Kolya on 5/5/2014 at 01:24

---

Oh dear. Where in these quotes does anyone say that you were supporting paedos? You've only constructed that in your head, man. No one except yourself came to that conclusion.
But your reaction to this figment was real. You did accuse others, you actually destroyed the thread for everyone else and you are still acting like a dickhead indeed. And the sole reason for that is your own fear.

Kolya on 5/5/2014 at 18:23

---

No, those quotes suggest that your analogy didn't work, as everyone told you for a dozen pages.
But you managed to miss that and instead went on this wild tangent, which led you to believe that you were being accused of supporting paedophilia.
That was never the point of the discussion.

Look, in your post preceding (http://www.ttlg.com/forums/showthread.php?t=143721&p=2246576&viewfull=1#post2246576) mine, from which you took the first quote above you had just come up with the analogy. You spoke about a minority or tribe who regard it as their right to have sex with persons under the age of consent and how this was similar to gays who want to marry. I think you also used the word "oppressed" in the way that they would feel oppressed by age of consent laws, but I'm not 100% sure. Unfortunately I can't check.

Now my reply was entirely about the difference of these situations and I swear to the great spaghetti monster in the sky, I did not try to insinuate that you were supporting paedophilia.
It wouldn't even make sense, because you were using your analogy to say that such groups should NOT be granted every wish. So even IF you had meant paedos like I assumed (instead of some fictitious tribe as you actually meant) you would still clearly NOT have been in support of their interests.

So what I tried to tell you was that with children there is a party involved that's worthy of protection. And that's the reason for age of consent laws. But with gays there isn't, because these are consenting adults. That's the difference I was talking about. The specifics of your fictitious tribe were never of any interest to me.

No one was trying to foist paedo-support on you. Everyone thought your analogy sucked.

Kolya on 5/5/2014 at 20:33

---

No, actually I haven't seen it. I don't read Fox News or Daily Mail unless someone links to an article there. I mainly read German newspaper sites, not least because I work for one.
And I'd like to emphasize here again that I linked the Eich thread on the front page before any of this happened, before the analogy and before we both started discussing in the thread.

Now about whether paedophiles are a minority, I actually disagree. That is, I think they are. From all I know about the subject, paedophilia is a sexual orientation that's as hard-wired as hetero- or homo-sexuality. The person cannot change it, like you cannot become gay, even if you wanted to. And many of them suffer a lot for it, even if they never touch a child, because they are of course acutely aware of the general opinion on their orientation. For a year or so there has been a help-group under clinical supervision at the Charité hospital in Berlin called "Kein Täter werden" ("Not becoming a perpetrator"), which has just been extended due to its good reception, ie many patients go there to get help. They are taught strategies there to avoid situations that might lead them into temptation. They also get suppressing pharmaceuticals if they ask for that. And of course psychological assistance.

And this is what I personally believe is the best way to deal with paedophiles. I'm very weary of the hysterical witch hunt that has been created around the subject in the last few years. Because it's not helpful for anyone, neither for potential victims nor for potential perpetrators. Mainly it's politicians using the topic for their own agenda.
And yeah, of course paedophiles can never be allowed to have sex with children, because there can be no meaningful consent on the part of the child and it's bound to cause lasting psychological trauma.
Nevertheless paedophiles are human beings and as long as they don't try to act on their sexual urges they are not criminals and should not be treated as such.

I guess you won't agree with me on this, but seeing my opinion on the matter you may understand why I didn't think anything of speaking about a minority of paedophiles in the Eich thread.

SubJeff on 5/5/2014 at 22:17

---

dethtoll is correct Koyla. Paedophilia is abnormal and whilst I can respect those people that seek help rather than act on their urges I still think those urges are wrong. It's like any mental illness - you don't choose it. That doesn't make it an orientation though. And paedophiles who want or do act on it ARE criminals.

I suppose your messed up view of them goes to explain your messed up view of the whole thread.

I find it oddly interesting that you defined people who want to reduce the age of consent from 16 to 15 paedophiles and yet have nothing to say on the subject re: your experience with a 14 year old.

Kolya on 5/5/2014 at 22:28

---

Oh crikey, seriously it's like walking through mud here sometimes. I had that experience when I was barely two years older (16) as I explained. And it was awesome, thank you very much.
Are you seriously suggesting I was a paedophile at 16 because of my 14 year old girlfriend?
The age of consent is defined differently here as you know and also takes the age difference into account.