View Single Post
Old 07-01-2013, 16:55
What name??
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Posts: 16,209
All he is doing here is trying to challenge some of society's attitudes to paedophilia in a calm and rational manner. There's certainly nothing calm and rational about the usual "depraved beasts who ought to be strung up", nor the "every man is a potential paedophile" arguments.....that's just outright hysteria and paranoia.
There is, astonishingly, not even a full academic consensus on whether consensual paedophilic relations necessarily cause harm.
He is excusing paedophilia. There is no such thing as consensual paeophilic relationships because children can't consent to sex, they simply do not have the maturity or knowledge to know the reprecussions on their bodies - much less their minds.

How is the theory he advocated different than those social workers in Norther towns who ignored the rape of children in care because they "consented" and therefore never investigated the fact that they had got involved with a manipulative and cohersive group that any adult who actually cared about them (ie most parents) would have put a stop to immediately recognising that there is something highly suspicious about adults who seek to attract children.
What name?? is offline