Dutch court rejects ban of paedophile party

[Barbarossa]

Dutch court rejects ban of paedophile party -ANP
Reuters Monday July 17, 11:43 AM

AMSTERDAM (Reuters) - A Dutch court said on Monday a political party formed by paedophiles could not be banned as it had the same right to exist as any other party, the ANP news agency ANP said.

The Brotherly Love, Freedom and Diversity party (PNVD) was launched in May and campaigns for a cut in the age of consent from 16 to 12 and the legalisation of child pornography and sex with animals.

A court in The Hague rejected a bid by a group campaigning against paedophiles to ban the party.

The judge said the Solace group had not made convincing arguments for an injunction: "They only want to express their moral concern. That is by no means sufficient to ban a party," ANP quoted the judge as saying.

The PNVD says it wants to lift the taboo on paedophilia which it said had intensified since the 1996 Marc Dutroux child abuse scandal in neighbouring Belgium.

The Netherlands, which already has liberal policies on soft drugs, prostitution and gay marriage, has been shocked by the plan. An opinion poll showed that 82 percent wanted the government to do something to stop the new party.

The party wants to allow possession of child pornography and supports broadcasting pornography on daytime television, with only violent pornography limited to the late evening.

Young children should be given sex education and youths aged 16 and up should be allowed to appear in pornographic films and prostitute themselves. Sex with animals should be allowed although abuse of animals should remain illegal, it says.

I'm kind of shocked that they're letting this sort of organisation exist. I suppose if you know where they are, they're easier to keep tabs on... :unsure:

I just hope they never get elected. :no:

Any Dutch people care to comment?

[j2k4]

Dutch court rejects ban of paedophile party -ANP
Reuters Monday July 17, 11:43 AM

AMSTERDAM (Reuters) - A Dutch court said on Monday a political party formed by paedophiles could not be banned as it had the same right to exist as any other party, the ANP news agency ANP said.

The Brotherly Love, Freedom and Diversity party (PNVD) was launched in May and campaigns for a cut in the age of consent from 16 to 12 and the legalisation of child pornography and sex with animals.

A court in The Hague rejected a bid by a group campaigning against paedophiles to ban the party.

The judge said the Solace group had not made convincing arguments for an injunction: "They only want to express their moral concern. That is by no means sufficient to ban a party," ANP quoted the judge as saying.

The PNVD says it wants to lift the taboo on paedophilia which it said had intensified since the 1996 Marc Dutroux child abuse scandal in neighbouring Belgium.

The Netherlands, which already has liberal policies on soft drugs, prostitution and gay marriage, has been shocked by the plan. An opinion poll showed that 82 percent wanted the government to do something to stop the new party.

The party wants to allow possession of child pornography and supports broadcasting pornography on daytime television, with only violent pornography limited to the late evening.

Young children should be given sex education and youths aged 16 and up should be allowed to appear in pornographic films and prostitute themselves. Sex with animals should be allowed although abuse of animals should remain illegal, it says.

I'm kind of shocked that they're letting this sort of organisation exist. I suppose if you know where they are, they're easier to keep tabs on... :unsure:

I just hope they never get elected. :no:

Any Dutch people care to comment?


I'm not Dutch (actually, I am), but hey, speech and expression are supposed to be free, right?

Who better to remind us what sick fucks these people are than they themselves? ;)

[Busyman™]

I'm kind of shocked that they're letting this sort of organisation exist. I suppose if you know where they are, they're easier to keep tabs on... :unsure:

I just hope they never get elected. :no:

Any Dutch people care to comment?


I'm not Dutch (actually, I am), but hey, speech and expression are supposed to be free, right?

Who better to remind us what sick fucks these people are than they themselves? ;)
Very good point.

I rather the sick fucks be out in the open, all rounded up together in a nice little political party.

Hopefuly their memebership will grow. That won't mean there'd be new pedophiles but pedophiles letting everyone know they are pedophiles.

[j2k4]

I'm not Dutch (actually, I am), but hey, speech and expression are supposed to be free, right?

Who better to remind us what sick fucks these people are than they themselves? ;)
Very good point.

I rather the sick fucks be out in the open, all rounded up together in a nice little political party.

Hopefuly their memebership will grow. That won't mean there'd be new pedophiles but pedophiles letting everyone know they are pedophiles.

I wonder if the Islamic contingent will give them the "Van Gogh" treatment?

[Busyman™]

Very good point.

I rather the sick fucks be out in the open, all rounded up together in a nice little political party.

Hopefuly their memebership will grow. That won't mean there'd be new pedophiles but pedophiles letting everyone know they are pedophiles.

I wonder if the Islamic contingent will give them the "Van Gogh" treatment?
I hope not. It might deter them from "coming out".

[j2k4]

I wonder if the Islamic contingent will give them the "Van Gogh" treatment?
I hope not. It might deter them from "coming out".

Aye, true.

[GepperRankins]

I'm kind of shocked that they're letting this sort of organisation exist. I suppose if you know where they are, they're easier to keep tabs on... :unsure:

I just hope they never get elected. :no:

Any Dutch people care to comment?


I'm not Dutch (actually, I am), but hey, speech and expression are supposed to be free, right?

Who better to remind us what sick fucks these people are than they themselves? ;)
/agreed


also if 82% want the party disbanded before it even properly exists, isn't it safe to say that they won't actually get any power, what with democracy and all :dabs:

[GepperRankins]

ps. does this mean 12 year olds will get the vote?

[Skweeky]

The funny thing is... they're also campaining for basic animal rights o_O

Seriously though; I suppose it's the ultimate example of freedom of speech and democracy. It pretty much looks like the Dutch public isn't liking this at all so it'll take care of itself.

[NikkiD]

"lift the taboo on paedophilia"? "cut in the age of consent from 16 to 12"?

Let the sick fucks have their political party. Just tell me when and where the bastards are going to meet so I can be there.

[Rat Faced]

I'm shocked that you'd think about joining.. :whistling




:P

[NikkiD]

I'm shocked that you'd think about joining.. :whistling




:P

No, I was thinking more along the lines of napalm. Any fucker who thinks it okay to have sex with a 12 year old deserves the pain of having all their skin burned off.

[j2k4]

[ Any fucker who thinks it okay to have sex with a 12 year old deserves the pain of having all their skin burned off.

That's my Nikkid. :wub:

[CrabGirl]

Or slowly removed with a sharp cheese grater before being coated in vinegar.

[j2k4]

Or slowly removed with a sharp cheese grater before being coated in vinegar.

That, too.

Good to see you about, BTW. :)

[longboneslinger]

"lift the taboo on paedophilia"? "cut in the age of consent from 16 to 12"?

Let the sick fucks have their political party. Just tell me when and where the bastards are going to meet so I can be there.

Me 2, though I'll stay out of Niks way. Ladies first. (never EVER get in a pissed off womans way when she's defending kids!) Though if you need to borrow some firepower let me know. I'll even donate some ammo....
Smoked pervs anyone?
Later taters,
bone

[Busyman™]

Again, I say leave them alone. Ridicule is enough.

It's not every day that pedophiles actually tell you they are pedophiles. That's a relief right there.

[NikkiD]

Or slowly removed with a sharp cheese grater before being coated in vinegar.

Aye, that's a good one.

@Busy - Ridicule is not enough. It won't keep them from harming a child. One wonders what privacy laws are like in Netherlands. Surely the fact that they have formed this group has raised eyebrows with the authorities. If someone is in favour of this type of activity, they probably do, or have at some point engaged it it. I don't think it's the sort of thing where you would blindly raise a hand in support and then say "it's not for me, but hey, to each his own".

[Skweeky]

I don't think it's that bad they actually profiled themselves.
86% of the population is against it, which basically means it's never ever going to pass.
Is it better for these people to stay within their own private groups, nurturing their obsessions and making themselves believe that what they want is ok? At least now they have an entire population to gauge themselves with.

It's finally been brought into the open now. People will be able to talk about it more freely and I believe, by doing that, dramatically increasing the chances of any child to defend itself against such people. After all... isn't anyone susceptible to peer pressure in the end?

I say let them voice their opinion and let them take the abuse of anyone else in the country.

[NikkiD]

I don't think it's that bad they actually profiled themselves.
86% of the population is against it, which basically means it's never ever going to pass.
Is it better for these people to stay within their own private groups, nurturing their obsessions and making themselves believe that what they want is ok? At least now they have an entire population to gauge themselves with.

It's finally been brought into the open now. People will be able to talk about it more freely and I believe, by doing that, dramatically increasing the chances of any child to defend itself against such people. After all... isn't anyone susceptible to peer pressure in the end?

I say let them voice their opinion and let them take the abuse of anyone else in the country.

I understand what you're saying, and I do agree with part of it as far as it being discussed and raising awareness. However, this type of behaviour in most cases is a sickess, a compulsion if you will, not a lifestyle choice. Whether they believe what they're doing is wrong or not, they usually can't stop themselves from doing it, and no amount of public disdain is going to change that or curb it.

[Skweeky]

True, it would be like saying to yourself fancying men is wrong and it might not change their minds about whether it's right or wrong.
However, the more of these people that come out for who and what they are, the easier it will be to identify them. Let's hope every single one of them stands up and admits it so everyone can keep their kids away from them.

Rather have them out in the open than sneaking around some suburbian neighbourhood prowling on innocent children.

[jetje]

well freedom of speech and opinion is a great right. So these people have their rights to. I'm not judging if their ideas are good or bad.
Same as i wouldn't about a homosexual party or a moslim or christrian party or democratic party. There is hardly a chance this party will get enough votes for entering parliament.

However, the porn on daytime on public channels will gain a lot of voters :shifty:


The Netherlands, which already has liberal policies on soft drugs, prostitution and gay marriage, has been shocked by the plan. An opinion poll showed that 82 percent wanted the government to do something to stop the new party. They forgot to mention our liberal rights/laws on abortion and euthanasia :pinch:

[Barbarossa]

Same as i wouldn't about a homosexual party or a moslim or christrian party or democratic party. There is hardly a chance this party will get enough votes for entering parliament.

The difference of course being that none of the above are illegal, whereas paedophilia ... ummm ... is. :blink:

[jetje]

Same as i wouldn't about a homosexual party or a moslim or christrian party or democratic party. There is hardly a chance this party will get enough votes for entering parliament.

The difference of course being that none of the above are illegal, whereas paedophilia ... ummm ... is. :blink:

Well you hit the nail on it's head, doing is illegat atm, so that's exactly why they started this party. To discuss if that's a good law and if possible change the law over here.

And talking about that isn't forbidden, that's why the judge don't forbid a politicall party that has new 'bright' ideas on issues. If there are enough people that think their ideas should be heared in parliamant they will be elected.

[j2k4]

Same as i wouldn't about a homosexual party or a moslim or christrian party or democratic party. There is hardly a chance this party will get enough votes for entering parliament.

The difference of course being that none of the above are illegal, whereas paedophilia ... ummm ... is. :blink:

Yes, but freedom of speech and thought dictates that these people be allowed to stand before their fellow citizens and create an argument out of whole cloth that it is normal and healthy for toddlers to be used as sex toys, and society should be happy to sanction this behavior.

After all, here in America, the ACLU (a well-known and respected civil-rights organization) is "fighting the good fight" on behalf of pedophiles so that they might enjoy children as only pedophiles can, and everyone knows the ACLU is always on the "right" side of whatever cause it takes up.

Right? :dry:

[NikkiD]

The difference of course being that none of the above are illegal, whereas paedophilia ... ummm ... is. :blink:

Yes, but freedom of speech and thought dictates that these people be allowed to stand before their fellow citizens and create an argument out of whole cloth that it is normal and healthy for toddlers to be used as sex toys, and society should be happy to sanction this behavior.

After all, here in America, the ACLU (a well-known and respected civil-rights organization) is "fighting the good fight" on behalf of pedophiles so that they might enjoy children as only pedophiles can, and everyone knows the ACLU is always on the "right" side of whatever cause it takes up.

Right? :dry:

Do I detect a bit of sarcasm? :lol:

@Skweeky, I absolutely agree with your last. I only wish to add that not only do parents and children need to be vigilant, but the authorities need to be vigilant as well. If they want to do it, they will. In my opinion the only safe pedophile is one who is locked up.

[jetje]

If you cut of any debate that you think is wrong you never get anywhere in these kind of debates.

How long ago was it that they said you were mentally ill when you were a homosexual?
If you think about rape... Are you a Rapist? If you think about killing, Are you a killer? If you think about having sex with children? Are you a child abuser?

I don't know, none of it is my cup of tea. But i won't bring one of them to trial, cause they didnt wrong imho.

I rather have people with ideas that are way of what 'general public' finds 'normal' debate about it then seeing them forced to go underground and hide it. So we all can say "we don't see it, so it isn't out there"

[j2k4]

Yes, but freedom of speech and thought dictates that these people be allowed to stand before their fellow citizens and create an argument out of whole cloth that it is normal and healthy for toddlers to be used as sex toys, and society should be happy to sanction this behavior.

After all, here in America, the ACLU (a well-known and respected civil-rights organization) is "fighting the good fight" on behalf of pedophiles so that they might enjoy children as only pedophiles can, and everyone knows the ACLU is always on the "right" side of whatever cause it takes up.

Right? :dry:

Do I detect a bit of sarcasm? :lol:

Yes, yes, you do.

My apologies for malfeasance with respect to the use of the word "right". ;)

[Biggles]

To not ban it was probably the right decision. It is not illegal to campaign for all speed restrictions in towns to be lifted for cars. It is illegal to speed at 150 through a housing estate.

It is probably a vain hope but if the matter is discussed in the open there is always a possibility that it will crystalise in the minds of those who might think otherwise that current laws are sensible and correct and should stay after all. If such people merely network with each other there is a danger that their own propaganda is not subject to the full rigour of open examination they will believe it without question. Equally I would argue that it is right for people like the BNP to have access to air their views - so people can see exactly how suspect their arguments are too.

There is also the advantage that if such people are prepared to stand-up then they are unlikely to be actively participating in what they are arguing for. In that respect the fewer secret paedophiles the better.

[j2k4]

To not ban it was probably the right decision. It is not illegal to campaign for all speed restrictions in towns to be lifted for cars. It is illegal to speed at 150 through a housing estate.

It is probably a vain hope but if the matter is discussed in the open there is always a possibility that it will crystalise in the minds of those who might think otherwise that current laws are sensible and correct and should stay after all. If such people merely network with each other there is a danger that their own propaganda is not subject to the full rigour of open examination they will believe it without question. Equally I would argue that it is right for people like the BNP to have access to air their views - so people can see exactly how suspect their arguments are too.

There is also the advantage that if such people are prepared to stand-up then they are unlikely to be actively participating in what they are arguing for. In that respect the fewer secret paedophiles the better.

Tough to have a silly thread about serious stuff with you around, Les. :D

[Busyman™]

True, it would be like saying to yourself fancying men is wrong and it might not change their minds about whether it's right or wrong.
However, the more of these people that come out for who and what they are, the easier it will be to identify them. Let's hope every single one of them stands up and admits it so everyone can keep their kids away from them.

Rather have them out in the open than sneaking around some suburbian neighbourhood prowling on innocent children.
;)

[Busyman™]

However, this type of behaviour in most cases is a sickess, a compulsion if you will, not a lifestyle choice. Whether they believe what they're doing is wrong or not, they usually can't stop themselves from doing it, and no amount of public disdain is going to change that or curb it.
Anorexia nervosa?:unsure:

[NikkiD]

However, this type of behaviour in most cases is a sickess, a compulsion if you will, not a lifestyle choice. Whether they believe what they're doing is wrong or not, they usually can't stop themselves from doing it, and no amount of public disdain is going to change that or curb it.
Anorexia nervosa?:unsure:

Not me... I like food. :D

[JPaul]

What's all this freedom of speech pish you are all talking about. That is not an absolute right, it has limits placed on it. For a very good reason. Society also has rights to protect itself.

In this country it is illegal to incite people to acts of terrorism. Surely to fuck it should be illegal to incite pedophile acts or to promote them being legitimised. When did it become OK for a group of people to hold meetings, or to lobby parliament for pedophile activity to be made legitimate.

So it's OK to have them all in the same place and know who they are. That's worth the cost of a step towards them being more acceptable, because that's what the Dutch Court has said. Changes often happen in small steps, not huge leaps. The Dutch Court has given pedophiles a wee bit of respectability, or acceptability if you prefer, thanks for that.

[Formula1]

I'm shocked that you'd think about joining.. :whistling




:P

No, I was thinking more along the lines of napalm. Any fucker who thinks it okay to have sex with a 12 year old deserves the pain of having all their skin burned off.


Thhe age of consent is 12 in spain... so do do you still want burn spaniards?

[ilw]

according to this table (http://www.avert.org/aofconsent.htm) its 13 in spain, but its a valid point, there are lots of countries where the age of consent is 13/14, and to a certain extent it makes biological sense as most people are well into puberty by that stage.

btw whats the age of consent in south carolina the table says 14/16 with a question mark against it :huh:

edit: saw this and thought it was sensible:
In Germany intercourse is legal from the age of 14 provided both partners are aged under 18 (or 21 in some circumstances).

[JPaul]

Cutting people's hands off for stealing is legal in some countries, so it must be OK. Female castration, that's common in some countries, let's adopt that as well.

Here's the new plan, if it's OK somewhere in the World, then it's OK.

[j2k4]

Cutting people's hands off for stealing is legal in some countries, so it must be OK. Female castration, that's common in some countries, let's adopt that as well.

Here's the new plan, if it's OK somewhere in the World, then it's OK.

Hmmm.

Brings to mind the nascent but burgeoning (and annoying) compulsion of our U.S. Supreme Court to inform it's own decisions with those of the "World" community. :dry:

There are many here who disagree, but I think the tendency is intellectual laziness disguised as utter stupidity.

It seems my esteemed colleague JPaul is of similar opinion...though I am sure he will let me know if I am wrong. :P

[Skweeky]

I kinda of agree with there being no specific age of consent.

I was 14 the first time I had sex and after 9 years I don't feel that was the wrong thing to do, I was ready for it at the time.
Others might not be until a later age and then there's people who are mature a lot earlier.

I also think that it would just naturally fluctuate throughout the different generations. Who's the law to decide whether or not you're ready to make that commitment?

After all, despite us giving sex a lot of emotional value, it is mainly a biological act we've been acting out ever since man existed...

[ilw]

U.S. Supreme Court to inform it's own decisions with those of the "World" community. :dry:

There are many here who disagree, but I think the tendency is intellectual laziness disguised as utter stupidity.

I assume you don't mean "inform its decisions", but rather something like "align its decisions" otherwise what you've written is just plain daft...

[j2k4]

U.S. Supreme Court to inform it's own decisions with those of the "World" community. :dry:

There are many here who disagree, but I think the tendency is intellectual laziness disguised as utter stupidity.

I assume you don't mean "inform its decisions", but rather something like "align its decisions" otherwise what you've written is just plain daft...

No, I mean inform it's decisions, Ian, and to say that what I wrote was "plain daft" is just, well...daft.

[JPaul]

I kinda of agree with there being no specific age of consent.

I was 14 the first time I had sex and after 9 years I don't feel that was the wrong thing to do, I was ready for it at the time.
Others might not be until a later age and then there's people who are mature a lot earlier.

I also think that it would just naturally fluctuate throughout the different generations. Who's the law to decide whether or not you're ready to make that commitment?

After all, despite us giving sex a lot of emotional value, it is mainly a biological act we've been acting out ever since man existed...
Whilst I am willing to accept that there may be a small number of 12 year olds who are physiologically and psychologically able to cope with a sexual relationship I would venture that they are very much in the minority.

The law is there to prevent sexual predators preying on children. These are not people who actively seek sexual relations and happen to fall for 12 year olds. They are people who actively seek twelve year olds to have sexual relations with. They do not want mature relationships, they want to have sex with minors.

Indeed this is probably why they chose 12, because they can use the specious argument that they are biologically adult and ready for sexual relations, therefore it's OK. Bollocks, it's not about their physical body it's about their emotional maturity. Not only sexually but in other ways. A 12 year old will do things for attention, or to please an adult. Who then has sex with them, but it's OK because the 12 year old consented. That's where these people want to go.

Here's what else we need to do for our twelve year olds if we have decided that they are adults. Surely that's what we are saying if we say they are ready to have sexual relations with adults.

Vote
Leave Home
Leave School
Get Employment
Join the Army

In fact do anything any other adult is allowed to. Or are they just adults where sex is concerned and children for everything else.

[ilw]

how can a more informed decision be a bad thing? I'm not saying that it will always result in the best outcome, but preferring an uninformed decision over an informed one :wacko:

[Busyman™]

Cutting people's hands off for stealing is legal in some countries, so it must be OK. Female castration, that's common in some countries, let's adopt that as well.

Here's the new plan, if it's OK somewhere in the World, then it's OK.

Hmmm.

Brings to mind the nascent but burgeoning (and annoying) compulsion of our U.S. Supreme Court to inform it's own decisions with those of the "World" community. :dry:
:rolleyes:

[j2k4]

I kinda of agree with there being no specific age of consent.

I was 14 the first time I had sex and after 9 years I don't feel that was the wrong thing to do, I was ready for it at the time.
Others might not be until a later age and then there's people who are mature a lot earlier.

I also think that it would just naturally fluctuate throughout the different generations. Who's the law to decide whether or not you're ready to make that commitment?

After all, despite us giving sex a lot of emotional value, it is mainly a biological act we've been acting out ever since man existed...
Whilst I am willing to accept that there may be a small number of 12 year olds who are physiologically and psychologically able to cope with a sexual relationship I would venture that they are very much in the minority.

The law is there to prevent sexual predators preying on children. These are not people who actively seek sexual relations and happen to fall for 12 year olds. They are people who actively seek twelve year olds to have sexual relations with. They do not want mature relationships, they want to have sex with minors.

Indeed this is probably why they chose 12, because they can use the specious argument that they are biologically adult and ready for sexual relations, therefore it's OK. Bollocks, it's not about their physical body it's about their emotional maturity. Not only sexually but in other ways. A 12 year old will do things for attention, or to please an adult. Who then has sex with them, but it's OK because the 12 year old consented. That's where these people want to go.

Here's what else we need to do for our twelve year olds if we have decided that they are adults. Surely that's what we are saying if we say they are ready to have sexual relations with adults.

Vote
Leave Home
Leave School
Get Employment
Join the Army

In fact do anything any other adult is allowed to. Or are they just adults where sex is concerned and children for everything else.


Well and concisely put, sir.

I salute you. :)

[Busyman™]

Well and concisely put, sir.

I salute you. :)
I liked your post regarding the Supreme Court. However, there are different ages for everything, even here.

21 for drinking and smoking
15 for driving (differs in each state)
can work at different ages (mostly 16 and 18)
yet 18 is considered an adult

Just because one age is appropriate for a certain activity means shit for another.

Well and concisely put? Not by a longshot.

[j2k4]

Well and concisely put, sir.

I salute you. :)
I liked your post regarding the Supreme Court. However, there are different ages for everything, even here.

21 for drinking and smoking
15 for driving (differs in each state)
can work at different ages (mostly 16 and 18)
yet 18 is considered an adult

Just because one age is appropriate for a certain activity means shit for another.

Well and concisely put? Not by a longshot.


The point is that no one age for any of these activities "fits all", which point was, indeed, "well and concisely put".

Fact.

Quit looking for sharks to jump; let things permeate before you respond.

Or you could go match notes with my good friend ilw (Ian), who suffers similarly and latently. ;)

[Formula1]

Well and concisely put, sir.

I salute you. :)
I liked your post regarding the Supreme Court. However, there are different ages for everything, even here.

21 for drinking and smoking
15 for driving (differs in each state)
can work at different ages (mostly 16 and 18)
yet 18 is considered an adult

Just because one age is appropriate for a certain activity means shit for another.

Well and concisely put? Not by a longshot.


There's no minimum age to smoke, you just have to be atleast 18 to buy cigarettes.

[Busyman™]

I liked your post regarding the Supreme Court. However, there are different ages for everything, even here.

21 for drinking and smoking
15 for driving (differs in each state)
can work at different ages (mostly 16 and 18)
yet 18 is considered an adult

Just because one age is appropriate for a certain activity means shit for another.

Well and concisely put? Not by a longshot.


There's no minimum age to smoke, you just have to be atleast 18 to smoke cigarettes.
Oh well in that case there's no minimum age to drink, you just have to be 21 to drink alcohol.:stars:

[Busyman™]

I liked your post regarding the Supreme Court. However, there are different ages for everything, even here.

21 for drinking and smoking
15 for driving (differs in each state)
can work at different ages (mostly 16 and 18)
yet 18 is considered an adult

Just because one age is appropriate for a certain activity means shit for another.

Well and concisely put? Not by a longshot.


The point is that no one age for any of these activities "fits all", which point was, indeed, "well and concisely put".

Fact.

Quit looking for sharks to jump; let things permeate before you respond.

Or you could go match notes with my good friend ilw (Ian), who suffers similarly and latently. ;)
No sharks to jump. The point of no one age fits all is no shit but then backtracks to say that because one activity does fit that certain other ones should too.:blink:

Age of consent differs in many countries from 12-20 already, btw.

[j2k4]

The point is that no one age for any of these activities "fits all", which point was, indeed, "well and concisely put".

Fact.

Quit looking for sharks to jump; let things permeate before you respond.

Or you could go match notes with my good friend ilw (Ian), who suffers similarly and latently. ;)
No sharks to jump. The point of no one age fits all is no shit but then backtracks to say that because one activity does fit that certain other ones should too.:blink:

Age of consent differs in many countries from 12-20 already, btw.

Thence my only point being the countries to which you refer are cognizant of such need as we have defined.

[Formula1]

There's no minimum age to smoke, you just have to be atleast 18 to smoke cigarettes.
Oh well in that case there's no minimum age to drink, you just have to be 21 to drink alcohol.:stars:

oops i meant "There's no minimum age to smoke, you just have to be atleast 18 to buy cigarettes".

[Busyman™]

Oh well in that case there's no minimum age to drink, you just have to be 21 to drink alcohol.:stars:

oops i meant "There's no minimum age to smoke, you just have to be atleast 18 to buy cigarettes".
That's better.:happy:

[Skweeky]

In answer to JPAUL (cause the damn board won't let me quote it for some reason)

Every single thing you named there is something you need to be taught in one way or another. Sex is a biological thing, not something you need be taught about years in advance, it'll come naturally to most surely?

I'm not saying it's alright for adults to have sex with 12 year olds.
However, why would it be wrong for a mature 13 year old boy to have sex with a mature 12 year old girl?

The point is, that kids are mature a lot earlier, they have sex a lot earlier, so why shouldn't they be allowed to do it? Instead of people harping on about how wrong it is for kids that young to have sex, maybe it would be better for the government to include more sex education in schools?

Kida will be kids and if they want to do it, they will so we might as well make sure they're informed properly. Something, that you must admit, is clearly missing in this country. There's more teenage pregnancies than anywhere else. Funny that. Countries with an open minded view towards sex don't have that problem.

[lynx]

In answer to JPAUL (cause the damn board won't let me quote it for some reason)

Every single thing you named there is something you need to be taught in one way or another. Sex is a biological thing, not something you need be taught about years in advance, it'll come naturally to most surely?

I'm not saying it's alright for adults to have sex with 12 year olds.
However, why would it be wrong for a mature 13 year old boy to have sex with a mature 12 year old girl?

The point is, that kids are mature a lot earlier, they have sex a lot earlier, so why shouldn't they be allowed to do it? Instead of people harping on about how wrong it is for kids that young to have sex, maybe it would be better for the government to include more sex education in schools?

Kida will be kids and if they want to do it, they will so we might as well make sure they're informed properly. Something, that you must admit, is clearly missing in this country. There's more teenage pregnancies than anywhere else. Funny that. Countries with an open minded view towards sex don't have that problem.I think you've got some good points there.

A blanket "this is the age when sex is allowed" clearly doesn't work, so from that point of view I applaud countries which recognise that there needs to be a second standard where both parties are below a certain age or within a small number of years age difference.

Unfortunately, at that age kids are also far more susceptible to peer pressure, and generally the younger they are the more susceptible so I think that there probably still needs to be a minimum.

However, I disagree that it is related to teenage pregnancies. I think that's more an issue of respect and responsibility, in particular some kids attitude towards responsibility for their actions and respect for their bodies.

[Skweeky]

I DO think it is related to teenage pregnancies to a certain extent.
having lived in countries that are more or less the oppostite of each other where it comes to sex ed at school that's the conclusion I had to come too.

Of course there's also the factor of drink and drugs (again, maybe a more tolerant attitude towards it would give better results?)
But it always narrows down to the same thing;
create a clandestine/secretive aura around something and kids are bound to WANT to find out what all the fuss is about.

I never ever felt peer pressure where it came to having sex, but still I would've been below the legal age in this country. My niece, who's 7 years younger than I am felt exactly the same way.

Kids I know in Belgium, don't have their first secual experience when drunk or on some party.
Kids I know here all lost their virginity on a one night stand. Some of them got pregnant because they were too afraid to bring up the topic of contraception in school or with their parents...

I honestly believe, that if kids are taught about the facts and the emotions from an earlier age, they will automatically be more conscious about it and not just do'it' for the sake of finding out what 'it' is all about

[JPaul]

Skweeky,

I agree with the bulk of what you say, in relation to sex education etc. It is also the case that Children will have "under-age" sex, you could probably argue that the majority of people do. However how often are they actually prosecuted for it? The law can take a sensible view towards these things and choose not to prosecute to 14 year olds for having "under-age" sex.

However if the age of consent is lowered to 12, as these people suggest, then the law can do nothing if a 45 year old has sex with a twelve year old who has "consented". I discussed earlier that this "consent" may be nothing of the sort, however she did say "yes" which made it OK.

I know loads of 12 year olds, I have three boys who have been twelve and who brought 12 year old friends home. None of them, not one was mature enough to become involved in a consenting sexual relationship with an adult.

In all honesty the fact that it may be acceptable in another country is of no interest to me. I think 16 is a reasonable compromise and long may it continue.

[Skweeky]

I'm not saying it should be allowed for 12 year olds to have sex with a 45 year old but a 'double' age of consent would be appropriate imo.

16 or above if the age difference is more than 5 years is reasonable. 16 as the general age of consent is ridiculous. You said it yourself; the law doesn't prosecute any kids who choose to have sex amongst themselves, so why is that law there? It's abundant.

[JPaul]

I'm not saying it should be allowed for 12 year olds to have sex with a 45 year old but a 'double' age of consent would be appropriate imo.

16 or above if the age difference is more than 5 years is reasonable. 16 as the general age of consent is ridiculous. You said it yourself; the law doesn't prosecute any kids who choose to have sex amongst themselves, so why is that law there? It's abundant.
It's there so we can prosecute paedophiles. If there was no law then they may be doing something which was morally wrong, but they could not be prosecuted for it. There has to be an age of consent, otherwise there would be nothing we could do about them. We basically chose 16, but then don't do anything about "under-agers" so long as both parties consent. I know that might sound daft to you, but it really is there to protect those who would otherwise be taken advantage off.

Funny, I was thinking about the dual age thing as well. However that would have to be in conjunction with a very much improved sex education programme. You've seen it here and it really isn't up to scratch. There should be more specialists, going to schools, teaching the children. We had long discussions with ours and supplied condoms in addition to information. However a lot of parents don't help with homework, far less get involved in that whole kettle of biscuits.

[Skweeky]

JPaul,

I completely understand that it is a way of protecting children against abuse and indeed I do believe a dual age of consent would be better for everyone.

I'm often still shocked at the lack of knowledge some of the children around here have about sex.
My boyfriends' mate has got a 12-year old daughter and they just don't talk to her about sex because it'll 'only encourage her' because 'she's already into boys too much'

I cannot believe people can be this stupid, in a country where you can't walk out of the door without bumping into a teenage mum...

I watched a series a few months back with Davina McCall, can't remember the title of it now, but there was a 14 year old boy on there who genuinly thought babies came out of eggs...
A 15 year old girl with a baby living in a council flat with hardly enough money to afford food refused to take an contaceptives because she was too emberassed to talk about it

That's just wrong

[JPaul]

JPaul,

I completely understand that it is a way of protecting children against abuse and indeed I do believe a dual age of consent would be better for everyone.

I'm often still shocked at the lack of knowledge some of the children around here have about sex.
My boyfriends' mate has got a 12-year old daughter and they just don't talk to her about sex because it'll 'only encourage her' because 'she's already into boys too much'

I cannot believe people can be this stupid, in a country where you can't walk out of the door without bumping into a teenage mum...

I watched a series a few months back with Davina McCall, can't remember the title of it now, but there was a 14 year old boy on there who genuinly thought babies came out of eggs...
A 15 year old girl with a baby living in a council flat with hardly enough money to afford food refused to take an contaceptives because she was too emberassed to talk about it

That's just wrong


I totally agree, the sex education in this country is a disgrace. There's too much leave it to the parents attitude. When people know perfectly well that a lot of said parents don't talk to their kids about feck all, never mind something like sex.

I like your dual age idea, that makes a lot of sense, allied to the improved education of course.

[Skweeky]

Maybe we should start a campaign for the dual age thing.
We could start our own political party.

JSkweek
Or Spaul (that sounds good eh?)

[JPaul]

Maybe we should start a campaign for the dual age thing.
We could start our own political party.

JSkweek
Or Spaul (that sounds good eh?)
Ah but you are going out with a hun and have the hun (German) flag in your avatar, it would never work out. :cry:

[Skweeky]

That's the Belgian flag you fuckknuckle

[Monkster]

That's the Belgian flag you fuckknuckle
priceless.

[JPaul]

That's the Belgian flag you fuckknuckle
Really, well silly me.

[Busyman]

That's the Belgian flag you fuckknuckle
:glag: Hilarious!