beautyundone

still didnt answer my question directly.

what do YOU think we should do about it?

short and simple, please.

The attitude that we can do nothing but pass laws and have the police enforce them is self-defeating. We even lose track of the concept that we can do things about problems ourselves. Without the concept that we can solve problems ourselves' date=' we don't go to work on how to solve problems without government intervention. Government intervention usually consists of some form of violent takeover of another individual's life, so that the solutions we have consist of threatening other people and carrying out those threats. Further, we lose sight of why we should see anything wrong with threatening people.

 

Those who can't learn how to work with people to arrive at better solutions don't deserve in the first place to have their wishes fulfilled. They aren't qualified to judge the behavior of others.[/quote']

 

 

okay, i missed the part in which you actually stated what we COULD do.

please keep it brief, as it is late at night. lol.

i'm not having the "oh well i'll just leave it up to the police" attitude, because i want to work in the justice system with the sex crimes unit... therefore, i would be the person putting these guys away. so yes, i am actually planning on DOING something about it. but what, praytell, other than laws and enforcement and education can we do?

I agree with Metafrizzics, who says "laws my ass." If we depend on laws, we are screwed.

OKAY THEN. but what do you suggest we do?

That attitude is a huge problem.

 

What is the question that someone is waiting for an answer to?

well then you tell me, thomas, what SHOULD we do? what kind of attitude SHOULD we have?

This again is an example of the most naive thinking possible yet sadly common among the white middle-class in North America. "We have a law against that, so everything's okay."

i was just saying that there isn't a whole lot more we can do other than make laws and enforce them.

Well' date=' about half the staff where I work today were acting like preschoolers, so I'm a bit on about the emotional five-year-old stuff. The wierd thing is that the 30-50 year old crowd were doing it, not the 18-30 year olds. Whatever.

 

If I had my druthers, I would stop the practice of attempting to "protect" with increasingly aggressive laws and penalties. You have to get them away from the children, yes, but if you take away everyone who beats up children, you have a lot of children and no adults. I don't think that most of the anti-sex laws protect children from sexual predators, either.

 

What we need to put a stop to is the negative programming against human sexuality. A rapist has to feel a certain emotional negativity against sex himself to be able to use sex as a weapon. He also has to be programmed to inflict pain as a way to get what he wants. If that programming is missing, he doesn't rape. Further, if the only patterns of sexuality he learns are those that include sensitivity to the other person, he has been given a certain tendency before the time that an incident might be in the making.

 

Instead, it's a lot more like the man goes in blind, and if he messes up, his assets belong to her. When someone has to go in ignorant and blind, then take horrendous blame for any mistakes he makes, it would twist up the best of us. How do you know what's right or wrong anymore? To someone who has been yanked around long enough, those terms become meaningless even if he can parrot certain phrases.

 

I'm going to make a prophecy here. In less than forty years someone will come up with a "safe" drug to totally turn off the sexual urge in human males. Its popularity will be ten times that of Viagra. Men will use it to stop themselves from being controlled by females. I might be one of the users, too.[/quote']

 

 

well we're not going to be able to fix humanity and make them all perfect and sinless. so laws are the next best thing and locking up people that violate those laws is our best bet.

 

females CONTROLLING males? haha. that's an interesting theory, to say the least.

Part of the strategy of the rich and powerful is to keep people's time and energy tied up with petty crime and sexual hangups' date=' while they actually rape the planet and enslave whole nations on a grand scale.

 

The three largest industries are [b']Guns[/b] (the military-industrial complex), Drugs (Clandestine govt involvement in mafias to engage in racial warfare), and Prostitution (a giant male dominated conspiracy to degrade and dominate others as a cultural choice).

 

Until people stop buying the b.s. from these monsters who run everything, we're all just going round in circles.

drugs are already illegal, gun holders must have a permit, and prostitution is not legal as far as i know (in the US anyways). how would taking away laws protecting children from sexual predators further discriminate these industries?

I didn't insult you personally, just most of the population of this planet.

i could say similar things about men in general. but i'm sure there are SOME respectable ones on this board, so i won't offend them by doing so.

all generalizations are bad =)

Reported sexual assault statistics give a small insight into how problematic assault is in the United States, but only 16 percent of rapes and sexual assaults are reported to the police, according to the 1992 study “Rape in America: a Report to the Nation.” Using this figure, it means that of the 97,460 reported 1995 sexual assault statistics of rape, at a 16 percent reporting rate, in actuality 649,733 rapes occurred in the U.S. An FBI Uniform Crime Report in 1990 found reported sexual assault statistics to be just one tenth the number of rapes that actually occur, estimating up to 10 times more go unreported, and even higher for acquaintance sexual assaults.

 

Though some people question sexual assault statistics for including false reports of rape, there is approximately just a two to three percent rate of false rape reports, which is consistent with other crimes. In eight percent of reports, investigators or prosecutors deemed the case not prosecutable for some reason, which is different than a false report.

source: http://www.onlinelawyersource.com/criminal_law/sexual_assault/statistics.html

in my opinion, 2-3% is a small price to pay for the other 97%

How many children will have to die to convince YOU that there are other possibilities?

other possibilities such as... not prosecuting sex offenders anymore? grand idea.

We should grow up. I'm tired of trying to work with emotional five-year-olds.

if you were calling me an emotional five-year-old, i'll have you know that i'm an only-slightly-emotional sixteen-year-old that happens to want a career prosecuting criminals such as those mentioned here.

and how are we supposed to have non-emotional five-year-olds if we continue to say "it's okay, it's not your fault, it's society's fault. stealing the cookie was not of your own will. it was because so many people were casting their cookie-stealing thoughts upon you. shame on society... they should know better. now you eat that cookie and enjoy it." that just breeds wimps and idiots, not people with brains.

criminals should be prosecuted. they did something that THEY know was against the law. it doesn't matter how many people "influenced" them, they did it on their own. are you prepared to say that it was society's fault that jessica lunsford (sp?) was kidnapped and raped by a convicted sex offender who had been released onto the streets to continue to offend? or that it was society's fault that ted bundy killed and raped over a dozen women (around 18, i believe) while being a prestigious law school student and someone everybody liked and treated with respect? the poor thing just couldn't handle being liked, i suppose. think about what you're saying, and realize how ridiculous it is.

so we should just let them run freely doing whatever they please because they have been hurt by society? because they couldn't take the real world? because it's 'not their fault'?

If we are talking about either one, exactly what[/i'] are we talking about? Did it ever occur to you that these people may be living out the sick fantasies of other people? Did you ever think that, even without believing in psychic powers, that a group of humans could project so much of their own anger and self-hatred onto one person that they could make that person over in the image of their own worst nightmares?

that's pretty farfetched. no one is projecting anything onto these people. and even if they were, it is still that person's choice as to whether or not they are going to act upon their thoughts. if you are trying to say "it's not their fault", you are very mistaken, my friend.

YES

then WHY are you so AGAINST prosecuting them?

haha, i agree with john.

now, if we were talking about serial killers, who are pretty much already assumed to be repeat offenders, i'm sure there would be quite a different reaction.

so what's the difference between those and sex offenders? serial sex offenders are just as likely to repeat the crime as serial killers are.

you never answered my question.

but my question is: do you think having sex with a child who did not give his/her consent is a crime?

i just want a YES or a NO. nothing else. unless you're responding to someone else, in which case, do so in a separate paragraph. i don't want an essay for this question, just a single word.

haha, it can be argued from either side.

my point is, it won't work.

and i liked the dolphin/turkey analogy =(

and when i mentioned the problems with mountain lions and wolves, i was referring to the fact that people aren't exactly accepting them and they do kill people every now and then. if no one can accept/deal with wolves and mountain lions, i don't think they'll be too fond of regular lions, cheetahs, and elephants.

while we're at it, let's put dolphins in the alps and release a bunch of wild turkeys into the middle of the pacific ocean.

seriously, though. we have enough trouble with wolves and mountain lions. the idea of releasing LIONS into CIVILIAN-populated areas is one of the most ridiculous ideas i have ever had the pleasure of reading about.

Two problems:

 

a) who decides what is and isn't 'pornography'?

 

b) The three largest businesses in the world are: Guns' date=' Drugs, Prostitution. (Trillions of Dollars) The market is massive and uncontrollable. Almost half the population of the earth is involved or gives passive consent. The main point of it as an activity is money.[/quote']

 

 

yes, yes, yes. i know that. just personally, i wouldn't mind it being banned. i'm not saying it should or will be. merely stating my own opinion.

That's my problem. People perceive a "monstrous" act and they stop dealing with it rationally. They lose the capacity to treat people fairly. When thinking up schemes for prevention' date=' they go for the most neurotic ideas, the most destructive ideas. Pedophiles are used as an excuse by politicians to justify bans on manufacturing and distribution of adult pornography because some pedophiles use pornography to "tempt children." The rage, the panic, the hysteria, spread far and wide from the source. The perception of a "monstrous act" and the obsession with it has us regarding all sex, all touching, with fear, shame, and guilt. It makes us violent against perceived perpetrators. Our perception of what constitutes a perpetrator is very, very broad, so this violence, both overt and covert, can become very widespread.

 

It didn't start with an abhorrence of pedophilia, either. It started with fear and hatred of sex. It's only been a few decades that abuse of children in Western culture has even been perceived as wrong.[/quote']

 

i actually wouldn't mind pornography being banned. i don't see the point of it. but that's just me.

 

but my question is: do you think having sex with a child who did not give his/her consent is a crime? you seem to think otherwise.

Everyone did catch the fact that I thought that rape should be considered to be a form of assault, right? What I want to remove is the way that sex makes it so very special. Holding the attacker responsible for damage to someone's personal parts is quite acceptable. I'm tired of the way that sex crimes have a super special oh my god status. I'm even more tired of the way people obsess about them. Someone committed a sex crime, let's design ways to be more violent to more of our fellow humans in order to solve this problem, even if we know that doesn't work. While we're at it, let's treat all other violent crime as if it is nothing special, business as usual, and let's not worry about it unless they do something sexual. That's the mindset that I see. I also see a lot of glorification of violence by people who say bad things about sex.

that's because sex crimes involve VIOLATING someone... as in taking things they may be saving for marriage and causing unnecessary trauma to the victim. sex is supposed to be something that two people enjoy, not something that leaves one person mentally and physically scarred for the rest of their lives. and not something that should be forced upon an unwilling person.

yes, sex crimes do have that "oh my god" status because they involve violating the victim in a way that no one should be violated. ever. however, this is not saying that physical and emotional abuse go unpunished either. it's just that people are generally more perturbed by sexual crimes, as they are MUCH more personal.

How about changing that to......a few ?...

nah, that's alright =) i'll leave it the way it is.

there have been bigger events in history (fall of rome, WWI & II, etc.) and the world has yet to end

very few rapes are reported (something like 1/10). out of those, only about 16% end in a conviction. considering those statistics, i really do not think that there would be much room for false accusations. at least none that would end in jailtime.

sorry... *some* men would go crazy.