Talk:Perverted Justice

From RationalWiki
Jump to: navigation, search

My eventual goal of this article is to make it so critical of Perverted Justice that we get on their list of "Pedophile-supporting websites". Just for kicks. --Star of David.png Radioactive afikomen Please ignore all my awful pre-2014 comments. 13:04, 16 May 2008 (EDT)

Cheers, I am not a big fan of vigilantism, and there seems to be some pretty strong vibes of entrapment and civil rights violations that regular law enforcement could not get away with. Standing up for the rights of the more potentially abhorrent criminals is the true test of rule of law. tmtoulouse torment 15:28, 16 May 2008 (EDT)
Aren't "illegal" and "vigilante" redundant? How about just one or the other? Cranial Suppositorypull your head out of your ass 15:45, 16 May 2008 (EDT)
They are almost synonymous, but not necessarily, I think. humanUser talk:Human 15:52, 16 May 2008 (EDT)
Depends what the law is regarding vigilantism...WazzaHello? Is there anybody in there? Just nod if you can hear me... 09:44, 5 December 2008 (EST)
Not seeing this as entrapment and if vigilantism is bad, should we not have super hero comics? Better tell this to batman, he's a bad influence on people. Breaking the law which can often times be stringent in catching actual criminals (people that ARE dangerous) because of all the red tape. What about anonymous? What about people who have become heros for saving someones life because they didn't follow protocol Shatto (talk) 17:27, 17 April 2015 (UTC)
Bringing up comic books to support Real Life legal issues isn't exactly helping your argument. You want to know why Batman wouldn't work in the real world? What evidence do the cops have he didn't tamper with evidence? Batman just brings them a guy, brings them some evidence, says he's the one who did it, and a court is just supposed to convict because he's Batman? OJ Simpson went free partially because a cop may have contaminated the evidence. That's why there's a chain of responsibility and that's why cops are supposed to keep things sealed and documented as much as possible. And if anyone questions that, the officers themselves can be called to the stand and questioned about how they obtained the evidence, if their methods were legal, and if they might have only looked for evidence that supported their own pet theory on the case to the exclusion of anything else. So we have PJ here, which has claimed that it stores and encrypts everything so that chat transcripts couldn't possibly have been altered...and they've never actually done anything to confirm that. We're just supposed to take their word that they didn't alter the transcripts. Considering that the only reason their cases aren't considered entrapment is that they don't initiate the encounter, that's something worth looking into. It gets even worse if you consider the people they talk to who don't show up but who the cops still went and arrested. --User:PsychoGecko 8:32, 30 September 2015 (UTC)


Some concerns have been raised that in attacking PJ's entrapment we might have strayed into rationalizing paedophilia, or rather, doing so enough to have caused offence (since obviously any action can be rationalized, even if the reason given is "because my dog told me to do it, and I never ignore the instructions of the backwards god") WazzaHello? Is there anybody in there? Just nod if you can hear me... 09:44, 5 December 2008 (EST)

First, your edit was actually an improvement to my words, so far as this article is concerned. As far as 'rationalising paedophilia', look: if we want to criticise PJ, we have to deny the belief system that prevents criticism of such actions, which is that any man that contemplates sex with an underage girl is unspeakably evil. That's what I meant when I added that sentence. Fall down
For Christs's sake, man--can't you worry about starving kids in Africa or landmine victims or something? Why do we need to get involved with the plight of a bunch of middle-aged men at their computer screens with their pants around their ankles chatting with "sxygrl69?" What the fuck? Do we need this? What the hell is wrong with you? Certainly in the giant cesspool that is the internet you can find a site that will be more welcoming to you and your twisted views on women? PFoster 10:21, 5 December 2008 (EST)
So we shouldn't talk about some issue solely because there are more important ones? That's absurd, and it's not how debate works in a free society. Suppose it weren't about 'paedophilia'. Suppose it were just about anything else. You wouldn't be saying the same things then, would you? Fall down
Maybe. Depends on the issue. I just have to wonder about the politics behind trying to interrogate our attitudes toward the topic. You want to to take the hight road and do a Foucauldian analysis of the role of sexuality in creating discourses of power and social control, I'm all ears. But I doubt you've read much Foucault. You've established yourself as a misogynist. You've argued that "sexual frustration" should play a role in deciding the culpability of online predators. You think Wikipedia is too harsh on the topic. Not interested in discussing any of this with you, or in having this community be a forum for your views. PFoster 10:42, 5 December 2008 (EST)
Well, I guess we know who's won the argument, then. Fall down— Unsigned, by: God hates haters / talk / contribs

These guys creep me out[edit]

I saw the guy who created PJ on TV once... He spends 12-15 hours a day alone in his hotel room on his laptop pretending to be a horny 15 year-old girl, begging older men to have sex with him. Then when he convinces lonely men with a borderline potention for pedophilia to jump off the fence, he hires ABC to bring in their cameras and arrest the guy. Then he goes back to his hotel room and pretends to be a horny 15 year-old girl again. And he does it with such furvor and passion that it's just... creepy. There's no other word to describe it. And I wish I were exaggerating, but that's pretty much what the news story made him out to be.

Don't get me wrong, I think it's wrong for older men to seduce girls in chatrooms and try to have sex with them, but this guy is a closet pot painting the gray kettle black. Or something. JazzMan 12:44, 5 December 2008 (EST)

That's fucked up. It's just outright wrong to pose as someone else online and try to seduce someone. I think we should find this guy's profile and have someone be bait, then when they "meet" complete with cameras, you replace your bait with an underage girl and then see who's the high and mighty. ArmondikoVbomination 13:20, 5 December 2008 (EST)
HA HA HA. I can picture it now: two different camera crews and two different police departments trying to figure out who to arrest. "No I swear, I'm the old perv pretending to be a 15 year old, don't believe a word he says!"
On a more serious note, how is this not entrapment? I realize he's not the police, but police do this kind of thing all the time. I never quite understood how you could be arrested for something you didn't actually do -- it's like buying a bag of powdered sugar from a cop then being arrested for intent to by cocaine. You might have wanted to break the law, and you might be a law-breaking type of person, but the police didn't actually catch you breaking the law. JazzMan 14:27, 5 December 2008 (EST)
I agree with Jazz. When these admittedly problematic men turn up for their "date", there is no underage person present in order for the alleged crime to occur. It sort of comes down to "we are going to bust you for what you might possibly be tempted into doing if it were really easy..." Creepy. I'd rather see the energy going into something like pedophiles anonymous for therapy, honest relocation efforts, etc. ħumanUser talk:Human 20:58, 5 December 2008 (EST)
Precisely what I meant. There's no reason to believe that men caught through this entrapment are 'sexual predators' in the plain sense of the phrase. Fall down
No, I am not agreeing with you, based on many things you have written here. I am just saying that this style of "prosecution" might be entrapment. You have typed on this wiki a thing about frustrated men being "normally" attracted to 13-15 year old girls. I am sorry, but no matter how "frustrated" I might be (and I was in many phases of my adult life), never, never, ever, would I consider it "OK" to release that passion on an underage girl. Or boy. You're banging the wrong drum here, sorry. ħumanUser talk:Human 04:39, 6 December 2008 (EST)
And I'm sure you never masturbated, either. Fall down — Unsigned, by: And the devil blue / talk / contribs
No, masturbation is what most people do in that situation (I presume). Having sex with an underage girl is not the same as masturbation. You seem to be implying that masturbation and having sex with an underage girl are equivalent, as though you see young girls as nothing more than some sort of fleshlight. WazzaHello? Is there anybody in there? Just nod if you can hear me... 02:04, 7 December 2008 (EST)
If I believed that, I would apply it to women of any age, of course. But that was not my intention: the comparison I was making was in moral sanctimony. That is, a (heterosexual) man that claim he would NEVER, in any plausible circumstances, consider sex with an underage girl is the same hypocrisy as the man that declaims against masturbation and says that he would never do such an awful thing. Fall down
Of course I masturbate, you idiot (fall down). Although in my later years I have the luxury of mostly fantasizing about sex with people who I have actually had sex with, even if the fantasy were about someone who has no interest in me, that does not affect them. It is a private affair - unless I were to let my fantasies color my real life interactions with them. Anyway, are you equating masturbation with being attracted to immature persons? Idiot. Disgusting idiot. ħumanUser talk:Human 02:24, 7 December 2008 (EST)
Now that's the kind of rhetoric I consider irrational. Calling me an 'idiot' is no argument at all. Fall down — Unsigned, by: And the devil blue / talk / contribs
Actually, my simple response saying "yes I do" pretty much demolishes your "argument". Which first was put forward as a question with no point. ħumanUser talk:Human 02:40, 7 December 2008 (EST)

(unindent) There's a big difference between considering it, even fantasising about it, and actually doing it. So long as the only person involved is you, by definition no one can get hurt. But actually going out and meeting an underage person for the purpose of having sex with them is a crime. The problem here is that people are being led into it so we can't be sure they wouldn't do it without that leading and there's no actual crime committed when they're arrested. What they're doing still isn't right. Masturbation, on the other hand, hurts no one and therefore is tolerated. You're drawing a comparison between considering sex and masturbating, we're drawing the comparison between actually going out and having sex with an underage girl and masturbating. Do you see why we think they're so different?

Also, Human is being perfectly rational in calling you an idiot. You are one. WazzaHello? Is there anybody in there? Just nod if you can hear me... 04:54, 7 December 2008 (EST)

I am quite aware that there is a difference. However, the difference is only a matter of degree: if one contemplates doing something then one would, under some conceivable circumstances, do it.
Also (again), I never said that masturbation is equivalent to sex with an underage person, only that people's reactions to them can be justly compared. Fall down
You seem to know a lot about the subject - are all your interests oriented towards perversion or only where women & kids are concerned? Fortinbrass 10:13, 7 December 2008 (EST)
"if one contemplates doing something then one would, under some conceivable circumstances, do it" - I would counterassert that this assertion is not true. Also, your comparison regarding people's reactions doesn't hold water. Typical modern reaction to mention of masturbation: giggles, smiles, more mentions of same and usually some good-natured jokes. Typical modern reaction to the act of child molestation: shock, horror, and disgust. And, oh, arrest and probable imprisonment. ħumanUser talk:Human 18:49, 7 December 2008 (EST)
I meant to compare the (public) reaction that people have toward statutory rape today with the (public) reaction that people had toward masturbation in the past, not today. As for my assertion, while it isn't really testable, it makes more sense than the contrary, and your denial of it can be explained as false more easily than can my affirmation of it. Fall down — Unsigned, by: Just a man / talk / contribs
Well, that makes no sense, and you also failed to make that comparison before. No, your assertion does not make more sense than the contrary, you idiot. I might flare in anger and contemplate murdering someone I dislike for a few minutes. Does that mean I would ever do it? Of course not. And that's not even a good example, just an extreme one. Why don't you just go away, since you utterly fail to even present your "case" clearly? — Unsigned, by: Human / talk / contribs
That is a good example, actually. There are two reasons it isn't persuasive: first, you mentioned that you might think of such only in anger and abandon it after you calm down. Since a fit of anger is basically a partial leave of one's senses, the things one might contemplate at such a time are not identical to those one might contemplate at normal times. Second, are you sure you would never kill such a person? Even if you knew you wouldn't be punished and in fact the killing would be approved of by society? Are you really sure? Fall down
And you have to tell all your neighbors where you live and you have to tell the government where you live once every year and your picture will be on the internet FOREVER along with your home address. You can kill a person with fewer repercussions. JazzMan 20:54, 7 December 2008 (EST)
And there you have my biggest problem with the sex offender registry. SirChuckBPenguin Knight, First Class 21:15, 7 December 2008 (EST)
I read a couple of stories a little while back about a bunch of people--men and women--who were arrested after streaking a football game or some such thing; as public nudity/indecent exposure is considered a "sex crime" in whatever godforsaken state it happened in, if guilty they may have to register as sex offenders. Just stupid. PFoster 21:27, 7 December 2008 (EST)
Yeah, that's pretty huge in Denver.... I know one big problem was that the law enacted to strengthen sex offender the sex offender registry had some nasty side effects. There are a bunch of people in town that got ticketed for taking a piss in an alley who were forced to register. Throw in these idiotic laws that allow apartments, businesses, and mortgage loaners to openly discriminate against people no the registry and several of them have had to quit jobs, move out of their homes and all kinds of other shit. People have been complaining about it for years, but no politician wants to take the political risk of appearing soft on sex offenders. SirChuckBPenguin Knight, First Class 02:08, 8 December 2008 (EST)
Yes, it is stupid and unjust. But why do you think it happens? It happens because no one can publicly criticise such laws without being labeled a paedophile apologist or potential rapist, etc. - in other words because of the climate created by people like you. Fall down — Unsigned, by: Just a man / talk / contribs
Um, yeah, people here seem to be able to. Your misogynist and hateful presentation, however, moves no-one to emphasize with your "cause". Why is it that this is the only issue you find important on our site? Oh, yeah, child molestation and woman-hating. Two issues. Nice work. ħumanUser talk:Human 01:52, 8 December 2008 (EST)
Falldown, there are at least four people who have chimed in in opposition to the SOR, so I don't know who this no one is, and B, you're a fucking idiot, do you know that? You're just about as dumb as that Jinx fellow who used to come around here. SirChuckBPenguin Knight, First Class 02:08, 8 December 2008 (EST)
Yes, people have have stated their opposition to it, but politicians can't. That's the point; if everyone had the attitudes you've shown toward sex offender laws, they wouldn't exist.
And, Human, it's not the only issue I find important. The reason Idon't spend time here discussing other issues is first, that I'm blocked, and second, that I know it wouldn't get anywhere with you because of your left-wing dogmatism. Fall down

(unindent) Don't get me wrong, I am in full support of the early Sex offender laws and even support the original idea of the sex offender registry. There are truly dangerous people out there, and while I like to believe that nobody is past rehabilation, some people don't want to be helped and they will remain predators. The problem I have is the corruption of the laws for political game (Denver is huge on politicians "strengthening" laws for cheap political points) and the opening of what should have been a government list of dangers for public access. I will also take the time to answer for Human, Several users hold Conservative viewpoints Helpjazz stands out as a shinging example. The difference is, they express them intelligently and don't go around spouting sexist drivel in the place of Rational thought. SirChuckBPenguin Knight, First Class 03:48, 8 December 2008 (EST)

Well, it's a slippery slope as you should see. There are rather few of those 'dangerous predators' you speak of, and I don't believe it's worth infringing the freedom of a much larger class in order to deal with it. Lastly I don't consider any of my writing 'drivel' - I ensure that it is all based on intelligent reflection and I never use ad hominem arguments. Fall down


We need a template for "Warning: Human discusses his masturbation habits herein. Flee."--Tom Moorefiat justitia ruat coelum 21:03, 7 December 2008 (EST)

Minor edit[edit]

I thought it appropriate to add some information about where this lot are from Silvermute 05:01, 4 April 2009 (EDT)

Diaper fetish O_O?[edit]

quote "As when the founder mocked one of his critics for having a known diaper fetish, calling it "sick"."... wow that sound kinky.Waronstupidity (talk) 15:36, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

Free Will[edit]

Quite honestly, I don't see the "entrapment", because of the biggest issue here: free will. Many accuse Perverted Justice of entrapment, as they urge and beg and plead sometimes to convince the sexual predators (paedophilia is not always being a sexual predator, or vice versa, and paedophilia is a psychological diagnosis, not an actual crime, nor is the incorrect spelling, pedophilia, which, due to the real meaning of the pedo- part (if you haven't realized yet, think about what a pedometer does) being foot, means foot lover, while paedophilia is child lover), the thing is, they still had free will. Nobody aimed a gun at their head, nobody drugged them, and in general, they were not forced. To me, attempting to convince someone is not the same as forcing them, as, unless you have Jesse Custer's "Word of God" ability from the comic book "Preacher", you do not have the ability to control minds with your voice. They have free will, and the ability to say no, cut off contact, or just continue to refuse. If they are unable to refuse due to their own brain, they are already a danger. I will not deny that many paedophiles are harmless, as they know it is wrong, and they control themselves. Nobody who they catch is like that, as they have proven they will give in to their urges. Perverted Justice does not make it impossible to escape, they make it closer to reality, and if the person shows they would, if the child was real, molest them, then it is hard to argue that they are not a danger. These people could willingly cut off contact, or continue to refuse to go, but they do not. They have shown in their exercise of free will that they are a danger to others. PosthumanHeresy 18:25, 25 April 2013/April 25th, 2013.

Borderline illegal?[edit]

Just a comment - there is nothing illegal (or borderline illegal) about What PJ does. If this is a reference to entrapment, then the police would be guilty of that. It is impossible for a private citizen to commit entrapment. From a legal perspective, there is nothing wrong with pretending to be a kid online and forwarding the chat logs to the police. — Unsigned, by: / talk / contribs

I made an account just so I could echo this. There's no entrapment here. Not only does the "only cops can entrap" issue apply, but there's another important factor. If someone takes positive, definite, willing act to do something illegal, then there is no entrapment. If a cop forces, tricks, goads, coerces, or otherwise does something to make a suspect do something illegal that they wouldn't have done otherwise, then it's entrapment. When a private citizen does the same thing, it's also illegal, only a different crime by a different name (e.g. Criminal conspiracy? I have no idea).
In all of these cases, all PeeJ did was make an enticing target available in a public chat room, waited for someone else to, initiate a conversation about sex. Let them know the decoy was under the legal age of consent, and then wait for the suspect to not only ask for sex; but to make arrangements to have sex in such detail as to include time and place.
So, to be exposed by PeeJ, you have to do a few things: go into a public, non-sexual chat room, find a minor, talk about sex with a minor, then arrange Toronto a minor's home to have sex with that mi or, then finally go there. That's not entrapment. Entrapment (or the civilian equivalent) would be if they went online and told someone "there's a 15 year old girl alone at this house. You better fucking go to fuck her or I'm gonna kick your ass!"QuiteLizardly (talk) 18:01, 29 February 2016 (UTC)
True, dat. Scream!! (talk) 22:41, 9 April 2014 (UTC)
I'm no pedophilephile, but it's very creepy how people lower their standards of justice and legality when it comes to child predators. I remember one episode where a guy drove to the house, didn't get out, and tried to drive off. The guy wasn't going to go through with it, but they arrested him at a police checkpoint anyway. Apparently that's what the checkpoint is there for, to catch the ones who don't stop to go in the house. Then there's the case of William Conradt, an assistant DA. He didn't go to the house, even after they kept calling him three times. So at the suggestion of Chris Hanson, cops and the film crew went to the guys house to get him there. The guy blew his own brains out. I'd argue that if they're willing to talk up how much they work with police, then they are open to charges of entrapment. Really, what you've got here is the James O'Keefe of the online child predators. They just don't get called out on it because they're targeting a group everyone hates. --User:PsychoGecko 18:19, 18 November 2014 (UTC)
He likely "blew his own brains out" because these fuckers don't want to go to jail and are looking for an out, not remorseful for what they did. Just watched an episode where one guy did go into the house, kept saying he was sorry and then when he went in for questioning he tried to stab himself with the pen. These aren't "normal" people with just a fetish for children, a hell of a lot of them have many other issues as well and it's best to get them sooner rather than later when it has happened and some poor child is now suffering because of it. In another episode this guy simply said "oops" when he was caught and said he'd never do it again, his trial was drawn out and long story short, 8 months later was back online doing it again, using the same name and got busted again by dateline, when Chris saw him the guy was just like "oops" again. Another man was wanted for 11 years for similar acts and soliciting children and raping a child family member, he got caught. These guys don't get to get off just cause they didn't actually break any law yet, they have the very unmistakable intent to. As others have said, they are exercising their own free will, they could stop chatting at any time, not send pictures exposing themselves, not show up to a house even if they are too fucking cowardly to do it simply because they might get caught. That's the issue here, most men aren't scared to go through with it because they don't want to or know it's wrong but because they know it's illegal and they could face prison. Why wait till the damage is done, the mistake is made and some child is suffering because of it, to do something? Preventive measures is almost always better.
it's very creepy how people lower their standards of justice and legality when it comes to child predators.
Since being online I see a fuck ton of pedophile and child porn enablers and that is what's very creepy. Shatto (talk)
I'm not talking about child porn enablers. I'm talking about legal standards. There are standards in law that are there for a reason, and it's only right to be worried if people start lowering them because of terrorism, child predation, or illegal immigration. If we start lowering the bar just for child predators because the crime hits a visceral nerve, then we clearly aren't treating the situation very rationally. For instance, judges actually have had problems with these cases, believing them to be cases of entrapment. You even have one of these stings where PJ didn't turn over evidence or provide witnesses for some reason. We don't know why, but that probably wouldn't have happened if it had been actual law enforcement involved in that side of the operation who are accountable to the public. Plus, take that checkpoint for example. They arrest people who happen to be driving near a certain house just because they have wine coolers and condoms? Even if they let the guy go because he was going to have sex with a consenting adult in one of the many other houses in the area, it's still on the record that he got arrested for solicitation of a minor. Insurance companies and employers will ask about that and can terminate a person if they didn't mention it. Plus, you have to admit it's kinda creepy that Perverted Justice is essentially posting their own dirty chat transcripts of what's supposed to be a minor talking with a child predator. In an effort to expose child predators, they're actually posting their own kiddie porn fanfics. If someone molests a kid, they should be arrested and tried, but it shouldn't be by a potential James O'Keefe. They should at least get the same level of legal rights as someone accused of murder. --User:PsychoGecko 8:19, 30 September 2015 (UTC)

Hey Caitlin here,[edit]

The guy that made this I disagree with EXTREMLY. Pervs are pervs, if you make a sexual advance towards a 15 year old and your over 18 you are sick, twisted, and selfish. 15 year olds are not ready nor capable of understanding the emotional and physical ties you get being a child having sex.

_________ — Unsigned, by: Cfreckss1818 / talk / contribs

Hey Caitlin:

  1. On average, when a girl is 13 years old, her IQ on an adult intelligence test will be in the normal range.
  2. The age of consent in Germany is 14. The age of consent in Uruguay is 12. The age of consent in Spain has traditionally been 13 and still is although it is in a limbo. The age of consent in Canada was 14 until a few years ago when the USA made them raise it.
  3. Phalometric studies, which measure male sexual arousal by penile blood volume, reveal that over 80% of males are just as sexually attracted to pubescent 12 year olds as they are to 18 year olds
  4. Evolutionary psychology theory strongly supports point 3, as males who reproduced with the full range of fertile females were far more likely to pass their genetics on, and to do so to a greater extent.
  5. The age of consent around the world was close to puberty up until the 1880's, when religious feminists groups invented the idea that it should be higher, originally done to lower prostitution rates
  6. Full sexual maturity, meaning tanner stage 5, is reached on average at age 14.5 in females, meaning that you cannot differentiate between a 14.5 year old girl and an 18 year old girl, based on sexual development
  7. About 25% of adult females will never pass tanner stage 4, which is reached on average around 13 years old.
  8. Underage teenagers also fall into the normal range of adult height and weight, although more so toward the petite side of normal
  9. Tons of underage teenagers are having sex with each other and with adults and turning out perfectly fine, and your entire argument is based on made up bullshit that you have been brainwashed into believing and which has not a shred of legitimate evidence supporting it
  10. The brain of a human continues to develop until they are 25 years old, so you cannot use the lack of a mature brain to argue that a 15 year old cannot consent to sex but an 18 or even 24 year old can, and also see point 1 which shows that 13 year old brains support normal adult intelligences.

Also, keep in mind that there are a lot of people who are very intent on lying about the facts, distorting reality, and doing whatever they have to do to manipulate your perception of the world. There is an organized movement to demonize and criminalize empirically demonstrated as normal male sexual behavioral patterns. These people are filthy liars, and they have tried to infiltrate every group of significant power they are capable of infiltrating, in order to further their male hating agenda of bullshit. A prime example of this was their failed coup of the field of Psychology, in which their agents attempted to have sexual attraction to pubescent 12-14 year olds labeled as a mental illness called "hebephilia". Thankfully this attempt was REJECTED, and hebephilia is not a recognized mental disorder in the DSM, and the MAJORITY opinion of mental health professionals is that being sexually attracted to teenagers is NORMAL, and the opinion of the majority of people in dozens of first world countries from Germany to Italy to Uruguay is that it can be acceptable for an adult male to have sex with young teenagers!

18:05, 17 May 2014 (UTC) — Unsigned, by: / talk / contribs

MRA takes on perv persecutor. This is gonna take some time to dissect. (talk) 21:41, 14 April 2015 (UTC)
Alternately, take the "go phone your state rep about it" approach, which is my inclination. PacWalker 21:50, 14 April 2015 (UTC)
IQ tests are to determine mental retardation or issues learning, a normal 13 yr old girl will not have an issue. IQ is NOT a test for intelligence, so that's out. I can't find anything to support point #3. As for #4, of course females are sexually mature at around age 12-13 generally when they start menstruating, however would you consider a 9 yr old sexually mature? My mother started hers at just 9 years old. Genetically a male can just hump everything until something produces him children, that doesn't not mean he or the poor female are mentally mature enough to care for a child and be parents in our current society. Points 7 and 8 contradict. Underage teenagers tend to have taller parents which results in them being taller than average height for their gender.
My father was short, resulting in my height being that of my 12 yr old sister who is also 5'4", her father is 6 feet+. Height doesn't determine anything. Yes tons of teens are having underage sex, getting pregnant and struggling to get by in our current society. You're entirely missing the point. Sex is almost never the issue, it's what can result from having sex. You're trying to use old science and biology to justify pedophilia. I've found more studies that say you don't reach mental maturity untill your 30's or 40's, if you want more laws in place based on this, go right ahead. however states "So the changes that happen between 18 and 25 are a continuation of the process that starts around puberty, and 18 year olds are about halfway through that process. Their prefrontal cortex is not yet fully developed. That's the part of the brain that helps you to inhibit impulses and to plan and organize your behavior to reach a goal." so if at 18 you're only half way in brain maturity for goal planning and inhibiting impulsive behavior, why in the hell would you want to take a child whose brain is far less than half developed, and put them in a position where they could possibly end up pregnant and having to care for another person? Not to mention your first point is debunked. In other parts of the world the men stay at home and the women work or go hunting, in other places women are having their vagina's sewed up in the concept of being "pure" for their husbands, in other places cannibalism is perfectly acceptable, just because it's okay elsewhere doesn't mean it IS okay. If you want to argue this then I can perfectly argue how survival of the fittest should be our mantra and our current society is wrong, we're just animals after all.Shatto (talk) 17:28, 17 April 2015 (UTC)

Choose Someone Else[edit]

I just read your Philosophy tab and your example featuring Paul Short. I honestly feel that this guy is not the type of example that is needed for this article. Long story short (pun sorta intended), this guy is the creep extraordinaire, I had the misfortune of knowing him for about 7 months. While I admit that he was probably baited into being so straightforward with the undercover Perverted Justice vigilantes, I would not be at all surprised to hear those words come out of his mouth. I'm sorry that I don't have any objective evidence to back my claims (everything I know about this guy was from personal experience, and then I googled him and found all this), but in the precedent of other highly accurate articles on Rational Wiki, I don't feel that Paul Short is the best example to use for the purposes of this article: he is a legit creeper. Royals6 6:12, 13 May 2016 (UTC)