christ that's a complement.

where is sssh anyway?

__________________
they made soup out of my research turtles.

The entity's motto is said to have been "sex before eight, or else it's too late,"

lols.
But srsly, they need lives. And housebois.

__________________

Breathe in, come out

Incest/Pedophilia aside

I believe not having a sexual experience at a younger age caused me issues later on.

I'm guessing that, like me, most people believe that these groups are not persuasive enough to present a credible threat to the status quo. Not that I wouldn't have a problem with anyone who is a member of NAMBLA, but I'm more wondering whether they gather much support from non-paedophiles, how much their membership extends beyond those with a vested interest in seeing child sex legalised to those who are merely sympathetic to their cause. I would imagine that, if their membership is large, it's probably more because there are a lot of paedophiles who weren't members before. I don't know how much difference it makes in terms of their influence, but I wouldn't take a group such as NAMBLA as evidence that the general public are more accepting of paedophilia. Most groups that pushed for the kind of changes in the law that these guys are after (gays, blacks, womens, e.g.) got what they did as a result of support from the majority outside their own demographic (e.g. men becoming supporters of women's rights). My inclination would be to see groups like NAMBLA as a threat if they gained that kind of outside support, but not if they are simply a bunch of paedophiles. In order to have influence, they would surely at some point have to persuade someone else that there was nothing wrong with it.

But again, I'm no expert. I'm guessing you'd know better than I how much support these groups have from non-paedophiles, or at the very least whether such data is readily available. I would imagine that it's quite hard to find out given the social taboos that surround the issue, but it might be worth finding out from these organisations what percentage of their supporters would not have sex with children even if it was legalised. Gay rights were a realistic prospect because those who did not personally want to have sex with their own sex couldn't say anything wrong with others doing it. I doubt that the same is true of paedophilia.

As for the lawyers and scientists, I wouldn't worry too much about them. People "prove" a lot of things, and my own government has shown little inclination to listen to experts on any subject if their opinions conflict with those of the general public.

I'm pretty sure sex causes everyone some kind of "issue" later on, whenever you have it. People who have it earlier will always be different from people who have it later, but I don't know that either is unhealthy.

This thread is a bit confusing as you're basically discussing two different issues that can but not necessarily have to be related, i.e. incest and pedophilia... But here's my two cents anyway:

I think the most important problem with adults/parents initiating children sexually is that a relationship changes dramatically once you've had sex.

Children are dependent on adults in many ways and really have no choice in the matter. To put it dramatically, they are forced to trust some random parent or guardian with their lives. Growing up basically means slowly disconnecting this social umbilical cord. A child should be allowed to do so.

Sex, on the other hand, is the forging of another kind of relationship, a kind of "marriage", if you will. (That's why rape victims feel betrayed by their bodies. It allowed them to get "married" to a despicable being. It's not like if you take a shower long enough, it will come off. Also, there are many other acts of violence that inflict more physical pain, but none of them is as bad as rape.)

So, if a parent has sex with a child, it will have lost a safe haven and become a partner before it's even an individual. If that's not damaging to a person, I don't know what is.

Also, how the hell are your parents going to have any authority once you know how crap they are in the sack?

"That's it, go to your room!"
"Why, so you can totally satisfy momma sexually?"

I get what you're trying to say about qualia (subjective experiences) and so on, I think, but this is a rubbish sentence. Surely if sex and colour have limitations then those limitations basically mean chaos is after that.

I got a bit bored of this thread and can't really be bothered to argue on behalf of myself from a year and a half ago. Reading my first post again though, I think I pretty much still agree with Goldman, about sexual aspects not making things any worse if they're already bad in some other respect. By all means carry on though

why can't i edit my old posts in this thread? is there a time limit? "complement" is starring at me, mocking me.

but about the argument that lack of consent is no big deal with children as they don't consent to many things, well maybe, but the consent issue could be by the by anyway, as consensual sexual relations (i mean among adults) can also be damaging.

it may be more the same reason you don't hold your child over crocodiles' hungry mouths. some things are somewhat extreme and you are meant to be protected from them

__________________
they made soup out of my research turtles.

I think there's a time limit on editing posts. It's caught us all out before.

You're right to pick out consent here. There is also an argument that women (or people in general? I can't remember) never consent properly to sex. Or something link it. This point would be much better if I wasn't five hundred miles away from the book I could look it up in. It's an Alan Soble anthology if anyone knows what I'm talking about. Sex is rubbish anyway, I want to talk about logical positivism or something nice instead; I'm still bitter about there being no space for philosophy on KR anymore. BASTARDS TOOK IT AWAY FROM US

now starring is staring at me.

you just put it where you like. (there is a physics thread that light my candles made in spirituality, for instance)

complete consent requires absolute freedom perhaps. who ever had that?

__________________
they made soup out of my research turtles.

i dont know if there is a suport for such groups,but gauging by how every now and again a new one is found, the interest is there to the extent that people will go to all the trouble to be heard,seen,form commitees as in the P.I.E. in london (paedophile information excahnge ) The active campaigning in the martijn.org site shows you how serious these people are in watng to be be having a represetative in goverment.1!!!!!!

I can see an argument for it being people in general. I can also imagine that some cunt will at some point have claimed that all women are raped every single time they have sex, purely because it sounds a bit Andrea Dworkin.

Just use Spirituality or whatever it's called now. I mean, yeah, it's not in the remit of the subforum, but neither is Me Calling Sophia_ A Cunt Over And Over Again, but no-one seems inclined to do anything about that.

I just thought, out of context this is an excellent idea. Everyone is too tired for sex after 8, and good TV starts from 8. It's actually sage advice for how best to spend your evening.

And, like all truth, it rhymes!