Amazon sells 'deadly' pedophile magazine

[chequita guevara]

I can advocate for the right to burn a cross. I just can't burn a cross, not can I tell someone to go burn a cross. I can advocate for the right to molest children. I just can't actually do it or tell someone else to go do it.

Or should the government shut down High Times as well as any organization which advocates the overthrown of the government?

[Kirnwaffen]

Ted:

My interpretation still stands. Political advocacy is not, from a legal standpoint, threatening speech.

[Ted Striker]

It's not just "political advocacy."

It's an instruction manual for f ucked up GROWN MEN to go out and RAPE LITTLE BOYS.

How the f uck thick are you guys?!

Defending your ridiculous textbook poly sci 101 classroom theories while kids are out being raped. I really doubt you'd have the same feelings if some little kid you knew had this happen to them.

THEN we'll talk motherf uckers

[laurentius]

words: Pederasty

"Pederasty" is an ancient Greek word that referred to sexual relationships between men and boys. Pederastic relationships often involved a teacher and a pupil, and the "love of boys" was praised by Greek philosophers like Plato. Sexual relationships between men and boys are cross-culturally more common than the androphilia that characterizes most Western gay relationships.

During the rise of secularism in 18th Century France, "pederasty" was used as a replacement for the term "sodomy" which seemed old and ecclesiastical because of its biblical origins. In spite of the original Greek meaning of the term, the French used it to refer to sex between males, and sometimes even between females, regardless of the age of the participants. This usage continued in 18th and 19th Century France and Germany, but was ultimately replaced by "homosexual" at the beginning of the 1900s.

http://www.press.uillinois.edu/f98/percy.html

http://cellar.usc.edu:9673/review/iglr/review.html?rec_id=640

[Spiffor]

Well, what I'll be saying here won't be exactly popular, but I guess this thread will be much more interesting with a devil's advocate in play (and we're talking about quite a devil !)

I am not a pedophile, nor do I condone sexual relationships or sexual violence with children. I loathe the NAMBLA articles referred in Blackice's opening post (it is clearly intended for child abusers who want to escape the law). But I think the reaction towards pedophilia in our societies (France included, don't think my opinion comes from my nationality) is way over where the line should be.

Every advanced society has laws to prevent adults to have sex with children, no matter if the kid thinks he consents or not. That's because the average kid is assumed not to be able to formulate his consent or lack thereof, AND because it would be near impossible for the judge to know if the individual kid is mature enough for informed consent or not. As such, the law is something cautious: since most kids can't express informed consent, we'll just say all kids can't express consent, and they'll have to wait a few years before that.

It is only a recent trend to consider sex with children as an abomination. Before that, the topic was taboo, and as such many people felt allowed to do it as long as they could hide it. We are today experiencing the exact opposite of this: sexual intercourse with kids is seen as an utter abomination, no matter the circumstances.

I'll tell you what: I don't think the very idea of sexual intercourse with children is an utter abomination. I sure think it is bad, and I'll tell why later.

Now, for me, a "child" (as opposed to a baby) is someone who can expresses clear preferences and have an understanding of reality, even though these can be misguided or misinformed. It is not like a baby (or a very small child) who cannot produce any clear and cohesive preference. Besides, I think the very idea of having sex with kids too young to physically support the consequences of a sexual activity is an abomination too.

Now, about the emotional scars left by sexual interaction with children: it depends entirely on the adult. You can have child molesters, who only think about emptying their balls into a defenseless person. You can have child abusers, i.e people who want to lure the kid into accepting. You can have child lovers, i.e people who want the kid to be happy, and who think a physical and sexual relationship is the way to achieve it. These kind of adults have a very different behaviour toward children, and the resulting emotional scars will be different.

Besides, kids are "innocent" in the meaning that they don't exactly understand the consequences of some acts. For example, if a child abuser remains nice with the kid he has sex with, and if no external adult will panic and explain to the kid that he was victim of a monstruosity, the kid may very well not imagine having sex is a big deal. According to a study I've read (I don't know how biased it was), the emotional scar highly depended on the surrounding adults' reaction when hearing about the intercourse. It was said the kids were very much more scarred when the surrounding adults flipped out when hearing the news.

To the ancient Athenians, the father was the one who taught the kid its way into sexuality, i.e pedophily was institutionalised. Things have changed, but the Greek example show that people can have sex with kids when thinking about their own good.

---

Now, I'm against having sex with kids in every circumstances, even when the adult has the best intentions for the kid.

The reason to that is very simple: libido is a voyage of discovery. You get to learn by yourself how you percieve your sexuality. And I think that being "taught" sexuality at a young age, especially by a person who has authority over you, is a very wrong idea, for the kid cannot develop its own sexuality after that.
Besides, not only libido is a voyage of discovery, social relationships are too. It takes a long time for the kid to know what to expect from social relationships. And these expectations should be developed by the kid's own experiences as well. Having sex with a kid at a too young age will have bad effects on his social skills, because he'll expect sex in daily relationships (especially when his sexual parner is a close one). I've heard the story of this girl, reapetedly raped by her uncle as she was 6-7, who now can't imagine a non-sexual relationship with a man

With such examples in mind, that's why I think pedophily is always bad.

But I still can think the overreaction of society toward pedophily is wrong as well: it prevents us for having a rational point of view on the matter, it makes us confuse child molesters, child lovers and people attracted to children but who don't act. To our society, all of these people are the exact same scum, which they are not IMHO. We also tend to over-dramatize sex with children, and this overdramatization is one of the reasons of the deep emotional scars.

I'll support anyday a lobby asking for a rational reflexion on the issue. But I'll continue to loathe the NAMBLA publications for explaining how to lure a kid into sex and get away with it

[MrFun]

Originally posted by chegitz guevara
I can advocate for the right to molest children. I just can't actually do it or tell someone else to go do it.

[Theben]

Check the story's site. It got a heavy right-wing bias.

[Dr Strangelove]

Originally posted by chegitz guevara
Or should the government shut down High Times as well as any organization which advocates the overthrown of the government?

Well, actually it is illegal to advocate the overthrow of the government.

[chequita guevara]

Originally posted by Dr Strangelove
Well, actually it is illegal to advocate the overthrow of the government.

Not since a judge tossed the law as unconstitutional back in 1977.

[chequita guevara]

Originally posted by MrFun

What part don't you understand? I could, for example, say, it ought to be legal to kill gays. I cannot, however, go kill gay people nor can I tell anyone that they should go kill gay people. That last example is an incitement to commit a crime while the first example is a political demand.

[Japher]

che is right... I'm not agreeing with him, I want to make this clear, he is right.

It's kind of like how liscense plate covers are illegal to have on your car in California, but it is not illegal for the store to sell it. There are consumer laws that protect sales of certain things, and in order to demand the publishing and sale of this megazing they would throw the 1st ammendment out the door.

[Dr Strangelove]

Spiffor: You left out one other reason why sex with a chiled id bad: It hurts. First of all kiddie openings, male and female, are much smaller than adult utensils, so attempting to put an adult utensil into a kiddie opening will certainly stretch the kiddie opening to the point of inducing pain. Secondly, though kiddie bodies have pretty much the same neural connections as and adult's, some of those connections don't work in the kiddie the way they do in an adult. Therefore, while stroking the utensil of certain Apolyton members of the third persuasion might induce them to shout "Yippee", doing the same thing to a kiddie will almost invariably result in tears and screams of pain. Of course, you might consider the possibility of requesting that the kiddie stroke the adult, but then you have to consider the size difference. How many here would fantasize about "servicing" a giant? Picture that in your mind, the physical size difference between a six year old and an adult. Third, consider the consequences of eliciting a positive sensation from the kid while playing with him. How will a six year old cope with the knowledge that that sort of play produces an extraordinary pleasure? What happens when that kid goes to play with his friends? You can expect only a limited degree of rational restraint from a school aged child. Finally, consider the most horrible possibility of all (short of the abuser murdering the kid), that the child may experience both the physical pain of having his delicate anatomy mangled and the pleasure of having certain areas of his body stimulated. What do you think that will do to the kid's psyche?

[Japher]

Dr Strangelove; I think you have put waaaaaaaay to much thought into this, and it concerns me

[Dr Strangelove]

Originally posted by chegitz guevara


What part don't you understand? I could, for example, say, it ought to be legal to kill gays. I cannot, however, go kill gay people nor can I tell anyone that they should go kill gay people. That last example is an incitement to commit a crime while the first example is a political demand.

What if your speech influences people to do that? Should you have liability for the consequences of your speech? In the real world you might just have such a liability.

[Japher]

What if your speech influences people to do that? Should you have liability for the consequences of your speech?

Nope, that was on Law and Order. Saying "it ought to be illegal to kill gays" is not illegal while saying "everyone should kill gays, go out and get your frag today" is illegal... See the difference?