danot Posted February 19, 2010 Share Posted February 19, 2010 Why are you acting like a brick wall? I have asked you to describe, in your opinion, what constitutes a sexual advancement on a child, because I'll be honest with you, I'm not sure where people generally draw the line. Kissing a child? Touching a child? Where? Like Alien said, offering a child a sweet? Have you ever said to someone,.. 'I THINK THEY LIKE YOU!! simply based on how the other person looks at them or responds to them??. And i'm not talking about people you don't know!!, so could you just give me a straight answer. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
epiphany Posted February 19, 2010 Author Share Posted February 19, 2010 Have you ever said to someone,.. 'I THINK THEY LIKE YOU!! simply based on how the other person looks at them or responds to them??. And i'm not talking about people you don't know!!, so could you just give me a straight answer. Well no I've never said that to anyone, and I think the signs are far more difficult to read between a paedophile and a child. I'm admitting now I wouldn't know what to look for beyond blatant sexual advances. People can act very affectionately around children and I would feel uncomfortable making assumptions about a person who happens to be particularly affectionate. I'm not sure, beyond some comedic caricature (e.g. ), what someone lusting after a child would look like. I saw the thread you started (I think it was yours) on a similar subject, so I'm aware we only really differ on this specific issue. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
danot Posted February 19, 2010 Share Posted February 19, 2010 Actually, no, not everyone is aware of these things. As epiphany suggests, it's not always clear. There was a family friend of ours when I was a child who sometimes looked after me when my my Mum was busy - he'd often tickle me till I could hardly breathe from laughing. Pervert or just a guy having a laugh with a kid? The former I think, since i never felt the slightest bit threatened or uncomfortable. You asked last night why I thought you were inadvertently illustrating the OP's point - it's because you seem unwilling to concede that there are indeed grey areas, and that not everything is as clear cut as you seem to want to believe it is. I'm not talking about anyone that makes physical contact with kids, i'm talking about people who's sexual desires are towards children, Thats the only type of paedophile there is. The fact that they have so far been reluctant to act out their desires does'nt ease my concerns in the slightest. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
danot Posted February 19, 2010 Share Posted February 19, 2010 Surely just thinking about something can never be a crime. We're not talking about crime, we're talking about perception. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Halibut Posted February 19, 2010 Share Posted February 19, 2010 I'm not talking about anyone that makes physical contact with kids, i'm talking about people who's sexual desires are towards children, Thats the only type of paedophile there is. The fact that they have so far been reluctant to act out their desires does'nt ease my concerns in the slightest. Clearly not the only kind. Some never touch children sexually, but just think about it. Some do touch children sexually, but without violence or coercion. Within those that do there will be different degrees of risk. The trouble with rigid thinking in an area like this is that it's not actually very helpful....should we deal with a bloke who confesses to a counsellor or doctor that he fantasizes about touching children in the same way as we treat a high risk serial abuser? I would suggest not and that it helps no-one to think about such issues in black and white term. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
danot Posted February 19, 2010 Share Posted February 19, 2010 You are again missing the point by some distance. The OP is asking you to try and consider the notion that not everything can be seen in black and white terms. In Rioja's example of the 15/16 year old topless model - what actually changes in the mind of the man? Is his lust to see her naked on the day before her 16th birthday wrong, deviant and paedophilic , but completely acceptable on and after the 16th birthday? I'm not missing the point, I completely get the point. At 16 she becomes legally old enough to pose topless. She becomes legally old enough to consent to sex. I think she would be old enough(with parental consent) to marry. There has to be a line where a child ceases being under age and becomes of age.. It does'nt matter if they were under age yesterday, today they are of legal age.. as they will be the next day.. and the next day.. and the next day.... Even if we raised the age to 21, there would still be same perception on their 21st birthday.. What am I missing?? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
epiphany Posted February 19, 2010 Author Share Posted February 19, 2010 Even if we raised the age to 21, there would still be same perception on their 21st birthday.. What am I missing?? Just because the law makes something black and white does not mean the issue it fictitiously governs is. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Halibut Posted February 19, 2010 Share Posted February 19, 2010 I'm not missing the point, I completely get the point. At 16 she becomes legally old enough to pose topless. She becomes legally old enough to consent to sex. I think she would be old enough(with parental consent) to marry. There has to be a line where a child ceases being under age and becomes of age.. It does'nt matter if they were under age yesterday, today they are of legal age.. as they will be the next day.. and the next day.. and the next day.... Even if we raised the age to 21, there would still be same perception on their 21st birthday.. What am I missing?? You are missing the point that what was in question was the mindset of those looking at ( or wanting to look at ) her naked breasts. I'll ask again in a slightly different way.... Is a man who wants to see a 15 year old girls breasts a paedophile? I would imagine you would be able to give a fairly straight answer. Ok, now ask yourself if a man getting aroused by looking at a 16 year olds breasts is also a paedophile? Same answer or different? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
danot Posted February 19, 2010 Share Posted February 19, 2010 So the legal definition at 15 makes one normal but 14 and 364 days makes one a paedophile? What are you talking about??. 14 is'nt mentioned, i'm talking about the wording[ should a 15 year old girl appear topless on her 16th birthday..??. It's word play.. "should a 15 year old girl...). It's meant to offend. Who's talking about a 14 year old, or questioning the morality of a 14 year old?? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
danot Posted February 19, 2010 Share Posted February 19, 2010 It would be really useful if we could explore the reasons why we differ - can you comment on my example a little further up the page? Yes I can. It's because 100% of paedohplies have sexual desires towards children. They don't toy with the idea.. they actually all find children sexually desireable. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.