Pedofilia and cultural context

[FBM]

Precisely. There is none. Each case must be evaluated individually.

That's a goddamn rift in the space time contiuum right there. If we don't have an objective standard by which to measure an individual's readiness how can we assess any case "on an individual basis"?

"objective standard" and "objective morality" are different, how?

On which frame work or standard do we set it against then? Nobody has yet to come up with one which can be applied to all individuals across all ages and cultures. All you're suggesting is an arbitrarily subjective decision by an individual instead of an arbitrary decision codified in law.

I'm saying that local rules apply, and that trying to determine/assert a universal rule is equivalent with trying to assert an objective basis for morality. Trying to assert a morality that fits all people across all ages and cultures is Kant's attempt to impose christian morality on the whole universe, and, please excuse me for saying this, your position seems to be a repetition of the same approach (minus the xtianity thing, of course). Morality is subjective, but it's in that weird realm of collective subjectivity, by which I only mean to say that humans make it up as they go along, based on their local influences.

Not necessary. It'd only be necessary when a complaint was filed, which would represent the real values of the real people in any locality. No huge burden there, methinks.

No huge burden? You really think so? So you mean there never would be any false complaints, that there would never be a relationship where a "complaint" should be made but none is?

Hardly, but how many false complaints about other legal issues do we handle routinely? An objective arbiter (judge) weighs the evidence and makes a decision based on said evidence. Nothing earth-shattering here, is there?

Look, we both agree that abuse of the innocent deserves harsh punishment. We're only bickering over minor legalistic details. We clearly agree a helluva lot more than we disagree.

[Trolldor]

But we disagree on the most important part, which is how and where the law protects the individual. And we also disagree on the 'readiness'. Your system seems to advocate anyone of any age provided they can show 'readiness' according to a 'cultural standard'. Morality may not be objective but that doesn't mean I can't consider mine better. It is better for a child to experience the world, learn understand human behaviour and nature before they risk their bodies and their will being. And your system only accounts for 'relationships'. What about one night stands? Do we issue certificates which label people as 'ready' and 'not ready' they can carry around in their wallets?

[FBM]

But we disagree on the most important part, which is how and where the law protects the individual. And we also disagree on the 'readiness'. Your system seems to advocate anyone of any age provided they can show 'readiness' according to a 'cultural standard'.

A local standard mediated by scientific scrutiny

Morality may not be objective but that doesn't mean I can't consider mine better.

An argument for locality wrt morality.

It is better for a child to experience the world, learn understand human behaviour and nature before they risk their bodies and their will being. And your system only accounts for 'relationships'. What about one night stands? Do we issue certificates which label people as 'ready' and 'not ready' they can carry around in their wallets?

a) In the world outside the classroom, one learns mostly by risking and sacrificing. You find out what hurts and what works by experimentation. If you only accept what's taught in the classroom, you have no chance of improving upon history.

b) Is a one night stand not a relationship? Brief, yes, but a relationship nonetheless.

c) We need not go to the legalistic extreme of issuing certificates. We only need to respond to complaints, which is what the legal systems are already established to do.

AGAIN, we agree on a shitload more than we disagree upon....

[Trolldor]

But how do you assess a one night stand without a name, address or phone number? And how do you assess a relationship that isn't reported. And where do you draw the line? Is it ok for a three year old and a forty eight year old to get it on until someone "complains"?

[FBM]

But how do you assess a one night stand without a name, address or phone number? And how do you assess a relationship that isn't reported.

Why would you want to? Is it any of your business? I don't consider it to be any of mine.

And where do you draw the line?

What's with the obsession about drawing lines? That's a hold-over from our religious forebearers. No lines required, insofar as they're intended to apply to all people across all cultures in every place on the planet or in the whole universe. Local rules apply, different localities define paedophilia in different terms.

Is it ok for a three year old and a forty eight year old to get it on until someone "complains"?

Blatant strawman fallacy. Nigga, please.

[Trolldor]

But how do you assess a one night stand without a name, address or phone number? And how do you assess a relationship that isn't reported.

Why would you want to? Is it any of your business? I don't consider it to be any of mine.

And where do you draw the line?

What's with the obsession about drawing lines? That's a hold-over from our religious forebearers. No lines required, insofar as they're intended to apply to all people across all cultures in every place on the planet or in the whole universe. Local rules apply, different localities define paedophilia in different terms.

Is it ok for a three year old and a forty eight year old to get it on until someone "complains"?

Blatant strawman fallacy. Nigga, please.

It's not a straw man. It's a reality. When you construct a legal frame work you have to account for the obvious, and the fact is that such an act is already a reality, and it is a crime. It is covered by the existing laws governing age of consent. Under your system there is no age of consent, only an assessment to be held, which means that an act is legal until it is declared illegal. Which means that many "crimes" already happen before they are crimes.
There is the ethical issue of retroactive law enforcement, and exactly how absurd the very concept is, but that aside you also leave yourself open to every extreme out there. As I said pedophilia is not based on an attraction to intelligence, or to wit, or to charm or personality, but to age. And you get some very different targets for individual pedophiles. Would the rape and abuse within the catholic church be 'illegal'? It happened in a wide variety of countries, so which cultural would you analyse it by? By the culture of the country in question? Or by the culture of the catholic religion? Or by the culture of the catholic organisation which protected the abusers for so many years? That would depend on the jude performing the analysis wouldn't it? It is not a straw man because the current system of age of consent covers such an act already. So how would yours?
And I also note you said "amended with scientific" which is impossible. You admitted there was no way to objectively determine, and a scientific analysis would be objective.

[floppit]

But it is the children not our feelings that matter - it is possible to recognise one's own feelings and at least attempt to stick them firmly in the back seat - it is certainly possible not to revel in them to no purpose (not suggesting you are, just that it happens).

As I said, it would take either a great deal of experience to really objectively assess a situation, familiarity with it is the only thing that can breed objectivity and comprehension.

Absolutely!! It is solved by people spending years attempting to untangle the different factors not knee jerk reactions and joint ranting. No matter how understandable it is to want to kill every abuser the answers just aren't that simple and any answer must FIRST consider the child. It makes more sense to donate to Childline - a fantastic charity BTW, or those working to create change in cultures where abuse is endemic than just point the finger.

It typically happens because of the way orphanages are run and whom by. As a 'no brainer', well it sort of is. Take them out of the abusive environment and put them in a non-abusive one. The problem is not that the solution is 'unclear' but rather that access to it is marred corruption and else.

But - you still have to find a non abusive placement and I know the UK does not have enough foster carers, I doubt any country does. So, until we as human beings step up to the plate to actually open our homes (and I include myself totally) we don't get to rant together in a bonding fest. I know that's not what this is about, all I'm saying is that all to often discussing child abuse gives licence to abandon reason and pick up pitchforks.

It's not just sexual abuse, I loathe seeing the horrors children face used willy nilly to prove any point someone fancies, like the starving child to argue there's no god - there is no fecking god, the child starves because (in part) we take more than we need. We, more than the religious know that these things can ONLY be put right by human effort, the creotards have an excuse, they maybe really do think a magic poof ball in the sky can make it all right and save the poor sod to heavenly peace. It's us that have no sodding excuse. Children, the emotional impact children have just gets used but nothing really changes, I still buy my camembert because I fancy a treat, we have a telly bought new - how many children's lives could that save if well spent? Not only that but I accept I am able to research well enough for decent charities with a good track record, some might be crap but it doesn't cut it to say they all are a waste of time.

Sexual child abuse needs to be reduced, it needs to be prevented by whatever means does so most effectively, it is horrific but like it or not in the real world there just aren't easy answers. I do not understand it, but I wouldn't trade that ignorance for a fluffed up self belief that I've got some friend winning one line answer.

[Rum]

BAA, "being a pedophile" is a bad thing, I agree. But there is such rampant paranoia about the possibility that the gray area is often ignored. I once saw a bill before Congress that mandated that people who had been accused of improper acts with a minor be place on the Sexual Predator list until they were proven innocent of such charges. That's the state of the debate right now.

Well that is where we are at in the UK right now. The murder of two girls a few years ago - the so called 'Soham murders' by a man who had never been convicted - a guy called Huntly - but who had been arrested and investigated for sexual issues to do with children, led to a system now where people who are deemed to be at high risk of offending, even in the absence of a conviction are kept on a list. This information is shared and passed around the various police organisations and others.

I have the responsibility in my job for so called coordinating 'safeguarding' arrangements in schools in my education authority. It is a massive task, it is onerous and it is complex. And you want my take on it? The legislation is so prescriptive and complex that it cannot possibly be totally implemented. It covers the arses of government ministers and if the shit hits the fan and a child is killed by a pedo on 'your watch' god help you because you can't possibly have done all that the regulations require of you. (Apologies if that does not sound child centred enough).

The safeguarding/child protection 'industry' is a sham and absolutely no substitute for caring, good open, warm and supportive communities, which we have increasingly few of in this country.

[Gawdzilla Sama]

The safeguarding/child protection 'industry' is a sham and absolutely no substitute for caring, good open, warm and supportive communities, which we have increasingly few of in this country.

I blame Darwin.

[floppit]

The safeguarding/child protection 'industry' is a sham and absolutely no substitute for caring, good open, warm and supportive communities, which we have increasingly few of in this country.

I must have missed the time in history when communities still existed and there was no abuse, or even less abuse, could you tell me when it was? I'm not suggesting that it'd be a bad thing to have more community spirit, more shared responsibility for the young - quite the opposite but it's a first step, one that begins by offering an alternative for kids who have dangerous homelives, it is not, alone, a solution.

Saying the whole child protection process is a sham would require a bit of evidence for me because however flawed it may be (and it is) I've seen it save lives, and I've worked alongside people who have minds I respect and that work bloody hard to firefight in overwhelming circumstances. Given more carers, given less hate press about teens, given less time spent responding to the rants of people who want the world cleansed, workers might even stand half a chance of success.

Last of all, if we hadn't privatised the crap out of public care we wouldn't be trying to legislate back the control over employees.

[Trolldor]

The safeguarding/child protection 'industry' is a sham and absolutely no substitute for caring, good open, warm and supportive communities, which we have increasingly few of in this country.

Fucking bullshit. The whole problem are warm, supporting uncles and fathers who rather warmly and supportively want to take little miss out for a day in the woods. Warmly and supportive does absolutely fucking nothing but work as support, it in no way addresses the issue.

[Gawdzilla Sama]

The safeguarding/child protection 'industry' is a sham and absolutely no substitute for caring, good open, warm and supportive communities, which we have increasingly few of in this country.

Fucking bullshit. The whole problem are warm, supporting uncles and fathers who rather warmly and supportively want to take little miss out for a day in the woods. Warmly and supportive does absolutely fucking nothing but work as support, it in no way addresses the issue.

Um, there are predator that don't know the victim, BAA. True, a lot of victims know their abuser, but the most dangerous ones are the ones in the van with "free candy" on the side. They don't worry about Susie telling about their games. Susie won't be telling anybody anything.

[Trolldor]

The safeguarding/child protection 'industry' is a sham and absolutely no substitute for caring, good open, warm and supportive communities, which we have increasingly few of in this country.

Fucking bullshit. The whole problem are warm, supporting uncles and fathers who rather warmly and supportively want to take little miss out for a day in the woods. Warmly and supportive does absolutely fucking nothing but work as support, it in no way addresses the issue.

Um, there are predator that don't know the victim, BAA. True, a lot of victims know their abuser, but the most dangerous ones are the ones in the van with "free candy" on the side. They don't worry about Susie telling about their games. Susie won't be telling anybody anything.

Yeah, and they seem all warm and supportive to the child when they offer them candy don't they? It isn't enough to assume that an "open community" has the resources, and to say that "child protection" is a sham. Where the fuck has Rum been working? SInce when do hugs and kind words find and track down abusers? When do smiles and cookies prosecute and sentence? Do family Christmas' also legislate against this sort of thing? No, it fucking doesn't. That's the realm of the Child Protection "industry". Fucking industry, that's a bullshit word too. There's nothing "industrial" about it, except for perhaps the repeated way it's members are untrained, underpayed, overworked and understaffed. Instead, they're going to build a fucking metro rail nobody wants or an internet filter that doesn't work.

[Gawdzilla Sama]

The safeguarding/child protection 'industry' is a sham and absolutely no substitute for caring, good open, warm and supportive communities, which we have increasingly few of in this country.

Fucking bullshit. The whole problem are warm, supporting uncles and fathers who rather warmly and supportively want to take little miss out for a day in the woods. Warmly and supportive does absolutely fucking nothing but work as support, it in no way addresses the issue.

Um, there are predator that don't know the victim, BAA. True, a lot of victims know their abuser, but the most dangerous ones are the ones in the van with "free candy" on the side. They don't worry about Susie telling about their games. Susie won't be telling anybody anything.

Yeah, and they seem all warm and supportive to the child when they offer them candy don't they? It isn't enough to assume that an "open community" has the resources, and to say that "child protection" is a sham. Where the fuck has Rum been working? SInce when do hugs and kind words find and track down abusers? When do smiles and cookies prosecute and sentence? Do family Christmas' also legislate against this sort of thing? No, it fucking doesn't. That's the realm of the Child Protection "industry". Fucking industry, that's a bullshit word too. There's nothing "industrial" about it, except for perhaps the repeated way it's members are untrained, underpayed, overworked and understaffed. Instead, they're going to build a fucking metro rail nobody wants or an internet filter that doesn't work.

Sometimes they just jerk them into the van, BAA. Kid walking along, door opens, pred jumps out and back in with a kid. It has happened.

[Trolldor]

Of course it fucking does, and a warm and supportive community isn't going to do shit to stop such things from happening.