Coral Rhedd

I have a point.

I disagree. I think rape has a great deal to do with personality, both the rapist's and the victim's.

Tater, how many homeless people do you have coffee with?

I am only going to comment a bit here on pedophiles having children and then I will come back to this thread and try to address Merle's concerns in more depth. There seem to be pedophiles who molest their own children and pedophiles who do not. No links yet. Just a brief description off the top of my head from what I have studied. Many pedophiles who are able to maintain a relationship with women and marry and have children, do not molest their own children. I think the problem often lies in the elephant in the room, the problems in the marriage relationship that do not get addressed. In other words, secrets ruin communication in relationships. However, many marriages have uncomfortable secrets. There are other pedophiles, who seek out single mothers as partners or friends for the main purpose of getting closer to their children so that they can groom the children for molestation. They are really interested in kids and not women. These guys cause lots of damage. Their average number of victims is about 70 over a career of molestation. These are fixated offenders. Then there are regressed offenders, whose primary interest is women, but who will offend against children in certain circumstances. These guys will definitely molest their own children. Often they molest daughters. It is not unusual to find a family of daughters in which each daughter has been molested in turn and told to keep the secret. When they get older they tell and are often quite surprised to find out that their sisters were victimized as well. Further, among types that may seem quite heterosexual are men that I can only think of as brutalizers. They are strongly sociopathic and will batter, rape, and humiliate their wives and all their children male or female. They often force their children into having sex with each other. Their spouses are often incredibly cowed. We would be making a mistake to think that there is generally only one variety of sex offender. If someone who characterizes himself as a pedophile and never rapes, fondles, or seduces children becomes a parent, he may be no better or no worse than lots of people who become parents. However, from reading the views of pedophiles in this thread -- many of whom seem quite young -- it seems that some of them are saying that sexual activity short of rape with children should be permitted. If that is one's belief, then frankly I think that person lacks control and is full of rationalizations for behavior that is ultimately harmful to children. It don't think those people are good candidates for parenthood. Pedophilia is very difficult to treat and aversion therapy has had only small success. once someone with a pedophile mindset reaches puberty and begins fantasizing or acting out their inclinations, treatment becomes difficult. The advantage of treatment for children who behave in a sexually aggressive manner -- and they will do this as young as first grade to their classmates -- is that therapy can change the outcome. This is why teachers and counselors try to identify these children at risk. These are almost always children who have suffered multiple abuses.

I am not so cheered about my tax money being spent on the war in Iraq. I oppose that war. That tax money is taken from me forcibly to kill people I don't think need to be killed. That notion of force cuts both ways. If you want to eliminate all government force, the only option is anarchy.

Well I suppose that would depend on what you mean by taking advantage of welfare. To me it is there for a good purpose and that purpose is to benefit children. No you misunderstand me! I was not serious when I said the castration suggestion had impeccable logic. I was joking. I mean follow it. There is no reason to castrate someone for fathering a child. Castration is permanent. Birth control is temporary. The reason I suggested giving young women scholarships if they don't pregnant by college are these: 1. Girls who don't get pregnant before 18 are less likely to start that habit of serial child bearing that keeps them on welfare and makes them find welfare useful. 2. You can know when a young woman has borne a child much easier than when a young man has fathered one. The young women usually keep them in tow. Please remember that I lived 10 years on a cattle ranch. We had 10 bulls and many more cows. If there were two bulls in a pasture, we could never be sure which one fathered a particular calf, but we could almost always spot the calf's mother. She was the one being suckled. It is completely illogical. It is a good thing not to get pregnant before college. It is a bad thing not to pay child support. Why would you want to reward a bad thing?

I have long thought that we should every girl who reaches 18 without bearing a child a full scholarship to the public college of her choice. It just might work and it would probably save money in the long run. Of course, men would say that was discrimination.

Pangloss, I am surprised at you! That is no way for a libertarian to think. Besides, force is probably unnecessary. Just offer money.

It is not at all to have whole families that are homeless. The director of the nonreligious homeless shelter here tells me that families make up about one fifth of the people in the shelter. Sometimes it is as simple as the rent getting raised to the point where they cannot afford it. Often it is mothers with their children who have fled an abusive relationship. Often it is illness that has resulted in homelessness. Some families even lose home that they own because they could not pay medical bills and the hospital forces them into court. Once a judgment goes against them, their property can be sold to pay bills.

You are confused again. A contemporary is not a child to you. This means you give yourself permission to take every sexual action with a child that does not involve forcible rape. If you have done this in the past, then in my opinion, you would qualify well for a juvenile sexual offender program. If you do this in the future, you will be a sexual offender in fact. Poor guy. He will soon outgrow your interest in him. Where will you turn then? Why don't you get stop visiting with others who feed you addiction and recognise that you have a serious problem. Get some help. I am sad for you. You cannot even recognize friendship.

Here you are clearly saying that you want pedophilia to be viewed as an orientation. I have no problem with that if the word orientation is applied very broadly but orientation need not confer the right to sexual activity with children. Consenting adults have right to make these sexual choices. Children need protection. You can have all the rights to think as you please. But children have a right to a childhood.

The U.S. is also a democratic country and it is okay to try to change the law here. Let's put it this way: I don't much object to 18 year olds having sex with 17 year olds. You can parse this all you want and it is all a red herring. The issue is adults exploiting children to satisfy their own sexual needs and then trying to convince people that the child is the seducer. Gimme a break! . Children lack the ability to give informed consent. Children can be harmed by these situations and often are. The adult/child power difference is so great that coercion is already built in. I think you are dreaming mostly. But even you use the word rare. Rare. Rare does not justify changing the law. No there shouldn't. The law is there to protect children because they are not able to protect themselves. Making exceptions would only make children more vulnerable and would give seducers of children more legal wiggle room. Plenty. Pedophiles should not accepted because to do so would make pedophile aggressions against children more acceptable. Pedophiles need to be studied, understood, cared about, and treated. I think this is about as good as you are likely to get given the large numbers of adult men and women, some of whom I have talked to, who see adult/child sex, or what they call abuse, as having caused them PTSD, identity problems, depression, and an abiding fear and mistrust of others. Guess not everyone had a pleasant experience. Tolerance leads to moving the line. I think we should -- at the very least -- hold the line. I am sorry for your suffering, but I am sorrier still for what a child may suffer should you cross that line.

I am a woman. I am sexually attracted to adult men. I am also a writer and there is absolutely no thought off limits to me in the pursuit of credible writing, but I am in no danger of molesting children because my thoughts do not dwell there. No one really knows what anyone elses feelings are absolutely. We can only speculate. Your idea of romantic images of children might me my idea of an offense because I do not believe children should be used in media for sexual purposes. Talk about violence and torture all you want. I am not so focused on the dramatic instances of crime as I am interested in the slow erosion of the will that is the sexual seduction of children known as "grooming." This also harms. You know the law cares not one whit about your thoughts. Only your actions. Don't break and you don't have a problem. You can think about sex with children, loving children, being romantic with children, even torturing children if that turns you on and the law won't care. The law is a reflection of the standards of society and not the thought police of some science fiction novel. Why would I want to visit them? I think the more interesting question is why did you guys all show up at roughly the same time? Are you all the cavalry to the rescue of pedophiles who have been sadly mischaracterized as sexual offenders. Well many pedophiles are sexual offenders. We don't have to think of you guys that way -- unless of course you have some confessions to make.

For those who are interested here is a brief explanation of the role that narcissism may play in pedophilia: http://www.mhsource.com/expert/exp1050602a.html

Here is why I would never allow Ezekiel to babysit a grandchild of mine: Ezekiel is "pro sex" with children. Babysitting for my grandchild, he might decide that a rare occasion had presented itself. Ezekiel cannot even honestly acknowledge the damage that adult sex with children causes. Pay particular attention to the words "at the moment." Not only has he burden this boy with an explanation of his own feelings, but he doesn't preclude the arrival of the right moment. Imagine for a moment the confusion this boy must have. He likes Ezekiel -- I have already agreed that Ezekiel is probably very likeable -- but now he has to think about what Ezekiel may feel for him. Tell Ezekiel, what do you mean when you say that this boy feels "somewhat close to me too." How do you know what this boy feels?

What has been consistently ignored -- or carefully avoided -- in this thread, is any real understanding of how early sexual experience affects children. While one might have some understanding of your position, and even have some sympathy, the bottom line is that some pedophiles posting in this thread mostly seem to want to nudge the law ever so slightly to allow legal sexual contact with children. Is this true or not? Or do you think the laws that each country now chooses -- which define various forms of sexual contact with children as illegal -- are just fine? A simple yes or no will do.