Is it possible to put forgivness in action?

Originally posted by kirksey957
Tericka Dye was a teacher who was suspended and ultimately fired because she was in an adult film over 11 years ago. At the time she needed some money and that was how she made it. She later went into the service and put her life together. Now her past is held against her.

There is also a movement to evict sexual predators who live too close to play ...[text shortened]... ment centers or halfway houses. Too bad, they must go. What are we coming to in this country?

I don't understand the first case. It is perfectly legal to act in adult films. They have no grounds to fire her.

I don't buy the Superintendent's excuse, either:
"I fear there would be less than a serious approach to schooling by students who viewed the video or know about it."

Originally posted by BigDoggProblem
I don't understand the first case. It is perfectly legal to act in adult films. They have no grounds to fire her.

I don't buy the Superintendent's excuse, either:
"I fear there would be less than a serious approach to schooling by students who viewed the video or know about it."

If I were a teenage boy, she would certainly command classroom authority in my book.

Originally posted by twiceaknight
Well i agree that people should not have sex with people under 16 for the reasons you give. I totally agree with you. But, to me, a 'peadophile' is a pervert who is sexually attracted to very small children. I suppose this means anyone before or during puberty. I personally don't think someone who is attracted to a person 15 years old should be classed ...[text shortened]... ed to a 15 year-old girl is a 'peadophile', well ok. But that is where we disagree.

what about those 13 years old girl prostitute from other country, mostly old tourist are attracted to a person 13 years old prosti, so are they call peadophile?

yep

Originally posted by xlacir
what about those 13 years old girl prostitute from other country, mostly old tourist are attracted to a person 13 years old prosti, so are they call peadophile?

Yes. I would say they are a peadophile.

Originally posted by kirksey957
Tericka Dye was a teacher who was suspended and ultimately fired because she was in an adult film over 11 years ago. At the time she needed some money and that was how she made it. She later went into the service and put her life together. Now her past is held against her.

There is also a movement to evict sexual predators who live too close to play ment centers or halfway houses. Too bad, they must go. What are we coming to in this country?

That's crap. She hasn't done anything illegal and only an idiot would
prevent her from teaching now. She has after all gotten a degree, and as
I understand she hasn't set a bad example to the kids, and that's all
that really matters I think.

The only criminals here, as I see it, are those who decided she couldn't
work any more because of it. Even if she had done it not
because she desperately needed the money, and even if she was still
doing it, I can't see how they should have any right to keep her from
teaching. Hang them mother foggers, I say!

(Or forgive them if they take their decision back. After all, we all deserve
a second chance.)

Originally posted by rooktakesqueen
i dont understand what you're trying to say! i quote, "but a lot of them are not"; a person under the age of 16 in the eyes of the law is a child; therefore, if you have sex with someone under 16 in the eyes of the law you are a peadophile. to say once a woman has had a child she is no longer a child is the just pathetic; what if a 11 year old girl is ...[text shortened]... s, i'm 33, would you be happy for me to have sex with your 15 year old daughter? thought not

Even someone who is attracted to children but never acts on those feelings is a peadophile. I understand there are lots of people like that. They are not rapists or abusers. That's what i meant by "a lot of them are not".

Yes, in the eyes of the law if you have sex with someone under 16 you are a peadophile. Everybody knows that. The reason i am bothering to comment is obviously because i don't think the word 'peadophile' is appropriate here. The law itself is fine, as i have already said.

I am also 33 and never said it's ok to have sex with someone under 16. In fact I said the exact opposite of that several times. Read my posts again, and this time try to consider the actual meaning of my sentences.

I am not suggesting there is anything wrong with the current legal age, i agree with it, i am discussing the overuse of the word 'peadophile'. I keep saying this, please try to grasp my point without putting words into my mouth. It's really not so difficult to understand if you try.

(one last time) If we are talking about sexual orientation, my understanding of the word 'peadophile' is someone who wants to have sex with people who have not yet developed through puberty(children). This does not mean i think it is ok to have sex with people under 16, i think it would be very wrong to have sex with people under 16. But i don't think we should call someone who has sex with a 15 year old a peadophile. A 'sex criminal'.. yes, but 'peadophile' ....no.

Got it?

It's actually very simple and not particularly controversial.

*sigh* Please don't make me explain it all again.

Sorry kirksey, i seem to have messed your thread about forgiveness up a bit. Will you forgive me?

Originally posted by twiceaknight
Even someone who is attracted to children but never acts on those feelings is a peadophile.

As long as we're talking about how appropriate the label 'paedophile' is
in certain contexts, I'd have to disagree with this. I don't think it's fair to
label someone who merely thinks about sex with minors a paedophile.
You become a paedophile when you attempt to put your thoughts of
paedophilic nature into practice.

In my opinion, that is. I am fully aware of the lexical definition of
paedophilia from similar discussions here, earlier this year.

I agree with you that if a fifteen year old girl and a man in his mid
twenties have sex, that is not really paedophilia*, albeit could be wrong
for entirely different reasons (such as differences in social maturity).

Here's what the holy texts of wikipedia has to say on the subject:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pedophilia

* In fact, according to the trustworthy sources of wikipedia it's called
Ephebophilia.

Originally posted by stocken
As long as we're talking about how appropriate the label 'paedophile' is
in certain contexts, I'd have to disagree with this. I don't think it's fair to
label someone who merely thinks about sex with minors a paedophile.
You become a paedophile when you attempt to put your thoughts of
paedophilic nature into practice.

In my opinion, that is. I am * In fact, according to the trustworthy sources of wikipedia it's called
Ephebophilia.

I suppose you could call them a 'closet peadophile', like if a man thinks about sex with other men but does not do it, he is a closet homosexual.

'sexually attracted to prepubescent children' is what wiki says about pedophilia.

So that's my point, the law and wiki (people in general) have a very differernt understanding of the same word. This is a bad thing.

Originally posted by twiceaknight
I suppose you could call them a 'closet peadophile'.

---

So that's my point, the law and wiki (people in general) have a very differernt understanding of the same word. This is a bad thing.

Hmm, good point.

But I think, being a 'closet paedophile' is not quite the same as being a
'closet homosexual'. The latter is perfectly harmless to turn into action,
whereas the former is not. If a person is a closet paedophile, yet realises
how much damage would be done if (s)he acted on those thoughts and
therefore does not, it's still not fair (in my opinion) to label him/her a
potential threat to society (which is usually what we think when we hear
the word paedophile).

And yes, I agree that it's a bad thing the law and people in general
doesn't always use the words the same. There is one thing though, the
law must be absolutely clear on what a word means, whereas general use
of a words meaning can change in context.

i fear it would be far too difficult to remove this generalisation of the word peadophile from the law books. if we do, we should by rights remove every generalisation. after all, are all bank robbers the same? are all rapists the same? for example, if one man forces a woman into sex and another man has sex with a woman who has consented but later regrets the act and cries rape - are these two men in the same league? in the eyes of the law they are, but that is why we have a court of law; this allows you to state your case and your defense.

i'm was saying in my last post in the eyes of the law a man who has sex with a 15 year old or a 5 year old is seen as a peadophile. i will agree that there is a massive difference between the two though; if we are looking at it from a realistic point of view, a 15 year old would be too old for a peadophile to find of sexual interest anyway - but not in the eyes of the law. the law is to protect, and it views the ages of under 16 as a child and so it protects that child the best it can. yes, there are flaws, but at the same time there is no solution - there are too many 'what ifs' so thats why the law has to generalise. after all, what if a man has sex with a 13 year old but she looks a lot older than her years? is that man a peadophile? what if a man has sex with a 18 year old who looks a lot younger than 18, is he a peadophile?

you cannot say the country is in a mess because it adopts a paranoid belief to protecting its citizens, it is the country that couldn't care a less that needs addressing.

Originally posted by stocken
Hmm, good point.

But I think, being a 'closet paedophile' is not quite the same as being a
'closet homosexual'. The latter is perfectly harmless to turn into action,
whereas the former is not. If a person is a closet paedophile, yet realises
how much damage would be done if (s)he acted on those thoughts and
therefore does not, it's still not fair ear on what a word means, whereas general use
of a words meaning can change in context.

I agree with what you say. When i first started talking about poeple who are attracted to children but do not act on those feelings, I was really trying to give an example of 'pedophiles' who are not murdering rapists, because it had been implied that all pedophiles are murdering rapists and i don't agree.

I suppose another example of a pedophile who is not a murdering rapist would be someone who only looks at child porn but would never touch a child. These people are actually harmful to society because they encourage the production of child porn, but they are not murdering rapists.

The trouble with the law using words like pedophile innappropriately is that this word appears on the sex offender's register, which is available to the public. I originally come from Portsmouth where people were literally burnt out of their homes for having the word next to their name on the register. It is possible they had sex with someone 15 who looked 18.

An idiotic protesting mob even burnt down a pediatrition in Wales (i think it was). There was a brass sign on the door! This is the danger of using ambiguous or vague terminology (and the danger of stupidity in general i suppose, although there is nothing we can do about that).

Originally posted by rooktakesqueen
i fear it would be far too difficult to remove this generalisation of the word peadophile from the law books. if we do, we should by rights remove every generalisation. after all, are all bank robbers the same? are all rapists the same? for example, if one man forces a woman into sex and another man has sex with a woman who has consented but later r ...[text shortened]... protecting its citizens, it is the country that couldn't care a less that needs addressing.

I didn't say the country is in a mess, but i think there is room for improvement.

Perhaps we could all agree that a new legal word(s) that differenciates between the different categories of sex offender we have been discussing would improve things, even if it was difficult to implement.

i agree that there is a grey area because each youngster is an individual and some seem a lot older than others.

Some asian 25 year olds look about 12. I sometimes wonder if some people with an asian fetish might be 'closet pedophiles,' but i'm not a sex psychologist so i wouldn't know.

Originally posted by twiceaknight
I suppose another example of a pedophile who is not a murdering rapist would be someone who only looks at child porn but would never touch a child. These people are actually harmful to society because they encourage the production of child porn

Absolutely. Acting on a sexual desire that is (in)directly harmful to others
I think is definitely wrong and it's a good thing that it's forbidden. No
argument there.

I wonder though, if someone made a movie of child pornographic nature,
yet no kids are actually harmed (like you can make a horror movie with
incredibly realistic murder scenes, yet no one is actually murdered), if
that should also be illegal? You could argue that such a movie, while
being a horrible experience for most people, could actually "feed" the
paedophile and make it harder for him/her to resist the temptation of
acting on his/her desire. Then again, you could also argue the opposite.

So, can a movie in itself be harmful to society in that it inspires people
with these desires to hurt others, or is it possible that such movies
would actually work as a preventive outlet for those people? That's a
question I'm very much interested in.

I suppose it's very much an individual question. Not all americans are
the same, and in the same way, not all paedophiles are the same.

Originally posted by twiceaknight
i agree that there is a grey area because each youngster is an individual and some seem a lot older than others.

Some asian 25 year olds look about 12. I sometimes wonder if some people with an asian fetish might be 'closet pedophiles,' but i'm not a sex psychologist so i wouldn't know.

When you're only interested in a person sexually, and that person has
the appearance of a child even though (s)he's a grownup, then yes: I
would call that 'closet paedophilia'.* Of course, in that case it's not a bad
thing at all.

* Assuming you're only attracted sexually to people with a prepubescent
appearance. I have been sexually attracted to women who appeared
much younger than they really were, but for other reasons than their
physical appearance. Could be that they have a certain way about them
when flirting, or they use a language I find arousing. I don't think
that would make me a paedophile. So, to draw the conclusion that some
people whom are attracted to others which happen to look very young
are 'closet paedophiles' is not really fair either, is it? Hence, I withdraw
my own statement.