Pedophilia - Is it wrong?

[Tmoo]

It's easy to say that when our societies have already been weaned onto religious values. Man has always worshipped something and based society around that idol. Even back when man worshipped fire or the Sun. That's unfortunately the only retrospective we have on the matter. There has never been a society shaped entirely on the morals of Atheism, because Atheism has no moral code.

And yet, there are always those who don't buy into 'idols' or faiths in every generation.

I do believe humans can be social beings and that by and large they are, but what about those who wouldn't fit you're idea of society? Are they not human too? Is the man who chooses to steal with no regard for his fellow man not human too? Is the anarchist not human too?

What is the point of Good and Evil if there is no context to it? If there is no judgement of some form? If you can't gauge it? Why make the distinction?

We are self-aware, and are able to make choices that could potentially contradict our instincts. Those who do not 'fit' 'my' society will choose to do something else, based on their own perceptions of good and evil, which may possibly include creating their own society.

Everyone can guage good and evil. It is not that good and evil do not exist, it is that it is relative to the person guaging it. 'You define reality through your own perception'. Criminals also have a sense of good and evil. Good, evil, right, wrong, it all comes down to our morality and even if you say 'that's just our morals', our morals ARE our good and evil, right and wrong - they define it.

But have you ever considered why you have morals and what you base them on? What's the point in adhering to your morality if there's no retribution? Why not just bend your morals to suit yourself? I'm not trying to impose a religious debate onto this thread, but when we speak of morality ideology will inevitably be factored in.

I have morals because by necessity I must have them, else living among other humans is impossible and my chances of survival are exponentially decreased. Morals are based on the actions towards and recieved from others, as well as thoughts, that may help or hurt a fellow human. If there were no consequences then of course none of us would give a hoot about this thing called society, but that's a rather moot point considering cause and effect.

Thank you for entertaining the discussion.

You're welcome

If I may, while I appreciate that you're attempting to delve deeper, try not to digress off topic. I noticed your post was more about the nature of morals and base human behavior than pedophilia.

 

[Rasputin]

Nobody here has yet to provide one logical reason why being attracted to children is a bad thing, so I'm not going to bother providing evidence against it anymore and just reiterate why simply making the argument is clearly counterproductive.

The problem with simply saying "pedophilia is bad" is that it almost universally implies that "it's right to harass people with pedophilia, even if they don't actually sexually interact with children". This sort of reasoning is a slippery slope. First it's pedophiles, then it's political radicals and drug addicts, then it's homosexuals and atheists and other people considered degenerates by the nutty conservatives ingrained in much of Western society. Politicians have tried stamping out supposedly immoral trends before- with the comic book censorship bills and alcohol prohibition of the early 1900's- they succeeded in nothing but driving these groups underground and wasting police forces.

And now there's a new generation of ignorant old people feeling like their privileged way of life is threatened by alternative sexualities. It's up to us to fight them every step of the way, to smash their religiously-charged ideals of the world into the ground and preach a brand of tolerant and accepting humanism.

 

[Harlequin]

Nobody here has yet to provide one logical reason why being attracted to children is a bad thing, so I'm not going to bother providing evidence against it anymore and just reiterate why simply making the argument is clearly counterproductive.

Although we all have a right to determine what is right and wrong none of us are of a stand point to fully determine it to be wrong.

I don't think the thought is wrong because I believe the Paedophile can't help being attracted to minors, but I do believe the action is wrong because I as a Christian I believe the Bible forbids such acts.

The problem with simply saying "pedophilia is bad" is that it almost universally implies that "it's right to harass people with pedophilia, even if they don't actually sexually interact with children".

Not so much harass them as to come to a decision on how to govern the society in which we live. There'll always be stigma on those who don't quite fit the general mould of a given society, that we can't do anything about.

It's up to us to fight them every step of the way, to smash their religiously-charged ideals of the world into the ground and preach a brand of tolerant and accepting humanism.

Such a moral code doesn't exist I'm afraid. Humanism can be what you want it to be. The 'betterment' of humanity. I could say prohibiting porn is better for humanity. Prohibiting drugs. Etc...

What about religious tolerance? Am I not being tolerant at the moment?

Atheism has no moral code, no code of conduct. Which means, ideologically speaking, the paedophile who indulges in the act of paedophilia has as much reference to say he's right as society has to say he's wrong.

 

[Mr. Zombie]

Sex with children isn't wrong. The tree arguments I come across when I defend my point are:

a) It's illegal
b) Their bodies aren't prepared
c) They can't consent
_

Let's talk about that:

a) It's illegal:

It's illegal because society deems it to be wrong. If society didn't, those laws wouldn't exist, and many laws that existed vanished at the whims of the vox populi.

Slavery, which was considered normal until few years ago, is now seen as terrible, but now the US has a pardo president, Barack Hussein Obama.

Women rights weren't a reality until few years ago too. Women couldn't vote, they couldn't study properly, because people were told women were too stupid, they were not born for this, and now we see several females in business and in politics. Angela Merkel, Christina Kirchner and that laser shaved-ewok president from the jungle empire of Endor, Dilma Roussef, are examples of women in power. For a more familiar example, look at our resident tyrant, Mitsuki.

Gay rights are another blatant example of the zeitgeist changing the laws. Until very recently, same sex relationships were reprehensible, atrocities to the lex naturalis. However we see support for gay rights rise more and more, shrinking conservative points of view in the corner.
_


b) Their bodies aren't prepared

The question here is not if their bodies are prepared, but does it hurt them and does it makes them feel good?

Sex is a leisure in our species. It's easily at our disposal, it's part of us, it's fun. Who doesn't like to have fun? Why privy them of something that will not harm them if they want to? If it doesn't hurt them and they feel good, why not? Can you give me a reason?
_


c) They can't consent

When they can consent, then? When they reach 18 years? When they're sufficiently indoctrinated with the often unfounded and unquestioned views their parents parrot into their minds? Because the law says so?

The logic here is that they're too stupid (I'm seeing a pattern here) to make decisions by themselves, yet I can't find any reason why sex with children is wrong coming from any 'intelligent' adult.

Sure, they're inexperienced, but that's just one more reason sex with them isn't wrong. But to say they're unintelligent? Sorry, but the straightforwardness found in children's mind (and that I try to nurture the most I can) is the best sign of intelligence one can display. What I see here is a bunch of people teaching generation after generation what they've been taught without question.
_

I'm not talking about criminals, child abusers. I'm talking about people who are attracted to children. Huge difference. People of all ages and walks of life: teens, adults, old people. Do all of these people are monsters? Are they evil? You know the answer: a loud NO. 'Child molester' and 'pedophile' aren't synonyms.

My conclusion is that people don't think it's wrong: they feel it to be wrong, because they've been told so, be it by their parents when they were young, by their friends, by people who were abused or the media. They're ingrained with a lot of pre-conceived ideas and don't mind about going after the facts at all, the subject of pedophilia being one of them.

 

[CassinoChips]

While I agree with just about every point you make, Cali, I think what Yugi is saying has some validity. At least point 1 does. The other two points would make any psychologist worth their salt cringe. But Yugi's first point is basically that social mores and values change over time, and part of the reason that pedophilia is unacceptable in today's society is because our society discourages it; but even that has changed over time. A 35-year-old man marrying or having sex with a 14-year-old girl today is psychologically damaging, creepy, disgusting, and illegal. Because we consider a 14-year-old to still be a child. On the flip side, 2000 years ago, an entire religion enshrined a relationship of that same age range, and it was nowhere near uncommon for those things to happen. Arranged marriages up through the 19th century also often had similar age discrepancies, and it was accepted by society. Because throughout most of human history, those of that age were considered to be adults. Children aren't all of a sudden developing more slowly (in fact, if anything, they're developing faster than they did at any point in history), so what's changed? How society views adolescence, and our social norms.

 

[CassinoChips]

Marry and Joseph did not have sex before Jesus' birth, I'm sure you know. He possibly had a few brothers and sisters (which is debated,) but that would mean they all came after him, meaning Mary would be 15-20 when and if she ever had more children. However, we don't know when or IF they even started having relations together. In fact, the Christian/Catholic church debate whether or not Mary and Joseph ever had sex or any more children after Jesus, I'm not expecting you to be aware of that, though. Just to put down a reference, Matthew 1:23-25 says that Joseph agreed to not consummate their marriage while she was with child. That said, we still have no idea when and if they ever consummated their marriage, neither you nor I can say what happened.


Yes they married, but whether or not they ever touched each other sexually has not been proven. So it's not pedophilia. But thank you for helping me brush up on my Bible study.

Ok. That's not really relevant, as a marriage today between a 35-year-old man and a 14-year-old girl would be creepy and illegal, with or without sexual contact.

We just finally have the scientific fact to prove that age and development status isn't something society created.

That's not entirely true.

http://eric.ed.gov/?id=EJ817034
http://www.open.edu/openlearn/history-the-arts/history/different-cultures-different-childhoods
http://www.colby.edu/psychology/labs/personality/publications/Helson_et_al_2006.pdf

Point being, there's a plurality of research that suggests that development is influenced by culture. But other than that, again, for the most part I agree with what you're saying.

 

[CassinoChips]

35? Where do you get that from? In the earliest paintings of Joseph he was depicted as a man in his early twenties. It wasn't until around the fourth century that Joseph started to be portrayed as an "older man" so as to stray people from the thoughts of Joseph and Mary having sex, thus Jesus wouldn't be the son of God. The Catholic church stopped portraying Joseph young because people started saying Jesus wasn't the son of God and rather Mary and Joseph's son. Jewish scholars have also said that at the time of Jesus' birth, Jewish men were married by 16-18 and marriage was rarely deferred beyond 24. But I guess this isn't really your fault that you think this. The Catholic church has done a mighty fine job at covering it up and perpetuating it.

Besides, you're the one who brought up the good ol' book, not me.

There is also some evidence that Joseph was a widower, and that Mary was his second wife, which would likely push his age closer to 35. Regardless, the point remains as that's a single example in a boatload of historical instances.

Jesse, I am not saying Children are never forced to grow up. I know first hand what it's like to be a child and have to be an adult. Whether or not a child is put into adult situations doesn't change a thing. A child could be working in a sweat shop, force to abandon a normal childhood, but it doesn't change the fact that their development stages at that time prove they are not yet as capable in decision making as matured adults are.

Except the research shows that it does often change things. And we're not talking about putting a 6-year-old in a factory. This is more along the lines of cultures who have coming-of-age ceremonies at 13. When a culture reinforces over generations that one is an adult at age X-teen, that person, regardless of age, shows a maturity that we would recognize as being "adult," because "adulthood" does not mean, and has never meant, "fully developed physiologically." It has always been an somewhat arbitrary social construct that has had a malleable meaning over time. In some cases, that cultural influence can actually create developmental changes in the body. Again, we're talking over generations.

And if we're basing "adulthood" solely on the basis of making "correct" decisions, then I know plenty of "adults" who are not adults because they make some dumbass decisions. And I've seen some teenagers make some pretty wise decisions. Which circles back to one of Yugi's points. In many cases, children are more apt to make a "correct" decision because their thinking is much more linear. It's either right, or wrong. The layers of complexity and shades of gray that "adults" tend to add on to things cloud the decision making process. Children who are the victims of pedophiles know what is happening to them is wrong. They may not know why it's wrong, and they may not be able to articulate it, but they know it's wrong. Does that then make them "adult?" No, because there are many other culturally significant concepts that create the whole of adulthood.

 

[iSmiff]

I actually felt my skin crawl reading that, I really did.

I'm going to link you to one site that has all of the correct information on it, I do not want to link to a dozen different sites that say the same thing just to prove a basic point to you. And I swear to god, if you try and discredit the information because of what site it is coming from.... Just don't do it, ok man? All the information is correct and accepted by everyone. This site will explain it to you so that you will properly understand.

Comparing this to gay rights and sexism is just a desperate attempt to victimize pedophiliacs, like yourself.

...The parts of their brains that prove they can properly weigh situations and outcomes are matured, unlike the children that you wish to have your way with.

Wow. I agree with alot of the points you made Paper Ballerina I just don't agree with some of the ways you get these points across. It seems like you make alot of these threads simply to find opportunity to attacks people and their views rather than actually debate the initial topic in the first place. If you aren't coming in with an open mind then why are you making these topics at all? You may as well have just made a thread saying; "Pedos need to die ASAP and if you disagree then you must be one!"

Firstly, I agree with the opinion it's wrong but it's not as simple as that. Like people say; if there is consent and no-one is physically harmed then is it still an issue? I'm not sure.. Why are consenting ages 14 in some countries, 16 in others and 18 in others ? I think that point alone dispels the validity of your 'All the information is correct and accepted by everyone' comment. If all this information was correct and accepted by everyone then surely there would be less room for movement in laws like this.

Numerous studies have been proven wrong over time too, so to have that sort of attitude whereas someone can't challenge medical science and therefore their opinion is invalid is not a thought process I particularly agree with.

I don't know Yugi, for all I know he could be attracted to 'kids' but as far as i'm aware he never said he was; and I only skimmed through his reply i'll be honest. You can't call someone a pedo for debating the other side of the coin or disagreeing with you; this is how things get out of control. Only the other week I heard of a man who was killed because his neighbours caught him taking photos of his kids and thought he was a pedo. They didn't take in to consideration that this man was autistic and seen those kids destroying his property. This word is flung around far too casually in my opinion and is very dangerous. Have you never heard of devils advocate? I played it on the debate about whether gays should get married or not; it doesn't mean i'm homophobic or anti-gay. That last comment was in very poor taste.

That aside, I believe that the younger someone is the easier they are manipulated which is clearly an issue; it's hard to judge whether consent is genuine or manipulated and I think that's why the law is in place; to try and restrict that. I'm not too sure about the body aspect of it as i'm not that well informed and I don't believe everything I read on the internet..

 

[Dionysos]

I believe that sexual relations with children is wrong. Very wrong.

But Yugi raises points that do need to be addressed. Is our aversion to paedophilia culture-bound? An argument could be made to that effect (as has been done here and elsewhere), and it does need to be addressed since there are historical and cultural precedents for ‘paedophilia’ (in its broadest sense) that are sometimes used to demonstrate that what we think now, we only think now because this is how our society thinks now.

Perhaps consider ancient Athenian society, as an example, as pederasty relationships are sometimes brought up when paedophilia is discussed. Older men (the erastai) would court erotic relations with younger boys (the eromenoi). There is a lot of debate about what exactly this relationship actually involved (and how old the eromenoi really were, as they were more probably teens), and there was also an educationally stimulating aspect to this relationship, a sort of tutelage, and it may have been a part of growing up as a male in Athens. In short, it might not have been as paedophilic as people often think, but more homosexual (or technically bisexual, though all of this is trying to squeeze our stricter modern gender and sexual orientation structures onto an ancient society far removed from us, etc, etc). As in, not little boys or pre-teens, but perhaps early teens to even the late teens. The age gap between the people involved may not have been much at all. That’s not saying that erotic relationships with pre-teens didn’t happen too, though.

In addition, also consider that older Athenian men were sometimes marrying women who were in their early teens. Marrying girls in their young teens hasn’t been uncommon in a variety of cultures at various historical periods (as noted by iSmiff, some countries still have age of consent at a similar age). Why? Perhaps, alongside varied and complex cultural reasons (for simplicity, arranged marriages can be included under these, and sometimes marriages may not be consummated for many years), perhaps a lower life expectancy sometimes had something to do with it. The younger a woman is married (so long as she is capable of childbirth), the more children a woman can potentially produce before she dies. If we allow for infant mortality being higher, and the need to have more children to increase the chances of some surviving, then starting as soon as possible can be partially explained in that way. If we think of it in those terms, as an example amongst many reasons.

However, this is all purely academic. From a moral standpoint, I think it is hard to say it is anything but wrong to pursue a sexual relationship with a child or someone who is underage. It causes me discomfort to use the words ‘sexual relationship’ and ‘child’ in the same sentence. Yes, morality is subjective. But let us say, for now, that we take morality as meaning something like the greatest avoidance of harm to other members of our species (at its basic level), then it rules out allowance for paedophilia. I don’t wish to open up a philosophical discussion on the relativism of morality, but I’d hope we’ve progressed enough as a species to state with common sense that certain acts are harmful and violent and damage people whether people personally think them moral or not.

I’ve met many intelligent children, some that have very much impressed me with their knowledge and their maturity in attitude to life. These do exist, but this does not mean that grown adults with sexual desires for children should be fooled (by their own thoughts, rather than the child) into thinking that the children are sexually and emotionally mature. Some children may act confidently, yet in reality they are not. Some children or early teenagers may act as if they know what they want and what is best for them, but they may be very wrong. To pursue an erotic relationship with a child would more often be manipulation, even if it appears that it wasn’t forced or even if it appeared to be reciprocated.

I don’t think our ideas about paedophilia and age of consent (though ages vary depending on the country, they are roughly between 14-18) have come about by accident. I think we have come to recognise that it is wrong to disturb the innocence of a child, and physically and emotionally damaging a child. It is perhaps a grayer area (though I’m still uncomfortable with it) with regards to the younger teens if a person is developing at a faster rate physically and mentally, but even then a person shouldn't endorse thinking that the teen is actually mature. For a child-child of a prepubescent age, I can’t think of any justification for it whatsoever, and I’m a person who typically sits on the fence and tries to weigh up all he can observe.

But on the point of the condition of the mind, I agree with Yugi that it is wrong to create a Frankenstein out of everyone who has had erotic thoughts towards children, as these thought processes are beyond their choosing, but also it is wrong to embrace thoughts like this, as they may lead to criminal acts in a legal sense, and harmful acts with regards to the physical and mental health and well-being of children.

I think more support should be given to people who are unfortunate enough to have paedophilic thoughts and desires conflicting their minds but do not act on this (or even with people who have acted, and have been / are being punished, more could be done on tackling the issue at its root, if it is ever possible and ethical – I’m not a neurosurgeon). It must be a horrible thing to go through, if their mind has found itself wired in that way. If a person does not act out on such thoughts, I think it is sad that a person should feel like a complete monster for what is probably a mental health issue. The same goes for any person who has a desire to do something which is damaging and destructive, i.e, kill people. And with the general sweeping hunt against paedophiles that exists today, even people who are a) not criminally active paedophiles, and b) do not even have the desires of that sort, are sometimes being accused and beaten or killed because of innocent misunderstandings. Everybody seems to be furiously paranoid about this subject because it is so (rightfully) emotionally distressing, and this needs addressing as well.

 

[Toshiya]

Just thought I'd add my thoughts :dave: (a rare serious post by me)

First off; I believe that attraction to young children/babies etc to be very wrong. Undisputable. But I don't really want to go into the psychology of people that find kids attractive.

The main points I want to say is that pedophilia is viewed, even now, differently by different societies. In the not too distant past, young women of the ages of 12 were being married off to much older men (i.e. if they were going to inherit something or were parts of a royal family), and in that society it was considered perfectly normal.
In todays societies, the ages of consent have a very wide range. In most of America it's 18, whereas here in the UK its 16, and in some European countries (I think either one of the Scandinavian countries and Spain), its as low as 13 or 14, again demonstrating that the age at which sexual activity is 'appropriate' is perceived differently by a lot of different countries.
I think that attraction to a person whose body hasn't developed at all yet (i.e. younger than 12/13) is very wrong. As for teenagers, its a grey area really. I'm pretty sure, body shape and feature wise, I look the same now as I did when I was 14/15, the only thing that's changed is that my face looks older and I've lost a bit of weight. And that was 5 or 6 years ago.

Also, a small point, I disagree that people in their early teens are capable of making informed decisions based on what they want. Sure, it may be easier to manipulate them than to manipulate an adult, but I'm pretty sure when I was 14 I was capable of making sensible choices and knowing what I wanted and didn't want. Nowadays maybe I am wiser etc etc but I didn't do anything daft that I really regret when I was younger. In fact, the older I get, the more silly things I do!

 

[CassinoChips]

There is no scriptural reference to Joseph being married before Mary. You, a non-Christian, are basing your argument off of apocryphal writings, which came to be during a time when the Catholic church was trying to stray people away from the thoughts of the Virgin Mary ever having sex. It was an attempt to give an orthodox explanation to the so-called perplexing verses where the Gospels refer to the "brethren of the Lord." It's pseudo-evidence that has sadly been accepted by the mass, once more, because the Catholic church did a mighty fine job at perpetuating their spin on the Bible.

He was depicted as a young man, Jewish men were married by sixteen and rarely postponed marriage after 25. That's all that was wrote.

Ad hominem (Non-Christians are fully capable of interpreting the Bible and understanding the historical context thereof.) and a hitting a straw man (It's one example, relax.).

Besides, it doesn't matter if history shows us a time where they did this or that, that was a darker, immoral time, ignorant to science and reason. We, however, are wiser and more accepting towards science and what it tells us.

"Besides, it doesn't matter if things were different, because things were different." Cool.

Back then, 2000 years ago, people relied on cultural upbringing to determine when a person was matured and the like. No one thought of questioning such logic, no one thought they had to. They were fine with children dying in childbirth. But now we're living in a time where we know that scientifically speaking it is not mentally and physically healthy for a girl between the ages of 10-14 to give birth. It does not end well for the mother or the child.

There are higher risk factors certainly, but all other things equal the effects of teenage pregnancy aren't that much more significant than adult pregnancy. Physically, if the body is ready, the body is ready. Psychologically, most of those effects are things like social shaming. Which, of course, adds to the point that social values influence these things.

Just because history did something doesn't mean it's right. History tells us of cultures that thought it was ok to enslave people, rape women as a bounty of war, murder infants in case they were heir to a throne, and to sacrifice virgins and children to bring rain or to win a war. We became more intelligent and more moral as the years went on and we abandoned those practices for a reason.

This isn't about judging right and wrong through our modern-day lens (which is a huge no-no in terms of historical research, by the way), it's about understanding that different cultures view things differently. Which is what you are saying, which again goes toward the point that social norms change over time.

So pedophilia isn't a subject that just flip flops every hundred of years, it isn't like the political parties ever-changing stances. It remains only a cultural-thing in countries ignorant to the latest findings.

Which again goes toward the point that different societies have different mores when it comes to age of consent and sexual availability of teenagers.

They were ignorant to the dangers of such a practice in ancient times. But we now know of all the risks for the child (and the mother). And if society accepts pedophilia again, it'll be because the world lost its moral compass and people just stopped caring for the young of our world.

It will be because the social norms have changed. Which goes to the point that social norms change over time.

But no matter how many people say it's alright to do or how many cultures believe a certain practice is correct, it still won't change the fact that pedophilia is dangerous to the child and dangerous to a species.

It has ceased to be just a "social construct". It is now something that we need to take the scientific aspects into account.

It's still a social construct. Science adds to society.

You're the one who linked to a bunch of articles about how children in China are forced to abandon a normal childhood.

Actually only one of those articles even mentions China. So. Might want to check the other two out.

In Arabic cultures it's culturally accepted to marry and have sex with young girls at the age of 8.

So they have a different social custom when it comes to that? Cool.

Let's talk about other cultural practices for a minute here, Jesse--in Egypt there's a blasphemy law and an apostasy law where if a person leaves said religion they can be killed. And atheists? Pfft, don't even think about it--some cultures say that all atheists can be killed. For that matter, culture says that in Saudi Arabia it's ok to kill someone just for singing. Or how about the culture practice of all four classes of genital mutilation to young girls just because they have a vagina? Are those acceptable just because their cultures perpetuate and accept them?

Again, right and wrong isn't the point. Different cultures have different values that may or may not change over time.

I mean, look at America--culturally speaking, it's been a Christian nation since the get-go, but people argue otherwise (myself included).

And that's slowly changing. Which goes to the point blah blah blah.

Are you seriously insisting that as long as a culture accepts it, that anything goes? Are you saying that it's ok just because it's the culture's practice? Is that really what you want to stand for? So a 56 year old man can have sex with an 8 year old girl so long as all of India is ok with it? Every girl in Saudia Arabia can be genitally mutilated because it's acceptable?

Yes, that's exactly what I'm saying. And you can tell that's what I'm saying because that's exactly what I said in this quote: ............ Oh wait there's no quote of me saying that ever.

What I'm saying is that different cultures have different values, and they view right and wrong differently than other societies. We can judge those cultures as right or wrong through our own lens, but even in doing so, we have to understand that someone invested in that culture will not see it that way.

How about instead of basing decisions on cultural beliefs, we look at the bodily and psychological risks of the situation and come to a conclusion that best answers to the needs of the victims... because what comes above religion and cultural practice is our human worth.

I hope you're not under the impression that I'm defending pedophiles or pedophilia. It's a disgusting practice. All I'm saying is that Yugi's point that other societies throughout history haven't viewed it the same way as we do is valid.

Actually, there are stark differences between each major stage of life. A person examining skeletal remains labels the body either, adolescent, young adult, or adult. They come to those conclusions by judging what stage their body was at by either looking at their skull and bone development, teeth, height, etc. So there is a difference between each stage, and it's backed by scientific bodily development.

Psychology disagrees with you, but ok.

I don't care what a culture deems adult--I judge that by their bodily development.

So we should change voting laws, drinking laws, and the age one could join the military to a per individual basis, since everyone develops differently? Interesting.

Adults make bad decisions because they choose to, children, on the other hand, have something working against them--which is a brain that isn't fully developed yet. While the adult can choose to get hooked on meth, a 12 year old can't really be held accountable because the part of their brain in control of decision making and consequences isn't at it's best yet--hence why children are punished differently then adults in the court of law.

But not always. Apparently children aren't as children-y in Texas.

Rarity. And define "teenager"? Because I've established that when I say child, I mean under 15.

So like... thirTEEN? Or fourTEEN? But by all means, pass your judgment on every kid ever.

Many cases? How so? Based on what evidence? The majority of children don't even know the basic safety rules like; don't talk to strangers, look both ways, don't put a fork in the toaster, ect.

You realize the hypocrisy contained in this one quote bubble, right? You do? Great. Pretty sure I knew not to put a fork in the toaster when I was 3. I guess I just adulted faster.

Which is why children must be watched 24/7. Children learn faster at this stage, they retain information quicker and longer, but to say that in many cases they make more "correct" decisions just isn't right. Based on the stage of their brain development, adolescents are more likely to:

• act on impulse
• misread or misinterpret social cues and emotions
• get into accidents of all kinds
• get involved in fights
• engage in dangerous or risky behavior

But that's it. I already provided the science to why children are more prone to making rash decisions, it's up to you if you want to go back and read what I said.

Physiology and sociology are two separate things, though not mutually exclusive. You've provided a bit of science on one, which you're focusing on, and which is not really the point of the argument.

 

[Mr. Zombie]

I actually felt my skin crawl reading that, I really did.

​

Allow me to link you some nice academic articles:

http://www.examiner.com/article/a-child-s-brain-fully-develops-by-age-25
http://www.academic.marist.edu/mwwatch/fall05/science1.htm
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=141164708

According to those studies, the brain isn't fully developed until healthy humans reach the age of 25. So, according to the studies, it's safe to say none of us here aside old InsanityWolf can discuss this subject, because you're 22, I'm 23 and the others are all in their early 20s, and so we're prone to make bad decisions, bad reasoning and thus mistakes. Maybe I'm right and you're wrong, since I'm older? Perhaps we all could wait to be 25, come back to this thread, and discuss it again, with our perfected reasoning skills our 25 years old brain gives us. Before that, we can't think properly to discuss it. Or we can?

What I'm trying to say is that yes we can make good decisions, and bad decisions too. Even if we're not fully developed. And even after we're developed, we will start to get old, and our body will start stop functioning as well as before, so we're never really ready for anything new psychologically speaking, but we need to start at some point, we desiring it or not. It's weird at the start, but that's it. If it wasn't this way, we would never be able to experiment things, to live. We would never learn languages, mathemathics, physics. However, we all learned about it. But when it comes to something that is our nature, such as sex, it's different? We all discover about all these academic, artificial sciences but we can't experiment sex, that comes with us, at the same time we're discovering about a bunch of manmade fields?

I'm not saying we should've have sex with children when they display interest in it. What I'm saying is that this fear that a child-adult sexual relationship will have ill effects is culturally biased. If both agree, then why not? You can yell at me how much you want about how children can be persuaded, but adults can be persuaded too. Adults are raped, abused. It's a common trait in a problematic relationship. Are all child-adult relationships problematic by itself? Sorry, but no. It can only be problematic with society demonizing GOOD people. I'm not talking about sick, wicked people that want to watch little girls burning inside an oven (they exist, scary but true). I'm talking about sexually matured children (they exist, happens around the age of 11-13, in case you've forgotten about it, scary but true) and adults attracted to them. If both display an interest, I see no reason to object it.

The age of consent in Brazil is 14, but there's a congressman that wants to lower it to 12. It's a realistic approach, in my opinion. No one's innocent about sex anymore at this age. By the current law, this is specifically a crime:

Art. 217-A. Ter conjunção carnal ou praticar outro ato libidinoso com menor de 14 (catorze) anos

Translation:

Article 217-A. Having sexual intercourse or practice other lewd acts with a minor under 14 (fourteen) years

A research made by the University of São Paulo indicates that brazilian teens lose their virginity between the ages of 13-17 years. Seriously, we should stop criminalizing something that's natural since... ever.

And no, iSmiff, I'm not a pedophile. I'm a bisexual that can ocasionally be gay or straight, depending to whom I've fallen in love at the moment.

 

[Ultimaja]

'Pedophilia' is actually a very new thing.

There was a time, barely a few hundred years ago, where it was deemed normal to in fact marry and sleep with a person who was hardly 14 years old.

I find this new 11th Commandment of God 'thou shall only confide in those over 18' a bit of a joke.
Society is 'sandbagging' it's own moral pitfalls.