Group of psychiatrists wants to redefine pedophilia to promote tolerance

posted at 5:25 pm on August 24, 2011 by Tina Korbe

When I wrote about an objectionable spread of photographs in Paris Vogue – a spread that featured 10-year-old fashion model Thylane Blondeau styled in provocative ways — I fretted that such a magazine feature might, in some way, normalize the concept of sexual attraction to minors:

It’s often said, but bears repeating, that the TV, magazine and advertising images we absorb train our minds as to what is considered attractive — and, yes, specifically sexually attractive — in our culture. So, what does a magazine feature like this say? That it’s OK, even encouraged, to look at a child in a sexual way. …

But it’s adamantly not OK to look at a child in a sexual way, as harsh laws against pedophilia and child pornography attest. Maybe it seems like a leap of logic to move from provocative pictures to pornography and pedophilia, but again, images train the mind’s eye. The more readers and viewers see children in adult poses and in adult clothes, the less jarring it will be to those readers and viewers to see children in adult roles. It’s all highly inappropriate — and in territory better avoided entirely.

What’s crazy is, at the time, I thought we were still years away from any sane person seriously suggesting such a distorted disposition of attraction to minors — i.e. pedophilia — should be repackaged as less a problem and more a disorder to be understood and, yes, tolerated. But one group of psychologists is calling for such a redefinition even now. Megyn Kelly and Shannon Bream were just talking about this appalling push on “America Live.”

B4U-Act is a 501(c)(3) organization in Maryland that was established “to publicly promote services and resources for self-identified individuals (adults and adolescents) who are sexually attracted to children and seek such assistance, to educate mental health providers regarding the approaches helpful for such individuals, to develop a pool of providers in Maryland who agree to serve these individuals and abide by B4U-ACT’s Principles and Perspectives of Practice, and to educate the citizens of Maryland regarding issues faced by these individuals,” according to the group’s website.

Perhaps that sounds innocent enough (although I don’t think so). Let’s give them the benefit of the doubt for a second: What’s wrong with psychiatrists seeking to help those attracted to children better understand why they have that tendency? Perhaps those psychiatrists could even be an instrument of crime prevention or of after-the-fact justice. But no. Consider: At least one psychiatrist in the bunch has been known to treat child molesters without reporting them, Bream said.

Last week, the group hosted a scientific symposium to discuss a proposed new definition of pedophilia in the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM) of the American Psychiatric Association. Presenters expressed a wide range of views — but the thrust of the B4U-Act movement appears to be, ultimately, to decriminalize pedophilia, Bream said.

As all too often happens with any kind of push for political correctness, with a twist of language, the blameless are forgotten. Let’s remember whom both the social stigma against “minor-attracted persons” and the outlawing of sexual activity between an adult and a minor aim to protect. Yes, I’m talking about children, whose innocence deserves to be preserved, whose minds and bodies haven’t fully developed yet, who depend upon adults for their moral formation. Advocacy on this issue must be on behalf of those who cannot advocate for themselves — not on behalf of those who, however troubled and however tempted, still bear ultimate responsibility for their actions.

Update: At least one reader wondered my justification for the assertion that the B4U-Act movement appears to be headed in the direction of pushing to decriminalize pedophilia. According to Shannon Bream’s report on Fox News, some — although not all — of the presenters at the symposium expressed the view that some level of sexual activity between adults and children should be permissible. That sounds like the decriminalization of pedophilia to me.

Update: B4U-Act is not alone in the effort to normalize pedophilia. Big Hollywood’s John Nolte has reported on the entertainment industry’s attempt to glamorize sex with children, as well.

Update: Here’s the video from the “America Live” segment that tipped me off:


Breaking on Hot Air

Blowback

Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.

Trackbacks/Pings

Trackback URL

Comments

Comment pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 8

whatcat on August 24, 2011 at 8:36 PM

Yeah, I don’t get that either. Why would any thread author link to a site like that?

I also think it’s funny how so many that disagree with Korbe’s opinions, choose to attack her style of writing.

hawkdriver on August 24, 2011 at 8:43 PM

And the argument against pedophilic sex because “it’s against the law. It’s a crime” runs into a brick wall since homosexual sex was too, not very long ago.

whatcat on August 24, 2011 at 7:38 PM

Precisely, and then we are left with the “consenting adults” issue that the homo-apologists fall back on. What is an adult? How old is old enough to consent to sex with anyone, particularly someone older.

The 30 year old homosexual seduces an 18 year old? Acceptable, and LEGAL, right, past the “age of consent?” How about a 17 year old? A 16 year old? Getting into a very debatable area, aren’t we? Most males are sexually mature about age 13-14. Are they emotionally mature enough to “consent” to sex with a 30 year old of EITHER sex?

Then how about a 16 year old seducing a 13 year old?

These questions have not been answered to my satisfaction, and this current push to make pedophiles feel better about themselves makes this mother of a 16 year old son very nervous.

JannyMae on August 24, 2011 at 8:43 PM

kaltes on August 24, 2011 at 8:33 PM

While Tina should have (and still needs to) include a link, she didn’t. It took me about fifteen seconds to google the B4U group and go to their website.

Do it yourself and then you can kick yourself in the azz for making such a drawn out comment without yourself having looked up any of the source material and commenting on Tina’s obvious research into the subject.

Additionally, this is a blog, not a news site. Practically all of the posts here include opinion and personal analysis from the author.

If you don’t like it, I would suggest you don’t read it or go to another site to be spoonfed your pre-conceived pablum.

catmman on August 24, 2011 at 8:43 PM

I just think that it’s a shame that JetBoy got called out when he wasn’t even on the damn thread.
That is a bridge too far.
hillbillyjim on August 24, 2011 at 8:34 PM

On that you are 100 % correct. Whomever did that should be ashamed.

whatcat on August 24, 2011 at 8:43 PM

Pajamas Media article that names names, has link to documents and other stuff.

electric-rascal on August 24, 2011 at 8:46 PM

I just think that it’s a shame that JetBoy got called out when he wasn’t even on the damn thread.
That is a bridge too far.
hillbillyjim on August 24, 2011 at 8:34 PM

Jetboy has done the exact same to me, and others.

Rebar on August 24, 2011 at 8:46 PM

Yes. Puberty should be a key in deciding.

Karmi on August 24, 2011 at 8:26 PM

So you are for lowering the age of consent and raising understanding. that is what I said.

CW on August 24, 2011 at 8:47 PM

While Tina should have (and still needs to) include a link, she didn’t. It took me about fifteen seconds to google the B4U group and go to their website.
catmman on August 24, 2011 at 8:43 PM

It’s possible she got it from broadcast news (someone posted the Fox News vid link) as opposed to reading it online, so there was no link to be given.

But, yeah, I just went to Google News and entered “B4U-ACT” and got multiple news story on this. Not much work involved, lol. But it looks as if the MSM doesn’t have much interest in reporting it.

whatcat on August 24, 2011 at 8:49 PM

hillbillyjim on August 24, 2011 at 8:34 PM

No beef with you either, Jim. And I don’t disagree that if someone wasn’t already trading comments in the thread that they might not necessarily be fodder for comment. But he does the same thing. I’ve read threads about these issues where I didn’t offer a single word and have still been thrown into “the peanut gallery”. Maybe we could offer some words of thread etiquette to him also.

hawkdriver on August 24, 2011 at 8:50 PM

Just to let people know some basic facts here, pedophilia means an adult is attracted to PRE-PUBESCENTS. Since the age of puberty is generally 10-13 years, and trending younger over time (the age of puberty has dropped every decade going back to the 1800s), there is a tremendous distinction between teens and actual children.

Currently, the arbitrary age cutoff to be a pedophile is set at 14 years. This is because, by age 14, generally everyone has hit puberty and shows physical signs of sexual maturity, so they don’t look like undeveloped children anymore. It is not psychologically deviant for an adult to be attracted to a 14-17 year old, even though it is nonetheless illegal to have physical contact with people in that age range in some states. (most states “legal” is 16, but some, like California, are 18)

Pedophiles are consistently and uncontrollably attracted to pre-pubescent children. They are compelled in their attraction just like gay men are compelled to be attracted to other men. They can’t help it. Re-education camps wouldn’t be any more effective than “pray away the gay” camps would. The purpose of treatment is to get the adult to control these desires such that they do not act out of compulsion and victimize anyone. The vast majority of men who are in this position are good men who do not want to hurt anyone, and who never, in fact, do. Many of these men end up getting caught with child porn and sent to federal prison for years because of the public perception that they are molesters just waiting to happen, even though actual SCIENCE shows that they aren’t.

We spend a ton of money, police, and prosecutor resources going after these people and trying to eliminate them from society with extreme punishments, lifetime sex offender registration, and social marginalization, so it is only natural for psychologists, who want to TREAT these people, to try to confront the extreme demagoguery and try to focus society on a treatment-centered approach instead of a “lock them up forever” approach.

Considering the absurdly high costs of incarceration to taxpayers, as well as the absurdly high costs to actually arrest, investigate, and prosecute the many, many thousands of people caught with child porn each year, which has been rising sharply for over a decade now with no end in sight, it would save the taxpayers a lot of money and benefit everyone to have low-risk individuals in treatment to ensure that they do not break the law, instead of incarcerated where we have to pay to house, feed, clothe, guard, and pay their medical bills for years.

Of course, this would mean listening to the experts in the field and taking a science-based approach, instead of listening to people who react emotionally and who are ignorant of the facts about these people, thinking they are all dangerous boogeymen who must be kept away from children at all costs.

Locking up people for child porn is the #3 burden on the federal prison system (behind immigration and drugs), and unlike immigration and drugs, has been rising rapidly every year for the past decade.

kaltes on August 24, 2011 at 8:54 PM

Maybe we could offer some words of thread etiquette to him also.

hawkdriver on August 24, 2011 at 8:50 PM

Here’s my idea:

Curse Jugeared Jesus at least once an hour and you can say any damn thing you please.

(It has to be heartfelt down-home cussin’ to count.)

hillbillyjim on August 24, 2011 at 8:56 PM

kaltes on August 24, 2011 at 8:54 PM

You would allow these people near your children?

hawkdriver on August 24, 2011 at 8:58 PM

hillbillyjim on August 24, 2011 at 8:56 PM

I don’t understand.

hawkdriver on August 24, 2011 at 8:59 PM

some of us have been predicting this for years now, look back through the Gay Marriage threads on hotair from the last several years.

jp on August 24, 2011 at 5:28 PM

I remember discussing this issue back in the ’90s and saying that in the not-too-distant future pedophiles would gain certain rights as they continued to ride the coattails of the “Gay Liberation” movement.

“Oh, tut tut, that will never happen,” was what I got.

I didn’t need HA to teach me about Leftard incrementalism, and I knew how the social sciences (psychology among them) have long ago been taken over by Leftists, and how we were on the way to becoming the Roman Empire part II.

I’m guessing the ball really got rolling with Kinsey and Hite.

Dr. ZhivBlago on August 24, 2011 at 8:59 PM

B4U-Act is a 501(c)(3) organization in Maryland that was established “to publicly promote services and resources for self-identified individuals (adults and adolescents) who are sexually attracted to children and seek such assistance, to educate mental health providers regarding the approaches helpful for such individuals, to develop a pool of providers in Maryland who agree to serve these individuals and abide by B4U-ACT’s Principles and Perspectives of Practice, and to educate the citizens of Maryland regarding issues faced by these individuals,” according to the group’s website.

If the answer to this is “swift incarceration” and “prolific restraining orders around school property” then I’m all for this law. If it is not, I vehemently oppose.

This was an entirely forseeable conclusion to anyone. I am occasionally reminded of why I am Catholic just by reading a few articles from Catholic commentators. Dr. Jeff Mirus has a brilliant one on “Gay Marriage Is Straight Business.” Point 7 is particularly prophetic.

A Gay Culture Leads to Sexual Abuse of Children: The inside story of gay denunciation of the sexual abuse of children is that many gay groups promote man-boy “love” and persistently advocate for lowering of the age of consent. This advocacy is, at a minimum, tolerated by nearly the entire gay community. In this matter the script is almost always doubled, that is, one thing is said for public consumption, with the opposite affirmed on the inside. (Note: In this connection, note that while the percentage of priests involved in sexual abuse of children runs below the average for other institutions, eighty percent of this abuse is homosexual abuse, thereby making the percentage of gay priests involved in sexual abuse extremely high. All indications are that this is typical.)

BKennedy on August 24, 2011 at 9:02 PM

You would allow these people near your children?

hawkdriver on August 24, 2011 at 8:58 PM

Listen to what Kaltes is saying, do you really think that person is in a heterosexual relationship remotely capable of producing offspring?

That is one reason why homosexuality as a lifestyle is not to be tolerated. They have no long term skin in the game. It is all about the here and the now and please me mentality.

astonerii on August 24, 2011 at 9:04 PM

I counsel victims of pedophilia and experienced being attacked first hand as a child. The man who tried to molest me was in a relationship with another man and went on to have relationships with older teens since he was a well known athlete and had a fresh source of victims. Someone would say that his being Gay had nothing to do with me since I was ten, but how about the twelve, sixteen and forty-plus men he was fondling? It’s all homosexuality, unless now that term is going to be twisted.

Hening on August 24, 2011 at 6:58 PM

I hate to break it to you, but liberal “science” consists of absolutely nothing else besides twisting definitions.

All of the sexual relations among male statutory adults are genetically pre-programmed, and are therefore unquestionably wholesome and natural expressions of compassion.

Likewise, all of the sexual relations between any male adult and males aged 17 years, 364 days or less magically become completely unrelated to the concept of “homosexuality.”

Period.

logis on August 24, 2011 at 9:04 PM

B4U-Act is a 501(c)(3) organization in Maryland that was established …

Who approved them to be a 501(c)(3)? And who is contributing to them? Those names should be made public so their neighbors know who they are.

batterup on August 24, 2011 at 9:05 PM

And the argument against pedophilic sex because “it’s against the law. It’s a crime” runs into a brick wall since homosexual sex was too, not very long ago.

whatcat on August 24, 2011 at 7:38 PM

Precisely, and then we are left with the “consenting adults” issue that the homo-apologists fall back on. What is an adult? How old is old enough to consent to sex with anyone, particularly someone older.

And then there’s the nearly certain “what does consent mean, anyway?” arguments to follow. Something like the “it’s not rape-rape” is-is equivocating. Many pedophile offenders contend their victim agreed to illegal acts and the psychiatric community has no lack of “child sexuality” pushers to further such rationale along.

These questions have not been answered to my satisfaction, and this current push to make pedophiles feel better about themselves makes this mother of a 16 year old son very nervous.
JannyMae on August 24, 2011 at 8:43 PM

Yes – if anything, people need to learn to feel shame for some acts they choose to engage in. Let them derive their need for “self esteem” and “self worth” from doing positive, good things.

whatcat on August 24, 2011 at 9:06 PM

Who approved them to be a 501(c)(3)? And who is contributing to them? Those names should be made public so their neighbors know who they are.

batterup on August 24, 2011 at 9:05 PM

For what purpose. Degenerates will not be shamed into laying down anymore. They know the law is on their side, not the moral persons. Thus, it is a pointless effort. Our laws are are now designed to work in ways that prevent the society from being able to have a culture it really wants. It is forced to live in niches, while the sub cultures are granted privileges that allow it to overwhelm any resistance to it.

astonerii on August 24, 2011 at 9:10 PM

astonerii on August 24, 2011 at 9:04 PM

I don’t know what he or she is or isn’t. But he or she has been on Hot Air for a long time and offers polite opinion. I’m just asking them a question.

I’ve tried to relate to you before that I think your comments can be over the top.

I think you should pull it back a notch. FWIW

hawkdriver on August 24, 2011 at 9:10 PM

I don’t understand.

hawkdriver on August 24, 2011 at 8:59 PM

It was obviously a bad joke.

hillbillyjim on August 24, 2011 at 9:11 PM

I’m gonna go watch Bristol racin’.

Y’all talk amongst yourselves.

hillbillyjim on August 24, 2011 at 9:12 PM

Pedophiles are consistently and uncontrollably attracted to pre-pubescent children. They are compelled in their attraction just like gay men are compelled to be attracted to other men. They can’t help it.
[...]
so it is only natural for psychologists, who want to TREAT these people, to try to confront the extreme demagoguery and try to focus society on a treatment-centered approach instead of a “lock them up forever” approach.

kaltes on August 24, 2011 at 8:54 PM

Here’s the problem. Can you imagine if anyone said they wanted society to “TREAT” homosexuals to overcome their desires? Hoo boy, fireworks city. The thrust here is to parallelize them just as you suggest. Homosexuality is now not only tolerated, it’s celebrated. And that’s the ultimate goal here.

MassVictim on August 24, 2011 at 9:12 PM

Of course, this would mean listening to the experts in the field and taking a science-based approach, instead of listening to people who react emotionally and who are ignorant of the facts about these people, thinking they are all dangerous boogeymen who must be kept away from children at all costs.
kaltes on August 24, 2011 at 8:54 PM

Yeah! Darn those anti-science emotional rube parents who won’t let the caring, thoughtful experts thrust pedophiles at their kids! How could they dare even suggest child predators be kept at arm’s length?!! Much less be punished or locked up?! Scandalous!!!

whatcat on August 24, 2011 at 9:13 PM

Locking up people for child porn is the #3 burden on the federal prison system (behind immigration and drugs), and unlike immigration and drugs, has been rising rapidly every year for the past decade.

kaltes on August 24, 2011 at 8:54 PM

Come on now! Cough up a link!

Gang-of-One on August 24, 2011 at 9:13 PM

kaltes on August 24, 2011 at 8:33 PM

take a chill pill. She gave you enough info to find it with giving a link and thereby a bunch of passthru clicks to their tracker. Otherwise next thing you know, they might decide to advert on HA since so many “seem” to be interested in what they’re selling.

AH_C on August 24, 2011 at 9:14 PM

It was obviously a bad joke.

hillbillyjim on August 24, 2011 at 9:11 PM

I guess I see it now. Let’s all hold hands and be mad at Obama together? I think we can still do that and still differ on things we feel strongly about, yes?

I think we did get sidetracked though from the point that JB does the same things that we’re telling everyone else to stop doing.

hawkdriver on August 24, 2011 at 9:17 PM

Now let’s re-define Islamophobia.

Fuquay Steve on August 24, 2011 at 9:17 PM

I think you should pull it back a notch. FWIW

hawkdriver on August 24, 2011 at 9:10 PM

A polite person cannot be a bad person. The person who kindly informs you how they are going to skin you alive is a far better person, worthy of complete enjoyable respect compared to the neanderthal who does it with malicious words and movements.

Kaltes’ argument is unworthy of any respect, in any light, no matter how tiny you cut it up into pieces, not one piece of it is of any positive value to society. I do not care how polite kaltes is in the delivery.

FWIWBIASYATSTFIO

astonerii on August 24, 2011 at 9:18 PM

Birchophobia is a personal favorite of mine. Any suggestions?

Fuquay Steve on August 24, 2011 at 9:18 PM

DSM.

Diseased.
Sick.
Malignant.

profitsbeard on August 24, 2011 at 9:18 PM

That is one reason why homosexuality as a lifestyle is not to be tolerated. They have no long term skin in the game. It is all about the here and the now and please me mentality.

astonerii on August 24, 2011 at 9:04 PM</blockquote

Especially the ones who want to get married.

Pablo Honey on August 24, 2011 at 9:19 PM

BTW, Vermont’s age of consent is 16. That’s why it’s such a popular “vacation” spot for certain “tourists”. And the fact that there are no nudity laws in that state to speak of (skinny dipping is de rigeur at many watering holes) is an added attraction – as long as one is not being “lewd”.

honsy on August 24, 2011 at 9:19 PM

This is a result of changing the viewpoint that a deviant sexual ACT is really an “orientation”. So, in the past, homosexual conduct was criminalized as and ACT, but now it is an “orientations” that cannot be criminalized. But, alas, pedophilia, bestiality, necrophilia, etc. are all also deviant and criminal sexual acts, yet the same legal rationale/logic can be used to consider them as orientations too, and thus, not capable of being criminalized.

Add to this the fact that really, the only thing stopping pedophilia is “age of consent”, which is a statutory construction varying from state to state “Statutory sexual assault”. If in Florida a 12 year old girl can choose to get an abortion without parents’ knowledge or permission, why not legally be allowed to have sex at age 12? So, no minimum default age means if sex with a child happens, it’s OK unless the child alleges rape, and proves it. There is no strict legal presumption of a crime by the simple act of sex with a child.

This started with the gays, because they wanted a new view of law that benefited THEM (act becomes orientation) – and never bothered to ask how getting that law would affect other similar laws – when it was brought up, naysayers were slandered as homophobes. Now we’re starting to find out, and, true to form, gays deny they had anything to do with it.

The slippery slope is also known by another term in the law – “precedent”.

Saltyron on August 24, 2011 at 9:20 PM

Especially the ones who want to get married.

Pablo Honey on August 24, 2011 at 9:19 PM

I can respect the ones who want to get married.

OH, you mean to someone of the same sex.

astonerii on August 24, 2011 at 9:20 PM

Especially the ones who want to get married.

Pablo Honey

A surprising few want to marry, considering 10% of men are gay – or so it is claimed. ;) Even if it’s 2%, there are not many who opt for the chapel – or city hall.

honsy on August 24, 2011 at 9:21 PM

FWIWBIASYATSTFIO

Can anyone help me out with this?

hawkdriver on August 24, 2011 at 9:21 PM

What do pedos have to do with gays?

JetBoy on August 24, 2011 at 7:08 PM

You’re not going to like the answer…

Most “gays” I have met, and having a couple of genuinely gay friends I have met a lot, are not so much homosexual as narcissistic. Their narcissism manifests as homosexual behavior, but their focus is on their own pleasure first over that of any other. These are the “gays” who deride straights as “breeders” and take part in over-the-top behavior and public lewdness at gay “pride” parades.
I suspect pedophiles are of the same narcissistic bent.

Random Numbers (Brian Epps) on August 24, 2011 at 9:23 PM

It may very well be that they would never harm anyone they just look at porn. But the porn they are looking at are children being molested. And whether they are acting on their impulses they are supporting others that do and for that they should go to prison.

Queen0fCups on August 24, 2011 at 9:23 PM

Can anyone help me out with this?

hawkdriver on August 24, 2011 at 9:21 PM

I googled it and even google doesn’t know what it means.

Gang-of-One on August 24, 2011 at 9:24 PM

I have yet to hear one straight person ever recollect the day that they chose to be straight, including myself.

Perhaps you are the exception…how did you learn to be a normal moral straight person…did your pastor guide you? Were you ever tempted to go “teh ghey”? Was it a tough choice?

Pablo Honey on August 24, 2011 at 6:56 PM

The simpler explanation is that everyone is born straight, or as we like to call it, “normal.” The whole, “I was born gay, and I couldn’t help it,” line is rationalization to excuse behavior that they know is not really acceptable.

Even if you argue that some people are born gay, it’s obviously false to claim that every gay person was born that way. That’s the same as standing up and declaring that no one ever acquired a sexual perversion. Pretty much all sexual perversions are learned behavior to one degree or another, and it doesn’t take a lifetime to acquire one. In fact, the most likely time to learn a perversion is probably at the beginning of puberty, before one learns to get their satisfaction from normal sexuality.

I’d venture to say that anyone has the capacity to become a homosexual. Prisons across the world reinforce that hypothesis.

didymus on August 24, 2011 at 9:24 PM

This started with the gays, because they wanted a new view of law that benefited THEM (act becomes orientation) – and never bothered to ask how getting that law would affect other similar laws – when it was brought up, naysayers were slandered as homophobes. Now we’re starting to find out, and, true to form, gays deny they had anything to do with it.

The slippery slope is also known by another term in the law – “precedent”.

Saltyron on August 24, 2011 at 9:20 PM

Nah, I think they knew it would open the door to all the other degenerate sexual acts. Homosexuals in general are not good morally, and has already been shown, are over represented by a factor of 20? in pedophilia. I wonder if there are any studies on homosexuality and sex with animals, we all know the stereotype hamster tunnel.

astonerii on August 24, 2011 at 9:25 PM

How many of these psychiatrists are pedophiles themselves?

An aside: A doctor friend of mine once made an observation that many psychiatrists are crazy. They went into the field to try to understand themselves.

bayview on August 24, 2011 at 9:26 PM

Nah, I think they knew it would open the door to all the other degenerate sexual acts. Homosexuals in general are not good morally, and has already been shown, are over represented by a factor of 20? in pedophilia. I wonder if there are any studies on homosexuality and sex with animals, we all know the stereotype hamster tunnel.

astonerii on August 24, 2011 at 9:25 PM

I gave the gay demographic as a whole the benefit of the doubt, but you’re right, there are some who definitely knew what the effect would be.

This is an old topic, I used to debate it back in law school years ago. My friend (a shrink) and I called this out to other friends years ago. They started e-mailing us with articles on this topic recently, saying how right we were back then.

Saltyron on August 24, 2011 at 9:27 PM

FWIW BIASYATSTFIO

For What It’s Worth

Because I Am Sure You Are The Same Tall Fellow In Oklahoma?

hawkdriver on August 24, 2011 at 9:29 PM

..We spend a ton of money, police, and prosecutor resources..
kaltes on August 24, 2011 at 8:54 PM

Lots of great points. Republicans are pushing for spending cuts, yet they want drug laws, porn laws, marriage laws…laws laws laws laws laws and more laws!?

We can probably get rid of over 90% of our laws…Fed, State and Local. Get rid of lots of lawyers, prosecutors, probation officers, clerks, secretaries, police, etc…courts, jails, prisons, etc…fleets of cars, vans, and trucks. IRS is another one that needs to go, first probably.

We need less laws not more…

Karmi on August 24, 2011 at 9:31 PM

Karmi on August 24, 2011 at 9:31 PM

Would you let them around your kids?

hawkdriver on August 24, 2011 at 9:33 PM

I don’t know if pedos are born that way…I guess it’s possible, but since I’m not a pedo, I don’t know. Still, I eagerly await an answer to…What do pedos have to do with gays?

JetBoy on August 24, 2011 at 7:08 PM

Both are sexual deviants. That creates a few points of comparison.

Both violate moral and religious laws, which you know perfectly well as a Catholic. Both will struggle with that fact in their souls, as I’m sure you struggle at time. Both raise questions of how much tolerance we should have for deviant behavior, though most figure that homosexuals aren’t bothering anyone else … until they suddenly demand that the entire institution of marriage be redefined to appeal to them, or other forms of activism.

Maybe you should focus on the big points of distinction between the two groups. The biggest distinction being that children are not capable of giving consent, which immediately puts pedophilia in a very different light than garden-variety homosexuality.

didymus on August 24, 2011 at 9:33 PM

We need less laws not more…

Karmi on August 24, 2011 at 9:31 PM

You might be right, but the laws I want gone are not going to be the ones that someone else would want gone.

astonerii on August 24, 2011 at 9:34 PM

FWIWBIASYATSTFIO

Can anyone help me out with this?

hawkdriver on August 24, 2011 at 9:21 PM

Sorry, haven’t a clue as to why anyone would even want to type that, much less what it means or why anyone should bother to find out.
:)

whatcat on August 24, 2011 at 9:35 PM

It is not psychologically deviant for an adult to be attracted to a 14-17 year old, even though it is nonetheless illegal to have physical contact with people in that age range in some states. (most states “legal” is 16, but some, like California, are 18)
kaltes on August 24, 2011 at 8:54 PM

Says you and some “expert?” I look at a 14 year old boy and see a CHILD.

If it isn’t “deviant” then why is it illegal? I think that’s exactly where the pedophiles are heading with this slippery slope.

Of course, this would mean listening to the experts in the field and taking a science-based approach, instead of listening to people who react emotionally and who are ignorant of the facts about these people, thinking they are all dangerous boogeymen who must be kept away from children at all costs.

Locking up people for child porn is the #3 burden on the federal prison system (behind immigration and drugs), and unlike immigration and drugs, has been rising rapidly every year for the past decade.

Your facts leave a great deal to be desired. Indeed, most of them are pure bunk that I am sure I could produce “expert” opinions to put the lie to.

I want all children protected from pedophiles. If that means spending a lot of money to hunt down and prosecute child pornographers I will gladly donate to the cause out of my own bank account.

Emotional? Screw you.

JannyMae on August 24, 2011 at 9:36 PM

astonerii on August 24, 2011 at 9:34 PM

FWIWBIASYATSTFIO

Does it mean, anything?

hawkdriver on August 24, 2011 at 9:36 PM

Every perverse, insane scumbag that desires sex with children…..needs to be buried in a hole. Eliminated. I’ll tell you what…any scumbag POS that touches my children…will meet his fooking maker. Law be damned. They will forever regret their so called…”illness”. We need these animals like we need gays and the clap.

Maybe…just maybe…the muslims have it right on this.

Maybe..these freaks…these animals need a bit of shaaria?

Twana on August 24, 2011 at 9:43 PM

I’d venture to say that anyone has the capacity to become a homosexual. Prisons across the world reinforce that hypothesis.
didymus on August 24, 2011 at 9:24 PM

Indeed. And a great many homosexuals have children – I mean their own, not borrowed ones – e.g. from a previous marriage or dalliances with the opposite sex. I suppose they could claim Immaculate Conception, but I think it would be a hard sell.

At any rate, that fact does demonstrate that many had normal sexual relations before choosing homosexuality. That’s not even including “bisexuals” who can choose to be “gay” one night and heterosexual the next night.

whatcat on August 24, 2011 at 9:44 PM

Laws of mankind are always screwed up. E.g. a seventeen year old boy goes to prison for the Statutory Rape of his sixteen year old girlfriend.

Karmi on August 24, 2011 at 7:37 PM

Is this really such a miscarriage of justice? If a 16-year-old girl is not capable of giving informed consent to a 35-year-old man — which is the basis of the “statutory rape” charge — then why exactly is she capable of giving informed consent to her 17-year-old boyfriend?

All this rush to be non-judgemental about teenagers having sex with teenagers leads to, well, lots of teenagers having sex with teenagers.

If a girl is not old enough to give informed consent, then she’s not old enough. The only possible rational reason to treat a 17-year statutory rapist better than a 35-year-old statutory rapist is to argue that the 17-year-old doesn’t have the requisite maturity to recognize that the 16-year-old is not mature enough to give consent.

17-year-olds may be less mature, but it doesn’t take that much maturity to know right from wrong.

didymus on August 24, 2011 at 9:46 PM

It is not psychologically deviant for an adult to be attracted to a 14-17 year old, even though it is nonetheless illegal to have physical contact with people in that age range in some states. (most states “legal” is 16, but some, like California, are 18)
kaltes on August 24, 2011 at 8:54 PM

I can tell you what it IS for an adult to be attracted to my 14-17 year old – most likely fatal.

peski on August 24, 2011 at 9:48 PM

FWIWBIASYATSTFIO

Does it mean, anything?

hawkdriver on August 24, 2011 at 9:36 PM

Probably:

For What’s it’s Worth But I Am Sure You Already Thought So; Therefore Figure It Out.

Or something along those lines.

BKennedy on August 24, 2011 at 9:48 PM

I want all children protected from pedophiles. If that means spending a lot of money to hunt down and prosecute child pornographers I will gladly donate to the cause out of my own bank account.
JannyMae on August 24, 2011 at 9:36 PM

I can’t think of even one parent who would let their kids around someone who is collecting or trading childporn. If there are any, they should be locked up for child endangerment.

whatcat on August 24, 2011 at 9:49 PM

Would you let them around your kids?

hawkdriver on August 24, 2011 at 9:33 PM

People use to be willing to protect their own children … now they want Government to handle that chore.

Karmi on August 24, 2011 at 9:50 PM

I can tell you what it IS for an adult to be attracted to my 14-17 year old – most likely fatal.
peski on August 24, 2011 at 9:48 PM

“GOOD ANSWER!!”
(with a nod to “Family Feud”)

whatcat on August 24, 2011 at 9:51 PM

There is much more info at the 8:46PM Pajamas Media link above on this page.

Much more.

JannyMae on August 24, 2011 at 9:51 PM

Karmi on August 24, 2011 at 9:50 PM

That didn’t really answer the question. Would you allow them around your children?

hawkdriver on August 24, 2011 at 9:51 PM

BKennedy on August 24, 2011 at 9:48 PM

Mebbe. I’ve checked out the link to your site before. Do you think you’re making any headway up there?

hawkdriver on August 24, 2011 at 9:54 PM

That didn’t really answer the question. Would you allow them around your children?

hawkdriver on August 24, 2011 at 9:51 PM

It did answer…you just can’t keep up. Not my problem…

Karmi on August 24, 2011 at 9:56 PM

People use to be willing to protect their own children … now they want Government to handle that chore.

Karmi on August 24, 2011 at 9:50 PM

You didn’t answer the question. Are you suggesting that there should be no laws to protect children from pedophiles? If so, then screw you, too.

JannyMae on August 24, 2011 at 9:56 PM

It did answer…you just can’t keep up. Not my problem…

Karmi on August 24, 2011 at 9:56 PM

No The question was, “Would you allow them around your children?”

You didn’t answer it. You tried a deflection.

JannyMae on August 24, 2011 at 9:57 PM

Often I have put the same question to many psychology majors and psychiatry students:

“Well, What do you think is wrong with you?”

viking01 on August 24, 2011 at 10:01 PM

Is this really such a miscarriage of justice?

Yes it is a horrible miscarriage of justice.

If a 16-year-old girl is not capable of giving informed consent to a 35-year-old man — which is the basis of the “statutory rape” charge — then why exactly is she capable of giving informed consent to her 17-year-old boyfriend?

Because maybe the 35 year old is a fully realized adult male and the 17 year old is still considered a minor and immature…not even a legal adult.

It is pretty normal for 17 year old boys to want to have sex with 16 year old girls…I am guessing that 99.9% of straight normal heterosexual males have had the same urges and desires.

But maybe I’m wrong and prison is the way to go with these “rapists”.

Pablo Honey on August 24, 2011 at 10:03 PM

Good grief at this thread.
There was a time when people met and married and started having children at 15, puberty.
It’s not that crazy to understand.

oh, and pedophilia has nothing to do with homosexuality, again. Look it up, and consulting your religion doesn’t count. Most of Islam is perfectly okay with taking small girls to be their own. Sick and twisted, but they call it religion. I won’t even get into the pedophilia that is rampant in “christian” churches.
Homosexuality is not Pedophilia.

bridgetown on August 24, 2011 at 10:04 PM

It did answer…you just can’t keep up. Not my problem…

Karmi on August 24, 2011 at 9:56 PM

Got ya. You won’t answer the question.

Let me answer it for you. I wouldn’t let people like that around my kids. Some folks don’t have all the options I’ve had though. What if this person was a teacher? I sent my kid to a private school. Not everyone can. What about someone who can only send their kid to public school or daycare or any number of established environments where they don’t have the chance to separate these people you’d let free from society from their children?

Your non-answer was a dodge. Really answers volumes about where you’re coming from though.

hawkdriver on August 24, 2011 at 10:08 PM

Wow, are this many people really condoning dropping the age of consent? WTH?

hawkdriver on August 24, 2011 at 10:10 PM

Submitted without comment:

http://wondermark.com/181/

TexasDan on August 24, 2011 at 10:14 PM

bridgetown on August 24, 2011 at 10:04 PM

You’re quite fond of instructing people to not use over the top comments. Yet you say, “pedophilia that is rampant in “christian” churches.”

Really?

Ironic.

hawkdriver on August 24, 2011 at 10:15 PM

Hang child rapists.

theCork on August 24, 2011 at 10:20 PM

bridgetown on August 24, 2011 at 10:04 PM

You are simply denying reality. There is a very fine line between homosexuality and pedophilia. The majority of pedophiles are homosexuals. A great many homosexual men go after young males. These facts are well documented in a couple of articles posted on this thread, but you deny them.

JannyMae on August 24, 2011 at 10:20 PM

Homosexuality is not Pedophilia.
bridgetown on August 24, 2011 at 10:04 PM

Correct, but some “gays” are pedophiles and, due their sexual preference, choose to prey on children of the same gender as they.

That is clearly evidenced in the PJ Media article about the same topic as Tina’s post here:
“The truth of B4U-ACT is made plain by the online activities of those involved in the group. In May of 2009 a “Richard K” working on behalf of B4U-ACT posted the following on a now defunct child molester forum called Boylove.net:

For those of you who don’t know, B4U-ACT (www.b4uact.org) is a 501c3 non-profit organization started by Mike Melsheimer, an out BL [boy lover] who posts at Boychat. The goal of B4U-ACT is to promote communication between BLs/GLs and mental health professionals so they can learn about us and start to work with us to counteract stereotyping, stigmatization, and hatred.

We also want to help them develop *humane* and ethical ways of working with those BLs who want therapy to deal with society’s hatred, or other issues related or unrelated to being BLs. (B4U-ACT does *not* believe BLs are “sick” and need to be “cured”.)

I now work with B4U-ACT, and was part of the planning committee for this workshop that was held last Thursday.”

whatcat on August 24, 2011 at 10:24 PM

As one of the ‘mos, let me drop my opinion. Take it as you will.

1) Attraction (wiring) comes from both genetics (predisposition) and experience.

2) Acting on attraction is irrelevant to being wired for it.

When people ask me if being gay is a choice for me, well, sure it is; it’s the easiest choice with the least consequences. I am attracted to guys, it’s not due to being molested as a child, and that’s the way it works.

If we were in Nazi Germany, I would have a hell of a choice. Because I’m tall, blond-haired, and blue-eyed, it would have been off to the SS breeding farm — and had I not performed, not only would I have been killed, but my entire family would be subject to either being killed due to their “inferior” genes, or sterilized.

Could I perform in that situation? I’ll bet I could figure out a way to do it. But I’m not, and in the situation I’m in, the best choice for me is to follow my attractions to men.

Once you get past that, the rest is easy. No, you don’t have to redefine marriage to fit my personal choice. No, it doesn’t require that the force of law be put in place to keep you from firing me because of it; that’s your business decision, and while I think it’s a dumb one, it’s yours to make. No, I don’t need quotas, and I can function perfectly well being held to the same standards as your other friends/employees.

And in no manner will I ever tolerate pedophilia. EVER. I didn’t tell you you had to change the law to make things convenient for me, and I’m sure as hell not going to support them demanding it.

The problem with the gay and lesbian community is that the vast majority of them have had it drilled into them that to EVER criticize another gay person’s behavior or in any way pass judgment on their sexual activity makes you a race traitor. That’s why it’s been hijacked by opportunistic perverts like Dan Savage, NAMBLA, and the Obama Party. As we’ve seen in this thread, it gets to the ridiculous point where the vast majority of them are completely incapable of even condemning pedophiles because they’ve been so conditioned to not do it.

northdallasthirty on August 24, 2011 at 10:26 PM

I’ve seen this coming for years. The entire campaign to legalize gay marriage is really only to give a new legal definition of the word marriage. Knowing that the left is never satisfied with any victory, the new campaign will be to give new definitions to “consenting” and “adult.”

It will begin with daytime TV and the morning shows running stories about “loving, long term” relationships between a couple that began when one was an adult and the other a child. Diane Sawyer will eventually run a really hazy screen story about how a pedophile and his young partner suffer harrassment from the public.

It’s no longer a slippery slope. We have fallen off the cliff.

TugboatPhil on August 24, 2011 at 10:26 PM

You’re quite fond of instructing people to not use over the top comments. Yet you say, “pedophilia that is rampant in “christian” churches.”

Really?

Ironic.

hawkdriver on August 24, 2011 at 10:15 PM

Quiz:

Which professional is more likely to be a pedophile.

A. Marine biologist
B. Architect
C. Professional baseball player
D. Priest

Hint: http://www.google.com

Pablo Honey on August 24, 2011 at 10:30 PM

Because maybe the 35 year old is a fully realized adult male and the 17 year old is still considered a minor and immature…not even a legal adult.

It is pretty normal for 17 year old boys to want to have sex with 16 year old girls…I am guessing that 99.9% of straight normal heterosexual males have had the same urges and desires.

But maybe I’m wrong and prison is the way to go with these “rapists”.

Pablo Honey on August 24, 2011 at 10:03 PM

I’m sorry but I have never understood that argument either. Someone else on the thread made the case that it’s perfectly fine for an adult to be sexually attracted to a 14 year old.

Now, I can see a different sentence for the 17 year old, based on his immaturity, but I fail to see how the 35 year old is taking advantage of the girl any more than the 17 year old is. Why is it normal for the 17 year old but not the 35 year old? And what if we make it a 35 year old woman and a 16 year old boy? I can’t begin to tell you what I would want to do to a woman who messed with my 16 year old son.

JannyMae on August 24, 2011 at 10:30 PM

Pablo Honey on August 24, 2011 at 10:30 PM

Teacher. It wasn’t in the list.

hawkdriver on August 24, 2011 at 10:32 PM

My turn to play.
.
So, what’s the problem with decriminalizing pedophilia (which is really the target of B4U-ACT via the APA) ?
.
The problem is that throughout human history, pedophilia has been considered abnormal, like homosexuality. Parents have always defended their young against threats. Even animals do. That pedophilia happened, as an open secret at best, and as a death offense at worst depending on one’s status and one’s family’s / clan’s abilities, is easily explained: Parents defended their young … but not necessarily the young of others.
.
Roll the clock back a bit, and the concept of human rights disappears; far back enough and ethnicity (Greek, Egyptian, Phoenecian, …), tribe, clan and family suddenly become deciding factors … in who is protected and who is expendable.
.
I vote “no” on rolling the clock back, and I do not see that the APA has the competence to assert that pedophilia is somehow normal / acceptible.
.
Why link pedophilia and homosexuality? Aside from a strong subset corolation (even mentioned in a few previous posts), there seems to be a political link. I recall an article or two (perhaps links are in the HA archives) indicating that the political organizations and movers and shakers in the homosexual / LGBT / whatever community/communities are unwilling / unable to reject objectives / political planks / ideological links / etc. with the pedophile community.
.
That 2 or more consenting adults prefer to do the nasty doesn’t particularly bother me, as long as I and mine are not affected. This includes public issues, like public health. An increase in cases of communicable diseases, like AIDS and hepatitis, affects me and mine, in much the same way local, regional, and maybe even national, cases of tuberculosis, cholera, malaria, typhoid and smallpox do.
.
It may be that some homosexuals really are born that way. I don’t buy the genetic explanation, but a hormonal imbalance during pregnancy might be enough to cause the brain to develop like the other sex, and there’s some evidence for this. But I suspect that many more are made, and via experience. I even believe that their brains are/get wired this way, and the behavior really is compelled; we are dealing with the human sex drive. If this experience happens at 25 or older, I’m not going to get real worked up. But 14 and under is clearly a problem, and this is a big slice of the pedophile target zone.
.
Pedophiles seem to be created by experience. Genes, hormones, drugs … none of them result in a plausible explanation. Maybe their brains get wired as well; they claim to be compelled … but so do kleptos, and serial hand washers, and serial rapists and serial murderers …
.
The B4U-ACT group, via the APA, and possibly with APA support, is trying to reshape modern society. The problem is that, clearly in this case, they’re wrong, and this is seen by inspection.
.
The cost to society will be high, specifically, I expect to see more Ellie Neslers, and simply because some doubtfully-unbiased shrinks tried to move a serial behavior from a serious category to a non-serious one.

Arbalest on August 24, 2011 at 10:33 PM

Pablo Honey on August 24, 2011 at 10:30 PM

Hint: most of those priests were not pedophiles. They were homosexuals molesting adolescent boys. I thought we established that the two are not in any way related.

And your bigotry is showing.

JannyMae on August 24, 2011 at 10:33 PM

Which professional is more likely to be a pedophile.

A. Marine biologist
B. Architect
C. Professional baseball player
D. Priest

Hint: http://www.google.com

Pablo Honey on August 24, 2011 at 10:30 PM

Oh, so that’s how you want to play, Pablo?

Which community’s international organization, representing it to the UN not only endorsed and supported a pedophile group as one of its members for nearly a decade, but, in line with said group’s objectives, openly advocated for the abolishment of age-of-consent laws and decriminalization of pedophilia?

That would be the gay and lesbian community.

You like to claim all Christians are pedophiles. By your evidential standards, there’s far more evidence that gays and lesbians are. Want to apply the same standard?

Or are you going to start backpedaling when you have to do that and making a fool of yourself?

northdallasthirty on August 24, 2011 at 10:36 PM

Pablo Honey on August 24, 2011 at 10:30 PM

Teacher. It wasn’t in the list.

hawkdriver

BINGO ! ! ! We have a winner !!!!

honsy on August 24, 2011 at 10:37 PM

I’ve seen this coming for years. The entire campaign to legalize gay marriage is really only to give a new legal definition of the word marriage. Knowing that the left is never satisfied with any victory, the new campaign will be to give new definitions to “consenting” and “adult.”

It will begin with daytime TV and the morning shows running stories about “loving, long term” relationships between a couple that began when one was an adult and the other a child. Diane Sawyer will eventually run a really hazy screen story about how a pedophile and his young partner suffer harrassment from the public.

It’s no longer a slippery slope. We have fallen off the cliff.

TugboatPhil on August 24, 2011 at 10:26 PM

I agree with that except for one minor semantic quibble. I would say the objective is not “to give a new legal definition of the word marriage”, but rather to un-define marriage so it has no meaning at all.

whatcat on August 24, 2011 at 10:43 PM

I agree with that except for one minor semantic quibble. I would say the objective is not “to give a new legal definition of the word marriage”, but rather to un-define marriage so it has no meaning at all.

whatcat

BINGO ! ! ! First runner-up!

honsy on August 24, 2011 at 10:45 PM

Pablo Honey on August 24, 2011 at 10:30 PM

Your link was pretty useless, and your quiz was badly worded… I’m not aware of any statistics available on the percentage of pedophiles in any of those occupations.

Certainly, priests get the most press, but that only serves to skew what the casual observer believes.

Oh, as an aside… you realize that even if you think the statistics support you, that you are diluting your argument? I’m not sure if you’ve heard, but priests are not a part of all Christian sects.

malclave on August 24, 2011 at 10:47 PM

northdallasthirty on August 24, 2011 at 10:36 PM

Not easy voicing your persective in your community. Much respect.

hawkdriver on August 24, 2011 at 10:49 PM

Now, I can see a different sentence for the 17 year old, based on his immaturity, but I fail to see how the 35 year old is taking advantage of the girl any more than the 17 year old is. Why is it normal for the 17 year old but not the 35 year old? And what if we make it a 35 year old woman and a 16 year old boy? I can’t begin to tell you what I would want to do to a woman who messed with my 16 year old son.
JannyMae on August 24, 2011 at 10:30 PM

Many jurisdictions do make a distinction with “Romeo and Juliet” laws when the age difference is close and so the punishment (if any) is less.

whatcat on August 24, 2011 at 10:53 PM

Of course, this would mean listening to the experts in the field and taking a science-based approach, instead of listening to people who react emotionally and who are ignorant of the facts about these people, thinking they are all dangerous boogeymen who must be kept away from children at all costs.

kaltes on August 24, 2011 at 8:54 PM

So pedos are to be understood and tolerated, not castigated and denounced for victimizing, raping and exploiting children.

The mind reels…

catmman on August 24, 2011 at 10:54 PM

Not easy voicing your persective in your community. Much respect.

hawkdriver on August 24, 2011 at 10:49 PM

Earned respect is the only kind worth having. Thank you.

northdallasthirty on August 24, 2011 at 10:59 PM

Many jurisdictions do make a distinction with “Romeo and Juliet” laws when the age difference is close and so the punishment (if any) is less.

whatcat on August 24, 2011 at 10:53 PM

And I agree with that, and I also agree that there is a difference between a 17 year old girl and a 16 year old boy, vs. A 35 year old woman and a 16 year old boy. So, I guess I got caught in a bit of a double standard.

BUT, back in my day, there was justification made for 21 year, old boys dating 16-17 year old girls based on the old “girls mature earlier than boys” argument. It’s a conundrum fer sher…

JannyMae on August 24, 2011 at 11:02 PM

Homosexuality is not Pedophilia.

bridgetown on August 24, 2011 at 10:04 PM

And as has been repeatedly stated in these comments, this isn’t the issue. The issue is pedos using the same strategy as the gay lobby to begin gaining acceptance for their behavior in the community at large.

To which the gay lobby pish-toshed and many commenters here still ignore or outright refuse to acknowledge.

And here we are.

catmman on August 24, 2011 at 11:09 PM

I learned a lot on this thread tonight. Watch for your children closely.

hawkdriver on August 24, 2011 at 11:15 PM

It’s not just some fringe psychologist whackos: the Baton Rouge Advocate refuses to print articles supporting Gov. Jindal’s law banning convicted pedophiles from using Facebook and other social media to stalk children, though the ACLU’s pro-pedophile position gets plenty of print.

mabryb1 on August 24, 2011 at 11:17 PM

Many jurisdictions do make a distinction with “Romeo and Juliet” laws when the age difference is close and so the punishment (if any) is less.
whatcat on August 24, 2011 at 10:53 PM

And I agree with that, and I also agree that there is a difference between a 17 year old girl and a 16 year old boy, vs. A 35 year old woman and a 16 year old boy. So, I guess I got caught in a bit of a double standard.

Naw, not a double standard. Some things are very cut & dried and some aren’t and it’s not always easy to know where dividing lines should be.

BUT, back in my day, there was justification made for 21 year, old boys dating 16-17 year old girls based on the old “girls mature earlier than boys” argument. It’s a conundrum fer sher…
JannyMae on August 24, 2011 at 11:02 PM

Back in my day “safe sex” meant your parents didn’t find out (or there would be hell-to-pay!). I imagine most of us remember those teenage years when “love” and hormones didn’t always lead to the best behavior.

re: the 21 yo & 16 yo. I don’t think it’s just because that one is legally an adult/one isn’t so much as where a person is at 16 and at 21. No matter how mature the guy/girl are, the worlds are just too different. You move the years up to 31 & 26, the life dynamics are more in sync and they’ve both had at least a tiny nibble of a reality sandwich.

whatcat on August 24, 2011 at 11:22 PM

Two things:

One- the advancement for Man/child relationships is sadly alive and well in America. I spent time working with fellow detectives on cases involving them. NAMBLA is the name of the organization. One of their mottos is “Sex by eight is too late.” No sh**.

Two- I watched years ago CSPAN or some similar channel where the Brits in Parliament were arguing changing their laws to allow sex with minors down to sixteen or less. There were actually politicians IN THE PARLIAMENT supporting the law.

It was sad and I knew sooner or later our socialists here would try the same thing.

Protect your children. Like the girl said into the TV. “They’re here.”

archer52 on August 24, 2011 at 11:23 PM

I was wondering how long it would take for one of the puritans here to blame this all on the gays. Just didn’t think it would be the second f***ing post.

Vyce on August 24, 2011 at 5:34 PM

NAMBLA is a gay organization.

NEA Republican Educators Caucus chairwoman Diane Lenning protested the award because—by her reading of a story in Jennings’ book One Teacher in 10—she thought he broke Massachusetts law in 1988 by not reporting a sixteen-year-old gay high school student’s relationship with an older man. Three days later, the caucus ousted Lenning as chairwoman over her stance against gays, and later that month The Washington Times published a letter from Jennings saying the accusations were hurtful, inaccurate and potentially libelous. CNN subsequently confirmed that the student was above the age of consent in Massachusetts and not sexually active.

One wonders whether Jennings sued Lenning (he didn’t), and how CNN determined that the 16 year old was not sexually active.

It’s nice to know that 16 is above the age of consent in Massachusetts. That says a lot.

unclesmrgol on August 25, 2011 at 12:12 AM

Comment pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 8