Washington Times calls for Hastert's resignation...

[Darius871]

Originally posted by chegitz guevara

Originally posted by Darius871
I'm referring to the DSM, not popular conceptions or local laws. Even the WHO's looser definition doesn't go beyond the earliest stages of puberty.

The catagories in the DSM are not decided by a scientific method but by politics.

Then what was the APA's monolithic political agenda when it made a definition different from yours? Or the WHO's for that matter?

[chequita guevara]

That they have a monlithic agenda is not my contention, but rather that the people deciding what is or is not a catagory in the DSM do have agendas.

[Kuciwalker]

Originally posted by chegitz guevara
You can't even let me have this?

You can have a cookie.

[Darius871]

Originally posted by chegitz guevara
That they have a monlithic agenda is not my contention, but rather that the people deciding what is or is not a catagory in the DSM do have agendas.

Fine, but to what end? What do they have to gain by using physical maturation as the diagnostic boundary instead of legal adulthood?

[chequita guevara]

Their theories gain credibility among other psychologists, schools, etc. They can charge more for being experts at trial and for their sessions and books. Plus, they get to think their dick is longer than everyone elses. Even accepting that many of those on the committee only have the most angelic of intentions, the catagories they create are less distinctions in reality as distinctions in methods of catagoriszation.

What, seriously, is the distinction between prepubescent and pubescent? It's not a clear distinction, but a number of quantitative changes over time that at some indistinguishable point are a qualitatively different from before. You can't point to any one spot along the scale to say that the person has suddenly changed. So people in puberty contain both prebuescent and mature sexual characteristics. Well, what makes a 12 year old beyond the pale and a 13 year old okay? Nubs of breasts? Whisps of pubic hair? What about the fact that due to better nutrition children are entering puberty sooner but taking longer to finish it? This is the basis to decide whether someone else has pediphilia?

I, honestly don't know. To me, I feel that anyone over the age of thirty who looks at a teen with lust has serious issues. I'm not terribly keen on people in their twenties doint it either. Then again, I look at a 25 year old and think, child, ew. So I could just be a crotchetty old fart.

[Kuciwalker]

The difference is that it's quite normal for people to be attracted to people in there teens, and in fact was the norm for most of human existance.

[chequita guevara]

Normal is defined by society.

[Elok]

Originally posted by chegitz guevara
However, there's certainly an ICK factor anytime and adult tries to skeez some teen, even if they're legal. Even if the pages were 19 and legal all around, people would have to seriously wonder why a 52 year old man is coming on to them. Legal, but creepy.

Given that these were pages, and thus he was in a position of considerable power over them, it would be extremely indecorous regardless of their age. At least, I would hope it would be seen that way.

I must admit that, while I don't like the way we're getting bogged down in semantic hair-splitting, the word "pedophile" typically conjures up the image of a fundamentally warped human being who gets his jollies from the idea of violating kids who still sleep with teddy bears. A guy who goes after pages in their late teens comes across as a guy with (relatively) normal sexual urges who just happens to be terminally sleazy and amoral.

[Jon Miller]

Originally posted by chegitz guevara
Normal is defined by society.

People have had 'taboos' against pedophilia and incest and beastility in almost every society.

It isn't about just society.

For most late teens, people have full (or almost full) secondary sexual characteristics. In fact, for most of humans history, people were likely breeding by 20.

Throughout most of humans history, they weren't breeding before 12.

You are blinding youself by your ideology.

JM

[Jon Miller]

Originally posted by chegitz guevara
Their theories gain credibility among other psychologists, schools, etc. They can charge more for being experts at trial and for their sessions and books. Plus, they get to think their dick is longer than everyone elses. Even accepting that many of those on the committee only have the most angelic of intentions, the catagories they create are less distinctions in reality as distinctions in methods of catagoriszation.

What, seriously, is the distinction between prepubescent and pubescent? It's not a clear distinction, but a number of quantitative changes over time that at some indistinguishable point are a qualitatively different from before. You can't point to any one spot along the scale to say that the person has suddenly changed. So people in puberty contain both prebuescent and mature sexual characteristics. Well, what makes a 12 year old beyond the pale and a 13 year old okay? Nubs of breasts? Whisps of pubic hair? What about the fact that due to better nutrition children are entering puberty sooner but taking longer to finish it? This is the basis to decide whether someone else has pediphilia?

I, honestly don't know. To me, I feel that anyone over the age of thirty who looks at a teen with lust has serious issues. I'm not terribly keen on people in their twenties doint it either. Then again, I look at a 25 year old and think, child, ew. So I could just be a crotchetty old fart.

I personally can't really tell between a 30 something and a 20 something, it all depends on how well they take care of themselves. And while I can start telling younger as ages get younger, I can still mistake 20 somethings for late teens (And visa versa).

Now I agree that you can tell when you start getting into your mid teens.. but I would than I agree with you that there there is still more sexual developement to go through. However, many teens are fully physically sexually developed by 16.. this isn't nub of breast or wisp of pubic hair. This is full pubic hair, breasts, and hips.

Basically it comes down to people maturing at different rates. I have seen fairly (physically) mature 14 yearolds. I have also seen fairly (physically) immature 19 yearolds. The age of 16 is however, on average, a pretty good indication of physical maturity (I think).. if you want to be safe say 18.

Your discussion of 25 yearolds looking like children just shows that you prefer people who don't take care of themselves/are over the hill.

Jon Miller

[Jon Miller]

Originally posted by chegitz guevara

Originally posted by Jon Miller
I thought most girls were by 16. And having full secondary characteristics (which many do at 16) means that it is natural to be turned on by them.

Jon Miller

Full obvious secondary sex characteristics. Internally they are not physically matured, though still quite capable of reproduction. There is also mental and emotional maturity differences which should cool most people's jets right away.

The mental and emotional maturity differences cool my jets for girls well into college.. and often past college.

JM

[chequita guevara]

Originally posted by Kuciwalker


You can have a cookie.

And milk?

[chequita guevara]

Originally posted by Jon Miller
Your discussion of 25 yearolds looking like children just shows that you prefer people who don't take care of themselves/are over the hill.

Jon Miller

No, just people my own age.

[Ogie Oglethorpe]

Hasterts assertions from the internal investigation so far

Internal Review of Contacts With the Office of the Speaker Regarding the Congressman Mark Foley Matter

9/30/2006 7:08:00 PM


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

To: National Desk

Contact: Ron Bonjean or Lisa C. Miller, 202-225-2800, both of the Office of Dennis Hastert

WASHINGTON, Sept. 30 /U.S. Newswire/ -- On Friday, September 29, the Speaker Dennis Hastert directed his Chief of Staff and Outside Counsel to conduct an internal review to determine the facts and circumstances surrounding contact with the Office of the Speaker regarding the Congressman Mark Foley matter. The following is their preliminary report.

Email Exchange Between Congressman Foley and a Constituent of Congressman Alexander

In the fall of 2005 Tim Kennedy, a staff assistant in the Speaker's Office, received a telephone call from Congressman Rodney Alexander's Chief of Staff who indicated that he had an email exchange between Congressman Foley and a former House page. He did not reveal the specific text of the email but expressed that he and Congressman Alexander were concerned about it.

Kennedy immediately discussed the matter with his supervisor, Mike Stokke, Speaker Hastert's Deputy Chief of Staff. Stokke directed Kennedy to ask Ted Van Der Meid, the Speaker's in house Counsel, who the proper person was for Congressman Alexander to report a problem related to a former page. Ted Van Der Meid told Kennedy it was the Clerk of the House who should be notified as the responsible House Officer for the page program. Later that day Stokke met with Congressman Alexander's Chief of Staff. Once again the specific content of the email was not discussed. Stokke called the Clerk and asked him to come to the Speaker's Office so that he could put him together with Congressman Alexander's Chief of Staff. The Clerk and Congressman Alexander's Chief of Staff then went to the Clerk's Office to discuss the matter.

The Clerk asked to see the text of the email. Congressman Alexander's office declined citing the fact that the family wished to maintain as much privacy as possible and simply wanted the contact to stop. The Clerk asked if the email exchange was of a sexual nature and was assured it was not. Congressman Alexander's Chief of Staff characterized the email exchange as over-friendly.

The Clerk then contacted Congressman Shimkus, the Chairman of the Page Board to request an immediate meeting. It appears he also notified Van Der Meid that he had received the complaint and was taking action. This is entirely consistent with what he would normally expect to occur as he was the Speaker's Office liaison with the Clerk's Office.

The Clerk and Congressman Shimkus met and then immediately met with Foley to discuss the matter. They asked Foley about the email. Congressman Shimkus and the Clerk made it clear that to avoid even the appearance of impropriety and at the request of the parents, Congressman Foley was to immediately cease any communication with the young man.

The Clerk recalls that later that day he encountered Van Der Meid on the House floor and reported to him that he and Shimkus personally had spoken to Foley and had taken corrective action.

Mindful of the sensitivity to the parent's wishes to protect their child's privacy and believing that they had promptly reported what they knew to the proper authorities Kennedy, Van Der Meid and Stokke did not discuss the matter with others in the Speaker's Office.

Congressman Tom Reynolds in a statement issued today indicates that many months later, in the spring of 2006, he was approached by Congressman Alexander who mentioned the Foley issue from the previous fall. During a meeting with the Speaker he says he noted the issue which had been raised by Alexander and told the Speaker that an investigation was conducted by the Clerk of the House and Shimkus. While the Speaker does not explicitly recall this conversation, he has no reason to dispute Congressman Reynold's recollection that he reported to him on the problem and its resolution.

Sexually Explicit Instant Message Transcript

No one in the Speaker's Office was made aware of the sexually explicit text messages which press reports suggest had been directed to another individual until they were revealed in the press and on the internet this week. In fact, no one was ever made aware of any sexually explicit email or text messages at any time.

http://www.usnewswire.com/

-0-

/© 2006 U.S. Newswire 202-347-2770/