Pedophiles to launch political party

ODS

OMG :eek: :mad:
First yesterdays ruling and now this? What the fcuk is going wrong with the world? :mad: :eek: :mad: :eek:


Tue May 30, 1:03 PM ET
AMSTERDAM (Reuters) - Dutch pedophiles are launching a political party to push for a cut in the legal age for sexual relations to 12 from 16 and the legalization of child pornography and sex with animals, sparking widespread outrage.

The Charity, Freedom and Diversity (NVD) party said on its Web site it would be officially registered Wednesday, proclaiming: "We are going to shake The Hague awake!"

The party said it wanted to cut the legal age for sexual relations to 12 and eventually scrap the limit altogether.

"A ban just makes children curious," Ad van den Berg, one of the party's founders, told the Algemeen Dagblad (AD) newspaper.

"We want to make pedophilia the subject of discussion," he said, adding the subject had been a taboo since the 1996 Marc Dutroux child abuse scandal in neighboring Belgium.

"We want to get into parliament so we have a voice. Other politicians only talk about us in a negative sense, as if we were criminals," Van den Berg told Reuters.

The Netherlands, which already has liberal policies on soft drugs, prostitution and gay marriage, was shocked by the plan.

An opinion poll published Tuesday showed that 82 percent wanted the government to do something to stop the new party, while 67 percent said promoting pedophilia should be illegal.

"They make out as if they want more rights for children. But their position that children should be allowed sexual contact from age 12 is of course just in their own interest," anti-pedophile campaigner Ireen van Engelen told the AD daily.

Right-wing lawmaker Geert Wilders said he had asked the government to investigate whether a party with such "sick ideas" could really be established, ANP news agency reported.

Kees van deer Staaij, a member of the Christian SGP party, also demanded action: "Pedophilia and child pornography should be taboo in every constitutional state. Breaking that will just create more victims and more serious ones."

The party wants private possession of child pornography to be allowed although it supports the ban on the trade of such materials. It also supports allowing pornography to be broadcast on daytime television, with only violent pornography limited to the late evening.

Toddlers should be given sex education and youths aged 16 and up should be allowed to appear in pornographic films and prostitute themselves. Sex with animals should be allowed although abuse of animals should remain illegal, the NVD said.

The party also said everybody should be allowed to go naked in public and promotes legalizing all soft and hard drugs and free train travel for all.



http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20060530/od_nm/dutch_pedophiles_dc;_ylt=AqZuyyUkTt8e8shV5x.l6qDtiBIF;_ylu=X3oDMTA5aHJvMDdwBHNlYwN5bmNhdA--

Sarky

Free train travel, eh? Nice one.

Victor

But we already have the PDophiles in this country.

Roen

No comment except Grrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrr

Mimikyu

This post has been deleted.

Princess Consuela Bananahammock

Isn't there already one in Denmark...? Age of consent is apparently 13 in Spain, too...

Our man in Havana

Ikky Poo2 wrote:

Isn't there already one in Denmark...? Age of consent is apparently 13 in Spain, too...

And Child porn is legal there too! :mad:

Davei141

I can picture all the old men walking around playgrounds with their "right to be naked".

This is a joke? surely?

ODS

Solitaryman666 wrote:

This post has been deleted.

Well on reading it again, it would seem to suggest that only 2/3 of those questioned in the opinion poll believed "promoting pedophilia should be illegal". What about the other 1/3? :eek:

Princess Consuela Bananahammock

Bond-007 wrote:

And Child porn is legal there too! :mad:

Now THAT'S frightening

Roen

Solitaryman666 wrote:

This post has been deleted.

Yep, that was what the 'except' qualifier was.

Victor

Bond-007 wrote:

And Child porn is legal there too! :mad:

I think that was only for a short period in the 1970s

Davei141 wrote:

I can picture all the old men walking around playgrounds with their "right to be naked".

Actually, in the Netherlands and Denmark, the presumption is that its OK to be naked and you need to cause actual serious offence as opposed to 'might cause offence'. So I think thats 'covered'.

Our man in Havana

I thought that child porn was decriminalised in countries such as Sweden and Denmark?

Fanny Cradock

To quote kent brockman: "I've said it before, and I'll say it again: democracy doesn't work".

It's a terrible state of affairs when a country is so concerned with NOT treading on toes, and so weak in it's ability to stand up against a wrong that it will let this **** even be considered. There is such a thing as too much freedom!

ODS

From another Dutch-based news service. Apparently "Rearing is also about introducing children to sex". Its a sad world somedays.:(




Dutch paedophiles set up political party

30 May 2006

AMSTERDAM — Pro-paedophile activists have established a new political party in the Netherlands to campaign for the legalisation of sex between adults and children.

"Ten years ago we were 'on speaking terms' with society. But since [Belgian paedophile killer] Marc Dutroux there is no more discussion. All paedophiles are being put in the same box. We are being hushed up," Ad van den Berg, the co-founder of the NVD party, told newspaper 'AD'.

The NVD, which is being officially launched on Wednesday, will lobby for a reduction in the age of consent in the Netherlands from 16 to 12 and then phased out completely over time. "Forbidding makes children all the more curious," Van den Berg said.

"Rearing is also about introducing children to sex." He emphasised that this would have to take place on a consensual basis "as we are just as opposed to abuse as everyone else is".

The party's full name is 'Naastenliefde, Vrijheid en Diversiteit (NVD). Naastenliefde can mean love of one's neighbour or charity, while Vrijheid en Diversiteit mean freedom and Diversity.

The NVD will also wants to make it legal to possess child pornography and a reduction in the minimum age to feature in porn from 18 to 16. An initial media report that the party wanted the age restriction lowered to 12 was corrected in later reports.

A quality mark system should be introduced whereby an independent agency would decide whether children had been forced to act in the movies, according to the party's programme.

The new party is closely linked to the "Martijn" Association, which campaigns for acceptance of paedophilia and adult-child love relationships. Van den Berg is chairman of the association.

Martijn was the target of a demonstration by the extreme right-wing Nationale Alliante (NA) group on Saturday. Police arrested 20 members of far left group Anti-Fascist Action for attacking the NA demonstrators. Several AFA members were still in custody on Saturday.

Keen not to be pegged as a single-issue party, the NVD's programme also suggest other radical reforms not related to adult-child sex. For instance, the programme calls for the abolition of the cabinet of ministers and direct election of the prime minister. Animals would get more rights.

'Consensual' sex between humans and animals would remain legal, coupled with a prohibition on sexual abuse of animals. Convicted murders who kill again would be automatically jailed for life.

The NVD is in favour on strict control of government finances, with a ban on running a budget deficit. And all government documents would have to be published in both Dutch and English.

[Copyright Expatica News + ANP 2006]

http://www.expatica.com/source/site_article.asp?subchannel_id=19&story_id=30373&name=Paedophiles+set+up+political+party+in+the+Netherlands:(

Fanny Cradock

Huh? They want animals to have more rights, yet they want to make intercourse with them legal :eek: . These guys are sick.

lostexpectation

Fanny Cradock wrote:

To quote kent brockman: "I've said it before, and I'll say it again: democracy doesn't work".

It's a terrible state of affairs when a country is so concerned with NOT treading on toes, and so weak in it's ability to stand up against a wrong that it will let this **** even be considered. There is such a thing as too much freedom!

I don't know about this lot above but we can hardly compare our experience of sex and nakedness with democracy or with Scandiavias take on things?

The Song Thrush

'Consensual' sex between humans and animals would remain legal, coupled with a prohibition on sexual abuse of animals.

How exactly does an animal consent to sex with a human?

funky penguin

ODS wrote:

The party also said everybody should be allowed to go naked in public

I've been at a few parties like that alright. Good times.....

Crucifix

They must really be banking on the idea of sitting naked on a free train taking drugs clouding the voters' minds.

Hagar

The Song Thrush wrote:

How exactly does an animal consent to sex with a human?

Have you never seen a dog humping someone's leg? Without asking I might add...

Pigman II

I'm sure lots of people around the world were equally aghast at:

1) Abolishion of slavery.

2) Legalisation of various drugs

3) Given women equal rights.

4) Relaxed attitudes to pornography.

5) Acceptance of homosexuality.

It does bother me that people these days seem to think just because they stick two fingers up at the church that they are now SO enlightened and so they're SO liberal. They know it all and have it all sussed as regards what is right and wrong in society! However mention the word paedo or dogfúcker to them and they're just as bad as their parents & grandparents.

Don't get me wrong I'm not in favour of chesters or beastmasters but I do get this feeling that when I'm an old man I'm going to be getting lectures from my grandson about being so old-fashioned whilst he gives the labrador a handjob.

Sgt. Politeness

Pigman II wrote:

I
Don't get me wrong I'm not in favour of chesters or beastmasters but I do get this feeling that when I'm an old man I'm going to be getting lectures from my grandson about being so old-fashioned whilst he gives the labrador a handjob.

Well we've all seen Rebecca Loos whack off a pig live on TV so we're halfway there already.
Everything is becoming gradually more and more acceptable. People are exposed to more bizarre and subverse types of porno on a daily basis thanks to the internet so something that may have been shocking and weird a few years ago like bukkake or gokkun or tranny porn is gradually becoming mainstram and barely gets a raised eyebrow these days. Having legal/acceptable child porn wont be far off. To quote the paedo on Brass eye talking about discrimination against paedos, "its just another form of racism."
See where your freedom of speech gets you now, hippy. This would never have happened under the Nazis.

Jumpy

I find this difficult to take seriously. It has to be a pisstake or a very bad piece of journalism. The idea is so off the charts I think it cant be serious.

mike65

Every now and again they feel the need to live up our sterotype of Dutch people being Crazy Guys or doped perverts.

Mike.

Terry

Pigman II wrote:

I'm sure lots of people around the world were equally aghast at:

1) Abolishion of slavery.

2) Legalisation of various drugs

3) Given women equal rights.

4) Relaxed attitudes to pornography.

5) Acceptance of homosexuality.

It does bother me that people these days seem to think just because they stick two fingers up at the church that they are now SO enlightened and so they're SO liberal. They know it all and have it all sussed as regards what is right and wrong in society! However mention the word paedo or dogfúcker to them and they're just as bad as their parents & grandparents.

Don't get me wrong I'm not in favour of chesters or beastmasters but I do get this feeling that when I'm an old man I'm going to be getting lectures from my grandson about being so old-fashioned whilst he gives the labrador a handjob.

i see where you're coming from, but talk to someone who has been the subject of a paedophiles passion and they will tell you that it's not a very nice experience.
the fact of the matter is, children are too young to consent to sex and know exactly what the are doing, therefore it is illegal for an adult to have sex with a child.
unless you live in Ireland.

Blisterman

Sounds like a Dutch version of NAMBLA.

ODS

Blisterman wrote:

Sounds like a Dutch version of NAMBLA.

What on earth is NAMBLA?

flogen

I think they should be allowed to set up, it would save the police thousands of euro trying to track them online, just look at the party membership.

Jesus, imagine the massacre that would be their (short-lived) door-to-door canvas... scumbags

ODS

flogen wrote:

I think they should be allowed to set up, it would save the police thousands of euro trying to track them online, just look at the party membership.

Jesus, imagine the massacre that would be their (short-lived) door-to-door canvas... scumbags

Yeah...the perverts even have a website for their "party":eek: ; but dont worry i will not dignify them by posting a link here!

Our man in Havana

ODS wrote:

What on earth is NAMBLA?

Have you not seen South Park? NAMLA is the North American Man Boy Love Association. :eek:

Tricity Bendix

I have heard a defence of paedophilia which runs along the lines of it being an entirely natural and uncontrollable expression of sexuality. If society accepts that love between women can exist as much as between men and women (plural? orgy? YAY!), why shouldn't it accept that some people are wired to like children?


The argument is, of course, complete balderdash. Most people would want to protect children above allowing perverts have their thrills. I wouldn't equate this with the ideology of liberalism. What of the child's right to a childhood?

democrates

Good thing at least to know where they are so the beheadings can begin.
I'd love to bury an axe deep in the skull of every one of these life destroyers.
If there was a death sentence here for it I'd pay to be the executioner.

But the grass in Amsterdam. Be careful ordering in those cafes.
'Good' there means max, as opposed to 'safe' as I had assumed when I insisted.

SeanW

Yeah, the door-to-door canvassing should be fun. I know what would happen if that were Ireland and one of them came to my door.

"Hello sir, please vote for our party so I can fondle 6 year old boys"

WHACK

"owwwwwwww"

The_Minister

Pigman's post was hilarious (esp. the last few lines) but he has a point. We used to think of homosexuals like this and now we don't. Its all about normalisation (thats whats conservatives call it). They will start appearing in films and having music songs, then famous dead people will be post-humously outed as paedophiles by many dodgy, liberal academics and suddenly they will be born that way and the civil service will be riddled with them (the Church having collapsed by then.

SeanW

True, but overage homosexuality is consensual. Children 12 and under cannot realistically be expected to give "consent."

That said, with it apparently being acceptable for Rebecca Loos to give a handjob to a pig on "reality" TV shows like Celebrity farm for cheap thrills, it may be that the limit to allowable depravity will continue to fall until standards in all of society have all but collapsed. Seems not too far away either.

Terry

Bond-007 wrote:

Have you not seen South Park? NAMLA is the North American Man Boy Love Association. :eek:

very funny episode that i thought the writers had just made up themselves. sadly though, the organisation is real. nambla.org is their website (i think. could be .com or .net)

the thing about this that bothers me is that, as a member of the EU, you can vote in local elections in your country of residence, as long as you are a native of another EU state.
with the liberal attitude to sex in the netherlands, and amsterdam in particular, there are undoubtedly hundreds, if not thousands of paedophiles from member states residing in amsterdam. guess who they will be voting for in the local elections.

Dudess

Jumpy wrote:

I find this difficult to take seriously. It has to be a pisstake or a very bad piece of journalism. The idea is so off the charts I think it cant be serious.

A number of years ago in the 'Dam, you would have found paedophiles holding protests regarding their "rights" to have sex with children.

tallus

Dudess wrote:

A number of years ago in the 'Dam, you would have found paedophiles holding protests regarding their "rights" to have sex with children.

It's just sickening

cast_iron

Pigman II wrote:

I'm sure lots of people around the world were equally aghast at:

1) Abolishion of slavery.

2) Legalisation of various drugs

3) Given women equal rights.

4) Relaxed attitudes to pornography.

5) Acceptance of homosexuality.

It does bother me that people these days seem to think just because they stick two fingers up at the church that they are now SO enlightened and so they're SO liberal. They know it all and have it all sussed as regards what is right and wrong in society! However mention the word paedo or dogfúcker to them and they're just as bad as their parents & grandparents.

If you read your 5 points again, you will realise that they don't really compare with paedophilia. All of them refer to the abuse of people, which quite rightly was abolished. With padeophiles, even in 40 years time, i can't see how people will consider it acceptable to abuse a child.
Rape, violence, etc. would be a much better comparison.
The reason we are now all SO enlightened and SO liberal is simple - we are (in most developed countries, anyway).

Pigman II wrote:

Don't get me wrong I'm not in favour of chesters or beastmasters but I do get this feeling that when I'm an old man I'm going to be getting lectures from my grandson about being so old-fashioned whilst he gives the labrador a handjob.

Who knows, maybe even you will get off on the sight of it.:D

Tar.Aldarion

I can't believe nambla is real. - http://www.nambla.org/ :eek:

Pigman II

cast_iron wrote:

If you read your 5 points again, you will realise that they don't really compare with paedophilia. All of them refer to the abuse of people, which quite rightly was abolished. With padeophiles, even in 40 years time, i can't see how people will consider it acceptable to abuse a child.
Rape, violence, etc. would be a much better comparison.

I'm not comparing the acts themselves. I am merely giving examples of things that are acceptable today that would have found mass condemnation 50, 100 or 200 years ago. As such just because just because 'x,y,z' is what feels right and just to us now doesn't mean that is necessarily what society will or will not find acceptable in 50 or 100 years time.

The reason we are now all SO enlightened and SO liberal is simple - we are (in most developed countries, anyway).

Glad you think so.

Hydroquinone

PigmanII wrote:

I'm sure lots of people around the world were equally aghast at:

1) Abolishion of slavery.

2) Legalisation of various drugs

3) Given women equal rights.

4) Relaxed attitudes to pornography.

5) Acceptance of homosexuality.

cast_iron wrote:

If you read your 5 points again, you will realise that they don't really compare with paedophilia. All of them refer to the abuse of people, which quite rightly was abolished. With padeophiles, even in 40 years time, i can't see how people will consider it acceptable to abuse a child.

But, think of it this way - slaves weren't considered to be humans. Women were considered inferior to men, so there were plenty of men (and they were the legislators) who didn't consider slaves and women to be people in the same way men were. At the time when these social changes were going on, plenty of people who considered themselves decent honourable citizens were completely aghast at the concept of abolishing slavery or giving votes to women or making homosexuality legal, because, at those times in history, slaves, women and homosexuals were considered lesser beings, by quite a lot of the population. The same way as decent ordinary skins today are aghast at the notion that paedophilia could one day be accepted, because paedos are not worthy, nor deserving of the same rights as the rest of us.
We have the benefit of hindsight to know our forebears were mistaken about slaves, women and homosexuals. When our descendents are looking back at these times, will they say we were just as wrong about paedophilia?

Paedophiles who are reckoning to legalise what they do claim that the kids are willing. I don't believe it. I don't want to believe it, but if you look at it another way - all of us know precocious 11 year olds. How many people here had consensual sex when they were younger than legal age of consent? Good nutrition means kids are maturing faster and we live in a world where sexual imagery is everywhere. You see bits of kids walking round in thongs and belly tops and hipster jeans, wearing t-shirts that say "Slut". What's that about? We are living in a very sexualised age. And like it or not, there are kids having sex before they get to secondary school.

If you add that to the notion now that kids are just mini adults with the same rights as you and me, it seems to me that we're geting into very murky waters indeed. The way the world seems to be going now is to give more and more rights to children. In some countries, you can't slap your child, in others they can divorce their parents. Young girls with babies get flats and set themselves up as mammies when they're only kids themselves, with the complete support of the government in terms of welfare.

I am not in favour of paedophilia being decriminalised anywhere, but there are too many mixed messages in society today. So I'm not surprised to see that there are legitimate political parties coming forward at this time with paedophile issues on their manifesto. I hope I don't live to see it paedophilia decriminalised, but I'm nothing like as sure as you that it never will be.

BMH

Christ, look at their "bookstore"'s posterboy

Also, the logo shows the "M" as capital and attached to a lower-case "b".

*shudder*

democrates

Hydroquinone wrote:

We have the benefit of hindsight to know our forebears were mistaken about slaves, women and homosexuals. When our descendents are looking back at these times, will they say we were just as wrong about paedophilia?

All of the other examples involve either equal rights or tolerance of what other consenting adults do. Paedophilia fits none of these, children are not the same as consenting adults, and as we've seen on tv the damage to a child is profound and lifelong. Hence the desires of paedophiles can never be elevated to the level of a right because that is mutually exclusive with the childs right to grow up unmolested.

Hydroquinone wrote:

Paedophiles who are reckoning to legalise what they do claim that the kids are willing. I don't believe it. I don't want to believe it, but if you look at it another way - all of us know precocious 11 year olds.

Paedophiles are calculating liars so the reliability of their testimony (designed to diminish their responsibility) is in question, and even if a child consents, that doesn't mean the child acted in their own best interests when confronted by adult persuasion. That's how they get away with it for years, some get away for life because their victims could never face telling anyone, or told and were not believed, or committed suicide. And if a child is precocious that doesn't mean they are impervious to damage and should be seen as fair game with no rights.

Hydroquinone wrote:

How many people here had consensual sex when they were younger than legal age of consent? Good nutrition means kids are maturing faster and we live in a world where sexual imagery is everywhere. You see bits of kids walking round in thongs and belly tops and hipster jeans, wearing t-shirts that say "Slut". What's that about? We are living in a very sexualised age. And like it or not, there are kids having sex before they get to secondary school.

Curiosity and experimentation is natural, between some children, but between paedophiles and children is another question because the child can never be an equal. The existence of peer intimacy doesn't mean those children are emotionally mature enough to deal with the consequences, they can be scarred for life by rejection or feelings of inadequacy during their clumsy formative years. I agree society (driven mainly by corporate greed if you trace the source of influences) is over-sexualised, and I think kids are paying a big price for it.

Hydroquinone wrote:

If you add that to the notion now that kids are just mini adults with the same rights as you and me, it seems to me that we're geting into very murky waters indeed. The way the world seems to be going now is to give more and more rights to children. In some countries, you can't slap your child, in others they can divorce their parents. Young girls with babies get flats and set themselves up as mammies when they're only kids themselves, with the complete support of the government in terms of welfare.

Those rights are not about making children equal to adults, they are about protecting children from abuse and ensuring their welfare. The prime right of children is to be nurtured as children, they are not mini-adults in very important ways. They don't have the vote because they are not emotionally or intellectually mature, and similarly there is an elevated risk of damage if they engage in relations with complex consequences, even with their peers. The Paedos may argue that if they had more experience earlier they would learn to handle it, but while that may apply to a small extent with their peers now that physical maturity is kicking earlier thanks to our oestrogenic compound soaked environment, it in no way means a child is capable of making sensible choices in their own best interests when isolated by a manipulative paedophile.

Hydroquinone wrote:

I am not in favour of paedophilia being decriminalised anywhere, but there are too many mixed messages in society today. So I'm not surprised to see that there are legitimate political parties coming forward at this time with paedophile issues on their manifesto. I hope I don't live to see it paedophilia decriminalised, but I'm nothing like as sure as you that it never will be.

I suspect you're not a parent, if you listen to parents talk about this, they're not undecided or open to influence on the question, it's no way, ever, would they let a law pass which allows paedophiles to have their way with their children. Most other voters are dead against it too, so I don't see the welfare of children ever being sacrificed in order to create a right for paedophiles.

Zillah

Pigman II wrote:

I'm sure lots of people around the world were equally aghast at:

Oh for Christ's sake. Allow me to explain:

1) Abolishion of slavery.

People are allowed freedom as long as it harms no one else.

2) Legalisation of various drugs

People are allowed freedom as long as it harms no one else.

3) Given women equal rights.

People are allowed freedom as long as it harms no one else.

4) Relaxed attitudes to pornography.

People are allowed freedom as long as it harms no one else.

5) Acceptance of homosexuality.

People are allowed freedom as long as it harms no one else.

And lucky number 6:

6) Ban on paedophilia

People are allowed freedom as long as it harms no one else.


You see how that works? Children lack the capacity to make an informed decision when it comes to sexual matters. Hence why sex with them is at best taking advantage, and at worst, rape or abuse. Therefore: "harm".

It does bother me that people these days seem to think just because they stick two fingers up at the church that they are now SO enlightened and so they're SO liberal. They know it all and have it all sussed as regards what is right and wrong in society! However mention the word paedo or dogfúcker to them and they're just as bad as their parents & grandparents.

It does bother me that people these days seem to think that just because they can put a thoughtless slew of inappropriate comparisons on the internet it absolves them of the duty to understand the key issues at hand.

therecklessone

Zillah wrote:

People are allowed freedom as long as it harms no one else.

You're applying the principles that govern modern society to incidents which affected previous generations, and missing the point in the process.

Slaves were not seen as people, they were seen as property. Abolishing slavery and extending the rights of freemen to former slaves required a massive shift in the public consciousness. Likewise with equality for women, or the extension of voting rights to everyone over the age of 18. All these and more were dismissed as ludicrous or abhorrent at points in the past

What he's arguing is that in the future a similar shift in public consciousness could happen that would allow paeodophilia be legalised.

Zillah

therecklessone wrote:

What he's arguing is that in the future a similar shift in public consciousness could happen that would allow paeodophilia be legalised.

They're not applicable examples, in that there is something fundamentally different here. A woman is perfectly capable of voting as well as a man, any rational human who sits down free of social bias and thinks about it would come to that conclusion. The same about African slaves, theres nothing fundamentally different between them and their would-be masters.

And if that same rational human being sat down and thought about children he would see that there is something fundamentally different, they're not developed yet, they lack the capacity to make emotional or intellectual decisions in their own best interest.

therecklessone

Zillah wrote:

They're not applicable examples, in that there is something fundamentally different here. A woman is perfectly capable of voting as well as a man, any rational human who sits down free of social bias and thinks about it would come to that conclusion. The same about African slaves, theres nothing fundamentally different between them and their would-be masters.

Rational thought doesn't come into it. The fact is that the changes refered to earlier only occured after a change in public perception, and until then it was believed justifiable to enslave certain ethnic or racial groups, deny women equal rights, deny the vote to certain groups based on age, property ownership or other criteria.

I agree with you, rationally, children are not emotionally developed enough to give consent, but who is to say in the future that others may argue otherwise, and prove both you and I wrong? I mean, if I'd lived in the 18th Century and suggested women should have the vote I'd have been told women were too emotional to vote. If I'd lived in the 15th Century and said the Earth wasn't flat I'd have been burned at the stake.

Pigman II

Zillah wrote:

You see how that works? Children lack the capacity to make an informed decision when it comes to sexual matters. Hence why sex with them is at best taking advantage, and at worst, rape or abuse. Therefore: "harm".

It does bother me that people these days seem to think that just because they can put a thoughtless slew of inappropriate comparisons on the internet it absolves them of the duty to understand the key issues at hand.

Yawn.

Well done to therecklessone for actually seeing the point I was making. Pity you weren't capable of doing the same.

Tricity Bendix

I see the point you're making Pigman.

I wouldn't agree with it, though.

Maybe its just because my mentality is a product of present society.

Its actually quite strange to think of protection of a child's innocence as a thouroughly modern concept. A few hundred years ago, children were married and conceiving by the age of 16. I realise that this is because they weren't expected to live long past 40, but its still peculiar.