Pedosexuality

Rape is always wrong. Where it gets complicated is determining consent.
When named brands use 14 year old girls to market adult clothing, the issue of whether the adult is necessarily "perverted" becomes questionable as well.
http://uk.businessinsider.com/14-year-old-model-raising-questions-2016-2

 

Yes, it does seem odd!

 

Well them we aren't really talking about pedophilia. Pedophelia is the desire for prepubecent children.

But yes, we do have a tendency to sexualize young teenagers. I think doing so is wrong. We also don't see it as wrong when a female adult has a sexual relationship with a 14 year old boy.

 

Well that's unquestionably wrong - so that is the absolute bottoming out - "ground zero" if you will. After that there a gradation of decreasing disgust until we arrive at the mild queasiness at a 60 year old man with a 25 year old "girlfriend".

Well we would think its wrong, being products of post-Victorian moralism, but it was not wrong for most of human history up until only few hundred or so years ago.

I wouldn't have until I had my own male children, because I would have been judging it from my own experience of being a 14 year old boy, who frankly would have jumped at the chance to have it off with any girl regardless. But now I would see it as just as creepy, perhaps more so as a 14 year old boy seems even less mentally mature than a 14 year old girl.... and also I now know how manipulative and selfish adult women can be.

 

No, and for the simple fact that a child does not possess sufficient mental faculties to consent to sexual activities.

 

https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/pedophilia

I don't think so. A pubescent or adolescent child is still a child. As far as adults it really doesn't matter

Well I don't think it's wrong between kids in their mid to late teens. A 40 year old man with a 14 year old boy or girl, absolutely.

Boys are less mature physically as well. When I was 16 (I was a "late bloomer") I had some sexual contact with another boy my age. I don't think that it's wrong, it's important kids know the risks and the consequences, but I think it's natural. I would have, and did find adults that liked me that way extremely creepy.

 

I'm not advocating pedophilia, but it's interesting to note how common it was throughout history for young girls to marry older men. Even in some US states today, you can get married at age 16. In Utah, it's age 15. In Romeo and Juliet, Juliet was a 14-year-old girl betrothed to her father's middle-aged friend. Once upon a time, there was no such thing as a teenager; you were considered an adult by puberty.

When you think about it, there is no scientific reason for having decided upon 18 as the demarcation between childhood and adulthood. If you go by biology, a person could be considered sexually mature the moment they can reproduce. And if you go by mental maturity . . . well, the part of the human brain responsible for decision making, the prefrontal cortex, doesn't reach full maturity until around age 25.

 

Yeah, certainly if you took an evolutionary view then puberty should coincide with the point of mental development able to cope with the emotional consequences and childbearing.

But back in those days we were grandparents by 25 and dead by 35. So that full mental development may have more to do with grand-parenting rather than parenting roles, and the mental development required at puberty might be to bear a child in the context of a wider tribal support network.

As our longevity increased maybe we have merged the grandparent and parent roles, having our first child at 25+. So maybe we increased the tenor of "childhood" to include what used to be the next generation of adults, whilst the former grandparent role became largely redundant and we moved to nuclear families. What we see now as teenage rebellion may simply be frustration at being retarded to a forced child-state for longer than what is natural.

The age-based demarcation is, in my view, for ease of government policing. It is much easier for a government to refer to a written record of birth date rather than to try to judge an individual's maturity. But as such, one would expect it to be set at the age of the slowest developers + a year or so to ensure absolutely that the law provides protection. I suspect our social mores followed convenient law.

So in my view, in a society of nuclear families, post-pubescent teenagers are old enough to have sex but too young to have children... .

 

Yes I would feel the same way in respect to other people and certainly for my own children. The problem I have is there is no logic to it. A 40 year old is more likely to have the experience and resources to provide for the consequent child. Two teenagers? Forget it.

My English teacher invited me to to her house to "say goodbye properly" when I was 16. I didn't take her up on the offer but certainly would have if I had the wherewithal to know what she meant. I've always regretted that and didn't find it creepy in the slightest.

 

I was never really attracted to women so I dint think any of them had that idea. I did get hit on by older men which I found creepy. Never a teacher. I tend to like guys that are younger than me.

 

Back a century or two ago, people got married earlier because they lived a much shorter life. They didn't have the benefit of waiting until their twenties or thirties to start making families.

Today we do know that 'children' under the age of 25 aren't capable of making their own decisions.

 

I think that is generated by the notion that "children" between 18 and 24 years of age aren't given the chance

 

How long?

When it is decided that children are adults.

The trend is away from that position. Drinking age. Criminalization of sex for even relatively closely aged people.

Perhaps you could explain your own obsession?

 

They're too busy worrying about their sexuality or gender identity.

Guess that's why Obama Care allowed them to stay on their parents insurance.

 

How quickly did Gays gain traction with their strive to equality and normalization? The pedophiles and beast humpers are using the same playbook the LGTB community used and the Blacks before them.

 

It wasn't quick it took decades.

There was no "playbook'. Gay people fought a sincere battle to have their rights recognized and they won because those opposing them had absolutely no rational basis to restrict them. Their arguments were pathetic. Also there were no "victims" harmed in the fight. Both pedophiles and beastialists have victims. That's the fundamental difference you won't admit because it vanquishes the core of your position.

/thread.....

 

Judgement is still out that there are no victims when it comes to the LGBT community.

 

By that do you mean that a lot of people are still resentful that they lost their battle to keep the LGBT community in subservience?

If not, maybe a little evidence would be apropos?

 

I'll use myself as an example. In any homosexual marriage, there is either no father or no mother. Having been raised by a mother who married multiple different men over the years, I felt I had no fatherly influence. IMO this cause years of alcohol and drug abuse on the part of myself and my siblings....my sister succumbed to the addiction.

I can only imagine the added stress of having Gay parents.

 

But studies have repeatedly shown that gay couples parent just as well as straight couples. Regardless, gay couples fostered and adopted children long before their marriage rights were recognized.

What's the positive spin in having couples able to do this but restricted from a legal marriage which, if anything, offers more stability to the child?

Besides this is a proxy argument. A lot of gay couples, maybe the majority (and increasingly straight ones too) don't have kids. What's your objection to their marriages/rights etc.

This is apples and oranges. You're comparing a dysfunctional family arrangement with a group of people who, studies prove, can parent just as well as heterosexuals. Of course there's going to be some bad ones just as your own experience indicates that heterosexuals don't always get it right either.

Give the imagination a break and look to some genuine research for a different perspective.

(and by that I don't mean something anecdotal from lifesitenews).

 

If nothing else but spiritual harm, the children of SSM are getting cheated out of normalcy. I have a wealth of experience from the minds of these deviants to know.

BTW: your response was all over the place with the excuses.

 

That's not a concept that's enumerated in US law.

We're a nation of individuals. There's all kinds of different families out there. There's nothing "conservative" about wanting to put everybody into the same societal box. If you want to restrict people you need to be able to illustrate some kind of provable harm and so far nobody's been able to do that with respect to gay rights. It's all just conjecture and hot air!

Anecdotal and lacking in any proof. Not a policy motivator.

Care to point them out?

 

0.6% of the population.

The patents did that to them.