Steely Dan wrote:

QUOTE:
Evil Science cannot win Good Science is stronger and always wins.

"Because of outside pressure stemming from this research, Dr. Rind has publicly admitted that he cannot continue pending research on this topic and will pursue other subjects of research as a result of the public reaction to his paper."

Do not let them practice their Evil Science!

Thanks for the partial clarification.

The 'Rind report' (refered to as such as I DON'T know the exact name of the study, however it was conducted by Rind and a partner). It was a peer-reviewed study of College students, concluding that based on their experiences, consensual sexual relationships between minors and adults did not inherently harm the minor. It refered to the major social taboo against the act, and also the vehement and horrific experiences of a consensual minor's experiences if things get found out (eg. court system, parents' reaction etc.) as being major causes of perceived abuse from the minor.

It was subsequently condemned by Congress due to: 'that such research could be used as grounds for justification of paedophilia' (not exact quote). From memory, I believe it meant the paper could not be published, however I'm quite sure you can get your hands on a copy over the 'net, as I'm sure it's in the public domain.

I never said it was bad science.

I believe I said arguing the contrary opinion on such opinion is the quickest way to lose one's voice.

Sorry when I said Good Science/Evil Science I was comparing it to Good Magic/Evil Magic, and kind-of just drawing medieval parallels to our society's outlook. Science proves something we like and it's good, science proves something we don't like, and it's censored; only investigations that support pre-ordained, absolute normative construct are allowed.

"Ray Fowler, Ph. D., writes at May 25, representing the APA: "Because the article has attracted so much attention, we have carefully reviewed the process by which it was approved for publication and the soundness of the methodology and analysis. This study passed the journal's rigorous peer review process and has, since the controversy, been reviewed again by an expert in statistical analysis who affirmed that it meets current standards and that the methodology, which is widely used by the National Institutes of Health (NIH) to develop guidelines, is sound."

They double checked and everything but the APA couldn't find a flaw, and you know they wanted to.<br /><br />Post edited by: Steely Dan, at: 2008/02/05 08:30

I know what lyrical marvels you were pulling of Dan, no shit-spewing this time

I was refering to Dragon, which is why I said 'bad' science, not 'evil' science

I'm sure the APA opposed it, and I'm sure they still will, though I don't think they really need to given societal opposition to the concept of the 'Rind report'. Business is booming when you can get away with calling anything you want an 'illness'. &quot;You're sick, my children, and we have your holy water, just give us your soul in return&quot; LOL

Uh-huh, lemmie repeat, &quot;CONSENSUAL&quot; relationships between minors and adults have no harm on the minor. In the case outlining this discussion, and in the majority of cases, the relationship is not consensual or requires brainwashing techniques of the minor to believe.

(cited from Glenn Beck's &quot;An Inconveniant Truth&quot
For example, theres one child pornography site (not consensual, but also not really what we're talking about), with a link labeled &quot;Sugar n' Spice&quot; in pink and purple letters, obviously geared towards a younger crowd crowd. There, they were told that theres nothing wrong with making out with your &quot;special friend&quot; but not to tell your parents and hide it from them, because they're against love and special friends....etc, etc. That's brainwashing.

Also, considering a lot of minors (i.e. under 16) aren't mature enough to make the decision of whether or not their relationship was consensual, I wouldn't exactly take their word for it.

However, there should be some differention made between pedophiles described above and the 19 year old having sex with his 16 year old girlfriend, and things like that, where the minor obviously knew what they were doing. There needs to be some logic applied to this.

But in like those more sickening relationships, the pedophile in question should be sentenced for at least 25 years in prison without option of early release, and life at the second offense (if you've seen the criminal records of many pedophiles, you'll see that many are repeat offenders).

It's time to stop ruining kids lives.

Uh-huh, have you read the 'Rind Report'? It's not a theoretical discussion of whether or not children can consent. It's a survey of people that self-describe as having given their consent to the relationship. So whether your emotion/politically biased scientists rant and rave that this is impossible, it was part of the methodology in this peer-reviewed study. Do you think these people would have said they gave consent when they didn't?

'There, they were told that theres nothing wrong with making out with your &quot;special friend&quot; but not to tell your parents and hide it from them, because they're against love and special friends....etc, etc. That's brainwashing.'

No, that's someone's opinion, that obviously contradicts with yours. Does that make it wrong? Well, who knows. Is it brainwashing? I would say that's more like typical 'loaded-speech' on your behalf.

Sex between two consenting adults should always be legal. Is this, fact, fiction, propoganda, brainwashing? Neither; it is what it is, an opinion.

'Also, considering a lot of minors (i.e. under 16) aren't mature enough to make the decision of whether or not their relationship was consensual, I wouldn't exactly take their word for it.'

What utter bullshit, and an absolute turkey-slap in the face of every person under the age of 16 who has consensually engaged in sexual activity with another person, ever. What unfounded psuedoscience is this based on? Numerology? *rollseyes*.

If you are to believe the 'authorities' on what age a 'minor' becomes a 'major' and is suddenly mature enough to be able to consent to a sexual relationship, then you'd probably look toward the AoC. This would of course be confusing, as many states in the U.S. have conflicting AoCs. One would then be lead to believe that Spanish adolescents are a lot more mature, what with their AoC being 13yo, with conservative areas of the U.S. being extremely immature, with their AoCs up to 18.

If you were too immature to even know if you wanted to have sex with a person until you reached 16, then that's your problem, not everyone elses.

'However, there should be some differention made between pedophiles described above and the 19 year old having sex with his 16 year old girlfriend, and things like that, where the minor obviously knew what they were doing. There needs to be some logic applied to this.'

Of course, a lot of 'abuse' statistics come from 16yos that were 'abused' in long-term happily sexual relationships with their partner, and I agree on that point. However, how would you differentiate a paedophile and someone that just has sex with young people? Let's say, for example, a 14yo with an 11yo boy, both guys. Then a 16yo with an 11yo, then an 18yo etc. When does this become paedophilia in your definition, and more importantly, why?

'(if you've seen the criminal records of many pedophiles, you'll see that many are repeat offenders).'

Again, how do you define paedophile? If you have a look at criminal records of 'child-sex offenders', then how do YOU know which ones are indeed attracted to children, and which ones abused children due to stress or opportunity or lack of any other avenue? Also, recividism is biased, it depends how you look at it. If you look at the amount of 'child-sex offenders' that actually repeat abusing someone, it's quite low. If you look at offenders that get arrested again, it's quite high, because they get arrested for meagre things like, coming home late from the shops and consequently violating their extremely tight parole restrictions.

Besides, the 'Rind Report' looks at consensual relationships, not situational abuse. Therefore, pointing to statistics of sex offenders in prisons is flawed. It's highly likely that consensual relationships would go largely unnoticed, compared to the real, situational, repeated, emotional, physical, psychological, and sexual torment. In this case, the adults involved in the latter situations would be far more likely to wind up in jail, becoming another statistic for you to point to, no matter how unreliable it is.

'It's time to stop ruining kids lives.'

I agree, it's time the authorities stop kidnapping the partners whom these 'minors' are in consensual relationships with. It's time for people to stop believing in an arbitrarily selected number as being credible in governing who may and who may not have full control of their bodies and it's functions. It's time that the legal system recognised the voice and the will of those underneath the AoC as to whether they want criminal proceedings to go against the adult involved (a system similar to Germany's), instead of having the majority impose their will upon them.

It's time for the focus to truly be centred on compassion and real justice for minors, as opposed to a hate and vehement demonisation of anyone that the authorities would deem a 'paedophile'.

Many will hate this softly-softly approach, but paedophiles SHOULD be helped. And I would say the same for SOME rapists, too (especially serial ones).

There's a reason why we call some people 'psychos'. Not only are they dangerous, they are also psychologically damaged.
I'm not saying we should forgive paedophiles and allow them to work as teachers, for example, but we shouldn't chuck them in a prison and let them rot. They need help, or at least they should be kept away from public in special hospitals or something.

I think it's worth pointing out that we gays ourselves are believed by many to have a psychological or biological problem.
A paedophile who rapes children is a criminal rapist, but a paedophile who simply desires children could be seen as no worse than the homosexual who rejects biological 'common sense' by fancying the same sex.

Those who go on about the offenders 'knowing what they are doing are contradicting themselves.

Practice what you preach and go be hetrosexual.

Yes, precisely.

It reminds me of when another group of people were claimed to be such a way as a 'life-style' choice, or products of some affliction.

History has a way of repeating itself.

i believe that these men who do thses things are the scum of the planet i believe they should suffer but they should not have the death penalty.....mainly because i believe thats the easy way out and that prisons should be tougher (mainly in uk) and these men should suffertill they die.




i just hope they find maddie