'Pedophilia is a disorder, not a crime...

[AUDub 11,158]

One day it won't even be considered a disorder. It will be considered ok and no big deal.

Only in your fevered dreams.

Ben i respect you, but you are sssooo wrong it isnt even funny.

This has been actively supported like in the Polanski case for decades. Nambla has been around decades. It has been with us for all time. You can hear the defenders now. It wont be long until it will be accepted. It is inevitable. Ginsburg argued in 1976 for the reduction of the age of consent to 12. There have been some trying to go back and re-examine and re-invent what happened then, but she said it in a commentary on a very important case she worked on.

http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/GPO-CHRG-GINSBURG/pdf/GPO-CHRG-GINSBURG-2-4-3-12.pdf

For ***** sake, DKW. We've had this discussion before. Since when could you not retain info.

[DKW 86 7,431]

Will wait until you come to your senses. This is totally about who the perp is associated with.

Lively-he is a reprehensible cretin-still has rights too.

Savage-loud mouth mouth breather-he gets free speech rights too.

Duggar, he is nothing more than a poor poor pitiful victim of a disorder, but omg, he appeared on THAT TV show!!!!! Off with his head!

If Duggar renounced Christianity tomorrow or blamed his parents, he would be the darling of the Left by noon.

Everything with the whackadoodles is all situational on whether the guy agrees with yall politically/culturally.

I dont like either Lively or Savage, but i would defend either's right of free speech.

SSSOOO, If you really believe that it is a disorder (NOT BUYING THAT FOR ONE SECOND) then the molester should not be held responsible for his actions and should just be sent for treatment. You dont get it both ways. If it is a disorder, then it is still a disorder even after the crime is committed.

What is it about the concept of a mental disorder that makes you think it necessarily excuses criminal action?

You are having a serious cognitive dissonance problem with the logic here. Try to set your emotional reaction aside and think about it conceptually.

People are excused from their crimes all the time using the Diminished Capacity or even Insanity Defenses. Books, they are to be read.

How many hundreds of outrageous crimes have been excused with Mental Disorders/Mental Defect/Mental Anguish/Diminished Capacity, etc etc etc Defenses?

Not true.

People are only very rarely found not-guilty due to insanity, and even when they are, they are typically remanded to a mental health clinic. This insanity defense is most often used with a guilty plea for the primary purpose of establish appropriate punishment.

http://en.wikipedia....tric_treatments

Usage and success rate

This increased coverage gives the impression that the defense is widely used, but this is not the case. According to an eight-state study, the insanity defense is used in less than 1% of all court cases and, when used, has only a 26% success rate.^[3] Of those cases that were successful, 90% of the defendants had been previously diagnosed with mental illness.^[3]

wikipedia....

It doesnt matter in those numbers. If you take the total number of crimes and then the number of times the Insanity Defense is used, you would have extremely low numbers, I agree totally to that. But we are talking what has happened in the past and what would be far more prevalent in the future. If pedophilia becomes more accepted, which is the sole purpose of this thread, being prejudged as having a disorder would become almost automatic.

[DKW 86 7,431]

One day it won't even be considered a disorder. It will be considered ok and no big deal.

Only in your fevered dreams.

Ben i respect you, but you are sssooo wrong it isnt even funny.

This has been actively supported like in the Polanski case for decades. Nambla has been around decades. It has been with us for all time. You can hear the defenders now. It wont be long until it will be accepted. It is inevitable. Ginsburg argued in 1976 for the reduction of the age of consent to 12. There have been some trying to go back and re-examine and re-invent what happened then, but she said it in a commentary on a very important case she worked on.

http://www.gpo.gov/f...RG-2-4-3-12.pdf

For ***** sake, DKW. We've had this discussion before. Since when could you not retain info.

Since when did you not quote a whitewash site trying to reinvent history?

http://cnsnews.com/news/article/fears-grow-over-academic-efforts-normalize-pedophilia

http://www.eagleforum.org/era/flyer/ERA-07.pdf

http://www.volokh.com/posts/1127335040.shtml

Sen. Lindsey Graham recently said that Justice Ginsburg "represents the ACLU," "wants the age of consent to be 12," and "believes there's a constitutional right to prostitution." Timothy Noah (Slate's Chatterbox) calls this a "smear." Mr. Noah is far kinder to my earlier comments about the Ginsburg-age-of-consent matter, but still refers to them as "analytically faulty." He also faults "Edward Whelan, president of the conservative Ethics and Public Policy Center" for making the same "ridiculously distorted" "pro-pederasty accusation."

I've wanted to comment further on this ever since Mr. Noah's piece was called to my attention on Monday, but it took a day and a half for me to get the relevant source from the library. Now I have the data, and can say a few words about the issue, and about whether the charge is a "smear" or a legitimate allegation.

1. Justice Ginsburg is indeed on the record as having endorsed lowering the age of consent to 12. When she was a law professor at Columbia, she, Brenda Feigen-Fasteau, former director of the ACLU's Women's Rights Project, and 15 law students put together a report for the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights. The report, released in 1977, gave as one of its "Recommendations" (p. 102):

18 U.S.C. §2032 — Eliminate the phrase "carnal knowledge of any female, not his wife who has not attained the age of sixteen years" and substitute a Federal, sex-neutral definition of the offense patterned after S. 1400 §1633: A person is guilty of an offense if he engages in a sexual act with another person, not his spouse, and (1) compels the other person to participate: (A) by force or (

by threatening or placing the other person in fear that any person will imminently be subjected to death, serious bodily injury, or kidnapping; (2) has substantially impaired the other person's power to appraise or control the conduct by administering or employing a drug or intoxicant without the knowledge or against the will of such other person, or by other means; or (3)

the other person is, in fact, less than 12 years old.

How many more links do you want? A few dozen maybe?

[homersapien 11,393]

When you think about it, it is odd that child molesters havent been winning cases on this "Disorder" already.

Anything or anyone that tries to "normalize" pedophilia or child molestation needs help. It is an aberrant psychosis that has caused more human suffering than we can ponder. The last thing on earth we need to do is "normalize" it.

No it's not odd at all.

Being a pedophile doesn't prevent one from knowing what is right and wrong or make one incapacitated, either of which is required for a successful "insanity" plea.

Regarding "normalizing" pedophilia, I can only presume you mean having it become socially or legally acceptable. That is an entirely different question than identifying and classifying it as a mental illness.

In other words, recognizing it as a mental illness is not the same as "normalizing" it as you are using the term.

There is no obligation of society to accept illegal or inappropriate behavior simply because the origins of that behavior can be traced to a mental illness. If there were, then sociopaths (Anti social disorder) could get away with anything.

[homersapien 11,393]

One day it won't even be considered a disorder. It will be considered ok and no big deal.

Now that qualifies as insane.

[AUDub 11,158]

The good thing about print, DKW, is that it remains years later.

Reading is fundamental: from your own source...

In short:

It is Justice Ginsburg's responsibility to read anything she signs off on. To retroactively blame an anonymous student is just too lame for words. She was working on a REVIEW of several bills and yet only commented on the (paraphrasing here) "Lack of Equality as pertaining to THE GENDER of those raped?" REALLY??? Sorry, doesnt pass the smell test on many levels.

Which is the bigger issue?

the actual problem of the age of consent for both genders in a statutory rape law

or the "perceived slight" that gender was not specifically enumerated as male and female in some random bill from almost 40 years ago?

(Just wondering, but by and large the majority of the victims here would be female by definition whether from some old pervs going after young girls, or from young bucks going after equally young girls. So isnt the question of the gender of the pronouns just a little CRAZY? Legalese of the time, hell even now, would have used the masculine gender just pro-forma. just a thought...)

Either way, Ginsburg is responsible for her own work. If she was concerned about it then, she should have meticulously said so. She did not. The defense of her position is carried out by those who actually have no dog in this fight. It is carried out not by those on the original draft of the review, nor by those working on the bill itself.

Further, the author of this leaves the entire question open for further comment and does not specifically say he knows it is a "drafting error" by a student. He vaguely offers it up as an excuse for what is supposed to be scholarly work done by Ginsburg.

THIS IS ONLY A THEORY FLOATED, 30+YEARS LATER, BY SOMEONE THAT DID NO ACTUAL WORK ON THE REVIEW NOR THE BILL ITSELF. He asks for outside authentication of his theory. Funny, but since the article was written in 2005, eight years later and no one has come to his aid to offer any support of HIS THEORY of what really happened.

Nice try at a save tho. ;-)

So if I am to understand your position on this, you're basically pointing out that a bill she cited in a report she co-authoured 40 years ago that, a bill on which her comments were concerning the gender neutrality of it's language, which was the subject of a report entitled "Sex Bias in the U.S. Code," set the bottom line at 12, that's an attempt at enabling pedophiles. OK. I disagree.

The language of the bill strikes me as a bastardized attempt at a Romeo and Juliet law. I don't agree with that third clause. That's too young. I prefer the line we have now at 16. I read that 14 wasn't uncommon in that day. But it doesn't look like a hard line that stated adults could prey on twelve years olds. Back to my source.

Sex With 12-Year-Olds in the 1970s:

[uPDATE: The first paragraph below flowed from my misreading of S. 1400, which would indeed have set up multiple ages of consent depending on the age of the other party: It would have legalized sex with 12-year-olds when the other party was less than five years older; made it a misdemeanor when the other party was under 21; and made it seemingly a relatively low-grade felony when the other party was 21 or older. That's still a scheme that strikes as too tolerant of sex with the quite young, but at least it's much more comprehensible than a flat age of consent of 12. And this correction makes the rest of this post rather moot, since it leaves only the NCGO's recommendation, which on its own now seems as simply an outlier. My apologies for the error.]

18 U.S.C. §2032 — Eliminate the phrase "carnal knowledge of any female, not his wife who has not attained the age of sixteen years" and substitute a Federal, sex-neutral definition of the offense patterned after S. 1400 §1633: A person is guilty of an offense if he engages in a sexual act with another person, not his spouse, and (1) compels the other person to participate: (A) by force or (B)/> by threatening or placing the other person in fear that any person will imminently be subjected to death, serious bodily injury, or kidnapping; (2) has substantially impaired the other person's power to appraise or control the conduct by administering or employing a drug or intoxicant without the knowledge or against the will of such other person, or by other means; or (3) the other person is, in fact, less than 12 years old.

Please, keep going. This is a very informative discussion. :-)

Well i read all that and tried to stay awake.:D/>

The point here is that the work is hers.

It is 30+ years old.

And it has been quoted for years.

The defense of the quotes started back in 2005 and even today it is nothing more than a theory.

While i dont think it i was her original work, it is nothing more than commentary, she still signed off on it.

The age of consent even then was a crazy 14 in some places. Why anyone would let an opportunity pass to correct or talk down that is lost on me.

Well, the attacks they are fending off are theories themselves, correct? And everyone has their own interpretation.

I'm not necessarily disputing the idea that the work is hers. Her name is on the report, after all. What I am disputing is the assertion that she was somehow advocating for policy that would benefit organizations like NAMBLA.

The updated portion of the article you posted from my source lays it out pretty well. Note that even the author states that it refutes much of his argument. Sure, there is an age of consent mentioned according to the report itself. In fact, judge Ginsberg's proposal actually means there would be multiple ages of consent.

Simply put, what she appears to be proposing is that a 12 year old could be involved in a consensual relationship, but not with anyone over 17. Anyone 18 up would be guilty of statutory rape. I read it more like a Romeo and Juliet law with a 5 year maximum allowance of age difference, as opposed to the 2 we currently have in the state of Alabama.

I don't believe she was correct. The proposed punishments for violation aren't severe enough, the lower limit is too low for my liking at age 12 (16 is as low as I'd go, and even there I still prefer 18), and the difference in age is too great. But it certainly seems much more reasonable than what you proposed earlier, in that it's not a wholesale recommendation for lowering the age of consent.

I also think that the need of defense of her work arises from the fact that there have been somewhat misguided attacks that are, more or less, based in a simple misunderstanding of that portion of the report.

On your last two sentences, and I may be having a reading comprehension failure here, so correct me if I'm wrong. My grandmother married my grandfather at age 15. While I wouldn't propose lowering the consent laws to 15, given what we know now on human growth and development, I can understand there was a time in the past when 14 may have seemed reasonable.

Fun fact. You can get married legally at age 14 in Alabama.

[homersapien 11,393]

Will wait until you come to your senses. This is totally about who the perp is associated with.

Lively-he is a reprehensible cretin-still has rights too.

Savage-loud mouth mouth breather-he gets free speech rights too.

Duggar, he is nothing more than a poor poor pitiful victim of a disorder, but omg, he appeared on THAT TV show!!!!! Off with his head!

If Duggar renounced Christianity tomorrow or blamed his parents, he would be the darling of the Left by noon.

Everything with the whackadoodles is all situational on whether the guy agrees with yall politically/culturally.

I dont like either Lively or Savage, but i would defend either's right of free speech.

SSSOOO, If you really believe that it is a disorder (NOT BUYING THAT FOR ONE SECOND) then the molester should not be held responsible for his actions and should just be sent for treatment. You dont get it both ways. If it is a disorder, then it is still a disorder even after the crime is committed.

What is it about the concept of a mental disorder that makes you think it necessarily excuses criminal action?

You are having a serious cognitive dissonance problem with the logic here. Try to set your emotional reaction aside and think about it conceptually.

People are excused from their crimes all the time using the Diminished Capacity or even Insanity Defenses. Books, they are to be read.

How many hundreds of outrageous crimes have been excused with Mental Disorders/Mental Defect/Mental Anguish/Diminished Capacity, etc etc etc Defenses?

Not true.

People are only very rarely found not-guilty due to insanity, and even when they are, they are typically remanded to a mental health clinic. This insanity defense is most often used with a guilty plea for the primary purpose of establish appropriate punishment.

http://en.wikipedia....tric_treatments

Usage and success rate

This increased coverage gives the impression that the defense is widely used, but this is not the case. According to an eight-state study, the insanity defense is used in less than 1% of all court cases and, when used, has only a 26% success rate.^[3] Of those cases that were successful, 90% of the defendants had been previously diagnosed with mental illness.^[3]

wikipedia....

It doesnt matter in those numbers. If you take the total number of crimes and then the number of times the Insanity Defense is used, you would have extremely low numbers, I agree totally to that. But we are talking what has happened in the past and what would be far more prevalent in the future. If pedophilia becomes more accepted, which is the sole purpose of this thread, being prejudged as having a disorder would become almost automatic.

Let me see if I can clarify and confirm your position:

You believe that identifying pedophilia as a mental disorder necessarily means the practice of child sexual abuse should or will be accepted.

Is that fair?

[DKW 86 7,431]

When you think about it, it is odd that child molesters havent been winning cases on this "Disorder" already.

Anything or anyone that tries to "normalize" pedophilia or child molestation needs help. It is an aberrant psychosis that has caused more human suffering than we can ponder. The last thing on earth we need to do is "normalize" it.

No it's not odd at all.

Being a pedophile doesn't prevent one from knowing what is right and wrong or make one incapacitated, either of which is required for a successful "insanity" plea.

Regarding "normalizing" pedophilia, I can only presume you mean having it become socially or legally acceptable. That is an entirely different question than identifying and classifying it as a mental illness. In other words, recognizing it as a mental illness (It is being recognized as a genetic disorder, not a mental illness. In a courtroom, it will be used by unscrupulous lawyers as a mental illness however.) is not the same as "normalizing" it as you are using the term. There is no obligation of society to accept illegal or inappropriate behavior simply because the origins of that behavior can be traced to a mental illness. If there were, then sociopaths (Anti social disorder) could get away with anything.

That is the most willfully blind statement on here in quite some time. People have been working to normalize pedophilia for decades. Polanski, NAMBLA, Hollyweird's acceptance of it.

Let me help:

http://www.newsweek....ers-302877.html

Jeffrey Epstein partied with the elite of the elite. Prince Andrew, Bill Clinton, and an incredible number of politicians and celebrities.

http://gawker.com/he...le-b-1681383992

Donald Trump, Courtney Love, former Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Barak, and uber-lawyer Alan Dershowitz may have been identified by a butler as potential "material witnesses" to pedophile billionaire Jeffrey Epstein's crimes against young girls, according to a copy of Epstein's little black book obtained by Gawker.

An annotated copy of the address book, which also contains entries for Alec Baldwin, Ralph Fiennes, Griffin Dunne, New York Post gossip Richard Johnson, Ted Kennedy, David Koch, filmmaker Andrew Jarecki, and all manner of other people you might expect a billionaire to know, turned up in court proceedings after Epstein's former house manager Alfredo Rodriguez tried to sell it in 2009. About 50 of the entries, including those of many of Epstein's suspected victims and accomplices as well as Trump, Love, Barak, Dershowitz, and others, were circled by Rodriguez. (The existence of the book has been previously reported by theDaily Mail. Gawker ispublishing it in full here for the first time; we have redacted addresses, telephone numbers, email addresses, and the last names of individuals who may have been underage victims.)

There is a 92 page PDF of friends of this POS that was sent away to a minimum security prison for a few years.

If you think it is some awful blight on your record to be caught screwing underage girls, i assure you, it is not.

[DKW 86 7,431]

Will wait until you come to your senses. This is totally about who the perp is associated with.

Lively-he is a reprehensible cretin-still has rights too.

Savage-loud mouth mouth breather-he gets free speech rights too.

Duggar, he is nothing more than a poor poor pitiful victim of a disorder, but omg, he appeared on THAT TV show!!!!! Off with his head!

If Duggar renounced Christianity tomorrow or blamed his parents, he would be the darling of the Left by noon.

Everything with the whackadoodles is all situational on whether the guy agrees with yall politically/culturally.

I dont like either Lively or Savage, but i would defend either's right of free speech.

SSSOOO, If you really believe that it is a disorder (NOT BUYING THAT FOR ONE SECOND) then the molester should not be held responsible for his actions and should just be sent for treatment. You dont get it both ways. If it is a disorder, then it is still a disorder even after the crime is committed.

What is it about the concept of a mental disorder that makes you think it necessarily excuses criminal action?

You are having a serious cognitive dissonance problem with the logic here. Try to set your emotional reaction aside and think about it conceptually.

People are excused from their crimes all the time using the Diminished Capacity or even Insanity Defenses. Books, they are to be read.

How many hundreds of outrageous crimes have been excused with Mental Disorders/Mental Defect/Mental Anguish/Diminished Capacity, etc etc etc Defenses?

Not true.

People are only very rarely found not-guilty due to insanity, and even when they are, they are typically remanded to a mental health clinic. This insanity defense is most often used with a guilty plea for the primary purpose of establish appropriate punishment.

http://en.wikipedia....tric_treatments

Usage and success rate

This increased coverage gives the impression that the defense is widely used, but this is not the case. According to an eight-state study, the insanity defense is used in less than 1% of all court cases and, when used, has only a 26% success rate.^[3] Of those cases that were successful, 90% of the defendants had been previously diagnosed with mental illness.^[3]

wikipedia....

It doesnt matter in those numbers. If you take the total number of crimes and then the number of times the Insanity Defense is used, you would have extremely low numbers, I agree totally to that. But we are talking what has happened in the past and what would be far more prevalent in the future. If pedophilia becomes more accepted, which is the sole purpose of this thread, being prejudged as having a disorder would become almost automatic.

Let me see if I can clarify and confirm your position:

You believe that identifying pedophilia as a mental disorder necessarily means the practice of child sexual abuse should or will be accepted.

Is that fair?

Never said necessarily. But with the track record of the culture we live in and other numerous events, Epstein, Polanski, etc. I see that we are definitely trending toward acceptance of sex with the underage and then sex with children.

[homersapien 11,393]

When you think about it, it is odd that child molesters havent been winning cases on this "Disorder" already.

Anything or anyone that tries to "normalize" pedophilia or child molestation needs help. It is an aberrant psychosis that has caused more human suffering than we can ponder. The last thing on earth we need to do is "normalize" it.

No it's not odd at all.

Being a pedophile doesn't prevent one from knowing what is right and wrong or make one incapacitated, either of which is required for a successful "insanity" plea.

Regarding "normalizing" pedophilia, I can only presume you mean having it become socially or legally acceptable. That is an entirely different question than identifying and classifying it as a mental illness. In other words, recognizing it as a mental illness (It is being recognized as a genetic disorder, not a mental illness. In a courtroom, it will be used by unscrupulous lawyers as a mental illness however.) is not the same as "normalizing" it as you are using the term. There is no obligation of society to accept illegal or inappropriate behavior simply because the origins of that behavior can be traced to a mental illness. If there were, then sociopaths (Anti social disorder) could get away with anything.

That is the most willfully blind statement on here in quite some time. People have been working to normalize pedophilia for decades. Polanski, NAMBLA, Hollyweird's acceptance of it.

Let me help:

http://www.newsweek....ers-302877.html

Jeffrey Epstein partied with the elite of the elite. Prince Andrew, Bill Clinton, and an incredible number of politicians and celebrities.

http://gawker.com/he...le-b-1681383992

Donald Trump, Courtney Love, former Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Barak, and uber-lawyer Alan Dershowitz may have been identified by a butler as potential "material witnesses" to pedophile billionaire Jeffrey Epstein's crimes against young girls, according to a copy of Epstein's little black book obtained by Gawker.

An annotated copy of the address book, which also contains entries for Alec Baldwin, Ralph Fiennes, Griffin Dunne, New York Post gossip Richard Johnson, Ted Kennedy, David Koch, filmmaker Andrew Jarecki, and all manner of other people you might expect a billionaire to know, turned up in court proceedings after Epstein's former house manager Alfredo Rodriguez tried to sell it in 2009. About 50 of the entries, including those of many of Epstein's suspected victims and accomplices as well as Trump, Love, Barak, Dershowitz, and others, were circled by Rodriguez. (The existence of the book has been previously reported by theDaily Mail. Gawker ispublishing it in full here for the first time; we have redacted addresses, telephone numbers, email addresses, and the last names of individuals who may have been underage victims.)

There is a 92 page PDF of friends of this POS that was sent away to a minimum security prison for a few years.

If you think it is some awful blight on your record to be caught screwing underage girls, i assure you, it is not.

Well there is a genetic or epigenetic influence with most things, so I suppose it's possible with pedophilia. But again, that doesn't somehow make child abuse acceptable. There are many anti-social pathologies. None of them require that we accept the crimes that may result from them. The fact a few wackos argue differently proves nothing.

And what sentence are you referring to by the "willfully blind" statement? Is it this one?

"There is no obligation of society to accept illegal or inappropriate behavior simply because the origins of that behavior can be traced to a mental illness."

[DKW 86 7,431]

I find it really odd that others dont see the problem with the ease with which US law is being circumvented. Look at Epstein using an non-US Island for his sex parties with the Elite. Self described orgies with the well heeled and underage girls. Prince Andrew and the long term arrangement, including pictures with this underage American girl.

Does he look like he hiding that relationship back then?

[homersapien 11,393]

Will wait until you come to your senses. This is totally about who the perp is associated with.

Lively-he is a reprehensible cretin-still has rights too.

Savage-loud mouth mouth breather-he gets free speech rights too.

Duggar, he is nothing more than a poor poor pitiful victim of a disorder, but omg, he appeared on THAT TV show!!!!! Off with his head!

If Duggar renounced Christianity tomorrow or blamed his parents, he would be the darling of the Left by noon.

Everything with the whackadoodles is all situational on whether the guy agrees with yall politically/culturally.

I dont like either Lively or Savage, but i would defend either's right of free speech.

SSSOOO, If you really believe that it is a disorder (NOT BUYING THAT FOR ONE SECOND) then the molester should not be held responsible for his actions and should just be sent for treatment. You dont get it both ways. If it is a disorder, then it is still a disorder even after the crime is committed.

What is it about the concept of a mental disorder that makes you think it necessarily excuses criminal action?

You are having a serious cognitive dissonance problem with the logic here. Try to set your emotional reaction aside and think about it conceptually.

People are excused from their crimes all the time using the Diminished Capacity or even Insanity Defenses. Books, they are to be read.

How many hundreds of outrageous crimes have been excused with Mental Disorders/Mental Defect/Mental Anguish/Diminished Capacity, etc etc etc Defenses?

Not true.

People are only very rarely found not-guilty due to insanity, and even when they are, they are typically remanded to a mental health clinic. This insanity defense is most often used with a guilty plea for the primary purpose of establish appropriate punishment.

http://en.wikipedia....tric_treatments

Usage and success rate

This increased coverage gives the impression that the defense is widely used, but this is not the case. According to an eight-state study, the insanity defense is used in less than 1% of all court cases and, when used, has only a 26% success rate.^[3] Of those cases that were successful, 90% of the defendants had been previously diagnosed with mental illness.^[3]

wikipedia....

It doesnt matter in those numbers. If you take the total number of crimes and then the number of times the Insanity Defense is used, you would have extremely low numbers, I agree totally to that. But we are talking what has happened in the past and what would be far more prevalent in the future. If pedophilia becomes more accepted, which is the sole purpose of this thread, being prejudged as having a disorder would become almost automatic.

Let me see if I can clarify and confirm your position:

You believe that identifying pedophilia as a mental disorder necessarily means the practice of child sexual abuse should or will be accepted.

Is that fair?

Never said necessarily. But with the track record of the culture we live in and other numerous events, Epstein, Polanski, etc. I see that we are definitely trending toward acceptance of sex with the underage and then sex with children.

OK, let's remove "necessarily". Does this reflect your position:

Identifying pedophilia as a mental disorder makes the practice of child sexual abuse more acceptable.

If so, why?

[aujeff11 6,243]

I find it really odd that others dont see the problem with the ease with which US law is being circumvented. Look at Epstein using an non-US Island for his sex parties with the Elite. Self described orgies with the well heeled and underage girls. Prince Andrew and the long term arrangement, including pictures with this underage American girl.

Does he look like he hiding that relationship back then?

She doesn't look under aged to me. Under his age, maybe. lol

[DKW 86 7,431]

I find it really odd that others dont see the problem with the ease with which US law is being circumvented. Look at Epstein using an non-US Island for his sex parties with the Elite. Self described orgies with the well heeled and underage girls. Prince Andrew and the long term arrangement, including pictures with this underage American girl.

Does he look like he hiding that relationship back then?

She doesn't look under aged to me. Under his age, maybe. lol

The second picture is her now. That was back years ago when she was 15-16.

[homersapien 11,393]

I find it really odd that others dont see the problem with the ease with which US law is being circumvented. Look at Epstein using an non-US Island for his sex parties with the Elite. Self described orgies with the well heeled and underage girls. Prince Andrew and the long term arrangement, including pictures with this underage American girl.

Does he look like he hiding that relationship back then?

Well, I wouldn't approve of having sex with an under aged girl, period, but I think examples of having sex with girls who are post-pubescent - even if underaged - complicates the issue regarding the diagnosis.

"A pedophile is a person who has a sustained sexual orientation toward children, generally aged 13 or younger, Blanchard says."

http://www.webmd.com/mental-health/features/explaining-pedophilia

That doesn't mention puberty, per se', but it does imply it. For the sake of this discussion, I would assume a pre-pubescent child.

[aujeff11 6,243]

It is unconstitutional to put people with mental disorders to death no matter the crime, already. I think DKW is implying the "disorder" will bring special immunities to the pedo public like the death penalty for example. Or, maybe he is fearful the pedos will receive favorable sentences because the normalcy of the disorder will turn into a mitigating circumstance for the defendant.

[quietfan 233]

Here, I'll do some of the heavy lifting for you:

https://www.psycholo...nsanity-defense

What Qualifies as a "Mental Disease or Defect" for the Insanity Defense?

While any mental or medical condition could theoretically serve as a basis for an insanity defense, the law limits the conditions that can be considered for that purpose. These restrictions are aimed at insuring that only those who truly deserve to be relieved of responsibility are eligible for it. To that end, voluntary intoxication is excluded, as are conditions that have antisocial behaviors as their primary characteristic, e.g. kleptomania, pyromania, and pedophilia and appear to have no physiological basis. Some legal standards require that the mental illness serving as the basis for the defense be "severe."

Exactly.

Compare it to this: Ted Bundy, John Wayne Gacy, and Charles Manson were (in my unlicensed medical opinion) full-blown psychopaths, a clinically recognized disorder. However, that did not excuse their murders. They were not criminals for having their mental disorders, they were criminals for committing murder. Does anyone seriously think the medical profession's recognition of psychopathy as a disorder was a first step to legalizing serial killing?

Violent-leaning psychopaths could even form their own group--perhaps the "North American Mutilate and Bind Legally Association" (NAMBLA)--of like-minded individuals. That would not be a crime although I think all normal, right-thinking persons would find such a group repulsive, just as almost all people find the North American Man-Boy Love Association repulsive. But in either case, the crime is in carrying out such acts, not thinking about them or discussing them with like-minded sickos.

[aujeff11 6,243]

Here, I'll do some of the heavy lifting for you:

https://www.psycholo...nsanity-defense

What Qualifies as a "Mental Disease or Defect" for the Insanity Defense?

While any mental or medical condition could theoretically serve as a basis for an insanity defense, the law limits the conditions that can be considered for that purpose. These restrictions are aimed at insuring that only those who truly deserve to be relieved of responsibility are eligible for it. To that end, voluntary intoxication is excluded, as are conditions that have antisocial behaviors as their primary characteristic, e.g. kleptomania, pyromania, and pedophilia and appear to have no physiological basis. Some legal standards require that the mental illness serving as the basis for the defense be "severe."

Exactly.

Compare it to this: Ted Bundy, John Wayne Gacy, and Charles Manson were (in my unlicensed medical opinion) full-blown psychopaths, a clinically recognized disorder. However, that did not excuse their murders. They were not criminals for having their mental disorders, they were criminals for committing murder. Does anyone seriously think the medical profession's recognition of psychopathy as a disorder was a first step to legalizing serial killing?

Violent-leaning psychopaths could even form their own group--perhaps the "North American Mutilate and Bind Legally Association" (NAMBLA)--of like-minded individuals. That would not be a crime although I think all normal, right-thinking persons would find such a group repulsive, just as almost all people find the North American Man-Boy Love Association repulsive. But in either case, the crime is in carrying out such acts, not thinking about them or discussing them with like-minded sickos.

Nope

I agree

[quietfan 233]

Regarding the Josh Duggar case:

Reports I've read say he was groping little girls as they slept. Molestation of an unconscious victim is a crime regardless of the age of the perpetrator, the age of a victim, or the legal age of consent. Age is not a factor in those allegations, but I do understand why that story would enter a discussion of pedophilia.

[homersapien 11,393]

It is unconstitutional to put people with mental disorders to death no matter the crime, already. I think DKW is implying the "disorder" will bring special immunities to the pedo public like the death penalty for example. Or, maybe he is fearful the pedos will receive favorable sentences because the normalcy of the disorder will turn into a mitigating circumstance for the defendant.

Not exactly.

"Insanity or mental incompetency is a severe form of mental illness and is addressed separately by the legal system. Inmates who are insane, that is, so out of touch with reality that they do not know right from wrong and cannot understand their punishment or the purpose of it, are exempt from execution. The Supreme Court held in Ford v. Wainwright (477 U.S. 399 (1986)) that executing the insane is unconstitutional. However, if an inmate's mental competency has been restored, he or she can then be executed. Inmates who are intellectually disabled (mentally retarded) also cannot be executed. Inmates who are mentally ill, but not insane, have no such exemption."

http://www.deathpena...d-death-penalty

(I had to look it up to know. )

Bottom line, pedophilia by itself, would not qualify for the exemption.

[aujeff11 6,243]

It is unconstitutional to put people with mental disorders to death no matter the crime, already. I think DKW is implying the "disorder" will bring special immunities to the pedo public like the death penalty for example. Or, maybe he is fearful the pedos will receive favorable sentences because the normalcy of the disorder will turn into a mitigating circumstance for the defendant.

Not exactly.

"Insanity or mental incompetency is a severe form of mental illness and is addressed separately by the legal system. Inmates who are insane, that is, so out of touch with reality that they do not know right from wrong and cannot understand their punishment or the purpose of it, are exempt from execution. The Supreme Court held in Ford v. Wainwright (477 U.S. 399 (1986)) that executing the insane is unconstitutional. However, if an inmate's mental competency has been restored, he or she can then be executed. Inmates who are intellectually disabled (mentally retarded) also cannot be executed. Inmates who are mentally ill, but not insane, have no such exemption."

http://www.deathpena...d-death-penalty

(I had to look it up to know. )

Bottom line, pedophilia by itself, would not qualify for the exemption.

Yeah I know pedophilia wouldn't qualify. I was saying that I wonder if DKW is making such a big deal in pedophilia because he thinks pedophilia is on the verge of becoming normalized. For the record I don't think anybody should be on death row period

I literally just took a test on Ford v. Wainwright yesterday lol. Atkins v. Virginia is another similar case as far as the mentally disabled part.

Rape by itself doesn't even qualify for the death penalty ( Coker v. Georgia), so I highly doubt pedophilia will ever become exempt

[alexava 6,973]

I can't imagine how we can learn more about what causes a serious problem, get a step closer to preventing it and have people go apeshit crazy. No one will ever excuse child sex abuse. Some people can't comprehend that. I have been so outspoken against criminals here and hope it is not misunderstood as racism or else. Nothing is worse than child abuse.

[DKW 86 7,431]

It is unconstitutional to put people with mental disorders to death no matter the crime, already. I think DKW is implying the "disorder" will bring special immunities to the pedo public like the death penalty for example. Or, maybe he is fearful the pedos will receive favorable sentences because the normalcy of the disorder will turn into a mitigating circumstance for the defendant.

bingo!

[homersapien 11,393]

It is unconstitutional to put people with mental disorders to death no matter the crime, already. I think DKW is implying the "disorder" will bring special immunities to the pedo public like the death penalty for example. Or, maybe he is fearful the pedos will receive favorable sentences because the normalcy of the disorder will turn into a mitigating circumstance for the defendant.

bingo!

Bingo? Gee, that's a long way from:

"Guys, be real, this is an argument in semantics. It is the first steps in decriminalizing pedophilia.

Nambla is happy tonite."

[AUDub 11,158]

It is unconstitutional to put people with mental disorders to death no matter the crime, already. I think DKW is implying the "disorder" will bring special immunities to the pedo public like the death penalty for example. Or, maybe he is fearful the pedos will receive favorable sentences because the normalcy of the disorder will turn into a mitigating circumstance for the defendant.

bingo!

Bingo? Gee, that's a long way from:

"Guys, be real, this is an argument in semantics. It is the first steps in decriminalizing pedophilia.

Nambla is happy tonite."

Tell him to get his hands off of the goalposts.

He was all over the place Friday night.