Name: Proud Pedo&Ephebophile !59AkbuTs8U 2007-07-01 10:38 ID:RERsV6fJ
I wish to set up a discussion forum debating the controversial issue of pedophilia (and therefore, ephebophila).
To do so, we need to be know the definitions of several keywords. Without doing so, the discussion is pointless. Unfortunately, everyone has different definitions of the same words, but nevertheless, here are my interpretations.
DEFINITIONS
Child: A prepubscent person (generally aged 12 and under).
Young adult: A pubescent person (generally aged 13 to 16 or 18).
Adult: Anyone 16 or 18 and above.
Pedophile: A law-abiding person who is sexually attracted to children.
Alternate definition: A law-abiding person who is sexually attracted to CHILDREN AND CHILDREN ONLY.
Ephebophile: A law-abiding person who is sexually attracted to young adults.
???phile: A law-abiding person who is sexually attracted to people of the opposite sex of all ages (My age range is 10 to 30).
Rape: Having forced sex with a child or an adult.
Statutory rape: Having sex with a child (and young adult?).
Child molestor/rapist: A person who has forced sex with a child (and young adult?).
Consent to sex: To have the sufficient knowledge and state of mind to give approval to and agree to have sex.
Sex: Any act that derives pleasure with own or other person\'s body (Eg. Sexual intercourse, blowjob, fingering, etc)
Age of (being able to give) consent: Different everywhere, but mostly 16 or 18.
---------------------------------------------------------------
Now with that out of the way... we can continue with what I hope, is a rational and impartial discussion. So please put down your pitchfork and torch, they have no place here.
Firstly, we can agree all rape is wrong, no questions about that.
My main two concerns/issues is with the concept of statutory rape and age of consent.
We will assume the person I want to have sex with is an 13 year old girl. I am in my late 20s.
Let\'s tackle statutory rape first. A law-abiding pedophile, ephebophile, and ???phile would never have sex with someone else without their full consent. To be able to give consent, the girl must have full knowledge of the situation (I want to have sex with her) and consequences (her vagina and my penis will feel good). I will be wearing a condom, so there will be no chance of making babies. That\'s assuming my penis fits in her vagina.
However, which is my second point, the law of the age of consent refuses to acknowledge that the girl can give consent. She had the knowledge and she wasn\'t being forced yet I am still being seen as a sex offender.
I am not or do not want to be a sex offender. I am not a violent person. I do not wish to hurt anyone. I just desire to have \'consensual\' sex with a young girl. I do not wish to enter into a serious relationship or marry the young girl, this is simply strings-free casual sex. Her life won\'t be destroyed or become a contract. She is still free to live her life. All that happened was that she sucked my penis. Why is that wrong?
The argument is that children CAN\'T consent. They DON\'T have the knowledge to consent.
My argument is that children have been growing faster than their baby-boomer equivalents. They grow faster mentally. They grow faster physically. And they no longer live sheltered lives due to access to information. With this information, they can use it to make a decision. The decision to play with my penis.
My argument is that parents refuse to acknowledge that children these days mature much faster than they did. The parents want to view their children as innocent \'I don\'t know what sex is\' little angels. The fact is, they DO know what sex is, and they CAN have the choice to have sex. It doesn\'t have to be full-blown penis into vagina intercourse, it can be just touchy touchy feel my penis sex.
My argument is that politicians and therefore law-makers must pander to this viewpoint. Politicians wants as many votes as possible so they\'ll do whatever the parents say. Even if law-makers (who have access to research) genuinely believed children have the ability and knowledge to have sex with adults, they won\'t make their voices heard, for fear of being branded a pedophile and get killed by anti-pedophile vigilantes.
My argument is the average schoolboy who has the hots for his classroom teacher. He obviously knows what sex is. Let him and the busty teacher have it. Gender equality you say? Then allow female students to have sex with male teachers (or female teachers if they\'re so inclined).
It is why the pedophilia debate keeps getting sweeped under the carpet. It is why we can\'t even come to an agreement about what the actual definition of pedophile even is!
Finally, yes of course, there are bad pedophiles out there who deserve to be punished by the full extent of the law. Anyone who rapes should be punished.
However, I speak for the decent law-abiding pedophiles/ephebophiles/???philes. We don\'t and would never hurt any child. Many people have sex for fun. Many people have sex just for sex. I think that right should be extended to children. Sure, little girls can play with other little boy\'s penises. But what if she wants to touch MY monolithic phallus?
Like I said, children are growing faster. They\'re not sheltered anymore. In my opinion, this is inevitable. The lack of information and openness was the reason why children couldn\'t consent. If was this oppression that held back society.
The freedom of expression and information is what we should have had in THE FIRST PLACE.
13 is the age of consent is what we should have had in THE FIRST PLACE.
So what do I want to see changed? The international age of consent to be lowered to 13 (if it isn\'t already so). You\'re only kidding yourself if you think anyone that age or older is ignorant of sex. YOU\'RE IGNORANT. (I will accept that children aged 12 and under are still in the learning process and can be taken advantaged of.)
We, as society, are merely throwing away the shackles that bound us in the past.
Nothing more.