Psychologist: Paedophilia a 'sexual orientation - like being straight or gay'

[steveh_131]

18 year olds having sex with anyone under 16 used to be illegal. It now is legal down to 14 if the right hoops are jumped through.

It was illegal for 18 year olds to possess videos of sex acts by 14 year olds. It is now legal if the right hoops are jumped through.

I appreciate you providing the info, but I think this is a little different than the topic of discussion. Kids were getting sent to prison for activities with other kids. Indiana had probably taken it too far, and this brought it back to reasonable levels.

I've still seen no widespread acceptance, legally or socially, for adults molesting children (with real age differentials).

 

[printcraft]

Green, check your sarcasm meter... I think he was being ironically sarcastic in his posts. While it is an "INGO-ism" to color sarcastic text purple, not everyone does it. Some intentionally don't, making you find the sarcasm yourself, just like in face to face conversations. At any rate, you're coming off as (IMHO understandably) angry at what you're reading, but I think the anger is misplaced. Just my opinion. Take a step back and re-read his posts with that in mind.

It would be like me saying, "Oh yes, Hillary would make a wonderful president." Said with an excited, happy face, you'd believe I really thought that. Said with lowered eyebrows and a perhaps a sneer on my face, no way in hell.

Blessings,
Bill

Go all in. Say it with the most enthusiasm you can muster with a otherworldly grin curled up on your face.
Sometimes a double barrel of sarcasm is the proper tool when dealing with the unreachable.

 

[Fargo]

I appreciate you providing the info, but I think this is a little different than the topic of discussion. Kids were getting sent to prison for activities with other kids. Indiana had probably taken it too far, and this brought it back to reasonable levels.

I've still seen no widespread acceptance, legally or socially, for adults molesting children (with real age differentials).

I don't necessarily disagree with the purpose of the changes to the law, although they aren't very well written and the definition of relationship is is so broad that requirement is almost meaningless outside of sex/filming between strangers.

That said, the current trend is definitely toward lowering the age of consent as regards children past puberty and/or lessening the penalties. For example, the penalty was recently reduced for basic touch/fondle sexual misconduct with a minor and the possibility of going to prison has been removed. The DOC will not take them even on a max sentence, everything is county lockup. Penalties were also lessened on the other forms but I believe the credit time restructuring largely negated those cuts.

IMO acting like the age of consent is static or going up in this country is naive. The law reflects social values and sexual activity by younger post pubescent children has become widely accepted and even encouraged.

 

[Expat]

I don't necessarily disagree with the purpose of the changes to the law, although they aren't very well written and the definition of relationship is is so broad that requirement is almost meaningless outside of sex/filming between strangers.

That said, the current trend is definitely toward lowering the age of consent as regards children past puberty and/or lessening the penalties. For example, the penalty was recently reduced for basic touch/fondle sexual misconduct with a minor and the possibility of going to prison has been removed. The DOC will not take them even on a max sentence, everything is county lockup. Penalties were also lessened on the other forms but I believe the credit time restructuring largely negated those cuts.

IMO acting like the age of consent is static or going up in this country is naive. The law reflects social values and sexual activity by younger post pubescent children has become widely accepted and even encouraged.

We gotta keep room for those dangerous pot smokers.

Are we really going to let puberty get in our way of really being tolerant?

 

[daddyusmaximus]

Yeah, saw that coming. Pretty soon every immoral or criminal behavior will be an "orientation" someone is born with.

 

[GREEN607]

Green, check your sarcasm meter... I think he was being ironically sarcastic in his posts. While it is an "INGO-ism" to color sarcastic text purple, not everyone does it. Some intentionally don't, making you find the sarcasm yourself, just like in face to face conversations. At any rate, you're coming off as (IMHO understandably) angry at what you're reading, but I think the anger is misplaced. Just my opinion. Take a step back and re-read his posts with that in mind.

It would be like me saying, "Oh yes, Hillary would make a wonderful president." Said with an excited, happy face, you'd believe I really thought that. Said with lowered eyebrows and a perhaps a sneer on my face, no way in hell.

Blessings,
Bill

I almost asked him if the 'purple' was missing. Should have done so, I guess. Thanks!

My apologies to 'Expat'...

 

[ilikeguns]

I didn't read through three pages of comments, so I may very well be repeating what has already been said by others, but, imo, anyone who can look at where we are now, compared to where we were 50 years ago, in terms of what is socially acceptable, and not think we are moving in a direction where anything is acceptable and no one is responsible for what they do because you can't be held accountable if you were "born this way" , is either blind, or fooling themselves for one reason or another. It's been a constant shift in that direction for a few decades now.

 

[jamil]

I'm glad I've learned to manage my impulses or I would have bought everything on Gunbroker last night.

Always follow the money!

 

[steveh_131]

I don't necessarily disagree with the purpose of the changes to the law, although they aren't very well written and the definition of relationship is is so broad that requirement is almost meaningless outside of sex/filming between strangers.

That said, the current trend is definitely toward lowering the age of consent as regards children past puberty and/or lessening the penalties. For example, the penalty was recently reduced for basic touch/fondle sexual misconduct with a minor and the possibility of going to prison has been removed. The DOC will not take them even on a max sentence, everything is county lockup. Penalties were also lessened on the other forms but I believe the credit time restructuring largely negated those cuts.

IMO acting like the age of consent is static or going up in this country is naive. The law reflects social values and sexual activity by younger post pubescent children has become widely accepted and even encouraged.

Fargo, you're looking at the last couple of years. I'm looking at a larger slice of history. Gay rights have been marching on since the 1940's at least. Meanwhile, look at this chart: https://chnm.gmu.edu/cyh/primary-sources/24

Ages of consent have largely remained static or increased. Sure, there have been small changes recently - but only in situations involving adolescents, right?

But what we're talking about is pedophilia. Adults with children. An activity that even the most sexually 'progressive' organizations condemn (apart from the fringe and universally hated NAMBLA). I have seen no movement socially or legally to promote the acceptance of actual, active child predators.

 

[Twangbanger]

Where is ISIS when you need them?

I'm usually against straight-out Wikipedia postings...but since this one is "WikiIslam," I'll make an exception here and let the interested parties slug it out:

Islam and Pedophilia - WikiIslam

 

[Dead Duck]

Gee-
I'm running low on buckshot too...

 

[GodFearinGunTotin]

I'm usually against straight-out Wikipedia postings...but since this one is "WikiIslam," I'll make an exception here and let the interested parties slug it out:

Islam and Pedophilia - WikiIslam

This has 0.0000000000% on my life. I don't care what those people do.

 

[2A_Tom]

This surprises you?

 

[HoughMade]

Yeah, saw that coming. Pretty soon every immoral or criminal behavior will be an "orientation" someone is born with.

Whether we call it an orientation, a genetic predisposition or make up some other term, that someone may have an innate sexual desire towards children the way I have one towards adult women or another man towards men, is only philosophically a problem if we accept the premise that if I'm "born that way" it must be "right" to act on. If we reject that premise and adhere to the belief that "predisposition" does not determine morality or legality, then we, as a society, can decide what behavior is legal and illegal and what behavior will be endorsed or rejected based upon a whole host of criteria. Simply equating "I feel like this is right" with "no one can stop me from doing this". leads to this debate and in untenable.

 

[GodFearinGunTotin]

Whether we call it an orientation, a genetic predisposition or make up some other term, that someone may have an innate sexual desire towards children the way I have one towards adult women or another man towards men, is only philosophically a problem if we accept the premise that if I'm "born that way" it must be "right" to act on. If we reject that premise and adhere to the belief that "predisposition" does not determine morality or legality, then we, as a society, can decide what behavior is legal and illegal and what behavior will be endorsed or rejected based upon a whole host of criteria. Simply equating "I feel like this is right" with "no one can stop me from doing this". leads to this debate and in untenable.

But that bridge has already been crossed. The only reason it's not allowed to be applied by others is some folks find their behavior icky.

 

[HoughMade]

But that bridge has already been crossed. The only reason it's not allowed to be applied by others is some folks find their behavior icky.

Exactly. Simple-minded people go with a blanket, generic: "it it feels right for you, it is right for you." I say simple-minded, because a person with a modicum of intellect can see that a whole host of things can "feel right for you." Obviously, that can't be the standard or we get absurd results like this.

 

[Expat]

Exactly. Simple-minded people go with a blanket, generic: "it it feels right for you, it is right for you." I say simple-minded, because a person with a modicum of intellect can see that a whole host of things can "feel right for you." Obviously, that can't be the standard or we get absurd results like this.

But if it happens in other species in nature, then it is a natural act and you can not question it. read it on the INGO a few years ago.

 

[steveh_131]

Whether we call it an orientation, a genetic predisposition or make up some other term, that someone may have an innate sexual desire towards children the way I have one towards adult women or another man towards men, is only philosophically a problem if we accept the premise that if I'm "born that way" it must be "right" to act on. If we reject that premise and adhere to the belief that "predisposition" does not determine morality or legality, then we, as a society, can decide what behavior is legal and illegal and what behavior will be endorsed or rejected based upon a whole host of criteria. Simply equating "I feel like this is right" with "no one can stop me from doing this". leads to this debate and in untenable.

I think this is a very accurate summary of the debate.

But that bridge has already been crossed. The only reason it's not allowed to be applied by others is some folks find their behavior icky.

I think this is not accurate. Even the most sexually progressive activists agree that their preferred deviant act is only acceptable if it is consensual. I know a lot of liberals who love gay activism, and not a single one of them would condone child molestation - even if one is 'born that way'. It's not just that it is 'icky'. It is an act of aggression. Big difference.

 

[GodFearinGunTotin]

I think this is a very accurate summary of the debate.



I think this is not accurate. Even the most sexually progressive activists agree that their preferred deviant act is only acceptable if it is consensual. I know a lot of liberals who love gay activism, and not a single one of them would condone child molestation - even if one is 'born that way'. It's not just that it is 'icky'. It is an act of aggression. Big difference.

They are prisoners of their own bigotry. Consensual and who is allowed to give it is but a construct that is used to justify the acceptance of certain things but reject others that some do not like.

 

[HoughMade]

I think this is a very accurate summary of the debate.

I think this is not accurate. Even the most sexually progressive activists agree that their preferred deviant act is only acceptable if it is consensual. I know a lot of liberals who love gay activism, and not a single one of them would condone child molestation - even if one is 'born that way'. It's not just that it is 'icky'. It is an act of aggression. Big difference.

I think that's the point. At the same time as the activists....and many non-activist who want to be "on the right side of history" repeat the refrain: "If it feels good do it", when faced with the ugly truth of what that really means, they will reject the logical end of that position.

The debate should not be about internal desires driving morality and legality, but about why​ some behaviors that may be rooted in innate predisposition (assuming that exists) may still be immoral and should be illegal.