Is it really "wrong" for grown men to be attracted to 13-14 year old g

The precedent has been set throughout human history that men of almost any age have married and mated with young women as young as 13 or 14 years old. I'm thinking that they must have found them attractive to want to do that. When you take this into consideration, you begin to realize that it's only our modern society that has made this seem wrong or perverted. Once a girl enters puberty, it's 100% natural for men of different ages to find her attractive. Not only pretty, but sexually attractive. It is a natural part of human sexuality, and it always will be. Our government has taken it upon themselves to impose age limits on all sorts of things. That doesn't mean that someone has a disorder because they're attracted to fertile females, regardless of the age. In fact, quite the opposite when you look at thousands of years of human interaction. There's a reason that women start to look different when they enter puberty. It's to attract a mate. Not a hard concept.

hartsickdiscipl

Using the past to justify the present is a flawed train of thought.
...or do you also support the way women have been treated throughout history as well?
…or the treatment of other races?
…or the use of leaches?

I am trying to remember the name of a foreign film I watched on this (in the Middle East about a man marrying a 13 or 14 year old...and finally consummating the relationship...was a very difficult watch)

[QUOTE="hartsickdiscipl"]

The precedent has been set throughout human history that men of almost any age have married and mated with young women as young as 13 or 14 years old. I'm thinking that they must have found them attractive to want to do that. When you take this into consideration, you begin to realize that it's only our modern society that has made this seem wrong or perverted. Once a girl enters puberty, it's 100% natural for men of different ages to find her attractive. Not only pretty, but sexually attractive. It is a natural part of human sexuality, and it always will be. Our government has taken it upon themselves to impose age limits on all sorts of things. That doesn't mean that someone has a disorder because they're attracted to fertile females, regardless of the age. In fact, quite the opposite when you look at thousands of years of human interaction. There's a reason that women start to look different when they enter puberty. It's to attract a mate. Not a hard concept.

rawsavon

Using the past to justify the present is a flawed train of thought.
...or do you also support the way women have been treated throughout history as well?
…or the treatment of other races?
…or the use of leaches?

I am trying to remember the name of a foreign film I watched on this (in the Middle East about a man marrying a 13 or 14 year old...and finally consummating the relationship...was a very difficult watch)

There's a big difference between abusing women and marrying them at a young age, so that's not applicable. I don't know about you, but I don't have a natural drive to abuse women. I do have a natural drive to mate.

Our natural sex drive has nothing to do with racism, so that's not applicable.

Leaches? Are you seriously comparing primitive medicine to the natural sex drive of humans? Please.

[QUOTE="UT_Wrestler"]In truth, I'm 27 and I'm attracted to females of any fertile age, from as old as late 30's to as young as 13. If that makes me a pedophile then so be it, but it's not like I'm going out having relations with middle school girls, as I completely understand the morality in that a person that young is not capable of making mature, rational decisions and that's the whole idea behind the legal consenting age law. But on the other hand, I despise anyone who says there's something wrong with me for having the attraction in the first place.Ken_Masterz

[QUOTE="rawsavon"]

[QUOTE="hartsickdiscipl"]

The precedent has been set throughout human history that men of almost any age have married and mated with young women as young as 13 or 14 years old. I'm thinking that they must have found them attractive to want to do that. When you take this into consideration, you begin to realize that it's only our modern society that has made this seem wrong or perverted. Once a girl enters puberty, it's 100% natural for men of different ages to find her attractive. Not only pretty, but sexually attractive. It is a natural part of human sexuality, and it always will be. Our government has taken it upon themselves to impose age limits on all sorts of things. That doesn't mean that someone has a disorder because they're attracted to fertile females, regardless of the age. In fact, quite the opposite when you look at thousands of years of human interaction. There's a reason that women start to look different when they enter puberty. It's to attract a mate. Not a hard concept.

Using the past to justify the present is a flawed train of thought.
...or do you also support the way women have been treated throughout history as well?
…or the treatment of other races?
…or the use of leaches?

I am trying to remember the name of a foreign film I watched on this (in the Middle East about a man marrying a 13 or 14 year old...and finally consummating the relationship...was a very difficult watch)

There's a big difference between abusing women and marrying them at a young age, so that's not applicable. I don't know about you, but I don't have a natural drive to abuse women. I do have a natural drive to mate.

Our natural sex drive has nothing to do with racism, so that's not applicable.

Leaches? Are you seriously comparing primitive medicine to the natural sex drive of humans? Please.

[QUOTE="hartsickdiscipl"]

[QUOTE="rawsavon"]

Using the past to justify the present is a flawed train of thought.
...or do you also support the way women have been treated throughout history as well?
…or the treatment of other races?
…or the use of leaches?

I am trying to remember the name of a foreign film I watched on this (in the Middle East about a man marrying a 13 or 14 year old...and finally consummating the relationship...was a very difficult watch)

rawsavon

There's a big difference between abusing women and marrying them at a young age, so that's not applicable. I don't know about you, but I don't have a natural drive to abuse women. I do have a natural drive to mate.

Our natural sex drive has nothing to do with racism, so that's not applicable.

Leaches? Are you seriously comparing primitive medicine to the natural sex drive of humans? Please.

I don't have an urge to mate with a 13 year old, though I also don't have an urge to use violence. I have an urge to dominate, like say win a competition or game, but not in a violent sense. I'd only ever use violence if I needed to protect something.

[QUOTE="rawsavon"][QUOTE="hartsickdiscipl"]

There's a big difference between abusing women and marrying them at a young age, so that's not applicable. I don't know about you, but I don't have a natural drive to abuse women. I do have a natural drive to mate.

Our natural sex drive has nothing to do with racism, so that's not applicable.

Leaches? Are you seriously comparing primitive medicine to the natural sex drive of humans? Please.

I don't have an urge to mate with a 13 year old, though I also don't have an urge to use violence. I have an urge to dominate, like say win a competition or game, but not in a violent sense. I'd only ever use violence if I needed to protect something.

[QUOTE="hartsickdiscipl"]

[QUOTE="rawsavon"]

Using the past to justify the present is a flawed train of thought.
...or do you also support the way women have been treated throughout history as well?
…or the treatment of other races?
…or the use of leaches?

I am trying to remember the name of a foreign film I watched on this (in the Middle East about a man marrying a 13 or 14 year old...and finally consummating the relationship...was a very difficult watch)

rawsavon

There's a big difference between abusing women and marrying them at a young age, so that's not applicable. I don't know about you, but I don't have a natural drive to abuse women. I do have a natural drive to mate.

Our natural sex drive has nothing to do with racism, so that's not applicable.

Leaches? Are you seriously comparing primitive medicine to the natural sex drive of humans? Please.

If you don't have a natural urge to mate with attractive females whose bodies are naturally putting out the signals that they are ready to mate, sometimes as early as 13 or 14... you're the one with the problem IMO. You may have a mental block against allowing the urges to surface, which has been engrained in you by our society, but that's not nature. You can't deny that there is a major change in most female's bodies around ages 12-14, and that this change is meant to attract a mate. It's a natural beacon to men. We've been conditioned that it's perverted to want to act on this signal because of the way our society is structured.

The age of consent is different in different states and countries. This is because the age of consent is set to work with other age limits that our governments have set. For example, in the US- you can't drive until you're 16-18 years old. You can't vote until you're 18.. You can't work without parental permission until you're 17 or 18. You can't own a house or land until you're around that age. You can't drink until you're 21. Do you see what I mean? Our society lies to us about why we have a legal age of consent for sex. It has nothing to do with perversion and protecting young people whose bodies are clearly ready. It has everything to do with fitting in with the way the rest of our society is built. In the end, it's all about money. Do you know what would happen to our economy if 13-15 year-olds started commonly getting married and having children in the US? Because people that age are required to stay in school until they've reached a certain age, then they're not allowed to work without parental permission until a certain age.. these young people wouldn't be able to support themselves and their offspring. You multiply this by a million and you've got a major economic issue. Don't fool yourself into thinking that the age of consent is about mental/emotional readiness for sex.. it's about keeping the fragile fabric of our society together, nature be damned.

Man doesn't have a universal drive to dominate others. That's simply not true. Some poeple allow their greed, selfishness, and jealousy to overcome them, and therefore attempt to dominate, but that is not a natural, unversal, inborn thing. It's actually a product of the society that we've built, not part of our physical makeup. It's not at all comparable to the natural sex drive, and the physical age at which we start attracting a mate, and at which our bodies are ready.

This has nothing do with "foolish" behaviors in the past. It has to do with foolish boundaries that we've set in our modern society that make people who think about or act on natural processes look like perverts.

This has nothing do with "foolish" behaviors in the past. It has to do with foolish boundaries that we've set in our modern society that make people who think about or act on natural processes look like perverts.

[QUOTE="hartsickdiscipl"]

This has nothing do with "foolish" behaviors in the past. It has to do with foolish boundaries that we've set in our modern society that make people who think about or act on natural processes look like perverts.

rawsavon

I would like to believe that. Unfortunately when I see cops being given quotas for how many tickets they need to write to generate revenue, I have a hard time believing this. Think about that. Cops being given quotas for how many people that must catch breaking the law.. because the state/county/town needs money. Face it, the age of consent is all about money. It's based on all the other age limits. I can't believe that somebody would honestly look at all of the available evidence and say that it's perverted for a man to be attracted to a female whose body is giving the natural signs of being ready to mate. No.. our society says that it's perverted, because it would mess up the web that we've built. Nature says that it's not perverted. Nature screams that this is the age.

Yes because our society has declared that it is wrong. about 2000 years ago in acient Rome it would have been fine.. Have sex with all the 13 year olds you want, watch some dudes get killed in a stadium and then eat until you vomit

[QUOTE="rawsavon"][QUOTE="hartsickdiscipl"]

This has nothing do with "foolish" behaviors in the past. It has to do with foolish boundaries that we've set in our modern society that make people who think about or act on natural processes look like perverts.

I would like to believe that. Unfortunately when I see cops being given quotas for how many tickets they need to write to generate revenue, I have a hard time believing this. Think about that. Cops being given quotas for how many people that must catch breaking the law.. because the state/county/town needs money. Face it, the age of consent is all about money. It's based on all the other age limits. I can't believe that somebody would honestly look at all of the available evidence and say that it's perverted for a man to be attracted to a female whose body is giving the natural signs of being ready to mate. No.. our society says that it's perverted, because it would mess up the web that we've built. Nature says that it's not perverted. Nature screams that this is the age.

i'd like to inform to whoever uses the pubic hair, therefore sexually mature argument, that, normally, pubic hair comes before menarche, which is the definitive sign of sexual maturity in women.

[QUOTE="hartsickdiscipl"]

[QUOTE="rawsavon"] tbh, there is not much we can discuss... We are worlds apart in our thinking. You are saying that gov is some big hand guiding people to further its own ends I am saying gov is made by the people, to protect the people...people allow themselves to be ruled b/c they agree with what is going on -if not, they would rise up and change things -people follow the 'rules' b/c they want to/they choose torawsavon

I would like to believe that. Unfortunately when I see cops being given quotas for how many tickets they need to write to generate revenue, I have a hard time believing this. Think about that. Cops being given quotas for how many people that must catch breaking the law.. because the state/county/town needs money. Face it, the age of consent is all about money. It's based on all the other age limits. I can't believe that somebody would honestly look at all of the available evidence and say that it's perverted for a man to be attracted to a female whose body is giving the natural signs of being ready to mate. No.. our society says that it's perverted, because it would mess up the web that we've built. Nature says that it's not perverted. Nature screams that this is the age.

[QUOTE="rawsavon"][QUOTE="hartsickdiscipl"]

I would like to believe that. Unfortunately when I see cops being given quotas for how many tickets they need to write to generate revenue, I have a hard time believing this. Think about that. Cops being given quotas for how many people that must catch breaking the law.. because the state/county/town needs money. Face it, the age of consent is all about money. It's based on all the other age limits. I can't believe that somebody would honestly look at all of the available evidence and say that it's perverted for a man to be attracted to a female whose body is giving the natural signs of being ready to mate. No.. our society says that it's perverted, because it would mess up the web that we've built. Nature says that it's not perverted. Nature screams that this is the age.

xaos

Despite the fact that this is true in most cases, I don't feel it gives a government or a citizen the right to place restrictions upon what another can do with their own body.

i'd like to inform to whoever uses the pubic hair, therefore sexually mature argument, that, normally, pubic hair comes before menarche, which is the definitive sign of sexual maturity in women.

flordeceres

Then that can be used as the indicator instead. Fair enough.

Yeah, there is a huge power disparity between a 13 year old and an adult and there should be a huge psychological disparity that would tend to undercut any physical attraction that might be feltxaos

You would think...

I don't believe that people really remember what everyone looked like in 7/8/9th grade (at least I hope they don't)...that is just sickening to me
For those of you in college and beyond, go look at your 7th grade yearbook and get back to us on if you are sexually attracted to the people in it

Yes, because if he has the attraction then he's likely to act on it. Theokhoth

This is plain wrong. Many married guys have attractions to other women, but they never act it out. It's called self controll. As humans, we are capable of controlling our impulses. Even my dog is capable of controlling impulses.

[QUOTE="xaos"][QUOTE="rawsavon"] Like I said, we are worlds apart. I do not see the 'conspiracy'. I see nothing wrong with cops having a quota to give on speeding tickets (don't speed and there won't be an issue) And if the people really had a problem with it (which they don't), they would demand change No...what I see is the psychology behind the maturity of a 8th grader versus that of a 30 year old man...and the potential for serious mental and physical harmhartsickdiscipl

Despite the fact that this is true in most cases, I don't feel it gives a government or a citizen the right to place restrictions upon what another can do with their own body.

[QUOTE="Theokhoth"]Yes, because if he has the attraction then he's likely to act on it. psychobrew

This is plain wrong. Many married guys have attractions to other women, but they never act it out. It's called self controll. As humans, we are capable of controlling our impulses. Even my dog is capable of controlling impulses.

[QUOTE="hartsickdiscipl"]

[QUOTE="xaos"] Yeah, there is a huge power disparity between a 13 year old and an adult and there should be a huge psychological disparity that would tend to undercut any physical attraction that might be feltrawsavon

Despite the fact that this is true in most cases, I don't feel it gives a government or a citizen the right to place restrictions upon what another can do with their own body.

It shouldn't while i really don't get attracted by girls that young, i usually prefer the laws from Netherlands(i think that's the country) where you could have sex with anyone older than 16 years, by then i think most people find them attractive.

[QUOTE="hartsickdiscipl"]

[QUOTE="rawsavon"] tbh, there is not much we can discuss... We are worlds apart in our thinking. You are saying that gov is some big hand guiding people to further its own ends I am saying gov is made by the people, to protect the people...people allow themselves to be ruled b/c they agree with what is going on -if not, they would rise up and change things -people follow the 'rules' b/c they want to/they choose torawsavon

I would like to believe that. Unfortunately when I see cops being given quotas for how many tickets they need to write to generate revenue, I have a hard time believing this. Think about that. Cops being given quotas for how many people that must catch breaking the law.. because the state/county/town needs money. Face it, the age of consent is all about money. It's based on all the other age limits. I can't believe that somebody would honestly look at all of the available evidence and say that it's perverted for a man to be attracted to a female whose body is giving the natural signs of being ready to mate. No.. our society says that it's perverted, because it would mess up the web that we've built. Nature says that it's not perverted. Nature screams that this is the age.

It's not true that if you don't speed you won't get tickets. I know several people who have gotten tickets when they weren't committing any infraction at all. The police simply lie. They are pressured to write the tickets due to the quota, and then they fabricate offenses when they don't catch enough people committing real ones. It's just like a salesperson using dishonest tactics to hit their sales quotas. Happens all the time. This is the reality of placing quotas on people. It's morally wrong to set a quota for how many people you must catch breaking the law. It's wrong because it assumes that there will be that many people breaking the law within that officer's purview, and because it puts pressure on the cop to reach such a goal. The goal is perverted by nature. I don't think you realize the pressure that local and state governments put on their police forces to generate revenue.

A large part of the "maturity" that 14 year-olds in our society have comes from the system they are forced to conform to. If they were allowed more freedoms and to fend for themselves more, they would develop emotionally and mentally more quickly. It all ties into what I said earlier about the age of consent being based around the other artificial age limits that we set in our society. Let me put it to you this way- The sooner you let a tiger out into the wild, the sooner it will become a good hunter and be able to fend for itself. If the mother nurses and coddles the cat until it's older, it won't mature as quickly. That's a fact. The same applies to the maturity of humans who are molded by a society that keeps them "in the nest" until a certain age.

[QUOTE="hartsickdiscipl"]

[QUOTE="xaos"] Yeah, there is a huge power disparity between a 13 year old and an adult and there should be a huge psychological disparity that would tend to undercut any physical attraction that might be feltrawsavon

Despite the fact that this is true in most cases, I don't feel it gives a government or a citizen the right to place restrictions upon what another can do with their own body.

The age of consent has nothing to do with "protecting" anyone, no matter what you may have been taught. It has everything to do with keeping kids in the house and away from adult activities until they've reached the ages when they can drive, vote, own land, work without parental permission, etc.. I guarantee you that if these age limits were lowered, so would be the age of consent.

[QUOTE="rawsavon"][QUOTE="hartsickdiscipl"]

I would like to believe that. Unfortunately when I see cops being given quotas for how many tickets they need to write to generate revenue, I have a hard time believing this. Think about that. Cops being given quotas for how many people that must catch breaking the law.. because the state/county/town needs money. Face it, the age of consent is all about money. It's based on all the other age limits. I can't believe that somebody would honestly look at all of the available evidence and say that it's perverted for a man to be attracted to a female whose body is giving the natural signs of being ready to mate. No.. our society says that it's perverted, because it would mess up the web that we've built. Nature says that it's not perverted. Nature screams that this is the age.

It's not true that if you don't speed you won't get tickets. I know several people who have gotten tickets when they weren't committing any infraction at all. The police simply lie. They are pressured to write the tickets due to the quota, and then they fabricate offenses when they don't catch enough people committing real ones. It's just like a salesperson using dishonest tactics to hit their sales quotas. Happens all the time. This is the reality of placing quotas on people. It's morally wrong to set a quota for how many people you must catch breaking the law. It's wrong because it assumes that there will be that many people breaking the law within that officer's purview, and because it puts pressure on the cop to reach such a goal. The goal is perverted by nature. I don't think you realize the pressure that local and state governments put on their police forces to generate revenue.

A large part of the "maturity" that 14 year-olds in our society have comes from the system they are forced to comform to. If they were allowed more freedoms and to fend for themselves more, they would develop emotionally and mentally more quickly. It all ties into what I said earlier about the age of consent being based around the other artificial age limits that we set in our society. Let me put it to you this way- The sooner you let a tiger out into the wild, the sooner it will become a good hunter and be able to fend for itself. If the mother nurses and coddles the cat until it's older, it won't mature as quickly. That's a fact. The same applies to the maturity of humans who are molded by a society that keeps them "in the nest" until a certain age.

[QUOTE="hartsickdiscipl"]

[QUOTE="rawsavon"] Like I said, we are worlds apart. I do not see the 'conspiracy'. I see nothing wrong with cops having a quota to give on speeding tickets (don't speed and there won't be an issue) And if the people really had a problem with it (which they don't), they would demand change No...what I see is the psychology behind the maturity of a 8th grader versus that of a 30 year old man...and the potential for serious mental and physical harmrawsavon

It's not true that if you don't speed you won't get tickets. I know several people who have gotten tickets when they weren't committing any infraction at all. The police simply lie. They are pressured to write the tickets due to the quota, and then they fabricate offenses when they don't catch enough people committing real ones. It's just like a salesperson using dishonest tactics to hit their sales quotas. Happens all the time. This is the reality of placing quotas on people. It's morally wrong to set a quota for how many people you must catch breaking the law. It's wrong because it assumes that there will be that many people breaking the law within that officer's purview, and because it puts pressure on the cop to reach such a goal. The goal is perverted by nature. I don't think you realize the pressure that local and state governments put on their police forces to generate revenue.

A large part of the "maturity" that 14 year-olds in our society have comes from the system they are forced to comform to. If they were allowed more freedoms and to fend for themselves more, they would develop emotionally and mentally more quickly. It all ties into what I said earlier about the age of consent being based around the other artificial age limits that we set in our society. Let me put it to you this way- The sooner you let a tiger out into the wild, the sooner it will become a good hunter and be able to fend for itself. If the mother nurses and coddles the cat until it's older, it won't mature as quickly. That's a fact. The same applies to the maturity of humans who are molded by a society that keeps them "in the nest" until a certain age.

When you proceed with the knowledge that our society is entirely based around money, you see things very differently.

It's not true that if you don't speed you won't get tickets. I know several people who have gotten tickets when they weren't committing any infraction at all. The police simply lie. They are pressured to write the tickets due to the quota, and then they fabricate offenses when they don't catch enough people committing real ones.

hartsickdiscipl

You probably shouldn't speak on things you know nothing about it.

The whole quota thing started off as a cop joke. There are no quotas. If no one is breaking the law, no one gets a ticket. It's just that simple.

Thankfully, that's not the case. Gotta' keep the state's coffers full, afterall. :P

[QUOTE="rawsavon"][QUOTE="hartsickdiscipl"]

It's not true that if you don't speed you won't get tickets. I know several people who have gotten tickets when they weren't committing any infraction at all. The police simply lie. They are pressured to write the tickets due to the quota, and then they fabricate offenses when they don't catch enough people committing real ones. It's just like a salesperson using dishonest tactics to hit their sales quotas. Happens all the time. This is the reality of placing quotas on people. It's morally wrong to set a quota for how many people you must catch breaking the law. It's wrong because it assumes that there will be that many people breaking the law within that officer's purview, and because it puts pressure on the cop to reach such a goal. The goal is perverted by nature. I don't think you realize the pressure that local and state governments put on their police forces to generate revenue.

A large part of the "maturity" that 14 year-olds in our society have comes from the system they are forced to comform to. If they were allowed more freedoms and to fend for themselves more, they would develop emotionally and mentally more quickly. It all ties into what I said earlier about the age of consent being based around the other artificial age limits that we set in our society. Let me put it to you this way- The sooner you let a tiger out into the wild, the sooner it will become a good hunter and be able to fend for itself. If the mother nurses and coddles the cat until it's older, it won't mature as quickly. That's a fact. The same applies to the maturity of humans who are molded by a society that keeps them "in the nest" until a certain age.

When you proceed with the knowledge that our society is entirely based around money, you see things very differently.

[QUOTE="hartsickdiscipl"]

It's not true that if you don't speed you won't get tickets. I know several people who have gotten tickets when they weren't committing any infraction at all. The police simply lie. They are pressured to write the tickets due to the quota, and then they fabricate offenses when they don't catch enough people committing real ones.

airshocker

You probably shouldn't speak on things you know nothing about it.

The whole quota thing started off as a cop joke. There are no quotas. If no one is breaking the law, no one gets a ticket. It's just that simple.

Thankfully, that's not the case. Gotta' keep the state's coffers full, afterall. :P

Considering that I have several friends who are police officers at both the local and state level, and know for a fact that they do have quotas, this isn't true. If you think that people who aren't breaking the law never get tickets, you're delusional.

[QUOTE="hartsickdiscipl"]

[QUOTE="rawsavon"] I just don't buy into the conspiracies...sorry. There is really no point in us discussing them. You have your thoughts (that I have my head in the sand), and I have mine about you. I hope you are not serious though when you say a 13 year old would ever be as mature as a 30 old if we just 'let them out into the wild'...to be preyed upon. I can usually find at least some common ground with most people on here (at least agree on SOMETHING...anything), but that is not the case hererawsavon

When you proceed with the knowledge that our society is entirely based around money, you see things very differently.

I'm implying that you see pure motives when the real motivation for almost everything in our society and legal system is about money.

When you proceed with the knowledge that our society is entirely based around money, you see things very differently.

hartsickdiscipl

[QUOTE="rawsavon"][QUOTE="hartsickdiscipl"]

When you proceed with the knowledge that our society is entirely based around money, you see things very differently.

I'm implying that you see pure motives when the real motivation for almost everything in our society and legal system is about money.

[QUOTE="hartsickdiscipl"]

When you proceed with the knowledge that our society is entirely based around money, you see things very differently.

xaos

Because that would tear apart the fabric of the society that has been built. Let's face it- if everybody's pimping out there kids, most of those kids will never reach higher levels of education and income, and therefore won't be able to contribute well to the bigger machine. It's a balancing act with the people at the top having full knowledge of the best way to manipulate it. You can't destroy the future pawns by pimping them out, that doesn't work in the long run.

[QUOTE="hartsickdiscipl"]

[QUOTE="rawsavon"] Are implying that you have some knowledge I lack...about money? Though I will agree that "you see things very differently"rawsavon

I'm implying that you see pure motives when the real motivation for almost everything in our society and legal system is about money.

Can you tell me what about my statement was innaccurate?

[QUOTE="rawsavon"][QUOTE="hartsickdiscipl"]

I'm implying that you see pure motives when the real motivation for almost everything in our society and legal system is about money.

Can you tell me what about my statement was innaccurate?

[QUOTE="xaos"][QUOTE="hartsickdiscipl"]

When you proceed with the knowledge that our society is entirely based around money, you see things very differently.

hartsickdiscipl

Because that would tear apart the fabric of the society that has been built. Let's face it- if everybody's pimping out there kids, most of those kids will never reach higher levels of education and income, and therefore won't be able to contribute well to the bigger machine. It's a balancing act with the people at the top having full knowledge of the best way to manipulate it. You can't destroy the future pawns by pimping them out, that doesn't work in the long run.

[QUOTE="hartsickdiscipl"]

[QUOTE="xaos"] In that case, why doesn't our society encourage parents to pimp out their kids?xaos

Because that would tear apart the fabric of the society that has been built. Let's face it- if everybody's pimping out there kids, most of those kids will never reach higher levels of education and income, and therefore won't be able to contribute well to the bigger machine. It's a balancing act with the people at the top having full knowledge of the best way to manipulate it. You can't destroy the future pawns by pimping them out, that doesn't work in the long run.

Who is going to work for those companies and help them hit their quarterly numbers if they don't allow/force the youths to go through the established, standardized way of educating them, limiting their activities, etc? If you start pimping out kids to make some profit early on, you miss out on the bigger peice of the pie later when they become part of the corporate world. Even short-sighted companies have some sense of the bigger picture, as long as the bigger picture helps them make more money. The pawns have to reach a certain age before they're of any real use. Screw them up too much early on, and you don't have pawns when they're older.

[QUOTE="xaos"][QUOTE="hartsickdiscipl"]

Because that would tear apart the fabric of the society that has been built. Let's face it- if everybody's pimping out there kids, most of those kids will never reach higher levels of education and income, and therefore won't be able to contribute well to the bigger machine. It's a balancing act with the people at the top having full knowledge of the best way to manipulate it. You can't destroy the future pawns by pimping them out, that doesn't work in the long run.

hartsickdiscipl

Who is going to work for those companies and help them hit their quarterly numbers if they don't allow/force the youths to go through the established, standardized way of educating them, limiting their activities, etc? If you start pimping out kids to make some profit early on, you miss out on the bigger peice of the pie later when they become part of the corporate world. Even short-sighted companies have some sense of the bigger picture, as long as the bigger picture helps them make more money. The pawns have to reach a certain age before they're of any real use. Screw them up too much early on, and you don't have pawns when they're older.

[QUOTE="psychobrew"]

[QUOTE="Theokhoth"]Yes, because if he has the attraction then he's likely to act on it. rawsavon

This is plain wrong. Many married guys have attractions to other women, but they never act it out. It's called self controll. As humans, we are capable of controlling our impulses. Even my dog is capable of controlling impulses.

[QUOTE="hartsickdiscipl"]

[QUOTE="xaos"] Yet most businesses are run on whatever will optimize the current quarter with no regard for even a five year projection; your reasoning seems skewed to mexaos

Who is going to work for those companies and help them hit their quarterly numbers if they don't allow/force the youths to go through the established, standardized way of educating them, limiting their activities, etc? If you start pimping out kids to make some profit early on, you miss out on the bigger peice of the pie later when they become part of the corporate world. Even short-sighted companies have some sense of the bigger picture, as long as the bigger picture helps them make more money. The pawns have to reach a certain age before they're of any real use. Screw them up too much early on, and you don't have pawns when they're older.

It does match the way that I see businesses being run, some of which I've been a part. We may just have to differ on this.

[QUOTE="psychobrew"]

[QUOTE="Theokhoth"]Yes, because if he has the attraction then he's likely to act on it. rawsavon

This is plain wrong. Many married guys have attractions to other women, but they never act it out. It's called self controll. As humans, we are capable of controlling our impulses. Even my dog is capable of controlling impulses.

It would depend on his or her level of attraction (and if that is all they are attracted to), but an attraction does not neccessarily mean sex or sexual impulses.

At what point is thought control OK? A society with thought police is one I don't want to be a part of.

[QUOTE="rawsavon"][QUOTE="psychobrew"]

This is plain wrong. Many married guys have attractions to other women, but they never act it out. It's called self controll. As humans, we are capable of controlling our impulses. Even my dog is capable of controlling impulses.

harashawn

The definition of a pedophile:

Pedophilia (or paedophilia) is a psychiatric disorder in adults or late adolescents (persons age 16 and older) characterized by a primary or exclusive sexual interest in prepubescent children.[1][2][3][4] According to the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM), pedophilia is a paraphilia in which a person has intense and recurrent sexual urges towards and fantasies about children they have either acted on or cause distress or interpersonal difficulty.[4]

[QUOTE="rawsavon"][QUOTE="psychobrew"]

This is plain wrong. Many married guys have attractions to other women, but they never act it out. It's called self controll. As humans, we are capable of controlling our impulses. Even my dog is capable of controlling impulses.

It would depend on his or her level of attraction (and if that is all they are attracted to), but an attraction does not neccessarily mean sex or sexual impulses.

At what point is thought control OK? A society with thought police is one I don't want to be a part of.

The definition of a pedophile:

Pedophilia (or paedophilia) is a psychiatric disorder in adults or late adolescents (persons age 16 and older) characterized by a primary or exclusive sexual interest in prepubescent children.According to the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM), pedophilia is a paraphilia in which a person has intense and recurrent sexual urges towards and fantasies about children they have either acted on or cause distress or interpersonal difficulty.

rawsavon

noun-
a person who is sexually attracted to children.
Wikipedia is not a dictionary. Either way, primary does not mean exclusive; since it says "primary or exclusive", it means one or the other. However, I repeat: Wikipedia isNOT a dictionary.

[QUOTE="rawsavon"]

The definition of a pedophile:

Pedophilia (or paedophilia) is a psychiatric disorder in adults or late adolescents (persons age 16 and older) characterized by a primary or exclusive sexual interest in prepubescent children.According to the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM), pedophilia is a paraphilia in which a person has intense and recurrent sexual urges towards and fantasies about children they have either acted on or cause distress or interpersonal difficulty.

noun-
a person who is sexually attracted to children.
Wikipedia is not a dictionary. Either way, primary does not mean exclusive; since it says "primary or exclusive", it means one or the other. However, I repeat: Wikipedia isNOT a dictionary.

its very wrong

Would you prefer I give you one from one of my psycholgy textbooks that matches the wiki one?rawsavon

[QUOTE="rawsavon"] Would you prefer I give you one from one of my psycholgy textbooks that matches the wiki one?harashawn

[QUOTE="harashawn"][QUOTE="rawsavon"] Would you prefer I give you one from one of my psycholgy textbooks that matches the wiki one?xaos

well he can think the girl is cute but shouldnt have sexually thought about her

Because I want to:

Pedophilia (according to the DSM IV)
Over a period of at least six months, recurrent intense sexual urges and sexually arousing fantasies involving sexual activity with a prepubescent child or children (generally age 13 or younger).

What is the DSM IV:
Psychiatric Diagnoses are categorized by the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, 4th. Edition. Better known as the DSM-IV, the manual is published by the American Psychiatric Association and covers all mental health disorders for both children and adults. It also lists known causes of these disorders, statistics in terms of gender, age at onset, and prognosis as well as some research concerning the optimal treatment approaches.

Furthermore (according to Abnormal Psychology by David S. Holmes):
Page 481
"An important distinction has been made between those that have a preference for children and those who use children as substitutes for adult sexual partners...those who prefer children to adults are usually unmarried...their offenses are generally planned and form a consistent part of their lives."