Talk:Pro-pedophile activism/Archive 6

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.
← Archive 5 Archive 6 Archive 7 →

Contents

Proposition to remove NPOV notice

I say that we need to split this page into two sections when it deals with the arguments for and against... If you read Manual of Style, Words to Avoid you will see that the word "However" is mentioned there when it's used in the way that it is on this page. (I specifically refer to paragraphs 3 and 4 of the "Objectives of the Movement" section, but there are other times when this "However" is just better hidden within the text. Impression is being created that quotes ran on as paraphrases, and therefore an oppinion of the editor is being presented as one of the original author. For now i will not change anything, not to start up another revert war. Beta_M talk, |contrib (Ë-Mail)

Sounds like an OK idea. - Ta bu shi da yu 15:58, 25 Sep 2004 (UTC)
Recent edits have implemented this, but it is still far from ready for removing the tag. See recent edits of selectively quoting sources in very pov way. 216.131.220.133 17:31, 11 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Danish Pedophile Association

The Danish Pedophile Association (DPA) has not been re-formed. A group of its former members have only decided to make its website available. According to its website:

"We would have liked to have had sufficient resources to re-establish a counselling for pedophiles, but realizing the state of things, we find this impossible for the time being. For this reason the purpose so far is solely the continuation of a website in order to give the public access to more varied views in the debate on pedophilia. No meetings, no members, no statutes, only this informative website on the Internet as a unique source of scientific information regarding pedophilia and related topics. Any remaining references to the DPA on this website are to be considered "historical material" regarding the now abolished association. What will happen later has not been decided yet. The former association's P.O. Box has been closed. The group behind this new website calls itself the 'DPA Group 04'."

--Zanthalon , 03:00, 29 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Image Order

Paranoid made the following edit summary "Due to the way Wikipedia formats floating images, the order should apparently be reversed". Actually this is ot totally correct. The way images are formatted is determined by the skin applied t o the page. If a user is using Classic, Nostalgia or Cologne Blue, the images appear one way since the floats are not cleared. Users using MonoBook will see the images vertically, since each float appears below the preceeding one. Since the default skin for Wikipedia is MonoBook, I have changed the order back to the way it was before. --Zanthalon , 16:16, 7 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Weasel Words, Part II

"This view does not take into consideration the research that shows that in the early stages of a child's development they are unable to make informed and clear decisions. Many pyschologists view teaching young children about sex as being damaging to children, and it is only later in life that they are mature enough to handle these concepts."

What research? Which psychologists?

"Objections to the ethical framework are that a child is not mature enough to be able to have the freedom to withdraw from an abusive relationship and can be very easily coerced into maintaining this relationship with a pedophile. In most Western countries, the consent of parents and ongoing communication with them is not a consideration when prosecuting child abusers. Also, many child psychologists would not agree that a child's relationship with a pedophile is in harmony with that child's normal development."

As far as I know, nobody has ever publicly spoken out against this ethical framework. We need substantiation of these 'objections to the ethical framework'. Otherwise, this paragraph looks like nothing more than an attempt by Wikipedia to distance itself from a socially unacceptable viewpoint.

And once again, which child psychologists? --Zanthalon, 16:44, 27 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Confusion

Confusion.. MORE RESEARCH

I think it is important to discuss research into the issue. If you are narrow minded then please don't read this.

1) All organisations groups tend to share some common goals, however it is up to the indivuals within those groups to follow them openly and not devisivly. Any research into these groups because of the nature of our society (i.e. we only get to here about child molesters/child porn consumers who are not good with computers/those involved in the childlove movements which may or may not be child molesters or child porn consumers.)

2) The child love movement DEFINETELY has men and women that are interested in people below the Age of consent, it also has people to whom sexual abstinence of this kind is the only option because they suffer from conflicts when trying to judge their sexuality/deviance relative to the wider world. But it may contain people who don't believe in its ethos.

3) They seek justification for their beliefs with like minded individuals, this is clear to me in general and i also think it is HEALTHY, these people are humans not demons - however this is an opinion perhaps they are demons and I am being decieved, this point is here to illustrate an imporant point, the infinite experimental regress, common in philosophy we have to accept some tenants as truth in order to build further truth. Therefore if we accept the child love movement at its word then fine they are not DEMONS and we can progress, however most people find it easier to accept that they are DEMONS or just sick or something.

4) They seek a community, it is in my OPINION that this community concept is essential in the reduction in CHILD ABUSE cases, governments and organisations are obviously concerned that these groups are engaged in underground illegal activities and hence take measures to restrict them. However people to need a community, scientifically this has been proved (see below)

5) Scientific studies - It has been proven scientifically that when people of 'deviant' sexual behaviours, especially of a violent nature including pedophilia have been involved in a community the chances of their reoffending is decreased. (In canada pedophiles who have been released after offences have been integrated into society as opposed to being named and shamed, the positive results of such a treatment are astounding, 70 per cent decrease in re - offending, compared with the British Penal services reduction of 10 percent. (PS the full story outlining this is extermenly lengthy i suggest furter research if you are interested.)------ http://www.guardian.co.uk/child/story/0,7369,1353673,00.html ---- (May not be valid in a years time!!!)

Besides the above, open scientific debate on the subject is usually recieved with scorn, mainly because anyone who 'shows' anything positive about childhood sexual experiences is labelled as a pedophile. There is a logical inconsistency with this as I will procede to show.

First of all, in a society where this issue is so hated, you have to have a tremendous amount of courage to take the subject on, therefore of the people who do take the subect on there will be a large percentage with a vested interest in popularising the notion that sex with children is right. However this does not make it true that all that do the research are pedophiles, it just highlights how emotive this issue is. In fact before Homosexuality was 'decriminalised' in the UK, scientists that researched it came under the same critisism, now that it has been legal for at least a whole generation open and frank discussions of the subject even in non-scientific establishments without fear of judgement and recrimination.

This badly worded 'essay' should clarify what I think, I don't advocate sex with minors because it has not been shown to be free from harming them! Then again nor as any form of sexual activity, Throughout my research of all things weird and complicated and difficult to moralise, this one is by far the hardest, as a scientist I HOPE that censorship does not get in the way of science and has a human being I hope that freedom of speech and a lack of censorship doesn't lead to the suffering of children due to abuse. It is clear that these are the two competing forces at work... MORE RESEARCH NEEDS TO BE DONE!!!

OKAY, this is very opinionated, for that i applogise, I did not draft it so there may also be logical holes in my reasoning - please email me on this. Just to clarify so I dont recieve abusive emails, i AM NOT CONDONING SEXUAL ACTIVITY WITH CHILDREN OR ADOLESCENTS! nor should any scientist though we often as individuals do, even though we represent a group.

Image:Ok magazine 89 cover.jpg

Note: This image, Image:Ok magazine 89 cover.jpg, has survived the ifd process. However, it is currently tagged as fair use, which explicitly does not apply to images that are not used in articles on Wikipedia. Consensus needs to be reached as to whether the image will be used in the article or not. If the consensus is that the image will not be used, it should be relisted on ifd. – Quadell (talk) (help) 16:14, Jan 1, 2005 (UTC)

NAMBLA Allegations and the Childlove Movement

I am fully in favour of including information about allegations that convicted sex offenders have been either members of NAMBLA or otherwise associated with that organisation, but to use these allegations -- and much of the 'evidence' recently placed here is nothing more than that -- to indict the entire Childlove Movement is tantamount to calling all Americans evil because of the alleged actions of Charles Graner and some other prison guards in Iraq. Moreover, there is already an entire article in Wikipedia devoted to discussion of the now largely-insignificant NAMBLA. Therefore, I do not think that that discussion belongs here, other than a reference or link to the NAMBLA article (which, incidentally, already exists). They rightfully belong in the NAMBLA article itself.

I fully support Samboy's call for NPOV and a fair presentation of both sides of the issue. But whilst I responded to the call to provide documentation and evidence for the views and objectives of the Childlove Movement, those opposed to the movement have failed to provide more than weasel words and moral outrage in the guise of objective 'proof' of society's opposition to it. Therefore, we have an article heavy on scientific and academic quotes backing up the claims of the Childlove Movement, with unsupported claims by 'many researchers' and 'most of society' condemning these views tacked on like afterthoughts.

The only way we will get real NPOV is when those who wish to express opposition to this movement are able to provide tangible quotes or studies that either clearly refute the claims of the movemement or are able to name the 'many researchers' to whom they are referring. Pointing to accusations and allegations against a single organisation is certainly not the correct way to go about it. --Zanthalon , 00:38, 10 Jan 2005 (UTC)

disagree completely. these are clear examples that the advocacy movement is sadly drawn to acts of child abuse and worse. And whats the go with deleting the JAMA article? I hope your conselling is going well - truly. best wishes Erich 02:46, 10 Jan 2005 (UTC)

The JAMA article is not mentioned ANYWHERE in this article. Therefore, there is no need to reference to it in the references section.
As for clear examples, they are not. They are allegations and accusations. Did the Curley's win their case against NAMBLA? Has it been proven definitively that Curley's killers were NAMBLA members? Has a clear link (possession of literature does not define a clear link) been made between NAMBLA and any of these people? If there has, then show proof, but do not cite newspaper articles that simply talk about accusations and allegations.
And once again, there is a whole article, NAMBLA that discusses the situation with that organization. All of the 'proofs' provided here deal ONLY with NAMBLA. You cannot use flimsy evidence against a single organization to 'prove' the actions or intent of the whole movement.--Zanthalon , 03:46, 10 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Actually, Shanley pre-dated NAMBLA, was present at the founding of the wider movement. Separately, let's remember that this section is trying to capture the public reaction to the movement. The shock of these cases are undeniably a big part of the public perception of the movement. The response that the public's reaction is unfair is reflected in the article.
On the Curley lawsuit, as far as I can tell, the court never ruled (and never will) on whether the killers were members. NAMBLA was dismissed from the suit under the legal technicality that it is not organized as a corporation. See [1]. I have not found any court ruling that denies the factual allegations made in the suit. So, to your point above, the Curley's never "lost" this point of fact.
Thanks. 216.131.220.140 00:42, 13 Jan 2005 (UTC)

This is a fight for freedom, not to molest children, but simply to exist.

The article discusses the "Childlove Movement" as if it were a single, cohesive organization with well-defined goals. An implication is made that childlovers are chiefly concerned with repealing age of consent laws to facilitate engaging in sexual activity with children. While this may be true for some childlovers, it is not a defining characteristic of the childlove movement, as no consensus has been reached among childlovers on this issue. To imply that all childlovers are lobbying to molest children and posess child pornography is akin to saying that all Muslims are terrorists, or that all gay people have AIDS.

It is precicely this type of biggotry and prejudice that is the focus of the childlove movement. Namely, to demand that childlovers be treated as fairly, as individuals, with the same rights and freedoms afforded to every human being. Period. Childlovers wish to be judged for their actions, not their sexual orientation. To be judged by what we do, not by what we are. As it stands, the public's perception is that most, if not all, pedophiles molest children, posess child pornography, and need to be imprisoned indefinitely simply for what they are. Pedophiles are society's last scapegoat... the only group of people that is still politically correct to hate. The only pedophiles that the world sees are those who molest children, which gives the false impression that most pedophiles are monsters. In fact, the vast majority of pedophiles do not molest children (not something I can prove, or would include in a wiki article, but something I know to be true). But you will never see these pedophiles on TV, because only those who break the law are exposed. It may be difficult for most people to understand why so many people who have done nothing wrong must remain in hiding, but the death threats I have received for speaking out as I am here today, despite never hurting a single child, speaks volumes.

The childlove movement boils down to this: We are your neighbours, your friends, your doctors, your policemen, your husbans, your sons, etc... and while not all childlovers are good people, many of us are, and deserve to be treated as such. That so many people would like nothing more than to imprison, kill, torture, or do worse, to an entire group of people based on the actions of a few is reason enough for the childlove movement to exist.

This has got to be one of the most asinine things I've ever read on a wikipedia talk page. You're advocating criminal behavior. If you're one of MY neighbors, then I want you registered with the cops. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 67.170.224.208 (talk • contribs) .

This is a fight for freedom, not to molest children, but simply to exist. As such, I think the article needs to be changed. In particular, the introduction requires a complete re-write. The rest of the article should remain, but a section needs to be added that adresses what I have discussed above. I would be happy to write the changes myself, but would need to be very sure that it is accurate, truthful, and unbiassed (unlike what I have written for this discussion, which is more personal and emotional in nature). So I encourage all of you for comments and feedback before I make any changes to the article.

Peace.

You say this, but the fact is that no-one argues with your right to exist; if you stop molesting children no-one will have a problem. DJ Clayworth 20:05, 10 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I have never molested a child, posessed child pornography, or committed any crime, apart from jaywalking. And don't you dare say that no one argues with my right to exist, I have the death threats to prove it. You are correct when you say that no one should have a problem with my sexual orientation if I do not act on it, but that is simply untrue.

You talk about "those pedophiles that do not molest children", but the truth is that pedophiles want to do exactly that; they want to have sex with children, otherwise they wouldn't be pedophiles. No amout of dressing this up as a 'fight for freedom' will change that fact. You could start a campaign to legalize any vicious, horrible cruel act and call it a 'fight for freedom', but that doesn't change the facts. DJ Clayworth 20:05, 10 Jan 2005 (UTC)
This is just like saying that everyone who wants to have sex with a girl will have sex with that girl no matter what she thinks about it. The fact that you want to have sex with someone/something doesn't mean that you will actually do it especially if you know that this will damage in some way the person itself. The image that the media gave of pedophiles is, imo, distorted. When you think about a pedophile you think about a horrible being who wants to kill, have sex with, and torture children. This is certainly true for some pedophiles but generalizing is usually a very bad idea. The gay persons, just one hundred of years ago (and still today in some States/Countries), were thought as horrible beings who had sex with each other against God and the Nature. Because of this distorted image of "being gay" many of them have suffered from persecutions lasted for hundreds of years. I believe this is exactly what is happening today with pedophiles. I do not have any pedophile friend (not that i know of) but (if he was a trusted friend of mine) I am sure that I could give him my children anytime. I am sure that there are pedophiles out there who wouldn't waste 1 second before hurting a kid, but i am also sure the great majority can perfectly choose between right and wrong and control themselves. So yes, i agree with the original poster that this is a fight for freedom. You can or can not agree with what they believe in or what they are, but certainly they have the right to express themselves, the right of free speech, the right of letting others know about them, the right to exist... especially when they cannot do it on traditional media like today. As I said, you can agree with them or not, but this doesn't give you the right to decide that they are all criminals and censor the informations about them. [P.S.: Sorry for my bad english, this is not my mother language] --Lucat 01:59, 8 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I am a pedophile, yet I have no desire to harm or molest a child. How do you explain that? You can't, because you have made a generalization about an entire group based on the actions of a few. The childlove movement hopes to counteract such biggotry and ignorance. And obviously you did not read what I wrote, because I specifically stated that the childlove movement is not defined by trying to legalize anything... perhaps you are confusing it with NAMBLA or something.

By DEFINITION, if you are indeed a pedophile, then you desire to molest children. That's what a pedophile is. Your liberty does not, and will never include a right to molest a child, and any country that tolerates you doing so is one where the authorities are derelict in their duty. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 67.170.224.208 (talk • contribs) .

Let's clarify what wikipedia is about: the movement cannot win (or lose) a battle here

Wikipedia will reflect the consensus in the world as a whole. We are a scoreboard for where the current debate is. Our policies -- like Wikipedia:NPOV and Wikipedia:No original research -- mean that we are fair scorekeepers, but no more. So if you are winning the medical debate, that will be reflected here. If you are winning the public perception debate that will be reflected here too. But if the movement is losing these debates in the wider world -- which by its own admission it is -- you cannot improve your position with a wikipedia article, rather the current state of the debate will be reflected here as well.

Dreams of a wikipedia article that is more beautiful or clean than the debate elsewhere are misplaced. That's not what the wiki is for. Thanks. -- 216.131.222.69 17:07, 10 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Rind, et al.

Somebody made a statement in this article that Rind, et al. is the most widely cited study by the Childlove Movement. Where is the proof for this? The answer is that there isn't any, since the statement is false. Rind, et al. is not even mentioned in this article! Rind, et al. may be cited by the establishment as an example of bad research, but nothing more than that.

Going into a refutation of this report here is unnecessary, since there is a complete article, Rind_et_al., devoted to discussion of this controversial report. --Zanthalon , 17:59, 10 Jan 2005 (UTC)

If the movement's case is presented in detail, so should the case against

I am very confused by your comment. Rind (1998) is quoted in the article. In fact, it is the only study that is 1) published in a peer-reviewed journal; 2) a quantitative study of actual outcomes that would shed light on the movement's claim of no harm. As such it is very important piece of the article. Currently the Rind (1998) wiki article does not deal with the merits in detail.
If the Rind Wikipedia article does not sufficiently deal with this, then that is the article that needs to be enrichened with this information.
The Rind study may be peer-reviewed, but it still does not deal with childlove. It is a study of child sexual abuse, something that the Childlove Movement is opposed to. The outcomes that it studies outcomes of illegal activity, and the study does not adequately address the issue of whether the sexual encounters were consensual or not. It does not provide any reasonable data, therefore, about the possible outcomes of adult-child intimacy in an atmosphere where those contacts were legal. --Zanthalon , 21:27, 10 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Currently the Childlove article contains great detail and specific quotes in favor of the movement's case. If that is the case, the arguments against should be treated in the same level of detail.
I absolutely agree. But referring to a largely discredited organization (NAMBLA) that is denounced by many others within the Childlove Movement does not 'make the case' against the movement. Furthermore, going into detail about a single scientific study that is not a major part of Childlove Momement apologetics is not effective either. If there is a preponderance of objective proof against the philosophy of childlove, then bring it out. Do not incessantly trundle out the same report, that is not even a cornerstone of that philosophy. --Zanthalon , 21:12, 10 Jan 2005 (UTC)
As an aside, don't you usually try to be more Wikipedia:NPOV than this edit? Missing the Rind cite in the current article. Claiming that the Rind points are covered elsewhere when they are not. Keep an eye out for the details.
There is an entire article devoted to discussion of Rind, et al. See Rind_et_al.. What I am saying is that any further discussion of this report belongs there, not here, since, like I have already said many times, this report is not a key basis of the arguments of the Childlove Movement. --Zanthalon , 21:21, 10 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Thanks --216.131.222.69 19:48, 10 Jan 2005 (UTC)

You're welcome. --Zanthalon , 21:21, 10 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Zanthalon, what's going on? Now you have deleted the reference to Fagan 2002, claiming it is not cited by the artcile, when a quick text search shows you that it is. . . 216.131.222.69 20:10, 10 Jan 2005 (UTC)

The "Fagan Reference" was belatedly added there yesterday by Erich, who is intent on it being referenced. It was not there before yesterday. Sorry for the oversight. I have now actually added material directly from the Fagan article, so there is no problem with referencing it anymore.
Rind, et al. is merely referred to, it is not cited ("They cite the widely criticized 1998 meta-analysis Rind et al. and other works to support their claim." is not a citation). The point is that there are many more articles and books used more commonly by the Childlove Movement to explain their claims. Many of those articles and books are already cited in this article.
Rind is not a main part of Childlove Movement apologetics because it is a study of child sexual abuse, not pedophilia. Whatever people may think, leading experts (including your buddy Fagan) agree that pedophilia and child sexual abuse are not synonymous. --Zanthalon , 20:59, 10 Jan 2005 (UTC)


Article Length

Going off on tangents about NAMBLA and Rind, et al. is bloating this article, leaving little space for true refutation of the Childlove Movement.

Wikipedia guidelines clearly state that when articles reach this size, they should be compacted, with detail going into different articles. We already have existing articles on NAMBLA and Rind_et_al. to deal with the pros and cons of these issues. Let's put the discussion there. I am not advocating not presenting the content. I am merely proposing placing it where it logically belongs.

If all you can muster to refute the claims of the Childlove movement is a lot of circumstancial evidence against NAMBLA (eg, the Curley's lost their lawsuit against NAMBLA) and criticism of a research report that is not even important to the movement, then your arguments are pretty weak. --Zanthalon , 21:12, 10 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Zanthalon, I am not surprised that, as a member of the movement (you are Lindsay Ashford, are you not? [2]-->[3] -->[4]) you find the opposing view weak. Please don't let you point of view cloud your responsibility as an editor. The medical community and the public think that, in order to prove that adult-child sex is harmless, we should rely on peer-reviewed research of actual outcomes. Hence the importance of Rind.

As for article length: Obviously we need to do something about length. I think the pro-movement side has more opportunities to cut without losing any content. As it is, the movement’s views don’t really come through very clearly. There are several redundant passages. There are several quotes that add bulk but little more. Division between the ‘objectives,’ ‘views’, and ‘ethics’ sections is inconsistent and a bit wandering. My thoughts: Move very short objectives (not much more than the bullets) section to top. Put views, ethics, and most of objectives section into views section with following outline:

Views of the movement

Claim that not all adult-child sexual contact is abuse
Claim that not all adult-child sexual contact is harmful
Claim that children can consent to sex
Claim that children are innately sexual
The citations on both sides are so weak that I would consider dropping this until fixed
Claim that adult-child sexual contact involves intercourse under ethics
Claim that 'childlove' relationships are not usually primarily sexual
Claim that pedophilia should not be classified as a mental illness
Advocacy of change in sex education classes
Ethics
cut this section back to a summary rather than the confusing blow-by-blow

Public reaction and response to the movement Origins Activities Logos

There needs to be a section addressing what I have written above (This is a fight for Freedom...). I think perhaps the section "attempting to change public perceptions of pedophilia and pedophiles;" would be an appropriate section to do this. Currently, the article focuses almost entirely on only a faction of the child love movement that wish to eliminate age of consent laws and posess child pornography. The article as it is written implies that all pedophiles/childlovers are actively campaigning to be allowed to molest children. This is sweeping generalization, and is not indicitive of the movement as a whole. The push for tolerance and acceptance of pedophiles who do not molest children is not even mentioned. Currently, we live in a society that condems pedophiles regardless of whether or not they commit a crime (this is not widely know, but if you lived a day in the shoes of a pedophile, you would understand this). This is a dangerous social climate, as it means that pedophiles have "nothing to lose", which encourages criminal activity. The reality is that childlovers exist, and simply rounding them all up and throwing away the key is not a solution, since there are a great number of pedophiles who are not guilty of any crime. Getting that message out is one of the founding principles of the childlove movement, yet it is not mentioned.--24.200.34.178 18:01, 12 Jan 2005 (UTC)
There seems to be a slight confusion both here and in the article. Let me ask some questions to try and clear it up. When the above anon talks about 'pedophiles who do not molest children' do we mean 'those who are attracted to children, but recognise the wrongness of their attraction'? Or do we mean "those who want to have sex with children, but make it legal so that it is no longer called 'molesting'"? DJ Clayworth 18:38, 12 Jan 2005 (UTC)
The "wrongness" of an action is very subjective. For instance, here in Italy the minimum age of consent is 14. This means that I (adult) can have sex with a 14 years old if, of course, he wants it too. As you see this changes from country to country. Does this mean that adolescents in USA are "dumber" than the adolescents in Italy and cannot decide by themselves what is best for them? The truth is that in the past a 12 years old kid (or even younger) could even get married or become leader of a nation, did this kill or hurt the kid? Were all our anchestors horrible pedophiles who wanted to kill or injure their own children? The minimum age limit cannot be decided by a law (which is driven only by personal beliefs) as it is today, it should be decided subjectively since it changes from person to person. Please keep in mind that when i say this in no way i say that molesting children is right, forcing someone into something is wrong, no matter what the age is. You believe that a kid/adolescent is unable to decide on his own about his relations with other people, but this is supported by nothing beside your own beliefs. A pedophile, for definition is someone who loves kids, tell me, if you love someone would you do something to hurt him/her? Then why are you assuming that a pedophile wants this? Just because they say so in TV? Just because some criminals who exploit children (usually for money) are called improperly pedophiles? --Lucat 13:09, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Indeed, in the past, eight-year-olds were an acceptable source of factory labor. And you could buy and sell slaves to work on farms. I am not sure that bringing up past laws helps your case. Similarly, the death penalty differs from nation to nation, but wikipedia articles about the death penalty should describe the strongly held views on each side. 216.131.222.186 20:39, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)
What i am saying is very simple and has nothing to do with the past. If someone does hurt someone else then it is right that whoever willfully hurt this person pays for it. But if this doesn't happen then why is it wrong? Just because someone's religion says so? Just because some kids are hurt (physically or psichologically) by an action it does not mean that this is true in every case. Besides, the same act of having sex with an adult can hurt this adult (rapes, etc.), does this mean that having sex is in general a bad thing? I do not see how anyone would want to actually have sex with a child, but if this doesn't hurt the child then why is this considered wrong? Just because it might? Everytime that you bring your kids somewhere with your car they do risk their life, should we forbid to anyone to bring the kids around with cars just because they might get hurt? From what i can see from the forums that this same article mentions, most of them are perfectly normal persons who just simply like to share their time with children instead than adults, they do feel physically attracted to them, but, from what i can see, they do not want to hurt the kids in any way. They simply want to be accepted by the society and not be seen as criminals just because they like kids. As i said somewhere else, if you like a woman/man and do want to have sex with her/him, would you do it even if you knew that by doing so you would hurt her/him? The same works for them. I am sure that some of them do hurt kids on purpose, they are criminals, but because of these criminals then everyone of them must pay and be a monster in the eyes of the society? And another question, do you believe that removing or raping this article to show what they are not will make them all disappear? Do you believe that by going on with this persecution will make anyone change what he/she is or feels? How long before they decide to simply behave like the society sees them? How long before they say: "well, we are already criminals anyways, it doesn't matter if we behave well or not..."? --Lucat 18:05, 17 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I would also cut back the quotes from Lindsay Ashford, Spieker & Stuetal, Joan Nelson, and Tom O’Carroll. We can eliminate the quote from Bearman and Brueckner, since it does not deal with age-of-consent or age-of-sex-education in any way. Making an analogy between their findings and the current topic may be an interesting thought to some, but it is clearly not some kind of accepted view – this is essay/original research creeping in. --216.131.220.133 16:11, 11 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Archive This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.