Age of consent, paedophilia, NAMBLA etc.

[Bowyn Aerrow]

This is immoral and should be sanctioned....

Morality... One of those things that never change and is a reasonable argument against all manner of things.

I can sympathize with someone who was born with homosexuality AS LONG AS .......

Homosexuality is wrong, its a very small group of people that are effectively fighting for their own rights to seek sexual gratification in an immoral manner.

1. Is some kind of mental or psychological disease, these men need to be treated by doctors, not judged from some inquisitor. Every case is different, obviously. Every homosexual needs help.

Yes I changed Pedo with Homo - however these arguments are very, very reminiscent of the bad old days when LGBT were 'treated' for their 'sickness' with things like institutionalization, and being treated to electroshock therapy. Hell I can point you to forums that discuss us LGBT with the same arguments being presented here.

So I can understand why so many confuse pedastry with homosexuality, because the arguments against it are pretty much the same thing.

I think we will do well to steer clear of morality and making judgment calls about the mental/emotional well-being of other individuals since so many consider us sicko/perverts who are clearly immoral and unnatural and lots of other things.


I have a pretty clear definition between abuse and love. This is due to personal experiences. I do not condone abuse. It is a subject I dislike talking about or thinking about.

However, much of human history points at the fact that older being with the young is pretty typically of the human species.

Until the mid 20th century it was common - very common, for an older man (30-50) to marry a teenaged girl (13, 14, 15) No one batted an eye at that. Even marriage with younger girls took place - an not one appeared to mind. It still takes place in many countries and cultures today.

Greek and Roman cultures had pederasty, it was open and consensual and no one fainted over the idea of an older man having sex with a boy. It was acceptable - no not just accepted, it was often expected and applauded at since it was considered a normal, and needed situation for a boy to grow up to be a man.



Yes for 2000 years society has had a problem with man-boy love - the problem wasn't the age the difference the problem was gender. homosexuality, as we all know is morally reprehensible and since morals never change, we cannot accept such sickness in our society.


Considering how many late teen/early 20 something (so they claim, I wonder at their real ages) are pursing me and my few adverts that I have placed out there, clearly there are youth who want to be with an old man 'that way'.

From the threads placed here where people are asking if a 20-30 year difference is a 'problem' and by how many of our members say 'oh now, age is not an issue' it appears there is an acceptance of youth being with old.

How much of our distaste over a 13 year old being with a 30 year old is based on the programing society gives us over general 'human nature' is a hard call to make. We are beaten over the head with high level cases and all of this constant talk about the subject that I seriously doubt anyone has a 'natural' unbiased view on the subject.


Considering all the tales of youth lying through their teeth about their age to pass the age of consent laws to be with an old person - clearly this desire is a two way street.

Not too long ago a 30 something year old came on the board telling us a 16 year old lied saying he was 18 and suddenly now that we have this new 'fact' we can't handle the age difference. This wasn't molestation, this wasn't an older guy knowingly pursing a child, this was a child who knowingly lied to place himself in the 'safe zone' to be with an older man.

BTW This little lie is what makes me wonder at the real age of some of the replies I have gotten to my ads - They look a wee bit younger than their claimed ages of 18, 19, 20.... How common is this really?

Yes abuse takes place - I know that from personal experience, however there is the flip side where there are (as much as this idea may offend us) young "children" who actively pursue adults.

Way too often we hear tales of men (20-30 year olds) being 'hoodwinked' by a 13, 14, 15, 16 year old girl who matured physically pretty early and uses make-up effectively. His real crime? he failed to ask for ID.

From the pms and emails and talks I have had with kids (early to mid teens) I get a strong indication that a lot of teens desire nothing more than to be with an adult. Why? I have no idea. It exists and too many 'teens' don't want to openly talk about their feelings on this matter.

They don't admit it publicly because of the shame attached to the situation. Many do not pursue it due to the fear of ridicule. I have been asked way too many times 'Does this make me abnormal/crazy/sick/etc.' when a kid confesses his interest in older guys.

I have been to other forums where 'children' are terrified that their lover (a legal adult) is in trouble for being with them and they all claim the same thing: I love my BF/GF soo much.... These situations are not contrived, abusive, coerced.

So not only are there older people seeking youth, there are youth seeking older people.

Why? I have no idea - you humans confuse me. Is it 'right' or 'wrong' - I think that is a very hard call to make and we need to consider that individual humans are very unique, the needs of one is often not the needs of another.

Again I'm not talking about abusive situations.

I think in our mad rush to protect from abuse we are trying to bury the needs of individuals and set a standard which mayn't apply to all (both young and old). I suspect that many humans are hardwired to be attracted to youth. It most likely served a purpose in our evolution. I think humans may be hardwired for a certain attraction to the old. Especially in homosexual men where there is a lot of 'Daddy/Son' type relationships.

If it is hardwired and if it served a purpose in the survival of the species, then it is not a sickness nor a perversion it is actually 'normal' behavior and instead of trying to force ourselves to change to meet these 'moral codes' we need to face up to the fact that humans are what they are.

I'm not suggesting that we suddenly set the age of consent to age 4 either.

[Pix]

I can sympathize with someone who was born with homosexuality AS LONG AS .......


Yes I changed Pedo with Homo - however these arguments are very, very reminiscent of the bad old days when LGBT were 'treated' for their 'sickness' with things like institutionalization, and being treated to electroshock therapy. Hell I can point you to forums that discuss us LGBT with the same arguments being presented here.

Important difference: homosexuality involves people who can give consent, pedophilia does not. You seem to be assuming all morality is about things like prudery whereas mine is about whether a person is violated or not by their mental ability (and thus includes things like whether or not children should be allowed to sign contracts). If you want to challenge my moral & ethical outlook the way you have then it would be more accurate to compare it to adult siblings or even say a father marrying an adult daughter who is able to give full consent (which I'd have a response for, btw, but that's beside the point).

IOW, what I actually said and that it's not based on the Bible or slut shaming but rather on if a child can give informed consent and that sex with one who can't give consent (heterosexual, homosexual) is abuse and exploitation at best and one I compare to exploiting children in sweat shops where they're equally disempowered and not mentally able to stand up for themselves and the psychological & social forces brought against them. If someone can convince me that children can be expected (as opposed to say 1 in a million) to give informed consent I'd change my mind, though in that case I'd push for children (at whatever age) to become full adults in society with the right to vote, sign contracts, go to the bathroom any time they wanted (not currently allowed in many schools), buy their own guns, get a driver's license (they may need specially designed cars, however), and everything else adults do. Because it's not prudish sexual ethics that's the key feature here as you seem to be assuming but rather the ethics of free will and accountability.

I've never seen an argument against homosexuality that was like that....unless you count that we're possessed by demons and therefore have no free will.

[nfisher1226]

While I can concede some points, IE much of what you said about the two way street and some youth obviously wanting to be with adults, I take exception to the example of the historical commonality of young brides.

It is true that throughout history the practice of marrying off young teenage girls to older, and hopefully wealthier men was common, accepted, and viewed as proper. However, I seriously doubt that all of those girls got what THEY wanted. Maybe for a select few they actually wanted to be with the older man, but it is extremely likely that a lot of girls were basically trapped by circumstances into a lifelong relationship that they did not want, couldn't escape, and did not find fulfilling in any way.

As for pedarasty it too had historical significance, but just because certain ancient cultures viewed it as OK doesn't mean that they were right and we should follow their lead. Ancient people also thought that the world was flat, practiced human sacrifice in some cases, castrated boys to preserve their singing voice, etc ad infinitum. There have been times and places where female circumcision was considered right and proper because women should not be able to derive pleasure from sexual contact. In some places it is still practiced.

Pedarasty was practiced in a certain time and place under a drastically different set of circumstances than the world of today. We're talking about city states that literally needed every able bodied man to be trained as a soldier, with absolute discipline, just in order to ensure the survival of the city in the event of an invading army. Under those circumstances young boys were taken from their mothers and fathers and given to a soldier as what amounts to an apprentice and master type relationship. The soldiers were usually younger and unmarried, and thus quite segregated from the female population. Without the use of a woman, the soldiers used what was at hand for their needs, with the added bonus of enforcing submission. Actual intercourse was viewed as reprehensible, showing that even as they practiced pedarasty these cultures recognized that there was a boundary.

My point is, you cannot use history to condone acts based on the fact that other cultures practiced and condoned those acts. The fact that other people in another time and place did things a certain way doesn't mean that their actions weren't at times barbaric.

To put it another way, what is wrong with child trafficking, pedophilia, and many of the other things that are under discussion, at least in my view, is that it takes away the younger person's right to decide their own fate, or an older person with all of the power forces or coerces a younger person to do something they would not have chosen freely, or at the very least we're allowing a young person to make a potentially unwise and potentially very damaging decision before they have the tools to make it in a mature way.

I resent anyone claiming that my argument here is in any way applicable or parallel with homosexuality. My points are not about community standards of what is sinful. My point is that every person has a right to decide their own fate without more powerful individuals using them for their own means. Pedarasty was practiced under conditions of open warfare and servitude. Child brides were generally not given any choice in whether or not they wanted to marry. A child being seduced by an older adult is being victimized. A child who seeks out an adult for a sexual relationship is getting in over their heads and doesn't understand the ramifications of what they are doing. These various situations share the same family of flaws.

[nfisher1226]

Pix beat me to the punch, I was replying to Bowyn Aerrow. His response was also substantially similar to mine.

[Bowyn Aerrow]

You both missed my points.

I cannot sit here and try to make what I said clearer. So I'm not going to even try.

[Pix]

You both missed my points.

I cannot sit here and try to make what I said clearer. So I'm not going to even try.

I believe it's you who has missed our point, a point that has never been used to condemn homosexuality (and I've seen a lot of reasons given to condemn us, including the ones you gave which are NOT our reasons).

Granted, you said a lot more that I didn't address but that due to time. For example, the world has changed a lot from those past times you described and what was true then is no longer practical today for so many reasons such as now girls have a future whereas before about all they did was pop out babies and take care of a home (and interesting enough men such as Edgar Allen Poe married their preteen cousins back then and thought nothing of it but there are people today who say if gays can marry then men will marry their underage cousins!), adults and kids weren't segregated and therefore had other ways to connect besides sex (so that genuine love and affection was more believable back then than it is today), and for the last few decades most kids are kept in a bubble for better and worse that prevents the development of maturity & common sense that people the same age decades ago would've already developed (and back then they also had a lot more oversight from large families and tight knit communities, for better and worse, than they have now so that predators were more likely to be turned away, unless the family approved of the said predators or the predators were royalty and/or the legbreakers of said royalty). That's just off the top of my head, I'm sure I could add more if I took the time. (ETA: I'm thinking in terms of thousands of years, btw.)

And because kids want to have sex with adults doesn't mean that therefore they're ready for sex or that adults don't knowingly and willfully take advantage of their gullibility and lack of impulse control to cause them real harm or even when they're just "taking what's offered" that they're therefore excused to display the same lack of impulse control and sense. I don't expect kids (especially today) to show good sense or good impulse control, but I do expect that of adults and believe those that don't shouldn't be allowed to walk freely among us. There's also the ethical question of authority figures having sex with those who must answer to them which is pretty much the case with any adult & minor (just ask Jeffrey Dahmer).

This and more went through my head as I read your post but I didn't have the time to go into it and I felt would only detract from the main point which I believed you missed anyway.

[nfisher1226]

Respectfully standing by what I wrote, and siding with Pix on a lot of his (though not all). I did read the entire post that I was responding to, and I tend to read with comprehension. It was understood and not agreed with. I gave many of my reasons for what I saw as flaws in the logic, but as Pix pointed out there's a certain lack of time preventing me from doing a full dissertation.

[dougbynight]

I believe its not the age that's important; rather it is the difference in ages. It is unacceptable for a 20 year old to have sex with a 14 year old and it is appropriate to ban this in legislation. However is is wrong to criminalise a 16 year old who has sexual experiments with a 14 year old. (16 is the age of consent in UK)
The problem is that society has so deamonised paedophilia that it is not possible to discuss objectively in a court of law the degree of culpability in any specific case.

When I was in my 40s a boy of about 14 offered me sex and showed me his naked body as an encouragement. I was attracted to him but I nevertheless told him he was too young and refused him. I am sure he was a very sad boy who lacked in affection and was trying to find real love (not sexual).
I hope I would have behaved in the same way whatever the law had said.

[Ekwarph]

I believe its not the age that's important; rather it is the difference in ages. It is unacceptable for a 20 year old to have sex with a 14 year old and it is appropriate to ban this in legislation. However is is wrong to criminalise a 16 year old who has sexual experiments with a 14 year old. (16 is the age of consent in UK)
The problem is that society has so deamonised paedophilia that it is not possible to discuss objectively in a court of law the degree of culpability in any specific case.

When I was in my 40s a boy of about 14 offered me sex and showed me his naked body as an encouragement. I was attracted to him but I nevertheless told him he was too young and refused him. I am sure he was a very sad boy who lacked in affection and was trying to find real love (not sexual).
I hope I would have behaved in the same way whatever the law had said.

I don't know how it is in UK, but I guess lawyers won't spend time on the case "a dangerous pedophile aged of 16 fell in love with a 14 yo person"

[MisterTinkles]

You cannot specify an age of an "adult", or when a child becomes an "adult".

I have met 10 year old kids who are more mature, educated, and verbally eloquent than anybody over 30 that I have ever met. Do I think these kids should be allowed sexual contact? HELL NO.

I have met MORE than my tolerated share of "adults" over 20, 30, 40 and on, who act, think, and speak like three year old toddlers. Would I even TOUCH them for sexual contact? HELL NO.

Physical age has nothing to do with sexual understanding, as most "adults" just think sex is for "getting off".

The physical nature of BEING sexual does have to do with physical age, as your body and sex organs need to be fully developed and in working order. THIS you can put an "age" on .

As with breeding, I also think that consensual sex needs to be licensed. Any brain dead, diseased, moronic sack of crap can get pregnant or have sex. People who want to have sex/kids NEED to be psychologically analyzed to make SURE they are mentally, physically, medically, and emotionally adjusted enough to be allowed a license to breed or have sex.

This would allow the maturity of the person to be measured to see if they actually are "old enough" for such contact between two people.

Age limits are fine, as long as they work with other subjective's to measure the "adultness" of an individual. Personal merit should account for something.