marshy wig dunker wrote:BigBootyBitches wrote:mr swedick wrote:Biebs wrote:Based on my talks with a lawyer and a federal agent, each of whom has had 25+ years of experience in their relevant fields in dealing with pedophiles, I'd have to conclude that your link presents an anomalous subset of pedophiles.
A federal agent and a lawyer aren't exactly completely unbiased sources either. As legal professionals the pedophiles they will most often encounter are the ones who have done something to end up inside the justice system, and therefore will probably be disproportionately abusive.
True, there's sample bias from those sources, but I wonder... the amount they encounter is much larger than the 20 pedophiles in a 30-year old study about a very small group of pedophiles in Denmark. Shall we conclude that pedophiles generally are abusive? I'll go with "more likely than not." Given our current data, it seems best to err on the side of caution and not take the Danish study too seriously because it still seems based on an anomalous group of pedophiles.
I guess I would say that all we can objectively conclude is that there are many different kinds of pedophiles.
Now, now, mrswdk. Given the available evidence, which would be acceptable to the finest academic journals of the world, we must conclude that the Danish pedophiles are special, and that pedophiles in general are abusive--holding nationality constant.
Mighty Reeking Swizzle Wand of Dung Keep wrote:IWishIWasABaller wrote:mr sweat drink wrote:IWishIHadAGirlWhoLookedGoodIWouldCallHer wrote:The study describes a subset of pedophiles whose behavior is self-regulating (through the organization, which presumably better keep its nose clean). For all we know, the organization probably kicks out pedophiles whose behavior they deemed to be inappropriate
Assuming that this is true, it suggests that legitimizing pedophilic relationships would actually be a step towards combating the abuse that does occur, because the pedophile community could come out if the shadows, engage in a more open dialogue than they previously could and more self-regulation would occur.
A significant amount of adult-adult relationships contain abuse, but adults are still allowed to have relationships with each other.
Well, it's not like the organization would want dastardly pedophiles in there ruining its reputation since it seems to have a political agenda, so I don't think it's a far-fetched assumption that they gear themselves toward 'grooming' proper pedophiles.
I like the idea of more open communication, and a civil society for pedophiles and their loved ones at least keeps their relations in the open where it's easier for their community to self-regulate behavior (as well as for outsiders too). I'm pretty much on all issues opposed to state intervention because it's clumsy, more ignorant, less self-correcting, usually more costly, and requires more interventions because the previous set didn't really work.
But, there's still that issue of consent and that question about maturity (which also applies to consensual adult relationships). As AoG said, it should be done on a case-by-case basis, but the Law already is biased toward punishing taboo relationships anyway, and judges need to rely on some kind of precedent, so I'm not sure how practical the case-by-case is.
(lol, are there any CC'ers in here who have studied the law on pedophilia? If so, you probably shouldn't mention that you have).
I dunno. If you assess people based on 'maturity' rather than 'physical age' then you are basically subscribing to the same system of centralized control, just changing the criteria for detainee selection.
Assuming that this 'maturity' thing is a legit reason for limiting individual autonomy, and that we can objectively measure people's ability to consistently make decisions that will help them avoid harm (and assuming that they will always have enough information to hand to do so), then how exactly would this system work? Would the 'immature' people just be banned from having sexual autonomy, or would financial and political autonomy be thrown in as well? After all, if telling people that they are too naive to be trusted with control of their own bodies is justified then it stands to reason that telling them they are too naive to spend wisely or influence the development of their country is also justified.
And as you touched on earlier, wouldn't banning those people from making their own decisions merely perpetuate their immaturity?
Ah. Ideally, I'd leave the assessment of maturity to the individuals with their relevant social networks and organizations. The alternative is not only the state. Granted, when state courts get involved and have a monopoly, then yes, I'd expect poor outcomes--but compared to what? The 'practical' alternative is legislative fiat, and again we've run into the problem of what to do about legal precedents.
Think of it this way. We need not think like planners of society, although I've been framing it that way. That organization in Denmark is interesting because it may open up public discourse, which may in turn influence the legislature and/or judges (over time). So, I'm open to that avenue. I'm just entertaining AoG's thought about 'case-by-case'.
Regarding the following two paragraphs, some of what I've already said relates to it, but let me tickle your fancy. The main issue is "asymmetrical information": you don't know what the other knows--as far as relevant information is concerned. Basically, you're asking me: how do people put up with assholes in the dating 'market'. Well, there's a variety of ways, and many 'slip through the cracks'. It's a learning process within an environment of dispersed knowledge (even if one central authority can gather all the requisite information and become the nation's matchmaker, I'd expect that enterprise to be worse than the current bumbling-about of people in society).
Dating sites seem to be successful in settling adult-adult relationships. People themselves within their circle of friends do as well. If 'society' was terrible at this, I'd expect the percentage of abusive relationships to be greater than good relationships. From off-hand knowledge, that's not the case.
Maybe we should be just satisfied with the current mess while pushing it ever so slightly toward a better environment?