A Defense of Pedophilia

[Mike the Jedi]

What do you guys think?

COMMON MYTHS ABOUT PEDOPHILIA
Myth #1 "This is sick!"
Reality: One of the most basic, and invalid responses. Define "sick" for us. Is love "sick?" If one loves an 11 year old girl and protects her in their arms from harm and has a MUTUALLY caring relationship with her, is this "sick?" If you think so, we are really in trouble with the state of education involving society at-large. A relationship of ANY kind that is honest and real is the most beautiful thing on earth! Love and consensual sex is not wrong in any way. Pedophiles are not a "baby rapers". If someone rapes that 11 year old girl (and consensual sex is not rape) then that IS sick. Nobody sane would ever rape anybody, male, female, of any age. If a pedophile loves the 11 year old little girl, and she loves him/her, and they both desire lovemaking, WHAT is the problem? The point of blame is our Christian ethic which attempts to brainwash people into believing that sex in general is dirty, something we sadly teach our kids. This tendency does more harm than any sexual activity ever could. Believe me, we could all use plenty more love than hate in the world, there is enough of that already to last us a lifetime and then some. So what if told you I preferred a little girl to a woman for relationships and sex, as long as I do not hurt her and protect and care about her?

Myth #2 "Children cannot give informed consent"
Reality: Not true! This is one of the biggest lies out there. Actually, children are sexual beings. They are interested in sex and sexual activity, games and exploration. The point is that YOU do not wish to admit this. It conflicts with YOUR hang-ups. You do not wish to see chidren in a sexual light. It disturbs you greatly, and even more so that a child could desire it! You do not wish to see them act out an a sex-related manner. Our society discourages sex, it makes the activity shameful. When kids are sufficiently young, they do not yet have these phobias firmly entrenched. That's the beauty of kids-they are often innocent (but not dumb and incapable of making any decisions-especially sexual ones) and are unspoiled by societal hang-ups. That is why they take off their clothes when very young so easily-being naked to a rather young child comes natural! Then, mom and dad scold the child for his/her nudity in public, and the young one first learns body shame and that nudity is "dirty" and so forth when practiced in public. The child then masturbates, as children sometimes do, out in the open, and mom and dad scold junior about this-and now the kid has learned to associate sex, sexual play and relief with something dirty and shameful. This is not healthy for society. Certainly, these activities may be inappropriate for most situations, but is important NOT to impress shame, guilt, or the concept of it all being "dirty" on children! This is what our society does, and it contribute in great part to the resulting cases of mental damage that kids suffer sometimes when they have sex with adults, or even other children. What IS important is to LISTEN to them and how they feel, to care about their feelings and treat them with respect. That means accepting that they can make SOME decisions. One of those is sex. It is wrong to deny children a voice in this regard, and it is wrong to suppress its expression with other kids or adults as long as it is mutual and not forcing/coercive. Yes as adults we seek to protect children from harm "for their own good", sometimes acting against their wishes by relying on our supposedly better, more experienced judgement, but that does NOT have to entirely enclude sex and all forms of it. Sex is a learning experience for kids to enjoy, a part of their being which exists and demands expression-not something to be denied by oppressors. You say: "I would not let my two year old play in traffic, as he/she does not have the experience to understand the consequences of his/her actions". Fair enough. But sex is not a speeding car! They will like it if it is done responsibly and with LOVE. They will experience feelings their bodies in a new, good way. It can be a healthy experience for all involved-but if you make them feel guilty about it, and if society automatically punishes the "perpetrator" they care about, and they put the kid in therapy and brainwash them of course there will be side-effects! How would YOU feel if it was yourself in that child's shoes? Granted, it IS true that kids SOMETIMES lack the experience and wits to make up their minds in an informed manner-but then, that is also often true of adults. Children may need ENCOURAGEMENT. This is not coercion! One can assist a child to experience sexual feelings, but never should one force them. Children are people, too, which means they own themselves do NOT have to allow ANYBODY to touch them in ANY way they do not wish. That includes sex, of course, and other forms of contact. But they also have the right to give consent, if that is what they desire, to sex. They are not stupid, no matter what you may think. Give kids credit. If they do not desire sex with you they CAN say so. They are not morons. We as adults can TEACH them (often from very young ages) to refuse contact if they feel uncomfortable with it. Our society is hypocritical-it only tells kids they can "say no", but NEVER tells them they can SAY YES! Implied in the ability to REFUSE contact is the ability to ACCEPT it! Give children that right you now enjoy, and stop oppressing them.

Myth # 3 "You are forcing this lifestyle on them & it may harm them later on in life"
Reality: Have you been to a Communion in a Roman Catholic Church lately? Religion is rammed down kids' throats every day much more than sex with adults ever occurs, and nobody says anything! This is a great parallel. Despite the long-term effects of this and other rituals, etc. practiced by religions that nearly qualify (like the Jehovah's Witnesses) as cults, it goes on indefinately with the full blessing of our hypocritical society! You say: "But I want him/her to know God!" Yes, that's it exactly, is it not? YOU-REPEAT YOU "Y-O-U" want them to! Do THEY want to? The ideal of respect for personal religious freedom never stops the church from DEMANDING attendence from minors, and their parents MAKE them go. Compare this with a pedophile who at least gives a child a CHOICE! The church and its resultant applied guilt complexes and the like can harm kids as they grow up and later on in life FAR more than sex ever does! At least that is something they enjoy, and is desired by them out of free will. Can you say the same about church and your child whom you FORCE to go? Think of it: Catholic Communions-eight year old girls being made to dress up almost like "child-brides" in white gowns, paraded about on display for all to see! Is that her choice? Or did you "encourage" her to do it, and afterwards, she had little or no regrets? The same applies to sex with adults, there is in many respects NO difference. If she enjoyed the Communion, why not orgasm? She is capable of experiencing this feeling you know. With the right person, her experience may be a positive one, and she deserves the best one available. An experienced, older man/woman who cares about her and she loves in return would fit the bill nicely. You would be denying her a quality sexual awakening by opposing such a union! The fact is, all of us use SOME pressure on kids to do certain things, yet society only tends to go nuts when it comes to adult-child sex. This hypocrisy is not acceptable. If a pedophile merely encourages a child to sex, and never forces them, then he/she is a lot better in any intelligent persons' book than someone who FORCES their kid into church to know God. That is a personal decision, one that could easily be argued against on the grounds that a child does not know his or her religious preferences yet, so the decision should be made later on when they can understand it better and decide for themselves which, if any church to belong to. Factoring in the the usual guilt, and shame over sex resulting from church involvement, which often teaches sexual repression, and a very good argument can be made against the clergy. So am I advocating that all parents who FORCE their kids into church (thus negatively affecting their lives, perhaps permanently) should be jailed? Well, maybe, but I'm not advocating parents who encourage their youngsters to attend church of their own free will to be imprisoned-so I do not advocate the same for pedophiles. The 8 year old girl who does Communion may later on be glad she did so-even though she may have not been wild about the idea at the time. Her parents may have used pressure on her to do it-so does a pedophile in certain cases! He/she "encourages" SOME children to have sex. They may be a little apprehensive about it, but afterwards may enjoy it and be glad it happened. Of course, there are many cases where the child is not in least against it-or even initates. The point is that is up to the participants to decide! For every "horror story" out there about the negative effects of sex between kids and adults on the children involved, there is another where BOTH parties got something positive out of it and enjoyed it-if not at the time, then later on in life. A child deserves sexual expression just like you do-they can experience sexual pleasure too-and an experienced adult man or woman is the best guide for them to discover sexual awakening in a safe, loving and caring manner. If society would stop judging pedophiles and making sex seem dirty for all involved, leading to a sense of shame and stigma, and quit mentally abusing kids and the adults who love them via so-called "therapy" with we would not have most of the problems we sometimes see in "child sexual abuse survivors". Granted, there are people who abuse kids, and they should be punished-but this rarely includes pedophiles, who are not usually harmful to kids, care for them and are even good for them on balance.

Myth # 4 "Pedophilia is a mental illness"
No more than homosexuality is! It is a sexual-orientation and a way of life, nothing more. The typical pedophile is a sane, upstanding member of society. He/she is no more crazy than you are. They do not belong in institutions-they need understanding.

Myth # 5 "Pedophilia always leads to mass child molestation"
Again untrue. First, all contact is NOT molestation. Second, most pedophiles are celibate by choice in any case, and use masturbation to obtain relief. They have less sex with other participants than most of you! Since being a pedophile is a way of life to most real child lovers, it means more than sex alone. If you are a heterosexual male, do you have sex with every woman you meet? Will you sleep with absolutely anyone who offers? If you are like most of the population, the answer is of course a resounding no! A pedophile is not a mass child sex seeker by force. He or she does not always cruise the streets looking for new conquests, any more than others do. Many pedophiles are relatively monogomous, some by choice, others by circumstances. As a pedophile, if I am really close to a young girl, I do not also have sex with all her friends, even if I am also friendly with them, too. Sex for many of us is a very personal thing. It is to me. I would not have multiple child sex partners any more than I would sleep with many adult women at once. I believe in one-on-one relationships and honesty-do you?

Myth # 6 "Pedophilia is becoming an epidemic"
I wish it were-it would be easier to be one! True pedophilia is actually fairly rare, but that is no reason for discrimination to be tolerated against them. You may have a hard time understanding pedophiles and sex with kids and accepting them/it because you are probably not a legitimate pedophile. Even some people cruising in the Usenet groups for pedophiles are often just curious thrill-seekers looking for something different or to flame at. Such persons are usually not real pedophiles. A true pedophile is more than someone who is sexually aroused at kids-it is a lifestyle. Pedophiles like kids and enjoy their company, not because they are kids themselves, but because they are most comfortable with them around and interacting with them. It is not merely sexual arousal to a real pedophile, but about loving children and protecting them. Of course sex with a child is very pleasurable to most pedophiles, and they would probably choose that over sex with an adult any day, but that is not the only thing kids are good for! Most adults are NOT pedophiles, and they treat kids accordingly-i.e. abusing their rights and lives, never listening to them, etc. The typical adult sees a child as a non-person if truth be told. They are not really interested in hearing them. They may even operate under the cloak of child advocacy, but they are no defenders of childhood rights! Pedophiles respect kids and their minds, something most oppressive adults do not adhere to. I listen to kids and their needs, that is why I am a pedophile-only we truly care about them. I am attracted sexually mainly to young girls under age 13, but I do not wish to use them ONLY for sex. A little girls' friendship and her love means almost EVERYTHING to me. I want to serve as a positive role model in her life. I think she deserves to have someone who REALLY listens to her in her world-not like her parents and others who merely view her as property. Unlike most adults who see kids as objects, to me they are people, too. I do not speak condesendingly of them or minimize their feelings as being invalid. I recognize their desires and do not attempt to suppress them. Girls are sexual beings and emotional thinking ones, too. I feel that young girls on the verge of uncontrollable sexual feelings need sexual outlets that are safe with older, caring individuals who are non-abusive. If she trusts a pedophile who loves her with her sexual initiation then I support that arrangement. This is simply part of their healthy sexual development. I can provide this to them if only I'm given a chance, plus lots of love. I am not a rapist seeking to force myself on your daughter. She must come willingly or not at all-but you need to give her the choice and live and let live.

Myth # 7 "Pedophilia is always treatable"
It is NEVER truly treatable. One is who one is. I will always be a pedophile. I like adult women, and am even attracted to them sexually all the time-but I am a really pedophile at heart that likes little girls. I also prefer their company much of the time. if and wherever possible. To me, I become most aroused sexually with young girls 8-12 years old. They make me the most erect, and I tend to masturbate with them in mind instead of women. I cannot entirely explain it, but I am no worse a person than you! I simply desire them and want to make love with them and feel their bodies. If I had a choice (and I am mostly celibate by choice and use masturbation to relieve my urges like most pedophiles) between intercourse with with a supermodel and sex (even without intercourse, which is often problematic due to size differences) with a ten year old girl, I would pick the child. She just has to love me, and give me what she can provide and it is way better in my mind than even intercourse. Sounds strange, I know, but that is way I and many other pedophiles feel. I would even prefer a young girl to give me her body just to hold without sexual activity all night long than I would to engage in most sex with ordinary women! It is simply me. I am a pedophile and I love little girls. They do not always have to give me sex (although that would be nice!) but I prefer to be with and around them instead of women. I can deal with and talk to women just fine, thank-you, it is just that I choose little girls over women for relationships and sex.

Myth # 8 "Pedophilia can be cured by castration"
Since pedophilia is more than sex, this is garbage. If you cut off my testicles I will still love little girls and want to be with them and have sex with them. You could even cut my penis off and I would still desire them. This is another bogus line popular with uneducated persons who do not understand how deep-rooted pedophilia is. It is more than just sex-it is a state of mind! You cannot cure it with this or drugs, any more than you could cure heterosexuality by doing the same things to that group.

Myth # 9 "Pedophilia is caused by child sexual abuse"
Nope. Just because someone had a bad experience does not make them into pedophiles. If you are a heterosexual man and a gang of homosexual thugs raped you and anally violated you, would that turn you off to women and become a practicing gay? Of course not. Even abusive relationships between adults and kids will not neccessarily turn the kids into "perpetrators" or pedophiles, for that matter. It is not something you can generally catch-it is what you are or decide to be. Just more nonsense for the masses.

Myth # 10 "Pedophilia is also harmful to perpetrators"
Again, I'm not a perpetrator, and further, the harm which comes to us is the ATTACKS by ignorant people! We can be harmed by oppressive laws-but that is not the fault of our pedophilia. It does harm us in that we have trouble getting outlets and expressing our feelings and urges. If you and society would treat us and kids right, we would not suffer as we often do. If you want to help pedophiles, help them be free and safe from the law. Help kids find pedophiles to love and be loved in return. I can only be happy when I can on day shout like Martin Luther King: "Free at Last! Thank-God almighty we are free at last!" The day I may be with young girls without shame and legal trouble, and her rights are also protected is a moment I live for! Please make that possible by supporting pedophilia instead of rejecting it. Support kids who love pedophiles and do not force them into "therapy". Only then will I and others like me be free and happy.

[Funk Monk]

From a biological point of view, it makes a lot more sense than for example homophilia and zoophilia. Well, of course not if the child is of the same sex as the molester, is yet infertile, or is a relative.

And that's usually the case, isn't it?

Anyway, people who aren't yet fertile are not biologically ready for sexual activity.

[jam]

There's no excuse whatsoever - I don't go around raping random pretty girls just cause I think they're hot - but that's what were talking about here, valuing your immediate urges higher that a child - often we're talking 7-8 yeras old children, not 11 years old, and raping her/him, cause make no mistake - this is rape, nothing more, nothing less. The children cannot give any consent, excatly cause they're children. The nr' 2 refutal is in it self a big lie to justify raping of children, you can convince children of ANYTHING, trust me.

[drooperdoo]

We shouldn't expand the term pedophilia to things the word wasn't meant to cover. For instance, the "paedo" from "paedophilia" is from the Greek meaning "boy". So the term originally--and correctly--only covered homosexuals who liked to bugger boys.

It was silly to make the term later apply to girls--especially since biologically Nature seems to have wanted girls to start breeding pretty early.

According to historians, Jesus' mother Mary was probably only about 15 when he was born--as was the average for her time and country.

So she was what when she was impregnated? --14?

That's typically been the rule in history--and in Nature.

Even as recently as the 19th Century, Edgar Allan Poe married his 13 year-old cousin, and the German writer Novalis married a 14 year-old. And these weren't anomalies--and they definitely weren't illegal acts.

This Victorian attitudes toward the age-of-consent aren't even very Victorian, since Victorians themselves married young. And when I say young, I mean young.

It wasn't uncommon for a 30 year-old man to shack up with a 15 year-old.

That's when females are most fertile.

It's a modern trend to try and stretch out adolescence and make of adults superannuated teenagers. Hence all the disillusionment from 40 year-old women who think Nature wants them to breed in Middle Age. They're in for brutal disappointment. Because Nature doesn't care a fig about our manmade taboos. Nature designs us to breed young. Not when we have wrinkles.

Incidences of Down Syndrome and other genetic defects skyrocket past the age of 35.

No, we're clearly meant to breed young.

It's the pretense that women are supposed to be breeding as middle aged people that's--from a biological point of view--unnatural.

So I'd take a liberal view on sex--respecting Nature and 10,000 years of human history. If she's menstruating and has breasts, it's "normal," for all intents and purposes.

I draw the line, however, at interfering with pre-pubuscent girls or literal paeophilia--i.e., boy-love.

That's a separate issue altogether--and should be best left to the jail warder and the psychiatrist.

[annienormanna]

Human female development is hindered by early exposure to sexuality. The delay of reproduction favours women's physical health and well being. Nature's way of telling us this is higher maternal mortality, disfiguration of genitalia, cervical cancer, and hinderance of physical development in the case of pregnancy. We are not "meant" to breed as soon as menstruation occurs.

[drooperdoo]

Annienormanna,
You're a modern woman. It's expected that you'd extol the values of 21st Century America.

History, however, states clearly that--over the vast totality of human existence--women bred at extremely early ages. If not on the very second of menstrauation, then not long afterward.

I'd say 14 or 15. (Hell, during the Roman Empire the average age of death was something like 26.) The human race couldn't afford to wait around.

No, the anomaly is the current age's notion that women should start breeding in middle age.

Historically, that's the anomaly.

Even more so--due to the fact, that even in the West child-brides existed up until the 19th Century and early 20th Century. So this waiting business till a woman is in her twenties--or even worse!--in her thirties, is an extremely new concept in the West. As for the rest of the world, they ignore our hang-ups and taboos and do just fine.

That's why their fertility rates are increasing, and ours are dropping off. Women are encouraged to wait, and, by the time they try to conceive, they're all dried out and barren.

That's a hint from Nature: breed younger. Your body's meant to.

[whateva]

drooperdoo:

I agree with you that the tendency for women to wait with children until into their 30's or even 40's is a problem but Annienormana also has a point as far as women having babies during their early teens.

Yes at times women have been made to have babies early but that was also at times where they didn't care about a womans health.

Also it's a much too broad sweeping statement to say they had child brides all over in the ancient world. Aristotle gives the ideal time for a woman to marry(and thus also to start having babies) at age 18.

[annienormanna]

When reproduction is delayed to 17-18 years old, both mother and child benefit with healthy successful outcomes. It's my opinion that human beings only started advancing once sexuality was socially regulated. The first indication of this is in the Upper Paleolithic, when multi-generational families first emerged. Parents would look to elders and grandparents. The practical realities of delaying reproduction became self-evident. The younger the mother was, the more likely she would die in childbirth.

I actually believe that the best time to have children is young. Far too much money and resources are waisted by delaying until one is thirty or forty. As well, outcomes are less successfull. Both parent and progeny face less risk than either extreme.

[drooperdoo]

Yes, Aristotle gave an ideal--which means that, in reality, that's not what existed.

And you talk about women's health. It's actually far more dicey--medically--for women in their thirties and forties to give birth, than for a sixteen or seventeen year-old. The younger you are, the more resilient and physically fit.

So if you want to bring "women's health" into the question, then modern Western attitudes lose hands down.

Down Syndrome, mental retardation and a whole host of other afflictions skyrocket statistically, the longer a woman waits. So it's not good for the breeding population, either.

Check out Down Syndrome rates--and see how they skyrocketed in the modern age. In the 19th Century and before they were extremely rare. But the longer parents waited to have children the more risks they were exposing their future child to.

No, 15, 16 and 17 are nature's optimum age.

From the argument's I'm getting you'd think I'd advocated 8 year-olds having sex and giving birth, lol.

No, in the ancient world, a 15 or 16 year-old was considered a woman--and in fact, according to Nature, that's biologically true. A man's body stops growing at 18, a woman's at around 16.

It's just the spirit of our age to try and prolong adolescence as long as possible--to pretend that we're not grown up till the age of 52. That's why you see idiot 38 year-olds playing video games, wearing baseball caps and dressing like 12 year-olds. Superannuated adolescence.

[annienormanna]

Optimal conditions for successful outcomes exist between 18 and 30 for both women and men.

[drooperdoo]

Annie,
With all due respect, you're merely echoing the opinions of your age and cultural background--not reflecting Nature or history.

A 15 year-old is far more fertile, sexually, than a thirty year-old.

That's a fact.

Once you hit thirty, your fertility drops off several percentage points, 35 even more.

No, Nature makes a 15 year-old far more fertile--and it does so for a reason: we're supposed to breed biologically when we're teenagers. Why do you think Nature makes the hormone levels jump then? Why is the fertility at an all-time high then? Why do both girls and boys experience a lechery that will not be repeated for the rest of their lives then?

That's because it's Nature speaking--compelling them to breed. It's a trigger mechanism.

Why? Because in 99.9% of humankind's history, the average age of death was like 26 years-old.

Waiting till thirty and playing video games wasn't an option.

Now, in the modern world, is it wise to breed early? --Of course not. It's better to wait, sociologically, at least until the mid-20s.

But that's a wholly different question separate from how Nature designed us.

* Social engineering, and crafting human behavior around society's needs, rather than Nature's needs is a new phenomenon--and, strictly speaking, unnatural. That's why--as I said--the populations are dropping in the West, and why they continue to rise in the Third World [even in spite of their massive infant mortality rates]. In the end, we will be swamped over and bred out. And Nature will steamroll past us and our delicate ideals--leaving the Earth to the lusty, strong and prolific.

[annienormanna]

"Why? Because in 99.9% of humankind's history, the average age of death was like 26 years-old"

This agrees with what I'm saying. Amenohrea is common in fifteen year olds. In fact, 15 years old is the age when a sizeable minority of girls get their first menses. With many girls it may take a year or two, or sometimes longer before the menstrual cycle becomes regular. All the health consequences I've stated still hold.

The physical proportions of a healthy young woman are the most attractive, natural proportions for reproduction. Deviations from appropriate proportions are less desireable.

Sexual regulation develops out of the commonality of observable experience. The consensus of how and what we think of ourselves makes sex with children both egregious and taboo.

As an example: if I had a daughter and you had sex with her I'd put a bullet in your head before my husband could get ahold of your throat.

And that's no joke, my friend.

[drooperdoo]

Annienormanna,
You've slipped into irrationality and . . . violence.
Weird!

First, you personalize what was an intellectual discussion and start rambling about your own hypothetical daughter, and threaening posters with violence; then, you make the unsubstantiated claim that all teen-aged women who give birth suffer irreparable physical harm. (In reality, a teenager is far more resilient and physically fit than a 30 year-old.) But that's just a general reality. Empirically, my own grandmother had her first child at 16--and continued to have nine other children. She didn't die or suffer any ill-effects. Likewise, my mom got pregnant at 16 and had my brother at 17--and went on to graduate cum laude from Rutgers University and become an attorney. She wasn't irreprably harmed, either. Her sister, however, who tried to have birth at the age of 38 almost died.
That accords with the medical study which is highlighted in the article Pregnancy Complications Increase With Age. womens-health.jwatch.org/cgi/content/citation/2005/621/5
That's the reality.
Look at the world's women. The overwhelming majority of human births on our planet of 6 billion people happen in Third World countries to young--very young--women. Probably most in their teens. So are all of them physically destroyed and scarred afterward?
Hardly!
And in the history of the world, when the average age of a young mother was 15---

Well, no matter. Here are some facts you might want to consider:

Ancient Egypt: There was no age limit as to when people could be married, but generally a girl did not get married until she had begun to menstruate at about the age of 14.
Source: www.library.cornell.edu/colldev/mideast/womneg.htm

Ancient Greece: The average age difference between husband and wife was fifteen years. Hesoid's advice was that "A man should marry at about thirty, choosing for his wife, a girl of sixteen"
Source: www.richeast.org/htwm/Greeks/marriage/marriage.html

Ancient Rome: The average age of marriage for girls in Rome was between the ages of 13 and 17 years old. Source: www.pobronson.com/factbook/pages/198.html

Hebrews: Girls typically married at age 12 or 13, immediately after puberty . . .
Source: www.womenintheancientworld.com/women%20and%20the%20law%20in%20ancient%20israel.htm

Middle Ages in Europe: In 1371 . . . the average age at marriage for men was 24, and for women it was 16. Source: marriage.about.com/cs/teenmarriage/a/teenmarriage.htm

Virgin Mary: From the age at which Hebrew maidens became marriageable, it is possible that Mary gave birth to her Son when she was about thirteen or fourteen years of age. --That's actually from the Catholic Encyclopedia.

Source: www.newadvent.org/cathen/15464b.htm

I myself always had a thing for older women, but if God shacked up with a thirteen or fourteen year-old--- Well, Annie. I suggest you start directing your threats toward Him.

[Anodyne]

mike said:

COMMON MYTHS ABOUT PEDOPHILIA
Myth #1 "This is sick!"
Reality: One of the most basic, and invalid responses. Define "sick" for us. Is love "sick?" If one loves an 11 year old girl and protects her in their arms from harm and has a MUTUALLY caring relationship with her, is this "sick?" If you think so, we are really in trouble with the state of education involving society at-large.

This person seems to believe that sex between an adult and a child is fine if they mutually care for each other. However, I care my friends, and I assume they care for me. So does that mean our feelings towards each other is cheap if we don't have sex? Obviously not. You don't need to have a sexual relationship with some to prove you care for them. The fact he implies sex equals love shows how demented this fellow is. I love my parents but I certainly don't want to have sex with them.

A relationship of ANY kind that is honest and real is the most beautiful thing on earth! Love and consensual sex is not wrong in any way.

Children, and teenagers, have a limted ability to reason. No one will argue against that point. That's why they can't give their consent. It's also the reason why parents have control over the child's life.

The point of blame is our Christian ethic which attempts to brainwash people into believing that sex in general is dirty, something we sadly teach our kids. This tendency does more harm than any sexual activity ever could. Believe me, we could all use plenty more love than hate in the world, there is enough of that already to last us a lifetime and then some. So what if told you I preferred a little girl to a woman for relationships and sex, as long as I do not hurt her and protect and care about her?

A major problem this fellow over looks is that the parents have custody of the child. She's already protected (from him, obviously), and when he goes on about not hurting her, well, health reasons, once again.

Myth #2 "Children cannot give informed consent"
Reality: Not true! This is one of the biggest lies out there. Actually, children are sexual beings. They are interested in sex and sexual activity, games and exploration.

His response doesn't answer the the claim that children can not give consent. Neither does his rant.

Myth # 3 "You are forcing this lifestyle on them & it may harm them later on in life"
The 8 year old girl who does Communion may later on be glad she did so-even though she may have not been wild about the idea at the time. Her parents may have used pressure on her to do it-so does a pedophile in certain cases! He/she "encourages" SOME children to have sex.They may be a little apprehensive about it, but afterwards may enjoy it and be glad it happened.

Unbelieveable. What I have in bold says it all. He has no problem with using force (excuse me, I mean "pressure" ha! You're not pressured by your parents to take communion... you're told to do it) to get his sexual kicks. The fact he thinks it's no different than forcing a kid to go to communion shows he has no argument. Nothing physical is being done to the girl except eating a piece of bread and having her time wasted in a building. He focuses in on the word "encourage" but that's a trick. Parents who want their children to have communion don't give their kids a choice. No one ever asked me if I wanted to take communion.

*I'm aware I repeated myself above*

Of course, there are many cases where the child is not in least against it-or even initates. The point is that is up to the participants to decide! For every "horror story" out there about the negative effects of sex between kids and adults on the children involved, there is another where BOTH parties got something positive out of it and enjoyed it-if not at the time, then later on in life.

He cites no authority for his claim.

I'll stop here. He's a sick bastard.

[Anodyne]

"To me, a little girl, with her trusting mind and natural child-like innocence, IS a REAL woman! A young female is not yet heavily infected with guilt over sex yet, and she is not a man-hater-like most feminists are, but a lover of men."

You don't have to be a head shrinker to realize he's all about power and sex.