Many very good comments on this thread at this Psychology Today site. I copied them here to save them and think about some points further.

They were in response to an extremely irresponsible article promoting teenagers to have sex and wanting to abolish age-of-consent laws (or bring them down) by Marina Adshade. As you know, liberals who normalize homosexuality are the new NAMBLA light. They haven’t begun to advocate for sex with 2 yr olds yet, but they want to sexually exploit everyone teenager. Now they claim legal protections against sex at an early age are terrible and creates great injustices. Her main grotesque claim:

Age-of-consent laws impose high costs in terms of the personal hardship on the youth caught up in that enforcement (on both sides of the courtroom). So there must be pretty good evidence that younger teens are less capable of making healthily sexual decisions than are slightly older teens who are free to choose the nature of their own sexual relationships, right? Not exactly and, in fact, comprehensive research using data collected from 26,000 high school students in British Columbia found that the sexual decision making of those who became sexually active when they were 14 to 15 years old was no worse than those who became sexually active when they were 16 to 17 years old.

Comments:

Age of consent laws exist because of pedophiles. The state and the parents want a way to prosecute pedophiles even if the minor doesn’t want to.

………………..;;;

Very warped rationale…

Submitted by Alessandra
Marina Adshade (the author) stated:

Young youth in this study were equally likely as the older (16-17) group to have sex under the influence of drugs or alcohol (which one quarter of them did during their most recent sexual experience).

Since you consider this to be healthy behavior, little else needs to be said about your arguments.

And I’m sure pretty soon you’ll do another study showing that 12 yr olds are just as capable as 14 yr olds to make decisions about sex, so…

……………………

The purpose of statutory rape

Submitted by Anonymous:

The purpose of statutory rape laws is to make it taboo and discourage (and punishable as a crime by society) legal adults from having sex with minors. This is in the interest of protecting children from pedophiles. The premise is that children (although age of consent varies by state) due to their age lack the maturity to consent to sex due to the responsibilities and risks it entails (both psychological and physical).

Just because the 14-15 year olds are using birth control and aren’t getting STI/STDs more often than 16/17 year olds does not mean that they have the psychological maturity for a sexual relationship. It’s pretty clear in our society that a 14 or 15 year old (generally) is too young to be a good parent due to their maturity levels (they can’t even drive or in some states work!). Thus the conclusion that they can consent to sex because they have safe sex without addressing their psychological maturity is specious at best. Why doesn’t the study address the psychological or maturity level differences between 14/15 year olds and 16/17 year olds. Why is it that a 16 year old is deemed mature enough to have a driver’s license but a 14/15 year old isn’t? The reason is that the older ones tend to be more mature and have better decision making abilities due to more life experience.

The parents of a minor child are in control of raising their child according to their beliefs and have a RIGHT to not allow their child to date, drive, go on a field trip or a dance, have a surgery or engage in sexual activities. Society has decided that once someone is 18 they are legal adults who are old enough to make all of their own choices, vote, enter into contracts etc.. What parent wants their 14 year old child to have sex with someone who is 3 or 4 years older? At that those ages it’s a huge difference in maturity levels. My sister is 4 years younger than me and when I was a senior in high school (not that long ago) I would have NEVER have date a freshman or sophmore and any senior I knew acted like freshman/sophmores were too immature and not part of our social scene at all.

In this case, the parents have a right to not allow their child to have a sexual relationship in a school bathroom with Hunt who was 18, while the child was only 14 (ages at the start of the relationship-NY Times). Once the parents found out about the sexual relationship they warned Hunt to stop having sex with their daughter (I don’t care if it was due to homophobia or simply because of age or they don’t want their daughter having sex). Instead of respecting the parents wishes Hunt picked the child up in her car from the child’s house, took the child to her own parents house and preceded to have sex with the child again. We don’t know if Hunt manipulated the younger girl or exercised undue influence since she is so much older and the girl can’t tell because she is so young, but we do know that the girl’s parents think she is too young to have a sexual relationship with someone 4 years older. Everyone knows sex with someone underage is statuory rape, Hunt knew the girl’s age and was warned by the girl’s parents and still had sex with the girl so now she has to pay to price for that adult choice. When teens over or udner age engage in sex there are adult responsibilities that you are burdened with such as potential of pregnancy, STI/STD, getting in trouble for breaking school rules for having sex on campus, and being convicted for statutory rape for having sex with someone underage. Why didn’t Hunt just have sex with someone her own age after being warned? If she really cared about the girl not getting in trouble with her parents she would have left her alone. That would have been the mature thing to do.

……………………..;

Yeah, right… 14 year old adults… OK…

Submitted by Annie on May 26, 2013 – 1:54pm.

If 14 year olds are considered rational and mature enough to consent to sex, then heck, they should be rational and mature enough to be self-supporting, to have driver’s licenses, to sign legal contracts, to marry, to be drafted into the military, to be emancipated from their parents, to buy liquor, to arrange for their own abortions or receive welfare and raise their own children, etc.

Lets make 14 year olds legal adults, it would make all this so much simpler.

The 14 year olds will be delighted, and the pedophiles will be delighted. The liquor industry will be delighted. The military will probably be even more delighted the next time they decide to institute the draft.

I say there should be one age ONLY for complete adulthood, meaning complete legal responsibility for one’s own self / physical body, one’s own decisions, one’s own financial welfare, to be self-supporting, able to sign legal contracts, etc.

I personally think it should be age 18. No sex, no driving, no job, no alcohol, no adult responsibility AT ALL before age 18.

Then blammo! You hit 18 and you’re legally a full adult and take over the reins of your own life, totally.

……………………..

Legal age should mostly be 18

Submitted by Alessandra on May 26, 2013 – 2:07pm.

“I personally think it should be age 18. No sex, no driving, no job, no alcohol, no adult responsibility AT ALL before age 18.”

I tend to agree. In fact, in many other countries, no driver’s license before 18.

Of this list, my exception would be for jobs. Regulated but allowed. I think it’s very important that teenagers are allowed to work, especially those whose part of their survival depends on it. But while trying to keep them in school as well. Allowed as of 16.

…………………..

How would that work?

Submitted by Marina Adshade, Ph.D. on May 26, 2013 – 2:52pm.

I am curious as to how prohibiting sex until age 18 would work? Would the roughly 50% of American teens who become sexually active before that age all be incarcerated? Fined? How would such a law ever be enforced and it, if it could be, would the cost of enforcement really be worth the benefit to society as a whole?

………………………..

liberal culture needs to change

Submitted by Alessandra on May 26, 2013 – 3:26pm.

“Would the roughly 50% of American teens who become sexually active before that age all be incarcerated? ”

A lot of the reason why they are becoming sexually active is because liberals are encouraging them to do so.

It doesn’t have to be this way. The problem with teens starts with the morally corrupt, harmful adults surrounding them – like in the Kaitlyn case.

And what to do about it if it then happened? I don’t see what the problem would be to devise whatever policies and legal consequences to deal with it.

The benefits to society are multiple: less teen pregnancy and abortion, less emotional and sexual exploitation of teens, less STDs, sex is less cheapened by liberals, teens are taught to be responsible and “adults”, etc.

Yeah, definitely worth it.

……………………

In response to “I’m curious . . . “

Submitted by Arlene on May 27, 2013 – 9:05am.

The question was asked about how prohibiting sex to 18 would work.

As a fifty year old mother who has raised two young men to adulthood I can state they were both well aware they were ‘prohibited’ from having sex, and in fact are prohibited from doing so well past 18 and as long as they live in my home, unless they are married or have displayed enough responsibility toward a committed relationship that we might negotiate the situation.

That does not mean I believe they couldn’t have chosen to have sex or won’t choose to. It means I have set a boundary and that boundary relates, to them, that a sexual relationship with anybody is due serious thought and consideration.

I was also prohibited from having sex with the same rules. I had sex anyway, younger, with a boy my own age but we BOTH knew that we were playing with fire and that what we were doing was not acceptable to our parents. The boy has been my husband for almost 30 years but we recognize now how absolutely stupid we were. Many of my friends were the same.

As my grandmother was pregnant at 16, and then married, I would suggest this has how ‘prohibition’ of sex has always worked.

Boundaries are set because we recognize our children/teens/young adults require them. They will not always be adhered to but that doesn’t mean they should not be stated.

………………………

second and endorse Arlene

Submitted by Alessandra on May 27, 2013 – 9:41am.

You couldn’t have said it better, Arlene!

I totally agree, and it’s so sad that more kids can’t have parents who think like this, because the damage is huge. And obviously, in the end, it’s not the liberal adults that get hurt, it’s the kids.

While I think that we really need to focus on the psychological and emotional damage that liberals do to cheapening sex and degrading it to the most disgusting version of it possible, these stats also show us the other side of liberal destruction regarding sexuality, in terms of sexual health:

Nearly half of the 19 million new STDs each year are among young people aged 15–24 years

And:

More than 400,000 teen girls aged 15–19 years gave birth in 2009.

…………………….

We don’t have to incarcerate

Submitted by Shortcake on May 27, 2013 – 10:59am.

We don’t have to incarcerate teens to have laws to protect.

It is illegal for 14 year olds to possess cigarettes or smoke them. I am unaware of any 14 years olds doing time for having a pack of cigarettes. But society has created this law to let children know the activity is discouraged and considered not in their interest,

I am not advocating a law prohibiting sex before 18, but not every law needs to have incarceration as a penalty

………………………

RE How would that work?

Submitted by Annie on May 27, 2013 – 10:51am.

The only way I can think of to make this “real”, make it work, would involve a rather extremely radical and definitely fascist paradigm shift of our laws and culture. So, its just a fantasy.

But one aspect would be to heavily fine parents or incarcerate parents or give parents two years of community service sentences, if it is discovered and proven that their under-18 children are having illegal sex.

And to penalize the minors who are having sex: they too would get a community-service sentence, they would be required to attend two years of psychotherapy plus two years of parenting classes, and their ability or privilege to earn a driver’s license and a job would be delayed by one year.
Bummer!

Those who turn 18 are free to have legal sex with each other, but if anyone aged 18 or older has sex with anyone under age 18, it would be a felony offense: five years minimum. Doing really hard time in a federal pen for illegal sexual activity might have more impact than the weak penalty it is now.
Maybe (?)

If a female minor child becomes pregnant and her parents do not wish for her to have an abortion, the state would become the legal guardian of the newborn: NOT the minor child, NOT the minor child’s parents and NOT the bio-father or his parents. The infant would not be a “reward” for having unlawful sex, but as a ward of the state the newborn would be placed for private adoption by another, properly vetted, unrelated family.

That would be the worst penalty, seems to me. Not getting to keep the baby resulting from having sex as a minor, at all. Not even the minor’s parents, the newborn’s grandparents, would get to keep him or her. Because getting to keep the baby is like getting a reward for doing something illegal, and that makes no sense.

A second pregnancy on the part of a minor female child would result in the state issuing an order for a surgically-implanted IUD. When the female child reaches her 18th birthday, she can petition the state to have the IUD removed at the state’s expense.

See? Extreme, right-wing, fascist kinds of laws, rules, and penalties, every one; but that’s the only thing I can think of that would actually work.

I’m not even sure that such a radical change would make things “better”, but it would certainly be DIFFERENT than what we have in place now, which clearly isn’t working at all.

…………………..

nothing would work without an overhaul of the dominant culture

Submitted by Alessandra on May 27, 2013 – 2:27pm.

Although changing laws and their enforcement could have some impact, I think they would be sorely undermined if not accompanied by an overhaul of the destructive liberal culture regarding sexuality that is currently in place.

Regarding youth, this must mean radical change on two fronts: the entire educational system and what it teaches kids, and the cultural front, namely culture in its entertainment aspect.

If all millions of kids see and hear and admire are adults behaving like sexual pigs, who do hookups, porn, normalize homosexuality, plus drinking and drugs, and push for sex since early teen years – it’s hard to imagine that implementing this or that law would have much impact.

Anti-smoking laws only succeeded because the govt succeeded in changing people’s attitudes and perspective on smoking.

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

Updated June 8, 2013 – debate continues:


Submitted by Alessandra on June 8, 2013

sfreader said: “A “sexual predator” is someone who either commits forcible rape, or uses some form of coercion or enticement to induce another person into having sex. “

A sexual predator is someone who targets kids for sex. It doesn’t matter what other feelings they may have. And to claim that targeting kids for sex is a form of love is exactly what NAMBLA folks always argued. There are all kinds of people who have all kinds of dysfunctional affective dynamics mixed with the desire to sexually exploit kids for sex.

It’s not because an adult “loves” a child and wants to have “a special sexual experience and bond” with the child that they aren’t predatory.

Many liberals are “genuine sexual predators” and still consider themselves run-of-the-mill normal. How many people defending Kaitlyn will acknowledge they are “genuine sexual predators”? They believe raping kids is normal and they should rape as many as they wish – with total impunity – as long as they can emotionally manipulate the kid enough to make it consensual.

“An 18-year-old who lures a 15-year-old into prostitution so that he or she can take some, most, or all of the profits is a sexual predator.”

Why, because if the 15 yr old kept most of the profits, it wouldn’t be predatory?

“A 24-year-old teacher who coerces a 16-year-old student into having sex by threatening to flunk him/her, or promising to give him/her an “A,” is a sexual predator.”

Because if they simply just want to exploit their students for sex, without changing their grades, then it’s not predatory?

“An 18-year-old who hangs around the local junior high and entices 13- and 14-year-old girls with drugs and booze is a sexual predator.”

Anyone who claims a 13 or 14 yr old is capable of making their own decisions about sex is clearly claiming that kids are also capable of making their own decisions about alcohol and drugs, and thus cannot possibly be “enticed” in any way. And here we come to the fallacy of this predatory liberal agenda: there is no such thing as a 14 yr old adult. Propping up kids as adults is the only way they can justify their own predatory designs on all kids.

What is plain to see is that every child is a walking target for a perverted LGBT individual who thinks they are normal.

Who is making schools not safe today?

“An 18-year-old male who falls in love with a 15-year-old girl, and proceeds to “do what comes naturally,” without threats or coercion or force, is NOT a “sexual predator”– and he should not be treated like one.”

What comes “naturally” to a person without morals about sex and relationships, who has a harmful liberal agenda about sexuality, and who has no concern for others is not only harmful, but certainly not civilized. Spreading STDs is also what comes “naturally” to many of these young people and they believe they should never be held accountable in any way. What is “natural” to harmful and irresponsible people is certainly not “natural” for ethical people.

Liberal ideology about sex, sexuality, and relationships mostly revolves around normalizing every form of sexual dysfunction and perversion, legitimizing and rationalizing most forms of exploitation and harm that are perpetrated, and encouraging impunity and lack of accountability as often as possible.


The NAMBLA and Polanski mentality is alive and well

Submitted by Alessandra on June 8, 2013

“If Florida had a set of intelligent laws, the younger girl’s confirmation that the relationship was consensual would have been the END of it.”

That’s what NAMBLA and Roman Polanski have always argued.

See what good company you’re in? Oh, don’t bother denying it, it’s plain to see.

Kaitlyn’s parents shamelessly proclaimed that Kaitlyn was just “experimenting with her sexuality and the other girl’s.” So, what if this Kaitlyn had wanted to produce child porn with this 14-year-old? What if she wanted to have a three-some with an adult and the 14-year-old? Should she be allowed simply because she has a homosexual problem and her parents claim that Kaitlyn has the right to “experiment with other girls’ sexualities” in any way that her perverted homosexual mind conceives of? Kaitlyn’s “right” to “experiment” with other kids stops where other kids have the right not to be experimented with – and that applies to every single kid.

All the more power to the girl’s parents who went to the police. And lucky for them that they still can. If liberals continue to push for their “normalize homosexuality” crusade, pretty soon parents with ethical views on sexuality will probably be hauled into jail for not accepting homosexuality as normal and for objecting that their kids be groomed for homosexual sex, which we all know is hailed as the hate and bigotry thought crime du jour.

====================================

Invalid Comparison

Submitted by sfreader on June 8, 2013 – 9:26am.

“That’s what NAMBLA and Roman Polanski have always argued.”

There is NO valid comparison between an 18-year-old high-school student and the members of NAMBLA or Roman Polanski.

Polanski was 44 years old when he had sex with a 13-year-old girl– a girl who was literally young enough to be his granddaughter. Comparing Kaitlyn Hunt to him is beyond absurd.

“So, what if this Kaitlyn had wanted to produce child porn with this 14-year-old? What if she wanted to have a three-some with an adult and the 14-year-old?”

But she didn’t, and there’s no reason even to imagine that she might have. This is an 18-year-old high-school student, not some jaded 40-year-old drooling over pictures of kiddie porn.

“…her perverted homosexual mind…”

Uh-huh. She’s a pervert and a criminal just because she’s gay, or bisexual? Yeah, right.

================================

Comparison with Polanski and NAMBLA is quite valid

Submitted by Alessandra on June 8, 2013 – 10:41am.

“That’s what NAMBLA and Roman Polanski have always argued.”

sfreader said: There is NO valid comparison between an 18-year-old high-school student and the members of NAMBLA or Roman Polanski.

The comparison is completely valid. They all claim that if the sex is consensual, it is valid and non-predatory. It’s what you are claiming, it’s what Kaitlyn and her parents are claiming.

Polanski could have done the same thing to his victim when he was 18. It wouldn’t change anything of his mindset or his behavior. It’s not the age that matters, it’s the preying on the child. And he would have been the same as Kaitlyn.

“So, what if this Kaitlyn had wanted to produce child porn with this 14-year-old? What if she wanted to have a three-some with an adult and the 14-year-old?”

Submitted by sfreader: But she didn’t, and there’s no reason even to imagine that she might have.

That’s irrelevant. Your argument is that she is as adult as necessary to make decisions about having sex with adults. You are arguing she is a 14-yr-old adult. Adults can and do produce pornography. That means however, that if the victim had been asked to participate in producing porn, she would be engaging in child porn production – we call it **child** porn for a reason: the participants are children, not adults. And you have no argument against that.

Adults also engage in all kinds of perverted sexual behaviors, like threesomes. You would have no reason to object if this is what Kaitlyn wanted, because you claim that there must be nothing wrong with whatever Kaitlyn wants to do with any girl, as long as Kaitlyn feels some homosexual attraction towards the victim.


Reality Check

Submitted by sfreader on June 7, 2013 – 4:38pm.

One could argue all day long about whether young teenagers “should” or “should not” engage in sexual activities, but the reality is that some of them DO– and they do it willingly (even eagerly) with persons of their choice, usually someone close to their own age.

So– which makes more sense–

1. Have laws that prohibit teenagers below a certain age from having sex– which, as we all know, does not work; or

2. Change the laws so that they bear some reasonable resemblance to reality, and put more effort into educating young adults so that they have the information they need to make intelligent choices?

Like it or not, anybody who has reached puberty is physically an adult– and like it or not, some of those young adults WILL decide to have sex, regardless of what the law or their parents or anybody else thinks about it. Short of locking them up in their rooms every moment they aren’t in school, there’s no way to prevent them from doing so.

====================================

But saying “anybody who has

Submitted by ethy on June 7, 2013 – 6:53pm.

But saying “anybody who has reached puberty is physically an adult” is a bit misleading because being “physically an adult” — i.e., being sexually developed — is not necessarily being “mentally an adult.”

So if you’re not mentally an adult, your not an adult. Therefore, the minor was not a “young adult” as you claim. The minor was in fact an adolescent.

===============================

Puberty is not adulthood

Submitted by Alessandra on June 8, 2013 – 1:32am.

“So if you’re not mentally an adult, your not an adult. Therefore, the minor was not a “young adult” as you claim. The minor was in fact an adolescent.”

Exactly, but sexual predators must legitimize their preying on kids every way they can.

In other words, such Roman Polanskis of society would argue that a girl who reaches puberty by 10 or 11, which also happens, is an adult ready to have sex.

In every way, people with a perverted idea of sex, who most often normalize homosexuality, want to tear down the protections that are in place for children not to be exploited sexually.

On the subject:

NAMBLA (wiki)

The North American Man/Boy Love Association (NAMBLA) is a pedophile and pederasty advocacy organization in the United States that works to abolish age of consent laws criminalizing adult sexual involvement with minors,[2][3] and for the release of all men who have been jailed for sexual contacts with minors that did not involve coercion.

Read as many times as necessary. It’s exactly how liberals think. Instead of abolishing age of consent laws, liberals want to progressively bring them down, even if not abolishing them completely.

“NAMBLA’s website states that it is a political, civil rights, and educational organization whose goal is to end “the extreme oppression of men and boys in mutually consensual relationships.”

Heh! Just like the discourse from liberals here and everywhere: free Kate – it’s all consensual!

“In 1994 the Gay & Lesbian Alliance Against Defamation (GLAAD) adopted a “Position Statement Regarding NAMBLA” saying GLAAD “deplores the North American Man Boy Love Association’s (NAMBLA) goals, which include advocacy for sex between adult men and boys and the removal of legal protections for children. “

You can’t make this stuff up. And what are liberals and the repugnant GLAAD people doing above?

Advocating for sex between adults and children. Removing the legal protections for children! Because according to liberals (who normalize homosexuality and child sexual exploitation ), sex with children is just fine – the only problem is if they get caught. That’s the mentality of a pedophile.

GLAAD: “Diligent action is needed to convince Bruce Colton and Brian Workman to DROP the charges pressed against 18 year old Kaitlyn and give her the opportunity to pursue the fulfilling life she deserves to lead.”

Just like NAMBLA. No charges for pedophiles: it’s all normal.

And seriously, the “fulfilling” life of a deformed lesbian who targets kids for sex? There you go – no matter how deformed people are regarding sexuality, count on liberals to claim it’s all normal and good.

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

Updated June 9, 2013:

Some missing data

Submitted by ethy on May 28, 2013 – 2:37pm.

The study you cite as showing no difference in sexual-decision making between younger and older teens does in fact report significant differences. Specifically, it found:

“younger females were more than twice as likely (16.1%) to report forced sex in their lifetime than older females (7.3%) … younger females were significantly more likely to report having had unwanted sexual intercourse because of drug or alcohol use than were older females (18.3% vs. 11.3%).”

The author’s conclusion acknowledges that those differences support the hypothesis that “younger adolescents are at greater risk of exploitation.” They state that as follows:

“This study did find some support for the rationale that younger adolescents are at greater risk of exploitation than older teens. However, when considering the number of adolescents affected by this legislation, the change in age of consent may not have been necessary.”

While they do opine that Canada’s raising the age of consent from 14 to 16 might not have been necessary, that’s just a debatable opinion, not data itself. Given limitations of studies, that anything from this one study indicates risk of harm to minors means you can’t say it proves there’s no risk, and that risk data needs to be a part of the public discussion on the topic.

The study in full
http://beta.images.theglobeandmail.com/archive/01010/Read_the_study_on__…

==============================

More missing data

Another point- here are the criteria:

Comparisons included: forced sex, sex under the influence of alcohol or drugs, multiple partners, condom use, effective contraception use, self-reported sexually transmitted infections, and pregnancy involvement.

That’s all, nothing else. You notice there is no context about the type of interaction or relationship, aside of the question if it was forced. So if it was a completely loveless experience, if it was a bad emotional experience, as long as it was consensual, it doesn’t get counted as bad.

You can find many people who had sex early who will tell you that the experience was not good.

Furthermore, an early experience robs the child from having a truly mature first experience with someone they are seriously involved with later on, as young adults. If they are peer-pressured into having sex early, they have this robbed from them.


Well, Tell You What–

Submitted by sfreader on June 9, 2013 – 12:19am.

Since you are you so hung up on NAMBLA, why don’t you go to THEIR web site and complain to THEM directly?

As far as I’m concerned, this case has NOTHING to do with homosexuality per se, but rather, with idiot laws that treat an 18-year-old high-school student as if she were in the same league as a 30-year-old child molester or a 50-year-old pederast lusting after 12-year-old boys– and that treat a 14-year-old student as if she were an infant or a retard who doesn’t even have sovereignty over her own body.

Does her body belong to her parents? Does it belong to the Sate of Florida? If her parents chose to kill her, would they have the “right” to do so because her body belongs to them? If the State of Florida decided that there were too many 14-year-olds in the school system, would it have the right to execute her as being a “surplus” child?

No? But why not? If she’s just a brainless “thing” who belongs to her parents or to the state, why shouldn’t they have have the right to treat her like any other chattel… or cattle?

To whom does her body belong? If she is a human being, with the rights and responsibilities of a human being, then her body belongs to HER– not to her parents, not to the State of Florida, and certainly not to some self-righteous homophobe who, by her own admission, regards ALL homosexuals as “perverted, disoriented, and dysfunctional.”

If she is a human being, then her body belongs to HER… and not to YOU.

I said it before and I’ll say it again: there is NO valid comparison between Kaitlyn Hunt– an 18-year-old high-school student– and Roman Polanski, a 44-year-old man who had sex with a girl young enough to be his granddaughter. If you think that Kaitlyn Hunt can legitimately be compared to Roman Polanski, then your sense of perspective is seriously out of kilter.

But then, that’s obvious from the fact that you regard homosexuals– ALL homosexuals– as “perverted, disoriented, and dysfunctional.”

Bottom line: You hate gay people. Well, fine. Go join the Westboro Baptist Church, and walk around with a sign saying “GOD HATES FAGS.”

Or is that how you already spend your spare time?


The Kaitlyn-NAMBLA supporters v. social conservatives

Submitted by Alessandra on June 9, 2013 – 1:34am.

“Submitted by sfreader: Since you are you so hung up on NAMBLA, why don’t you go to THEIR web site and complain to THEM directly?”

Because you are representing them so well here.

“Does her body belong to her parents? ”

Her parents (like every parent) are legally and morally responsible for her well-being, that includes both mind and body.

“To whom does her body belong? If she is a human being, with the rights and responsibilities of a human being, then her body belongs to HER– not to her parents, not to the State of Florida, and certainly not to some self-righteous homophobe who, by her own admission, regards ALL homosexuals as “perverted, disoriented, and dysfunctional.””

You’re just repeating yourself. You are claiming she is an adult at 14 yrs of age. What is the basis for this claim? You believe that “human beings” are born “adults,” in other words, you claim they do not spend years growing up until reaching adulthood at 18 (legally speaking). And so you want consent laws to be abolished in order to have sexual access to any kid you want to target. We should underscore once again this is what NAMBLA also claims.

So, what do we have here: on one side, you, a teenager/very young adult (it’s what you sound like) who espouses a self-righteous homosexuality agenda who defends NAMBLA’s concepts in every way, promoting sexual exploitation of children. You also promote children making child porn and adults consuming child porn, it is consensual. In addition to child prostitution – if the child wants to sell her body, you claim she should do it.

And, on the other side, me, a woman who has a healthy and responsible social conservative view of sexuality and who wants protections in place against the sexual exploitation of kids.

As it’s plain to see, there is no end to how irresponsible and harmful people who think homosexuality is normal can be.

“I said it before and I’ll say it again: there is NO valid comparison between Kaitlyn Hunt– an 18-year-old high-school student– and Roman Polanski, a 44-year-old man who had sex with a girl young enough to be his granddaughter. ”

You can repeat nonsense as many times as you want, it doesn’t change the fact that it’s nonsense. It’s not the age difference that matters, it’s the age of the victim that matters along with the perverted nature of the attitudes and behaviors involved.

sfreader said: “Bottom line: You hate gay people. Well, fine. Go join the Westboro Baptist Church, and walk around with a sign saying “GOD HATES FAGS.” ”

Bottom line: you love all pedophiles, especially if they are into homosexual exploitation and abuse of kids. And you hate social conservatives – you know, people with ethics and a healthy view of sexuality. You and your homosexuality agenda are doing tremendous harm in society, both to kids and adults. So you can walk with a sign that says “I LOVE NAMBLA and NAWGLA- consent laws must be abolished.”

Or is that how you already spend your spare time, along with that special “school bathroom time” with kids?

Westboro is a little over the top, but as far as I know, they don’t go around raping kids or promoting the practice. Surprise of all surprises, they have something to teach you.

==================================

Keep Reading: the Answer Is Clear

Submitted by sfreader on June 9, 2013 – 12:32am.

The person who calls herself “Allesandra” is a homophobe who believes that ANY effort reform the absurd and arbitrary “statutory rape” laws is a homosexual “pervert” and an advocate of NAMBLA.

“Allesandra” cannot perceive any difference between an 18-year-old high-school student having sex with someone she regarded as a “peer”– and Roman Polanski, who, at the age of 44, had sex with a 13-year-old. In “Allessandra’s” view, an 18-year-old who has sex with someone less than four years younger than herself is in the same league as a middle-aged man who has sex with a girl young enough to be his granddaughter.

In short, rabid homophobia = complete lack of perspective.

No drugs required.

=================================

Peer v. predator

Submitted by Alessandra on June 9, 2013 – 2:21am.

sfreader said: “”Allesandra” cannot perceive any difference between an 18-year-old high-school student having sex with someone she regarded as a “peer”– and Roman Polanski, who, at the age of 44, had sex with a 13-year-old. In “Allessandra’s” view, an 18-year-old who has sex with someone less than four years younger than herself is in the same league as a middle-aged man who has sex with a girl young enough to be his granddaughter.”

Polanski is just one of millions examples of sexual exploitation of kids. I quote it because it’s a very well-known case, it’s outrageous that he was never properly convicted, and because he defends himself by saying that it was all consensual. Not only this, he has many supporters who want to guarantee impunity for sexual exploitation of children. As we can see, there are many parallels to the Kaitlyn case.

Is sfreader now pretending that young adults do not sexually exploit kids just as Polanski did? Is she pretending that we have no sexual predators who are younger than 44? There is a sad but very large body of research and testimonies of child victims that prove just how much sfreader is lying. Teenagers and young adults can be predatory and exploitative, and the number of victims is, sadly, very large.

So much so, that even middle-school kids sexually assault small kids and one-third of all sex offenders known to police are juveniles.

What can Polanski do to a 14 yr old that Kaitlyn (or any other 18 yr old) cannot? Nothing. They are in the same adult league.

Let us consider the example of an imaginary Polanski who is 18, and who does exactly the same thing he did in real life to his victim, but now it’s to a girl of 14. What changes in terms of the crimes and the sexual exploitation? Nothing. Yet sfreader would automatically claim it’s different.

sfreader claims that if a sexual predator thinks their target is their “peer,” that absolves them of all guilt or responsibility, and it gives them a green light to sexually exploit any child as they please. So, if Kaitlyn wanted to take all the girls who are 14 in her school and insert vibrators into them, and make child porn, according to sfreader, this is not predatory; they’re all “peers.”

This is outright absurd. Any teenager could claim they are “peers” with any child in middle-school. And older, dysfunctional adults could make the same “peer” claim towards any of their younger targets. In fact, a lot of pedophiles do claim this “peer” connection to kids.

“In short, rabid homophobia = complete lack of perspective.”

In short, rabid homosexuality agenda promoter who thinks homosexuality is normal = avid for homosexual exploitation of kids

======================

sfreader said: ‘ your repeated references to gay people as “perverts” make it clear that in your mind, all gay people are “perverts” and “predators.”‘

If you mean by that that I think that all adults with a homosexual problem target children for sex, you are mistaken. I don’t think that. A very large proportion of adults with a homosexual problem target adults with unwelcome homosexual advances, no doubt about that.

The more that young people with a homosexuality problem are told there is nothing wrong with their perverted psychology, the more they feel right about and entitled to act on it, that is also obvious. It’s exactly what happened to Kaitlyn. Given that this is what most kids are being told today, I also wouldn’t say they would all prey on others, but most would certainly target others.

As for people with a homosexuality problem being perverted, yes, that’s true. That is what homosexuality is: perverted, disoriented, and dysfunctional.

===========================

This is also important to note from the study:

Finally, given that existing laws do not seem to be protecting the most sexually vulnerable group of children, those less than 13 years of age, future policy in Canada should focus on effective strategies to address the
problem of child sexual abuse, including increasing the enforcement of existing child abuse laws.

Unfortunately they do not discuss  the issue more.