Child Marriage

[waltky]

Muslim-majority Malaysia decides not to criminalize child marriage...

Malaysia decides not to criminalize child marriage
Thu, Apr 06, 2017 - A Malaysian lawmaker said girls as young as nine were “physically and spiritually” ready for marriage, as the Muslim-majority Southeast Asian country passed a law on sexual offenses against children without criminalizing child marriage.

Shabudin Yahaya, a member of the Barisan Nasional coalition, made the comments in response to a proposal by opposition lawmaker Teo Nie Ching to amend the Sexual Offenses Against Children bill to include a ban on child marriages. The proposal was voted down by the majority of parliament. “They reach puberty at the age of nine or 12, and at that time their body is already akin to them being 18 years old. So physically and spiritually, it is not a barrier for the girl to marry,” Shabudin said on Tuesday during a debate on the bill. He also said there was “nothing wrong” with a rape victim marrying her rapist as she would then not face a “bleak future.”

Shabudin’s comments sparked outrage on social media, with some opposition politicians asking for him to be fired. Under both civil law and Islamic law, girls and boys younger than 18 can be married. Civil law sets the minimum age of marriage at 18, but those above 16 can be married with the permission of their state’s chief minister. Under Islamic law, children younger than 16 can get married if the Shariah courts allow it. The law passed on Tuesday makes no mention of child marriage.

It criminalizes “grooming” — touching and befriending children as a prelude to sexual abuse — and spells out penalties for making and possessing pornography involving those under 18. A special court will also be set up under the new law to deal with child sexual abuse cases more quickly. The maximum penalty under the law is a jail term of up to 30 years and six strokes of the whip for making, possessing or distributing child pornography. The new law comes into effect 10 months after British pedophile Richard Huckle was found guilty of abusing up to 200 babies and children, mostly in Malaysia.

Reuters reported last year that most complaints of child sexual abuse in Malaysia do not lead to successful prosecutions, largely due to weaknesses in the criminal justice system. Only 140 of the 12,987 cases of child sexual abuse reported to police between 2012 and July last year resulted in convictions. “The law is more stringent now ... but not enough,” Teo said. The legislator said offenders would use the absence of a ban on child marriages to get away with crimes, as marital rape is not a crime in Malaysia.

Malaysia decides not to criminalize child marriage - Taipei Times

[mr wonder]

Originally Posted by waltky

Muslim-majority Malaysia decides not to criminalize child marriage...

Malaysia decides not to criminalize child marriage
Thu, Apr 06, 2017 - A Malaysian lawmaker said girls as young as nine were “physically and spiritually” ready for marriage, as the Muslim-majority Southeast Asian country passed a law on sexual offenses against children without criminalizing child marriage.

sad.
To bad there are groups in the west that would love to do the same, not based on Islam, but based on the secular notion that there is "no harm" in childhood sexual activity.

UCLA professor of psychology Dr. Paul Okami: “More to the point, at least some people claim that their childhood sexual experiences with adults have advanced their sexual self-determination, not overwhelmed it. I’ve interviewed such people (Okami, 1991). So what do we do with these claims? . . . What is the true origin [of the hatred of pedeophilia]? I suspect that it is multiply determined, but the Western version probably has origins in the sexual heritage of St. Paul and St. Augustine, which characterizes sex as dangerous, dirty, sinful, ugly, destructive, and so forth (Rubin, 1984)” (Paul Okami, “The Dilemma of the Male Pedophile,” Archives of Sexual Behavior 31 [2002]: 473- 477, quoted in Fred S. Berlin, Wolfgang Berner, Vern L. Bullough, Alan F. Dixson, et al., “Peer Commentaries on Green (2002) and Schmidt (2002),” Archives of Sexual Behavior 31 [2002]: 492–3, 494).

Mean bigoted old Christianity says it's wrong though.
go figure.

[Surly]

My wife's grandmother got married off the reservation at about 12 years old. I say about because they all think she was younger. Her great grandfather was a preacher.

Originally Posted by mr. wonder

sad.
To bad there are groups in the west that would love to do the same, not based on Islam, but based on the secular notion that there is "no harm" in childhood sexual activity.

UCLA professor of psychology Dr. Paul Okami: “More to the point, at least some people claim that their childhood sexual experiences with adults have advanced their sexual self-determination, not overwhelmed it. I’ve interviewed such people (Okami, 1991). So what do we do with these claims? . . . What is the true origin [of the hatred of pedeophilia]? I suspect that it is multiply determined, but the Western version probably has origins in the sexual heritage of St. Paul and St. Augustine, which characterizes sex as dangerous, dirty, sinful, ugly, destructive, and so forth (Rubin, 1984)” (Paul Okami, “The Dilemma of the Male Pedophile,” Archives of Sexual Behavior 31 [2002]: 473- 477, quoted in Fred S. Berlin, Wolfgang Berner, Vern L. Bullough, Alan F. Dixson, et al., “Peer Commentaries on Green (2002) and Schmidt (2002),” Archives of Sexual Behavior 31 [2002]: 492–3, 494).

Mean bigoted old Christianity says it's wrong though.
go figure.

[mr wonder]

Originally Posted by Surly

My wife's grandmother got married off the reservation at about 12 years old. I say about because they all think she was younger. Her great grandfather was a preacher.

Ok so How many Christians today are promoting sex with children and child marriage Surly? A few christian cults. But Muslim courts and Secular psychologist and professors at UCLA, John Hopkins, and other major universities are pushing pedophilia in and outside of marriage. And Both groups point to Christians as a block to "progress"

So are you with the Christians against child marraige and pedophilia or not?

[GottaGo]

Originally Posted by Surly

My wife's grandmother got married off the reservation at about 12 years old. I say about because they all think she was younger. Her great grandfather was a preacher.

Just because you 'can" doesn't make it right.

What 12 (or younger) year old can make an informed decision as such, having thought through all the implications and impacts? No 12 year old that I have known.

Consent. Tricky little word, that.

[foundit66]

Originally Posted by mr. wonder

To bad there are groups in the west that would love to do the same, not based on Islam, but based on the secular notion that there is "no harm" in childhood sexual activity.

The harm is documentable.
Trying to pretend it's "groups" while quoting one psychology professor is transparent b.s.
There are some rare individuals (as compared to the whole) who try to proclaim such things, but the vast majority of the psychology experts condemn such pretense.

And of course there are some pedophile groups like "NAMBLA" (of unknown size) which push the issue but they are universally despised. Trying to pretend they will blindly gain a foothold and achieve acceptance has as less justification than proclaiming Christian groups that want to kill gays won't do the same.

What is more true is that there are people (such as yourself mr. wonder) who are more than willing to lie and exaggerate the interest in ignoring such harm to the child rape victim. Trying to pretend it's a bigger problem than it is.

[mr wonder]

Originally Posted by foundit66

The harm is documentable.
Trying to pretend it's "groups" while quoting one psychology professor is transparent b.s.
There are some rare individuals (as compared to the whole) who try to proclaim such things, but the vast majority of the psychology experts condemn such pretense.

And of course there are some pedophile groups like "NAMBLA" (of unknown size) which push the issue but they are universally despised. Trying to pretend they will blindly gain a foothold and achieve acceptance has as less justification than proclaiming Christian groups that want to kill gays won't do the same.

What is more true is that there are people (such as yourself mr. wonder) who are more than willing to lie and exaggerate the interest in ignoring such harm to the child rape victim. Trying to pretend it's a bigger problem than it is.

What's Clear is that you find it more troubling that I point out the presence of pedophilia promoting Academics and groups than the fact that they are they're and trying to become mainstream.


I'm not sure how many is enough for you. i suspect if i posted 1000 from various colleges and on various psych boards or in other parts of respectable academia, and in seats of law. that it wouldn't be enough. You'd "move the goal post" from the number and their credentials to your assessment of their effectiveness.... which seems to be.

...no need to worry until at least one law is changed. until then it only lying liars fearmongering about SOMEHOW admitted pedophiles being a danger to children ...

I mean how could pedophiles ever be a danger to children by trying to get the laws and med books changed or challenged?
It's the Lying Christians that want to make sure it NEVER happen that are the RAL problem right FI66?!

the thing is many Christians 40 years ago thought the possibility of legal homosexual marriage across the U.S. was crazy talk. Most people STILL don't agree with it but somehow the minority view has become law.
Imagine that. the minority view of it in academia changed 1st... with a few outliers.

But no worries FI66 says it's SO terrible that it will NEVER be allowed.. like in Malaysia and Afghanistan... right?
Like how Obama told the troops in Afghanistan to Ignore it. "don't ask don't tell"

It will never be legal in any way! FI66 says so! so we should NEVER talk about it or question the FACT.
FI66 has spoken

[mr wonder]

For the record

Richard Dawkins defends “mild pedophilia,” says it does not cause “lasting harm”
The (Atheist Evangelist) biologist and author described the sexual abuse that occurred among his former classmates as "mild touching up"
Richard Dawkins defends “mild pedophilia,” says it does not cause “lasting harm” - Salon.com


B4U-ACT is a small group of mental health professionals and pedophile activists who seek greater tolerance for “minor-attracted persons” (pedophiles). Indeed, those involved in the lobbying want to decriminalize, even normalize, pedophilia. They are working to change public perceptions so that raping children is acceptable behavior. Among the academics lending respectability to these efforts by speaking at the recent conference in Baltimore were researchers from Harvard University, Johns Hopkins University and the universities of Louisville and Illinois. The fringe activists promise to disrupt future meetings of the APA until they are successful in normalizing pedophilia...
.............


In 1976 the National Council for Civil Liberties, the respectable (and responsible) pressure group now known as Liberty, made a submission to parliament's criminal law revision committee. It caused barely a ripple. "Childhood sexual experiences, willingly engaged in with an adult," it read, "result in no identifiable damage … The real need is a change in the attitude which assumes that all cases of paedophilia result in lasting damage."
.... But if it is shocking to realise how dramatically attitudes to paedophilia have changed in just three decades, it is even more surprising to discover how little agreement there is even now among those who are considered experts on the subject.
A liberal professor of psychology who studied in the late 1970s will see things very differently from someone working in child protection, or with convicted sex offenders. There is, astonishingly, not even a full academic consensus on whether consensual paedophilic relations necessarily cause harm.

http://www.theguardian.com/society/2...-desires-light

...............

Journalist Judith Levine published a book called Harmful to Minors: The Perils of Protecting Children from Sex that featured a foreword by President Bill Clinton’s former Surgeon General Joycelyn Elders. Levin contends pedophilia is no big deal:

Pedophiles are not generally violent, if there is such thing as pedophiles at all. More important, sexual contact with a child does not a pedophile make...

...A 1998 study published in the Psychological Bulletin from the American Psychological Association makes this shocking statement:

One possible approach to a scientific definition, consistent with findings in the current review and with suggestions offered by Constantine (1981) , is to focus on the young person’s perception of his or her willingness to participate and his or her reactions to the experience. A willing encounter with positive reactions would be labeled simply adult-child sex, a value-neutral term. If a young person felt that he or she did not freely participate in the encounter and if he or she experienced negative reactions to it, then child sexual abuse, a term that implies harm to the individual, would be valid.

http://www.lifesitenews.com/news/ped...ell-parliament
..............................................

Many researchers taking a different view of pedophilia
Many researchers taking a different view of pedophilia - latimes

..........................................
The unintended consequences of laws addressing sex between teachers and students
http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinio...814_story.html
..............................................

The Sexual Revolution and Children, How the Left Took Things Too Far
The Sexual Revolution and Children: How the Left Took Things Too Far - SPIEGEL ONLINE

................................................

The Postmodern Pedophile
Meet the academics who try to redefine pedophilia as “intergenerational intimacy.”
The Postmodern Pedophile | Public Discourse
...Decrying “essentialist views of sexuality,” these writers attempt to remove the essentialist barriers of childhood. This opens the door for the postmodern pedophile to see such behavior as part of the politics of transgression. No longer deviants, they are simply postmodern “border crossers.”....
...In 1990, the Journal of Homosexuality published a double issue devoted to adult-child sex titled “Inter-generational Intimacy.” ...

..............................................

The scientist who shielded and enabled pedophiles
If you ever wondered how criminal penalties in the US for pedophilia transitioned for a time from extreme sentences to relatively short sentences, and how pedophiles from the late 1950s up until recent years were given revolving-door sentences only to target children again, you might wonder whose work guided those who drafted the Model Penal Code in 1955 that advanced the reduction of prison sentences for pedophiles and other sexual criminals.... The recommendation to reduce sentences for pedophiles and other sexual criminals was made along with civil libertarians by an atheist and an Indiana University scientist, Alfred C. Kinsey (1894-1956), .... the same Kinsey funded for years by the Rockefeller Foundation and by Hugh Hefner, the same Kinsey with a 1953 Time Magazine cover picture, the same Kinsey whose faulty science has been cited for decades by uncritical jurists in numerous major court, including US Supreme Court, decisions.....
Recent scholarship revealing Kinsey’s role in shielding pedophiles who carefully reported to Kinsey hundreds of victims....and in addition the compilation of biographic information on Kinsey that indicated his personal depravity involving his sexual harassment/coercion of members of his circle to participate in sexual film-making in his attic, and his particular topical interest in adult sex with children...
https://www.youtube.com/watchfea?v=htAUysRPvNs

seems to me there's sufficient cause for alarm,
HOWEVER others are free to disagree and PRETEND that these fringe secular academics have NO effect on law or culture.

Kinsey is exhibit A that shows otherwise.
no matter how firm you BELEIF might be to the contrary FI66.

[foundit66]

Originally Posted by mr. wonder

What's Clear is that you find it more troubling that I point out the presence of pedophilia promoting Academics and groups than the fact that they are they're and trying to become mainstream.

No.
What I care about is that you give an honest account.
Don't pull this crap where you slander the group when it's a few isolated bad eggs.

THAT is what I'm talking about.

And even then, to call this "pedophilia promoting Academics and groups" is just grotesquely dishonest.
They are not "promoting" pedophilia.

Some question the approach on pedophilia studies and whether it is scientific or whether it incorporates social bias approaches.
Some question rare situations where child molestation victims recover and become stronger.

Some cross the lines that we both agree should not be crossed.
The problem is you try to exaggerate their existence. You try to imagine them having absurd impacts to legalize child molestation.
I refuse such hysteria.

Originally Posted by mr. wonder

I'm not sure how many is enough for you. i suspect if i posted 1000 from various colleges and on various psych boards or in other parts of respectable academia, and in seats of law.

You couldn't post 1,000 professors or psychologists who are actually promoting child molestation.
And you won't be honest about that either.

Originally Posted by mr. wonder

I mean how could pedophiles ever be a danger to children by trying to get the laws and med books changed or challenged?

The laws will not get changed.
The harm is documented and real.

"challenged" is meaningless. Virtually anybody can "challenge" anything.
"change"? The honest recognition is that it won't change because child rape harms kids.

Originally Posted by mr. wonder

It's the Lying Christians that want to make sure it NEVER happen that are the RAL problem right FI66?!

Did I say that?
No.

Originally Posted by mr. wonder

the thing is many Christians 40 years ago thought the possibility of legal homosexual marriage across the U.S. was crazy talk.

And here we are back to this mindless drivel of yours where a completely unrelated subject had something that you can't comprehend happen, and therefore you mindlessly think ANYTHING that you don't think could happen actually could happen.


You lost gay marriage because gay marriage harms nobody. There has never been any intelligible demonstration of any such harm.
CHILD RAPE HARMS KIDS.
That's a documentable harm.


But you keep mocking the situation and failing to appreciate what people are really saying.
Far easier for you to joust at strawman and immediately go to moving the goalposts rather than anything else.

[foundit66]

Originally Posted by mr. wonder

I'm not sure how many is enough for you. i suspect if i posted 1000 from various colleges and on various psych boards or in other parts of respectable academia, and in seats of law.

Originally Posted by foundit66

You couldn't post 1,000 professors or psychologists who are actually promoting child molestation.
And you won't be honest about that either.

I'm going to start each post by repeating what the bar is here.
Cause we both know you're immediately going to try to move it.

Originally Posted by mr. wonder

Richard Dawkins defends “mild pedophilia,” says it does not cause “lasting harm”
The (Atheist Evangelist) biologist and author described the sexual abuse that occurred among his former classmates as "mild touching up"
Richard Dawkins defends “mild pedophilia,” says it does not cause “lasting harm” - Salon.com

This is not promoting pedophilia.
Saying it does not cause "lasting harm" is not saying that it does NOT cause harm. It is ADMITTING there is harm that is caused.

If a man is punched in the face, the black eye will heal. It will not cause lasting harm.
That IS NOT advocating punching people in the face.

Originally Posted by mr. wonder

B4U-ACT is a small group of mental health professionals and pedophile activists who seek greater tolerance for “minor-attracted persons” (pedophiles). Indeed, those involved in the lobbying want to decriminalize, even normalize, pedophilia.

This is a blatant lie.

The sponsor of the event, B4U-ACT, a support group aimed at preventing pedophiles from acting on their attraction to children, hopes to influence the relevant entry in the upcoming revision of the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders.
....
Richard Kramer, director of B4U-ACT, argues that the panel of experts responsible for the revision “represents only the narrow field of sex offender assessment and treatment.” He believes it’s important to also represent minor-attracted folks who have not offended and would like to keep it that way: “[The panel] bases its work almost exclusively on assumptions about, and research on, sex offenders, who do not represent minor-attracted people in the general population,” he wrote me in an email. “As a result, the DSM includes inaccurate and misleading information and ignores the existence of minor-attracted people who are law-abiding.”

This is about helping people who are attracted to children to help them not act upon those urges.
It would be like you trying to label Alcoholics Anonymous as a group that wants to legalize drunk driving, when what they want is to prevent alcoholics from drinking.

Originally Posted by mr. wonder

In 1976 the National Council for Civil Liberties, the respectable (and responsible) pressure group now known as Liberty, made a submission to parliament's criminal law revision committee. It caused barely a ripple.

Oh gawd. Nothing happened from it.
Why hasn't somebody released the nukes after nothing happened from it?


And another truth you won't admit to is that while that happened 40 years ago, the NCCL has since apologized for that.

Shami Chakrabarti, the former director of Liberty, issued an apology about the links between the NCCL and the PIE. In December 2013, she said: "It is a source of continuing disgust and horror that even the NCCL had to expel paedophiles from its ranks in 1983 after infiltration at some point in the 70s."[24][25]

Many researchers taking a different view of pedophilia
Many researchers taking a different view of pedophilia - latimes

..........................................
The unintended consequences of laws addressing sex between teachers and students
http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinio...814_story.html
..............................................

The Sexual Revolution and Children, How the Left Took Things Too Far
The Sexual Revolution and Children: How the Left Took Things Too Far - SPIEGEL ONLINE

Good grief man.
If you're not even going to bother quoting the article, there is no point in me responding to your onslaught of link diarrhea.

Originally Posted by mr. wonder

The Postmodern Pedophile
Meet the academics who try to redefine pedophilia as “intergenerational intimacy.”
The Postmodern Pedophile | Public Discourse
...Decrying “essentialist views of sexuality,” these writers attempt to remove the essentialist barriers of childhood. This opens the door for the postmodern pedophile to see such behavior as part of the politics of transgression. No longer deviants, they are simply postmodern “border crossers.”....
...In 1990, the Journal of Homosexuality published a double issue devoted to adult-child sex titled “Inter-generational Intimacy.” ...

David Thorstadt wrote something.
You get points for finally talking about somebody who is actually pro-pedophilia, but this guy is not a professor.
He's not a psychologist.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Thorstad

He has been working on this crap for over 40 years and can you show me ANY ACTUAL LAW he has changed?


So yeah.
Throw all the stones you want at David Thorstad and the NAMBLA members.
I will join you in that.
But DO NOT try to pretend they have any real influence on academia or psychologists.

Originally Posted by mr. wonder

The scientist who shielded and enabled pedophiles
If you ever wondered how criminal penalties in the US for pedophilia transitioned for a time from extreme sentences to relatively short sentences, and how pedophiles from the late 1950s up until recent years were given revolving-door sentences only to target children again, you might wonder whose work guided those who drafted the Model Penal Code in 1955 that advanced the reduction of prison sentences for pedophiles and other sexual criminals.... The recommendation to reduce sentences for pedophiles and other sexual criminals was made along with civil libertarians by an atheist and an Indiana University scientist, Alfred C. Kinsey (1894-1956), .... the same Kinsey funded for years by the Rockefeller Foundation and by Hugh Hefner, the same Kinsey with a 1953 Time Magazine cover picture, the same Kinsey whose faulty science has been cited for decades by uncritical jurists in numerous major court, including US Supreme Court, decisions.....
Recent scholarship revealing Kinsey’s role in shielding pedophiles who carefully reported to Kinsey hundreds of victims....and in addition the compilation of biographic information on Kinsey that indicated his personal depravity involving his sexual harassment/coercion of members of his circle to participate in sexual film-making in his attic, and his particular topical interest in adult sex with children...
https://www.youtube.com/watchfea?v=htAUysRPvNs
[/INDENT]

You are actually quoting a youtube video as evidence...

Jesus Christ.

Lots of people have lied about Kinsey over the years. Lots of people have bemoaned the fact that he actually talked about a subject that some would prefer ignorance of.
But he has done nothing to help encourage pedophilia...

Reisman even alleges Kinsey was a pedophile himself, and today, Concerned Women for America claims on its website that Kinsey "aided and abetted the molestation of hundreds of children in order to obtain data on 'child sexuality.'"

The Kinsey Institute rejects these claims, while admitting that the doctor's work may offend some. John Bancroft, who ended his directorship in 2004, offered this response:

[Kinsey] obtained information about children's sexual responses from a few of his adult male research subjects, one in particular, who had been involved in sexual activity with children. Resiman [sic] is entitled to disagree with Kinsey's use of such evidence; she is entitled to the opinion that no researcher should obtain information from a sexual offender without reporting it to the police; she is entitled to question the validity of such evidence; but she is not entitled to make the allegations of criminal behavior on Kinsey's part. He did not promote this activity; he did not train anyone to carry out such observations; neither Kinsey nor any of his research team was involved in any sexual experiments on children; and none of them was in any sense, a pedophile.

Why Alfred Kinsey Was Controversial - Business Insider

Originally Posted by mr. wonder

seems to me there's sufficient cause for alarm,
HOWEVER others are free to disagree and PRETEND that these fringe secular academics have NO effect on law or culture.
Kinsey is exhibit A that shows otherwise.
no matter how firm you BELEIF might be to the contrary FI66.

Kinsey is exhibit A for you...

His book was published in 1948.
Almost 70 years later, is child molestation no longer a crime?