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

[jamil]

What do you see as the next frontier then? Do you think as soon as they get all the RFRA and gender/bathroom things all flushed, the SJWs will just go away? I certainly don't. There is no logical reason to deny any of the rest of the various groups out there "their rights", their protected classes. They just have to get us to warm up to the idea, maybe get a few laws repealed, and maybe get a couple of tv shows with a lovable representative of their group to change a few minds and we'll be on our way.

Progressives progress ad infinitum.

 

[steveh_131]

What do you see as the next frontier then? Do you think as soon as they get all the RFRA and gender/bathroom things all flushed, the SJWs will just go away? I certainly don't. There is no logical reason to deny any of the rest of the various groups out there "their rights", their protected classes. They just have to get us to warm up to the idea, maybe get a few laws repealed, and maybe get a couple of tv shows with a lovable representative of their group to change a few minds and we'll be on our way.

I don't know what the next group of 'victims' will be for them. I genuinely don't think it's going to be NAMBLA. I don't think it's logical to assume that it will be, just because it's the most disgusting thing you can think of.

If they have to progress in that way, why not regular adult rapists? Do you predict that they'll start promoting grown men raping grown women? That seems like a more likely next step than pedophilia (keeping in mind that I find both to be highly unlikely).

 

[Fargo]

I don't know what the next group of 'victims' will be for them. I genuinely don't think it's going to be NAMBLA. I don't think it's logical to assume that it will be, just because it's the most disgusting thing you can think of.

If they have to progress in that way, why not regular adult rapists? Do you predict that they'll start promoting grown men raping grown women? That seems like a more likely next step than pedophilia (keeping in mind that I find both to be highly unlikely).

When Lena Dunham shared her childhood anecdotes about snuggling up to her prepubescent sister and masturbating at age 17, what was the reaction of huffpo/slate etc? If you think there isn't a push to normalize this stuff, I would suggest you look further into it.

 

[steveh_131]

When Lena Dunham shared her childhood anecdotes about snuggling up to her prepubescent sister and masturbating at age 17, what was the reaction of huffpo/slate etc? If you think there isn't a push to normalize this stuff, I would suggest you look further into it.

Lena dunham was called a predator by most, other than a few fringe bloggers (as far as I recall).

Regardless, show me some examples of adults with children. Some real age gaps, and I might agree with you.

 

[Fargo]

A simple google of "Lena Dunham book molest" indicates that you recall very incorrectly. 17 with 11 and siblings being widely defended isn't adequate for you to be troubled?

 

[steveh_131]

A simple google of "Lena Dunham book molest" indicates that you recall very incorrectly. 17 with 11 and siblings being widely defended isn't adequate for you to be troubled?

Of course I'm troubled, but you haven't brought up any examples with adults. The defenses I've seen of Lena Dunham is that she was still a child herself. Show me an example of a 30 year old molesting an 11 year old and being defended by the media and that would further demonstrate your argument.

And I did do a good search on it. She was widely accused of sexual assault, was she not?

 

[Fargo]

Of course I'm troubled, but you haven't brought up any examples with adults. The defenses I've seen of Lena Dunham is that she was still a child herself. Show me an example of a 30 year old molesting an 11 year old and being defended by the media and that would further demonstrate your argument.



And I did do a good search on it. She was widely accused of sexual assault, was she not?

Will 44 on 13 with forcible rape do?

The prurient hounding of Roman Polanski is over at last | Agnes Poirier | Opinion | The Guardian

Look, I don't care whether you acknowledge that society is trending in that direction. It doesn't seem that you have any interest in even considering the possibility.

Consider this, multiple civilized governments, including the French, Poles and Swiss have actively protected Roman Polanski from being sentenced on the sexual assault of a 13 year old he pled guilty to.

 

[GodFearinGunTotin]

I don't think anyone is saying some tipping point has been or is about to be reached. But there are, at the very least, the indications of, or speaking even more conservatively, the foreshadowing of green shoots out there. Many movements start with isolated instances, where people like HuffPo/slate/gawker start probing the perimeters. I think it's fair to say we're seeing that.

 

[steveh_131]

"The reason for the decision lies in the fact that it was not possible to exclude with the necessary certainty a fault in the US extraditionary request."

Doesn't sound like they're protecting him because they think what he did was ok.

 

[Fargo]

"The reason for the decision lies in the fact that it was not possible to exclude with the necessary certainty a fault in the US extraditionary request."

Doesn't sound like they're protecting him because they think what he did was ok.

Yup, cause the Swiss government was going to give "we love artistic rapists" as it's legal justification for denying extradition on a fugitive who had pled guilty. Nevermind the French and Poles.

Look, you seem to be quite certain in your faith that there is no such trend, so much so that you are appear to be holding the notion that those who harbor convicted fugitive child rapists are somehow "following the law".

As as one who is convinced against his will really isn't convinced at all; I'm not sure there is much point in continuing here

 

[jamil]

Steve, I understand your argument. And right now I don't think anyone but the most fringe leftists have any notion that this could evolve into acceptance. But to where can society possibly "progress" from where it is now? A precedence has been set that puts no definitive limit apart from relative morality. Ten years ago social justice warriors were a fringe. To where have they progressed now?

 

[JTScribe]

Of course I'm troubled, but you haven't brought up any examples with adults. The defenses I've seen of Lena Dunham is that she was still a child herself. Show me an example of a 30 year old molesting an 11 year old and being defended by the media and that would further demonstrate your argument.

Roman Polanski.

Edit - doh, already taken.

Woody Allen.

 

[steveh_131]

Yup, cause the Swiss government was going to give "we love artistic rapists" as it's legal justification for denying extradition on a fugitive who had pled guilty. Nevermind the French and Poles.

Look, you seem to be quite certain in your faith that there is no such trend, so much so that you are appear to be holding the notion that those who harbor convicted fugitive child rapists are somehow "following the law".

You're suggesting that the Swiss government really does 'love artistic rapists'? Politics, money and fame all play a role in legal injustices that occur. That was obviously what happened here. Do you think the same things would have happened were he a drug-addled hobo?

Yes, famous people do seem to get away with these things. I just don't see how this indicates a trend towards the acceptance of rape in our society.

Steve, I understand your argument. And right now I don't think anyone but the most fringe leftists have any notion that this could evolve into acceptance. But to where can society possibly "progress" from where it is now? A precedence has been set that puts no definitive limit apart from relative morality. Ten years ago social justice warriors were a fringe. To where have they progressed now?

Why not plain old adult rape? Why don't you assume that to be the next sexually progressive frontier?

 

[HoughMade]

What about consensual sex between an adult and a 12 year old? If you think that concepts of consent are not being extended to lower ages, you are mistaken.

As I have said before, when the ages of consent are eventually lowered to the 12 to 14 year old range (or lower), the stated reason will be the liberty of the child.

 

[steveh_131]

What about consensual sex between an adult and a 12 year old? If you think that concepts of consent are not being extended to lower ages, you are mistaken.

As I have said before, when the ages of consent are eventually lowered to the 12 to 14 year old range (or lower), the stated reason will be the liberty of the child.

So returning to the standards of the late 1800s is progressive, in your eyes?

 

[HoughMade]

So returning to the standards of the late 1800s is progressive, in your eyes?

I am far from the right person to identify what "progressive" is, especially in context of what the sexual libertarians believe.

I'm telling you what movements are out there and that they are NOT in the fringes.

 

[steveh_131]

This argument is getting really muddled. Let's clarify.

Our age of consent in the U.S. is quite a historical anomaly. Adult relationships and marriages with post-pubescent adolescents has been the norm for a very, very long time (note that I am not condoning it, just pointing out historical fact). I could see society trending back in that direction - but that is neither progressive, nor is it pedophilia.

Pedophilia is the topic of discussion, is it not? Pedophilia is specifically defined as an adult experiencing sexual attraction towards pre-pubescent children, typically age 11 or under.

I have seen no evidence that our society is moving in the direction of condoning pedophilia. The leading organizations supporting it have been attacked and destroyed over the last 20 years or so.

 

[HoughMade]

I guess I'll have to go back and look for the posts where someone was claiming that our society was moving towards condoning pedophilia under that definition.

 

[steveh_131]

I guess I'll have to go back and look for the posts where someone was claiming that our society was moving towards condoning pedophilia under that definition.

The OP was discussing pedophilia specifically.

The slippery slope argument began in post #24.

 

[jamil]

Why not plain old adult rape? Why don't you assume that to be the next sexually progressive frontier?

Steve, I'm not making the slippery slope argument. I do see both sides though. There is a clear line of sight to the future. Given that yesterday's "fringe" has become today's norm, and since we like to base our laws on "morality", I don't expect that continued societal progression has much reason to stop progressing beyond today's morality laws. I think the definition of rape will change. And if the left thinks it can advance a cause, I don't doubt that they'll go there.

But that's not really my argument. I'm just saying what can happen the way we operate now. If society advances today's fringe into tomorrow's normalcy, the laws of tomorrow will eventually reflect the new normal. That's just the nature of progression. The SCOTUS decision has perhaps helped that along, if nothing else, to make what was once fringe into normalcy, and thereby aiding the shift in the Overton Window. The religious right doesn't want the window to shift. The religious opponents do want to shift the window, but I get the feeling it doesn't matter as much to where as long as they can push religion out of society.

If law is based on shifting morals rather than unchangeable principle, and morality is constantly pushed leftward by progressives, then the law will shift with the window. The facile response has been to fight the law to keep the current moral standards in place. But they're going to lose that fight in the current direction of the pendulum. The right's strategy thus far of making it a moral issue has been a loser for them. It keeps the whole subject of the law in a moral realm, and allows progressives to beat them.

I'd like to think that a more resilient principle for basis of law, such as just protection of individual, natural rights, would tend to inhibit the morality shift if at least some of the purpose for pushing the window is to push religion out of society. Laws don't need to shift with the winds of moral whims. But then that probably wouldn't accomplish what the religious right wants either. So they continue to lose.

I'd liked to have seen the right push really hard to remove "marriage" from the law altogether, and make marriage what it is. A religious construct. I imagine that many on the left would fight that because there'd be less smack-down effect against religious people.

So to accomplish whatever government role there legitimately needs to be between people wanting to unite, let's make that a civil union. Let churches handle marriage and the morality it sees as necessary for the tenets of their faith. Let government register civil unions for the purpose of taxes, survivorship, and whatever else there needs to be to accommodate people who want or need to live together as a unit.

And civil unions don't need to be just about a sexual relationship. It should be no business of the government beyond administrative requirements and fraud prevention why people want to live together to join as a unit. If two elderly sisters want to move together to share resources, and declare themselves as a unit, and they want to share rights of survivorship, that's no one's business but theirs. THAT legal construct has no need for a moral basis. If the left attacks that idea, it makes their goals more apparent. That kind of construct is strictly civil and is more useful than just marriage.

Marriage should just be a religious construct. Go to your church for that. Then go down to the courthouse and get a civil union certificate, and you'll have all the legal rights granted by that civil construct. That way, Christians get define their "marriage" as restrictively or openly as their churches dictate, and the progressives get to STFU about it.