cobra_ky said:
Therumancer said:
For one last time (for any neutral observers that could hypothetically exist)
hmm, normally i ignore both you and cheeze, so i hypothesize that i'm fairly neutral, or at least open-minded.
to me, your argument seems to be based on the following premises:
1. Molesting younger children is worse than sexually assaulting a teenager.
I disagree. Underage is underage, and the legal penalties are the same. in fact, i'd think sexual assault would be even more traumatic for a pubescent child, since the assault would radically alter the development of their sexuality.
2. Same-sex pedophiles target younger children.
Your evidence for this is anecdotal. i want to see a lot of conclusive, reputable research for this assertion before i believe it.
3. Homosexuals are more likely to molest children.
Correlation does not imply causation. even if it were proven that the vast majority of child molesters victimized same-sex children, this does not constitute evidence that homosexuals are more likely to molest children. Maybe it's just easier for pedophiles to gain access to children of the same sex? Are pedophiles who target a specific gender also attracted to adults of that gender, or are they a separate sexuality entirely?
EDIT: what little research i've googled up so far has indicated that studies have found no correlation between homosexuality and pedophilia, and that male pedophiles generally have no sexual interest in adults of either gender.
In general I speak from personal experience and observation. In general your not going to find much in the way of mainstream coverage of attitudes like mine for political reasons as much as anything. Such studies DO exist apparently in various journals, but it can be an act of congress to get them, and you basically need to know what they are beforehand simply to see them, your not going to pick them up from casual research, sort of like the difficulty of getting books collecting wartime atrocities (ie you have to request them specificaly by name, and that can be difficult if your just doing general research and are looking for sources in general without knowing specifics).
Not really an "avoidance" because you hear the gay rights movement admit that such things exist, after all they themselves talk about them being "debunked" by "reliable research" but the raw data itself isn't put out there for the public.
Not exactly a conspiricy per se, though it is the kind of thing people refer to when they talk about bias on the subject (from the media or otherwise). My experience with such things came back when I was in college many years ago. At the time as part of a psych class, we were discussing the idea of homosexuality as a mental disorder and how it had been allegedly debunked. I asked the teacher specifically where I could find the data that someone presented originally to be debunked, and pointed out that it didn't seem there was any such thing despite the claims that it existed to be debunked, and we went on a search to see what we could find. It basically amounted to finding articles in generic publications with titles like "The Journal Of Abnormal Psychology" and most of the articles on the subject were actually pretty well written. As far as where and when they were debunked with direct counter statements, to hold the research stated in textbooks side by side... well as far as I can tell we hear it's happened, but there is no evidence I was able to uncover. Things like this have influanced my opinion.
Just like I refer to American atrocities during World War II occasionally in various contexts, along with propaganda control. The reason why is because while I was at a community college the library had it's own archives and sets of books not for the general public, and I got a few oppertunities to dig through them when technically I wasn't supposed to looking for stuff like the above. They had books full of photographs and such taken by disgrunted reporters from World War II that were unable to be shown as part of the propaganda campaign until later. Pictures of GIs putting people up against walls and shooting them, and everything else. Oh sure, there was plenty of stuff like that with Nazis as well (and you see more of it) but the point being that when it came to the actual fighting and tactics used we weren't any nicer about it. We just got to write the history books. Sadly people forget that, and stuff like this makes a powerful point about what war actually is.
All of this rambling aside, I'm not expecting you to agree with me. This is basically a lengthy explanation as to why I think like I do and why it's difficult to support a lot of what I say, other than "personal experience". It's also why in general I point out frequently it's the bloody Internet. Everyone expresses their opinions and what they think, but in general very little changes as a result.
I doubt anyone will ever do so, but as I have pointed out (mostly on other sites) if your really ever interested in another point of view you have to research it, especially when it's not a popular one. Getting information for yourself is always difficult, and there are limits to what anyone is going to do in an internet conversation. I for example am not going to spend hours trying to assemble a bibliography of obscure sources so someone can just go "lulz" on The Internet. Anyone who cares can probably do that themselves anyway. A "weak" excuse, but then again it's like that for most politically incorrect and unpopular perspectives.
Ironically there was a time when the wind blew in the other direction and a lot of politically correct or "humanitarian" things were much harder to get ones hands on, as opposed to things debunking them. Not so much because the "liberal" position is correct in all cases (though those holding it would like to think so) but because that's just how society currently is. Balance has always been difficult.
Yes this is evasive, no need to point it out.
-
At any rate this is long enough (and the last I'll probably say on the subject for the moment).
I will say (in response to another message) that when it specifically comes to Roman Polanski the case is not cut and dry. What he did was wrong, but more along the lines of statuatory rape than anything.
How big a deal the victim seems to think it is, and the exact details of what happened, seem to have changed slightly largely in proportion to how much she felt she could get out of him.
I haven't followed it constantly, but it seemed to me that basically she tried to get him to cough up a whole bunch of money, found it it wasn't going to happen (if he even had that much) and then pretty much got into a whole "well it was no big deal, I forgive him" thing, and then went after him for money again.
The amount of "trauma" she was subjected to, being dependant on the exact spin being put on the case.
Was she a "lolita"? honestly, I have no bloody idea.
The bottom line is that Roman Polanski is wrong, however I feel that there is a definate differance between sexual assault, and statuatory rape on the "evil meter". Both should be crimes, but there is a degree. It's sort of like how murder comes in degrees.
Movies like "Porky's" and "American Pie" are fantasy. As they sort of point out in the movie "Hard Candy" if some teeny bopper comes to your place alone (where she shouldn't be) and says "hey, let's make screwdrivers" the proper answer is "No". We're not animals however. Legally and morally saying "no" to Lolita is the right thing to do.
There is however a differance between that and violently forcing yourself on someone, as well as a differant between a child and a teen (pre-sexual and sexual if emotionally unable to deal with it).
Roman needs jail time, but my point is that it's not like he was abducting toddlers, or lurking in a dark parking lot with an ether soaked rag and a knife.
Heck, despite the reports I have my bloody doubts that he drugged her. I don't doubt he did what he was accused of though, and he shouldn't have been drinking with a girl that age. Not to mention the fact that I can't see a 13 year old being quite that oblivious, being alone with a guy in a hot tub drinking illegally... it DOES sound more like the Lolita thing than anything else. However so much has been said over the years it's a bloody mess.
