Forums / Discussion / Serious Debate

-Is there a large Equal Rights Group for Pedophilia?
-You linked two papers, which is not widespread, and as far as I can tell, they have not been publicized.
-Also, there is the whole child consent legality thing, which puts up a road block Homosexuality never had.

Why does your first point matter? There are quite a few disorders without a large equal rights group for them that are still perfectly valid. Just because a group doesn't exist doesn't mean that by default they cannot possibly be considered for a possible human rights violation.

Unfortunately, without research into pedophilia, there isn't really much that can be said about it. However, considering that it functions more like a paraphilia than a sexual orientation, I think it's fair to say that it is, in fact, a paraphilia. Especially considering that therapy does work in quite a few situations if caught early, unlike homosexuality or other things like that.

Page get broke up the conversation, you are missing some context sir, go read the last comments of the last page between me and lisa to understand better

Two from the APA, the American Psychological Association, fairly significant. The link in my OP goes to one of the top 3 human sex researchers in the world and I linked right to his websites short essays which easily summarize his pedophile research. All of the studies I've referenced have been published, and part of their push includes removing the age of consent, which I showed is already catching on. You are parroting yourself.

-That still pales to what Homosexuality had behind it https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_LGBT_rights_organizations A few scientists, no matter how well respected, does not stand up to multiple large organizations. Pedophilia just doesn't have the same amount of support as Homosexuality has right now.
-Being published is not what I meant, what I meant was the studies being spread to the public and there findings being well known. The studies showing the causes of Homosexuality made plenty of news outlets and were referenced by the online Pro-Gay movement constantly.
-I looked over your posts and your links but couldn't find what you meant but "showed is already catching on" Perhaps I'm just missing it?
-And you are ignoring the "Ramifications of Legal Child Consent" part of my post

I'm not saying it doesn't have a chance of ever becoming legal, I just saying it doesn't have a good shot in the neat future as it is right now.

List of pedophile rights organizations worldwide

Homosexuality didn't appear to have a shot either, the movement only started picking up steam in the 90s, before that it was just as faceless as pedophiles are now. It slowly began to change after the DSM delisted it, which was way before the mainstream movement began. Pedophile rights are following in the exact same footsteps, as history shows, "it's too socially stigmatized" and all.

My last post on the first page I'm pretty sure is the one with the consent stuff. Girls 14 and below are being legally held responsible for sex crimes they consented to (the site uses the example of a 14 year old who lied to her mom to sneak out and have consensual sex with her teacher). The Supreme Court of California was the first to officially take the position that juveniles CAN consent in certain situations, but international courts have been saying so for years. I'm almost sure it was Italy where a judge recently rejected a family's lawsuit because the daughter said her relationship with the guy was totally consensual. I'd have to look that one up, but if 13 year olds start fighting for their own right to consent, what basis do we really have to say no?

That was what I was asking for on my page get, not the scientists. Not as many, but still, it does improve the odds.

The California case means the discussion has taken place but so far not taken off to a National platform. I'm not too concerned with other countries, since this is about American politics. However, that is still being considered a criminal case, and the fact that Wyatt was removed from the case for his comments means this isn't much of a victory.

Still, it took almost 20 years of pride parades, scientific studies and widespread positive media coverage for Gay Marriage to be legalized. From what you've shown, it seems like the Pedophile movement has yet to pick up that same steam so far, and even when it does, that's 10-20 years before Age of Consent reform. Not exactly soon.

I just came here to say that a lot of the things people fight for today would have seemed completely preposterous to people living 60 years ago. I, for one, am not going to rule anything out.

If you mean in terms of gay rights, I'd say banning discrimination in non-religiously affiliated housing or hiring/ firing practices that is based on sexual orientation.

If you mean in terms of marriages (TL;DR version) gay marriage could possibly mean you could marry your cat-girl/ alien/ android waifu someday in the far future.

If you mean in terms of marriages (long version), my only guess is that if we develop sentient, feeling artificial intelligences, discover aliens that aren't that different from us and that don't want to destroy us, or we get so good at biology that we can engineer new sentient organisms, then gay marriage may be referred to in trying to get relationships between humans and these kinds of "non-humans".

(This, assumes, of course, that we've already legalized and accepted as society the creation of artificial life, interacting with species from other planets, and bio-engineering new sentient species, not to mention assuming that these are all possible.)

Now, it's hard to make judgement calls on things that don't exist, but my guess is that if we are advanced enough to do these things, then we should be advanced enough to anticipate or quickly react to any possible downsides, if they exist, and do so without too much trouble. (Again, dealing with A LOT of unknowns here, so this is probably more of a matter of opinion than fact.) And if that's the case, then as long as both parties consent and nobody's worse off, even indirectly, then I don't really see the issue.

@ That Forum Guy

So I got a question for you. Why incest? Of all the things that could be next after same sex marriage why incest? You secretly like incest? Now I'm not judging or anything but it seems pedophilia would have been the subject I'd go for since I've seen stories that pedophiles are already making certain moves to be classified in the same way as being gay

Funny thing is I'm not aware of any countries where gay marriage is legal and then bestiality was made legal after, yet in some states where I believe gay marriage was illegal, there were no laws against bestiality.

Someone correct me if i'm wrong.

Well, before all these replies came, I had completely forgotten about inbred children and the severe disabilities they come with. If I were to cause invest to be legal, thousands of inbred children with disabilities would be ridiculed, and it would be all my fault. Also, just like gay marriage, incest was usually considered a "forbidden love". My starting post wasn't perfect, I'll say that. Pedophilia can cause psychological damage to children, so I didn't suggest that. People started to mention polygamy, which seems to be the easiest to legalize so far. Did I go off topic?

The slippery slope is a mindset, not a literal chain reaction of events. Interracial marriage didn't lead to gay marriage which will not lead to pedophilia or beastiality, but the liberal mindset that seemingly has no limit and is willing to cross every line could lead to all those things and more. So when pedophilia is declassified as a mental illness and turned into a sexual orientation and starts to be normalized in exactly the same way homosexuality was, which the liberal mindset easily accepted in a very short amount of time (altho apparently some people think 20 years is a long time), it sets off alarm bells.

Like someone else pointed out, we're all disgusted by the thought of pedos now but sixty years ago there were HUNDREDS of things we do today that people thought was a sign of the end of the world.

Transgenders, I hope. The "LGBT" movement can celebrate all it wants but transgenders have been long left-behind and the ruling isn't going to change that.

Well, Bruce Jenner's change motivated a lot of transgenders, so that's something.

It begins.

That's not really a result of gay marriage being legalized.

Also, if you look at the text of the order, it only bans them for producing/distributing written works which are 'discriminatory.' So they're not having their freedom of (literal) speech taken away, but I agree that doing that to them is absurd and violates the First Amendment.

>left-behind
how so?

This, and the many cases like it, has everything to do with gay marriage and free speech. After last week's decision, expect this to happen constantly. Christian bakers, caterers, photographers, and anyone even remotely involved in weddings will be sued. It is critical that businesses have legal protection from ideological bullies. If a Christian baker refuses to sell a birthday cake to a homosexual, that's discrimination. However, if a Christian baker refuses to supply a cake to a gay wedding, that is a refusal to be involved with a ceremony which the baker objects to on religious grounds. Such a refusal is an act of religious conscience and should be respected. The proper response is for the gay couple to give money to a competing baker, but this really isn't about discrimination against homosexuals. It's about punishing Christians for their thoughtcrimes through public humiliation and financial ruin.

The fact that not many people even know what it means while being gay is understood by mostly everyone of all ages. Also in most places in the US that aren't backwater or something gay people are heavily supported nowadays and if someone's being a homophobe it's likely they'll be shut down. It happens pretty regularly in real life and even online as you can see even in the KYM comment sections. Gay acceptance still has a ways to go but at this point being a homophobe in most places is going to get you nearly as much shit as being openly racist would.

Trans people on the other hand are barely understood as I previously stated and face far less support. Even on a relatively "liberal" website like KYM the Jenner article for example was full of transphobes and dissenters and many of them got upvotes and occasionally top comment. It was legitimately a very mixed reception and this is from a traditionally liberal comment section, somewhere like Yahoo news or Youtube infamous for nasty comment sections trans people could have no supporters period. That and the legal system isn't doing much to help trans people in the US yet as gay people almost have full legal protection and equality at this point. Trans people in most places still can't go to their preferred bathroom, have to jump through fiery hoops to get a name change, difficulties getting hormone treatments, etc. It's pretty obvious the T in LGBT is kind of dragging behind.

Trans people in most places still can’t go to their preferred bathroom

Is this a goal we want to unabashedly strive for?

Allowing someone that doesn't resemble the gender of the bathroom they're trying to use will make all the other occupants of the bathroom severely uncomfortable. Obviously, most trans people wouldn't be comfortable doing that either, but setting a general precedent for that allows abuse cases to happen.

Trans people in most places still can’t go to their preferred bathroom

I'm all for Trans rights 100%, but this is one thing I can't agree to. Bathrooms aren't something social, they are separated based on Biology, Penis goes to Male BR, Vagina goes to Female BR. This is to stop perverts and to make occupants comfortable enough to use them. Allowing someone who identifies as Female, but is in a male body into the Woman's Restroom would cause all sorts of problems, and allowing people in would either have to be based on looks (do they appear Tran-sexual) or on word (we just have to believe he's telling the truth and is not a pervert) Neither work. Bathrooms aren't a social get together of genders, it's there to give people a place to piss and shit.

For the bathroom things I've never understood the concept of "keeping pervs out". Usually people don't present that much of an argument other than "those pervs are invading womyn's spaces" and "it's just weird". Like is there even a shred of evidence that sexual assault and shit is going to skyrocket because bathrooms become more open? And something being weird isn't a very good excuse either, especially considering the fact that it's still weird if a trans person goes into the bathroom for their sex and looks like the opposite, and if your argument that abuse is increased and stuff then the abuse will still happen, but as I said I doubt bathroom rapes will triple because of something like that.

In my eyes the real answer would be to just make bathrooms not gendered at all and just unisex and that people should stop treating them like sacred fountains of innocence that are soiled by the sexes mingling. And yes it is a place for waste removal but believe me it does hurt every single time I go to a public bathroom without exception. But yeah I still think it's something worth fighting for, not as strongly or as important as something like marriage but it's something I believe in and I've never seen any arguments against it other than "those damn perverts" and "uncomfortable" the first being unsubstantiated with the second just hardly an argument from my point of view.

In that case Bathrooms in public places need some restructuring then, We could make them more like the actual unisex bathrooms in Nurse's offices and like, one room, one sink, one toilet, only this time they would have more than one in the same place and remove the urinals, but frankly I don't see the bathroom thing happening this way (mostly for economic reasons).

was full of transphobes
The problem the transgender movement is anyone who does not 100% agree are transphobic. Disagree with someone on the definition of transgender? TRANSPHOBIC!
There literally can not be a discussion without someone shouting "transphobic" or saying "Its rude to talk about that!".
I've made some, and seen some comments that were very plain being called transpobic. "I hate trans people" is transphobic "Just by saying your female, doesn't make you female" isn't transphobic.

Trans people in most places still can’t go to their preferred bathroom
…eh?
Are you upset that women can't go into men's restrooms and vice versa? I think seperated restrooms are dumb and pointless, but idk why you think transgendered people should get extra rights for being able to go into either restroom.

have to jump through fiery hoops to get a name change
not really a trans issue, and its difficult to change your name for a reason.

difficulties getting hormone treatments
I actually haven't heard this. Why is it difficult?

@Ryumaru Borike
This is to stop perverts and to make occupants comfortable enough to use them.
Because watching someone of the opposite sex wash their hands is a huge turn on for many people.
You know stall doors aren't transparent, right? What is there to see?

You really think no one is gonna take a quick peak through the door crack? It's already uncomfortable enough using a public restroom for a lot of people as it is, seeing how 90% of public bathrooms have cracks in the door right in front of your dick or no barrier between urinals. Having all bathrooms be unisex means you are pretty much guaranteed some stranger is gonna see your privates. Given the fact that guys setting up cameras in women's bathrooms is already a real enough problem, yes, the threat of perverts taking advantage of it is real. You have to be incredibly naive to think otherwise. It doesn't have to be rape to be unacceptable. There would be a lot of people who would be too uncomfortable to use the bathroom properly, which gets in the way of its function. There is reason why bathrooms and locker rooms are always gender segregated, it's because people deeply care for their privacy from the opposite sex. There are a lot of people who would rather risk pissing themselves than whip their dick out in the presence of a girl and a lot more girls who would rather piss themselves than drop their skirt in the presence of men.

Meanwhile, there is no difference between bathrooms other than the existence of urinals, there is no social meaning between the two bathrooms, there is no real reason to get rid of the system people can already barely tolerate as it is.

Trans people in most places still can’t go to their preferred bathroom

Simple solution to the issue of gender seperated bathrooms and the effect on transgenders:

1. Rename "Mens room" to "Penis bearers room"

2. Rename "Ladies room" to "Vagina bearers room"

Now bathrooms are separated by sex, not gender. Problem solved?

I'm being totally serious, The Trangender community is really thrashing the concept of gender roles to the point where we could save ourselves a lot of trouble just not bothering with using gender specific language terminology.

Having all bathrooms be unisex means you are pretty much guaranteed some stranger is gonna see your privates.

I dunno. You make it sound like unisex bathrooms would just turn to perverted hell. But it probably wont be as bad as you think.

Personal experience here: During really crowded concert events with little bathrooms, typically the ladies room ends up with a 10 minute long queue. Not being sexist here but the ladies room always has longer waits.

Women don't want to wait that long to pee, so they ended up openly invading the mens room. Yes they would just waltz right in without giving a fuck. The mens bathroom was effectively rendered unisex by hostile female takeover

You know what happened? Women used the mens bathroom, that was it. They used the stalls, and went out.

Not a single man gave a damn, They carried on pissing in the urinals while ladies watched. I don't think they minded. I didn't really care either. I just want to unload my bladder and get out. My cock ain't the other mens or ladies business. Other mens cocks ain't my business and the ladies in the bathroom wasn't my problem either. It didn't devolve into chaos.

BSoD wrote:

Personal experience here: During really crowded concert events with little bathrooms, typically the ladies room ends up with a 10 minute long queue. Not being sexist here but the ladies room always has longer waits.

Funny thing about that: So the assumption is that lines to ladies rooms are long because ladies take forever in the bathroom, but in reality it's just because they have less places to do their business than in a men's room. Ladies only have stalls as their option, while men have about the same number of stalls but have a bunch of urinals on top of that, so they will on average have more places to do their business than ladies rooms. Why don't ladies rooms have more stalls the compensate for that? It's a mystery.

But yeah, at my brother's graduation earlier this year one of the men's rooms was temporarily closed down and used as a second ladies room and I have seen several occasions where women just waltzed into men's rooms and, surprise surprise, the earth didn't crack beneath their feet as hell broke loose. I think people overreact to the "dangers" of gender neutral bathrooms. Recently Boston put in a gender neutral single stall bathroom in their city hall (alongside the already existing gender segregated bathrooms, mind you) and everyone threw a hissy fit acting like this was going to increase the dangers of sexual attacks in restrooms and saying things like "I would never let my daughter use one of those" and acting like the needs of the trans community didn't matter at all (some people outright said we shouldn't be doing it just to help trans people because it's "so dangerous"). Here's a news flash: If someone is going to be enough of a pervert that they would attack and/or peep on people in the bathroom, they are going to do it whether or not the bathroom is gender neutral. A sign with a skirt on it isn't going to stop a pervert from entering the bathroom. I personally am of the opinion that any single use bathroom should be gender neutral by default. If no more than one person is going to be using it at a time, then what the hell is the big deal? It's anecdotal evidence, but my college's bathrooms are pretty much all gender neutral and we don't exactly have an epidemic of bathroom perverts over here.

@Butterscotch Nice anecdotal evidence. Where do you live where ladies can just straight up watch a man use a urinal and no one cared? Sure as hell isn't were I live. I couldn't use my schools bathrooms without other guys peaking though the cracks. Unless you are looking at the crack anyway, you are never gonna notice it anyway. How do you know no one cared? Did they fill out a survey leaving? People aren't gonna openly protest in the bathroom, they are gonna see the opposite sex in the bathroom, then leave to find another bathroom. If you want a gender neutral bathroom along with the regular bathrooms, that's fine.

And I'm not talking about molestation or criminal perverts here, or people busting open stalls, or people who would sneak into bathrooms anyway. I am talking about people who just take advantage of the situation to take a look, and the people who's urine would crawl right back up into them at the mere thought of it. Some people can use the bathroom in front of people, others can't. Again, all for some social meeting place that never existed to begin with.

And @Crimson, if Bathrooms are single use, then gender segregation or unisex become meaningless because only one person is ever going to be in there at once.

@Ryumaru Borike
I just don't think the problem is even remotely as big of a deal as you think it is.

again, there are stalls, its not like its just one big open room, and unless the room is completely empty, i doubt anyone is going to be able to get away with staring through the small crack in the door.
And if the room is empty, then it doesn't matter if the restroom is segregated or not. A small sign doesn't prevent people from going into a restroom.

Its really started to sound like you are just against multi-use restrooms

I don't think you read my post, since I already said, 95% of stalls have cracks in the doors, I am not talking about people who already go into the wrong bathroom, it's not staring, just peaking, that it's not catch-able unless you are specifically looking for it. I already addressed your entire post.

I will repeat in bold because I am already repeating myself. I am not talking about criminal sexual harassment or people who already go out of there way to peep on the opposite sex I am talking about people who would just casually take a half second look though cracks in the stalls because they can. It's not like I am the only person who is worried about this too, a lot of my friends have the same problem.

I am extremely against the idea of unisex bathrooms. Tbh I don't really care all that much is a Transexual male with a vagina used the same bathroom as me, but this proposed Idea of getting rid of gender segregated bathrooms all together is ridiculous. I have no problem is places want to add a unisex bathroom along side the male and female bathrooms, that's just fine, the people who don't want the opposite sex in their bathroom doesn't get forced to use it.

I still think Ryumaru is kind of overreacting. Maybe it's a personal issue of yours where you feel more uncomofrtable at other people peeking than most maybe just naturally or from experiences you've had like how you described guys try to peek at your junk all the time before maybe because of where you lived. So this is really touchy to you. I'm just assuming you might not even care that much correct me if I'm erong, but there are definitely people out there with these concerns, some more than others. But yeah I think possibly adding a unisex bathroom as a third option (and also indirectly helping non-binary trans people who are both or neither gender) would be the best idea. Sadly though most places don't have this and probably aren't planning to any time soon.

I don't think it's overreacting since a bunch of my friends share the same concern as I do. I just don't like that people are saying "I don't care if a lady looks at my dick while I pee, let all bathrooms be unisex" because they aren't taking into consideration the feelings of the people who do care, which going from my experience, is a lot.

@Ryumaru

I know what I said was anecdotal. That's why I started off with the disclaimer: "Personal experience here"

However it is a real life case example of a unisex bathroom and it worked out despite being an unplanned impromptu installment borne of chaos

Seeing how people reacted to that situation makes me think that unisex bathrooms can be made to function if properly planned and organized

For one thing, all the the problems with unisex bathrooms can be fixed.

95% of stalls have cracks in them? Well then use seals. People peeking? Don't have huge gaps over the stalls. There's easy solution's to these problems

Where do you live where ladies can just straight up watch a man use a urinal and no one cared?

Oh the women didn't use the urinals. They used the stalls. All the men allowed the stalls to be reserved for the visiting women out of courtesy. Although this sort of behavior is common enough that you can buy special tubes that let women use urinals

I couldn’t use my schools bathrooms without other guys peaking though the cracks.

See the difference here is that you are in school filled with horny, immature teen boys that wanna look in the girls bathroom because of forbidden desire. My case example came from a +18 massive music concert full of a mature adults. I wouldn't fault unisex bathrooms for a problem that's really caused by immature mindsets, not bathrooms themselves.

How do you know no one cared? Did they fill out a survey leaving?

I was there. In that bathroom. I looked around. Nobody said a word to the women queuing with men for the toilets. Not a glance. Not a look. Not a raised eyebrow. Not a single concern on anyone's faces. The atmosphere felt completely chill.

If you want a gender neutral bathroom along with the regular bathrooms, that’s fine.

This is a good idea and most likely how it would be handled. So if anyone doesn't like it then they have the choice

@Butterscotch The problem with your fixes is that they cost money that people will not pay. If people cared enough to seal the cracks in stalls, they would have done so already. And your story is but one story where no one cared, but that does not mean no one cares. Maybe there was no problem in the 5 minutes you were in there, but that does not mean everyone was comfortable the whole time. And your response to my "Woman watching Urinals" has nothing to do with my statement.

Whoops. I misread the part about women watching urinals. My bad. Well the answer to that question is "a mature setting".

And I wasn't there for 5 minutes. It was a huge queue. Try 15. And I went there numerous times throughout the day long concert and the situation was always the same. Please stop acting like I didn't know what I saw.

Finally the fact that you are talking about the costs of building a unisex bathroom as if it were beyond reproach really go to show that you aren't putting any deep consideration into the prospect at all. The financial ramifications of designing a bathroom to have more secure stall doors cant be predicted right now but I doubt it unmanageable. It's also beside the point.

I find your behaviour to be needlessly reactionary. And I note that you're trying to counter anecdotes with simply more anecdotes

"mature setting" What an answer….

I'm talking about people who would be too uncomfortable to use the bathroom if it was unisex. How are you gonna see people who are not in the bathroom when you are in there? Of course you are going to only see people who are fine with it in the bathroom because that's the only people who are going into the bathroom!

And of course the costs aren't unmanageable, but the fact they cost means that a lot of people aren't gonna do it.

And what do you mean reactionary? The fact that my response is in reaction to a proposal I'm against? And I'm pointing out that your anecdote doesn't cover everyone. Again I repeat " I just don’t like that people are saying “I don’t care if a lady looks at my dick while I pee, let all bathrooms be unisex” because they aren’t taking into consideration the feelings of the people who do care"

Dude we already went over that. giving people the option to choose a bathroom for whatever gender the feel comfortable was never out of the question. I already agreed with having monosex bathrooms next to unisex.

So the people not comfortdable with it are already addressed. But we weren't talking about them anyway. We were talking about people IN the bathroom because your main compliaint was what would happen IN the bathroom. Why is the guy that pisses on the tree outside a factor in wether or not unisex bathrooms can be feasibly done. ?

Furthermore you expect me to believe there were people in my example who simply held their bladders until they exploded because ewwwww girls in the bathroom!?. Do you really think that's what happened? Need i remind you one more time that this was an adult setting populated by metal fans. I saw what was going on inside and outside . Nobody was so squeamish

I tell you what I mean by reactionary. You're practically screaming in my ear about how unisex bathrooms must be the work of the devil all because the school you go to is predictably full of kiddies that dont respect privacy and using that case to derail a thread about gay marriage with alarm and fear over how unisex bathrooms can cause calamity when the real life evidence hasn't concluded that yet

I'm pointing out that YOUR anecdote doesn't cover everything either and that unisex bathrooms have been used successfully despite your bad experience

I respect what you are saying in regards to what you don't like in this discussion

but I don't like how you are saying that all unisex bathrooms are a terrible idea that should never happen in any situation (so fuck the transgendered) all because you aren't taking into consideration how it can work in reality and has worked before

You guys are derailing this thread into a discussion on bathrooms. Take it to your walls if you need to, but it does not belong here.

I have Requested Bob To Intervene. I feel I've let this argument go too long for this discussion and I accept fault for that. I suggest making a new discussion thread about bathrooms before continuing on this subject. This thread needs to resume it's topic of the next course for gay marriage

I don't really see what's so bad about this tangent since it's about another path that could be taken after gay marriage in terms of rights just like there was a huge twngent about pedophilia earlier, but if you want to stop fine I've kind of said all I have to say on the issue and have thoroughly "absorbed" the other side's viewpoint and stuff.

Eh… I'm done with it anyway, I'm just repeating "Just because you are comfortable with all bathrooms being unisex doesn't mean everyone is" at this point