There must be a better way than to marginalize people for liking post-pubescent girls, for which there is no recognized mental illness involved. Being attracted to beautiful girls with smooth skin and breasts is not a perversion, on the contrary, your preposterous notion that it's "sick" which you justify only because there's a law against it and therefore you can claim it to be a sickness, only because you're a bully and get off on telling people what to do, thinking about actual right from wrong doesn't enter your brain. So who's the pervert?

You.

It is not surprising that there are laws against putting children on the web. The pervert is the one looking at it, paying for it, and arguing for it online. Indeed.

I think that Milliner makes a very good point. Marginalizing these types of offenders only drives their crimes underground.

There are many instances of contemporary and historical societies with accepted norms for this type of sexual behavior, and it did not harm children because it was normal behavior. Take the Etoro People in New Guinea, for instance, where oral sex between men and boys is a right of passage and cause for celebration.

He was convicted only of fraud?  He also advertised himself as a child pornographer and impersonated a police officer.  The failure of justice here isn't only the inappropriate sentencing for the fraud convictions.

The only reason the victims here are potential "sex offenders" is because unreasonable laws make them so.  Even this article describes the service as "young women", not children.  Exactly what's wrong with that?

great to see NAMBLA members posting!

are you idiots joking?!

Milliner, THIS IS THE FBI COME OUT WITH YOUR HANDS UP

"Being attracted to beautiful girls with smooth skin and breasts is not a perversion,"

of course you are right, or the fashion business, where averege model is between 15 and 18, should be labeled as "pedophile". In some countries underage means under 21 so it means that people who like 18 years old girls in other countries are perverts?

Do not associate me with NAMBLA - I would never touch a child. Not because it is wrong, but because there is an increased risk of psychological harm for the child when these activities happen in our society. However, the burden of proof is upon you to prove your positive statement that it is abhorrent and deviant for a man to be sexually attracted to a biologically sexually mature female under the age of 18.

It's not abhorrent to be attracted to an underage person.  It's abhorrent to act on it.  There are no bad thoughts, only bad actions.  Oh, and the "psychological harm" *is* what makes it wrong.  Harming other people so one can get off is a textbook definition of "wrong."

profrobert and all the others who are trying to make out that LOOKING AT YOUNG GIRLS is a perversion are the sick ones. Think about it.

From earliest times, during the Greek, Roman, and on up to the Victorian age, loving post pubescent girls was not a crime, or even thought unusual. Lewis Carrol, for example was a known young girl lover. Did he have sex with her? No! He merely adored her for what she was. Where is the harm in that? But if SHE had initiated moves to sex and she wanted it would it have been wrong? Again NO. Because by your own definition she would not be harmed.

Please stop spouting the PC viewpoint and start thinking logically for a change. Think with your big head, not your little one.

Any government sponsored legislation mandating arbitrary definitions of "sick" behavior really has no standing for anyone capable of thinking their way thru one logically structured sentence.  Wrong is a highly subjective concept and changes dramatically over time.  Laws are the same and generally reflect the extremely ignorant views of a small and particularly  influential group that may have an ax to grind and an agenda to promote.  Piss on all of you, because you will sell the hangman the rope he uses to hang you with.

So, several of you wouldn't mind an adult having sex with your "biologically sexually mature" 12 year old son or daughter?  Fine for your family, not for mine.

May I just say wow!  How rare to find an intelligent and (fairly) respectful debate in a comments section.  

Kudos to all of you for keeping your cool while arguing your points.  Just remember, no one really knows !

Aim for something and shoot for frivolity!

@Jester: I completely agree. This is one of the more mature conversations I've heard in a long time... Especially in a comments section.

I work with a bunch of old school people that think it is immoral and wrong. I think that if you rape ANYONE, young or not, it is wrong. That includes taking advantage of a young or weak mind. But if she is sexually and physically and mentally mature, and she initiates it, I don't think its wrong. I agree that the PC will tell you it is, and I have known many people that have been sent to prison for it, but it really isn't. I've met plenty of 16-17 year old, and some even younger, girls that are more mature than my current gf, who I sleep with nightly. So who's really wrong in this?

And as an added point, state governments are making the age of consent younger and younger... What does that say about the PC stance?

It's pretty obvious that "Milliner" and "jon" are pedophiles themselves.

The whole "b-b-but it's OK cuz we used to have sex with 12-13 year olds a long time ago" argument is absurd; we also used to sacrifice virgins.

The vast majority of people in our society agree that pedophilia is wrong and that pedophiles are worthless scum. Even our imprisoned criminals think so as well. I don't know how you can wake up in the morning and look at yourself in the mirror ever day.

Easily?

Wow I am impressed. He should have been give the local Police Chiefs job.

JT

www.Ultimate-Anonymity.com

"He was convicted only of fraud?  He also advertised himself as a child pornographer and impersonated a police officer.  The failure of justice here isn't only the inappropriate sentencing for the fraud convictions.

The only reason the victims here are potential "sex offenders" is because unreasonable laws make them so.  Even this article describes the service as "young women", not children.  Exactly what's wrong with that?

"

You a former customer?  

Anyways, what your forgetting is that American laws do not apply in Switzerland.  There laws regarding impersonation of police officers may be much different from the U.S.'  

Lick it and stick it, housewives been trying to make that punishable by death and faggots been writing it into law as long as we've had housewives and faggots.

@Rick

Of course...anyone who respectfully and intelligently breaches the subject of "how young is too young" is automatically and obviously a filthy pedophile.

Grow up.

Can you please tell us how young is too young? Seriously. I'd like to know, outside of laws, how young a person needs to be to make someone "sick" for being attracted to them.

Hating pedophilia is one thing. Defining it is quite another and while I've never had to deal with the issue myself (I think younger girls are rather obnoxious), I sympathize with those who are being labeled monsters for speaking their minds about this.

I was a young girl once.  And older men persuaded me to do things that made me feel uncomfortable and ashamed.  Well, persuade is the wrong word since they made it clear they'd probably rape me if I said no.

Dumbshits, those little girls you abused grow up to hate men. None of you are worth the harm you cause.

I sympathize with murders, but I'm not one I swear!!

First off, young children, no matter how they may outwardly act (perhaps mimicking their older siblings or their parents) are not emotionally or intellectual mature enough to make an informed decision about any kind of sexual conduct.

How young is too young?  Good question.  But the law doesn't work like that.  Without an objective determination of age, prosecution of crimes like this are severely hampered.

I will go out on a limb and say that being attracted to young girls, 14+, is probably not a biological perversion.  Our long forgotten ancestors probably copulated with girls as young.  However, we live in more civilized times now.  We recognize that the 14 year old child has not yet developed the critical faculties or the experience to make a discerning decision, so we enact laws to protect them.

What do you do if you are attracted to a 14 year old, and she initiates sexual contact with you?  Do what all responsible adults do.  Express your concern, but do not reciprocate sexually (either emotionally or physically).  Just because a 14 year old has made a decision to initiate contact does not mean the 14 year old understands the consequences of her actions.

Australian Aborigines have a system of keeping rampant sexuality under control by marrying everybody twice. The first marriage is at the age when kids are likely to cause trouble through social competition, or by creating indiscriminate, unwanted mouths to feed, at around 9 to 12. Their first spouse is typically an elder living alone because the elder's own second spouse has died. The effect of the old/young marriage is that it pairs both groups w/ each other at an age when they can most agreeably benefit from their partners age, the kid learns about social responsibility, has boundless sexual energy that keeps the elder focussed and competitive, and the elder has someone to care for them and make them socially relevant. The first marriage lasts till the elder dies, like about 5 to 15 years. Then the kid is an adult who has learned to take care of a household, and is free to marry again to have kids of their own. The Aborigine culture has persisted for 10 to 40 thousand years, in a land where even ants struggle to survive, until Christian missionaries made it illegal to have sex with kids.

The legal age of consent is 15 in Sweden.

Australian Aborigines have a system of keeping rampant sexuality under control by marrying everybody twice. The first marriage is at the age when kids are likely to cause trouble through social competition, or by creating indiscriminate, unwanted mouths to feed, at around 9 to 12. Their first spouse is typically an elder living alone because the elder's own second spouse has died. The effect of the old/young marriage is that it pairs both groups w/ each other at an age when they can most agreeably benefit from their partners age, the kid learns about social responsibility, has boundless sexual energy that keeps the elder focussed and competitive, and the elder has someone to care for them and make them socially relevant. The first marriage lasts till the elder dies, like about 5 to 15 years. Then the kid is an adult who has learned to take care of a household, and is free to marry again to have kids of their own. The Aborigine culture has persisted for 10 to 40 thousand years, in a land where even ants struggle to survive, until Christian missionaries made it illegal to have sex with kids.

"I sympathize with murders, but I'm not one I swear!!"

Sympathizing doesn't mean you are one, dumb bitch. I sympathize with gay people yet I'm straight. Shocker, I know, that someone can empathize with people who are different.