Adequacy front page
Stories Diaries Polls Users
Google

Web Adequacy.org
Home About Topics Rejects Abortions
This is an unofficial archive site only. It is no longer maintained. You can not post comments. You can not make an account. Your email will not be read. Please read this page or the footnote if you have questions.
Poll
K5 is:
Very worthwhile 30%
Somewhat worthwhile 10%
No opinion 10%
Not worthwhile 0%
Useless 20%
Satanic 30%

Votes: 10

 Maybe K5 is satanic, like tkatchev said.

 Author:  Topic:  Posted:
Mar 27, 2002
 Comments:
Need I say more?
diaries

More diaries by derek3000
Last night kicked an ass
The world lost a great man yesterday.
My top 5
Who's copying whom?
Just read this.
I'm all up in this poetry shit.
What is PotatoError, anyway?
Some of you must be bad drivers.
Can someone...
My regrets are starting to overwhelm me.
I might have something...
I need your help
Springtime = Sex
The time is right
Leave Linux to the Geeks
So, how are things at home?
If you had any questions about Christ,
I have been enlightened.
Utopia?
Woe is me...
I am scurred and confused
Well, maybe a little more: the fact that anyone is considering the value of these laws is, to say the least, a betrayal of their innermost fantasies. Thank God I am over 18, because my sweet ass and boyish good looks could have landed me in a lot of trouble.


The problem is artificially inflated. (none / 0) (#1)
by The Mad Scientist on Wed Mar 27th, 2002 at 06:58:11 PM PST
If you ditch the age-based law definition of paedophilia and accept the medical definition (sexual attraction to a person without developed secondary sex characteristics), the matter suddenly clears up.

Why some so stupid thing like a state border should be the ultimate thing to define what is Good and what is Bad? Why just driving couple miles should make sleeping with someone other (il)legal?

The medical definition is the same regardless of place, and based on facts. The legal definition varies place to place, lacks overall consistency between the jurisdictions, and is based on what the most of a bunch of old men in suits agreed upon. What one is more respectable, less questionable, and less problematic?


dood, (none / 0) (#2)
by derek3000 on Wed Mar 27th, 2002 at 07:42:06 PM PST
I've seen 13-year-olds with ta-tas bigger than a lot of M.I.L.F.S.

You're totally disregarding the psychological aspect of this whole thing. This is just like fucking your adopted daughter--it doesn't mean you're in the clear because she still perceives you as a father figure.


----------------
"Feel me when I bring it!" --Gay Jamie

Yes and no. (none / 0) (#3)
by The Mad Scientist on Wed Mar 27th, 2002 at 08:07:04 PM PST
This is just like fucking your adopted daughter--it doesn't mean you're in the clear because she still perceives you as a father figure.

But it isn't pedophilia. Maybe legally, but not per se.

'Night for now.


'Legally' (none / 0) (#14)
by hauntedattics on Sat Mar 30th, 2002 at 08:43:14 AM PST
Because, as we all know so well, in the enlightened world of the Mad Scientist, laws are stupid and unnecessary, and intelligent people can get by on common sense. Like fucking your adopted daughter because it isn't really pedophilia in the 'biological' sense.

You embarrass and disgust me. Get a clue already.



 
pedophile vs hebefile (none / 0) (#4)
by Anonymous Reader on Wed Mar 27th, 2002 at 08:24:20 PM PST
If a 13 year old, as you suggest, has developed secondary sexual characteristics such as enhanced breast size then she is not pre-pubuscent.
That is the point of the post you are responding to. The medical definition of a pedophile is much more clear because pubescence is where the line is drawn.
FYI, 'hebephile' is the term that describes one who prefers children that have reached pubescence. (hebe was the Greek goddess of youth)

I'm not impressed. (5.00 / 1) (#5)
by derek3000 on Wed Mar 27th, 2002 at 09:50:46 PM PST
Because changing the word doesn't do anything to change the moral depravity.

Just like you could call a 'hacker' a 'cracker'--they both mean 'criminal'.


----------------
"Feel me when I bring it!" --Gay Jamie

The problem is... (none / 0) (#6)
by budlite on Thu Mar 28th, 2002 at 03:44:26 AM PST
that it's the legal issues that have made it a moral issue.

Until paedophilia laws were introduced a man would have no qualms about having sex with a 14 or 15-year old girl. The fact is, youth is a very strong factor in sexual attractivity. Once a girl passes through puberty she is at her most fertile, and thus the most likely to produce numerous strong offspring. It's a biological fact. It's not wrong to be attracted to a girl under 16. Of course, there is a line that should not be crossed. I believe that to be having sex with a girl who has not passed through puberty, or is not yet a teenager.

I've made this argument before, but I was shot down in flames. I hope someone actually takes a moment to think it through logically for a moment this time.

Hmm... (none / 0) (#7)
by hauntedattics on Thu Mar 28th, 2002 at 09:59:38 AM PST
Until paedophilia laws were introduced a man would have no qualms about having sex with a 14 or 15-year old girl.

You mean when they were married, right? Right??? As someone who's studied quite a bit of European history, I don't recall it being morally or societally acceptable for men to run around randomly sleeping with pubescent girls, unless they were complete perverts or the unfortunate girls were prostitutes.

Once a girl passes through puberty she is at her most fertile, and thus the most likely to produce numerous strong offspring. It's a biological fact.

Do you mean a girl at 15 or a girl at 20 or 21? There's a big difference, physically, mentally and emotionally. I'd love to see your source for this 'biological fact' since it's well known in the medical world that women under 20 are (all other things being equal) considered at risk for problematic pregnancies. The same generally goes for women over 35.

hmmm.... (none / 0) (#8)
by derek3000 on Thu Mar 28th, 2002 at 10:45:19 AM PST
I'd love to see your source for this 'biological fact' since it's well known in the medical world that women under 20 are (all other things being equal) considered at risk for problematic pregnancies. The same generally goes for women over 35.

It's a good thing you fall in the middle of those ranges.


----------------
"Feel me when I bring it!" --Gay Jamie

Yes. Yes it is. n/t (none / 0) (#13)
by hauntedattics on Fri Mar 29th, 2002 at 06:01:30 AM PST



 
Exceptions to the Rule (none / 0) (#10)
by doofus on Thu Mar 28th, 2002 at 01:30:13 PM PST
Do you mean a girl at 15 or a girl at 20 or 21? There's a big difference, physically, mentally and emotionally.

And then there are 15 year old porn stars...

I had no point, really, I just wanted to link to Traci Lords' web site.

 
The ugly head of liberalism. (none / 0) (#9)
by tkatchev on Thu Mar 28th, 2002 at 11:44:10 AM PST
Folks, liberalism in action:

Blame "biology" for your own perversities and inadequacies. Never mind that you couldn't find your ass with both hands and an anatomy textbook when it comes to biology, just make sure you mention that your wacky views are supported by "science". (Which you never managed to learn in school, or else you'd have figured out by now that the social and physical characterisics of human beings are quite different from those of tapeworms.)


--
Peace and much love...

 
Look, (5.00 / 1) (#11)
by jvance on Thu Mar 28th, 2002 at 01:50:24 PM PST
Other moral, legal, and religious considerations aside, it's a power thing. An adult having sexual relations with a minor is abusing his or her position in society as an adult. That goes doubly so if the adult is actually in a position of authority over the child - a relative or a teacher.

If you don't have enough self-control to keep your dick in your pants and out of where it doesn't belong, then you have no place in a civilized society.
--
Adequacy has turned into a cesspool consisting of ... blubbering, superstitious fools arguing with smug, pseudointellectual assholes. -AR

Keeping yourself in control. (5.00 / 1) (#12)
by tkatchev on Thu Mar 28th, 2002 at 10:50:43 PM PST
If you don't have enough self-control to keep your dick in your pants and out of where it doesn't belong, then you have no place in a civilized society.

But isn't 95% of modern society about finding excuses for your own sexual neuroses?

I mean, "I wasn't cheating, we fell in love", "it was just good clean physical sex", "but we are two consenting adults", "but you're supposed to be continuously thinking about sex, aren't you", "she is just doing her job", "we turned out to be sexually incompatible", "sex shouldn't be about procreation", "I needed companinionship", "I wanted something new and exciting", etc.

I think you can continue this sequence at your own leisure; the point is: are budlite's excuses much different from these? Maybe you personally find his views to be disgusting, but, sadly, his views are simply the usual set of liberalist sexual hangups.


--
Peace and much love...

 

All trademarks and copyrights on this page are owned by their respective companies. Comments are owned by the Poster. The Rest ® 2001, 2002, 2003 Adequacy.org. The Adequacy.org name, logo, symbol, and taglines "News for Grown-Ups", "Most Controversial Site on the Internet", "Linux Zealot", and "He just loves Open Source Software", and the RGB color value: D7D7D7 are trademarks of Adequacy.org. No part of this site may be republished or reproduced in whatever form without prior written permission by Adequacy.org and, if and when applicable, prior written permission by the contributing author(s), artist(s), or user(s). Any inquiries are directed to legal@adequacy.org.