Neighborly Love, Freedom, and Diversity

[Sad Jari]

Ok, this might not be what you would expect from the subject...

Naastenliefde, Vrijheid & Diversiteit (NVD, Dutch for “Neighborly Love, Freedom, and Diversity”) is a new political party in the Netherlands launching on May 31, 2006. The founders are Ad van den Berg, Norbert de Jonge, and Marthijn Uittenbogaard. The party platform includes lowering the age of sexual consent to 12 and eventually eliminating it, lowering the voting age to 12, granting many other social rights to children as young as 12, permitting public nudity, legalizing hard drugs for people 16 or older and soft drugs for people 12 and older, and comprehensive animal rights.

...says one source. Interestingly Wikipedia doesn't agree, saying that NVD was actually launched in April of 2004. It does agree on the agenda, though.

Radical, certainly. But good, bad, doesn't matter? Thoughts?

[Jedimark]

Reminds me of the march in London to lower the gay age of sexual consent to 16 where most of the participants were males > 21 years old.

Just sounds like dirty-ol' perverts to me with a few other policies.

[Emerald Weapon]

Meh, my country sucks.

Allright, since it is my country, let me add some background info. The party is new, at least in that sense that they decided to go public with it not too long ago. The idea is to officially start next wednesday. The founders are members of a foundation called "Martijn". These people have been fighting for the right of pedophiles for a while now. They argue that pedophiles are normal humans too and deserve too be looked upon as such. They have a forum in Dutch where they talk about underage girls and boys and share links to websites with pictures and movies. These websites contain, AFAIK, no underage pr0n. Just pictures of children, maybe in swimsuit or clothing like that.

Recently some members of parliament (from a Christian faction) put this site and foundation on the political agenda. (So they can do good!) They argued it was against the law and above all horrifying and disgusting. I fully agree with the latter part. However, it was concluded that both the forums and the foundation were not against the law, and so they still exist. The forums did not contain any real child-pron and were therefore not illegal, and since you can start about anything foundation-wise in the Netherlands, as long as it is not racist, spreading hate or violence, or some other things, neither was the foundation.

This party now wants to grant children a whole number of rights such as the ones Jari summed up, plus for instance allowing children to be in adult movies from the age of 16. Smoking, drinking and gambling from the age of 12 and so on. The entire party platform is based on empty arguments such as spreading diversity and love.

They will probably never get anywhere near parliament, since only a small group of people would be stupid enough to vote for them. It does however, once again, put my country on the world map in a negative way and I sure hope something will be done about it. I do also think, however, that freedom of speech is one of the things the Netherlands used to stand for (used to because of certain events that have happened over the years, for the ones who know what I'm talking about: Theo van Gogh) and that we should continue to stand for that, and therefore anyone should be able to start a party within in the limits of the law, even if I find it disgusting, or disagree.

Both in Dutch:

Link to the above mentioned forums.
Link to the party's site

Update: Just read the results of a poll. 82% of the Dutch people think the party should be stopped from starting at all.

EDIT: Some changes made, corrected some info, updated.

[Jedimark]

And I thought we had it bad:
http://www.omrlp.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=19&Itemid=39

[Relf]

Pedophiles are people too? Pathetic excuse. So is every criminal, ever, yet nobody proclaims that serial rapistis deserv the right to have rape legalized.

[Sad Jari]

Emerald Weapon: Thanks for the info.

Smoking, drinking and gambling from the age of 12 and so on.

Excellent! I'm so moving there. First I'll offer them enough booze to make them silly, and then I'll play poker with them. Perfect 'get rich'-plan!

They will probably never get anywhere near parliament, since only a small group of people would be stupid enough to vote for them. It does however, once again, put my country on the world map in a negative way and I sure hope something will be done about it. I do also think, however, that freedom of speech is one of the things the Netherlands used to stand for (used to because of certain events that have happened over the years, for the ones who know what I'm talking about: Theo van Gogh) and that we should continue to stand for that, and therefore anyone should be able to start a party within in the limits of the law, even if I find it disgusting, or disagree.

Awww, I'm pretty sure that PR effect will be minimal. Fred Phelps and his like will probably condemn your country to hell, but OTOH I think that they have never bothered NAMBLA either, so maybe not. Fred is probably too busy hating gays in any case.

I think that the great majority will understand that NVD doesn't represent everyone. And this is a prime example of working democracy.

One possible justification for not allowing such party would probably lie in the UN's Convention on the Rights of the Child, but then again violations of that convention are not particularly rare. I didn't bother reading it (it's pretty long), but I'm pretty sure that there's something in there that conflicts with the agenda of this party.

Actually, that getting to parliament - or not getting there, really - is something that puzzles me. I'm pretty sure that they know this as well. So, why a party? Just for publicity? Has there been any talk about their motives?


Jedimark: Hahah, I like this party already. "We will issue a 99p coin to save on change."-policy is nothing short of brilliant.


Relf: Ummm... pedophiles by default are not criminals. Pedophilia is a medical term used to describe a psychological state where person is sexually attracted to children. Most pedophiles very likely never act on their impulses. If you want to compare it to something, you could say that it's a kind of mental disorder.

People who have mental disorders are still people, are they not?

Well, under a democracy the rapists have the option of doing just that. They can set up a party and demand better treatment. Whether they'll succeed is a different matter entirely. Keep in mind that laws are nothing more than agreements. They can be altered, if so desired.

[Emerald Weapon]

Emerald Weapon: Thanks for the info.

NP.

Smoking, drinking and gambling from the age of 12 and so on.

Excellent! I'm so moving there. First I'll offer them enough booze to make them silly, and then I'll play poker with them. Perfect 'get rich'-plan!

Hehe, you'd have to target the kids of rich parents otherwise you'll probably win the contents of their savings-box, which will be somewhere near 20 euro. Then again just stick to quantity over quality and you might just get rich. Oh, and an alcoholaddiction along with it for free! 

They will probably never get anywhere near parliament, since only a small group of people would be stupid enough to vote for them. It does however, once again, put my country on the world map in a negative way and I sure hope something will be done about it. I do also think, however, that freedom of speech is one of the things the Netherlands used to stand for (used to because of certain events that have happened over the years, for the ones who know what I'm talking about: Theo van Gogh) and that we should continue to stand for that, and therefore anyone should be able to start a party within in the limits of the law, even if I find it disgusting, or disagree.

Awww, I'm pretty sure that PR effect will be minimal. Fred Phelps and his like will probably condemn your country to hell, but OTOH I think that they have never bothered NAMBLA either, so maybe not. Fred is probably too busy hating gays in any case.

Uncle Fred can go ahead, I couldn't care less even if he were to condemn the entire planet, including all off-planet humans. (Except for WBC ofcourse).

I think that the great majority will understand that NVD doesn't represent everyone. And this is a prime example of working democracy.
One possible justification for not allowing such party would probably lie in the UN's Convention on the Rights of the Child, but then again violations of that convention are not particularly rare. I didn't bother reading it (it's pretty long), but I'm pretty sure that there's something in there that conflicts with the agenda of this party.

The great majority will indeed probably see this as a pitiful way of getting attention. They'll have a good laugh and then ignore the entire party. It is a good example of the "downsides" of a democracy. It is not without reason that it's called "the least bad form of government".
I do not know the CotRotC either, there could be some conflicts, but probably not that many as you might expect. The pornography could give trouble, as well as the legal sex-age, but that'll be it, I think. Could be wrong though.

Actually, that getting to parliament - or not getting there, really - is something that puzzles me. I'm pretty sure that they know this as well. So, why a party? Just for publicity? Has there been any talk about their motives?

I've seen an interview with one of the founders. They state that not one of the current parties in the Netherlands is willing to help them or stand for their ideas or demands. They therefore decided to found a party of their own because they feel left behind. (And probably because they can.)

@Jedimark: That is just brilliant. Thing is, where your party is actually funny and cool in a way, the one mentioned above is far from that...

Relf: Ummm... pedophiles by default are not criminals. Pedophilia is a medical term used to describe a psychological state where person is sexually attracted to children. Most pedophiles very likely never act on their impulses. If you want to compare it to something, you could say that it's a kind of mental disorder.
People who have mental disorders are still people, are they not?

The only reason why pedophilia is a mental disorder is because we decided it was. I think there maybe many people using this as an excuse to go out and fetish all they want, pretending to have a disorder. Really "sick" people with a mental disorder, no matter what, should be given all the care they need so they can hopefull one day function in society and lead a normal life for as far as possible. People faking one in order to get away with things disgust me and should be taken care of in a way that is not that caring and nice at all.

Well, under a democracy the rapists have the option of doing just that. They can set up a party and demand better treatment. Whether they'll succeed is a different matter entirely. Keep in mind that laws are nothing more than agreements. They can be altered, if so desired.

Once again, the downside of democracy. Or maybe not, it's just they way you look at it. (As is almost anything in our life)

Oh....and one more thing. I know you can't use looks as an argument, but sometimes.... A picture of one of the founders can be found by clicking on the link below. I am warning you however, you might not want to click. So, dont sue me if you die of ultimate horror. You have been warned.

Link...

[Sad Jari]

The only reason why pedophilia is a mental disorder is because we decided it was. I think there maybe many people using this as an excuse to go out and fetish all they want, pretending to have a disorder. Really "sick" people with a mental disorder, no matter what, should be given all the care they need so they can hopefull one day function in society and lead a normal life for as far as possible. People faking one in order to get away with things disgust me and should be taken care of in a way that is not that caring and nice at all.

I suppose that that might be true, but I think that the term pedophile has been turned into a synonym for rapist of children in the media. At least here, papers really like to write about pedophiles, while the story might actually be about someone who had sex with a minor (and by minor I mean 15 year olds and such in this case, not pre-teens that pedophiles like, even though of course they are minors too).

The negative connotation is so strong that I can't really see anyone voluntarily calling themselves a pedophile, not even to hide the fact that they might just lack morals completely. I mean... there's a reason why they don't release the names and addresses of convicted child abusers (who in turn usually get called pedophiles, regardless of whether they are or not).

If it worked as a get out of jail free-card I could see people claiming to be pedophiles, but I think that they usually get long sentences, whether they are deemed ill or not.

Oh....and one more thing. I know you can't use looks as an argument, but sometimes.... A picture of one of the founders can be found by clicking on the link below. I am warning you however, you might not want to click. So, dont sue me if you die of ultimate horror. You have been warned.

Link...

Awwww.

[Relf]

Serial Murderers are considered to have mental illness' as well. In fact, there are few crimes that have not been blamed on some mental disorders. Sure they are still people, if they weren't they would not be able to form the party.

[Emerald Weapon]

I suppose that that might be true, but I think that the term pedophile has been turned into a synonym for rapist of children in the media. At least here, papers really like to write about pedophiles, while the story might actually be about someone who had sex with a minor (and by minor I mean 15 year olds and such in this case, not pre-teens that pedophiles like, even though of course they are minors too).

You're right. Pedophile does have a negative tone to it. We'd have to make a difference between pedophiles (people with a mental disorder) and child-abusers (who may be using pedophilia as a cover-up).

The negative connotation is so strong that I can't really see anyone voluntarily calling themselves a pedophile.

These people do. Both the ones in the party and in the foundation. It's actually one of the more important issues in their party program, to try and "clear" the word pedophile and make it more accepted among others. That is going to be very difficult to achieve, IMHO.

If it worked as a get out of jail free-card I could see people claiming to be pedophiles, but I think that they usually get long sentences, whether they are deemed ill or not.

Here in the Netherlands if you claim to be a pedophile, even if you're not, and you put on a good show that is convincing enough, you will not go to jail but be put in a "rehabilitation" centre. Once there it's matter of acting to "get better" and your off free. (This may seem like doom-thinking, but it is the truth)

[Sad Jari]

Serial Murderers are considered to have mental illness' as well. In fact, there are few crimes that have not been blamed on some mental disorders.

Hmmm... which one? Psycopathy? Not all psychopaths are (serial) murderers, and not all murderers are psycopaths.

Pedophilia on the other hand is listed in DSM-IV-TR ( Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, Fourth Edition, Text Revision). And while not all child abusers are pedophiles, all of the real pedophiles do suffer from this condition.

Sure, lots of crimes have been blamed on mental disorders, although luckily we are past the time when people were deemed to have criminal thoughts because their head was shaped in particular way. And indeed, if they are caused by mental disorders, these disorders should be treated.

These people do. Both the ones in the party and in the foundation. It's actually one of the more important issues in their party program, to try and "clear" the word pedophile and make it more accepted among others. That is going to be very difficult to achieve, IMHO.

Hah, yes, the party. Good point.

Oh, I would say that it's going to be more than very difficult if they keep suggesting things like removing the age of consent. Impossible is the appropriate word, I believe.

Here in the Netherlands if you claim to be a pedophile, even if you're not, and you put on a good show that is convincing enough, you will not go to jail but be put in a "rehabilitation" centre. Once there it's matter of acting to "get better" and your off free. (This may seem like doom-thinking, but it is the truth)

Ok, now I see the motive. The idea itself is good, they just need a reliable pedo-scanner-thingy.

[Emerald Weapon]

Oh, I would say that it's going to be more than very difficult if they keep suggesting things like removing the age of consent. Impossible is the appropriate word, I believe.

That, and the fact that the entire group of people, besides the founders and supporters, getting better from these ideas, (the children) are not allowed to vote yet. 

Ok, now I see the motive. The idea itself is good, they just need a reliable pedo-scanner-thingy.

Pedo-scanner-thingy. "Please step over here sir. We are going to show you a couple of pictures now of children and teenagers in a swimmingpool. While you watch, we are going to "monitor the way you physically respond to the shown material". 

For those interested, the foundation's site in English: Link

[Relf]

these disorders should be treated.

Oh yeah, treat it the canadian way. Put 'em in prison and let criminals have free university educations, in law no less, so they can better avoid getting jailed for their crimes...

[Sad Jari]

Pedo-scanner-thingy. "Please step over here sir. We are going to show you a couple of pictures now of children and teenagers in a swimmingpool. While you watch, we are going to "monitor the way you physically respond to the shown material". 

Might have pretty surprising results:

The extent to which pedophilia occurs is not known with any certainty. Some studies have concluded that at least a quarter of all adult men may have some feelings of sexual arousal in connection with children.[22] A study by Hall et al. of Kent State University, for example, found that 32.5% of their sample — consisting of eighty adult males — exhibited sexual arousal to heterosexual pedophilic stimuli that equaled or exceeded their arousal to the adult stimuli. Further studies indicate that even men erotically fixated on adult females are generally prone to react sexually when exposed to nude female children.[23]

In 1989 Briere and Runtz conducted a study on 193 male undergraduate students concerning pedophilia. Of the sample, 21% acknowledged sexual attraction to some small children; 9% reported sexual fantasies involving children; 5% admitted masturbating to these fantasies; and 7% conceded some probability of actually having sex with a child if they could avoid detection and punishment.[24]

Feierman (1990) predicted that 7-10% of men are sexually attracted to prepubescent boys.[9]

I had this vision (although not necessarily a positive one) of a society where diagnosed pedophiles had to carry a badge displaying... pedobear (if someone doesn't know what that is, you clearly have not used internet enough). Much in the same way Jews had to carry Star of David.

Like I said, not necessarily a positive vision, but humorous none the less.

Oh yeah, treat it the canadian way. Put 'em in prison and let criminals have free university educations, in law no less, so they can better avoid getting jailed for their crimes...

And this is bad... why?

I'm pretty sure that there's not much of a difference in chances of getting caught, between people with higher education and those with not.

But there is a huge difference in returning to society and functioning as part of it, if you compare people with higher education to people with possibly no education at all (well except for elementary, I guess). One of these groups is much more likely to end up in jail again.

If it bothers you that it's free (it can't really be anything else, since they are hardly in position to pay for it...), that's easily fixed; murder some sweet old lady and go to jail. Free university education for you too.

[James Pond]

I will have nothing bad said about the Monster Raving loonies.  They're easily the best potential parliament we've ever had >_>

[Emerald Weapon]

Pedo-scanner-thingy. "Please step over here sir. We are going to show you a couple of pictures now of children and teenagers in a swimmingpool. While you watch, we are going to "monitor the way you physically respond to the shown material". 

Might have pretty surprising results:

Hmm, interesting and a bit disturbing. Then again, there's probably a logical biological explanation for it. The only thing that remains unclarified is the age of the children, there is a big difference between a 7 year old girl and a 16 year old. In the case of the latter one the sexual responses sound a lot more reasonable to me. I know many girls of that age which look like they're at least 18/19 or older. I would even consider a relationship between a 16 year old and a 18 year old to be pretty normal. However in the case of a 7 year old, it's quite a different thing.

I had this vision (although not necessarily a positive one) of a society where diagnosed pedophiles had to carry a badge displaying... pedobear (if someone doesn't know what that is, you clearly have not used internet enough). Much in the same way Jews had to carry Star of David.

Like I said, not necessarily a positive vision, but humorous none the less.

Isn't that a bit like what Oprah Winfrey is doing right now with her Predator Watch List? Only this is meant in a very serious way. Not sure what to think of it though. Currently I'm sticking with: Okay.

Oh yeah, treat it the canadian way. Put 'em in prison and let criminals have free university educations, in law no less, so they can better avoid getting jailed for their crimes...

The jails over here are almost like a hotel with fixed bed and dinner times. Inmates have a tv, a nice bed, and everything they need in their cells. They can play videogames, tabletennis and football during their breaks in the cantine and courtyard and so on. There have been reports of tramps actually robbing people in winter just to go to jail.

[Sad Jari]

Hmm, interesting and a bit disturbing. Then again, there's probably a logical biological explanation for it.

There is. I think that majority of girls have their first period when they are somewhere between 9 and 12 years old. That means that they are ready to reproduce, and if we were still climbing trees and eating bananas, those girls would be pregnant very soon.

The fact that we have things like human rights and rights of a child, and age of consent which is usually meant to protect children who would not be mentally ready for sex and things that come with it... doesn't mean that the primitive urges would have suddenly and magically disappeared.

In that sense pedophilia is natural, but norms of modern society don't agree with such behaviour anymore.

The only thing that remains unclarified is the age of the children, there is a big difference between a 7 year old girl and a 16 year old. In the case of the latter one the sexual responses sound a lot more reasonable to me. I know many girls of that age which look like they're at least 18/19 or older.

If the studies have been valid, it should mean 12 year old, or younger. Because that's usually considered to be the limit of pedophilia. There's actually a name for sexual interest in minors who are not yet of legal age, but not children either, I just don't remember what that was called. I would say that that interest is lot more common that most people would like to admit.

I would even consider a relationship between a 16 year old and a 18 year old to be pretty normal. However in the case of a 7 year old, it's quite a different thing.

I would consider a relationship between 16 and 18 year olds perfectly normal.

Isn't that a bit like what Oprah Winfrey is doing right now with her Predator Watch List? Only this is meant in a very serious way. Not sure what to think of it though. Currently I'm sticking with: Okay.

Bit like, yes. With Jews it had a strong derogatory meaning, Oprah seems to be looking only for people who have managed to evade the law (instead of branding every pedophile). Oprah's list is questionable too, the problem is that many of the people have only been accused of the crime. That combined with how people react to child abusers is a dangerous combination. In fact it's a dangerous combination even with abusers who have had prior convictions; I think that the idea is to catch them, not to kill them. And that might not work out so well when you start to use vigilantism against child abusers.

The jails over here are almost like a hotel with fixed bed and dinner times. Inmates have a tv, a nice bed, and everything they need in their cells. They can play videogames, tabletennis and football during their breaks in the cantine and courtyard and so on. There have been reports of tramps actually robbing people in winter just to go to jail.

Heh. Finnish and Swedish jails are similar. Our inmates can play videogames in their cells, apparently consoles are allowed these days. I don't see major problem with it, the inmates have already been sequestered from the society and they are forced to remain in one building - most of the time in one small room - for a period of time. I'm just happy that they have something to do with their time, so that they don't go nuts.

The appropriate comfort level of prisons can of course be debated, but I would suggest that everone who thinks they are too comfortable would try staying in your apartment building for six months, and then tell me if it felt like a punishment.


Oh, as for that young girls looking older than their age, it most certainly is true. Let's do a little test:

If someone actually knows their ages, don't blurt it out, please.

Girl A

a) Do you find this girl attractive?
b) How old do you think she is (at the time this photo was taken)?


Girl B

a) Do you find this girl attractive?
b) How old do you think she is (at the time this photo was taken)?


Girl C

a) Do you find this girl attractive?
b) How old do you think she is (at the time this photo was taken)?

This quiz is open to everyone, if you dare to answer. Sadly the spoiler-tags don't seem to work.

[Emerald Weapon]

Girl A: Somewhat attractive. It's possible, let's put it that way. Age: 16?

Girl B: Yes! (Red hair...) But I'm guessing that's going to turn out horribly wrong... Age: 17? Please?

Girl C: Not really. Age: 13/14?

There's a bit of a catch here though, photography can make you look a lot older. But these are my answers.

(PM with the results please Jari)

[Relf]

Girl A Yes. At least my age (16)
Girl B: Not really. 14 or so?
Girl C: Not really. Her face makes her look 12.

[Qhimm]

I don't think I even dare to guess here, but girl B is looking suspiciously young under that clever make-up; 14-15? And girl C has a classic case of face-not-matching-the-boobs *keeps trying to move my eyes to her face*. Somewhere in the 13-16 range perhaps, the range obviously widened by the boob paradox. Girl A I'm not even going to guess, the make-up is way to strategic to see what's really beneath, and I'm not very good at judging the typical facial qualities of her nationality either.

Of course I could be dead wrong, all I can see is that these girls look way too young for me to date. Then again, I recently dated a 21-year old girl who I swear looked somewhere in the same age as these girls here. So looks can certainly be deceiving, either way.

[L. Spiro]

Just my guesses.

A: Definitely not.  Aged 15.
B: Mostly not.  Aged 14.
C: No.  Aged 17.

I dislike greatly Girl A’s nose and general facial features.
I’ve never liked red hair or green/blue eyes, nor have I ever liked red cheeks, or red skin in general, so Girl B is out.  Her facial features are, however softer and smoother than most, so she gets extra points for that, and she has a sweeter gentler look, so again more points.  Hence she is a bit attractive, but mostly not.
Girl C is simply out.  Her breasts are just too disgusting, and she has fun showing them off, making her attitude even less attractive.


L. Spiro

[zero88]

Just my guesses.

A: Definitely not.  Aged 15.
B: Mostly not.  Aged 14.
C: No.  Aged 17.

I dislike greatly Girl A’s nose and general facial features.
I’ve never liked red hair or green/blue eyes, nor have I ever liked red cheeks, or red skin in general, so Girl B is out.  Her facial features are, however softer and smoother than most, so she gets extra points for that, and she has a sweeter gentler look, so again more points.  Hence she is a bit attractive, but mostly not.
Girl C is simply out.  Her breasts are just too disgusting, and she has fun showing them off, making her attitude even less attractive.


L. Spiro

High standards. Granted, the girls are all likely less than 18 years old, but it's undeniable that they're at least somewhat attractive to some guys that are 18 or older. It's also likely that these girls probably won't change much anyway, they'll just end up looking worse as they get older, most likely (unless I'm really surprised, and find out that they are 12 or something).

[Midgar]

0.o I must have lower standards
A Looks like she is 13-15
B Looks like a girl in my class. 15-16
C Hmm... about 17?

This is actually the first forum that people are not biased toward pedophiles. I remember at OCR when even the title was biased (Pedophiles have dieseses) There was a person who studied sex and made some new laws, and he was very unforgiving toward those who were 'raped'. I forgot the doctors name though...
I'm glad I didn't have to say that pedophiles ≠ rapists first. And as always:
I wonder, what is the age in which you can identify yourself as such, meaning: what age can you call people pedophiles?

[Sad Jari]

I'll say something; you sure are a picky. Or really wary because of the context the pictures were posted in.

I think that I'll wait until 24 hours have passed after the last guesses and post the results then.

This is actually the first forum that people are not biased toward pedophiles.

That's just because they don't want to argue with me. Or because smithie is not here, he would have screamed bloody murder at the idea of pedophiles not being sent by Satan himself.

There was a person who studied sex...

Where can I find a job like this? Where? Where?! And do these studies include field trials?

Ok, enough joking, the real matter is rather serious.

...meaning: what age can you call people pedophiles?

The DSM-IV-TR says:

A. Over a period of at least 6 months, recurrent, intense sexually arousing fantasies, sexual urges, or behaviors involving sexual activity with a prepubescent child or children (generally age 13 years or younger).

B. The person has acted on these urges, or the sexual urges or fantasies cause marked distress or interpersonal difficulty.

C. The person is at least age 16 years and at least 5 years older than the child or children in Criterion A.

Note: Do not include an individual in late adolescence involved in an ongoing sexual relationship with a 12- or 13-year-old.

So, even a 20-year old in an ongoing sexual relationship with 12-year old is not necessarily a pedophile. He's just slow. *snicker* But seriously, that is one of the reasons for the largish age range; some people really develop more slowly and because of that a 18/13-pairing - as weird as it may seem - might not be as strange as it sounds first. As an average it would naturally be rather bizarre.

On the other hand 16-year that seriously lusts after 11-year olds might be a pedophile.

Anyway, in the end there's very little point in quoting the figures, because it's (or should be) a doctor who diagnoses who is a pedophile and who is not.

So, as an answer to your questions; I wouldn't go around calling people pedophiles. Period. Not our job to make that decision.

There's something very important in those criterions, though; look at the B). So, if you happen to find a certain (too) young girl sexually attractive, you haven't suddenly turned into a pedophile. It's the things that happen afterwards that make the difference.

[L. Spiro]

Just to be clear (not accusing anyone, but simply for the sake of clarity), a lot of people think I am picky because I define a set of attributes that I like and then calculate whether women fit into that set before I decide how “attractive” they are.

In fact, it is the exact opposite.
I find women either attractive or unattractive, and then think about why.
When I list the features I like or dislike in women, really these are just the patterns I have observed between the women I have liked or disliked.

I have no problem being called picky because I know I am, but I wanted to be clear that it is not by choice.
In fact sometimes I am jealous at how many women others can find attractive that I simply can’t; being so picky lends me few opportunities to feel the rush that comes with the vision of beauty.
But as that is the case, the times when I am blessed with a vision of beauty are highly relished and it makes it worth it.

I imagine it is for the best for me, anyway, because I grow bored of things extremely easily, and I imagine that if I was seeing women who I considered beautiful often, then it would become quite standard quickly, and I wouldn’t really care about them when I saw them.


As for the subject of pedophilia, well, I am safe because I have no sexual urges towards anyone anyway.
Some little girls can be cute, but they will forever be bereft of many of the things that I find “attractive”, such as intellectual conversation, wisdom, maturity, and responsibility.
The most I would want to do with little girls is cuddle, and the fact is I prefer older girls because they can cuddle back.


L. Spiro