34 year old gets 20 years for Raping 79 year old woman....

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

Sociological studies, Anthropoligical studies, etc.. are still really in their infancy of theory and understanding. There are no inherent 'facts' when it comes to these sciences that study every aspect of people, because people are all so different in many ways.

As I said, it's much easier to lump sum people than to actually study the individual. We understand the differences in people and how they think when it comes to those who act 'normal' according to society, but we don't necessarily understand those who don't act 'normal' by our standards.

That's nonsensical - you suggest that it is important to "study the individual" but at the same time you appear to be dismissing the people who actually do study "those people", based on observations and cross referencing of numerous cases and implying that their work is of, at best, limited value.

Hell, society and morality play a HUGE role in this sort of thing. Just think 120 years ago, you could be a 35-year-old man and marry a 14-year-old girl freely. Now days it's a sick and disgusting practice that is illegal. - Were people back then mentally ill for being attracted to a 14-year-old? Not all 14-year-olds mind you had gone thruogh puberty to look 'grown up' either. So think carefully.

Think carefully about what? Social values do change - 120+ years ago death in childbirth was a lot more common than it is now - so it kinda made sense to marry a younger woman if you were wanting to have children.

[Obama 2012 1,714]

That's nonsensical - you suggest that it is important to "study the individual" but at the same time you appear to be dismissing the people who actually do study "those people", based on observations and cross referencing of numerous cases and implying that their work is of, at best, limited value.

I'm not discounting anything. All I'm saying is it's not fair to lump sum people just because other have acted a certain way. It's call stereotyping and has always been a dangerous thing in our society no matter who it is.

While sometimes you might be right, you won't always be.

Think carefully about what? Social values do change - 120+ years ago death in childbirth was a lot more common than it is now - so it kinda made sense to marry a younger woman if you were wanting to have children.

I'm not talking about what 'made sense.' I'm talking about the want/attraction/need in having feelings/desires for someone of that age.

[CDAgirlMI 51]

You may be correct but, sadly enough, personal interpretation is all we have to go on...

There have been peoples who, never having been exposed to organized religion, tended to extreme violence and others who did not. This leads me to believe that religion is not required of a people, to do good or to do evil. Its not the defining process that allows a people to make those selections. So I maintain that people, of themselves, can do good or evil, without the need to involve religion. As such, I feel its not required in order to live a life by ones self or in a community, of peace and tranquility.

In other words, right and wrong are not defined by religion. This exists of and by itself. There is no need to wrap a religion around it.

Agreed.

If religion had anything to do with right/wrong behaviors, what can be said about priests who molest young boys?

[Peikko 1,575]

And you seem to be using circular reasoning in regards to your normal/abnormal acceptable/unacceptable logic...

That's how it seems to you. However, it is not. As I said, a person who finds a same sex person arousing sexually is not 'normal' but it is acceptable despite it's abnormality. A person who finds a same sex child arousing is not normal on two counts, one that is acceptable - there is no reason to find the same sex abnormality as unacceptable, with a abnormality that is considered totally unacceptable. I don't see why that is so hard to understand.

[Ali G. 37]

Agreed.

If religion had anything to do with right/wrong behaviors, what can be said about priests who molest young boys?

Or is it a case of those that are ill enough to molest children, are shrewd enough to seek such positions to have closer access to kids. Hence, the mental illness. The cases involving priests are sensationalized because they are priests. In reality, what percentage of rapists or child molesters are priests?

The offenders are often known by their victims and tend to build trust with them, in order to get away with it. Hence, the mental illness.

Edited April 15, 2010 by Ali G.

[Obama 2012 1,714]

Or is it a case of those that are ill enough to molest children, are shrewd enough to seek such positions to have closer access to kids. The cases involving priests are sensationalized because they are priests. In reality, what percentage of rapists or child molesters are priests?

The offenders are often known by their victims and tend to build trust with them, in order to get away with it. Hence, the mental illness.

I think the real question is what percentage of Catholic Priests/Bishops are child molestors.

[Peikko 1,575]

You may be correct but, sadly enough, personal interpretation is all we have to go on...

There have been peoples who, never having been exposed to organized religion, tended to extreme violence and others who did not. This leads me to believe that religion is not required of a people, to do good or to do evil. Its not the defining process that allows a people to make those selections. So I maintain that people, of themselves, can do good or evil, without the need to involve religion. As such, I feel its not required in order to live a life by ones self or in a community, of peace and tranquility.

In other words, right and wrong are not defined by religion. This exists of and by itself. There is no need to wrap a religion around it.

I agree but I think we are both seeing things in a present day and 'western' context. Without the intervention of religion, many people would have had harder lives than they did in fact experience historically without it. Of course, had someone come up with the concept of 'human rights' at the same time as they came up with religion, things might have been very different - possibly better but that's a very 'what if' type of concept.

[PhiLandShiR 18]

Normal as in, the average person does not find an adolescent body sexually stimulating. The normal person is aroused by maturity, large muscles, large boobs, etc etc. These are well documented findings.

Sorry I forgot to also exclude average...

Oh please... you have spent way too much time with your nose buried in Playboy and Playgirl....

large muscles...

large boobs...

what a joke....

[Peikko 1,575]

Sorry I forgot to also exclude average...

Oh please... you have spent way too much time with your nose buried in Playboy and Playgirl....

large muscles...

large boobs...

what a joke....

In the context of what is normal and predictable, that is certainly not a joke. This is sexual arousal we are discussing, not what makes a good match in modern terminology where many other things can and should be taken into consideration.

Edited April 15, 2010 by Madame Cleo

[Obama 2012 1,714]

Sorry I forgot to also exclude average...

Oh please... you have spent way too much time with your nose buried in Playboy and Playgirl....

large muscles...

large boobs...

what a joke....

so apparantly if you're a guy who likes small tits, or a girl who likes skinny guys, then you're not normal....

[Ali G. 37]

I think the real question is what percentage of Catholic Priests/Bishops are child molestors.

The Catholic church is another kettle of fish as rather than accept it and deal with it, they seem to have covered it up. Surely it doesn't take a psychologist or psychiatrist to realize that an individual who has such desires may go through the process to situate themselves close to kids.

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

I'm not discounting anything. All I'm saying is it's not fair to lump sum people just because other have acted a certain way. It's call stereotyping and has always been a dangerous thing in our society no matter who it is.

While sometimes you might be right, you won't always be.

Well sure, you're saying that now because I pointed it out - but that's not what you said in your preceding post post.

You suggested that the people studying aberrant individuals and behavioural and psychiatric disorders have nothing useful to add to our understanding of these issues. I think that's astonishingly ignorant, not to mention arrogant to boot!

I'm not talking about what 'made sense.' I'm talking about the want/attraction/need in having feelings/desires for someone of that age.

You presented a hypothetical situation about a 35 year old guy marrying a 14 year old girl on the basis that he was sexually attracted to her. That may well have been the case, but seriously - how on Earth can you possibly know this? The only reason you can say this - is because you presented the hypothetical situation and you want to believe it. But that adds zip to understanding why something like that might have happened in preceding centuries.

The fact is, if you don't understand how and why society was different back then, and why (for example) arranged marriages took place - for largely practical reasons - then all you are doing is exactly what you said that you aren't doing: being dismissive.

[Peikko 1,575]

so apparantly if you're a guy who likes small tits, or a girl who likes skinny guys, then you're not normal....

No, you are not normal but whether that abnormality is a problem or not is something else again. Not all abnormalities are problematic or unacceptable or symptomatic of mental or emotional disorders but some are.

[Obama 2012 1,714]

Well sure, you're saying that now because I pointed it out - but that's not what you said in your preceding post post.

You suggested that the people studying aberrant individuals and behavioural and psychiatric disorders have nothing useful to add to our understanding of these issues. I think that's astonishingly ignorant, not to mention arrogant to boot!

I never suggested there was nothing useful. All I said was it wasn't fair to lump sum people. I said it wasn't fair to say Person A is just ilke Person B because factors XYZ match up.

Unfortunately, due to the way the law works, XYZ is usually good enough to classify someone. I'm simply saying that you really can't do that with any certainty. It's a gamble.

You presented a hypothetical situation about a 35 year old guy marrying a 14 year old girl on the basis that he was sexually attracted to her. That may well have been the case, but seriously - how on Earth can you possibly know this? The only reason you can say this - is because you presented the hypothetical situation and you want to believe it. But that adds zip to understanding why something like that might have happened in preceding centuries.

The fact is, if you don't understand how and why society was different back then, and why (for example) arranged marriages took place - for largely practical reasons - then all you are doing is exactly what you said that you aren't doing: being dismissive.

No, I'm not being dismissive. I'm talking about physical attraction. - If there was no physical attraction to a 14-year-old girl (and sometimes even a year or two younger) then we wouldn't even be having this conversation about the way it was back then. It wouldn't have been acceptable as there would have been no dominant attractiveness there to people of that age.

Back then it was 'acceptable' but it also wasn't necessarily dominant either for it to take place. Adulthood back then was considered a lot differently, yes.. but not everyone was jumping on the 14-year-olds..

The point I'm making, is if we were attracted to younger women back then, wouldn't it be a safe assumption that people today still hold those same feelings and for it to be just as normal? Why should laws and so-called morality change what we're attracted to?

[PhiLandShiR 18]

No, you are not normal but whether that abnormality is a problem or not is something else again. Not all abnormalities are problematic or unacceptable or symptomatic of mental or emotional disorders but some are.

So.... if they are not problematic or unacceptable or symptomatic of mental or emotional disorders..... how can you call them abnormalities?