The Neurobiology and Psychology of Pedophilia

[regina]

child doesn't know much things about the world and doesn't know nearly anything about sex.

I know many adult persons who " doesn't know much things about the world and doesn't know nearly anything about sex."
You suggest that to have sex it is needed a special knowledge and practice . But we have to learn everything. Who is the best teacher of sex if not an older man?
Or older woman, to be fair.

[Kasz]

It is assumed to adults that they know enough about the world to give qualified consent (to many things).

[regina]

It is assumed

Aha! It is assumed. But it is not sure.
It is assumed that God exists. It is assumed that we will live after death. In heaven or hell. It is assumed.
But it is sure that water boils in 100 centigrades.
It is sure, that who died, he is dead.

[Kasz]

May be regina does not exist, so I can without doubts deactivate his account...

But it is sure that water boils in 100 centigrades.

Sorry, it is not sure, at all, because with lower pressure it boils at lower temperature, and with higher pressure it boils at higher temperature than 100 degrees of Celsius.

[Plyšáček]

Maybe he didn't understood the bible...

May be in bible is no true.
God is atheist - He is, but he don´t need to believe. He know. God is Life, life Energy and supreme Inteligence.
Humanity have two greatest problems:
1. all religions and atheism too
2. unwell relationship to sex - perversity, repression, remorse, infidelity, promiscuity, uneficiency, corporeality without true love, insolence, dependency, jealousness, prostitution, pornography,...

I know many adult persons who " doesn't know much things about the world and doesn't know nearly anything about sex."

A lot of adults have worse sexual life than children.

You suggest that to have sex it is needed a special knowledge and practice . But we have to learn everything. Who is the best teacher of sex if not an older man?

I know only one older man, who is competent to teach children sex - but man always only with girls.
But I think, it is better entrust it to natural evolution.
Even expert in childhood sexuality can harm.

[regina]

with lower pressure it boils at lower temperature

Yes. At the peak of Mount Everest. I know it from school.
But this does not mean that sex with children is bad.

[regina]

entrust it to natural evolution

What is a natural evolution?
We teach children everything.
How to eat, what to think, in what to believe, how to behave.
Why we do not teach them how to love sexually?
In practice of course not theoretically.

[Kasz]

But this does not mean that sex with children is bad.

I didn't write that sex is bad. I wrote that it can be bad if it is used improperly.

[Plyšáček]

What is a natural evolution?
We teach children everything.
How to eat, what to think, in what to believe, how to behave.
Why we do not teach them how to love sexually?
In practice of course not theoretically.

Everything, what we learn, has optimal time.
We can try to teach baby figure skating.
But it has no effect. First of all must baby learn stand up and walk.
We - parents think, that WE teach baby - child everything.
But it is only our arrogance. Everything really important, what we need to know, come naturally itself in the best time. Olders can only help or show own example. Child imitate adults.
But I don´t propagate demonstrative sex of parents in front of their children such as at the house of aboriginal civilizations.

[Kasz]

Why we do not teach them how to love sexually?

We do. But how to love their partner, no how to love adult pedophile.

[regina]

it can be bad if it is used improperly.

That is what I said.
But if it is used properly (consensual) it is not bad.

[regina]

But how to love their partner, no how to love adult pedophile.

Are You against the age difference between partners, ie. ageism?
Is the little girl can not love a mature man? Sexually.
I think she can.

[Kasz]

But if it is used properly (consensual) it is not bad.

But child can't give you qualified consent, because it doesn't know what's the matter.

[Kasz]

Are You against the age difference between partners, ie. ageism?
Is the little girl can not love a mature man? Sexually.
I think she can.

Again, I don't hear from children who I am teaching that they want to have sex with me (I am also pedophile).

Sorry, regina, you are cycling over and over the same arguments.

[regina]

I don't hear from children who I am teaching that they want to have sex with me

But have You ever wondered why?
May be they were told that sex is not for them.
That sex is something bad and dirty?
That sex is ONLY for adults?
Like alcohol and cigarettes.
That sex is dangerous and sinful?
If you tell a child that earth is flat, he will believe in it.
Nobody ask children about their feelings.
We decide in the name of them.

[Kofola Nizozemi]

Are You against the age difference between partners, ie. ageism?
Is the little girl can not love a mature man? Sexually.
I think she can.

Again, I don't hear from children who I am teaching that they want to have sex with me (I am also pedophile).

Sorry, regina, you are cycling over and over the same arguments.

Well, I do work with children myself too, but Dutch ones.
Some are very interested in sex, some boys, some girls. And many indeed are not at all interested in sex. Some want sex with me or with someone their own age, or some other teacher.
And indeed, the most children do not want any sex. But some do.

Because it is illegal and the parents, the media, the police, the psychologists will harm the child when they find out the child has sex (even if the child had sex with another child) because of all the mass-hysteria in Netherlands, I will indeed never have sex with a child. So, indeed, in the current hysteria, it is better to never have sex with a child, even if the child insists on it.

So, I can hug a child, if the child wants or needs and the happiness of the child is my happiness too. In this crazy times where love is illegal and violence is good (also crazy thing coming from the USA), you should refuse the child if he or she wants sex.
But still, society is wrong.

The laws need to be changed and Europe needs to be Europe again, all those crazy American-British laws anti-sex need to change. We never had any anti-sex-laws, until the crazy British and Americans started to interfere. The law does not protect children, the law harms children.

[aliceday365]

The idea of "informed consent" as some absolute solution to any kinds of problems is creating much worse problems in itself. Here in Sweden, some maniac politicians want to have a law so that if you don't get informed consent from the person you wish to engage in sex with, you have raped him or her (mostly "her", as men are seen as rapists and women as harmless angels).

Informed consent and age of consent are just blunt tools used by many superstitious people who don't look at real facts.
There is nothing absolute, still, that if you've given "consent", you are 100% OK with what will follow and what about afterwards? What guarantee is there that you will like what you did forever?
You have sex and sometimes you regret the things you did. So move on in life and have more and better sex.
There is no fact that a child will take more damage from a sexual activity than an adult. Quite the contrary...!
And why protect specifically from sex? Is it a religious belief that you must be a virgin until you marry, at the right age with someone in your age?
What purpose will all this serve?
Kids have sex among themselves, they hurt, rape and bully each other.
So, just because "here comes an adult along with a sexual interest for the child and he is open about it and the child likes the person and they engage in sex", it is ALL wrong, whereas in BILLIONS of other more common situations, you just say "children have to learn (the hard way) in order to mature and grow".
The naivety against something so natural as sex and sexuality. It's just based on moral values and religion. Not facts. It's also in our culture because of our negative development and superstitiousness which has not ever served any other purpose than making people confused and making ever worse and more mistakes than if you removed the stigma from (child) sexuality.
Or give me some empirical truth that says that if children are not protected from sex, they will be damaged for life. Or even risk damage.
There is no such report to be made.
It's always us moral adults, trying to protect kids from something natural, while exposing them to twisted, sick and evil things of other kinds. But still blaming it all on the sex!

In American horror movies, they have the sexual element often, because to them, sex is more frightening than brutal violence. You go against "god" if you have sex in a manner of no importance. You are to be killed in those movies, later on.
The hate on sex is absolute. We effectively make kids scared of sex and their bodies, so we make them confused and some go on to harm other children or adults when they grow older. It's not the fault of sex, it's the fault of morality.

About the article, it implies that "looking at child pornography" is a crime against children and that it is a sexual assault on kids. Such nonsense! There is NO FACT in that statement! It's just an opinion, probably based on current laws.

[Gabriel Svoboda]

Kids have sex among themselves, they hurt, rape and bully each other. (...) in BILLIONS of other more common situations, you just say "children have to learn (the hard way) in order to mature and grow".

Yes, in the past, bullying was not considered a problem, people thought bullied children just naturally learn what life looks like. But we have progressed since then.

[Kasz]

Or give me some empirical truth that says that if children are not protected from sex, they will be damaged for life. Or even risk damage. There is no such report to be made.

Give me some empirical truth that says that if children are not protected from sex, they will absolutely NOT be damaged for life.

[aliceday365]

Yes, in the past, bullying was not considered a problem, people thought bullied children just naturally learn what life looks like. But we have progressed since then.

Where did I imply that it's not a problem? I don't mean "advanced" bullying, but how kids may treat each other in general.

Give me some empirical truth that says that if children are not protected from sex, they will absolutely NOT be damaged for life.

Do you seriously need that? Or are you just trolling me.
That's a stupid question.
Unless you are extremely religious and/or judgmental. I don't feel I need to answer that, anyway.
If you have any common sense, you will understand the answer to that and that it's naturally not so that they would have to be protected from sex.
But maybe you want to say that I mean that the kids would be exposed to any kind of sex and situation and it would still not be harmful?
By the way, it's impossible to protect them from sex.

You both are using such bad rhetorics. Turning my words against me. What do you wish to say, really? What are your absolute arguments?