Coral Rhedd

Well RedAlert, give thought to the usual techiques for inserting or extracting tampons.

Ouch! No thanks. It looks like it might hurt the user as well as the offender. Try a dog or a gun. (No smart remarks about the dog or the gun. I mean use them as a defensive or deterrent measure.)

Just so I may better understand this discussion, can someone give me an English definition of wang and choing?

If you are addressing me Vladimir, read my username. I know you are upset with me, but I am not going to respond further on the subject of culture in this thread because the subject of the thread is pedophiles. If you have steam coming out of your ears, then I am sorry. It was not my purpose to upset you.

She validated the existence of a shy, unpopular, and abused girl and made me feel like I mattered. Because of Mrs. Ryan, I was able to recognize that others' treatment of me did not have to characterize me. Really good teachers teach a great many things.

First, you do not know what race or culture I am. Second, I like to learn about many cultures. However, if a girl is twelve, I believe she is too young for sex because sex at that age focuses her upon value as a sexual object or commodity rather than on her value as a an individual in her own right with her choice of her future before her. I don't especially care whether sex with a child that age involves a piece of paper saying that it is legal and a marriage. Women have a right to a development independent of the needs of men. It is the inequality of power between a child and an adult that makes such traditions exploitative.

No, pedophiles are by definition classified as having their primary attraction to children. This is what makes them pedophiles. If they had a primary attraction to adults they would be either homosexual, heterosexual, or bisexual. Many pedophiles have no sexual relations with adults at all. In other words, they have no outlet for behaving sexually with the partner of their choices other than one which many countries consider to be illegal. There are sexual offenders who are not pedophiles. These are sometimes called regressed offenders. Their primary attraction is to adults of either sex. They will offend against children in various circumtances. If they are stressed or depressed. If they have much more opportunity with children than they do with adults. Then there are certain predatory sex offenders who will sexually assault almost anyone. These types are often sociopathic. Sometimes they can be very dangerous. They are offenders of opportunity.

If I were teaching accounting, that is exactly how I would teach it. Why? Because I know absolutely nothing about accounting. I have an English degree. English majors are as common as fleas on stray dog and just about as employable in the public school system. Because teachers are hired to teach in fields they did not major or even minor in, you get these sorts of problems. This is because public schools are in thrall to a system that priortizes a major in education above all else. They seem to think that if you have the basics of teaching down, you can teach anything. Sadly, this is not true. I shudder to think what would happen to students of algebra if they had someone like me teaching them.

I don't understand what you mean by this. Could you please elaborate? By definition, they are not heterosexual males if their primary attraction is to children. By definition, neither are they homosexual males if their primary attraction is to children. Homosexuality has absolutely nothing to do with pedophilia. Many pedophiles are primarily attracted to girls.

I dare because I think girls are people who should not be treated like a commodity. Racism is the discrimination of people based upon race alone. Once can eschew racism and still see behavior by people of other races as wrong. I would object to selling young girls into marriage by any people of any race. I absolutely stand by my statement.

Then they may be underestimating the intelligent people of this forum. Nevertheless, I welcome the opportunity to see into the minds of people who think differently from me. Almost everyone desires acceptance -- whether or not they have a particular agenda. But consider the repercussions of condeming people for their "thoughts." Think whether or not this attitude of yours might have a religious origin. God may be able to condemn people for their thoughts -- although I, for one, can see no reason for it, but we humans have no such right. Were we to begin doing this, all the countries of the world would be police states.

It can but thought also leads to making choices. There can be a choice to act and a choice to refrain from acting. I think the greater problem here is that feeding an obsession leads almost inevitably to action.

No it isn't because homosexuals have sex without adults. One of the driving forces behind our coming to accept homosexuality has been that consenting adults may choose their sex partners. The idea behind protecting child as a special class is that they cannot give informed consent because they lack the maturity and judgment to do so. Keep you eye on the ball here. Child sexual abuse is not a victimless crime. We can discuss the psyches of pedophiles all we wish and any intelligent person will acknowledge the difficulties of controlling the sex drive whatever one's orientation. However is specious to take the political language of the gay rights movement and use it to justify adults acting out their sexual impulses upon children. I think we need to distinguish between tactics and honest discussion.

And perfectly disgusting. They are being treated as property. When people are enslaved and treated as property, we have no trouble discovering our outrage. We are all sensitized to slavery as it relates to class and racism. One of the problems with child sexual abuse (and I classify all adults having sex with people under 14 as child sexual abusers) is that children have a particular position in all cultures: That of being both dependent and disempowered. Because they lack judgment and need guidance, we cannot grant them the same freedoms that we do adults. Conversely, we still need to recognize that they have certain rights. Being dependent must not mean that they are in a position to be unfairly exploited either by parents or others. This is a tricky balancing act.

The goverment here, under the tender guidance of George Bush's "compassionate conservatism" have been doing the pretty much the same thing. Sorry to here about the arson. Private charities and religious organizations do wonderful things. Here they can use a shelter address to register if they are sheltered. Some good folks offer rides or buses to the polls. Yes, and especially as it relates to single parenthood. Sometimes cultures are all but destroyed by it. I live in a largely Hispanic city. In times past, girls who got pregnant usually married. The Church and the parents made sure of that. There may have been a few shotgun weddings. Now, young men actually ask their girlfriend to have babies "for" them and they see this alone as confirmation of their manhood. There is a movement afoot (I am rather active in it.) to recognise the importance of animals as "companion animals" and a stabilizing influence in the lives of depressed people. I am glad the MS turned out to be only a scare. A friend of mine is currently waiting to hear if this is her diagnosis. I am doing pretty well lately. I recently had a most incredible bit of luck. An uncle (quite old) I scarcely knew died and it turned out he was amazingly rich. Guess who is one of the heirs.

What do you surmise it means that you can make that connection (that not everyone is measured by your own experience) and some others apparently cannot?

In my experience, landlords generally act a little differently to the poor and especially those on "handouts." With what is called "Section 8" rent assistance in the U.S., the government takes absolutely no responsibility for landlord-tenant relations. The landlords own the property but beyond meeting certain basic requirements (which they often flout), they can treat their tenants with no dignity whatsoever. They do not comply with disability law in such things as accessibility of common areas and allowing theraputic animals and service animals. Contrary to the law, they try to collect pet deposits or even deny disabled people housing.

Shocking as it may seem. However, when the Supreme Court recently outlawed this they took into consideration recent studies that indicate that young people may actually be led to commit crimes in a group because they lack the judgment that an adult has. I however, am opposed to executing anyone, even child molesters, although they cause enormous damage to their victims. We could parse crimes all night, saying that this one is worse than that one or some don't cause as much harm as others. The truth is that the law is imperfect and cannot be tailor made to individuals like a suit of clothes. We cannot say that we are going to allow exceptions to laws about child molestation just because some (few) people thought they were ready to have sex at nine and thus extrapolate from their own individual experience that most nine year olds are prepared to make such "decisions."

Children show sexual curiosity at all ages. Curiosity and an interest in having sex are not the same thing. Unless someone goes to a great deal of trouble to educate (or groom) a 10 year old to believe that sex is something that should be actually engaged in' date=' most 10 year old are content with curiosity rather than sex. They have a "tell me" rather than a "show me" desire. They look to adult for guidance, not initiation. It is a fact that the U.S. Supreme Court recently outlawed the execution of juveniles based in part upon recent studies that indicate that the judgment of 16 year olds is nowhere near that of adults. Children can be persuaded to do a great many things, but that doesn't always mean that they are applying [b']judgment[/b].

Recent discussion tries to make a distinction between pedophiles who act upon their desires and those who do not. Perhaps those who do not act upon their desires should find a word to describe themselves other than pedophile. Here is a definition from a California defense attorney's site. http://www.criminaldefense.com/sex_pedophilia.html Among police offices and lawyers, this pretty much covers the territory. I have also heard many counselors, social workers, and psychologists use the word pedophile synonymously with one who acts upon that desire. Words change over time. In the U.S., among those involved in law enforcement and victim rights, a pedophile is the same thing as a child molestor. These folks really don't care what people think -- only what people do. If people desire to have sex with children but refrain, then I can commend them only if they do not also view child porn. However the facile justifications for "improving" the law to permit 30 year olds to have sex with 10 year olds are exactly the same arguments that offenders use to excuse their actions.

So interesting that you chose those figures. That is very much what many are faced with in Southern New Mexico: $800 wages -400 =400 -100 for utilities =300 -225 food, toilet paper, toothpaste, etc. =75 -35 dollars for gas to get to work or other trans. =$40 That $40 dollars would have to cover any emergency: dental, medical, car breaks down. and all clothing and all school supplies if there are children and maybe some savings to take care of lost wages if there is illness because hourly workers to do not get paid sick leave. However, the interesting question that you raise is the idea of "gifts." If there are no jobs, then the goverment creates "pretend" jobs -- sometimes at training wages so that no one is getting something for nothing. This requires that welfare mothers work jobs that pay less than the cost of childcare. If they do not take these jobs, they lose their "benefits." If they cannot support their children -- and provide them with adequate childcare -- they can lose their children, who will then be placed in foster care so that they can be reared by a series of strangers who will be paid for taking care of them -- more than their mothers would ever have gotten in "benefits." Such a system!