Freethought & Rationalism Archive

Loren Pechtel · 05-17-2003, 07:54 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Pat Kelly

Our prisons overflow with those whose only crime was to get caught challenging current social restrictions against sex through doing nothing more than behaving like a human being. If everyone was put in jail who ever stepped over the social boundaries of acceptable sex there would be no one left to turn all the keys. In the overwhelming majority of cases, the only thing actually harmed by the imprisoned and persecuted was the ideas themselves that certain people should not engage in sex with certain others. The true victims in victimless sex crimes void of force or violence are every one of us as we submit to the laws and understandings that oppose the true nature of ourselves. We cannot help it if we are sexual or change the reality of what goes on inside us. We are bound to act like a human and it is nothing less than social insanity that would have us do anything else.

No. There aren't that many in jail over sex crimes at all, and most of those are either rape or molestation.

yguy · 05-17-2003, 08:20 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Pat Kelly
I do not advocate sex with children any more than I advocate homosexuality, heterosexuality or any other particular expression of human sexuality. Where you and I appear to differ is I do not condemn any nonviolent or unforced form of sex either, even if it happens to occasionally occur between adults and children.

How very handsome. Such a broad-minded and tolerant soul as yourself can certainly appreciate it, then, when I affirm that while I don't advocate burning apologists for pedophilia like yourself at the stake, I do not condemn people who harbor such desires.

Soyin Milka · 05-17-2003, 11:00 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Pat Kelly
However, a substantial number of convicted sex offenders involve cases where the alleged victims sat on the defendant�s side of the courtroom and stated they did not see themselves as victims. Many have testified they were not in any way harmed by the sexual encounter and in fact were the ones who approached the adult for sex instead of the other way around.

It's the responsibility of the adult not to have sex with a child, even if the child initiates the sex or seems to want it. Maybe it's true that in some cases, the child wasn't harmed by the sex and unequal relationship with an adult. But in many cases, the opposite happens and the child gets harmed in some way. Because there's no way to know for sure in advance how a child will react to sex with an adult and the impact this could have on his later development, it's a big risk to do so. So even if you think the child can gain from it, you HAVE to err on the side of caution and not have sex with that child.

It's true that some children become emotionally attached to an adult they have sex with. It makes them even more vulnerable to manipulation and coercion. When and if their "adult partner" gets caught by authorities, it usually has a lot of effect on these children. That arrest is a devastating event in their lives plunging them in confusion, arising feelings of guilt in them. These children will often be willing to do a lot of things to protect the abusing adult, including testifying in court in their favor. It really leads to difficult times for the children and it shows in their schooling, health and behavior.

Now you may argue that all of that trauma would not happen if the laws were different and that sex between minors and adults was treated differently. Argue all you want. But the current reality is that currently, sex between minors and adults is prohibited. An adult engaging in sexual activity with a child, even if that child appears to consent, is exposing that child to many risks. That's not the behavior of a responsible adult caring about the well being of that child.

Soyin

Pat Kelly · 05-17-2003, 04:46 PM

Quote:

Soyin - Now you may argue that all of that trauma would not happen if the laws were different and that sex between minors and adults was treated differently. Argue all you want. But the current reality is that currently, sex between minors and adults is prohibited. An adult engaging in sexual activity with a child, even if that child appears to consent, is exposing that child to many risks. That's not the behavior of a responsible adult caring about the well being of that child.

This may come as a bit of a surprise but I totally agree it would not be in any child�s best interests to engage in sex with an adult within today�s climate of sexual hysteria against such things. Your statement is rational, practical and well founded in reality. Your statement could also lead one to conclude you are a child advocate looking to defend and protect the interests of children. However, inherent in your statement seems to be the conclusion that looking out for the best interests of children is synonymous with defending current social views and attitudes towards sex. I would be on your side with this one too if these current social views towards sex even came close to mirroring reality. But they do not and the fact they do not can easily be traced back to harm being done to children not by pedophiles but by the unrealistic sexual norms forced upon each new generation of children. Harm of such unprecedented levels, its true tally will only be assessable by future generations.

I am acutely aware it is virtually impossible for most people to recognize the flaws and inconsistencies within the values and understandings they themselves have grown-up within and accepted. You cannot see it is wrong to attempt to prevent children from behaving sexually any more than you can comprehend or acknowledge the enormous harm done to children because of it. Even your professed genuine concern for the wellbeing of children stops short of any willingness to truly assess the validity within your own attitudes towards sex and how those attitudes may negatively impact children. Were this not the case you would be more open to exploring ideas that show today�s concepts of sexual normality are in fact not normal and current social views towards sex are not synonymous with what is in the best interest of children.

When it comes to choosing between what is really best for children and one�s personal needs to defend the elements that make up their own character, children almost always come in a distant second. Western societies may have lulled themselves into some illusions they highly value their children but their actions clearly prove otherwise. I could give you a long list demonstrating the concern most people claim towards children is nothing more than poorly colored window dressing. You�ve heard it all before and there is no reason to spend more time with it now. People care much more about themselves and their moralistic attitudes towards sex underpinned by religion. It is those attitudes you seek to defend in conversations like these and not the children whose true wellbeing you have hijacked and exploited into some highbrowed illusion you stand for defending children.

This is not about ignorance or misunderstanding. It is nothing less than a deliberate and malicious attempt to ignore reality for the sake of beliefs.

HelenM · 05-17-2003, 05:07 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Pat Kelly
When it comes to choosing between what is really best for children and one�s personal needs to defend the elements that make up their own character, children almost always come in a distant second. Western societies may have lulled themselves into some illusions they highly value their children but their actions clearly prove otherwise. I could give you a long list demonstrating the concern most people claim towards children is nothing more than poorly colored window dressing. You�ve heard it all before and there is no reason to spend more time with it now. People care much more about themselves and their moralistic attitudes towards sex underpinned by religion. It is those attitudes you seek to defend in conversations like these and not the children whose true wellbeing you have hijacked and exploited into some highbrowed illusion you stand for defending children.

Can you prove that your views put the true wellbeing of children first?

How do you know that we aren't simply disagreeing on what the true wellbeing of children is? Rather than us not putting them first at all, despite claiming that we do so?

Helen

yguy · 05-17-2003, 05:14 PM

This is all bloody nonsense. The alleged human being calling itself Pat Kelly needs to be banned immediately, unceremoniously, and permanently, in my opinion.

Pat Kelly · 05-17-2003, 05:37 PM

That's right vguy... You keep that head deeply buried in the sand and if you have no rational or logical response to the message always attack the messenger.

Dominus Paradoxum · 05-17-2003, 05:47 PM

Quote:

Western societies may have lulled themselves into some illusions they highly value their children but their actions clearly prove otherwise. I could give you a long list demonstrating the concern most people claim towards children is nothing more than poorly colored window dressing.

Proof, eh? Sounds interesting. Let's have it.

Quote:

You�ve heard it all before and there is no reason to spend more time with it now. People care much more about themselves and their moralistic attitudes towards sex underpinned by religion. It is those attitudes you seek to defend in conversations like these and not the children whose true wellbeing you have hijacked and exploited into some highbrowed illusion you stand for defending children.

Yes, we want to prevent children from being molested. What horrible, horrible puritans we are. Somehow I imagine that your idea of a sexually "normal" society is to have people going around naked on the street fucking everyone they can get their hands on, in rapid succession.

You said earlier that 'consent' was not necessary for sex, and then later on you said that you don't advocate forcing people to have sex against their will. You can't have it both ways, Mr. kelley.

Quote:

This is not about ignorance or misunderstanding. It is nothing less than a deliberate and malicious attempt to ignore reality for the sake of beliefs.

And just what might this "reality" be? Inquiring minds are dying to know.

Pat Kelly · 05-17-2003, 05:51 PM

Quote:

Helen - Can you prove that your views put the true wellbeing of children first?

I think so. You will have to visit my website to assess that for yourself because it is a little too involved to tackle here. I could however answer your challenge with the statement: "1+1=2"

Quote:

Helen - How do you know that we aren't simply disagreeing on what the true wellbeing of children is?

Humanity has a long and well-established history that clearly shows the true motivators of human behavior. There is no logical reason to assume anything is different today in either the inaccuracy of understandings or the resistance to more rational views.

HelenM · 05-17-2003, 06:23 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Pat Kelly
I think so. You will have to visit my website to assess that for yourself because it is a little too involved to tackle here. I could however answer your challenge with the statement: "1+1=2"

I don't care for the nude pictures of children on your site.

Helen

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

05-17-2003, 05:14 PM	#36
yguy Veteran Member Join Date: Apr 2003 Posts: 2,199	This is all bloody nonsense. The alleged human being calling itself Pat Kelly needs to be banned immediately, unceremoniously, and permanently, in my opinion.

05-17-2003, 05:37 PM	#37
Pat Kelly Regular Member Join Date: Apr 2003 Location: California Posts: 134	That's right vguy... You keep that head deeply buried in the sand and if you have no rational or logical response to the message always attack the messenger.

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.