WHAT TO DO WHEN APPROACHED BY A CHILD IN A SEXUAL WAY

cabra19 wrote:

YouthRightsRadical wrote:You have defined none of those terms, nor so much as described this supposed undevelopedness, much less demonstrated it.

Your whole argument seems to be based on the gaps or inconsistencies you perceive in the categories, definitions, terminology, and mores society assigns to children and sexuality. If I say "8-year-olds aren't mature enough to make certain decisions", you seem to respond by claiming that somewhere out there there is probably an 8-year old who is, therefore the claim has no merit. It's a logical fallacy.

No, you say "8 year olds aren't mature enough to make certain decisions" and I say "prove it". Then you get pissy because the surrounding culture agrees with your assessment and you didn't expect to have to prove your assertion. You expected it to be accepted as a given.

I would like you to explain just what "mature enough for sex" means. Then I'd like you to demonstrate that either A) no 8 year old fits the definition you just gave or B) that it is acceptable to deprive people who are mature enough for sex of the right to do so should they so choose.

Was this clearer?

cabra19 wrote: You want proof that no 8-year old is mature enough for sex...no one can prove that negative. Again, logical fallacy.

It's hardly my fault you asserted a negative.

cabra19 wrote:I've never spoken to you in my life, so I don't know what your beliefs are and I make no assumptions other than what you just posted. But it seems like you simply want to erase (or at least totally redefine) the line between children and adults by proclaiming it arbitrary, at least with regards to sexual and psychological development.

It is arbitrary. Some asshole antifeminists in the late 1800s drew a line in the sand in response to the "terrifying" idea of unmarried women being in the workplace and out of the home. That's the line we're stuck with today. I personally think misogynists obsessed with moral purity probably weren't taking careful stock of the current psychiatric research at the time. How about you? But I suppose you could be right and that's really the best we can ever do in terms of assessing psychiatric development. I just don't think it's very likely.

cabra19 wrote:Sure, in a sense it is, because it has to be - everyone is different. But there is simply no denying the empirical reality that human beings develop from a child-state to an adult-state, and part of that process is an increasing ability to understand more complex ideas, weigh consequences, and a physiological process of development that occurs in the brain. Just because that process takes place at variable rates among different individuals does not in any way negate the fact that there is such a thing as "children" who are different than adults for more reasons than simply the nominal fact of their age.

Then divide the legal categories by those "reasons" instead of "simply the nominal fact of their age".

The fact that you wrote that screed without coming up with that idea yourself tells me you weren't actually thinking when you wrote it. You were just parroting things you've heard in an attempt to defend a position you've never really considered in any meaningful way.

cabra19 wrote:Maybe it would help for you to articulate what you do actually believe, here. I'm assuming you don't believe in sex with one-day-olds, so clearly you agree that there is a period of life during which children are not ready for sex. How would you draw this line?

My current preferred system involves an assessment known as the RMSC. You can read the details here:
http://youthrightsradical.blogspot.com/ ... -rmsc.html

In simplified terms, you just perform an assessment of a person's level of sex education and cognative development and if that person is above a certain threshold, they are treated as an "adult" in terms of their right to make their own decisions about sex. If they are below that threshold, they are treated as a "child".

If a one day old infant can pass the test, then it ought to be fine to have sex with them. It seems unlikely to me, but the point of having a test is so we don't have to base it on your or my gut feeling about what's likely. We just give them the test if they want to prove they're ready and we abide by the results.

cabra19 wrote:

YouthRightsRadical wrote:And you want to not only perpetuate that danger, but magnify it. You know full well that people like me care about the safety and well-being of children, so you maintain this stygma as a means of controling my actions. Taking the safety and well-being of children hostage. People like you make me sick.

I'm a bit confused by this. For one thing, I don't believe pedophiles should be stigmatized they way they are in our society for their desires. That's wrong. And I don't think they ought to be used as political targets for politicians and officials looking for an easy, risk-free way to look tough on something.

You might have noticed, but my forum name isn't "PedophileRightsRadical". The stygma that surrounds me and my kind isn't the one I'm most interested in confronting. Yes, it's nice that you recognize what's being done to us is wrong, but I'd really like you to consider whether what's being done to young people is wrong.

cabra19 wrote:And I don't believe in treating childhood sexual abuse as something that permanently damages children, thus giving the impression that all victims are somehow broken or forever damaged. I favor reducing a lot of stigma in a lot of ways.

Do you have any concrete steps in mind? Given that you're still inclined to uphold the primary source of said stygma, the age of consent.

cabra19 wrote:But what really confuses me here is what you really expect to happen in the real world.

I expect the human spirit to be crushed again and again by the grinding gears of a harsh, authoritarian society unwilling to recognize the basic rights of its people.

I expect there will always be a group of people in society who are at the bottom, treated as scum so that everyone else can feel better about themselves. I expect that even when the wheel inevitably turns, pedophilia goes back to being an accepted orientation, and child sexuality goes back to being a normal part of the human experience, someone new will be being crushed under the authoritarian impulses of the then-current culture. I expect that social development will be an unending sequence of one hated group throwing the next one under the bus in the name of claiming acceptance for their own.

I expect that treating children as actual human beings will be one of the harder rights movements, but that eventually they'll get their turn at the top of the wheel. Sadly, I also expect to be long dead by the time that happens, so I'll have only the certainty that I'm morally in the right to keep me warm at night.

cabra19 wrote:I mean, society is what it is.

Society is a fluid construct. An amalgum of individuals coming together in common cause and purpose. Change one opinion, you change society. Even if it's just a little.

cabra19 wrote:You can complain about it all you want, or insult random people on the internet all you want...the stigma isn't going anywhere even if you think it should. So what's the best way to protect kids from it? Which do you think is a more realistic way to protect kids from this stigma that angers you? You not having sex with them, or me and about six billion other people all changing our minds about child sex?

The later. It would in fact be far, far better for you and everyone else who shares your backwards opinion to change your minds about child sex. The outcome would be inarguably superior to me simply not having sex with kids. It is bizarre that you don't see this as obvious.

Part of the problem is that you mistakenly assume that so long as I don't have sex with them, they will not suffer because of the stygma. That the toxic atmosphere you and your kind create won't effect them so long as they never try to breathe. You think that having their freedom limited doesn't effect people in a negative way.

We can't even talk about balancing the idea of freedom versus security when you refuse to even acknolwedge that freedom is a goal worth pursuing in the first place.

cabra19 wrote:The original poster was looking for practical advice on what to do in specific situations. My practical advice was remove yourself from the situation, and I listed the reasons. What is your advice to them? Have sex with the kid and then bring about a global shift in consciousness to de-stigmatize it so that no one gets hurt?

Since you and your kind refuse to respond to argument, it might well be the only way to bring about that global shift in consiousness. I don't like the idea of sacrificing those kids you and your kind would torture just to speed along the day when you stop torturing kids, but I begin to despair of finding another way to stop you.

cabra19 wrote:I'm not judging you or your desires. I was merely attempting to explain why in my opinion children are not capable of making informed, competent decisions about sex.

You failed to explain that opinion. Whatever judgement you claim to be qualified to pass on me or my desires is largely beside the point.

You think children aren't capable of making informed, competent decisions about sex. You made no attempt to explain why, so if someone doesn't already agree with you, your post was utterly worthless in convincing people not to have sex with kids. What was your goal with that post again?

cabra19 wrote:Sorry to hear I "make you sick". You don't make me sick.

That's because you think I'm beneath your notice. You think you've already won, so you don't have to pay attention to the things I'm saying. You get to condescend and prattle off plattitudes, and never do any of the work of defending your position. And you get to be so safe because you know I'll restrain my actions in the face of your threats to harm children. Because I'm a better person than you are.

cabra19 wrote:Doubtless people have told you a million times that you make them sick, and I'm sorry for that. I wish the world didn't treat people that way. And as someone who undoubtedly knows how it feels, I think maybe you shouldn't do that to other people either.

You stop hurting kids and I'll agree to stop being sickened by your actions. Deal?

cabra19 wrote:I was giving someone else an earnest explanation for why I believe that sex with adults can be harmful to kids; and I was doing it out of an earnest concern for kids and with no attempt to shame or judge anyone for their inner desires.

You say that like it matters. Your "earnestness" is not really material to this conversation. The fact that your beliefs are utterly unsupported is. The only argument you've presented in favor of the "don't molest children" position is the threat of psychological abuse you'll inflict on those kids through the stygma you support and perpetuate. You didn't actually present any argument that kids are actually not competent. You asserted it, but you never actually presented any argument or logic in favor of your position.

The rational part of my brain, when presented with a hostage situation, tells me to give the hostage up as already dead and focus all my effort on killing the hostage taker so the situation will not repeat. The current hostage getting out of the situation alive is a nice bonus to be potentially tabulated after the fact. For the moment, the emotional part of my brain that can't stand to see kids crying is winning out, but you are far too secure in the idea that this will perpetually be the case for me.

It would be nice of someone to give the rational part of my brain a reason to refrain from molesting kids other than the hostage situation argument (obviously not you, since you've already demonstrated you're incapable of it).

I almost hate to bump this back up to the top by posting seems some anger came out in ppl but I think its important to not offending, this is what I do

1 have a plan in place for said situations
2 remove yourself from situation with a polite I'm sorry the age difference violates my morals, I hope you understand(or some such crap)
3 Leave that place or find a way to get them to leave if at a place you cant leave
4 Call someone that will hold me accountable for what I do/If I did not/cant not do 1,2,3
5 inform their parents b4 they can make anything up about said event

This is the exact thing that lead me to ever offend (I know they all say that sometimes it is true), tons of girls 11-16/17 came on to me years ago, I looked 16/17 when 18-25ish

Getting a bit off topic, but...

YouthRightsRadical wrote:The rational part of my brain, when presented with a hostage situation, tells me to give the hostage up as already dead and focus all my effort on killing the hostage taker so the situation will not repeat. The current hostage getting out of the situation alive is a nice bonus to be potentially tabulated after the fact. For the moment, the emotional part of my brain that can't stand to see kids crying is winning out, but you are far too secure in the idea that this will perpetually be the case for me.

It would be nice of someone to give the rational part of my brain a reason to refrain from molesting kids other than the hostage situation argument (obviously not you, since you've already demonstrated you're incapable of it).

Sorry YRR, but I'm afraid we're going to clash on you hostage situation solution; that is terrible rationale. The whole idea behind a hostage situation is that the lives of the hostages are of utmost value and importance, which is why the hostage taker keeps them alive in the first place. If the hostages die, you've already lost. Furthermore, this method does in fact prevent future hostage situations, because it GUARANTEES the hostages die. Think about it. The hostage taker holds onto hostages for the sake of negotiation and to buy himself time. If however, he knows that there is a zero percent chance that law enforcement will negotiate and that they will storm in regardless, he'll likely conclude "Well, since these guys are useless to me and can't do anything but potentially cause me trouble, might as well just kill them and fight to the death." Nobody wins in that situation.

Regarding your application of said logic to the topic of adult-child sex, I don't really follow your reasoning. Who's holding the children hostage exactly? The stigma is directed at you, not them. Granted, they will almost invariably get caught in the crossfire, but that doesn't make them the hostages. A more accurate representation would be to put the adult on one side, the people attacking the relationship on the other (both sides with guns), and the child in the middle. The stigmatizers have the advantage at the moment as they will fire indiscriminately, because they believe their bullets cannot hurt the child. The adult however, knows that they, in fact, can. So what's the proper solution? Shooting back doubles the risk of the child being shot, but retreating or surrendering means the stigmatizers "win". At the moment, we're forced to duck behind cover and hope the stigmatizers stop shooting for the child's sake, and if we shoot back, we have to really make it count. That, in my opinion, is the problem. So what's the best move?

Gemini_Incarnate wrote:Getting a bit off topic, but...

YouthRightsRadical wrote:The rational part of my brain, when presented with a hostage situation, tells me to give the hostage up as already dead and focus all my effort on killing the hostage taker so the situation will not repeat. The current hostage getting out of the situation alive is a nice bonus to be potentially tabulated after the fact. For the moment, the emotional part of my brain that can't stand to see kids crying is winning out, but you are far too secure in the idea that this will perpetually be the case for me.

It would be nice of someone to give the rational part of my brain a reason to refrain from molesting kids other than the hostage situation argument (obviously not you, since you've already demonstrated you're incapable of it).

Sorry YRR, but I'm afraid we're going to clash on you hostage situation solution; that is terrible rationale. The whole idea behind a hostage situation is that the lives of the hostages are of utmost value and importance, which is why the hostage taker keeps them alive in the first place. If the hostages die, you've already lost. Furthermore, this method does in fact prevent future hostage situations, because it GUARANTEES the hostages die. Think about it. The hostage taker holds onto hostages for the sake of negotiation and to buy himself time. If however, he knows that there is a zero percent chance that law enforcement will negotiate and that they will storm in regardless, he'll likely conclude "Well, since these guys are useless to me and can't do anything but potentially cause me trouble, might as well just kill them and fight to the death." Nobody wins in that situation.

Of course nobody wins in that situation. The hostages have already been taken. But if he knows that hostages will do him no good ahead of time, why is he taking hostages?

Gemini_Incarnate wrote:
Regarding your application of said logic to the topic of adult-child sex, I don't really follow your reasoning. Who's holding the children hostage exactly? The stigma is directed at you, not them. Granted, they will almost invariably get caught in the crossfire, but that doesn't make them the hostages. A more accurate representation would be to put the adult on one side, the people attacking the relationship on the other (both sides with guns), and the child in the middle. The stigmatizers have the advantage at the moment as they will fire indiscriminately, because they believe their bullets cannot hurt the child. The adult however, knows that they, in fact, can. So what's the proper solution? Shooting back doubles the risk of the child being shot, but retreating or surrendering means the stigmatizers "win". At the moment, we're forced to duck behind cover and hope the stigmatizers stop shooting for the child's sake, and if we shoot back, we have to really make it count. That, in my opinion, is the problem. So what's the best move?

But why would they stop shooting for the child's sake if they don't believe their bullets can hurt the child?

I will admit, my hostagetaker analogy does commit the fallacy of attributing to malice what can be explained by ignorance. I've just met enough people that prioritize hurting us above protecting children, combined with how obvious it is to me that the stygma is harmful to even children who aren't sexually active, and I have a hard time not attributing the behavior to conscious malice.

Of course nobody wins in that situation. The hostages have already been taken. But if he knows that hostages will do him no good ahead of time, why is he taking hostages?

He wouldn't, which is exactly my point. The very fact that he's taken hostages demonstrates that he needs something in exchange (perhaps something as simple as his life), and that he believes that he get it through negotiation. For the hostage's sake, it's best to keep him thinking that until you have determined the best method of attack (i.e., one that minimizes bloodshed on all sides).

But why would they stop shooting for the child's sake if they don't believe their bullets can hurt the child?

I will admit, my hostagetaker analogy does commit the fallacy of attributing to malice what can be explained by ignorance. I've just met enough people that prioritize hurting us above protecting children, combined with how obvious it is to me that the stygma is harmful to even children who aren't sexually active, and I have a hard time not attributing the behavior to conscious malice.

Perhaps I should have been clearer. When I said that "we're forced to duck behind cover and hope the stigmatizers stop shooting for the child's sake" I meant that we hope the stigmatizers shop shooting, for whatever reason, to ensure that the child is not hurt. My apologies.

And unfortunately, it seems most people don't realize that "attacking pedophiles" and "protecting children" ARE in fact two different things. It would be nice if we were able tomore easily explain the difference, but alas, it is hard to converse over the sound of bullets.

Gemini_Incarnate wrote:

Of course nobody wins in that situation. The hostages have already been taken. But if he knows that hostages will do him no good ahead of time, why is he taking hostages?

He wouldn't, which is exactly my point. The very fact that he's taken hostages demonstrates that he needs something in exchange (perhaps something as simple as his life), and that he believes that he get it through negotiation. For the hostage's sake, it's best to keep him thinking that until you have determined the best method of attack (i.e., one that minimizes bloodshed on all sides).

But why would they stop shooting for the child's sake if they don't believe their bullets can hurt the child?

I will admit, my hostagetaker analogy does commit the fallacy of attributing to malice what can be explained by ignorance. I've just met enough people that prioritize hurting us above protecting children, combined with how obvious it is to me that the stygma is harmful to even children who aren't sexually active, and I have a hard time not attributing the behavior to conscious malice.

Perhaps I should have been clearer. When I said that "we're forced to duck behind cover and hope the stigmatizers stop shooting for the child's sake" I meant that we hope the stigmatizers shop shooting, for whatever reason, to ensure that the child is not hurt. My apologies.

And unfortunately, it seems most people don't realize that "attacking pedophiles" and "protecting children" ARE in fact two different things. It would be nice if we were able tomore easily explain the difference, but alas, it is hard to converse over the sound of bullets.

If a pedophile is treated like a murderer no matter what, why would one that snapped not just murder the child and bury them in the woods? They have a chance to get off that way, and no matter what if caught they will be punished the same right?

Someone that snapped and could not resist the urge to harm another person, could easily make the leap that they are going to be charged as a murderer of a child no matter what, might as well go all the way and try their best to hide the body. As far as I am concerned, if anyone ever harmed my niece, my sisters, or any of my blood, they are as good as dead. I might get away with it, I might not, don't really care. No one will ever harm my blood without dire consequences, it might not be me who deals it out, could be my father, could be me, could be my bro, could be my uncle. Someone will make sure though.

I am not a particularly violent man, but plenty of scenarios I can think that I could become one. Someone that isn't as principled as me, I am sure they can justify bloodshed even easier. For me, it is always defending those I love, I would really be quicker to defend those I love than myself. I really don't care much about myself, other than the will to keep living, which daily I wonder why I keep on. Why don't I just end it all myself on my own terms. Fear, that this is all there is, and once I am done, that is all folks. I wish I could believe in more, that some god created me for some purpose. What purpose could I possibly serve? Other than a laughingstock of a cruel god, there is nothing.

Never been in a situation where the child initiated sexual contact with me, it has always been me initiating the sexual contact with them. I am sure at times I felt like the child was flirting with me in a sexual way but I am sure that I imagined that so I could justify that to myself to act like the child wanted it as well. I learned a lot about myself in prison for sex crimes against children and I justified so much when I was in the cycle of molesting children. I doubt children ever want to be sexual with an adult.

Since the child was defined as 8-13, do you think that there is no 13 year old boy that truly wants to have sex with that supermodel or actress? Or their classmate? Have they just been influenced by the sexualised society and the media and are just saying what they think they should be saying? What a man should say and think? Were they to actually pursue and engage in such a thing would they be subconsciously damaged but telling themselves that it was the right thing? Would they consciously be emotionally destroyed?

When I was 11 I asked my dads friend if I could see his penis, I flirted with him a lot, not because I was attracted to him but because he payed attention to me and then I became curious. He use to pinch my bum and tease me about my new tiny boobies I was getting. I guess I felt comfortable enough around him to ask to see his cock, but I never did get to see it. I had no idea what a pedophile was and although I knew it was bad to be talking to him like I was, I didn't care, I just liked the attention.
Btw, I came from a stable home, but I may have had something happen to me when I was little, I have some sexual memories, I just don't know if they are real or made up in my head.

Siamese Fever wrote:
I'm convinced they do this to me as a test of how much they can "controll me". That and because they're children that admire all of these embarassing western celebrities that are whores and druggies that don't know how to be modest or intelligent. Bad influences and testing boundries of what they can get away with, I guess.

This is a really good point. How much is natural curiosity and what is manipulating. I had a young neighbor knock on my door and when I answered she put her hand on my parts. I was taken aback but I broke contact. It didn't matter WHAT her motivation was, that was BIG TIME trouble if allowed to continue. This girl was a hellion with mucho problems and as she grew up I could have taken advantage of it, but I didn't and we are still in contact with her. She's married with children now and is doing much better.