beautyundone

are you saying that you do not think there should be laws against rape? do you have ANY idea how much harm that would bring to anyone of the female gender? men would go crazy; they would rape without thinking twice, because it would no longer be illegal. it would be like legalizing murder.

if a woman tells a man "no", he is required by law to back off at that moment. if he proceeds to have sex with the woman, he has raped her. she did not give her consent. it doesn't matter how much the woman may have led the man on or how much he thought she "wanted" it. he has committed a crime by ignoring her "no".

It's one of the other things that I am tired of seeing used as an excuse to ban pornography, sexual devices, and some sexual practices. A lot of the people, and I am just talking about what I have seen with my own eyes, a lot of the people who want sexually explicit materials banned aren't themselves grown up. They carry a hugely unhealthy measure of self-hatred in them. They are violent. One person I know who postured about keeping sexual information away from his children also allowed those children to run wild, vandalize the neighborhood, and steal whatever wasn't nailed down. Another such person made a career of beating her children as painfully and in as prolonged a manner as she could any time she felt like it and could excuse it. A whole coven of them at the elementary school I went to had to be able to hold that posture. It was the only thing they had to prove that they had any connection whatsoever to anything that could even be mistaken for "human decency." I could really use a means to rub their faces in the fact that "decency" requires a lot more of a person than that they simply not have sex with certain people.

many of those circumstances mentioned above would be considered crimes. sexual abuse is not in any way "covering up" other child abuse. it is a form of it.

by the rules of normal people, those kinds of people are not considered to be perverts. there are going to be neurotics and looney people in this world. they'll find SOMETHING to be paranoid about no matter what. you can't stop them from doing this unless you lock THEM up somewhere. for being extra protective of their kids. is that a crime?

^yes, i've heard of cases such as that one. in those circumstances, i do believe that if the person has the hemorrage removed (or whatever they do to make it go away) and are proven to be aggressive no longer, they should be let go. at that point, they are no longer a danger to society and have not purposely done anything wrong.

then again, this also makes me think of the movie 'identity'. anyone ever seen it?

i'm going to have to agree with pangloss here...

you've said variations of the same exact idea you originally posted here over the past 6 pages. if you have something new to contribute, by all means, please do. but if not, there is no need to repeat your point. it has already been stated.

and your ideas on adults being charged with owning pornography is quite radical. i haven't heard of any adults that are charged with pedophilia (having sexual relations with a child) because they own porn. nor have i ever heard of them being charged with ANY other crime just for owning porn. if they are purposely showing it to kids, that's one thing. but owning it is an entirely different thing. if it were true that owning pornography which could possibly be discovered by children were a crime, i know of quite a few people who would be in jail.

as far as i am aware, adults and children are two different categories. therefore, you're saying that adults swapping pornographic images of other adults will be charged with pedophilia?

that is completely untrue. i have never heard of such a case.

i didn't read the entire thread, as it was rather long. but here's my two cents:

it can be either genetic or a developed behavior. some people are genetically predisposed to mental disabilities such as antisocial personality disorders; whereas others are abused or treated in a certain way that would cause them to be so violent. most of the time, you hear about serial killers that were abused as children, blah blah blah. but there are cases of serial killers who were raised in a happy environment. in the first case, it would likely be a learned behavior, or perhaps a combination of genetics and learned behavior. in the second, it would be genetics.

some radical groups use these as excuses for serial killers behaviors, saying it "isn't their fault" because they were either genetically predisposed to being the way that they are or have been mistreated, causing their behavior. regardless, they are still a danger to society and must be locked up for the good of the public.

^ you are confusing me. a lot. are you saying that pedophilia or raping a child is okay because it is someone's "sexual preference"? being attracted to children isn't a sexual preference. especially the ones that haven't even gone through puberty. it's a very serious problem and is completely wrong, no matter what.

it also sounds as if you're saying locking up pedophiles is some sort of conspiracy.

and it would be quite helpful if you could make your posts a little more concise. i'm having difficulty following you.

i think you're looking in the wrong place, buddy.

we're science geeks. most of us don't know much about football haha.

then again, i'm a girl that doesn't know squat about football anyways, sooo...

go find a football forum

i've only had like, one or two of them. i remember one: i was jealous because a friend had gotten tickets to a concert or something that i really wanted to go to. she kept bragging, but i said "well, it doesn't matter. this is a dream. you don't REALLY have those tickets." hah. she was mad. then i woke up.

i've always been curious:

is it something you're born with or is it a trait you can acquire through practice?

i wasn't watching the coin.

i agree. as long as you are not attracted to children. children cannot make decisions for themselves. now, if we're talking about a TEENAGER who has consensual sex with an adult, that's one thing. i'm talking about pedophiles. the ones that rape little children. NO ONE has a right to rape ANYONE. no matter what their sexuality.

at one point in time, i had a friend toss a coin and i correctly guessed the side it would land on almost 15 times in a row. is this abnormal? if i was distracted, i couldn't do it. i just went with my gut reaction. it was odd haha.

That doesn't mean that you can correctly assume that every sexual act with someone who is underage is abuse. It is also very possible to abuse someone's sexuality without any overtly sexual behavior or illegal activities. Compulsory sexual morality is perpetrated by a system of physical and mental abuse that is all but invisible but causes tremendous damage to its victims. Yes' date=' this damage is like the damage caused by sexual abuse. I firmly believe that it is a form of sexual abuse. It is the most prevalent and the most damaging. It also makes us hate anyone who wants to try to help us out of the system of abuse.

 

To tell you the truth, if some child's life is ruined because someone groped him when he was seven years old, we've got something else wrong here. From my perspective what damage follows is because his family, his therapists, and maybe his teachers and law enforcement do things to him because he is no longer a human being to them. He is a "victim of sexual abuse" and he could very well be exposed to more injury from his caretakers because of the taint of sex than if he were groped a hundred times. Doesn't anyone stop to think just how hard the allegedly straight and moral caretakers of children are on them when it comes to sex? They can be more than abusive enough to cause all sorts of post-traumatic stress disorder. They will force the child to attempt to deceive himself about who abused him and how. They will simply blatantly tear the child apart mentally just to be sadistic. They will do sneaky little tricks to him just to hurt him. No apologies to anyone that this statement offends, but "sexual abuse" as I think it is defined by many of you is nothing special. Making it special takes something away from other survivors of abuse, distracts us from knowing anything useful about child abuse, and helps blind people to the real abuses that occur that are far more prevalent than overt sexual misconduct. So that is just one more reason not to give a care about whether someone's abuse is sexual or not. It is also a very good reason not to believe that every overtly sexual act is abuse.[/quote']

 

 

okay. let me clarify something. the people i truly detest and believe are sick and horrible idiots are the ones that actually FORCE anyone (child or not) to participate in any kind of sexual activity.

^ agreed

azure, i love deep thoughts by jack handey. they're hilarious haha

anyhow, zahi, i understand what you are trying to do, but i assure you that post will not change a thing in the minds of those here. each time a christian posts something like that, it only further discourages people from considering christianity to be anything other than utter bull. your attempts at 'saving' these people from the 'grasp of satan' is doing nothing but annoying them. i suggest that, if you do not want to talk about science, you not be on a SCIENCE forum. perhaps this post had been made to prove a point using a decent scientific argument to somehow challenge evolution, it would be considered valid. but it is not.

however, the lawyer knowingly went ahead and pursued a sexual relationship with this girl. this is how many online predators are caught and kept from hurting other minors. most of these people are online stalkers. the police had conversations with the man talking about what he was going to do with the "girl" etc. he's a sick guy; he should have been in SOME kind of trouble. the fact that he happened to be a lawyer was pure luck for him. the fact that he had a buddy who was a judge was even more lucky.

i am unaware of the mcmartin case. would you be kind enough to provide me with a brief summary or a link to an article?

i am not quite sure what you're getting at. if you could summarize the point you are trying to make, it would be quite helpful. as of now, i have no earthly idea what you find wrong with prosecuting child molesters.

first of all, there is plenty of warning as to when a hurricane will hit, giving all people a good 48 hours to know for sure whether or not they should be seeking shelter/leaving their homes. it's not as if they are smack dab in the middle of the storm and being told to turn around and go back into it. if they've waited that long, they won't be able to make it to the shelter in that sort of weather.

i would know what kind of damage abuse can do to a child, but personally, i would rather be beaten down than raped. i don't know about you, but i consider rape/child molestation to be a much more personal and violating crime than any other form of abuse. true, children do not deserve to be subject to either form, but i believe that if they were faced with the choice, they would choose physical abuse as opposed to sexual.

i can't help but feel that you are trying to relate this to the MJ case talking about the lack of evidence some prosecutors have and the determination to prove someone did something wrong, even if they do not have sufficient reasons to believe so. are you relating it to that specific case? or is my mind just linking the two?

just curious, but i recall seeing something on the news the other day about a lawyer (i forget where the case was located, but i believe it was in the oklahoma/kansas area?) who was caught by police attempting to meet and have sexual relations with whom he believed to be a 14year old girl (in reality, it was an undercover cop), and it had been made clear to him that she was underage (ie she stated her age many times). then the judge, a friend of this lawyer, dismissed the case for ridiculous reasons, claiming that because it was not an actual child and the man had not actually had sexual relations with this 'minor'. i am strongly opposed to the judge's decision and believe it was simply because he was friendly with that lawyer that he let him off. so corruption in the justice system can go either way, you know. it's not just one-sided. anyhow, did anyone else hear about that?

i got rather lost in the large essay thing you wrote, but from my understanding, you were saying that oftentimes people are charged unfairly for child molestation and things are blown out of proportion?

first of all, very few child molestation cases are actually reported, let alone prosecuted. and very few of those lead to convictions.

here are a few statistics i found (even if the above was not the point you were trying to make, i thought these would be interesting to share)

-1 in 4 girls will be sexually abused by age 18.

-1 in 6 boys will be sexually abused by age 18.

-250,000-500,000 pedophiles reside in the United States.

-Convicted child molesters who abused girls had an average of 52 victims each. Men who molested boys had an astonishing average of 150 victims.

-The typical child sex offender molests an average of 117 children, most of whom do not report the offense.

-Long term effects of child abuse include fear, anxiety, depression, anger, hostility, inappropriate sexual behavior, poor self-esteem, tendency toward substance abuse and difficulty with close relationships.

-Sexual victimization may profoundly interfere with and alter the development of attitudes toward self, sexuality, and trusting relationships during the critical early years of development.

-Victimized children had IQ’s 13 points below the general average of 100, as well as severely depressed reading abilities.

-Sexually victimized children appear to be at a threefold risk for substance abuse.

-Approximately 95% of teenage prostitutes have been sexually abused.

-1 in 5 violent offenders serving time in a state prison reported having victimized a child.

-2/3 of all prisoners convicted of rape or sexual assault had committed their crime against a child.

-The typical offender is male, begins molesting by age 15, engages in a variety of deviant behavior, and molests an average of 117 youngsters, most of whom do not report the offense.

-More than 1/2 of all convicted sex offenders are sent back to prison within a year. Within 2 years, 77.9% are back.

-Like rape, child molestation is one of the most underreported crimes: only 1-10% are ever disclosed.

-The behavior is highly repetitive, to the point of compulsion, rather than resulting from a lack of judgment.

statistics courtesy of:

http://www.rasac.org/education/statistics.html

http://www.yellodyno.com/html/child_molester_stats.html

scary, huh?

oh, i see what you thought. yes, i suppose i did word that rather oddly. oh well.

apology accepted

Slippery slope fallicy

 

Its not always untrue' date=' but it isnt nessesaraly true just because it superficially seems to make sence; in the abscence of any evidence, its just as likely that viewing images would sate their desire as it is that it would stimulate it.

 

If somethings worth getting upset about, then its worth getting upset about in an accurate and factually correct way [/quote']

 

 

i'm rather confused... lol. i stated it from both potential views and included another possible argument. that's all.

personally, i don't see the point to pornography in the first place. but then again, that could be because i'm a female. however, that's rather off-topic. moving on...

i think that the policy regarding no child pornography is perfectly reasonable. those that look at child pornography (in which the child is obviously still a child) will undoubtedly have an unnatural attraction towards children. these people are much more likely to become child molesters than your average joe who looks at regular porn. child pornography only fuels the attraction towards the children for an individual, thus making them more likely to offend. (though i suppose one could argue the other way around, saying that it gives them an outlet for their desires, but we won't go there.) i also believe that, because children cannot make decisions for themselves and are not yet legal adults (obviously), they should not be allowed to participate in pornography. this is like saying that children should be able to vote or drink, none of which are allowed. i believe that many of the rules regarding child pornography are set in place because the children are often unwillingly forced to do it and are sometimes sold into the porn industry, as opposed to it being their own personal choice. (what kid would CHOOSE to do something like that?)

by arresting those possessing child pornography, we are:

-stopping potential sex offenders

-stopping offenders period (they know it's against the law)

-decreasing demand for child pornography

-thus decreasing production

-thus preventing children from being subject to participating in the porn industry.

people who lust after children are sick. imo, ANYONE who lusts after children should be locked up.

Another example is that of one hundred men gang-raping a woman. Assuming that each man who participates in the act gains identical satisfaction and also assuming that satisfaction is additive, and that dissatisfaction is comparable with satisfaction, then if (dissatisfaction of raped woman) < (satisfaction of a man from raping)*100, then using the same similar reasoning it is okay for the woman to be raped for the good of society.

that right there makes me want to kill someone.

that's just plain awful.

i've never experienced that.

however, at times when i stand up suddenly or make a large movement, much like what luxnor was talking about, i "black out"... my vision starts getting fuzzy and black dots appear everywhere and then everything is completely black before clearing back up again. very odd sensation

I must reveal a secret. I like creationism. No, I don't believe a word of it; I like it because it challenges our thoughts about evolution and forces to really think about the concepts. The problem is the people behind creationism are fanatics and if you give them an inch they will run into the schools setting every book that has the letters evol on fire, tear apart any picture with a monkey, make every class a bible study, and promptly send us hurling back to the dark ages--chasing our neighbors with pitchforks, screaming "witch."

ROFL!!!! nice...

229 230 248 197 198 216

something odd is that they're all within a certain range: 197-248. that's not that big of a range. maybe that has somethign to do with it?

btw, is your friend someone that would use complicated codes or ones that would be fairly simple?