To Catch a Contradiction

Nov 06, 2007 06:19

I spent much of last Saturday night watching this show hosted by Chris Hansen entitled To Catch a Predator. And unless you've seen the show, chances are you won't fully understand the intensity of my sentiment in this post ( Read more... )

Leave a comment

virtual_anima November 5 2007, 19:17:42 UTC
Do you think in the future pedophilia will be accepted?

There's a fundamental difference between pedophilia and homosexuality. Homosexuals do not create mental harm by being homosexual with each other. Pedophilia causes TONS of mental harm to the child victim.

In this way your equation is horribly wrong.

Reply

virtual_anima November 5 2007, 20:38:23 UTC
It could, but from an objective standpoint it has negative impact on the victims and therefore would not be desirable. Not saying it couldn't happen, but objectively this is the huge difference between the two situations.

Reply

sister_anne November 5 2007, 23:35:36 UTC
it's 14 in canada.

Reply

queenofnothing November 6 2007, 06:36:26 UTC
and aren't we proud?

Reply

stealthpup November 6 2007, 18:03:37 UTC
You mean back to the Middle Ages? Where AoC was 12-14?

Interestingly enough, there have been recent increases to AoC in European countries. Given that they're considered to be generally more permissive than the US, you probably have little to worry about.

Reply

hollowman November 5 2007, 19:38:06 UTC
I'm not entirely sure how much harm a teenager who seduces an older male comes to. I knew girls who dated older guys in HS and even jr. high, and those guys were losers whom it was a poor decision to date ( ... )

Reply

virtual_anima November 5 2007, 20:42:18 UTC
Usually this is a result of sexual molestation earlier in their lives. Nearly always. It causes them a warped sense of sexuality. 99% of the time if someone comes to sexual abuse when they're around 18 its because something happened earlier that made them feel normal when people who hadn't suffered such things would find the person creepy, whether it is from a chaotic family situation, molesting relatives or something else; there's a reason why these kids are attracted towards people they would not normally be attracted towards. The damage is already done.

Honestly though, there should be at least some sort of reprecussion for the children, but how do you enforce that? The parents often aren't around to do it. Do you put them in jail? Fine the parents? There's just not a solution that would please everybody.

Reply

stranger988 November 5 2007, 21:32:00 UTC
Pedophilia causes TONS of mental harm to the child victim.

When children are not discouraged from having sex with each other, doesn't that increace their chances of being taken advantage of by pedophiles?

Reply

99catsaway November 5 2007, 21:34:55 UTC
Clarify what you're saying, because it almost sounds like... I'm not going to say it.

What does your comment mean?

Reply

virtual_anima November 5 2007, 22:07:38 UTC
Are you claiming children are not?

Reply

stranger988 November 6 2007, 16:09:54 UTC
Condoms are being distributed by schools to kids. Doesn't exactly discourage sexual behavior.

Reply

virtual_anima November 6 2007, 17:55:28 UTC
It does not discourage nor encourage. It is not along that scale at all.

Reply

stranger988 November 7 2007, 16:10:47 UTC
It does not discourage nor encourage.

You're correct on the first part. You're just naive if you don't think that facilitating sexual behavior is not a tacit encouragement of it. Especially from the perspective of teenager. They feel like doing it and the only authoritative institution in their lives (apart from their family and, maybe, the church) not only refuses to tell them it's wrong, or that it's a bad idea but instead passes condoms out to them.

Reply

virtual_anima November 7 2007, 17:49:16 UTC
Allowing people protection does not remove the ability to discourage sexual intercourse at a young age. That's a fallacy the right keeps pushing and its why they're losing their cause, because everyone sees through that transparent bullshit.

Reply

stranger988 November 7 2007, 18:09:59 UTC
Allowing people protection does not remove the ability to discourage sexual intercourse at a young age.

No, but it reduces any attempts to discourage sexual intercourse to nothing more than mere formality. Actually, its worse than that. The school comes off as one who doesn't believe in its own message. "Welcome to comprehensive sex ed. Here's the top N reasons why you shouldn't be having sex... but we know it's not all that persuasive so help yourself to some condoms on your way out."

Reply

virtual_anima November 6 2007, 17:56:20 UTC
And secondly, what are you trying to say with your previous comment? That the kids are asking for it? That its their fault they're getting sexually abused? Please clarify your statement.

Reply


Leave a comment

Up