Pedophiles to launch political party

Tricity Bendix

I have heard a defence of paedophilia which runs along the lines of it being an entirely natural and uncontrollable expression of sexuality. If society accepts that love between women can exist as much as between men and women (plural? orgy? YAY!), why shouldn't it accept that some people are wired to like children?


The argument is, of course, complete balderdash. Most people would want to protect children above allowing perverts have their thrills. I wouldn't equate this with the ideology of liberalism. What of the child's right to a childhood?

democrates

Good thing at least to know where they are so the beheadings can begin.
I'd love to bury an axe deep in the skull of every one of these life destroyers.
If there was a death sentence here for it I'd pay to be the executioner.

But the grass in Amsterdam. Be careful ordering in those cafes.
'Good' there means max, as opposed to 'safe' as I had assumed when I insisted.

SeanW

Yeah, the door-to-door canvassing should be fun. I know what would happen if that were Ireland and one of them came to my door.

"Hello sir, please vote for our party so I can fondle 6 year old boys"

WHACK

"owwwwwwww"

The_Minister

Pigman's post was hilarious (esp. the last few lines) but he has a point. We used to think of homosexuals like this and now we don't. Its all about normalisation (thats whats conservatives call it). They will start appearing in films and having music songs, then famous dead people will be post-humously outed as paedophiles by many dodgy, liberal academics and suddenly they will be born that way and the civil service will be riddled with them (the Church having collapsed by then.

SeanW

True, but overage homosexuality is consensual. Children 12 and under cannot realistically be expected to give "consent."

That said, with it apparently being acceptable for Rebecca Loos to give a handjob to a pig on "reality" TV shows like Celebrity farm for cheap thrills, it may be that the limit to allowable depravity will continue to fall until standards in all of society have all but collapsed. Seems not too far away either.

Terry

Bond-007 wrote:

Have you not seen South Park? NAMLA is the North American Man Boy Love Association. :eek:

very funny episode that i thought the writers had just made up themselves. sadly though, the organisation is real. nambla.org is their website (i think. could be .com or .net)

the thing about this that bothers me is that, as a member of the EU, you can vote in local elections in your country of residence, as long as you are a native of another EU state.
with the liberal attitude to sex in the netherlands, and amsterdam in particular, there are undoubtedly hundreds, if not thousands of paedophiles from member states residing in amsterdam. guess who they will be voting for in the local elections.

Dudess

Jumpy wrote:

I find this difficult to take seriously. It has to be a pisstake or a very bad piece of journalism. The idea is so off the charts I think it cant be serious.

A number of years ago in the 'Dam, you would have found paedophiles holding protests regarding their "rights" to have sex with children.

tallus

Dudess wrote:

A number of years ago in the 'Dam, you would have found paedophiles holding protests regarding their "rights" to have sex with children.

It's just sickening

cast_iron

Pigman II wrote:

I'm sure lots of people around the world were equally aghast at:

1) Abolishion of slavery.

2) Legalisation of various drugs

3) Given women equal rights.

4) Relaxed attitudes to pornography.

5) Acceptance of homosexuality.

It does bother me that people these days seem to think just because they stick two fingers up at the church that they are now SO enlightened and so they're SO liberal. They know it all and have it all sussed as regards what is right and wrong in society! However mention the word paedo or dogfúcker to them and they're just as bad as their parents & grandparents.

If you read your 5 points again, you will realise that they don't really compare with paedophilia. All of them refer to the abuse of people, which quite rightly was abolished. With padeophiles, even in 40 years time, i can't see how people will consider it acceptable to abuse a child.
Rape, violence, etc. would be a much better comparison.
The reason we are now all SO enlightened and SO liberal is simple - we are (in most developed countries, anyway).

Pigman II wrote:

Don't get me wrong I'm not in favour of chesters or beastmasters but I do get this feeling that when I'm an old man I'm going to be getting lectures from my grandson about being so old-fashioned whilst he gives the labrador a handjob.

Who knows, maybe even you will get off on the sight of it.:D

Tar.Aldarion

I can't believe nambla is real. - http://www.nambla.org/ :eek:

Pigman II

cast_iron wrote:

If you read your 5 points again, you will realise that they don't really compare with paedophilia. All of them refer to the abuse of people, which quite rightly was abolished. With padeophiles, even in 40 years time, i can't see how people will consider it acceptable to abuse a child.
Rape, violence, etc. would be a much better comparison.

I'm not comparing the acts themselves. I am merely giving examples of things that are acceptable today that would have found mass condemnation 50, 100 or 200 years ago. As such just because just because 'x,y,z' is what feels right and just to us now doesn't mean that is necessarily what society will or will not find acceptable in 50 or 100 years time.

The reason we are now all SO enlightened and SO liberal is simple - we are (in most developed countries, anyway).

Glad you think so.

Hydroquinone

PigmanII wrote:

I'm sure lots of people around the world were equally aghast at:

1) Abolishion of slavery.

2) Legalisation of various drugs

3) Given women equal rights.

4) Relaxed attitudes to pornography.

5) Acceptance of homosexuality.

cast_iron wrote:

If you read your 5 points again, you will realise that they don't really compare with paedophilia. All of them refer to the abuse of people, which quite rightly was abolished. With padeophiles, even in 40 years time, i can't see how people will consider it acceptable to abuse a child.

But, think of it this way - slaves weren't considered to be humans. Women were considered inferior to men, so there were plenty of men (and they were the legislators) who didn't consider slaves and women to be people in the same way men were. At the time when these social changes were going on, plenty of people who considered themselves decent honourable citizens were completely aghast at the concept of abolishing slavery or giving votes to women or making homosexuality legal, because, at those times in history, slaves, women and homosexuals were considered lesser beings, by quite a lot of the population. The same way as decent ordinary skins today are aghast at the notion that paedophilia could one day be accepted, because paedos are not worthy, nor deserving of the same rights as the rest of us.
We have the benefit of hindsight to know our forebears were mistaken about slaves, women and homosexuals. When our descendents are looking back at these times, will they say we were just as wrong about paedophilia?

Paedophiles who are reckoning to legalise what they do claim that the kids are willing. I don't believe it. I don't want to believe it, but if you look at it another way - all of us know precocious 11 year olds. How many people here had consensual sex when they were younger than legal age of consent? Good nutrition means kids are maturing faster and we live in a world where sexual imagery is everywhere. You see bits of kids walking round in thongs and belly tops and hipster jeans, wearing t-shirts that say "Slut". What's that about? We are living in a very sexualised age. And like it or not, there are kids having sex before they get to secondary school.

If you add that to the notion now that kids are just mini adults with the same rights as you and me, it seems to me that we're geting into very murky waters indeed. The way the world seems to be going now is to give more and more rights to children. In some countries, you can't slap your child, in others they can divorce their parents. Young girls with babies get flats and set themselves up as mammies when they're only kids themselves, with the complete support of the government in terms of welfare.

I am not in favour of paedophilia being decriminalised anywhere, but there are too many mixed messages in society today. So I'm not surprised to see that there are legitimate political parties coming forward at this time with paedophile issues on their manifesto. I hope I don't live to see it paedophilia decriminalised, but I'm nothing like as sure as you that it never will be.

BMH

Christ, look at their "bookstore"'s posterboy

Also, the logo shows the "M" as capital and attached to a lower-case "b".

*shudder*

democrates

Hydroquinone wrote:

We have the benefit of hindsight to know our forebears were mistaken about slaves, women and homosexuals. When our descendents are looking back at these times, will they say we were just as wrong about paedophilia?

All of the other examples involve either equal rights or tolerance of what other consenting adults do. Paedophilia fits none of these, children are not the same as consenting adults, and as we've seen on tv the damage to a child is profound and lifelong. Hence the desires of paedophiles can never be elevated to the level of a right because that is mutually exclusive with the childs right to grow up unmolested.

Hydroquinone wrote:

Paedophiles who are reckoning to legalise what they do claim that the kids are willing. I don't believe it. I don't want to believe it, but if you look at it another way - all of us know precocious 11 year olds.

Paedophiles are calculating liars so the reliability of their testimony (designed to diminish their responsibility) is in question, and even if a child consents, that doesn't mean the child acted in their own best interests when confronted by adult persuasion. That's how they get away with it for years, some get away for life because their victims could never face telling anyone, or told and were not believed, or committed suicide. And if a child is precocious that doesn't mean they are impervious to damage and should be seen as fair game with no rights.

Hydroquinone wrote:

How many people here had consensual sex when they were younger than legal age of consent? Good nutrition means kids are maturing faster and we live in a world where sexual imagery is everywhere. You see bits of kids walking round in thongs and belly tops and hipster jeans, wearing t-shirts that say "Slut". What's that about? We are living in a very sexualised age. And like it or not, there are kids having sex before they get to secondary school.

Curiosity and experimentation is natural, between some children, but between paedophiles and children is another question because the child can never be an equal. The existence of peer intimacy doesn't mean those children are emotionally mature enough to deal with the consequences, they can be scarred for life by rejection or feelings of inadequacy during their clumsy formative years. I agree society (driven mainly by corporate greed if you trace the source of influences) is over-sexualised, and I think kids are paying a big price for it.

Hydroquinone wrote:

If you add that to the notion now that kids are just mini adults with the same rights as you and me, it seems to me that we're geting into very murky waters indeed. The way the world seems to be going now is to give more and more rights to children. In some countries, you can't slap your child, in others they can divorce their parents. Young girls with babies get flats and set themselves up as mammies when they're only kids themselves, with the complete support of the government in terms of welfare.

Those rights are not about making children equal to adults, they are about protecting children from abuse and ensuring their welfare. The prime right of children is to be nurtured as children, they are not mini-adults in very important ways. They don't have the vote because they are not emotionally or intellectually mature, and similarly there is an elevated risk of damage if they engage in relations with complex consequences, even with their peers. The Paedos may argue that if they had more experience earlier they would learn to handle it, but while that may apply to a small extent with their peers now that physical maturity is kicking earlier thanks to our oestrogenic compound soaked environment, it in no way means a child is capable of making sensible choices in their own best interests when isolated by a manipulative paedophile.

Hydroquinone wrote:

I am not in favour of paedophilia being decriminalised anywhere, but there are too many mixed messages in society today. So I'm not surprised to see that there are legitimate political parties coming forward at this time with paedophile issues on their manifesto. I hope I don't live to see it paedophilia decriminalised, but I'm nothing like as sure as you that it never will be.

I suspect you're not a parent, if you listen to parents talk about this, they're not undecided or open to influence on the question, it's no way, ever, would they let a law pass which allows paedophiles to have their way with their children. Most other voters are dead against it too, so I don't see the welfare of children ever being sacrificed in order to create a right for paedophiles.

Zillah

Pigman II wrote:

I'm sure lots of people around the world were equally aghast at:

Oh for Christ's sake. Allow me to explain:

1) Abolishion of slavery.

People are allowed freedom as long as it harms no one else.

2) Legalisation of various drugs

People are allowed freedom as long as it harms no one else.

3) Given women equal rights.

People are allowed freedom as long as it harms no one else.

4) Relaxed attitudes to pornography.

People are allowed freedom as long as it harms no one else.

5) Acceptance of homosexuality.

People are allowed freedom as long as it harms no one else.

And lucky number 6:

6) Ban on paedophilia

People are allowed freedom as long as it harms no one else.


You see how that works? Children lack the capacity to make an informed decision when it comes to sexual matters. Hence why sex with them is at best taking advantage, and at worst, rape or abuse. Therefore: "harm".

It does bother me that people these days seem to think just because they stick two fingers up at the church that they are now SO enlightened and so they're SO liberal. They know it all and have it all sussed as regards what is right and wrong in society! However mention the word paedo or dogfúcker to them and they're just as bad as their parents & grandparents.

It does bother me that people these days seem to think that just because they can put a thoughtless slew of inappropriate comparisons on the internet it absolves them of the duty to understand the key issues at hand.

therecklessone

Zillah wrote:

People are allowed freedom as long as it harms no one else.

You're applying the principles that govern modern society to incidents which affected previous generations, and missing the point in the process.

Slaves were not seen as people, they were seen as property. Abolishing slavery and extending the rights of freemen to former slaves required a massive shift in the public consciousness. Likewise with equality for women, or the extension of voting rights to everyone over the age of 18. All these and more were dismissed as ludicrous or abhorrent at points in the past

What he's arguing is that in the future a similar shift in public consciousness could happen that would allow paeodophilia be legalised.

Zillah

therecklessone wrote:

What he's arguing is that in the future a similar shift in public consciousness could happen that would allow paeodophilia be legalised.

They're not applicable examples, in that there is something fundamentally different here. A woman is perfectly capable of voting as well as a man, any rational human who sits down free of social bias and thinks about it would come to that conclusion. The same about African slaves, theres nothing fundamentally different between them and their would-be masters.

And if that same rational human being sat down and thought about children he would see that there is something fundamentally different, they're not developed yet, they lack the capacity to make emotional or intellectual decisions in their own best interest.

therecklessone

Zillah wrote:

They're not applicable examples, in that there is something fundamentally different here. A woman is perfectly capable of voting as well as a man, any rational human who sits down free of social bias and thinks about it would come to that conclusion. The same about African slaves, theres nothing fundamentally different between them and their would-be masters.

Rational thought doesn't come into it. The fact is that the changes refered to earlier only occured after a change in public perception, and until then it was believed justifiable to enslave certain ethnic or racial groups, deny women equal rights, deny the vote to certain groups based on age, property ownership or other criteria.

I agree with you, rationally, children are not emotionally developed enough to give consent, but who is to say in the future that others may argue otherwise, and prove both you and I wrong? I mean, if I'd lived in the 18th Century and suggested women should have the vote I'd have been told women were too emotional to vote. If I'd lived in the 15th Century and said the Earth wasn't flat I'd have been burned at the stake.

Pigman II

Zillah wrote:

You see how that works? Children lack the capacity to make an informed decision when it comes to sexual matters. Hence why sex with them is at best taking advantage, and at worst, rape or abuse. Therefore: "harm".

It does bother me that people these days seem to think that just because they can put a thoughtless slew of inappropriate comparisons on the internet it absolves them of the duty to understand the key issues at hand.

Yawn.

Well done to therecklessone for actually seeing the point I was making. Pity you weren't capable of doing the same.

Tricity Bendix

I see the point you're making Pigman.

I wouldn't agree with it, though.

Maybe its just because my mentality is a product of present society.

Its actually quite strange to think of protection of a child's innocence as a thouroughly modern concept. A few hundred years ago, children were married and conceiving by the age of 16. I realise that this is because they weren't expected to live long past 40, but its still peculiar.

Hydroquinone

You make some very good points, democrates and while I find it alarmingly distasteful that I seem to be argung here on the side of the paedophile, I don't really agree with you that the societal notions we have today about what makes a child a child will remain the same forever. Ideas change over time. History hs shown us that and if we think we're the apex of evolution, at this point in time, we're misguided. Things can and do change. If you don't think so, we'll have to agree to disagree.

I do, though, have one further point to make, about this

democrates wrote:

I suspect you're not a parent, if you listen to parents talk about this, they're not undecided or open to influence on the question, it's no way, ever, would they let a law pass which allows paedophiles to have their way with their children. Most other voters are dead against it too, so I don't see the welfare of children ever being sacrificed in order to create a right for paedophiles.

You're right, I'm not a parent. Anyone I know who is a parent tells me they would move heaven and earth to protect his or her child. I think that is the way it should be. But, my friends and people I know are not the whole picture are they? Nobody; but nobody thinks anyone they personally know is a paedophile. Some of us have to be mistaken, surely, based on the law of averages?
Paedophiles vote. Paedophiles can be parents. How many people have been sexually abused by their father? Or their grandfather? Yet those men were, by absolute definition, parents. More people than we'll probably ever know have been sexually abused by a parent. So the world is not split into parents and bad people. I know you weren't saying that, of course I do. But to hear some people going on you'd think paedos were some sort of easily identifiable subset of society. They're not. They look like you and me.

Paedophiles who are parents are even worse in my eyes than paeodphiles who are non-parents, because a parent surely has a greater duty of care to his or her own child than a someone who is not that child's parent. I want to be a part of a society where children are protected and where they are allowed to be children and not victimised by adults. But that those rights are even being discussed is a sign that however abhorrent I think it, change is not proscribed.

Zillah

Pigman II wrote:

Yawn.

Well done to therecklessone for actually seeing the point I was making. Pity you weren't capable of doing the same.

No I see your point, but I also see it for the useless fallacy it is. It amounts to "People made stupid mistakes before, therefore we could be making stupid mistakes also". Its an entirely redundant argument (not to mention a very tired one) and adds nothing to the discussion.

Pigman II

Zillah wrote:

No I see your point, but I also see it for the useless fallacy it is. It amounts to "People made stupid mistakes before, therefore we could be making stupid mistakes also". Its an entirely redundant argument (not to mention a very tired one)

No thats not it either and despite your own opinion you're still missing the point. My post is an observation not an argument so you are immediately in error if you fail to take it as such. I have no interest in promoting or defending paedophilia or beastiality. If you have to immediately call an observation on society 'an argument' either for for/against the topic then thats your own problem.

and adds nothing to the discussion.

As opposed to anything you have offered thusfar?

Mr. Presentable

I think they should all be drowned, and, as we're not American, they should be called what they are: Paedophiles

democrates

Hydroquinone wrote:

You make some very good points, democrates and while I find it alarmingly distasteful that I seem to be argung here on the side of the paedophile, I don't really agree with you that the societal notions we have today about what makes a child a child will remain the same forever. Ideas change over time. History hs shown us that and if we think we're the apex of evolution, at this point in time, we're misguided. Things can and do change. If you don't think so, we'll have to agree to disagree.

I do, though, have one further point to make, about this

You're right, I'm not a parent. Anyone I know who is a parent tells me they would move heaven and earth to protect his or her child. I think that is the way it should be. But, my friends and people I know are not the whole picture are they? Nobody; but nobody thinks anyone they personally know is a paedophile. Some of us have to be mistaken, surely, based on the law of averages?
Paedophiles vote. Paedophiles can be parents. How many people have been sexually abused by their father? Or their grandfather? Yet those men were, by absolute definition, parents. More people than we'll probably ever know have been sexually abused by a parent. So the world is not split into parents and bad people. I know you weren't saying that, of course I do. But to hear some people going on you'd think paedos were some sort of easily identifiable subset of society. They're not. They look like you and me.

Paedophiles who are parents are even worse in my eyes than paeodphiles who are non-parents, because a parent surely has a greater duty of care to his or her own child than a someone who is not that child's parent. I want to be a part of a society where children are protected and where they are allowed to be children and not victimised by adults. But that those rights are even being discussed is a sign that however abhorrent I think it, change is not proscribed.

Well in fairness I don't perceive you as arguing for paedophiles per se, but pointing out that future society may think differently.

I absolutely agree that societal notions can change, and actually I hope they will continue to do so in the future, for example on the current acceptance of skewed distribution of ownership, risks, and rewards between investors, employees, and citizens.

I think we're in accord that the majority of society today, do not see children simply as mini-adults. They set them apart for special protection, and for their protection, limit rights when it comes to entering into contracts, voting, and having sex particularly with adults.

However, we can clearly see children are maturing earlier both physically and emotionally. Assuming this trend continues, and that is not too predictable, what we may anticipate is a gradual lowering of the age of consent, assuming societies perception and legislation match reality. But that trend in children is limited, and will not go to date of birth anytime soon! I'd expect society to continually review and legislate an appropriate age above which the young are deemed old enough to make adult choices on issues that can affect them adversely for life.

The law on age of consent is a blunt instrument, and will allow some freedom they are not adequately perpared to exercise, while others are made to wait even though they are well able for it. Personally I think the age of consent should be augmented with a more sophisticated set of stepped age differentials and sanctions, with allowance for judgement based on specific circumstances.

Running further with your point because I don't believe in forbidden questions, what if some future society raised children to believe it was aok to have sex with adults, would that mean children could take it in their stride and no harm done? I don't believe so, I think they'd be making a big mistake.

Aside from the physical damage from physical size mis-match, even adults can be grieveously harmed emotionally and psychologically in relationships, we all know plenty of examples, and children have a much lesser capacity to negotiate their way and maintain emotional and psychological balance. In addition there is the complication of sexual orientation. Look at the turmoil they go through just playing on the road with friends, maturing physically, and when they first begin to develop sexual attraction.

Young hearts and minds are fragile, and they can easily be manipulated into experiences that may later lead to profound problems ranging from low self esteem to depression, and can in turn lead them to become dependant on drink and or drugs, develop anti-social attitudes and behaviour, live unhealthily, or ultimately to commit suicide.

A paedophile may argue that it is possible a child could engage in sexual activity with an adult or adults and let alone not be harmed but find it affirming and positive. I can't state empirically that it could never happen, but even if there were some evidence to support that possibility, I think so long as the high risk of serious harm remains and we have ample evidence of that, the law must protect children and punish those who place them at risk.

It's similar to the way we apply a sanction for dangerous or drunk driving even where no actual harm resulted, but more necessary because the actual harm caused to the child cannot be fully known in advance and may turn out to be fatal.

So I accept your point that it is possible that a future society may decide anything, but if that includes making children of any age fair game for adults to approach and persuade to have sex with them even though the minor is left open to harm, I'd call that a massive societal breakdown. Yes that's a 'today' perspective. But I'm an optimist with faith in the wisdom and common sense of ordinary people (including many paedophiles who concede they've wrongly caused harm). I believe strongly that sex at any age without risk of harm will never be a reality, and assuming society perceives this, I feel comfortable in predicting a free for all scenario as extremely unlikely.

I happen to have discussed this issue before with an abuse victim who is close, and the damage done is staggering, particularly because he is straight and his abuser was a man. I'd love to see a 'chain reactions' treatment of his life. 'What if' it had never happened? Would he be happy, would he be doing well at work, would he have spent most of his adult life in relationships, would he be married and raising kids, could one of those kids have grown up and found a cure for cancer?

We'll never know. We know he is single, has no-on to go home to, no kids of his have had the chance to exist. His life has been diminished in so many ways, it's like psychologially and emotionally he's been crippled for life. It could be argued that if what happened to him as a boy was not a social taboo that all would be fine, but it is not the case. Experiencing something so intrusive and also opposite to his sexuality against his will was traumatic. For example he described how it destroyed his ability to have normal intimacy with a woman without memories of the abuse ruining it: "it's like, what do you think after you think don't think of the colour blue". I like to offer solutions but I had no answer.