• Be sure to join the discussion on our discord at: Discord.gg/serebii
  • If you're still waiting for the e-mail, be sure to check your junk/spam e-mail folders

Pedophilia

Status
Not open for further replies.

Psychic

Really and truly
Hey, guys? Keep in mind that pedophilia and statutory rape are not the same thing. The sex laws concerning teenagers are completely different than the sex laws concerning children for obvious reasons. Please look up the laws in your state/province/country for more information, as the exact details tend to vary.


That didn't really answer my question. I honestly thought having an orgasm and enjoying sex were the same thing. I wouldn't know.
I’m saying your question is irrelevant. It doesn’t matter at what developmental stage a child can reach orgasm; just because a 6-month-old baby can reach orgasm does not mean you should molest a baby or that the baby will enjoy being molested just because you made it climax. :/ And as Moogles said, you could have just Googled it.

~marioguy
I’ve been waiting since 2004 for that to stop happening.


Which in essence, proves that they are simply being theirselfs and are acting in accordance to how they were born, thus acting naturally no matter how "UN-natural" this may seem.
I know the point's already been made, but as one more example, a psychopath is also born with psychopathic tendencies. If they go on a killing spree, do we say “it’s okay because he was just born that way”? We cannot excuse something just because it’s “natural.”

Though i believe that with bestiality, as to appose pedophilia, that someone could perhaps gain a natural love towards all things and further such matters in a physical way?
That won’t happen because that’s not what bestiality is. Bestiality isn’t just a fixation with animals – it’s a fixation with having sex with animals.

Though i find it hard to believe that some goat may have wanted to have sex with some human, though the point with this is that if "said" animal wanted to have sex with a human though unnatural it would seem is their anything wrong with this is the human in the matter had no problem with it.
I don’t think you understand what “consent” is. You’ll never know if an animal wants to have sex with you or not because animals don’t understand mating with humans and could never actually say “I do/I do not want you to have sex with me.” There is seriously no way to justify having sex with any animal.


Of course there are some cases which involve teenagers instead of children, but even here it's still problematic because it's well known that teenagers often lack the inability to properlly think things througb, unlike adults.
Sex laws concerning teenagers are completely different than those concerning children. While not as mature as adults, teenagers are still more mature and capable of understanding than children. Plus teenagers actually have sex drives, while most children do not, so different laws need to be made to protect them that take their habits into consideration. I'll elaborate below.


That is true, however, without the ability to have an orgasm, sex is little more than putting random body parts in holes, and that in itself is something very few people would enjoy. That's why it's so frowned upon.
This may rock your world, but sex is still plenty enjoyable without reaching orgasm. That’s why millions of people enjoy foreplay, some will purposefully delay orgasm, and women will sometimes say “you didn’t get me off, but I still had a good time.” Sex isn’t just about climaxing as quickly and efficiently as possible; it’s about providing mutual pleasure between partners, bringing people together and taking relationships to new levels of intimacy, trust and gratification.

However, pedophilia in the other sense of one or more partners being physically capable of having sex (read, having an orgasm) but being unable to give consent due to being a child legally is a more interesting case, since now we have to analyze what is defined as an adult....If one's mind is as impulsive as they claim it is as a young adult, should that mean that people at that age cannot truly give consent? Society needs to rethink what it defines to be an adult, because it seems to be all over the place in this day and age. I can't say for sure if allowing 16 year olds to have sex is right or wrong, but I can say it's no more wrong than allowing 18 year olds to have sex.
You don’t need to be a fully-developed adult to have developed your sexuality or have sexual desires. That said, some people’s sexualities can continue to evolve far into life as an individual explores and finds out what they like. Teenagers are just as capable of this, however not all teenagers are properly educated (thank abstinence-only sex ed for that) and as you said, not all teenagers are capable of making the right decisions, whether or not they’re educated.

Keep in mind, pedophilia is a 40-year-old molesting a 6-year-old, but a 40-yar-old molesting a 16-year-old is statutory rape. Anyhow, there remain plenty of laws (which differ by state/country) where people under 18 may sill have sex, but only with people who are within their age range. Example:
Department of Justice said:
In Canada, the Criminal Code provides "close in age" or "peer group" exceptions. For example, a 14 or 15 year old can consent to sexual activity with a partner as long as the partner is less than five years older and there is no relationship of trust, authority or dependency or any other exploitation of the young person.
… There is also a "close-in-age" exception for 12 and 13 year olds: a 12 or 13 year old can consent to sexual activity with another young person who is less than two years older and with whom there is no relationship of trust, authority or dependency or other exploitation of the young person.


As OP highlighted the child molestation effects, it has negative effects. However, if the "child" is nearing an adult age (like above poster said) it shouldn't, well, be called pedophilia.
And it’s not pedophilia if the person in question is not a child. :/ Entirely different laws apply to teenagers, as I explained above.

I'm not in favour of pedophilia, of course not, but if they are 17 and they both know what they want and such, it wouldn't be a horribly bad thing in that sense (well, this applies to American Law though).
You should look up the laws in your state, as this is generally 100% legal because there isn’t a large age gap. Even if there was, it would be statutory rape, not pedophilia.


Now to the question on whether one legal victory could open the door for others... I still say it is possible. If blacks didn't win the right to vote women may not have had the opportunity either.
Are you seriously saying that legalizing gay marriage is going to lead to legalizing pedophilic marriage, while simultaneously understating the importance of the women’s’ suffrage movement? Do we seriously need to have this elementary school-level discussion?


They're not interchangeable, in the eyes of the law, pedophilia can also be when a someone physically capable but not legally allowed to has sex. For instance if an 18 year old has sex with a 16 year old. And that's a whole different ball game. So no, that can't possibly be correct.
Except that that isn’t even close to being pedophilia. It’s absolutely legal in most places (and it’s closest to statutory rape if anything).


~Psychic
 

Ausgirl

Well-Known Member
This statement on the surface may not be true. There are studies that show that the homosexual brain is in fact similar to the brain of the the opposing gender. Yes male and female brains are build differently from one another and thus why the genders process information differently. S gay male's brain is similar to a heterosexual female's brain, and that is in theory why gay men tend to think and act with a feminine manner.

By comparison do we know if the brain of a pedophile is physically different from that of a normal heterosexual brain? Like Homosexuals, the Pedophile says they are attracted to something other than the normal male/female attraction.

So if brain construction can effect hetero/homo urges it is theoretically possible for the same to be said about the brain construction of Pedos/non pedos.

Now to the question on whether one legal victory could open the door for others... I still say it is possible. If blacks didn't win the right to vote women may not have had the opportunity either.
(The 15th amendments gave black men the right to vote in 1870 {although it didn't really make much difference because they were still often denied to vote until the 1960s civil rights acts.})

So one legal outcome can influence legal battles to come.

Not all gay men are the flamboyant types. There are some who could easilly be mistaken as being straight because they behave in a very stereotypical macho-like manner. There are also some who possess traits of both, to a more or lesser degree. The same goes with gay women. Some are butch (looks and behaves like a man). While others are feminine (looks and behaves in a very idealized feminine 'womanly' way). And of course there are also those which possess traits of both. There are also variations in between like the stone butch/ femme and the soft butch/ femme. Some butches will practise packing (wear fake penises) and strapping (flattening their breasts) while others won't. Some butches only date other butches, while some prefer to date femmes. Some femmes will also only date other femmes. Likewise there are flamboyant straight men and macho-like straight women. So what does those studies have to say about that?

Also there is very little information about what those sections in the brain do. In fact those sections are so small that the scientists only found it by cutting the brain into tiny slices. Furthermore it's a far stretch to link the brain construction of gay males to the brain construction of pedophiles when we don't even know what those sections in the brain do and how they affect gay people.

There are plenty of countries which have legalised things like gay marriage (Canada, America etc) but not one of those countries has legalized things like pedophilia. Given that there are various laws and social services set up to protect children, to the point where social services are able to remove them from their homes if neccessary, I seriously doubt that society will go so far backwards as to legalised pedophilia. This shouldn't even be an issue because even pro-gay people don't support pedophilia. This assumption, that legalising things like gay marriage etc will open the doorway to legalising pedophilia, is just called being paranoid.

The woman's rights movement came from WW2 when many men had to fight instead of work and women had to become the breadwinners in order to look after their families etc. When the men returned from the fighting, women were expected to go back into the home. In short their rights were taken away. This lead many to fight back in order to get their independence back, which they'd never had befor, and it was this which eventually lead to women being able to vote. It had very little to do with the black movement, which happened a lot later.

Hey, guys? Keep in mind that Sex laws concerning teenagers are completely different than those concerning children. While not as mature as adults, teenagers are still more mature and capable of understanding than children. Plus teenagers actually have sex drives, while most children do not, so different laws need to be made to protect them that take their habits into consideration. I'll elaborate below.~Psychic


Teenagers under the age of 18 are still considered to be children by the law. Just because they know what sex is doesn't mean that they are more mature than pre-teens and should be taken advantage of. Plus like I mentioned earlier, it's wildly known that teenagers rarely think things through properlly. Such as the consequences of their actions. Adults on the otherhand can.
 
Last edited:

Bolt the Cat

Bringing the Thunder
You’ll never know if an animal wants to have sex with you or not because animals don’t understand mating with humans and could never actually say “I do/I do not want you to have sex with me.” There is seriously no way to justify having sex with any animal.

Unless the animal starts having sex with you, but to be fair, that probably won't happen.

This may rock your world, but sex is still plenty enjoyable without reaching orgasm. That’s why millions of people enjoy foreplay, some will purposefully delay orgasm, and women will sometimes say “you didn’t get me off, but I still had a good time.” Sex isn’t just about climaxing as quickly and efficiently as possible; it’s about providing mutual pleasure between partners, bringing people together and taking relationships to new levels of intimacy, trust and gratification.

You can't get that feeling of pleasure if you can't have an orgasm, though. It's just sticking random body parts in holes and whatever the hell's involved in the foreplay. Nothing really pleasurable about that to children.

You don’t need to be a fully-developed adult to have developed your sexuality or have sexual desires. That said, some people’s sexualities can continue to evolve far into life as an individual explores and finds out what they like. Teenagers are just as capable of this, however not all teenagers are properly educated (thank abstinence-only sex ed for that) and as you said, not all teenagers are capable of making the right decisions, whether or not they’re educated.

Keep in mind, pedophilia is a 40-year-old molesting a 6-year-old, but a 40-yar-old molesting a 16-year-old is statutory rape. Anyhow, there remain plenty of laws (which differ by state/country) where people under 18 may sill have sex, but only with people who are within their age range.

Then what's the point in having a distinction between legal, consensual sex and statutory rape? An 18 year old is no more capable of making good decisions than a 16 year old, so why is one allowed to give legal consent and one isn't? There's literally no developmental difference between the two, nothing significant to justify a legal difference between the two. I've said it before and I'll say it again: the concepts of what is legally defined as an adult need to be rethought.

Plus like I mentioned earlier, it's wildly known that teenagers rarely think things through properlly. Such as the consequences of their actions. Adults on the otherhand can.

Again, that's true of young adults as well (up until their late 20's IIRC).
 

Grey Wind

Well-Known Member
Now to the question on whether one legal victory could open the door for others... I still say it is possible. If blacks didn't win the right to vote women may not have had the opportunity either. So one legal outcome can influence legal battles to come.
Gay marriage being legalised does not make paedophilia any more ethical. Sure, yeah, legal outcomes can influence other legal battles, but that doesn't mean that it will in this case. How can gay marriage being legalised make people more comfortable with paedophilia? They're not even remotely comparable.

Same goes for people who argue that legalising homosexual marriage will lead to the legalisation of paedophilia, it doesn't make any sense. A lot of places have legalised same-sex marriage and are nowhere closer to legalising paedophilia.
 
Just plain rediculus. They're two completely different matters. NAMbLA won't be legally loving any boys anytime soon.
 

Iceberg

A human
Actually Iceberg, not all child molesters do it because they are pedophiles; there are a variety of reasons. It is possible to have sex with something without being attracted to it.



Yes she can, it's her topic. Besides, a number of people have been trying to tell you that they are not talking about dormant pedophiles.



She's the author of this topic, and put what she wanted to talk about in the first post. Essentially you're scolding her for not reading your contribution to a thread she opened. It's a little harsh.

Thank you for actually acknowledge this. Since Celestial Moth thinks I'm the one that needs to actually read before I post it would seem quite the opposite is the truth. I made the thread and made it to concern pedophiles that act on their urges. What you do in your head is no business of mine, or anyone. Sure it's creepy if you fantasize about kiddy sex, but it's your mind.

Celestial Moth said:
Take the time to read and think before you post in these chats because others actually do. Please try to understand the topic and if you don't, don't say anything because misinterpretations only create a whole new set of useless problems, that we have to address and clear up before we move on.

Seriously? I don't understand a topic I made. That has to be one of the most ridiculous claims I have ever seen. Maybe you should do some reading before you post.

marioguy said:
Then why not title the thread: Child Molesters? It would be like if you suddenly decided that your homosexuality debate is now only about gay politicians and nothing else.

I see your point, but that would eliminate part of the discussion I was hinting at in the first post. While I am more concerned with the act of having sex with a child and its implications (which is where naming the thread "Child Molesters" would have come in handy), the article that sparked this topic and one of my questions was the comparison of homosexuality to pedophilia. Not necessarily that act, but some people believe even the thought of having sex with your own gender is wrong/should be considered a mental disorder. So by naming the topic pedophilia, I allowed the conversion of the comparison of the thought of gay sex/child sex and whether people think one or both or neither are mental disorders.

SunnyC said:
Yes she can, it's her topic. Besides, a number of people have been trying to tell you that they are not talking about dormant pedophiles.

I'll say it again because marioguy seems to have trouble grasping it; my arguments don't concern dormant pedophiles because I don't care what goes on in your head. I can't make thoughts illegal and cannot punish you for them. I'm not the Catholic Church in the seventeenth century. My arguments are concerning pedophiles that act on their urges because those are the only ones that have an impact on other peoples lives.
 

Sadib

Time Lord Victorious
If you're talking about child molesters, you're not going to get much opposition.
 

Malanu

Est sularus oth mith
Gay marriage being legalised does not make paedophilia any more ethical. Sure, yeah, legal outcomes can influence other legal battles, but that doesn't mean that it will in this case. How can gay marriage being legalised make people more comfortable with paedophilia? They're not even remotely comparable.

Same goes for people who argue that legalising homosexual marriage will lead to the legalisation of paedophilia, it doesn't make any sense. A lot of places have legalised same-sex marriage and are nowhere closer to legalising paedophilia.
A lot of things didn't make sense to my parents like Gay Marriage. It still doesn't. But here we are, on the Precipice of finding gay marriage legal. We are the wrong generation for this to happen just as My parents were the wrong generation for legalizing gay marriage.
 

CSolarstorm

New spicy version
A lot of things didn't make sense to my parents like Gay Marriage. It still doesn't. But here we are, on the Precipice of finding gay marriage legal. We are the wrong generation for this to happen just as My parents were the wrong generation for legalizing gay marriage.

Well, it's true things have been getting more progressive; first we recognized gender equality, then racial equality, and now equality between what gender you like, so going by that pattern I can see how someone would be looking for another shakeup to happen, so to speak. The problem is, these things are not necessarily connected to each other, and to even think of this as a pattern, you have to take it for granted that the 'norm' is white heterosexual male exclusivity and then everything added onto that is progressively more radical and thus related. Plus, in order to establish a slippery slope like this, you have to specify exactly how we're going to get there, which is difficult because there is a legal, moral challenge in the way of legalizing pedophilic marriage that wasn't in the way of gay marriage. I kind of find your argument similar to BigLutz's argument; sure they're relatable if you compare them in one specific way, but not with all the factors together.
 

Iceberg

A human
If you're talking about child molesters, you're not going to get much opposition.

Exactly. This is why I was baffled when I made it clear (or at least I thought I did) that my arguments were concerning people who engage in sexual acts. On the other hand, if I were a parent I wouldn't want my child's teacher or neighbor to be having sexual fantasies about them. But alas, there would be nothing I could do.

Malanu said:
A lot of things didn't make sense to my parents like Gay Marriage. It still doesn't. But here we are, on the Precipice of finding gay marriage legal. We are the wrong generation for this to happen just as My parents were the wrong generation for legalizing gay marriage.

As SunnyC said, there is a difference between the other right's movements and the hypothetical pedophilia right's movement. As I have said before, both parties are not consensual in a child-adult relationship. Children have no sex drive, don't know what sex is, and have no knowledge of the implications. Women and blacks were just pushing for equal rights, and in the case of homosexuality, both parties are consensual and know what they're doing.

Also, legally a child cannot give consent for anything. That's why parents need to approve medical care for them (such as surgeries) or sign video/picture release forms. So therefore a child cannot consent to sex.
 

Zevn

Lost in Translation
Forget legality, and look at the logic behind being against pedophilia. A child is not as emotionally mature, cognitively, socially, or sexually developed to the point where it is moral to coerce them into sexual activity.

Sex is most likely traumatizing to someone who is developing, and has no real sexual desire. Laws exist somewhat arbitrarily[keep in mind they have to be this way] because we are aware of the differences, and the damage sexual actions with a child can cause.

Comparing homosexuality to pedophelia is asinine, and the people doing it are grasping at straws. Malanu, seriously?
 

Peter Quill

star-lord
You can't get that feeling of pleasure if you can't have an orgasm, though. It's just sticking random body parts in holes and whatever the hell's involved in the foreplay. Nothing really pleasurable about that to children.

I do mean this politely but are you a virgin? There are plenty of ways to give pleasure to people without having intercourse or an orgasm. There are things like nibbling on ears, licking a partner's neck, the list could go on. That is what foreplay is. The scary part about this though is that older people can manipulate young children into thinking something that is incredibly violating is giving them pleasure. Think about it.
 

Ausgirl

Well-Known Member
Again, that's true of young adults as well (up until their late 20's IIRC).

Except that by that age they are legally responsible for what they do.

A lot of things didn't make sense to my parents like Gay Marriage. It still doesn't. But here we are, on the Precipice of finding gay marriage legal. We are the wrong generation for this to happen just as My parents were the wrong generation for legalizing gay marriage.

What, couldn't think of anything in response to my last post?

Why mention your parents? What do they have to do about this? Anyway, evidently this is a good generation to bring about social change. People have been asking for it for years now and finally people are starting to listen. No-one should have their rights taken away simply because of their sexual orientation (which doesn't include pedophilia).

Well, it's true things have been getting more progressive; first we recognized gender equality, then racial equality, and now equality between what gender you like, so going by that pattern I can see how someone would be looking for another shakeup to happen, so to speak. The problem is, these things are not necessarily connected to each other, and to even think of this as a pattern, you have to take it for granted that the 'norm' is white heterosexual male exclusivity and then everything added onto that is progressively more radical and thus related. Plus, in order to establish a slippery slope like this, you have to specify exactly how we're going to get there, which is difficult because there is a legal, moral challenge in the way of legalizing pedophilic marriage that wasn't in the way of gay marriage. I kind of find your argument similar to BigLutz's argument; sure they're relatable if you compare them in one specific way, but not with all the factors together.

Pedophilia will never be legalized because children cannot give consent and given that most don't know what sex is there is no reason why they would want it (pedophilic marriage). Remember when you were little and worried about things like cooties? Young children don't even play with kids of the oposite sex even when they are in the same age group, let alone desire sex with adults.

Forget legality, and look at the logic behind being against pedophilia. A child is not as emotionally mature, cognitively, socially, or sexually developed to the point where it is moral to coerce them into sexual activity.

Sex is most likely traumatizing to someone who is developing, and has no real sexual desire. Laws exist somewhat arbitrarily[keep in mind they have to be this way] because we are aware of the differences, and the damage sexual actions with a child can cause.

Comparing homosexuality to pedophelia is asinine, and the people doing it are grasping at straws. Malanu, seriously?

Exactly. Besides homosexuality has been recognized as a sexual orientation, whilst pedophelia has been recognized as a mental disorder. Therefore they're nothing alike.
 
Last edited:

Psychic

Really and truly
Teenagers under the age of 18 are still considered to be children by the law. Just because they know what sex is doesn't mean that they are more mature than pre-teens and should be taken advantage of. Plus like I mentioned earlier, it's wildly known that teenagers rarely think things through properlly. Such as the consequences of their actions. Adults on the otherhand can.
I'm not sure if you read the rest of my post, but I explained that a different set of sex laws apply for children and for teenagers. They differ by state/province/country, and I would advise that you look up the laws for your region to get an idea. Again, here are the ones for Canada, which specify that there can be “no relationship of trust, authority or dependency or any other exploitation of the young person” in order to protect the young person from entering a dangerous relationship.

Also, teenagers are more mature than children and pre-teens, they do have sex drives and they are going to have sex. We know this because the US tried abstinence-only education and the stats prove that it was an utter failure. The best thing we can do is educate kids about sex, how to be safe and how to make the right decisions, and create laws to protect them.

Lastly, it is also widely known that plenty of adults "rarely think things through properly" as well. Plenty of young people can be mature and smart, and plenty of older people can be immature and ignorant.


Unless the animal starts having sex with you, but to be fair, that probably won't happen.
No, and even if it does, that does not give you the right to continue. Especially because, since animals cannot give consent (never mind communicate in the first place), an animal cannot say what they do/do not like or want or what is too much for them. There is simply no way to justify having sex with an animal because there is no consent here.


You can't get that feeling of pleasure if you can't have an orgasm, though. It's just sticking random body parts in holes and whatever the hell's involved in the foreplay. Nothing really pleasurable about that to children.
You can engage in sexual activity for hours on end; a few seconds of climax do not automatically surpass the rest of the time spent giving and receiving pleasure. Sex isn't just about reaching orgasm, and that kind of mindset is not only naïve, but it can also paint a really miserable path for your sex life.

I'm not sure if this is news to you, but children touch themselves. Why? Because it feels nice. They don't understand why Mommy says "Don't play with that!" because they're just doing what feels good, like sucking your thumb. They just do it because it feels nice. Eventually, those kids start learning that if they keep playing long enough, they get a special feeling. But kids who start exploring their bodies on their own often don't know about orgasms, and thus reaching orgasm is not their goal. I would highly recommend reading up on the topic if this is what you think.


Then what's the point in having a distinction between legal, consensual sex and statutory rape? An 18 year old is no more capable of making good decisions than a 16 year old, so why is one allowed to give legal consent and one isn't? There's literally no developmental difference between the two, nothing significant to justify a legal difference between the two. I've said it before and I'll say it again: the concepts of what is legally defined as an adult need to be rethought.
There is a difference between consensual sex and statutory rape because a 16-year-old and a 18-year-old having sex has a higher chance of being mutual and consensual with “no relationship of trust, authority or dependency or any other exploitation of the young person” that would be dangerous to one person, while sex between a 16-year-old and a 30-year-old is far more likely to include one person having less power in the relationship and being taken advantage of. This is common sense.

As I said, you should look up the age of consent laws in your state/province/country to get an idea of what is and isn’t viewed as safe or legal. I don’t see why you insist on making this 16-year-old versus 18-year-old argument, because both are allowed to have sex in many places. I have shown you the laws for where I live, but I cannot check the sex laws that apply to you because I do not know where you live, so it's time you did some research.


~Psychic
 
Last edited:

Sadib

Time Lord Victorious
I do mean this politely but are you a virgin? There are plenty of ways to give pleasure to people without having intercourse or an orgasm. There are things like nibbling on ears, licking a partner's neck, the list could go on. That is what foreplay is.

I can't do either of those things to myself.
 
Last edited:

Psychic

Really and truly
I can't do either of those things to myself.
That's because foreplay generally isn't something you do to yourself. Foreplay is "sexual stimulation, usually as a prelude to sexual intercourse."

Also included in foreplay: touching genitals (including nipples). So if you have hands and genitals, you can do this to yourself. And you can still touch yourself and not reach orgasm, so I don't see how your post is in any way relevant to the debate. Use Google for basic questions.


~Psychic
 

Sadib

Time Lord Victorious
That's because foreplay generally isn't something you do to yourself. Foreplay is "sexual stimulation, usually as a prelude to sexual intercourse."

Also included in foreplay: touching genitals (including nipples). So if you have hands and genitals, you can do this to yourself. And you can still touch yourself and not reach orgasm, so I don't see how your post is in any way relevant to the debate. Use Google for basic questions.


~Psychic
Looks like I'm not going to experience foreplay anytime soon. Why would touching yourself without an orgasm feel good?
 

Pokeshippers

AAML Livin The Dream
Looks like I'm not going to experience foreplay anytime soon. Why would touching yourself without an orgasm feel good?

Ok I'm assuming you're male right? well anyway just a question, but I am assuming you've masturbated before, did you only feel good upon ejaculation or did the act feel good during? Just a simple question because from there you can assume, yes you, I already know, that during sexual intercourse you do feel pleasure, just because you never reached climax does not mean the act wasn't enjoyable, sex is about mutual pleasure and that in itself can make the act even more pleasurable especially when your partner is enjoying his or her self, of course I am not sure if a woman feels the same way because I'm not one, but from personal experience they enjoyed themselves or... they were pretty damn good at faking 0.o
 

Iceberg

A human
Johto_girl said:
Pedophilia will never be legalized because children cannot give consent and given that most don't know what sex is there is no reason why they would want it (pedophilic marriage). Remember when you were little and worried about things like cooties? Young children don't even play with kids of the oposite sex even when they are in the same age group, let alone desire sex with adults.

Exactly. Children don't know what sex is, they cannot legally give consent, and they don't even like the other gender (for the most part) let alone have a sex drive for them. Child marriages are in my opinion one of the worst tragedies of humanity. Not only are you sexually violating a child, you're taking their childhood and with that their innocence.
 

emboarrocks

#1 emboar fan
This has nothing to do with homosexuality. This is talking about adults having sex with children and is not related at all. Anyways, this shouldn't be legalized because kids probably don't understand the concept and are not aware of the full consequences of what can happen.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top