Pro-paedophile group to be banned, Dutch supreme court says (dutchnews.nl)

worldnews

279 ups - 59 downs = 220 votes

142 comments submitted at 10:51:17 on Apr 18, 2014 by r_a_bot

  • [-]
  • Lister42069
  • 8 Points
  • 12:43:45, 18 April

It's a lot easier to ban someone than to try to argue with them, especially when you have nothing but "the accepted norms and values in Dutch society" to support your position.

>A Dutch study published in 1987 found that a sample of boys in paedophilic relationships felt positively about them. And a major if still controversial 1998-2000 meta-study suggests – as J Michael Bailey of Northwestern University, Chicago, says – that such relationships, entered into voluntarily, are "nearly uncorrelated with undesirable outcomes".

>Most people find that idea impossible. But writing last year in the peer-reviewed Archives of Sexual Behaviour, Bailey said that while he also found the notion "disturbing", he was forced to recognise that "persuasive evidence for the harmfulness of paedophilic relationships does not yet exist".

http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/damianthompson/100196502/guardian-paedophiles-are-ordinary-members-of-society-who-need-moral-support/

  • [-]
  • AliceInWondermall
  • 17 Points
  • 13:11:04, 18 April

This is difficult to approach though. In order to research this, you'd need to study a group of people in peadophilic relationships. Like - a lot of people.

Unless there are countries where sexual relationships with younger people are legal, this might not actually get a scientific resolution.

  • [-]
  • sjhdfasjkdhf
  • 3 Points
  • 13:31:24, 18 April

There is not persuasive evidence for either case. (What there is is a vast literature of pseudo/heavily flawed science that advocates of the conventional position like to wave at as if it is definitive). So why favour one side over the other?

  • [-]
  • Tsumei
  • 4 Points
  • 13:59:48, 18 April

Because people in positions of power often abuse that power. And an adult definitely has perceived and physical power over a child.

  • [-]
  • Lister42069
  • 2 Points
  • 14:14:40, 18 April

Obama has perceived and physical power over his wife. Does this mean it is impossible for them to have consensual sex with each other?

  • [-]
  • Blubbey
  • -1 Points
  • 14:20:09, 18 April

I don't think she's a child.....

  • [-]
  • ApplebeesWageslave
  • 3 Points
  • 13:29:18, 18 April

Well there are several countries with low ages of consent like Japan (12), Italy (14) and even the Vatican City(12). (Look it up, 'tis true.)

  • [-]
  • Ernidz
  • 7 Points
  • 13:41:02, 18 April

None of those nations are actually ok with such relationships in practice.

  • [-]
  • SaigoMade
  • 2 Points
  • 13:47:40, 18 April

the age of consent is 13 in japan. however, they have many "exceptions" for when its not, including entirely arbitrary ones such as the immorality of the sex (interracial sex being the most immoral possible, of course, so dont go to japan and get yourself arrested haha)

  • [-]
  • deep_your_throat
  • -8 Points
  • 13:41:13, 18 April

Age of consent is 12 in Japan?

Well that explains things.

  • [-]
  • Lister42069
  • 2 Points
  • 14:06:34, 18 April

The most comprehensive study on the subject was conducted in 1998, but it was denounced by the US Congress for its politically incorrect conclusions:

>"Many lay persons and professionals believe that child sexual abuse (CSA) causes intense harm, regardless of gender, pervasively in the general population. The authors examined this belief by reviewing 59 studies based on college samples.... Baker and Duncan (1985) found that, although some respondents reported permanent harm stemming from their CSA experiences (4% of males and 13% of females), the overwhelming majority did not (96% of males and 87% of females). Severe or intense harm would be expected to linger into adulthood, but this did not occur for most respondents in this national sample, according to their self-reports, contradicting the conclusion or implication of intense harm stemming from CSA in the typical case. The college data were completely consistent with data from national samples. Basic beliefs about CSA in the general population were not supported.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rindetal._controversy

Scientists who want to investigate further, like Harvard PhD Susan Clancy, author of "The Trauma Myth", are sent death threats and forced to flee the country (Clancy fled to South America shortly after her book was published).

  • [-]
  • RabidRaccoon
  • 2 Points
  • 13:26:10, 18 April

Quoted with context

http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/damianthompson/100196502/guardian-paedophiles-are-ordinary-members-of-society-who-need-moral-support/

> Britain's most persecuted minority have found a new advocate. An article this morning in the Guardian by feature writer Jon Henley addresses misconceptions about paedophiles, quoting one "expert" who believes that: "It is the quality of the relationship that matters". > > No, this is not not some sick send-up on my part. "If there's no bullying, no coercion, no abuse of power," says Tom O'Carroll, "if the child enters into the relationship voluntarily … the evidence shows there need be no harm." > > O'Carroll is a former chairman of the Paedophile Information Exchange with a conviction for distributing indecent photographs. The Guardian acknowledges this, but gives him a respectful hearing and points out that "some academics do not dispute" his views. For example: > >> A Dutch study published in 1987 found that a sample of boys in paedophilic relationships felt positively about them. And a major if still controversial 1998-2000 meta-study suggests – as J Michael Bailey of Northwestern University, Chicago, says – that such relationships, entered into voluntarily, are "nearly uncorrelated with undesirable outcomes". >> >> Most people find that idea impossible. But writing last year in the peer-reviewed Archives of Sexual Behaviour, Bailey said that while he also found the notion "disturbing", he was forced to recognise that "persuasive evidence for the harmfulness of paedophilic relationships does not yet exist". > > Henley attaches a lot of weight to the views of Sarah Goode, a senior lecturer at the University of Winchester: > >> For Goode, though, broader, societal change is needed. "Adult sexual attraction to children is part of the continuum of human sexuality; it's not something we can eliminate," she says. "If we can talk about this rationally – acknowledge that yes, men do get sexually attracted to children, but no, they don't have to act on it – we can maybe avoid the hysteria. We won't label paedophiles monsters; it won't be taboo to see and name what is happening in front of us." >> >> We can help keep children safe, Goode argues, "by allowing paedophiles to be ordinary members of society, with moral standards like everyone else", and by "respecting and valuing those paedophiles who choose self-restraint". Only then will men tempted to abuse children "be able to be honest about their feelings, and perhaps find people around them who could support them and challenge their behaviour before children get harmed". > > I'll leave you to make up your minds about this argument, but here's a point to bear in mind. It was precisely this sort of "enlightened" attitude that persuaded Catholic bishops in the 1980s to adopt a mild, nuanced approach to suspicions of clerical paedophilia.

I.e. it's a load of self justifying bollocks from a convicted paedophile. The Guardian's mind is so open its brains have fallen out.

  • [-]
  • Lister42069
  • -2 Points
  • 13:44:42, 18 April

What evidence do you have that J Michael Bailey of Northwestern University, Chicago is a "convicted pedophile"? Are the hundreds of other scientists who agree with his position all pedophiles as well?

  • [-]
  • RabidRaccoon
  • 2 Points
  • 13:58:58, 18 April

I meant Tom O'Carroll

  • [-]
  • ZachofFables
  • 0 Points
  • 13:01:26, 18 April

That's all well and good, but the law states (at least in the USA, I don't know about in the Netherlands) that you cannot bang someone who is under the age of consent. The law exists because we believe that children's brains aren't developed enough to really know what they are getting into.

I mean, if there's a study that says young girls who were forced into child marriages were happy with it, would you support that?

Right now, the law is that pedophilia is illegal. This group is advocating breaking the law, which is why they 'crossed the line' from free speech.

  • [-]
  • Atheist101
  • 18 Points
  • 13:44:05, 18 April

>This group is advocating breaking the law, which is why they 'crossed the line' from free speech.

Im not supporting or being against either side in this argument but this line of reasoning is the stupidest thing Ive seen all day. By your logic, it was once illegal for blacks to vote so that when they created advocacy groups to change the law, it would have been totally legitimate and OK for people throw them in jail and ban the group? So you are basically okaying the whole history of political violence against minorities and blacks in their struggle to gain the vote?

Think before you type next time...

  • [-]
  • FlyvendeHus
  • 7 Points
  • 13:34:06, 18 April

"The Martijn Foundation campaigns for the legalisation of sexual contact between adults and children and has been the subject of a convoluted legal battle for years."

As I read it the article does not state that they campaign for breaking the law, but rather changing it.

A political party/group enjoys an especially safeguarded position in human rights law regarding the formation of groups. This is because in a democracy they should be allowed to campaign for any position or opinion - Otherwise it is no longer a democracy if certain opinions are no longer allowed to be a part of the process. Therefore outlawing political parties and groups needs particularily important and grave reasons.

This holds true as long as they do not participate in the democratic process using violent or illegal means - Or do so with the ultimate goal of ending democracy in the country.

Legally the situation is as "Lawtonfogle" has written in his comment. If they "merely" campaign to change the law, then their group is legal.

If they actively suggest breaking the law or do so themselves (apparently they do with child pornography) their group is illegal.

The protection of the right to form groups and political parties is found, apart from national law, in the European Convention on Human Rights Article 11.

  • [-]
  • SaigoMade
  • 1 Points
  • 14:05:51, 18 April

i would say even having the ultimate goal of ending democracy should be fine, so long as that is the parties clearly stated goal. since china is the new economic giant and america is losing its place at the top, many people around the world are losing faith in the american model and are starting to favour the chinese model, which is of course not overly democratic. no doubt this will end in violent revolutions in many places, that will fail in some places, and succeed in others. and example is ukraine. eastern ukraine is seeking independence, but it seems most people are only focusing on the russian support that is there because it betters fits the medias narrative. very few sources are reporting on the fact that eastern ukraine is the majority of ukraines communists, who make up a very large political block there. right alongside all the russian flags are communist flags. if eastern ukraine does gain independence, it could very easily be communist

now, i dont care for a discussion of whether they are better off as communist or not, but i think it is easy to agree that the discussion is better had with words not guns. banning, say, the "restore the monarchy" political party because you dont like monarchies isnt productive. if 70% of the country support that, thats democracy for you. if you ban the discussion, the only option you leave the groups supporters is violence

  • [-]
  • FlyvendeHus
  • 1 Points
  • 14:34:53, 18 April

Actually, as a principle no economical or social goals need the removal of the basic tenets of democracy (Free speech and elections) in order to be reached.

That's the beauty of the whole idea. In theory, if everyone agrees how the country should work, they can all vote in order to create that law.

Theoretically, communist social and economic policies could be made to function in a democratic country.

Practically this is very hard because of communism historically being totalitarian - But hypothetically if everyone or a majority wanted socialist economic policies they could make them a reality through a political party working WITHIN a democratic context.

Sidenote: There's a distinction here between communism and socialist economic policies to be made as well. I believe socialism is a valid economic theory that practically does not function very well due to human nature.

Communism implies a totalitarian one-party dictatorship. That has no place in a democratic state.

  • [-]
  • shoutatmeaboutgaysex
  • 1 Points
  • 13:05:11, 18 April

Were they advocating breaking the law any more than Westboro or the KKK?

  • [-]
  • ZachofFables
  • 6 Points
  • 13:12:16, 18 April

As close as I can tell, Westboro does not advocating killing gay people or breaking the law, but I'm not super informed about them so I am definitely willing to be proven wrong.

  • [-]
  • mcgiven
  • 2 Points
  • 14:34:12, 18 April

In the US, it's not illegal to advocate breaking the law. It's also legal to advocate violence in many cases, as long as you're not inciting violence. Clearly, the Netherlands has a different view.

  • [-]
  • sjhdfasjkdhf
  • -3 Points
  • 13:42:45, 18 April

> The law exists because we believe that children's brains aren't developed enough to really know what they are getting into.

Unfortunately for us though, that's entirely inconsistent with the way in which we treat children in every other case. For example, neither are childrens' brains developed enough to consent to surgery. Would that mean all medical treatment for children is inherently wrong and should be banned?

(Hint: the answer is "no". Insufficient development doesn't mean particular actions are wrong, it merely means that the adult in the equation has responsibilities they otherwise would not. The reason forced marriages are wrong is not because the child's brain is underdeveloped, but because it is irresponsible).

  • [-]
  • Zigstyle
  • 1 Points
  • 14:36:55, 18 April

Forced marriages are wrong because marriage should require informed consent. Children (young ones, at the very least) cannot give informed consent to marriage, ergo they shouldn't be married forcibly.

  • [-]
  • Lister42069
  • -5 Points
  • 13:46:45, 18 April

Consensual sex between men was also illegal just a few decades ago.

Young girls who are forced into child marriages are never happy with it, and no study will ever show that they are.

  • [-]
  • electronicmaji
  • -6 Points
  • 13:16:03, 18 April

haha oh wow are people really upvoting defenses of pedophilia? HOLY FUCKING SHIT

  • [-]
  • Atheist101
  • 5 Points
  • 13:46:04, 18 April

Technically a 16 year old dating/sex an 18 year is pedophillia in some places. It really isnt, its just 2 high school teens dating and having sex with each other.

  • [-]
  • screwthepresent
  • 13 Points
  • 13:37:13, 18 April

It's almost like, picture this for a second, they believe in freedom of speech. Better to hear something you dislike than clap your hands over your ears and scream until it goes away.

  • [-]
  • shazzner
  • 3 Points
  • 14:11:59, 18 April

Welcome to Reddit

  • [-]
  • GoArendtGo
  • 2 Points
  • 13:26:41, 18 April

I really don't understand how there are people agreeing with that statement. I feel like I'm taking crazy pills.

  • [-]
  • locopyro13
  • 5 Points
  • 13:55:55, 18 April

> "I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it"

I will fight for freedom of speech for anyone, censoring dissenting or abnormal viewpoints does not change minds.

  • [-]
  • thebobafettest2
  • 2 Points
  • 14:25:04, 18 April

In fact, i would say it often cements opinions.

  • [-]
  • GoArendtGo
  • 2 Points
  • 14:22:02, 18 April

Not really sure what that has to do with anyone objecting to /u/Lister42069 defending the "benefits" of pedophilic relationships.

  • [-]
  • Lister42069
  • -2 Points
  • 14:27:34, 18 April

Why does reading peer-reviewed scientific research make you feel like you're "taking crazy pills"?

  • [-]
  • BrazenBull
  • -9 Points
  • 13:23:42, 18 April

Is a child not capable of loving their parents? Their siblings? Hollywood teaches us that "deviant" sexual urges (homosexuality) is about love, not sex.

You are on the wrong side of history.

  • [-]
  • montyjack
  • 2 Points
  • 13:34:18, 18 April

This is probably not the right analogy to make when a major Hollywood director is currently being sued for drugging and raping a child.

Pedophilia is not in any way equivalent to homosexuality. Two consenting adults is not equivalent to an adult and a child.

But hey, thanks for giving credence to the wild accusations of those Christian nutcases who scream about how if we normalize homosexuality, pedophilia will be next.

And what kind of asshole uses the phrase "Hollywood teaches?" Hollywood gave us the "casting couch." It's literally the only industry in the world where sexual harassment is not only expected, but accepted. Eat a bullet you worthless sack of shit.

  • [-]
  • SaigoMade
  • 1 Points
  • 14:18:29, 18 April

" Two consenting adults is not equivalent to an adult and a child." i dont really know how this sentence makes any sense to you. you arnt successfully arguing that they arnt equivalent, you are successfully arguing they arnt exactly the same thing. you could replace that exact same sentence with "two people of the same sex is not equivalent to an interracial couple" and it means the exact same thing. you havent said WHY its different, just asserted it

disclaimer: i am not picking a side with this comment, just pointing out that you havent given any argument whatsoever, just assertions

  • [-]
  • montyjack
  • 1 Points
  • 14:34:19, 18 April

Because an adult is in a position of power over a child. Human children, frankly any young animal are biologically wired to submit to adults of their species, or at the very least to fear them. But in humans, our children learn from adults. We don't have the same degree of inborn patterning that other species have. We have to pick it up from those who came before us. And we instinctively want to please them for social acceptance, even to our own detriment at times.

Two adults are on an even playing field. And when they're not (say, one is mentally handicapped, or intoxicated) we say responsibility lies with the one who is in the advantaged position.

Case in point: If I give a gun to a child and tell them to shoot someone, and they do it, I will be blamed because the child cannot be considered to be responsible or understand the consequences of their actions. If I repeat this with an adult, we both get blamed because we are both expected to be responsible for our actions.

And bullshit you're not taking a side. No one who isn't taking a side has a bunch of pro-pedophilia quotes off the cuff. But there's another aspect to what you're doing. If we accept that children can consent to sex, then we place the burden on them to prove when they have been victimized by sexual predators. In many cases there is no obvious coercion- the child believes they have to do what the adult says, even though they may not want to. How would they defend themselves legally, if we assume a child can consent to sex? They didn't protest and they weren't impaired in any way.

There's something really wrong with you. I'm done here. Look over your life and see where it went wrong.

  • [-]
  • Lister42069
  • -2 Points
  • 13:53:17, 18 April

Your argument seems to be that homosexuality is "not equivalent" to pedophilia. You've provided no reasons or arguments for why this is the case. Many people still think homosexuality is "not equivalent" to normal heterosexual relations today.

I would like to point out that primitive mythology concerning pedophilia is not only harmful to pedophiles, but to the children that it claims to protect.

>"Perhaps you cannot imagine this but when I was 12 I was very much in love with a man of 50 and he with me. I don't know who made the first move but we stroked each other and experienced sexuality together. It relaxed me wonderfully. One day my parents found out and the police were called in. The examination was terrible; I denied it and denied it again. Then I gave in. My older friend was arrested. My parents, after my forced confession, made out a formal complaint. Nothing could be of help any more. I have never been able to forget this. It wasn't just. It could have been such a beautiful memory. I am married and have four children. I would not object to their having sexual contacts with adults. I regard it as positive."

(This account was presented at the International Conference on Love and Attraction, and is reprinted in Love and attraction: an international conference, p. 501.)

>Nelson's relationship marked "the happiest period of [her] life." "When I was a child I experienced an ongoing incestuous relationship that seemed to me to be caring and beneficial in nature. There were love and healthy self-actualization in what I perceived to be a safe environment. Suddenly one day I discerned from playground talk at school that what I was doing might be "bad". Fearing that I might, indeed, be a "bad" person, I went to my mother for reassurance. The ensuing traumatic incidents of that day inaugurated a 30-year period of psychological and emotional dysfunction that reduced family communication to mere utilitarian process and established severe limits on my subsequent developmental journey."

Full citation: Nelson, J. A. (1982). "The impact of incest: Factors in self-evaluation," in L. L. Constantine & F. M. Martinson (Eds.), Children and Sex: New Findings, New Perspectives. Boston: Little, Brown & Co. Quoted in PAN 11, p. 31, and here and here

>"From the child´s point of view and from the commonsense point of view, there is an enormous difference between intercourse with a willing little girl and the forcible penetration of the small vagina of a terrified child. One woman I know enjoyed sex with an uncle all through her childhood, and never realized that anything was unusual until she went away to school. What disturbed her then was not what her uncle had done but the attitude of her teachers and the school psychiatrist. They assumed that she must have been traumatized and disgusted and therefore in need of very special help. In order to capitulate their expectations, she began to fake symptoms that she did not feel, until at length she began to feel truly guilty about not having been guilty. She ended up judging herself very harshly for this innate lechery."

Germaine Greer in "Seduction is a four-letter word" 1980-88

  • [-]
  • montyjack
  • 1 Points
  • 14:15:11, 18 April

It's not equivalent because what happens between two consenting adults is not equivalent to what happens between an adult and a child. That's why we have an age of consent. That's why kids can't sign legal contracts or drive cars or drink alcohol, even though they might want to, or enjoy it. I've known people who were molested. There was no violence, they did it willingly, it was not a positive experience. You can normalize a child to anything, that doesn't make it functional. Yes, sex feels good, even to children but that doesn't mean they should be doing it. You ignore any degree of developmental dysfunction it may cause, or that these individuals will not then force their idea of sexuality on children who may not have such a rosy view of it. The top quote is from a man who is says he has no problem with his kids being molested.

You're fucking justifying pedophilia and incest for fuck's sake. You're essentially using stockholm syndrome to justify rape. And the stories you cite are in the vast minority. For every one who didn't get that they were being violated there are many more who are permanently scarred by it.

  • [-]
  • Lister42069
  • 1 Points
  • 14:26:21, 18 April

Rind, Bruce & Tromovitch, Philip (1997). "A meta-analytic review of findings from national samples on psychological correlates of child sexual abuse," Journal of Sex Research, 34, 237-255.

>"The self-reported effects data contradict the conclusions or implications presented in previous literature reviews that harmful effects stemming from CSA are pervasive and intense in the population of persons with this experience. Baker and Duncan (1985) found that, although some respondents reported permanent harm stemming from their CSA experiences (4% of males and 13% of females), the overwhelming majority did not (96% of males and 87% of females). Severe or intense harm would be expected to linger into adulthood, but this did not occur for most respondents in this national sample, according to their self-reports, contradicting the conclusion or implication of intense harm stemming from CSA in the typical case. Meta-analyses of CSA-adjustment relations from the five national studies that reported results of adjustment measures revealed a consistent pattern: SA respondents were less well adjusted than control respondents. Importantly, however, the size of this difference (i.e., effect size) was consistently small in the case of both males and females. The unbiased effect size estimate for males and females combined was ru = .08, which indicates that CSA, assuming that it was responsible for the adjustment difference between SA and control respondents, did not produce intense problems on average."

Long-Range Effects of Child and Adolescent Sexual Experiences Positive Review", Allie C. Kilpatrick.

>This book will be disturbing to many readers. The assumption that all children are "damaged" by their experiences is challenged by Kilpatrick's finding that 38% of the adult respondents reported the sexual experiences as children to be "pleasant" while only 25% reported them to be "unpleasant." Kilpatrick also found that, although the majority of the women stated that the experience was initiated by the partner, for many (23% of the children 0-14 years and 39% of adolescents 15-17 years) the women reported having been the initiator. Another surprising finding was that only 4% of the respondents reported that they would have liked to have had counseling.

  • [-]
  • Zigstyle
  • 1 Points
  • 14:41:59, 18 April

Has nothing to do with being damaged. It has to do with children not possessing the fundamental ability to give informed consent. You can't really argue with this. The best you can do is try to fudge the line a little bit (i.e. should the age of consent be 16 or 15 or 18 or whatever), but the fact is that the brains of younger children are provably undeveloped with respect to their capacity to understand the long-term consequences of serious actions.

I mean, you could probably make the argument that giving LSD to kids wouldn't be "damaging," per se, on average, but it doesn't mean kids are in a position to consent to LSD use, or to alcohol use. They're fucking kids.

  • [-]
  • TheDankPuss
  • 1 Points
  • 14:35:13, 18 April

I don't see the point of including these three anecdotal stories about individual pedophilia cases, besides advocating for more sensitivity when working with victims. ...The idea is that sexuality is very powerful and can lead to strong attachment, emotions and even physical consequences. For several reasons it is understood the children cannot truly consent to these sexual acts. Who cares if even a majority of children had a Positive experience. They could not consent. You need consent to engage in sexual act with someone regardless on whether you think they will have a positive outlook on it after the fact or not.

  • [-]
  • Lister42069
  • 1 Points
  • 14:40:31, 18 April

>For several reasons it is understood the children cannot truly consent to these sexual acts.

By whom is it understood? And what are those reasons?

Sometimes children initiate sexual relations with adults.

Long-Range Effects of Child and Adolescent Sexual Experiences Positive Review", Allie C. Kilpatrick.

>This book will be disturbing to many readers. The assumption that all children are "damaged" by their experiences is challenged by Kilpatrick's finding that 38% of the adult respondents reported the sexual experiences as children to be "pleasant" while only 25% reported them to be "unpleasant." Kilpatrick also found that, although the majority of the women stated that the experience was initiated by the partner, for many (23% of the children 0-14 years and 39% of adolescents 15-17 years) the women reported having been the initiator. Another surprising finding was that only 4% of the respondents reported that they would have liked to have had counseling.

Would you say that such a relationship, initiated by the child, would also be non-consensual?

  • [-]
  • nolens_volens
  • 1 Points
  • 13:33:10, 18 April

You guys and gals should be on the wrong side of steel bars

  • [-]
  • Majelr
  • -8 Points
  • 13:47:04, 18 April

There's a ton of leftists who'll defend child-rape as long as the rapists are ticking the right political boxes.

Polanski's case being a prime example.

  • [-]
  • superdirt
  • -3 Points
  • 13:26:48, 18 April

It's really easy to argue against. It's disgusting and harmful to children.

  • [-]
  • locopyro13
  • 2 Points
  • 13:57:51, 18 April

> That ruling overturned one from 2012 when judges banned the homosexuality group, saying what the foundation does and says about sexual contact between same sex adults contravenes the accepted norms and values in Dutch society.

For a long while homosexuality was contrarian.

  • [-]
  • Lister42069
  • -5 Points
  • 13:42:21, 18 April

>such relationships, entered into voluntarily, are "nearly uncorrelated with undesirable outcomes".

>"persuasive evidence for the harmfulness of paedophilic relationships does not yet exist".

What you are saying is equivalent to claiming that the earth is 6,000 years old, or that masturbation makes you blind. A lot of people think gay sex is pretty disgusting as well, even today.

  • [-]
  • superdirt
  • 6 Points
  • 13:55:29, 18 April

I can't even believe there is someone arguing this. Children do not even know the consequences of having sex, so how could they possibly consent?

  • [-]
  • locopyro13
  • 6 Points
  • 14:01:08, 18 April

Then fucking talk about it to this pedophile group and change their minds, and calmly tell them that for this reason and that reason these laws are going to be this way. Show them case studies that firm up your viewpoint and logic, tell them why they are wrong.

Outright banning this group and their voice seems draconian.

  • [-]
  • unGnostic
  • 2 Points
  • 14:16:55, 18 April

This is one of Martijin's founders, Ad Van Der Berg.

There is something about him, can't quite put a finger on it.

  • [-]
  • Lister42069
  • -1 Points
  • 14:11:35, 18 April

Are you a child yourself? Are you a child psychologist, or some other specialist on the subject? Who are you to speak for all children?

Consent refers to approval or agreement. Children can not only consent, but sometimes even initiate sexual activity with adults.

Long-Range Effects of Child and Adolescent Sexual Experiences Positive Review", Allie C. Kilpatrick.

>This book will be disturbing to many readers. The assumption that all children are "damaged" by their experiences is challenged by Kilpatrick's finding that 38% of the adult respondents reported the sexual experiences as children to be "pleasant" while only 25% reported them to be "unpleasant." Kilpatrick also found that, although the majority of the women stated that the experience was initiated by the partner, for many (23% of the children 0-14 years and 39% of adolescents 15-17 years) the women reported having been the initiator. Another surprising finding was that only 4% of the respondents reported that they would have liked to have had counseling.

How can someone possibly initiate an activity, but not consent to it at the same time? This is logically impossible.

  • [-]
  • Zigstyle
  • 1 Points
  • 14:39:02, 18 April

> How can someone possibly initiate an activity, but not consent to it at the same time? This is logically impossible.

Very easily. Children are unable to give informed consent. Same reason we don't let 8 year olds sign complicated legal contracts, even if they come up with the idea.

  • [-]
  • yeahbbbut
  • 1 Points
  • 14:46:35, 18 April

Children are also unable to give informed consent to surgery, being sent to school, being driven somewhere or playing sports. Should all these things also be banned?

  • [-]
  • sjhdfasjkdhf
  • -1 Points
  • 14:03:43, 18 April

See my comment here. As implausible as it might sound today, the "informed consent" argument may well come to be seen as a fallacious historical anomaly.

  • [-]
  • TheDankPuss
  • 1 Points
  • 14:48:09, 18 April

That comment was stupid. Children cannot consent to surgery, they cannot sign legal waivers without an adult, they have their own criminal justice system. All these things consistently reflect an understanding that a child does not have the mental/emotional maturity and capacity to make big decisions and therefore must rely on the protection and guidance of their parent or guardian to decide for the child's best interest. (It is not implying that legal waivers, medical interventions, etc. on children are inherently wrong just because a child cannot consent like you comments suggests) pedophilia acts are wrong because it is an adult sexually capitalizing on the lack of ability to consent for their own sexual advantage.

  • [-]
  • genital_hero
  • 0 Points
  • 14:21:07, 18 April

> the consequences of having sex

which are...?

  • [-]
  • drjgm74
  • 0 Points
  • 14:07:02, 18 April

You can be pretty sure that the reasons for the court decision were more extensive than just "the accepted norms and values in Dutch society".