Age of consent, paedophilia, NAMBLA etc.

[Pix]

This is basically an organization that questions the stigmatisation of paedophilia and argues that sexual relationships between adults and younger children can be harmless and even beneficial as long as there's mutual consent. They wish to undermine the notion that children and teenagers are incapable of making their own decisions and sexually liberate themselves.

No, it's about making children into sex objects usable by perverts.

If they were truly about liberating teens and children into making their own decisions then they'd instead try to make them into legal adults who could do all the things adults can do such as vote and sign contracts (like maybe from that military recruiter wanting that 10-year-old boy to sign on the dotted line). Choosing to have sex with other adults would only be one more adult choice they could then make.

However, I have not met a single man promoting NAMBLA who believed that. That means they don't believe kids can make adult decisions and therefore don't want to empower kids, they ONLY want to remove protection from exploitation offered to kids from creeps like them where they are still the authority figure who can sexually gratify themselves on children.

Btw, make it legal for children to have sex with adults and many parents will become pimps (some already are).

I for one, believe that the general attitude towards paedophilia is very harmful. Much like none of us chose to be LGBT, I'm under the very firm impression that people who are attracted to prepubescent children are equally unable to choose or control their inclination.

I consider equating homosexuality with pedophilia to be VERY harmful and playing right into the hands of bigots who want to ignore that homosexuality is about informed, adult consent. Pedophilia is not about that consent. Nor is necrophilia, rape (some people are driven to do that, too, and porn caters to that interest with "rape flix" btw), or bestiality. When I have attraction to an adult woman she can both know herself well enough to know what she wants without being easily manipulated (unlike a child and most teens) and can give informed consent.

A child, an animal, a corpse could not and even if I felt attracted to such then it would be up to me to control it because those I'd be attracted to could not legitimately consent as an adult can and therefore it would be a crime to move in on them just as it would be a crime for me to get children to sign (and enforce) contracts that made them my slaves at a sweatshop.

It's not all that unusual for citizens, especially in smaller towns, to react violently towards people they (sometimes falsely) suspect to be paedophiles. I remember, at one point I spotted a woman in my own town handing out papers accompanied by a picture of a man and a textual description of his criminal history which invlolved sexual child abuse, for which he was sentenced to many years in prison. Apparently he had moved to our town and she wanted to raise awareness. I asked her where she had gotten the information from, to which she replied "my sister heard of it from some of her friends". I was shocked by the way people trusted the paper with absolutely no reasonable evidence provided.

Not unusual? I never heard of that. Oh, that people believe things without basis, sure, but if he were convicted then he'd be on the registry and if he was not then that woman could be sued for everything she was worth, and probably would be.

If you believe our attractions are beyond our control, it's obvious that there's nothing inherently wrong with being attracted to something criminal. Therefore it makes no sense to prosecute people of a certain inclination.

I understand we can't control who we're attracted to. I can sympathize with someone who was born with pedophilia AS LONG AS they recognize children can't give consent and work to control that part of themselves.

That said, makes perfect sense to prosecute them for having sex with those who can't give informed consent.

Do you support NAMBLA's rights to advocate such taboo opinions and what's your take on paedophilia as a whole? No attacks in this thread please, I find this genuinely interesting to talk about!

Advocate? Sure. Their ideas need to be publicly refuted and it's a slippery slope when people aren't allowed by the government (as opposed to the public, mind you) to speak on taboo things (at least within decorum, no NAMBLA rallies at Disneyland, for example, though if Disneyland CHOSE to allow that then that should be their right, just as it would be the right of the public to stay away that day and maybe forever after).