it.