how-to block ads
|
moonpuppy
join:2000-08-21
Glen Burnie, MD
 ·Verizon Online DSL
| reply to illbite
Re: Well, well, well......
Retraction of study = "we were wrong, sorry."
If the APA can't stand behind their studies, then they must not have a leg to stand on.
Also, how can we expect a child to be mature enough to have sex but not to drive (until they are 16), hold a job (until they are 18 or earlier with PARENTAL CONSENT), or drink alcohol? Just because they can, doesn't mean they should.
I read that study and find a few of their conclusions a bit off center. I wonder how many people would allow their 12 year old child to have sex with a 30 year old adult.
And why is it the "anonymous" posters are the ones promoting adult/child sex? | |
illbite
@12.163.x.x
| reply to moonpuppy
All right, I'll chip in, but by no means it doesn't mean I condone this, but you asked for a study.
Search for the original text of:
"A meta-analytic examination of assumed properties of child sexual abuse using college samples."
By:
Rind B, Tromovitch P, Bauserman R.
Department of Psychology, Temple University
The data supported their findings that when the encounters were consensual there was no more damage to the child than with a 'normal' sex encounter and in some cases it even had a POSITIVE effect on the child in question.
The APA published it on a bulletin. However the ensuing uproar and even Congress involvement comdemning the study results because they "disagreed" with their findings caused the APA to issue a formal detraction letter apologizing for having published such article. They couldn't refute the data thought, just got all pissy about the findings going contrary to their moral beliefs. | |
moonpuppy
join:2000-08-21
Glen Burnie, MD
·Verizon Online DSL
| reply to Christopher001
said by Christopher001:
Actually, Advoc8 is right! There have been no studies done that show that child porn is actually harmful to the children that are used in it. The only study that was actually done and published on it in this century by the Danish, I believe, actually came to the OPPOSITE conclusion, that there is no damage to children from seeing porn, having sex with an adult, or having sex with other children. Again, post said study or I call BS. | |
moonpuppy
join:2000-08-21
Glen Burnie, MD
·Verizon Online DSL
| reply to Advoc8
Re: Well, well, well......
said by Advoc8:
my source is logic. here's some of my evidence used with logic to draw a similar conclusion to the danish peeps. Unless you have some HARD scientific studies, your anecdotal evidence is naive to say the least but lets take a look at it.
said by Advoc8:
a) sex is as natural as eating, sleeping, or breathing. Maybe but most kids do not reach sexual maturity until their teens.
said by Advoc8:
b) mother nature herself, the ultimate cannot-be-refuted expert, says they are ready at around 14 or so
Just because nature says it is o.k. doesn't mean kids are mentally ready for it. Same reason kids have to wait until they are 16 to drive and 18 to do certain jobs even though they may be capable of doing it sooner.
said by Advoc8:
c) we live in a vastly more complex world now, sex hasn't changed, therefore sex is vastly more simplistic (to the eyes of someone growing up in the complexity)
People used to have a lower life expectancy than they do now. And sex is never simple.
said by Advoc8:
d) because of c and other related factors, kids are more sophisticated sexually at a much younger age now then ever before in this country's history, or that of most other civilizations either. What they have is more "information" but they rarely use it. Teen pregnancy is still an issue even though we have condom commercials all over the place and sex ed in schools. Not to mention STDs and other issues.
said by Advoc8:
e) noone is ready for sex their first time
So far, the only logical thing you have said.
said by Advoc8:
f) it is better to have sex for the first time with someone who knows it from experience, who can nurture you through the process, instead of a back-alley fuck from your cousin/jr. high boyfriend/random encounter
No, it is better to have it with someone who cares for you and not just wanting to "get off." Rarely does this occur when the age difference is so large and someone is still going through puberty.
Sex with a cousin? Ever heard of incest? 
said by Advoc8:
of these items, only d is even remotely debatable. now is when i toss in logic. because of those factors, sex with, by, and for children (sorry declaration of independence) is probably not a harmful thing, whether it's done by them with each other, by them with someone else, by someone else with them, photographed, written about, studied, whatever. in all it's facets sex is a normal (enjoyable) part of life and should be nurtured. having said that. pfoviding "protection" for children is of course a necessary thing. providing "protection" whan it's not needed and you hurt other people in the process is morally repugnant.
And I guess you will volunteer to help all these kids enjoy sex.
said by Advoc8:
before you get started. yes, there are child abusers out there. the problem is that many people who do not abuse, who do no harm of any kind, are labled as abusers, offenders, or predators, stigmatized to such an extend both socially and legally that their entire lives are forfeit. until such time as the laws particular to this issue are removed from relation with sex and attached in relation to harm, they are invalid, morally as well as logically. Anyone having sex with a child more than 4 years younger than themselves is a molester. That's why we have statutory rape laws.
said by Advoc8:
i had sex with a 21 yr old when i was 10. i know this issue from both sides. i like people for who they are regardless of whether they're young or old, male or female, black or white. i do not limit myself because i can find no positive purpose in doing so. and neither should you.
First off, any 21 year old that feels the need to have sex with a 10 year old is sick. The maturity is not there.
And if you say you have been on both sides of this issue, then you are a molester, end of discussion. If you have issues that require you to have sex with a child, or even allow it, you need to be put away.
Your entire argument is not logic but a bad attempt at rationalization. You know it is wrong yet you use your "perverse" logic to try and make it acceptable.
You are a very sick individual. My advice to you is to go suck on a 12 gauge and make sure it is loaded when you pull the trigger. | |
Advoc8
| reply to moonpuppy
my source is logic. here's some of my evidence used with logic to draw a similar conclusion to the danish peeps.
a) sex is as natural as eating, sleeping, or breathing.
b) mother nature herself, the ultimate cannot-be-refuted expert, says they are ready at around 14 or so
c) we live in a vastly more complex world now, sex hasn't changed, therefore sex is vastly more simplistic (to the eyes of someone growing up in the complexity)
d) because of c and other related factors, kids are more sophisticated sexually at a much younger age now then ever before in this country's history, or that of most other civilizations either.
e) noone is ready for sex their first time
f) it is better to have sex for the first time with someone who knows it from experience, who can nurture you through the process, instead of a back-alley fuck from your cousin/jr. high boyfriend/random encounter
of these items, only d is even remotely debatable. now is when i toss in logic. because of those factors, sex with, by, and for children (sorry declaration of independence) is probably not a harmful thing, whether it's done by them with each other, by them with someone else, by someone else with them, photographed, written about, studied, whatever. in all it's facets sex is a normal (enjoyable) part of life and should be nurtured. having said that. pfoviding "protection" for children is of course a necessary thing. providing "protection" whan it's not needed and you hurt other people in the process is morally repugnant.
before you get started. yes, there are child abusers out there. the problem is that many people who do not abuse, who do no harm of any kind, are labled as abusers, offenders, or predators, stigmatized to such an extend both socially and legally that their entire lives are forfeit. until such time as the laws particular to this issue are removed from relation with sex and attached in relation to harm, they are invalid, morally as well as logically.
i had sex with a 21 yr old when i was 10. i know this issue from both sides. i like people for who they are regardless of whether they're young or old, male or female, black or white. i do not limit myself because i can find no positive purpose in doing so. and neither should you. | |
moonpuppy
join:2000-08-21
Glen Burnie, MD | reply to Advoc8
I posted one, now post yours. Biased or not, it is still a source.
What is your source? NAMBLA? | |
Christopher001
| reply to Advoc8
Actually, Advoc8 is right! There have been no studies done that show that child porn is actually harmful to the children that are used in it. The only study that was actually done and published on it in this century by the Danish, I believe, actually came to the OPPOSITE conclusion, that there is no damage to children from seeing porn, having sex with an adult, or having sex with other children.
Every study our (United States) government has funded has been buried because it actually came to the OPPOSITE conclusion from the one that the government wanted, and the same conclusion that the Danish study found.
The big problem is just that parents do not want to believe that their children could be interested in sex from an early age, and that they have the right to decide for themselves whether to be in sexual activity.
Sure, if they are being forced and you suspect that they are, ask them if they were threatened. But if they say they weren't and you believe them, simply butt out, it is their body and their right to decide who they want to touch it and what they want to do with it. | |
Advoc8
| reply to moonpuppy
That site is entirely biased, and even so they admit "I want to assure you that every child who views pornography will not necessarily be affected" that it is not a known fact, but a mere possibility that any harm may be done. | |
moonpuppy
join:2000-08-21
Glen Burnie, MD
·Verizon Online DSL
| reply to Advoc8
said by Advoc8:
I never said either way. Are you saying it is harmful? Based on what? Tell me you have something besides your words to back it up?!?!?!?!?!?!
Saying something is true doesn't make it so, even if 100 million people say it together.
This is what you said:
said by Advoc8:
The *real* problem is that there is no logical determination of whether child porn is even harmful. it's just always been assumed. Until there are actual studies done which result in conclusive evidence, anything involving the term will by sheer mass of public opinion be a major part of society and law.
Here is one piece of evidence:
»www.protectkids.com/effects/harms.htm
No post up your evidence where it is not harmful. | |
Advoc8
| reply to moonpuppy
I never said either way. Are you saying it is harmful? Based on what? Tell me you have something besides your words to back it up?!?!?!?!?!?!
Saying something is true doesn't make it so, even if 100 million people say it together. | |
moonpuppy
join:2000-08-21
Glen Burnie, MD
·Verizon Online DSL
| reply to Advoc8
said by Advoc8:
The problem cannot stop on this path. The *real* problem is that there is no logical determination of whether child porn is even harmful. it's just always been assumed. Until there are actual studies done which result in conclusive evidence, anything involving the term will by sheer mass of public opinion be a major part of society and law.
Child porn is not harmful?!?!?!?!?!?!
Tell me you are not this stupid. | |
Advoc8
| reply to moonpuppy
The problem cannot stop on this path. The *real* problem is that there is no logical determination of whether child porn is even harmful. it's just always been assumed. Until there are actual studies done which result in conclusive evidence, anything involving the term will by sheer mass of public opinion be a major part of society and law.
To be more specific, not only are sex crimes lumped into one category of harm with only emotional arguments against them in most of the public's minds, but there is no way to logically apply a speciric age to anywhere close to a majority of all cases, particularly not the one we have now. Mother nature says they're ready about 4 years before that. Popular culture makes them ready about that much sooner then their parents were. The entire point is almost moot because NOONE is ready their first time, period.
Until we apply logic to the roots of this issue, we can never get logical results out the other end. Trust me. | |
|
