NationStates Jolt Archive

Here is the question I have. We observe that pedophilia tends to run in families as many pedophiles were at one time themselves the victim, usually a relative. My question is: Is the psychological connection masking a possible genetic connection? Anyone know of any studies that have tried to find the pedophile gene?

Fact is no one studies pedophiles seriously. Research into our condition simply isn't funded. And finding the pedophile gene is likely as finding the gay gene. It's probably a complex interaction between genetic predisposition and early experiences.

I don't spend a lot of time thinking about this issue, but its pretty hard to ignore when even in a small town, the number of "indecent liberties with a child" arrests appear in the news nearly daily.

I had a thought the other day that my 11 year old son has more freedom this summer, is on his bike alot, but not allowed to leave the neighborhood (which doesn't mean he won't). I just had this horrid thought that child molesters love that kind of thing. So I just said the boys, "Be careful...there might be child molesters in the bushes!" which brought cat calls and ribbing. It's a serious concern of mine, but I can't let my fears get out of control and become a burden to my son.

FYI, most child molesters are molesting their own kids. Almost all of them build trust before engaging in their sexual abuse. This is the case with adult rape as well, so it shouldn't come as such a surprise.

Child molesters aren't likely to be hiding in the bushes. They're more likely to invite the kids inside for some lemonade, and not rape them until they're sure the kids are so far inside their web that they'll feel complicit in the abuse and will be ashamed to tell you about it.

If you really want to keep your kids safe, don't perpetuate the myth that they're safe as long as they look out for strangers. Make sure you know about the people they are on friendly terms with too. Keep informed about their everyday activities and don't bring up child molesters again. It'll just make them think you're an idiot and will make them feel worse about telling you if something does happen.

Don't believe me? If you were a kid and your parents told you to wear your knee pads when riding a bike, you didn't, and you scraped your knee, how would you feel about telling them?

I want child molesters stopped as much as anyone. Maybe more, since their poor behavior, in addition to being morally reprehensible, reflects badly on me.

And yet, if something like that ever happened to one of the boys it would be almost as bad as if someone killed them. Ya know? That kind of thing rips a wound so deep and so vast that it never heals. I think it makes people fucking crazy. Any survivors care to comment on that?

I know survivors. It's that very idea that the wounds never heal that makes it so hard for them to. It's a self-fulfilling prophecy. If your kids (God forbid) ever end up in this situation, don't EVER let them think they won't get over it. Giving in to despair like that will only deepen the psychological trauma they have already experienced. You have to believe they'll get better if you ever want them to accomplish that.

Ok, now I have wander way off from my original question, so getting back around to that.... If we castrated convicted child molesters we would be killing two birds with one stone. Stone #1: we eliminate their sex drive, and Stone #2 They can't reproduce and pass that gene on....if there is one.

Is this just a nutso idea?
While the second one is an interesting idea, the first one is a falacy. Sex drive isn't eliminated by castration. Sexual arrousal is a mental process as much as a physical process. Even if it's harder to sustain an erection without your balls, there are other parts of the body that can be used (fingers and tongue to name a couple), and for a compulsive molester, they won't be deterred by even a lowered sex drive.
Which confirms what I was leaning towards before which is, since it's a gray area, better for us to be safe than sorry. Most of us can agree on 18 as a safe legal age so anything below that, it's possible, but risky. Thanks for clearing that up!
Actually, since a lot of people talk about how not ready 18-25 year olds can be, I propose that if we want to err on the side of caution, we should raise the AoC to 26. You want to be on the safe side, right?

You say you don't act on it. Just continue to do so. If you want to get mad at the society you're in about it, that's fine too. If I were you, I'd be in counseling. I'm not you and my issue is with people who have acted on it or are planning to.

Has anyone brought up Greek pedastry in this thread yet?

Considering it's been saying the same things since back when it was a "proven fact" that a black man does not and cannot reason the way a white man does, and that a woman does not and cannot reason the way a man does, I think we should try to use more evidence than the amount of time people have been saying things, shall we?
You've tried this one before, so let's actually play with it. I have named my sources in both the fields of human cognative development AND we have shown brain development on the physical side backs up said theories. Such theories have been tested, and re-tested. Do you have ONE SINGLE PAPER THAT SHOWS OTHERWISE?

You have, in the past, attemtepted to challenge the idea that children cannot reason like adults can, time to put your money were your mouth is.

Has anyone brought up Greek pedastry in this thread yet?

Ok?

That was 2-3 thousand years ago. Where does that fit in?

It's simple. If you have sexual urges regarding children then you are sick in the head. Use whatever terms you like, attribute it to environment, genetics, hell blame society or big government or religion if you want. You have to go to a shrink or get yourself medicated before you rationalise raping a child.

The point is, the easy course for you is to do what I say. It'll be much more difficult after you do something despicable to neatly stack all the index cards you use to approximate human thought. You're broken. No user servicable parts inside.

Ok?

That was 2-3 thousand years ago. Where does that fit in?

Well, if you're talking about pedophilia as a form of sexuality, its just as relevent as pedophilia today. If you're talking about pedophilia in a social context, then its also important. I don't support pedophilia, but it seems the vast majority of arguments against it on this thread are due to the issue of legality in modern, Western society rather than on the actual ethics surrounding it.

In ancient Greece, among other places (as well as in native contexts today), there was institutionalized pedophilia. Thus, from a position of cultural relativism, the statement that pedophilia is unequivocally bad across borders doesn't stand up to scrutiny.

You've tried this one before, so let's actually play with it. I have named my sources in both the fields of human cognative development AND we have shown brain development on the physical side backs up said theories. Such theories have been tested, and re-tested. Do you have ONE SINGLE PAPER THAT SHOWS OTHERWISE?

You have, in the past, attemtepted to challenge the idea that children cannot reason like adults can, time to put your money were your mouth is.
Are you reffering to the material on brain architecture? I'm afraid so little is known about the causal relationships between brain architecture and cognitive capability that regardless of any physiological changes in the brain (which I'm not denying happen) you can't show that those changes result in altered cognitive capabilities in the relevant areas of interest at hand.

As for cognitive development studies, you'll have to forgive me. I must've missed those sources. I'm more than willing to consider them, but the thread was pretty long when I came in, and while I've tried to address everthing relavent, I'm bound to have missed something.

You want me to provide a study showing children have the ability to reason? What exactly are the capacities you want this study to demonstrate? I've asked for a list of the required abilities for true conscent, and with those in hand I'll be able to find the studies you're looking for without providing a bunch of irrelevant material.

Well, if you're talking about pedophilia as a form of sexuality, its just as relevent as pedophilia today. If you're talking about pedophilia in a social context, then its also important. I don't support pedophilia, but it seems the vast majority of arguments against it on this thread are due to the issue of legality in modern, Western society rather than on the actual ethics surrounding it.

In ancient Greece, among other places (as well as in native contexts today), there was institutionalized pedophilia. Thus, from a position of cultural relativism, the statement that pedophilia is unequivocally bad across borders doesn't stand up to scrutiny.

The fact they justified it 2000 years ago doesn't make it anymore valid. We have references but no story behind them. Do we know those kids thought it was ok? Were they simply pleasure chattel?

People change over time. People don't like Pedophilia now. The fact there are references to the Greeks doesn't make it valid.

Then again society is brainwashing children to be stupid about it. :rolleyes:

Are you reffering to the material on brain architecture? I'm afraid so little is known about the causal relationships between brain architecture and cognitive capability that regardless of any physiological changes in the brain (which I'm not denying happen) you can't show that those changes result in altered cognitive capabilities in the relevant areas of interest at hand.
I CAN however show that children's brains do not 'light up' the way and adult brain does when exposed to a wide range of issues. Since we're talking about informed (adult ability) to consent, this suggests a very strong probablity that they are unable to think about the subject in the same way an adult can.

As for cognitive development studies, you'll have to forgive me. I must've missed those sources. I'm more than willing to consider them, but the thread was pretty long when I came in, and while I've tried to address everthing relavent, I'm bound to have missed something.
Again, Piaget's theories of cogantive development along with Skinner's theories. These are the two main camps if you will in the realm of child development about how children learn to reason and both of which state that the capasity for reason grows with the child as the child develops.

You want me to provide a study showing children have the ability to reason? What exactly are the capacities you want this study to demonstrate? I've asked for a list of the required abilities for true conscent, and with those in hand I'll be able to find the studies you're looking for without providing a bunch of irrelevant material.
To be able to provide consent, an adult must be in a possition to consider all consequenses of their actions, properly weigh said, act upon their own will without undue infulance, or at least have the ability to do so. Children lack experiance with the 1st, and the ability to fully consider the second. Or do you have anything that shows that a child is capable of reasoning as an adult?

Kids used to work too, that's bad form as well.
Loads of people used to die from infected cuts up until 70 years ago.
Society thought nothing of parents disciplining the shit out of their kids, now you'll get locked up for it.

The problem in my mnd is coercion.

I could accept that preference for children is just one more sexual fetish or even a sexual orientation. I could accept that there's nothing inherenty wrong with an adult and a child having sex. What I can't accept is that there is any way to remove coercion from the equation. There is simply no way to know whether each child is capable of understanding the ramifications of his or her actions AND is capable of giving consent AND is not being coerced or cowed by adult authority.

It's just not possible. I have to view each case as an exploitation of a child by an adult for sexual gratification. Which is a disgusting act. My only regret is that there are actualy adults and children capable of having a meaningful healthy sexual relationship. But allowing those exceptions is not worth the price in destroyed childhoods.

I think that any adult that can't understand that and is controlled by those sexual urges is just as sick as anyone else ruled by sexual urges. It's a sociopathic condition.

The fact they justified it 2000 years ago doesn't make it anymore valid. We have references but no story behind them. Do we know those kids thought it was ok? Were they simply pleasure chattel?

Well, its true that it doesn't make it valid in our culture and time today. It should also be pointed out that it wasn't only 2000 years ago. Pedastry is still practiced in native cultures around the world. In addition, the age of consent and adulthood is different in cultures around the world. In many, 13-15 is the perfect age for being married. However, 13-15 years old in the United States and most Western countries is considered pedophilia.

And we do have quite a bit of the story behind Greek pedastry. If you believe Plato, and his accounts of his own pedastry (being the boy), we know that they thought it was okay. It was a cultural institution that was highly respected. And they weren't pleasure chattel. You might be interested in reading up on it a bit (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pederasty_in_ancient_Greece).

The problem in my mnd is coercion.

I could accept that preference for children is just one more sexual fetish or even a sexual orientation. I could accept that there's nothing inherenty wrong with an adult and a child having sex. What I can't accept is that there is any way to remove coercion from the equation. There is simply no way to know whether each child is capable of understanding the ramifications of his or her actions AND is capable of giving consent AND is not being coerced or cowed by adult authority.

So, on that note, at what point does a child become able to understand the ramifications of their actions? Do they magically gain this insight and wisdom at the age of consent, depending on country, 16, 18, 21, older?

So, on that note, at what point does a child become able to understand the ramifications of their actions? Do they magically gain this insight and wisdom at the age of consent, depending on country, 16, 18, 21, older?

Varies with the child. But how do you legislate that? Arbitrarily. That's how. An age has to be chosen that balances out rights with child safety. Personally, I think there should be a 5 year age difference window from 14 to 17 and open age of consent to be 18. But That'll vary by region and culture.

Different people are able to give consent at different times, but we have no way to really test that, so we just pick an age and anyone who dares cross that line is a pedophiliac.

I agree, but, this is extremely biased. You say you can't compare homosexuality/heterosexuality and pedophilia but in your poll you directly the two.

You need to compare it to something else like Necrophilia.

And you need to take some anger management. this is a place to debate, and a good debator doesn't insult someone else's stance or opinion.

To me, its just another disgusting form of perversion.
Much like homosexuality, zoophilia, etc...

So, on that note, at what point does a child become able to understand the ramifications of their actions? Do they magically gain this insight and wisdom at the age of consent, depending on country, 16, 18, 21, older?
Well, developmentally speaking, they seem to start to gain the ability to understand as an adult would around age 13. 16, while, yes, somewhat random, seems to catch all the late bloomers.

Now the wisdom to use it well is another thing, but we don't even consern ourselves over an adult's ability to do so.

*snip*
This is just ultra-liberal sophistry.
*snip*


You had something going for you until I read the above where you mark yourself as just one more moron. What a shame.

No! Its just another sexual preference, you mean-spirited bigoted homophobe!

Sarcasm off. Anyway, the fact that you feel a sexual need is no defence.
So your sexual preferences are not socially approved.
People hate and despise you.
Guess what? Deal with it!

Actually, since a lot of people talk about how not ready 18-25 year olds can be, I propose that if we want to err on the side of caution, we should raise the AoC to 26. You want to be on the safe side, right?

I think we've all pretty much agreed on 18. You won't find too many people who want to raise it to 26. You won't find too many who want to lower it to 12. But you WILL find a lot who want to keep it around 18. Like I said, it's an arbitrary number, not absolute.

Dont tell me you dont know people who like to be called "daddy".

I don't think that pedophilia is the same as a sexual orientation in any way. Sexual orientation is fixed partly due to genetics and partly due to the womb environment... pedophilia is usually the result of earlier sexual abuse if I remember it correctly.

Nothing wrong with pedophilia, as long it is not rape.

If you like kids, and engage in sexual activities with them, and kids also like you and engage in sexual activities with you, willingly, then what's the problem?

I don't think that pedophilia is the same as a sexual orientation in any way. Sexual orientation is fixed partly due to genetics and partly due to the womb environment... pedophilia is usually the result of earlier sexual abuse if I remember it correctly.

Oh come on. Why is it that every "deviant" sexual activity has to be attributed to abuse as a child? Its not that freakin simple.

I guess I can argue that healthy sexual behavior can be attributed to childhood abuse since most people who were abused as children have healthy sex lives.

Nothing wrong with pedophilia, as long it is not rape.

If you like kids, and engage in sexual activities with them, and kids also like you and engage in sexual activities with you, willingly, then what's the problem?
The fact that the kids are unable to consent to sexual acts?

Kids are easy to coerce into doing things adults want, whether they like to or not. It's rape no matter what.

Oh come on. Why is it that every "deviant" sexual activity has to be attributed to abuse as a child? Its not that freakin simple.
Well, as far as I know, there's no genetic basis for pedophilia and no pre-birth environmental conditions cause it either, unless you can provide some studies to that effect.

Having a desire to sleep with beings that aren't really capable of giving consent to sexual acts (such as small children and animals or drunk women with "virgin until marriage" pins) isn't in itself wrong. Acting on that is.
Yeah, that's pretty much my stance. Freedom of thought, y'all.

Well, as far as I know, there's no genetic basis for pedophilia and no pre-birth environmental conditions cause it either, unless you can provide some studies to that effect.

Well how about you show some studies that its attributed to childhood abuse. Oh thats right you cant because its not.

The fact that the kids are unable to consent to sexual acts?

Kids are easy to coerce into doing things adults want, whether they like to or not. It's rape no matter what.

Who said that kids of, for example 14 years old are unable to consent to sexual acts, you?, or a common assumption by a majority setting an age of consent?

If a kid says "yes I want to go down dirty with you", nothing wrong with that, no rape there. Why are they able to choose with which parent they want to live at that age and not to consent to sexual acts?, in any case they can also be coerced into a choice by adults, as many adults also are coerced into choices.

Who said that kids of, for example 14 years old are unable to consent to sexual acts, you?, or a common assumption by a majority setting an age of consent?

If a kid says "yes I want to go down dirty with you", nothing wrong with that, no rape there. Why are they able to choose with which parent they want to live at that age and not to consent to sexual acts?, in any case they can also be coerced into a choice by adults, as many adults also are coerced into choices.

I see peoples point that if a child wants to have sex with an older person he/she should have that freedom to, however I think that a child is not fully aware of the responsibilities that come with sex, and so shouldnt do it.

I see peoples point that if a child wants to have sex with an older person he/she should have that freedom to, however I think that a child is not fully aware of the responsibilities that come with sex, and so shouldnt do it.

And adults are?

Are jewish, catholic or islamic children aware of the implications of choosing their religion?, as an example?, or of choosing his father over his mother in the case of a divorce?

Who said that kids of, for example 14 years old are unable to consent to sexual acts, you?, or a common assumption by a majority setting an age of consent?

If a kid says "yes I want to go down dirty with you", nothing wrong with that, no rape there. Why are they able to choose with which parent they want to live at that age and not to consent to sexual acts?, in any case they can also be coerced into a choice by adults, as many adults also are coerced into choices.
Pedophiles are generally interested in pre-pubescent children, not 14 year olds. There's a different term for people who are obsessed with young teens.

Pre-pubescent children certainly cannot consent.

Pedophiles are generally interested in pre-pubescent children, not 14 year olds. There's a different term for people who are obsessed with young teens.

Pre-pubescent children certainly cannot consent.

If they allow sexual acts in exchange of candy, it is their choice, you cannot deny it. They should have the right to choose, no matter the age.

And adults are?

Well, adults *should* be. But that the same time I am not gonna have, lets say, a court decide who is mentally fit to have sex

Are jewish, catholic or islamic children aware of the implications of choosing their religion?, as an example?, or of choosing his father over his mother in the case of a divorce?

No.

Then, even as they are no aware of the implications, they should have the choice of having sex with adults. Perhaps they could learn one thing or two, as long as they agree, it's ok.

If they allow sexual acts in exchange of candy, it is their choice, you cannot deny it. They should have the right to choose, no matter the age.
lol

What the fuck? You think it's alright for an adult to coerce a child into having sex with them in excange for candy? And you think that there's nothing wrong with this?! What the hell is wrong with you?

Then, even as they are no aware of the implications, they should have the choice of having sex with adults. Perhaps they could learn one thing or two, as long as they agree, it's ok.

Yeah, learn a thing or two, like "oops you can get HIV from sex." The hard way.

You think it's alright for an adult to coerce a child into having sex with them in excange for candy?

Oh so thats how sexual predators work nowadays? :rolleyes:

Then, even as they are no aware of the implications, they should have the choice of having sex with adults. Perhaps they could learn one thing or two, as long as they agree, it's ok.
No, it isn't ok. Children will agree to do most anything if you ask them to enough times, they're gullible and fairly easy to convince that something is a good idea, and afterwards, it would be pretty easy to convince them that they did something wrong so they shouldn't talk to anyone about it.

Oh so thats how sexual predators work nowadays? :rolleyes:
According to Aeolisa it is.

lol

What the fuck? You think it's alright for an adult to coerce a child into having sex with them in excange for candy? And you think that there's nothing wrong with this?! What the hell is wrong with you?

Actually, nothing, I was just teasing playing the Devil's Advocate for a pair of posts, trying to illustrate a point but noone bit the bait.

Sorry if I got you mad, I'll buy you a nice coffee if you ever find me

Actually, nothing, I was just teasing playing the Devil's Advocate for a pair of posts, trying to illustrate a point but noone bit the bait.

Sorry if I got you mad, I'll buy you a nice coffee if you ever find me
I wasn't mad so much as disgusted.

Sorry again, then.

And I suppose you're suggesting that pedophiles are unable to relate to children as human beings? That we can't establish an equal, conscentual relatinship with them? Or that the relationships can't last for decades?

I need to know which part you object to before I tear it appart, because just tearing appart the whole thing would be time consuming, and I have more than ten pages left to sort through. Suffice it to say, I do have a response to each of those issues, but I'm not certain which of those responses you would already be aware of.

all 3. i am, if it makes you feel better, talking about those pedophiles who are so obsessed with their fetish that they actually molest children, not those who have an interest in children that they can keep under control. that is just extremely dangerous.

do you have a child that you fucked before he/she was in puberty who you still have a sexual (or any) relationship with after she/he became an adult?

So then, would you suggest that a person who is attracted to normal adult women, but isn't into "grannie porn" would lose interest in a long term relationship with his partner once they pass a certain age? That's kind of how you're painting my sexuality.
no. a normal person falls in love and keeps a relationship with that person no matter how old they get. thats why normal relationships are different from pedophilia.

Strange. I assume you aren't a pedophile, so I have to ask where you get strange ideas like these about us. Normal adult men aren't interested in 80 year old women, but once their prefered partner ages, they don't fall out of love.

that would suggest that you are no longer an active pedophile because you fell for some poor child, entered into a mutually loving relationship with her, are still IN that relationship decades later and havent seduced any other children since then. do YOU know a pedophile who "fell in love" with a 5 year old, consumated that relationship, continues in it even though that 5 year old is now 25, and left the active pursuit of children behind forever?

your "sexuality" hurts others. anyone who actively tries to seduce children needs to be in jail. no prettying it or pretence is going to change that. sucks to be you.

Well, if you're talking about pedophilia as a form of sexuality, its just as relevent as pedophilia today. If you're talking about pedophilia in a social context, then its also important. I don't support pedophilia, but it seems the vast majority of arguments against it on this thread are due to the issue of legality in modern, Western society rather than on the actual ethics surrounding it.

In ancient Greece, among other places (as well as in native contexts today), there was institutionalized pedophilia. Thus, from a position of cultural relativism, the statement that pedophilia is unequivocally bad across borders doesn't stand up to scrutiny.
thats not pedophilia since the boys were adolescents. sex with prepubscent boys was considered BAD in ancient greece.

Wow, a public poll, huh? Hoping to intimidate people into not voting "no" by declaring that their votes will be broadcast to the forum at large?

I almost always do public polls. I'm hoping to get more honesty by not giving people a chance to just vote (perhaps with a puppet) and then not bother to back up their view.

Oh, I meant yeah. I'm hoping to "intimidate" people... by clicking "make this a public poll." Cuz that's a great way to be intimidating! Time and again, people are intimidated by public pollers.


And I should point out that the number of negatives in the question part of your poll are really making it hard to read, to the point of skewing the results, I would say. Makes it hard to tell which option is which at first glance. At least it did for me.

Well, since you're a pedophile, I attribute your confusion due to mental deficiency. No one else is complaining about it.



Let's not bring Godwin's law into this. I pointed it out earlier only to explain to you that you were weakening your arguement by invoking Hitler. No one takes a Nazi comparison seriously. That was the point of Godwin's law. The comparison has been so overdone that it's practically meaningless.

No, thats not the "point" of Godwin's Law. Jeez, does NO ONE know what that stupid internet shit means? Guess not. Apparently you think its a sign of victory on your part or something.

And frankly, any argument you could make is weakened by the fact that you are a pedophile. You are doing nothing but justifying your own sexual perversion, just like any other sexual pervert.

And I actually do think Hitler's desirs weren't wrong. I think he was wrong for acting on them, but that's the thing. Thought and action are very different things. Action can be a crime, thought (unless you're living in Oceana from 1984) can't be.

I didn't say the thought is a CRIME. Clearly, you can "think" about being a pedophile all you like without punishment. But it is morally reprehensible. I guess its no surprise that you can't see this. Again, your attitude is merely one of self-justification.

I'm afraid that your comments actually have more to do with situationally offending child molesters than they have to do with pedophiles. That is how situational offenders and normal rapists operate, but pedophelia really does have a good deal to do with sex and sexuality.

Suuuure. Now you're brining out the old "rape is not a crime of sex" bullshit. Yeah, I guess thats why its called a sex crime, and it involves sex.


I offer myself as a counterexample.

I offer you as an example of subhumanoid scum.


Regardless, what form of help do you reccomend? Avoidence therapy that proved so inefective at curing homosexuality? Castration which hasn't significantly diminished recidivism in child molesters? What exactly can you do to make me not attracted to children anymore?

Well, you could be executed. I'd have no problems with that, since you pose a danger to society. I guess you oppose that sort of thing and whine about 1984, though.


I should again reiterate that I fully support your right to declare your irrational hatrid for me and my kind. Just as I exersise my right to expose you as a bigot for saying such things.

If you support that right then you had no place saying "you can't say" blah blah blah.

I accept your concession.



It is arbitrary and close minded. People should be able to express political opinions as soon as they are able to form them. Thus if someone can demonstrate they understand the platforms of the people in the election, they should be able to cast an equal vote.

Oh please. Thats just not the criteria for voting. If it was, there wouldn't be a Democrat or Republican party. And its not about "expressing political opinions." Minors can express political opinions if they want. They just can't vote. Just like you can't have sex with them.

Well, obviously. Of course I somehow doubt the military would be intersted in children that young, as their fitness tests are rather rigorous. I mean carrying around a full field pack is something most adults have trouble with.

Never read Ender's Game? And there is far more to the military than as you imply, carrying field packs and shooting a gun directly. I posit the main reason you wouldn't support the militarization of children is because it would interfere with your ability to leer and drool over them.


You're really doing everything you can to make an appeal to emotion aren't you?

Considering the first thing you said was a self-righteous huff of indignation about a public poll being "intimidating" I really don't see where you have a foot to stand on calling other people "appealing to emotions."

Actually, the driving age thing doesn't actually have to do with maturity. It has to do with physical capablity to move the pedals and see over the steering wheel.

Kinda like how man-boy-love has to do with the physical capability of a child to survive sexual acts with an older man without trauma. OH WAIT ITS DIFFERENT, because you're a pedophile. Versatile as always.


I should point out that the age of crimial responsibility is, I believe, 10. At that age, they are considered responsible for their actions, and thus must pay the price for violating the law. For the age of conscent not to be in line with this is either a grave insult to the minors who want to have sex, or an unforgivable injustice to the minors who are going to jail.

They are not considered as adults, in either sentencing or punishment, and you know it. The "grave insult" here is actually just you.


Well, that would be reasonable, wouldn't it? Helping your kids learn the basic facts they need about sex before they're tested on it?

Oh, you're talking about parents raping their kids. How crass. You are aware that a majority of pedophiles consider incest taboo, don't you? Usually when a parent rapes their child, they're a situational offeder rather than a pedophile.

Its so comforting to know that you can speak for "a majority of pedophiles" and what they believe. Apparently, there was a National Pedophilia General Election and you won the vote. Congratulations!


And of course wanting to share a pleasurable experience with a child is exactly as bad as wanting to exersise power and control over said child.

Yes, when that "pleasurable experience" you want to share is making a kid have sex with you.

I'm glad you agree now.

Even if you are against adult-child sex, are you saying you can't see a difference at least in the scale of the crime between a nominally conscentual experience and a violent rape?

"Nominally conscentual?" Ha. NOT CONESENTUAL is what you mean to say here. Thus yes.


And yet, children, left on their own, do tend to experiment sexually. (When did you start masturbating? Did you know what you were doing at first?)

Children, left on their own, don't turn into competent adults either. That's why there is this whole "society" thing with "parents" who "raise" and not "fuck" their kids.


The trouble is that this uniform point was determined arbitrarily in the first place. Even these cutting edge neuroscience thingies you keep bringing up weren't around when society was deciding on their Age of Conscent. It has always been based on the completely subjective idea of when society feels someone is "ready" whatever that means.

Kind of like how currently, society feels you are allowed to express your perverted lust for children's genitals. Don't knock "society" just because you can't get everything you want from it. I would venture to say you agree with an alarming number of "arbitrary" social conventions.

I think this will be my last post, unless I remember something else I had to say or someone actually responds to this post.

For those of you out there who advocate mutilation, branding, death, castration, and the like, I find you as disgusting as you find pedophiles. That you can claim to do these things in the name of morality is even worse. The nations of the world agreed to basic human rights which you would take away. Which is worse: sexual fantasy, or castration? Sexual fantasy hurts no one, while castration humiliates, tortures, and restricts a person. And for what? Someone was born with different, unchangeable preferences?

I hate to take the stereotypical approach, but I know of only one organization or person who did such things: the Nazis. Putting a little "P" on someone's head or sewing on a yellow star or a pink triangle, castrating someone as a result of their sexual preferences, these things are all straight out of the Nazi book but with different targets. Ja, Mein Furher. Das kinderlusten ist widerlich.

http://img180.exs.cx/img180/3162/sonnenrad25mp.gif

Pedophiles are human beings. They have basic rights. If you consider even non-harmful pedophiles (evidenced by saying that measures such as castration and branding should be applied to all pedophiles) guilty for thinking something, then you are guilty for not only thinking or contriving but also advocating dehumanizing these people and in doing so becoming less than human yourself.

If we were to mark or mutilate pedophiles, why not brand mentally unstable serial killers and rip out gray matter from psychopaths? Then they'll be nice and rehabilitated. It solves everything; it doesn't matter that they do it unintentionally, they still did it and now, even though there's hope for them, they go against your beliefs and so must suffer. It doesn't matter that they're human and alive and have feelings, they make you uncomfortable and so they've got to go.

I recognize the problem of pedophiles raping children. I do not, however, recognize your ideas as being the solution. The best solution, as I see it, would be something that does not restrict or infringe on human rights while still protecting children. I think that the solution would be to adopt legislation like that of Japan, where drawings of naked and underage children are legal. No children are harmed, and pedophiles are not driven to rape because of lack of a substitute.

Of course, if you have been reading this thread and still say, "But pedophilia is sick and wrong", then I fear that you cannot read at all and have just been pretending until now. No one consciously makes a choice to be a pedophile. You cannot punish someone for something that was not their doing. I cannot see any grounds for the support of the argument that pedophilia is something to be guilty of. If I were to punch you in the balls every time you were attracted to something, you'd change your tune. You'd realize that pedophiles cannot help being attracted to children, much as you cannot help being attracted to whatever it is you like.

For those of you out there who advocate mutilation, branding, death, castration, and the like, I find you as disgusting as you find pedophiles. That you can claim to do these things in the name of morality is even worse. The nations of the world agreed to basic human rights which you would take away.

Last I heard, the death penalty is still viable in the US. So what's wrong with advocating death when this "nation of the world" agrees that its alright to take a human life in some cases?

I don't need to advocate mutilation, branding, or castration. Death will do just fine. Simple, efficient, effective.

And for what? Someone was born with different, unchangeable preferences?

I object to this deterministic attitude so popular, that no one can change their preferences, ever. Apparently we're all just animals, and we live our lives slaves to the desires we had at birth. The whole "sentience" and "human consciousness" and "personal responsibility" thing doesn't exist, no one can be expected to do anything other than what they were Meant To Do according to you.

I know mine is an unpopular viewpoint though. Its more preferable to people to believe that they can't change what they want. Hence why so many people are alcoholics, for example. They figure they can't change, they were born, nay, DESTINED or fated to be alcoholics. Same with pedo's now, and yes, rapists, murderers, and people who think we should nuke the middle east. It's the latest fad - everyone is a victim of uncontrollable circumstances and cannot so much as change what they like, ever.

I hate to take the stereotypical approach, but I know of only one organization or person who did such things: the Nazis. Putting a little "P" on someone's head or sewing on a yellow star or a pink triangle, castrating someone as a result of their sexual preferences, these things are all straight out of the Nazi book but with different targets. Ja, Mein Furher. Das kinderlusten ist widerlich.

Whether this is a "Godwin" or not, its a strawman. No one is advocating these things.

It solves everything; it doesn't matter that they do it unintentionally, they still did it and now, even though there's hope for them, they go against your beliefs and so must suffer. It doesn't matter that they're human and alive and have feelings, they make you uncomfortable and so they've got to go.

So if you believe pedophiles "do it unintentionally," do you contradict The Five Caste's claim that he can restrain himself from acting on his lust for children?

Are you saying he is genetically predestined to have sex with kids?

No one consciously makes a choice to be a pedophile. You cannot punish someone for something that was not their doing.

I already disagree with statement #1. But that aside, the latter is just untrue. You are saying that if someone doesn't make a CONSCIOUS CHOICE to do something, then it is somehow "not their doing." So like, if I sleepwalk, and kill you, I go free cuz I was not fully conscious at the time?


You'd realize that pedophiles cannot help being attracted to children, much as you cannot help being attracted to whatever it is you like.

One time I didn't like carrots. I vomited after eating them when I was a kid, and every time after that I had a gag reflex just in their presence. I hated them. But I forced myself to acquire their taste and today, I can eat carrots not only without vomiting, but with gusto. I fucking love carrots (cooked, anyway. Raw is not my style). Thus, I changed what I like.

But I must be a genetic freak, and an impossibility.

One time I didn't like carrots. I vomited after eating them when I was a kid, and every time after that I had a gag reflex just in their presence. I hated them. But I forced myself to acquire their taste and today, I can eat carrots not only without vomiting, but with gusto. I fucking love carrots (cooked, anyway. Raw is not my style). Thus, I changed what I like.

But I must be a genetic freak, and an impossibility.

So pedophiles force themselves to acquire the taste of little children? Fat chance.

I already disagree with statement #1. But that aside, the latter is just untrue. You are saying that if someone doesn't make a CONSCIOUS CHOICE to do something, then it is somehow "not their doing." So like, if I sleepwalk, and kill you, I go free cuz I was not fully conscious at the time?

Precisely. Couldn't have put it better myself. Our whole justice system runs on what people's conscious choices are.

http://img180.exs.cx/img180/3162/sonnenrad25mp.gif

.
i agree with you, if a person is attracted to children but never acts on it, its harmless. looking at drawings or innocent (non sexual) photos of children shouldnt be a crime.

thinking and wanting is dangerous but its not hurting anyone. we dont need the thought police coming around telling us what we can or cannot have in our minds. freedom of thought and freedom of speech shouldnt be abridged just because we find that thought and speech creepy.

as to the suggestions of extreme punishements its a contest that NSG posters have whenever sexual crimes are the topic. they vie with each other as to who can think up the most violent/degrading punishments. i try to take it with a grain of salt since, thankfully, those punishments can never be used.

I agree that pedophilia is disgusting. I really don't buy that it's a sexual orientation. I think most so-called pedophiles could get it up with an adult if they wanted to. I think the bottom line is the innocence of children some people find sexually attractive. Varying degrees of both subjective and objective vulnerability are part of our sexual nature IMO. All in all, I think some people just shut off their brains and get too lost in their fantasies to think about the well-being of the other person (sadly, that may constitute most sexual experiences) and pedophiles are an extreme example of that. So are other rapists.

So pedophiles force themselves to acquire the taste of little children? Fat chance.

One doesn't need to "force" in order to have control over one's preferences. One can "influence" if you like. My point is that the notion that someone's wants are an unchangeable, genetic-level thing AND that no one should be held accountable for those wants is fallacious.

I agree that pedophilia is disgusting. I really don't buy that it's a sexual orientation. I think most so-called pedophiles could get it up with an adult if they wanted to. I think the bottom line is the innocence of children some people find sexually attractive. Varying degrees of both subjective and objective vulnerability are part of our sexual nature IMO. All in all, I think some people just shut off their brains and get too lost in their fantasies to think about the well-being of the other person (sadly, that may constitute most sexual experiences) and pedophiles are an extreme example of that. So are other rapists.


I think the bottom line has more to do with the ease in which an adult can get a child to 'do as it is told' has more bearing on it than the inocence of children

One doesn't need to "force" in order to have control over one's preferences. One can "influence" if you like. My point is that the notion that someone's wants are an unchangeable, genetic-level thing AND that no one should be held accountable for those wants is fallacious.

I highly doubt that if I suggest to you you should start liking children 30 times a day that you eventually will. Its not necessarily a genetic thing either.

The word is "consent." Pretty simple, really.

I'll agree with that just as long as consent is in it's special form where so magical world knowledge is required to give consent.

I highly doubt that if I suggest to you you should start liking children 30 times a day that you eventually will. Its not necessarily a genetic thing either.

That is an example of your inability to change my preferences, not mine. And you seem to be missing the point here. Its not about whether its genetic or results from conditions within the womb, or whatever. People DO have influence and yes, even control over not only their own actions but their wants. Unlike any other animal.

According to the poster I was responding to when you decided to take us off on a tangent, they don't. No one can change. Ever. And therefore no one is to be held responsible, for desires or actions. Ever. = bullshit.

I'll agree with that just as long as consent is in it's special form where so magical world knowledge is required to give consent.

Yep consent between two adults wo have fully matured brians is one thing, but consent from a child who may not have full knowledge of what it may be getting into is another.

It is very easy to get a child to do what you want.

That is an example of your inability to change my preferences, not mine. And you seem to be missing the point here. Its not about whether its genetic or results from conditions within the womb, or whatever. People DO have influence and yes, even control over not only their own actions but their wants. Unlike any other animal.

According to the poster I was responding to when you decided to take us off on a tangent, they don't. No one can change. Ever. And therefore no one is to be held responsible, for desires or actions. Ever. = bullshit.

So what pray tell influenced you to start eating carrots?

So what pray tell influenced you to start eating carrots?

Why, I realized that if I continued to indulge in my dislike of carrots, I would probably start harming carrots and become an outcast in society, ending up in prison where I'd rightfully belong. ;)

According to the poster I was responding to when you decided to take us off on a tangent, they don't. No one can change. Ever. And therefore no one is to be held responsible, for desires or actions. Ever. = bullshit.

Ahem, please don't put the word "actions" in that sentence.

And people do change, sometimes. Do they have control over how they change? Hardly. And what Kazus suggested was an entirely legitimate test of our theories. If you're so confident people have control over every desire they have, make yourself sexually attracted to animals. Come on, you can do it. You're responsible for your own thoughts aren't you? Then once you've done that, make yourself come back to normal and report to us.

One doesn't need to "force" in order to have control over one's preferences. One can "influence" if you like. My point is that the notion that someone's wants are an unchangeable, genetic-level thing AND that no one should be held accountable for those wants is fallacious.

And what should one do with the pedophile who wants to change ?

Why, I realized that if I continued to indulge in my dislike of carrots, I would probably start harming carrots and become an outcast in society, ending up in prison where I'd rightfully belong. ;)


:confused:

Why, I realized that if I continued to indulge in my dislike of carrots, I would probably start harming carrots and become an outcast in society, ending up in prison where I'd rightfully belong. ;)

Problem: you could force yourself to eat carrots without hurting their feelings.
A pedofile forcing himself to have sex with other adults is not being fair to those other adults, even though his or hers motives are noble.

And people do change, sometimes. Do they have control over how they change? Hardly.

I think my carrot example directly disproves that.

And what Kazus suggested was an entirely legitimate test of our theories. If you're so confident people have control over every desire they have, make yourself sexually attracted to animals.

Sorry, you seem to also be harping on a strawman that just because I CAN change, I can do it on a whim, just cuz some internet guy tells me to.

That's not a legitimate test of anything except your inability to reason.

You're responsible for your own thoughts aren't you?

Indeed, and I hope you are too.

I think we've all pretty much agreed on 18. You won't find too many people who want to raise it to 26. You won't find too many who want to lower it to 12. But you WILL find a lot who want to keep it around 18. Like I said, it's an arbitrary number, not absolute.

Worldwide, 18's pretty high for an age of consent. I can't think of a country with a higher one (I'm sure there is one, but it's not common).

Whereas, you'll see lower ages in many western countries. Canada just introduced legislation to raise theirs to 16 (from 14).

-snip-

You're my hero.

Not because you're a pedophile, but because you're so good at constructing this argument. I'm impressed.

And people do change, sometimes. Do they have control over how they change? Hardly.

That is quite frankly bolloks.

Every action you make, utimatly in your head you have to say yes or no to it. You're a fuckin' human being, you have ultimate control over each and every thought, and action you perform.

Do you doubt me? Then try this, go get yourself a drink of water, place in on the table in frontof you then decide when you want to drink it. You will find that you will drink it when you want. There will be no outside influence making you drink it before you want to, and when you decide it is time, the only thing that will stop you drinking it, is you.

The only people that have not got this control are those with mental health problems. yes you can be attraceted to something that you know you should not, but the choice to act is yours and yours alone.

There is no get out clause on this, none but mental illness.

I think my carrot example directly disproves that.
Your carrot example proves that someone who already dislikes carrots is likely to harm them. Go back a few steps, take someone who does like carrots and make them dislike carrots.

Sorry, you seem to also be harping on a strawman that just because I CAN change, I can do it on a whim, just cuz some internet guy tells me to.
Holy sh*t! I think he got it! :eek:

Indeed, and I hope you are too.
I find it very hard to force myself to like you...but I can refrain from flaming you like Godzilla.

Whats the definition of Pedophilia here? Is it anyone over 18 that has sex with/ or desires to have sex with anyone under 18? 16? 13? whats the age limit on that?

That is quite frankly bolloks.

Every action you make, utimatly in your head you have to say yes or no to it. You're a fuckin' human being, you have ultimate control over each and every thought, and action you perform.

Do you doubt me? Then try this, go get yourself a drink of water, place in on the table in frontof you then decide when you want to drink it. You will find that you will drink it when you want. There will be no outside influence making you drink it before you want to, and when you decide it is time, the only thing that will stop you drinking it, is you.

The only people that have not got this control are those with mental health problems. yes you can be attraceted to something that you know you should not, but the choice to act is yours and yours alone.

There is no get out clause on this, none but mental illness.

You, like so many others in this thread, did not read what I keep repeating which is that you have control over your actions (i.e. when will you drink the water) but not your thoughts (i.e. you're either willing to drink the water or you're not).

Your carrot example proves that someone who already dislikes carrots is likely to harm them. Go back a few steps, take someone who does like carrots and make them dislike carrots.


Uh, no. My carrot example proves that someone who dislikes something can make themselves like that something. Hence people can change what they like and dislike.

Are you being deliberately obtuse?


Holy sh*t! I think he got it! :eek:

...

Maybe not deliberately obtuse after all.


I find it very hard to force myself to like you...but I can refrain from flaming you like Godzilla.

Congratulations. You're a brave little soldier, and you deserve a medal.

About your "carrot example":
We have cases of people trying to degay gay people.
We know it doesn't work.
We also know it usually ends bad for the gay person.
So, if you can't be forced not to be gay, but you can be forced to like carrots, obviously there are some changeable things and some nonchangable things.
Since pedophila bears more of a similarity to homosexuality then to dislike of carrots, I'd say it should be assumed to be nonchangeable, especially considering it's not mutually exclusive with teliophilea(sexual attraction to adults). (I.E. forcing a pedophile to like adults(if you could) would not make that pedophile not like children.)

Whats the definition of Pedophilia here? Is it anyone over 18 that has sex with/ or desires to have sex with anyone under 18? 16? 13? whats the age limit on that?
I think it technically means pre-pubescent.

I think the bottom line has more to do with the ease in which an adult can get a child to 'do as it is told' has more bearing on it than the inocence of children

That, too.

I think it technically means pre-pubescent.


Oh ok. I could of sworn i heard someone say it was pre 18...which i don't see anything wrong with an 18 yr old and say a 16 or 17 yr old doing their thing...BUT pre=pubescent is totally effing gross.

Last I heard, the death penalty is still viable in the US. So what's wrong with advocating death when this "nation of the world" agrees that its alright to take a human life in some cases?

I don't need to advocate mutilation, branding, or castration. Death will do just fine. Simple, efficient, effective.


No nation has a death penalty for thinking. LOGICAL FALLACY - STRAW MAN.

I object to this deterministic attitude so popular, that no one can change their preferences, ever. Apparently we're all just animals, and we live our lives slaves to the desires we had at birth. The whole "sentience" and "human consciousness" and "personal responsibility" thing doesn't exist, no one can be expected to do anything other than what they were Meant To Do according to you.

I know mine is an unpopular viewpoint though. Its more preferable to people to believe that they can't change what they want. Hence why so many people are alcoholics, for example. They figure they can't change, they were born, nay, DESTINED or fated to be alcoholics. Same with pedo's now, and yes, rapists, murderers, and people who think we should nuke the middle east. It's the latest fad - everyone is a victim of uncontrollable circumstances and cannot so much as change what they like, ever.

I never said that people's preferences in general were unchangeable, only pedophilia. LOGICAL FALLACY - STRAW MAN.

Whether this is a "Godwin" or not, its a strawman. No one is advocating these things.


It's curable until they've actually followed through and hurt a child- then they're beyond hope. They are forever more a child molester. Rehab those who haven't acted yet- but for those on the sex-offender registry, and all others after- either castrate them and deny any hormones that were lost with the "parts" (I really don't care if it messes up their bodies- they aren't worth anything) or shoot 'em dead.
As has been said a number of times: Pedophilia is not a crime. Rape is. Rapists need to be punished, and there is no reason for being compassionate to them. And that doesn't have anything to do with what pedophilia is. Though I guess that in the case of some pedophiles castration is quite humane, since it helps them fight the urges that they mustn't act on.
It's a good thing that you didn't take such a strong stance that you could concede without losing face, huh?


So if you believe pedophiles "do it unintentionally," do you contradict The Five Caste's claim that he can restrain himself from acting on his lust for children?

Are you saying he is genetically predestined to have sex with kids?


I'm saying that he's somehow predestined to be attracted to kids, and there's not much he can do about it. LOGICAL FALLACY - STRAW MAN.


I already disagree with statement #1. But that aside, the latter is just untrue. You are saying that if someone doesn't make a CONSCIOUS CHOICE to do something, then it is somehow "not their doing." So like, if I sleepwalk, and kill you, I go free cuz I was not fully conscious at the time?


Yes, obviously. Is that supposed to be some sort of massive revelation or something? I wouldn't hold you responsible for something you had no control over. To me, it's as if you didn't do it.


One time I didn't like carrots. I vomited after eating them when I was a kid, and every time after that I had a gag reflex just in their presence. I hated them. But I forced myself to acquire their taste and today, I can eat carrots not only without vomiting, but with gusto. I fucking love carrots (cooked, anyway. Raw is not my style). Thus, I changed what I like.

But I must be a genetic freak, and an impossibility.
False analogy, from my point of view. Valid analogy, from your point of view. I say it's false and you say it's valid because it hinges on the argument that you can change your preference for carrots. I would have constructed an analogy where you are allergic to carrots.

EDIT TO ABOVE:
This is a very minor form of circular reasoning. It might be kind of hard for you to see, though - you don't seem to be able to catch your own lapses of logic, despite accusing everyone else of the same thing.

1) Pedophiles can change what they like.
2) Pedophiles can force themselves to like adults. (I assume this is the next step, please correct me if I'm wrong)
3) Pedophiles can thus change what they like.

Also, if you want to argue with someone, you have to either use the same definitions they use or refute those definitions.

About your "carrot example":
We have cases of people trying to degay gay people.
We know it doesn't work.
We also know it usually ends bad for the gay person.
So, if you can't be forced not to be gay, but you can be forced to like carrots, obviously there are some changeable things and some nonchangable things.

Wrong analogy. No one "forced me" to like carrots - other than myself. So it doesn't compare with "people trying to degay gay people."

It's also fallacious since you're comparing homosexuality with pedophilia, as if they are simply two normal healthy sexual impulses. Of course, that's the topic of debate.


Since pedophila bears more of a similarity to homosexuality then to dislike of carrots, I'd say it should be assumed to be nonchangeable, especially considering it's not mutually exclusive with teliophilea(sexual attraction to adults). (I.E. forcing a pedophile to like adults(if you could) would not make that pedophile not like children.)

As someone said to me a while back, "if you got punched in the balls for every desire you had, you'd change your tune." I'd guess conditioning can work for pedophilia too. Forcing a pedophile to like adults (which again is not what I was talking about) is not the point, though.

You, like so many others in this thread, did not read what I keep repeating which is that you have control over your actions (i.e. when will you drink the water) but not your thoughts (i.e. you're either willing to drink the water or you're not).

Granted, and I did read that, but my post was about actions.

You can have an overwhelming desire to drink the water, but you are in control of whether you drink it or not.

When it comes to pedophilia, I agree we should not have a thought police, but we should have an actions police.

If you think that you want to fuck little kids, then fine, as long as you do not act on that then I can possibly talk to you without wanting to reach for a gun. However if you choose to act on that desire then you are valid for a good kicking.

Put it this way, I have been married for 17 years next month but I am a man, and so pre-programed to spread my seed as far and wide as I can.

Do I get desires to cheat on my wife? every fucking day and then some. Do I act on these desires? Are you fucking mad, she would kill me, and also I don't want to lose her, she is my life.

You have ultimate control over your actions, if you act on them, you can blame nowt else but you. This is gospel belive me, if yu doubt it, thenyou are fooling yourself. The only person that you can lay total blame for yourself on is you. End of deabte.

Uh, no. My carrot example proves that someone who dislikes something can make themselves like that something. Hence people can change what they like and dislike.

Uh, no. Your carrot example doesn't prove that...I don't know how else to tell you.

Congratulations. You're a brave little soldier, and you deserve a medal.
I accept, with great honor.

Peepelonia, I agree with everything you wrote. Sorry you misunderstood me.

Granted, and I did read that, but my post was about actions.

You can have an overwhelming desire to drink the water, but you are in control of whether you drink it or not.

When it comes to pedophilia, I agree we should not have a thought police, but we should have an actions police.

If you think that you want to fuck little kids, then fine, as long as you do not act on that then I can possibly talk to you without wanting to reach for a gun. However if you choose to act on that desire then you are valid for a good kicking.

Put it this way, I have been married for 17 years next month but I am a man, and so pre-programed to spread my seed as far and wide as I can.

Do I get desires to cheat on my wife? every fucking day and then some. Do I act on these desires? Are you fucking mad, she would kill me, and also I don't want to lose her, she is my life.

You have ultimate control over your actions, if you act on them, you can blame nowt else but you. This is gospel belive me, if yu doubt it, thenyou are fooling yourself. The only person that you can lay total blame for yourself on is you. End of deabte.

Marriage sounds great..

No nation has a death penalty for thinking. LOGICAL FALLACY - STRAW MAN.

But you said people had basic human rights, and thus it was against human rights to ever take a human life (or mutilate and other strawmen ;) ).

The fact that the death penalty shows that human life is not as absolutely sacroscant as you said. No strawman.

I never said that people's preferences in general were unchangeable, only pedophilia. LOGICAL FALLACY - STRAW MAN.

Pedophilia is a prefernece. No strawman.


I'm saying that he's somehow predestined to be attracted to kids, and there's not much he can do about it. LOGICAL FALLACY - STRAW MAN.

You said not "attraction" but "doing it" was predestined. Either you were unclear with what you meant by "doing it," or you are saying attraction is something you DO. Either way, no strawman.


False analogy, from my point of view. Valid analogy, from your point of view. I say it's false and you say it's valid because it hinges on the argument that you can change your preference for carrots. I would have constructed an analogy where you are allergic to carrots.

Your point of view is simply wrong.

And allergies can be treated, BTW. Unlike (you contend) pedophilia.

Marriage sounds great..


Well I can only speak for my own but yes it.

About your "carrot example":
We have cases of people trying to degay gay people.
We know it doesn't work.
We also know it usually ends bad for the gay person.
So, if you can't be forced not to be gay, but you can be forced to like carrots, obviously there are some changeable things and some nonchangable things.
Since pedophila bears more of a similarity to homosexuality then to dislike of carrots, I'd say it should be assumed to be nonchangeable, especially considering it's not mutually exclusive with teliophilea(sexual attraction to adults). (I.E. forcing a pedophile to like adults(if you could) would not make that pedophile not like children.)

You shouldn't use absolutes, there are many people who have been cured of homsexuality and it has ended well for them. Remember there are 2 sides to this coin.

Wrong analogy. No one "forced me" to like carrots - other than myself. So it doesn't compare with "people trying to degay gay people."

Again I ask: how do you propose a pedophile depedophiles himself exactly ?
Can you write a simple nine step plan or at least paint a general outline ?

Other than "he can kill himself".

Uh, no. Your carrot example doesn't prove that...I don't know how else to tell you.



Maybe you can't tell me because you are fucking wrong. Ever think of that?

I LIKED carrots when previously NOT LIKING them. I FORCED MYSELF to change MY PREFERENCE.

If you can tell me HOW these two statements are incorrect, fine. "Uh, no" doesn't cut it.

Again I ask: how do you propose a pedophile depedophiles himself exactly ?
Can you write a simple nine step plan or at least paint a general outline ?

Other than "he can kill himself".


Good idea!

Again I ask: how do you propose a pedophile depedophiles himself exactly ?
Can you write a simple nine step plan or at least paint a general outline ?

Other than "he can kill himself".

That's off-topic. But I will say that the belief that something is unchangeable will insure the inability to change that something. Kinda like how if you believe you're a victim and that you can never stop being an alcoholic, you most likely never will.

Well I can only speak for my own but yes it.

And your example about the desire to cheat on your wife is another perfect example of what I'm trying to get across to Trostia. You didn't choose to be attracted to other women besides your wife, did you? You just were. But being a devoted husband, you let the thoughts pass without acting on them. Trostia somehow seems to think that being attracted to children makes you a child molestor. Thus, being attracted to other women under his system would make you an adulterer. Wanting to punch someone out after an argument would make you guilty of assault.


Maybe you can't tell me because you are fucking wrong. Ever think of that?

I LIKED carrots when previously NOT LIKING them. I FORCED MYSELF to change MY PREFERENCE.

If you can tell me HOW these two statements are incorrect, fine. "Uh, no" doesn't cut it.
Now force yourself to dislike them. Can't do it on a whim can you?

And I like how you consider Squeaky Rat's question to be off-topic when it's precisely what we're debating here.

That's off-topic. But I will say that the belief that something is unchangeable will insure the inability to change that something. Kinda like how if you believe you're a victim and that you can never stop being an alcoholic, you most likely never will.

It is not offtopic at all. You got rid of your carrot dislike by following a specific path of action (forcing yourself to eat them) and as a result your preferences changed. Without that path of action, the change would probably not have occured.

In order to determine if pedos can change their preferences we must therefor first determine a path of action for them to take. If there is none that will work, your carrot analogy will be invalid. If there is you are quite right.

I definately agree with the rest of the quoted statement though.

And your example about the desire to cheat on your wife is another perfect example of what I'm trying to get across to Trostia. You didn't choose to be attracted to other women besides your wife, did you? You just were. But being a devoted husband, you let the thoughts pass without acting on them. Trostia somehow seems to think that being attracted to children makes you a child molestor. Thus, being attracted to other women under his system would make you an adulterer. Wanting to punch someone out after an argument would make you guilty of assault.


Now force yourself to dislike them. Can't do it on a whim can you?

And I like how you consider Squeaky Rat's question to be off-topic when it's precisely what we're debating here.


Fine I understand that, and I can find no flaw in the logic of that, except of course that it is normal behaviuor for men to be attracted to women, and it is not normal behaviour for men to be attracted to children.
To go further it is also normal behviour for men to want to screw around even if married. But why is this normal behaviour? Because we men are hard wired to to fuck as many woman of pregnable age as possible to secure our genes. In this we are no differant from the other animals, it is just our extra brain capacity which leads to a set of moral principles that makes us stay faithfull.

There is nothing to be gained in fucking children, it is not a deepseated need in us, in fact it is the end result of a mind that does not work correctly.

Let me state that again and clearly so there can be no misunderstanding. A mind that wants to have sex with kids, is a mind that is not normal.

You shouldn't use absolutes, there are many people who have been cured of homsexuality and it has ended well for them. Remember there are 2 sides to this coin.

Just because they no longer have sex with men doesnt mean that desire is gone. These are people pretending to be straight.

Fine I understand that, and I can find no flaw in the logic of that, except of course that it is normal behaviuor for men to be attracted to women, and it is not normal behaviour for men to be attracted to children.
To go further it is also normal behviour for men to want to screw around even if married. But why is this normal behaviour? Because we men are hard wired to to fuck as many woman of pregnable age as possible to secure our genes. In this we are no differant from the other animals, it is just our extra brain capacity which leads to a set of moral principles that makes us stay faithfull.

There is nothing to be gained in fucking children, it is not a deepseated need in us, in fact it is the end result of a mind that does not work correctly.

Let me state that again and clearly so there can be no misunderstanding. A mind that wants to have sex with kids, is a mind that is not normal.

Yeah lets argue using a subjective idea such as normality as objective :rolleyes:

It is not offtopic at all. You got rid of your carrot dislike by following a specific path of action (forcing yourself to eat them) and as a result your preferences changed. Without that path of action, the change would probably not have occured.

In order to determine if pedos can change their preferences we must therefor first determine a path of action for them to take. If there is none that will work, your carrot analogy will be invalid. If there is you are quite right.

I definately agree with the rest of the quoted statement though.


This whole carrot thing, have you ever though about the way your pallet changes as you get older anyway?

Let me state that again and clearly so there can be no misunderstanding. A mind that wants to have sex with kids, is a mind that is not normal.

I think most people agree with that. I personally will even go further and say that it is a bad type of non-normal ("not normal" after all is not by definition "not good").
However, I wish to know how people think we should deal with this abnormality. Attempt to correct it, and if so how, simply exterminate it, or...

This whole carrot thing, have you ever though about the way your pallet changes as you get older anyway?

Sure, as does sexual taste. I fall for a different type of woman now than I dd 10 years ago for instance.
However, I think most people do not wish to wait 10 years for a pedophile to "get over it".

I think most people agree with that. I personally will even go further and say that it is a bad type of non-normal ("not normal" after all is not by definition "not good").
However, I wish to know how people think we should deal with this abnormality. Attempt to correct it, and if so how, simply exterminate it, or...

Yep thats a good question, castrate those that cannot do anything but act upon it. At least that way they will not be able to do that again, and those that don't act but ask for help, well we have all sorts of drugs to help those with mental health issues, and I see this as a mental health issue sooooooo.

Hehe of course you will realise that whilst I try to keep my head and so provied my answers logicaly, and without bias(yes I'm a leftie) you'll notice that some things make me loose my temper!:rolleyes:

Anybody who thinks Pedophilia is ok needs help, or need to be deported to the south pole.

I think most people agree with that. I personally will even go further and say that it is a bad type of non-normal ("not normal" after all is not by definition "not good").
However, I wish to know how people think we should deal with this abnormality. Attempt to correct it, and if so how, simply exterminate it, or...

Ok so apparently it is not normal to find a position of authority and the taking of innocence to be arousing. Please people, you cannot tell me there is not a single person you know that gets off to being called "daddy" or something of the sort.

Sure, as does sexual taste. I fall for a different type of woman now than I dd 10 years ago for instance.
However, I think most people do not wish to wait 10 years for a pedophile to "get over it".

A gay guy can say he at one point fell for women but then realized he was gay all along.

Ok so apparently it is not normal to find a position of authority and the taking of innocence to be arousing. Please people, you cannot tell me there is not a single person you know that gets off to being called "daddy" or something of the sort.

To a degree ? Certainly. But I do not believe that having to struggle daily against an attraction they are not allowed to act upon is pleasant for the pedophile. In fact, I can think of noone except sadists that enjoy to see suffering or masochists that like to suffer for whom pedophilia is a pleasurable thing.

A gay guy can say he at one point fell for women but then realized he was gay all along.

Or that his preferences changed. I do not know which is true. Perhaps it differs from person to person.

But you said people had basic human rights, and thus it was against human rights to ever take a human life (or mutilate and other strawmen ;) ).

The fact that the death penalty shows that human life is not as absolutely sacroscant as you said. No strawman.

This changes nothing. I'm talking about thoughts, not actions. THERE IS NO DEATH PENALTY FOR THOUGHT. THERE IS A DEATH PENALTY FOR ACTIONS.

Pedophilia is a prefernece. No strawman.


Pedophilia is one of thousands of preferences. Some are changeable, some are not. Also, the jump from "pedophilia is unchangeable" to "all preferences are unchangeable, such as alcoholism" is quite clearly a STRAW MAN.



You said not "attraction" but "doing it" was predestined. Either you were unclear with what you meant by "doing it," or you are saying attraction is something you DO. Either way, no strawman.

I'd like you to show me where I said "doing it" was predestined.

Your point of view is simply wrong.

Care to tell me why? Why would a person consciously choose to be a pedophile? And why, if they could stop, would they continue?

And allergies can be treated, BTW. Unlike (you contend) pedophilia.
That's too bad. But not really. The allergy analogy just has to be modified to become some sort of fairy-tale allergy which is untreatable.

As someone said to me a while back, "if you got punched in the balls for every desire you had, you'd change your tune." I'd guess conditioning can work for pedophilia too. Forcing a pedophile to like adults (which again is not what I was talking about) is not the point, though.
You're mininterpreting my words. I never said that conditioning would change someone's sexual preferences, only that it would make them realize that people's sexual preferences cannot be changed by violence.
---
Also, if you didn't catch this edit before, here it is.
False analogy, from my point of view. Valid analogy, from your point of view. I say it's false and you say it's valid because it hinges on the argument that you can change your preference for carrots. I would have constructed an analogy where you are allergic to carrots.

EDIT TO ABOVE:
This is a very minor form of circular reasoning. It might be kind of hard for you to see, though - you don't seem to be able to catch your own lapses of logic, despite accusing everyone else of the same thing.

1) Pedophiles can change what they like.
2) Pedophiles can force themselves to like adults. (I assume this is the next step, please correct me if I'm wrong)
3) Pedophiles can thus change what they like.

Also, if you want to argue with someone, you have to either use the same definitions they use or refute those definitions.

Yeah lets argue using a subjective idea such as normality as objective :rolleyes:


Hehe okay yeah I sorta make you right. But if we have say things like schitophrenia, would you then call that a normaly functioning brain or an abnormaly functioning brain?

We already have a whole slew of what we call mental illnesses. How do we know that these are mental illnesses and not just some sort of differant normal brain pattern? Because we have decided that it is the case.

Subjectivly speaking our system of morals is nowt more than what the majority says is right and wrong. Now at this day and age, and in this culture, we the majority say that pedophila is wrong. You can argue with that as long as you like, but realise my previous statement is correct, and that the majority will not side with you.

i think pedophilia is ok but should only be used on children that are able to say what they want and that lot like 15 - 18 year olds. and maybe it is a new sexuality because peopel get turned on by different things and maybe children is one of them

Oh ok. I could of sworn i heard someone say it was pre 18...which i don't see anything wrong with an 18 yr old and say a 16 or 17 yr old doing their thing...BUT pre=pubescent is totally effing gross.

there has been a problem in this thread with misunderstanding what pedophilia is.

there is nothing psychologically wrong in being sexually attracted to a pretty 16 year old girl. even if you are 65 years old. you arent likely to get anything for your efforts at seducing such a girl though. she is old enough to tell a "dirty old man" to go to hell.

being sexually attracted to a 6 year old on the other hand IS a psychological problem and the stronger the attraction the bigger the problem.

i think the lack of understanding "jail bait" vs pedophilia has led certain posters to be lenient on those who they assume are attracted to physical adults who are underage. on the other hand, those who think that an attraction to "jail bait" is sick are way out of line.

While I agree not at all with Trostia's assumption that what is hardwired can be overcome merely by force of will, I refuse also to believe that what is "hardwired" is therefore an excuse to do things that are physically and mentally harmful to others.

As civil beings, we have to control our instincts. That doesn't mean they will go away, but nonetheless, when we come to a full understanding of our "wants", and how our addictive "wants" only feel like needs, it is incumbent upon those who consider themselves "civilized" to CONTROL THEMSELVES.

If you can't control yourself, you need to ASK FOR HELP AND GET IT.

Help, by the way, doesn't mean execution, unless we are talking so-last-resort-I am-in-agony-over-this-and-must-cease-existence situations. Those situations are, I think, pretty rare.

There is very little help, and very little sympathy, for any degree of "pedophelia"; a confusing and nebulous term if there ever was one.

Like many sexual addictions, pedophelia feels good (at points) to the afflicted. And it is sexual, despite that it is often also about control and lack of control, and about reliving the person's own trauma from a safe, in-control standpoint. The condition I refer to is of the variety that is compulsive; the afflicted feel they must enact the fantasy. This can, and usually is, assumed to be a feeling of overwhelming "love" for the object of the fantasy.

Further complicating this are any actual genuine feelings of love, or affection, or admiration, or just plain interest in the child. these can (and mostly do) get transposed and blurred into the overt compulsion.

But it is an addiction; merely wanting to "not harm someone" with a prediliction for making that someone into a fantasy object, won't keep a sex addict/offender from doing it.

Shame and fear of being caught won't make them stop, or keep them from doing it. It will merely cause them to figure out how to do it with the least reprecussions; eventually, as the obession and compulsion grow, they will actively figure out how to expedite their "need" with the least reprecussions to themselves only.

It is not because they are weak, it is not because they are evil, and it is not because they are lazy-minded. It is because addictions actually subvert that very willpower that one would normally use to deter one's self.

Sexual compulsion shares this with all addiction- I know about this because I have known a number of addicts. Heroin and alcohol, mostly.

Having said all of that, IN NO WAY DO I GIVE A FREE PASS TO THE ACTIVELY-ENGAGED PEDOPHILE.

A combination of birth circumstance andchildhood trauma, et cetera, "hardwired" a person at an early age to be a certain way. But this is not a "state of being" like being gay or straight. Something triggered it in one's childhood, it has serious, bad reprecussionsfor the afflicted as well as the children {he} further victimizes in {his} life. These reprecussions are far more harmful than any "good" reprecussions the condition produces, and they are progressive and get worse and worse. And the afflicted will feel compelled to continue, despite the condition causing great pain, fear, and shame.

That's why it's seen as an addiction. That's what addiction is; a "disease" or syndrome caused by stressors and human chemical makeup.

Help is needed. What is also needed is for people to turn away their (very legitimate) anger and hate, because it is useless.

Trostia, I'm new here. You may have seen a couple of my posts. I hate pretty freely, and don't forgive things once a certain line is crossed. I'm not pro-state-sanctioned killing, but I'm not adverse to vengeance on a "personal moral grounds" basis or anything like that. I don't go around spouting aphorisms like' "War is not the answer", as if it were some magic charm. I'm not someone who always thinks violence equals=bad.

The change that pedophiles need:

a) does not come without them first having progressed to the point where the ugly consequences of their actions are personally clear to them, in their own lives,

b) will not be simple matter of "aversion therapy" that they can do alone <the human mind under will can change itself, but an addict's mind is SO focused on the urge that it will even more readily turn that mind-power to new and exciting ways to rationalize a relapse>,


c) must be done in conditions where the offender WILLINGLY and TRUTHFULLY gives up on making a lot of decisions for themselves for a long time, and submits to truly earning back the trust that most regular people get for free. That's terrifying, and it cannot be done without legitimate support groups, and it cannot be done in a perpetual state of fear for one's life and health at the hands of a mob.

Trostia, you keep saying pedophiles who don't stop should get the knife. Would you be willing to put aside your thoughts of vengeance if they wanted to get better, but didn't know how? And couldn't do it alone?

Because for all the intelligence you display here, and for all of the legitimate reasons you have for your hate (and I think thaey are legitimate), I'm not sure that hate will turn off, if these offenders actually submitted for help. Your tone just doesn't imply that.

I'm not a mindreader, though. I could be wrong. Hope so:)

Remember, I am no saint. Certain people on these Forums, merely by the "beliefs" they willingly hold (which I see to be mere excuses, mental defense mechanisms and deliberate obfuscations designed to allow their deliberate cruelty towards whole segments of society), are no longer viewed by me as Americans, or civilized humans, at all.
That's right, I believe a person can opt out of being a "real human" by forgoing the standards of kindness and civility that we are to show to those we don't yet understand.
Human civilization is an arbitrary set of rules. Acting civilized is just that. Once you dispense with the "act", you are a savage.
A person who consciously, deliberately forgoes the rules, and then crows about it (worse yet), should be annhiliated. They are a danger to civilization, and to those immediately around them.

I don't think The Five Castes has shown himself to be that kind.
Not yet, anyhow. I think our wrath, Trostia, is (as yet) undeserved.

i think pedophilia is ok but should only be used on children that are able to say what they want and that lot like 15 - 18 year olds. and maybe it is a new sexuality because peopel get turned on by different things and maybe children is one of them



There is no way to justifiy a 40 year old man having sex with a 15 year old girl..period.

Ok so apparently it is not normal to find a position of authority and the taking of innocence to be arousing. Please people, you cannot tell me there is not a single person you know that gets off to being called "daddy" or something of the sort.
there is a big difference between a grown man liking his 18 year old girlfriend to call him "daddy" and that same man wanting to fuck an 8 year old.

hugh hefner is 80 and doesnt "date" women over 25. while i find him creepy, there is nothing wrong with a mutually satisifying relationship between consenting adults even with a 55 year age difference between them.

Ok so apparently it is not normal to find a position of authority and the taking of innocence to be arousing. Please people, you cannot tell me there is not a single person you know that gets off to being called "daddy" or something of the sort.

Are they sexually aroused when a five year old calls them "daddy"? If so, then I would say that isn't normal.

i think pedophilia is ok but should only be used on children that are able to say what they want and that lot like 15 - 18 year olds. and maybe it is a new sexuality because peopel get turned on by different things and maybe children is one of them

Pedophilia is, by definition, sexual attraction to pre-pubescent children. How many 15-18 year olds do you know who have not yet gone through or at least started puberty?

i think pedophilia is ok but should only be used on children that are able to say what they want and that lot like 15 - 18 year olds. and maybe it is a new sexuality because peopel get turned on by different things and maybe children is one of them


Mushrooms R Us:


Stop smoking weed. I refuse to believe that the above is what you post in response to a thread where people are actually doing their best to reason.

I would expect better response from a fifth-grader. Try harder or don't waste the forum space. This is a serious, serious thread.

There is no way to justifiy a 40 year old man having sex with a 15 year old girl..period.

If the mans name is Johnny Depp a lot of 15 year old girls will disagree with you.
One of the main themes in this topic is the question when their opinion carries sufficient weight to make it right.

I think pedophiles and homosexuals are both perversions from the norm . Anyone who is into the bodies waste elimination system as an object of sexual arousal, be it man woman or childs has some serious mental defects. No matter what propaganda or pro perverted sex hype the media puts out the "silent majority " will still feel as I do. At least the "silent majority" in the USA.

If the mans name is Johnny Depp a lot of 15 year old girls will disagree with you.
One of the main themes in this topic is the question when their opinion carries sufficient weight to make it right.



Thats the problem, young kids don't have the intelligence or maturity to make that choice.

I think pedophiles and homosexuals are both perversions from the norm . Anyone who is into the bodies waste elimination system as an object of sexual arousal, be it man woman or childs has some serious mental defects. No matter what propaganda or pro perverted sex hype the media puts out the "silent majority " will still feel as I do. At least the "silent majority" in the USA.


:rolleyes:


The majority doesn't have a problem with gays.

I think pedophiles and homosexuals are 0both perversions from the norm . Anyone who is into the bodies waste elimination system as an object of sexual arousal, be it man woman or childs has some serious mental defects.

You are aware that both penis and vagina are waste elimination systems, and that a grown man fancying a young girl is quite possible ?

There is no way to justifiy a 40 year old man having sex with a 15 year old girl..period.
I know 15-year olds who look like 18-year olds. I know couples (or a couple) where the two are of significantly different ages. What's the problem?

Is it because a 15-year-old is underage? If they are identical to an 18-year old, what's the problem? It's not as if, when you turn 18, a sudden revalation hits you which allows you to now make good choices about who to sleep with.

Is it because she's so much younger than the man? But if she can make descisions for herself (see above), why is your opinion more valid than hers?

If the mans name is Johnny Depp a lot of 15 year old girls will disagree with you.
One of the main themes in this topic is the question when their opinion carries sufficient weight to make it right.

Fantasy is not always reality.

I have Fantasy's about Gillian Anderson. Experience will tell me that she probably doesn't match the image in my mind.

What was that quote? "They go to bed with Gilda(Rita Hayworth) and they wake up with me."

Many would probably opt out if the chance arose.

Never mind the fact Depp probably wouldn't go for it. ;)

I think pedophiles and homosexuals are both perversions from the norm . Anyone who is into the bodies waste elimination system as an object of sexual arousal, be it man woman or childs has some serious mental defects. No matter what propaganda or pro perverted sex hype the media puts out the "silent majority " will still feel as I do. At least the "silent majority" in the USA.

What "silent majority"?

Anyway, to be like my philosophy club's president who will not let your answer stand until you've answered every facet completely, what about the pedophiles who are interested in a prepubescent girl's vagina, not her butt?

I think pedophiles and homosexuals are both perversions from the norm . Anyone who is into the bodies waste elimination system as an object of sexual arousal, be it man woman or childs has some serious mental defects. No matter what propaganda or pro perverted sex hype the media puts out the "silent majority " will still feel as I do. At least the "silent majority" in the USA.


I actuly agree, gay sex is not normal, but the differance is, gay sex between consenting adults does not menatly scar you.

I actuly agree, gay sex is not normal, but the differance is, gay sex between consenting adults does not menatly scar you.
and yet there is (almost) nothing that gay people do that straight people dont do. so where does the "not normal" part come in?

Anybody who thinks Pedophilia is ok needs help, or need to be deported to the south pole.

Now you're advocating punishing anyone who opposes the criminalisation of thought crimes.

I hope that's very nearly everyone.

Is it because a 15-year-old is underage? If they are identical to an 18-year old, what's the problem? It's not as if, when you turn 18, a sudden revalation hits you which allows you to now make good choices about who to sleep with.
Well, there's the point that by age 18 most teens have gained more wisdom and experiance to choose drastically different courses of action when presented with the same choice. A 15 year old has started to think like an 18 year old, but there's the whole experiance bit.

Not saying that 18 needs to be the age of consent, but pointing out that 15 year olds and 18 year olds are different when it comes to reasoning.

Empress_Suiko said that there is no way to justify a 15-year old having sex with a 40-year old. I can make up any scenario I want and as long as it doesn't stretch things too far, it should refute his statement. I said that in a scenario where a 15-year old is equal to an 18-year old in every respect except actual age, there is no justification for her statement.

Empress_Suiko said that there is no way to justify a 15-year old having sex with a 40-year old. I can make up any scenario I want and as long as it doesn't stretch things too far, it should refute his statement. I said that in a scenario where a 15-year old is equal to an 18-year old in every respect except actual age, there is no justification for her statement.
I am aware of what she said and your responce, I was pointing out that, all things being equal, a 15 year old is not equal to an 18 year old. There IS a lot of growth at that time.

However, please do not take this as an assumption then that 18 is a magical number or that sexual consent has to wait until age 18. There can be good arguments given why a 15 year old has the capasity to decide upon that, I am just pointing out that a lot of change happens in those three years, an will continue to happen for a few more years, so to say that both are the same is false.

Or, in other words, your argument should be why and if a 15 year old is capable to consent and her argument is false, not that a 15 year old and a 18 year old are the same and thereofre her argument is false.

What happens in those three years? They can take a few more drinks before they pass out? They've slept with a few other teens? I say that there is no difference and so a 15-year old can make the same choices with the same level of knowledge as an 18-year old.

15-year olds do gain more experience over three years, but it doesn't influence their descisions to a significant degree.

It is a sexuality but one that has negative effects on people. And that is the basis for why it is not accepted. Because hurting people is NO GOOD.

What makes pedophilia a mental illness while homosexuality is not? Both are deviations from the norm.

That is a question better asked to a mental health expert (which I am not, I'm just a person expressing my opinion). There are a lot of questions asked in these forums better answered by saints and philosophers rather than us.

Personally, I find pedophilia and child molestation both to be distasteful.

I CAN however show that children's brains do not 'light up' the way and adult brain does when exposed to a wide range of issues. Since we're talking about informed (adult ability) to consent, this suggests a very strong probablity that they are unable to think about the subject in the same way an adult can.

I repeat that so little is known about the relationship of brian architecture to our consious thoughts that it would be impossible to say anything worthwhile about a person's cognitive capabilities based on the observed neuro-architecture. If we did have that understanding, it would be the holy grail of neuroscience and psychology combined.

Again, Piaget's theories of cogantive development along with Skinner's theories. These are the two main camps if you will in the realm of child development about how children learn to reason and both of which state that the capasity for reason grows with the child as the child develops.

I'll see if I can find them. Wait, have I responded to these in a previous thread?

To be able to provide consent, an adult must be in a possition to consider all consequenses of their actions, properly weigh said, act upon their own will without undue infulance, or at least have the ability to do so. Children lack experiance with the 1st, and the ability to fully consider the second. Or do you have anything that shows that a child is capable of reasoning as an adult?
All right. Let's talk about those.
1) must be in a position to consider all consequences of their actions. What consequences is a child incapable of considering? Can that be corrected by education?
2) must be able to properly weigh consquences. Do you suggest that children can't weigh the concesquences of their actions? How do they come to decisions then? I mean they seem to make choices all the time, but if they can't weigh the consequences of their actions, what criteria do they use? If a child alergic to peanuts can't weigh the possible consequences of eating peanut butter and decide that they'd rather not fall into anapolegic shock, I suppose you're right. Unfortunately we both know children do weigh the consequences of their actions and make their decisions accordingly.
3) must be able to act on their own without undue influence. What's undue influence? How much social pressure is required to have an adult convicted of cohersive rape? How much is just an accepted part of sex in general? Define undue influence and we can talk about this last one, because this may be your strongest point.
The problem in my mnd is coercion.

And that's a big problem whether we're dealing with adults or children.

I could accept that preference for children is just one more sexual fetish or even a sexual orientation. I could accept that there's nothing inherenty wrong with an adult and a child having sex. What I can't accept is that there is any way to remove coercion from the equation. There is simply no way to know whether each child is capable of understanding the ramifications of his or her actions AND is capable of giving consent AND is not being coerced or cowed by adult authority.

And if we elimnated adult authority entirely and let kids make their own decisions about the rest of their lives too? The reason adults even have authority is because children are forcably treated as property and trained to obey rather than think for themselves.

It's just not possible. I have to view each case as an exploitation of a child by an adult for sexual gratification. Which is a disgusting act. My only regret is that there are actualy adults and children capable of having a meaningful healthy sexual relationship. But allowing those exceptions is not worth the price in destroyed childhoods.

You accept that some positive, meaningful relationships might exist, but you still feel compelled to view them all as exploitation? This isn't even about what's legally verifiable when you say this, it's about you being able to recognise something isn't harmful and still call it exploitation. I just don't get it.

I think that any adult that can't understand that and is controlled by those sexual urges is just as sick as anyone else ruled by sexual urges. It's a sociopathic condition.
Any adult who would knowingly risk harming a child by exposing said child to the taboo this brings with it, and risk the child being forced through the courts and psychiatrists is someone I have no respect for and should be stopped by any means neccisary. That said, I still think that the courts and psychiatrists, and the revusion of ordinary people in society are making things worse not better, and thus are equally guilty of harming the child as the child molester.
Varies with the child. But how do you legislate that? Arbitrarily. That's how. An age has to be chosen that balances out rights with child safety.

Hard to believe arbitrary is a valid way of establishing public policy. Is that how we should handle where we put the stop lights too? I should think society has grown out of ruling arbitrarily and is ready to try governing using information, reason, and especially evidence for why their proposal is actually a good idea.

Personally, I think there should be a 5 year age difference window from 14 to 17 and open age of consent to be 18. But That'll vary by region and culture.
This is one of the more annoying aspects of this sort of legislation, actually. If someone's not mature enough to handle sex with "mature responsible adults", why are they mature enough to handle sex with "immature, irresponsible teenagers"? What this sort of "close in exception" does is force "early bloomers" to focuse their sexual attention on their peers who may or may not be ready sexually yet. If sex is harmful to a particular 15 year old, it isn't going to make a difference if the person they're being fucked by is 16 or 60. If they can't conscent, they can't conscent. Thus if they can't conscent to an adult, they can't really be said to be able to conscent to a peer either.
Well, developmentally speaking, they seem to start to gain the ability to understand as an adult would around age 13. 16, while, yes, somewhat random, seems to catch all the late bloomers.

Now the wisdom to use it well is another thing, but we don't even consern ourselves over an adult's ability to do so.
Perhaps we should concern ourselves with that. After all, isn't the whole point of age of conscent about making sure people aren't being exploited because of their poor decision making skills? That's kind of how you presented it to me in your last post.
No! Its just another sexual preference, you mean-spirited bigoted homophobe!

Sarcasm off. Anyway, the fact that you feel a sexual need is no defence.
So your sexual preferences are not socially approved.
People hate and despise you.
Guess what? Deal with it!
I really prefer the "get off your ass and do something about it" advice much better.
I think we've all pretty much agreed on 18. You won't find too many people who want to raise it to 26. You won't find too many who want to lower it to 12. But you WILL find a lot who want to keep it around 18. Like I said, it's an arbitrary number, not absolute.
But don't we want to err on the side of caution?

Anyway, the reason people wouldn't accept raising it to 26 is because they don't really care about whether or not those early bloomers are caught. They're concerned, and rightfully, about people taking away the sexual freedom of those 18-35ers. I'm just concerned about the fact that they've taken away sexual freedom from under-18ers.
I don't think that pedophilia is the same as a sexual orientation in any way. Sexual orientation is fixed partly due to genetics and partly due to the womb environment... pedophilia is usually the result of earlier sexual abuse if I remember it correctly.
While I can't speak for all pedophiles, I was never sexually abused. I think it's more complicated than the "cycle of abuse" doctrine gives it credit for.
Nothing wrong with pedophilia, as long it is not rape.

If you like kids, and engage in sexual activities with them, and kids also like you and engage in sexual activities with you, willingly, then what's the problem?
The problem is that they have to keep living in a society which considers pedophelia to be wrong and abusive regardless of the actual facts. The problem is that regardless of how positive an experience it is, it would precipitate a lifetime of emotional torture from society.

Am I clear?
Well, as far as I know, there's no genetic basis for pedophilia and no pre-birth environmental conditions cause it either, unless you can provide some studies to that effect.
Pedophiles are so universally reviled by modern society that they have to remain in hiding. It's hard to do serious research on a group that won't even agknowledge who they are for fear of the mob. (And when exactly did they unearth the Gay gene?)
I see peoples point that if a child wants to have sex with an older person he/she should have that freedom to, however I think that a child is not fully aware of the responsibilities that come with sex, and so shouldnt do it.
I'm not sure I'm aware of those responsibilities you're talking about. What are they? And could a child be made aware of those responsibilities by, I don't know, telling them?
Well, adults *should* be. But that the same time I am not gonna have, lets say, a court decide who is mentally fit to have sex

Why not? I mean we do that anyway when the question of cohersive rape or diminshed capacity comes up, so why not use the question of diminished capacity for everyone?
No, it isn't ok. Children will agree to do most anything if you ask them to enough times, they're gullible and fairly easy to convince that something is a good idea,

And I take it you've never had a problem convincing a small child to eat his/her vegtables?

and afterwards, it would be pretty easy to convince them that they did something wrong so they shouldn't talk to anyone about it.
Actually, the reason that one's so easy is because our entire culture reinforces the idea that the child has done something wrong. It isn't that children are easy to convince, it's that the child molester isn't acting alone when he makes his arguement. Our entire anti-sex culture helps in making children feel guilty and complicit in their own abuse.
Actually, nothing, I was just teasing playing the Devil's Advocate for a pair of posts, trying to illustrate a point but noone bit the bait.

Sorry if I got you mad, I'll buy you a nice coffee if you ever find me
In other words you've been pretending to be a member of my side, making yourself look like a sociopath and an ignorant jackass simply to reinforce the prejudice people already have against me. I'm sorry, but a coffee isn't going to cut it.
all 3.

Okay then, I guess I have no choice but to deal with all three then:
1) that pedophiles are unable to relate to children as human beings
You may have noticed that one of the main criticisms people here have been making toward me is that I have been treating children as though they have adult decisionmaking abilities. It's been those critics which keep insisting children are subhuman.

2) that we can't establish an equal, conscentual relationship with them
I suppose you're right on this one. No matter what I do, the child will always have a monopoly on social power, since all the child needs to do is speak about the relationship and I would get sent down the river. That does present a problem for forming an equal relationship, so I suppose I'll have to conceed the point. Oh wait, you're saying I would be the superior partner? Ha ha ha ha ha ha.

3) that the relationships can't last for decades
I again question how pedophiles are incapable of this if you've got "normal" people who aren't interested in sagging brests and wrinkled skin maintaining their relationships long after their partner exits their age of attraction.

i am, if it makes you feel better, talking about those pedophiles who are so obsessed with their fetish that they actually molest children, not those who have an interest in children that they can keep under control. that is just extremely dangerous.

Um, if you say you consider me extremely dangerous, in what sense are you not talking about me?

do you have a child that you fucked before he/she was in puberty who you still have a sexual (or any) relationship with after she/he became an adult?

Catch 22, huh? I say yes, and I'm a child molester appropriate to be dismissed as a monster, but if I answer no, then you say I have no evidence. Real classy.

Oh and no, I've never acted on these sexual desires. And to be honest, I'm only 23. I haven't been sexually interested in anyone long enough for them to "grow up" on me.

no. a normal person falls in love and keeps a relationship with that person no matter how old they get. thats why normal relationships are different from pedophilia.

Prove it. Prove that I'm different from you in this regard.

that would suggest that you are no longer an active pedophile because you fell for some poor child, entered into a mutually loving relationship with her, are still IN that relationship decades later and havent seduced any other children since then. do YOU know a pedophile who "fell in love" with a 5 year old, consumated that relationship, continues in it even though that 5 year old is now 25, and left the active pursuit of children behind forever?

Always demanding that the sex happens before puberty so you can dismiss my examples as monsters, huh? Point of fact, I do know pedophiles who are still attracted to their crushes after they've grown up. I believe DSN was diciplined for providing links to forums where pedophiles congregate, so I don't think I'm allowed to provide evidence of this fact. If I'm wrong, please give me a moderator quote, and I'll be more than happy to link you directly to the relevant thread.

your "sexuality" hurts others.

I think, again, you're confusing the thought with the action.

anyone who actively tries to seduce children needs to be in jail. no prettying it or pretence is going to change that.

And I disagree with this? I think you've mistaken me for someone else.

sucks to be you.
I try not to wallow in self-pity. It isn't healthy.
I almost always do public polls. I'm hoping to get more honesty by not giving people a chance to just vote (perhaps with a puppet) and then not bother to back up their view.

Oh, I meant yeah. I'm hoping to "intimidate" people... by clicking "make this a public poll." Cuz that's a great way to be intimidating! Time and again, people are intimidated by public pollers.

My apologies then. I made a false assumption, and I'm a big enough person to admit when I'm wrong.

Well, since you're a pedophile, I attribute your confusion due to mental deficiency. No one else is complaining about it.

Really? You missed the posts saying your poll had nothing to do with the question which had nothing to do with the opening post, and the suggestion that the question was biased? I'm not going to do your leg work for you and track the posts down to give you the numbers. You'll either look them up yourself or remain ignorant of their existence.

And really, I should point out that the first and second options aren't mutually exclusive. It's a perfectly valid response to say that pedophelia is a sexuality and an impulse to harm children, after all. Had that been an option, I would have leaned decidedly toward that option myself.

No, thats not the "point" of Godwin's Law. Jeez, does NO ONE know what that stupid internet shit means? Guess not. Apparently you think its a sign of victory on your part or something.

I've made my case about the use of Hitler comparisons. Feel free to reject or accept my arguements. I'll not be drawn into a tangental debate over this.

And frankly, any argument you could make is weakened by the fact that you are a pedophile.

You don't think I know that? Of course that weakens my arguements. It isn't news that people are less likely to hear a pedophile out.

You are doing nothing but justifying your own sexual perversion, just like any other sexual pervert.

I'm continuing to try to convince people of my right to exist and to think my own thoughts. If that's what counts as "justifying my own sexual perversion" then so be it.

I didn't say the thought is a CRIME. Clearly, you can "think" about being a pedophile all you like without punishment. But it is morally reprehensible. I guess its no surprise that you can't see this. Again, your attitude is merely one of self-justification.

It isn't that you think it's morally reprehensible that bothers me. Think whatever the hell you want. It's that you (or those like you) feel it's appropriate to take your moral objection to my thoughts and use that to justify actions against me and those like me.

Suuuure. Now you're brining out the old "rape is not a crime of sex" bullshit. Yeah, I guess thats why its called a sex crime, and it involves sex.

Are you high? Did you read my post? I said that pedophelia had plenty to do with sex.

I offer you as an example of subhumanoid scum.

I know you aren't going to take my advice, but name calling isn't going to help you appear any more reasonable, and is likely to drive people away from your cause, rather than help your side of the arguement.

Well, you could be executed. I'd have no problems with that, since you pose a danger to society. I guess you oppose that sort of thing and whine about 1984, though.

Did you even read 1984? Oceana didn't actually use the death penalty as we conventionally use the term. They actually brainwash and reprogram their deviants back into productive members of society. A good portion of the book is dedicated to the protagonist Winston undergoing such "rehabilitation".

I don't object because I see a nonexistent 1984 paralell. I object to you saying I need help, then offering to shoot me as your version of help.

If you support that right then you had no place saying "you can't say" blah blah blah.

I accept your concession.

I believe you misread me. Could you give me the post number where I said anything like that so I can either retract or clarify those remarks directly?

Oh please. Thats just not the criteria for voting. If it was, there wouldn't be a Democrat or Republican party. And its not about "expressing political opinions." Minors can express political opinions if they want. They just can't vote. Just like you can't have sex with them.

I know that's not the criteria for voting. Currently the criteria for voting is 18 years. I'm suggesting that my version would be a better criteria.

Never read Ender's Game?

Actually I did. I loved the book. Card's later stuff got a tad preachy and his overemphasis on reproduction as the ultimate meaning of life really soured his Ender's Shadow series, but there's no denying that Ender's Game was a masterpiece.

And there is far more to the military than as you imply, carrying field packs and shooting a gun directly.

That's true, but as I understand it, the carrying of field packs and shooting of guns is a prerequisite for every military career because every military career requires the candidate to pass basic training. If there are military people on the forum who can contradict this statement, I'll gladly accept that I was mistaken.

I posit the main reason you wouldn't support the militarization of children is because it would interfere with your ability to leer and drool over them.

You would be incorrect. As the saying goes "who doesn't like a man in uniform". Ammend that accordingly.

Considering the first thing you said was a self-righteous huff of indignation about a public poll being "intimidating" I really don't see where you have a foot to stand on calling other people "appealing to emotions."

I believe I've retracted that "self-righteous huff". Shall we move on then?

Kinda like how man-boy-love has to do with the physical capability of a child to survive sexual acts with an older man without trauma. OH WAIT ITS DIFFERENT, because you're a pedophile. Versatile as always.

Um, if you want to talk about man-boy, I guess we can. I'm into girls myself, but we can get into that stuff if you're interested. There isn't much physical trauma if it's the adult rather than the child who is penetrated.

They are not considered as adults, in either sentencing or punishment, and you know it. The "grave insult" here is actually just you.

But they are punished. Deemed criminally responsible for their actions. If they're so incompotent that they can't make their own sexual decisions because of the "cohersive adults" then wouldn't it be accurate to say that they were likely cohersed into criminal activity and that they didn't know any better?

Its so comforting to know that you can speak for "a majority of pedophiles" and what they believe. Apparently, there was a National Pedophilia General Election and you won the vote. Congratulations!

Actually, I should probably clarify that statement. I really only meant to say that a majority of the pedophiles I've conversed with expressed an aversion to incest. In fact, they've been promoting anti-incest legislation on their forums. I believe they called it the CARE act. I haven't read much on it myself.

Yes, when that "pleasurable experience" you want to share is making a kid have sex with you.

I'm glad you agree now.

I was right, you really are incapable of seeing degrees of harm. Can you diferentiate between assault and murder?

"Nominally conscentual?" Ha. NOT CONESENTUAL is what you mean to say here. Thus yes.

The point was to diferentiate between statutory and forcable rapes. I can see that you can't even accept that there is any difference at all, but I should think the rest of the forum isn't so thick. I wasn't saying one's okay but the other isn't. I was saying that one is less harmful than the other, and that equating the two is a misreading of the relative scale of the offenses.

Children, left on their own, don't turn into competent adults either. That's why there is this whole "society" thing with "parents" who "raise" and not "fuck" their kids.

Are you trying to be irrelevant? Could you at least respond to the quoted section if you're going to bother to quote it?

Kind of like how currently, society feels you are allowed to express your perverted lust for children's genitals. Don't knock "society" just because you can't get everything you want from it. I would venture to say you agree with an alarming number of "arbitrary" social conventions.
Some I agree with, others I don't. I agree with freedom of expression, and disagree with focing conformity. I could go on, but the point is that while there's much to admire in our society, there's a lot that could and should be improved upon.
Last I heard, the death penalty is still viable in the US. So what's wrong with advocating death when this "nation of the world" agrees that its alright to take a human life in some cases?

I don't need to advocate mutilation, branding, or castration. Death will do just fine. Simple, efficient, effective.

Death for child molesters, I can agree with that. Death for thought-criminals like me? I really hope you don't expect support for that idea?

I object to this deterministic attitude so popular, that no one can change their preferences, ever. Apparently we're all just animals, and we live our lives slaves to the desires we had at birth. The whole "sentience" and "human consciousness" and "personal responsibility" thing doesn't exist, no one can be expected to do anything other than what they were Meant To Do according to you.

You've made an unfortunate jump in logic from "no one can control what they thing" to "no one can control what they do". The former is an accepted viewpoint, but the late is most definately not. One doesn't follow from the other.

I know mine is an unpopular viewpoint though. Its more preferable to people to believe that they can't change what they want. Hence why so many people are alcoholics, for example. They figure they can't change, they were born, nay, DESTINED or fated to be alcoholics. Same with pedo's now, and yes, rapists, murderers, and people who think we should nuke the middle east. It's the latest fad - everyone is a victim of uncontrollable circumstances and cannot so much as change what they like, ever.

I agree that the stripping away of the idea of personal responsibility is definately an unpleasant fad. I just don't agree with the idea that personal responsibility should apply to our thoughts rather than just our actions.

Whether this is a "Godwin" or not, its a strawman. No one is advocating these things.

I thought we agreed not to involve Godwin's law in this arguement. Though in all fairness, you were the one who made the Nazi comparison first back in the last thread.

So if you believe pedophiles "do it unintentionally," do you contradict The Five Caste's claim that he can restrain himself from acting on his lust for children?

Are you saying he is genetically predestined to have sex with kids?

He can correct me if I'm wrong, but I suspect he's saying that I can't control my preferences, rather than giving me a carte blance to molest children without taking personal responsibility.

I already disagree with statement #1. But that aside, the latter is just untrue. You are saying that if someone doesn't make a CONSCIOUS CHOICE to do something, then it is somehow "not their doing." So like, if I sleepwalk, and kill you, I go free cuz I was not fully conscious at the time?

Actually, yes. If you can prove you killed him while sleepwalking, you aren't guilty of murder. Don't like that the law's set up that way? I could do as you have and tell you to get over it, but instead I'll give you the more constructive advice and tell you that if you don't like the law, try to have it changed.

One time I didn't like carrots. I vomited after eating them when I was a kid, and every time after that I had a gag reflex just in their presence. I hated them. But I forced myself to acquire their taste and today, I can eat carrots not only without vomiting, but with gusto. I fucking love carrots (cooked, anyway. Raw is not my style). Thus, I changed what I like.

But I must be a genetic freak, and an impossibility.
You should really force yourself to like the raw ones too. They're better for you, and if you can change once, then you should be able to do it again.

As for the actual topic, it isn't a question of a person learning to like something. What would be required of me to stop being a pedophile isn't learning to like adults. I already do. What would be required is for me to start disliking children. There is a therapy based on that exact idea. It's called avoidence therapy. Pedophelia has proven quite resistent to this treatment, much as homosexuality proved resistent when they tried to "straighten out" gays.
I think the bottom line has more to do with the ease in which an adult can get a child to 'do as it is told' has more bearing on it than the inocence of children
Are you a pedophile? No? Then stop acting like you know what is and isn't attractive to us, okay?
Yep consent between two adults wo have fully matured brians is one thing, but consent from a child who may not have full knowledge of what it may be getting into is another.

So the answer is education, right? I mean if hte problem is whether they know what they're getting into or not, right?

It is very easy to get a child to do what you want.
Really?

I hate to keep up the tired old cliche, but "for the hundedth time, eat your vegtalbes". I guess I should probably use something different next time. How about "I told you to clean your room"?

If it's so easy, why are these such hard fought battles between parents and their children?
You're my hero.

Not because you're a pedophile, but because you're so good at constructing this argument. I'm impressed.
Thanks. It's always good to see a fan of my work.
That is quite frankly bolloks.

Every action you make, utimatly in your head you have to say yes or no to it. You're a fuckin' human being, you have ultimate control over each and every thought, and action you perform.

Do you doubt me? Then try this, go get yourself a drink of water, place in on the table in frontof you then decide when you want to drink it. You will find that you will drink it when you want. There will be no outside influence making you drink it before you want to, and when you decide it is time, the only thing that will stop you drinking it, is you.

The only people that have not got this control are those with mental health problems. yes you can be attraceted to something that you know you should not, but the choice to act is yours and yours alone.

Um, this implies that you are in control of your actions, but the earlier poster was suggesting that you are in control of your thoughts.

It's not so much that I refute that you don't drink the water until you want to, it's that I refute the idea that you can control when you want to drink the water.

I mean our desires form the basis of our decisions, so I think it would be inapropiate to say that we can control our desires, because the desire to change that desire is a desire in and of itself.

There is no get out clause on this, none but mental illness.
Um, you do realise that pedophelia is classified as a mental illness, right?
Again I ask: how do you propose a pedophile depedophiles himself exactly ?
Can you write a simple nine step plan or at least paint a general outline ?

Other than "he can kill himself".
I think you're wasting your time. People like him only use the phrase "you need help" as an insult. They know full well there's no help to be had. They just like calling us mentally deficient.
Fine I understand that, and I can find no flaw in the logic of that, except of course that it is normal behaviuor for men to be attracted to women, and it is not normal behaviour for men to be attracted to children.
To go further it is also normal behviour for men to want to screw around even if married. But why is this normal behaviour? Because we men are hard wired to to fuck as many woman of pregnable age as possible to secure our genes. In this we are no differant from the other animals, it is just our extra brain capacity which leads to a set of moral principles that makes us stay faithfull.

Actually, there are animals which are truly programmed to be monogomistic. They mate for life. Modern humans just seem to value that sort of mating system even if that isn't how we were designed to operate. Monogamy, from a biological prospective is unnatural. That doesn't make it bad, but from a biological prospective, it's counterproductive in human males to the goal of passing on your genes.

There is nothing to be gained in fucking children, it is not a deepseated need in us, in fact it is the end result of a mind that does not work correctly.

I could point out biological reasons this might be a benefit to the species, but it borders on supremacism, and I don't want to get into that territory.

Let me state that again and clearly so there can be no misunderstanding. A mind that wants to have sex with kids, is a mind that is not normal.
I clearly understand your point of view, and it would seem that public opinion would bare out your assertions of normalcy. I don't really care whether I'm normal or not, though, so you haven't really said much of anything with this.
Yep thats a good question, castrate those that cannot do anything but act upon it. At least that way they will not be able to do that again, and those that don't act but ask for help, well we have all sorts of drugs to help those with mental health issues, and I see this as a mental health issue sooooooo.

There aren't any drugs which stop pedophelia. If there were, don't you think pedophiles would be given a standard treatment with those drugs rather than such proven ineffective treatments as avoidence therapy?

Hehe of course you will realise that whilst I try to keep my head and so provied my answers logicaly, and without bias(yes I'm a leftie) you'll notice that some things make me loose my temper!:rolleyes:
I understand. It's hard to get past the ingrained prejudice. I do respect you for at least trying.
To a degree ? Certainly. But I do not believe that having to struggle daily against an attraction they are not allowed to act upon is pleasant for the pedophile. In fact, I can think of noone except sadists that enjoy to see suffering or masochists that like to suffer for whom pedophilia is a pleasurable thing.
So I take it you think nerds with no chance of getting a woman (just assume they really have no chance for the sake of arguement) would preffer to be castrated rather than struggle against their sexual desires which can be sated only by rape? I somehow doubt that.
Hehe okay yeah I sorta make you right. But if we have say things like schitophrenia, would you then call that a normaly functioning brain or an abnormaly functioning brain?

We already have a whole slew of what we call mental illnesses. How do we know that these are mental illnesses and not just some sort of differant normal brain pattern? Because we have decided that it is the case.

Subjectivly speaking our system of morals is nowt more than what the majority says is right and wrong. Now at this day and age, and in this culture, we the majority say that pedophila is wrong. You can argue with that as long as you like, but realise my previous statement is correct, and that the majority will not side with you.
So in societies where pedophelia and adult-child sex are considered normal, then you don't feel pedophelia is wrong in those societies? I'm just trying to make sure I understand you correctly. No more. No less.
If the mans name is Johnny Depp a lot of 15 year old girls will disagree with you.
One of the main themes in this topic is the question when their opinion carries sufficient weight to make it right.
Indeed.
Well, there's the point that by age 18 most teens have gained more wisdom and experiance to choose drastically different courses of action when presented with the same choice. A 15 year old has started to think like an 18 year old, but there's the whole experiance bit.

Not saying that 18 needs to be the age of consent, but pointing out that 15 year olds and 18 year olds are different when it comes to reasoning.
I'm sorry? That's exactly the grounds on which you suggest children can't consent (they supposedly have a different capacity to reason), so why is it not enough to convince you that 15 year olds can't conscent?

In other words you've been pretending to be a member of my side, making yourself look like a sociopath and an ignorant jackass simply to reinforce the prejudice people already have against me. I'm sorry, but a coffee isn't going to cut it.


Yes, I was pretending, mostly because you weren't here and I wanted to see how people argued against pedophilia. I wasn't making myself loo like a sociopath, actually, you read my arguments and agreed with them in the first part of your post. If my arguments look sociopathic to you, then revise your own, as they are more or less the same.

No thanks for the ignorant jackass part, it's not like I was writing an opinion without revising arguments first. I posted the arguments that usually pedophile groups or parties use in their defense. Do not hurl insults carelessly, think first, it usually helps.

Technically, it's just another sexual preference. On the other hand, sex with someone who hasn't reached Puberty yet is harming them by definition. Same goes with older "teens" who are not "equals" in the sexual relationship.

Personally, i have no problem with paedophiles, as long as they don't make the step to paedosexuality.

Just because they no longer have sex with men doesnt mean that desire is gone. These are people pretending to be straight.

Prove that. Prove that every single one of them is how you are stating here.

Anybody who thinks Pedophilia is ok needs help, or need to be deported to the south pole.

They certainly do need help. It worries me that 53 people voted for it. I'm very surprised this site doesn't expose them and kick them out for this support.

They certainly do need help. It worries me that 53 people voted for it. I'm very surprised this site doesn't expose them and kick them out for this support.

Again, thought or action?

They certainly do need help. It worries me that 53 people voted for it. I'm very surprised this site doesn't expose them and kick them out for this support.

No! Its just another sexual preference, you mean-spirited bigoted homophobe! <-- is what I voted.
That hardly means that I endorse that sexual preference.

As I stated in my post(reworded) : if your sexual preference makes you loathed and hated, tough crap on you.

They certainly do need help. It worries me that 53 people voted for it. I'm very surprised this site doesn't expose them and kick them out for this support.
I'm sure you have opinions on something controversial which also go against the mainstream. Maybe you should be exposed for those opinions.

They certainly do need help. It worries me that 53 people voted for it. I'm very surprised this site doesn't expose them and kick them out for this support.

And I can't believe how many people on this board support punishing people for thought-crimes.

And I can't believe how many people on this board support punishing people for thought-crimes.

And I can't believe that some people think that when others are against something that means they are calling for thought crime prosecution.

And I can't believe how many people on this board support punishing people for thought-crimes.
It's mostly the holier-than-thou religious whackos on the moral high horses. They're not representative of all of us. Just more vocal.

On the OP, now: Pedophilia is not comparable to homosexuality. The proble with it is that it stems from desire for a party that cannot legally consent. Homosexual sex happens between two consenting parties. Hence why one is legal and the other is not.

However, a person attracted to children but who does not act on his desires is doing nothing wrong, and should certainly be left alone. Or commended, in fact, for restricting himself because he acknowledges the fact that acting upon them would be harmful for others.

Well, I did do some research on this subject. While it's true that Children are sexual beings, they approach their sexuality in different ways than adults, and they're more comfortable with peers than with other adults. They usually indulge in games that gives the chance to explore their bodies, i.e. "Doctor", "I touch yours, you touch mine"...etc. When approached by an adult there's definately a difference in power, knowledge, experience...etc. As such any possible relationship will most propably be abusive in nature. We observe these tendencies in adults, how can we expect child-adult sexual relationships won't be subject to that? Saying that Pedophilia is a sexual preferance is erroneous, Pedophiles are not attracted to people of likely preferance(like every other sexuality: Hets with Hets, Homos with Homos) they have an attraction/fetish with children. A pedophile suggested that if the adult is penetrated instead of the child, there'll be no physical trauma...won't that be physically improbable? Pre-pubescent boys don't have genitals of sufficient length to penetrate, anyway because of their young age they'll be psychologically traumatized either way simply because they are not ready; the experience will be scary since they are too young to understand. If you are speaking about teens, then it's irrelevant since it's doesn't pertain to pedophilia.

And I can't believe that some people think that when others are against something that means they are calling for thought crime prosecution.

Maimed was.

Well, actually, Maimed was worse. Maimed asked that we be punished for opposing the prosecution of thought crimes.

Pedophiles are not attracted to people of likely preferance(like every other sexuality: Hets with Hets, Homos with Homos) they have an attraction/fetish with children.

Whoa whoa whoa, are you saying its impossible for a male homo to be attracted to a male hetero?

Maimed was.

Well, actually, Maimed was worse. Maimed asked that we be punished for opposing the prosecution of thought crimes.

Well now. I guess I should read before responding! Can I claim the lack of coffee defense? ;)

Personally, I don't like the concept and will never accept it due to the ability of children in the matters of consent.

However, you can't nail them because they have "sick" desires. Rule of Law only plays when they act on them.

Whoa whoa whoa, are you saying its impossible for a male homo to be attracted to a male hetero?

Or straight women being attracted to gay men.

As the saying goes, "All the best men are either taken or gay."

They certainly do need help. It worries me that 53 people voted for it. I'm very surprised this site doesn't expose them and kick them out for this support.

Good idea!

We should also lock up anybody that has ever thought of beating their siblings, spouse, significant other, children, the guy that flipped you off in the car......

As Llweder mentioned, you are talking about thought crimes.

Hell I could be jailed for life for the things I have thought about women.

My wife could be jailed for the amount of times she wanted to kill me.

Heck people here could be jailed for thinking they wanted to Bitch Slap me!

Whoa whoa whoa, are you saying its impossible for a male homo to be attracted to a male hetero?

I can answer that.

I have had a couple propositions from gay men.....

Whoa whoa whoa, are you saying its impossible for a male homo to be attracted to a male hetero?
I don,t think he's saying that. If anything, a male homo can be attracted to a male hetero: it's all fine if he doesn't act on his attraction.

If he does, however, that becomes rape. In the same light, a pedophile being attracted to children isn't inherently wrong, but since children are unable of enlightened consent, acting on his desires becomes pedophilia, which is treated pretty much as rape.

"All the best men are either taken or gay."
Or both.

I don,t think he's saying that. If anything, a male homo can be attracted to a male hetero: it's all fine if he doesn't act on his attraction.

If he does, however, that becomes rape. In the same light, a pedophile being attracted to children isn't inherently wrong, but since children are unable of enlightened consent, acting on his desires becomes pedophilia, which is treated pretty much as rape.

But doesn't that defeat the intended argument that it's not a sexual preference. You've just demonstrated that it's very much like other sexual preferences in this way.

But doesn't that defeat the intended argument that it's not a sexual preference. You've just demonstrated that it's very much like other sexual preferences in this way.
No. Raping a heterosexual man is not a sexual preference.

When two homosexual men do it with each other, it's sex between consenting adults.

When a homosexual man tries to force it on a heterosexual man, it's rape. When a pedophile tries to force it on a child, it's pedophilia, which is akin to rape.

So, a pedophile is pretty much the same thing as someone who gets turned on by fantasms of rape. Which isn't very troublesome if he doesn't act on it, mind you, but becomes dangerous if he does.

:upyours: :upyours: all pedophiles should do everyone a favor and suck a bullet:upyours: :upyours: :upyours:

No. Raping a heterosexual man is not a sexual preference.

When two homosexual men do it with each other, it's sex between consenting adults.

When a homosexual man tries to force it on a heterosexual man, it's rape. When a pedophile tries to force it on a child, it's pedophilia, which is akin to rape.

So, a pedophile is pretty much the same thing as someone who gets turned on by fantasms of rape. Which isn't very troublesome if he doesn't act on it, mind you, but becomes dangerous if he does.

But a preference is a desire, not the act.

If I have sex with a woman, does that mean I'm straight? No. What makes me straight is that I prefer women - that I find women appealing.

I don't think anyone's arguing that child molestation is somehow the same as consensual sex. Even Five Castes sees that.

But a preference is a desire, not the act.

If I have sex with a woman, does that mean I'm straight? No. What makes me straight is that I prefer women - that I find women appealing.

I don't think anyone's arguing that child molestation is somehow the same as consensual sex. Even Five Castes sees that.
Well, it's sometimes hard to draw the line between desire, preference, sexual orientation and/or fetish.

I admit it's somewhat of a grey line. What we need to look at to asnwer that to the best of our abilities is the reason of the desire. I've read many psychological studies that concludes that most pedophiles aren't in fact attracted to children themselves, but rather enjoy the situation of power and control over them.

So, in my opinion, it comes closer to a fetish, like S&M or B&D, than a sexual orienation or preference. Because it's not the child itself that is the object of desire, but rather the situation in which it is presented. I'll be the first one to admit I am by no way a specialist on the subject, thought, and not all pedophiles may react like this.

I guess whetever the causes/reasons/explanantions of this phenomena, the important part is simply to make sure we do our best to prevent acts of pedophilia without going around and inflicting mob justice for thoughts of pedophilia.

I've read many psychological studies that concludes that most pedophiles aren't in fact attracted to children themselves, but rather enjoy the situation of power and control over them.

Are you sure those studies weren't about child molesters?

Remember what we always hear about rape: it's not about sex, it's about power.

Are you sure those studies weren't about child molesters?

Hmm, how exactly do you define the difference between a pedophile and a child molester? Child molesters are the ones who act on their impulses, whereas pedophiles need not to act on them but only feel attracted to?

A square is a rectangle but a rectangle isn't a square?


Remember what we always hear about rape: it's not about sex, it's about power.
Indeed. Which is why I compared the two.

Again, thought or action?

Both. Simple dimple.

No! Its just another sexual preference, you mean-spirited bigoted homophobe! <-- is what I voted.
That hardly means that I endorse that sexual preference.

As I stated in my post(reworded) : if your sexual preference makes you loathed and hated, tough crap on you.

Like I said, I can't believe that this site allows scumbags who voted for this.

Hmm, how exactly do you define the difference between a pedophile and a child molester? Child molesters are the ones who act on their impulses, whereas pedophiles need not to act on them but only feel attracted to?

A square is a rectangle but a rectangle isn't a square?

I'm not even claiming that the two groups overlap.

Child molesters you can identify by their actions. They molest children.

Pedophiles need to self-identify.

I'm sure you have opinions on something controversial which also go against the mainstream. Maybe you should be exposed for those opinions.

Ah, sorry, I don't go for that red-herring. Some things are self-evident, this is one of them. If you support thinking or writing about pedophilia, you're a scumbag.

I'm not even claiming that the two groups overlap.

Child molesters you can identify by their actions. They molest children.

Pedophiles need to self-identify.
Fair enough, I guess, but that still doesn't get us very far from our starting point.

And I can't believe how many people on this board support punishing people for thought-crimes.

Oh, forgive me for not supporting such garbage. Thought or not, its still garbage. Sorry, I don't go for that redherring.

Ah, sorry, I don't go for that red-herring. Some things are self-evident, this is one of them. If you support thinking or writing about pedophilia, you're a scumbag.

So you support the prosecution of not only those who commit thought crimes, but also of those who defend them.

Glad we got that out in the open.

So you support the prosecution of not only those who commit thought crimes, but also of those who defend them.

Glad we got that out in the open.
Don't worry about him. He lacks the credibility to discuss with the adults.

Don't worry about him. He lacks the credibility to discuss with the adults.

I just wanted to make sure his position was clear so we'd all know what a complete lunatic he is.

I just wanted to make sure his position was clear so we'd all know what a complete lunatic he is.
I think he really doesn't need your help to show everyone he's a lunatic.

Fair enough, I guess, but that still doesn't get us very far from our starting point.

The initial question struck me as remarkably straightforward. I don't see why anyone would advocate punishing people for things they haven't done.

Homosexuals are grown men/women who love eachother- just let heterosexual couples. The fact that they are attracted to the opposite sex is biological- there have been studies. A gay man is essentially just a woman in a man's body, and vice versa. A completely harmless and adult relationship.

A pedophile is a man or woman (though typically a man) who gets sexual pleasure from watching, touching, or molesting children (age range from 4-15). NOtice- I used 'molesting' instead of 'having sex with' because to have sex, both parties must have consented to the activity. Molestation doesn't require consent. it is a one-way act. This makes the psychology behind it utterly more complex. Sometimes the predator enjoys bullying the kid- seeing the fear in thier eyes- the screaming and crying- the bleeding- often times it's the innocence (or the removing of) in such a young age that turns a predator on. Rarely does a pedophile do thier thing for the sex- it is a deeper desire to harm children (whether from a bad childhood, or YY chromosomes, etc). That desire is, apparently, best released via sexual activity. Pedophilia is often directly linked to anti-social behavior, so do some research on that.
Homosexuals are rarely anti-social. They're not mentally f-ed up, like pedophiles.

LIke the man below me pointed out- the key word is consent. Pedophiles are not the same as homosexuals, because they victimize the other person. The child is seen as prey, whereas (to eachother) a homosexual partner is seen as exactly that: a partner. Not a victim- not an object- but someone you love and care for.

The fight for homosexuality is based on love. But I can guarentee you'll never see a fight for pedophiles: not only is one party destroyed mentally and physically, but also a child is just a child! Therefore lacks the capacity to understand (much less agree to) a sexual act. Whereas a homosexual can call themselves such because they know what it is to be sexual, and seek out partners who (are old enough to) have an equal understanding of themselves.

The way I see it- the only people who will compare Homos to Pedos are using that as a last ditch against homosexual marraige. They are not the same- not in the least. To prove that one last time: you see states (one by one) legalizing gay marraige. But you will never see a state legalize a child-adult marraige. For one- marraige deals with love, not sex. Pedos only seek sex pleaure from reluctant, struggling children.

And that, my friends, are the differences.

-snip-

You didn't even read the discussion, did you? We're not really talking about child molesters.

Way to miss the age range, too, by the way. If you're going after teenagers, you're an ephebophile, not a pedophile.

And what's with the demonisation of anti-social folk?

Here's my stance: Pedophilia is different from homosexuality in the sense that it's a harmful, disgusting thing, while homosexuality is just an average show of love between to people. However, the two are similiar (and similair to hetrosexuality) in a sense that neither is chosen. Yes, I said it. It's my belief that pedophilia isn't a choice. It's a mental illness. Here's my logic: Raping children is very bad, and causes a lot of harm. And yet pedophiles do it. Clearly, if pedophiles are willing to do something so horrific, they must be at least a bit touched in the head.

Here's my stance: Pedophilia is different from homosexuality in the sense that it's a harmful, disgusting thing, while homosexuality is just an average show of love between to people. However, the two are similiar (and similair to hetrosexuality) in a sense that neither is chosen. Yes, I said it. It's my belief that pedophilia isn't a choice. It's a mental illness. Here's my logic: Raping children is very bad, and causes a lot of harm. And yet pedophiles do it. Clearly, if pedophiles are willing to do something so horrific, they must be at least a bit touched in the head.
1) What is a child?
2)What is rape?
How young is too young?

1) What is a child?
2)What is rape?
How young is too young?

Technically, a child is eighteen, but in this case I'm mostly referring to those under fourteen (in accordance with Canadian consent laws). Rape is forcing someone to commit sexual acts. As for the question of how young is too young, I don't have a solid number for you. A five-year-old is certainly too young to consent, but a thirteen-year-old isn't always.

Now, hypothetically, a hom man was attracted to a hetero man...the homo makes his move and the hetero says: "I'm sorry, dude, I don't swing that way!" or any of the other euphemisms. Obviously, you will seize the attraction or will deter from following actions, since it's futile, same thing with any other situation. Case in point, People with sexual preferances only have relationships with people of like preferances, not so with pedophiles. What about the other points I raised in my points? You seemed to ignore all of them, I wonder why. :rolleyes:

Here's my logic:

Somehow I doubt that, but I'll humour you.

Raping children is very bad, and causes a lot of harm.

That's true.

And yet pedophiles do it.

That's not. You've equated pedophilia and child molestation. That's like equating homosexuality and prison rape.

Since I've refuted your antecedent, your conclusion is irrelevant.

Somehow I doubt that, but I'll humour you.



That's true.



That's not. You've equated pedophilia and child molestation. That's like equating homosexuality and prison rape.

Since I've refuted your antecedent, your conclusion is irrelevant.

It's not like equating homosexuals and prison rapists, as it's not like equating heterosexuals and rapists. It's equating people who fantasize about rape with people who commit it. Okay, maybe not all pedophiles actually act on their fanatasies. However, their fantasies are still perverted. Masturbating to a picture of a child is a sign that a person's mind is not working in the way that it should, to function as a human.

...is a sign that a person's mind is not working in the way that it should, to function as a human.

Normative much?

Normative much?

What are you trying to say? Do you feel that pedophiles are perfectly sane? If they are, why can't they control their urges and change their ways? People who have sudden impulses to harm others, whether or not they act on said impulses, are not sane.

What are you trying to say? Do you feel that pedophiles are perfectly sane? If they are, why can't they control their urges and change their ways? People who have sudden impulses to harm others, whether or not they act on said impulses, are not sane.

Why do you presuppose that their impulses are to harm others? Or that they're sudden?

A pedophile could be a good neighbour who maintains his garden and never hurts anyone. They, by definition, love children. They don't want to hurt children. The groups "child molesters" and "pedophiles" probably overlap, but neither fits entirely within the other.

I'm not even sure what "sane" means. Introverts and Extroverts have demonstrable differences in brain activity, but most people accept that both groups are sane. So what counts as insanity?

What are you trying to say? Do you feel that pedophiles are perfectly sane? If they are, why can't they control their urges and change their ways? People who have sudden impulses to harm others, whether or not they act on said impulses, are not sane.
yes that is what he and the other pedophile apologists are trying to say. that pedophila is NORMAL, harmless and that those who demonize it are the "pedophilephobes".

not all pedophiles offend. some have their urges under control enough that they never touch a child inappropriately. that doesnt make them RIGHT, but it does mean that they shouldnt be hunted down and castrated.

Why do you presuppose that their impulses are to harm others? Or that they're sudden?

A pedophile could be a good neighbour who maintains his garden and never hurts anyone. They, by definition, love children. They don't want to hurt children. The groups "child molesters" and "pedophiles" probably overlap, but neither fits entirely within the other.

I'm not even sure what "sane" means. Introverts and Extroverts have demonstrable differences in brain activity, but most people accept that both groups are sane. So what counts as insanity?

Obviously, if they don't want to hurt children, then they're not in control of their sexual desires. If they're not in control of their sexual desires, then they are not sane. Believe it or not, I'm trying to be kind towards pedophiles by saying this. I'm trying to convince people that it's not really a choice. That pedophiles don't desire to have sexual fantasies about children, but have some sort of malfunction in their brains that causes them to feel that way. It's not shameful to be mentally ill.
By the way, saneness implies an ability to be responsible for one's own actions and brain patterns. Pedophiles, seeing as they can't choose their sexual desires, clearly aren't responsible for all of their brain functions, and so, aren't fully sane.

EDIT: And, yes, there impulses are to harm people. Maybe they don't think that having sex with a child will be harmful, but it will be. Perhaps their intentions are not to do harm, but their intentions will cause harm.

yes that is what he and the other pedophile apologists are trying to say. that pedophila is NORMAL, harmless and that those who demonize it are the "pedophilephobes".

not all pedophiles offend. some have their urges under control enough that they never touch a child inappropriately. that doesnt make them RIGHT, but it does mean that they shouldnt be hunted down and castrated.

I'm not advocating the castration or brutal punishment of pedophiles, either. If you've seen me around these threads before, you would know that I do not support punishment, but, rather, rehabilitation, and, if rehabilitation is not possible, humane containment. I'm for psychological treatment of pedophiles.

Pedophiles, seeing as they can't choose their sexual desires, clearly aren't responsible for all of their brain functions, and so, aren't fully sane.

Unlike other people, who do choose their sexual desires...

Right.

Unlike other people, who do choose their sexual desires...

Right.

Read my first post. I'm not under the impression that anyone chooses his/her sexual desires.

I'm not advocating the castration or brutal punishment of pedophiles, either. If you've seen me around these threads before, you would know that I do not support punishment, but, rather, rehabilitation, and, if rehabilitation is not possible, humane containment. I'm for psychological treatment of pedophiles.

And I'm saying it's bigoted of you to say there's something wrong with them. If they don't hurt people, you shouldn't interfere in their lives.

I'm not saying they're normal. It's quite an uncommon predeliction, so it's pretty clearly abnormal, but that doesn't mean it needs to be fixed.

Read my first post. I'm not under the impression that anyone chooses his/her sexual desires.

But then, by your own reasoning, no one is sane.

How many fantasies are too many? Many people go through a stage where they aren't sure if the are gay, straight, or bi. Should we label them bi for life? Many men fantasize about raping women at one point or another in their lives. Should we label them rapists and lock them up? I'm sure many men have fantasized about children at one point in their lives. If they don't act on it, they aren't child molesters.

As has been said, the diff between pedos and homos/heteros is that pedos by definition can NOT have consensual sex, as children can not consent, because they aren't mature enough to understand the ramifications of the choice presented.

And I'm saying it's bigoted of you to say there's something wrong with them. If they don't hurt people, you shouldn't interfere in their lives.

I'm not saying they're normal. It's quite an uncommon predeliction, so it's pretty clearly abnormal, but that doesn't mean it needs to be fixed.

Yeah, and not every schizophrenic hurts people either. But somehow, there's still something "wrong" with them.
I thought you said that most pedophiles don't like what they're feeling. Don't they want it "fixed" then? Anyways, my objective isn't to go around changing people to fit my view of the human race. My objective is to help people. Not all pedophiles need help; some of them avoid harming children on their own. But many more don't have their illness under control.
Don't believe that it's an illness? Lot's of people do. I didn't just make this up for fun.

These Sites list it as a disorder:
http://cancerweb.ncl.ac.uk/cgi-bin/omd?paraphilia
http://www.medem.com/MedLB/article_detaillb.cfm?article_ID=ZZZUZRUZGLC&sub_cat=355
http://www.psychnet-uk.com/dsm_iv/pedophilia.htm

But then, by your own reasoning, no one is sane.

No, that's not what I mean at all. People who are just homosexual, heterosexual, bisexual, or whatever, don't hurt people by their behavior. I'm not a pyschologist or a psychiatrist, so I can't really explain the distinction. But I've recently provided you with links to several sites that agree with my idea.

As has been said, the diff between pedos and homos/heteros is that pedos by definition can NOT have consensual sex, as children can not consent, because they aren't mature enough to understand the ramifications of the choice presented.
So a person who fantasizes about raping a woman is the same as a pedophile? (Since he's fantasizing about non-consensual sex.) *Sorry, torture solutions is my puppet. I didn't realize I was under that name.*

I'm not advocating the castration or brutal punishment of pedophiles, either. If you've seen me around these threads before, you would know that I do not support punishment, but, rather, rehabilitation, and, if rehabilitation is not possible, humane containment. I'm for psychological treatment of pedophiles.
oh im sorry, i didnt mean to suggest that you said any of those things, i was just speaking in general.

A pedophile could be a good neighbour who maintains his garden and never hurts anyone.

That's true, but then, so could a serial rapist. Doesn't prove anything.

They, by definition, love children. They don't want to hurt children.

No. Mammals love children. Pedophiles are sexually attracted to children.

If "loving children" was the definition of "pedophile," than a mother who loves her daughter is a "pedophile." That's clearly not the case.

oh im sorry, i didnt mean to suggest that you said any of those things, i was just speaking in general.

That's okay. I just wanted to clarify.

So a person who fantasizes about raping a woman is the same as a pedophile? (Since he's fantasizing about non-consensual sex.) *Sorry, torture solutions is my puppet. I didn't realize I was under that name.*
casual fantasizing about sex with children doesnt make you a pedophile, it makes you a pervert. by which i mean that people fantisize about all kinds of nasty nasty things in order to fuel their sexual experiences. that doesnt mean that a person has a desire to do such a thing in real life. it means that for some people the more disgusting the fantasy, the better it is.

a person who has a deep desire to rape women in real life is similar to a pedophile. at least for a certain category of pedophile.

for other pedophiles, they want to have a loving sexual relationship with a child but it is impossible for that to happen. so they seduce, bribe, cajole, and threaten a child into a sexual relationship fooling themselves that it is somehow right and that the child wanted it all along.

a pedophile who realizes that there is no good sexual relationship with a child is sometimes able to keep his deep desires under control. it requires excellent control of his urges and a true understanding that a child is hurt by sexual relationships with adults. i would never trust a confessed but unoffending pedophile alone with a child. i also would never punish him for acts he has never committed.

Schizophrenia affects the patient's ability to perceive the world around him. That's a difference in kind.

I thought you said that most pedophiles don't like what they're feeling.

I'm sure I didn't. I'm more likely to classify self-loathing as a mental illness.

Your links focus only on cases of compulsive behaviour which disrupted day-to-day life, or on active offenders.

That's true, but then, so could a serial rapist.

I don't think you could credibly claim that a serial rapist never hurts anyone.

I don't think you could credibly claim that a serial rapist never hurts anyone.

That wasn't what I said. Please re-read what you wrote, and what I responded with. You said a pedophile could be a good neighbor who tends to his garden. I said a serial rapist could be too. Or, for that matter, a terrorist. Plenty of people can be good neighbors.

That's true, but then, so could a serial rapist. Doesn't prove anything.


Not really, no. If he is a serial rapist, then he certainly has harmed someone. Multiple someones, as a matter of fact. Just like if he'd ever actually molested a child.

But wanting to be a serial rapist (to continue your example), isn't a crime, and hasn't harmed anyone, unless he acts on it.

Not really, no. If he is a serial rapist, then he certainly has harmed someone. Multiple someones, as a matter of fact. Just like if he'd ever actually molested a child.

But wanting to be a serial rapist (to continue your example), isn't a crime, and hasn't harmed anyone, unless he acts on it.

Would you say someone who wants to be a serial rapist is more, or less likely to become a serial rapist than someone who doesn't?

Schizophrenia affects the patient's ability to perceive the world around him. That's a difference in kind.



I'm sure I didn't. I'm more likely to classify self-loathing as a mental illness.

Your links focus only on cases of compulsive behaviour which disrupted day-to-day life, or on active offenders.

And a pedophiles perception of the world isn't disorted? Ever read a story written by one? Where little girls play with sex toys and are capable of loving and consenting to older men? That's pretty distorted, if you ask me.
You told me that pedophiles do not intend to harm children. So, either they are unsatisfied with their condition, or they do not understand that they cause children harm, which is a sign of distorted perception. If a person ignores facts that are clearly and inrefutably true, that person is not sane.
The links just focus on pedophilia. Plain, garden variety pedophilia. Some of them even said that the urges need not be acted on for the person to be diagnosed. Go back and read it, carefully this time.

That wasn't what I said. Please re-read what you wrote, and what I responded with. You said a pedophile could be a good neighbor who tends to his garden. I said a serial rapist could be too. Or, for that matter, a terrorist. Plenty of people can be good neighbors.

Let's look back and see what you quoted, exactly:

A pedophile could be a good neighbour who maintains his garden and never hurts anyone.

"...and never hurts anyone." Not only was that part of my original sentence, but you quoted it. And then you said it could describe a serial rapist.

Would you say someone who wants to be a serial rapist is more, or less likely to become a serial rapist than someone who doesn't?

Sure. But I won't concede that pedophiles necessarily want to be child molesters.

Sure. But I won't concede that pedophiles necessarily want to be child molesters.

Well, they want to engage in sexual activity with children, which seems to me the same thing. Attraction = want = desire = 'preference.' They might not want to suffer the punishment for it, they might not perceive what they want as harming children, but they want it all the same.

Would you say someone who wants to be a serial rapist is more, or less likely to become a serial rapist than someone who doesn't?

Hard to say, really. There's bound to be many who wanted to and never did, and likewise many who never wanted to and did.

The point is, whether they want to or not, it's their actions that count.

Ok, going to piss off some liberals here. Pedophilia is a perversion of normal sexuality. Also, homosexuality and bisexuality are perversion of normal, natural sexuality. The way God made us is taht men are attracted to women and that women are attracted to men. Homo and bisexuality are perversion of what is natural caused by some event, lifestyle, or series of events that corrupt and pervert the normal state of being. Not saying your going to hell if your gay, but if you are I encourage you to realize that these attractions are unnatural and perverted and that you should rebuke them and seek a way to right your sexuality. (and yes there has been successful cases where a homosexual was able to revert to heterosexual with various forms of therapy)

Wohoo, now i get to hear everyone bitch at me for being a bigot. Love the sinner hate the sin... I really do believe that. Your only sinning if you act on the homosexual desires, not jsut having them. Majority of sins are actions not just thoughts. Its what we do not what we say and think that makes us who we are. It is a sin, however, to endrse certain thoughts, if you stay up at night jst dreaming about doing wrong things you are essentially sinning the same as doing it. We all have thoughts that are bad, we jsut can't follow them.

Hard to say, really. There's bound to be many who wanted to and never did, and likewise many who never wanted to and did.


I disagree with both. There may be a portion who fit into either category, but not many. Given the rape rates in this country, to be 'many' in either category, every male would have to be considered someone who wanted to rape.


The point is, whether they want to or not, it's their actions that count.

So you would hire an admitted pedophile as a babysitter? I mean he hasn't molested any children yet, why be discriminatory?

Ok, going to piss off some liberals here. Pedophilia is a perversion of normal sexuality.

Perversion is a matter of definition. There are many of your Bible-thumping ilk that would tell you that anything but the missionary position is a perversion. Sex for pleasure is perversion.....

Also, homosexuality and bisexuality are perversion of normal, natural sexuality. The way God made us is taht men are attracted to women and that women are attracted to men.

So the fact that it exists in the animal kingdom means what? God is fallible?

Homo and bisexuality are perversion of what is natural caused by some event, lifestyle, or series of events that corrupt and pervert the normal state of being.

You just lost by suggesting that homosexuality and bisexuality is a choice.


Not saying your going to hell if your gay,
Actually, you are.

but if you are I encourage you to realize that these attractions are unnatural and perverted and that you should rebuke them and seek a way to right your sexuality.


Or else what? Hell?

(and yes there has been successful cases where a homosexual was able to revert to heterosexual with various forms of therapy)

You can not cure it.

Wohoo, now i get to hear everyone bitch at me for being a bigot.


No not really. Ignorant? Probably.

Love the sinner hate the sin... I really do believe that. Your only sinning if you act on the homosexual desires, not jsut having them. Majority of sins are actions not just thoughts. Its what we do not what we say and think that makes us who we are. It is a sin, however, to endrse certain thoughts, if you stay up at night jst dreaming about doing wrong things you are essentially sinning the same as doing it. We all have thoughts that are bad, we jsut can't follow them.

I will leave the Bible talk to others.

Seems some people - namely pedophiles, what a fucking coincidence - like to justify pedophilia by saying its no different from homosexuality, heterosexuality or bisexuality.

I call bullshit!

If that was the case, it would be impossible for a pedophile to be a heterosexual - or homosexual. Unless you maintain that someone could be one "sexuality" and another at the same time - like gosh, I'm heterosexual AND homosexual (but I'm not bisexual! ohno!).

There are also people who seem willing to justify ANY impulse as "just like homosexuality." This is just ultra-liberal sophistry. The intent is to say that no matter what you're attracted to, someone can't DARE to criticize your attraction because they'll be "just like homophobes."

Bullshit, bullshit, and bullshit.

I mean, is it wrong to say Hitler's desires (and you can take your "OMG GODWIN GODWIN LOL" and shove it right now before whipping it out, mmkay?) were wrong? That criticizing murderous anti-semitic megalomania is just as mean-spirited, bigoted as criticizing someone for being attracted to men?

Ugh.
Pedophilia is wrong, just like anything other than the marriage between a man and a woman is wrong. These deviant sexualities are just genetic mutations and psychological traumas. They can be cured.

Pedophilia is wrong, just like anything other than the marriage between a man and a woman is wrong. These deviant sexualities are just genetic mutations and psychological traumas. They can be cured.

Prove it. Where is the gay gene?

Technically, a child is eighteen, but in this case I'm mostly referring to those under fourteen (in accordance with Canadian consent laws). Rape is forcing someone to commit sexual acts. As for the question of how young is too young, I don't have a solid number for you. A five-year-old is certainly too young to consent, but a thirteen-year-old isn't always.

Technically, pedophilia is a sexual attraction to pre-pubescent children. There certainly may be 14 year olds that are pre-pubescent, but they'd be few and far between. When talking about pedophilia, we are talking more about young children - from infancy through the onset of puberty.

I think it's critical that acting out pedophilia be recognized as an inherently unethical act.

Children should be unspoiled, so they are appropriately tender when cooked.

To the same end, children should be removed from any home where they are subjected to corporal punishment or biting poverty or emotional abandonment, as when parents are too busy fighting with one another.

Keep them somewhere, well fed and listening to soothing music so the meat does not acquire off-tastes ...

And a pedophiles perception of the world isn't disorted? Ever read a story written by one? Where little girls play with sex toys and are capable of loving and consenting to older men? That's pretty distorted, if you ask me.

It's also arguably fiction. They're imagining an ideal circumstance where the child isn't harmed, or where they engage in innocent play for which society doesn't demonise them.

You told me that pedophiles do not intend to harm children. So, either they are unsatisfied with their condition, or they do not understand that they cause children harm, which is a sign of distorted perception. If a person ignores facts that are clearly and inrefutably true, that person is not sane.

Or, they wish to be able to interact iwth children such that they are not harmed, but they're aware that current circumstances make that impossible.

Some of them even said that the urges need not be acted on for the person to be diagnosed. Go back and read it, carefully this time.

But they still required that the urges disrupt other aspects of their lives, or cause depression.

I disagree with both. There may be a portion who fit into either category, but not many. Given the rape rates in this country, to be 'many' in either category, every male would have to be considered someone who wanted to rape.

Well, let's not be sexist here, women can commit rape too.

And not many? I wonder. It doesn't take much to be considered 'rape' these days, after all. A couple of drinks can put a woman past being considered of giving consent.

But alright, would you say you're claiming that all, or even the majority of, rapists fantasised about it beforehand? Prove it. And while you're at it, prove that most people who have fantasised about rape (male or female) have committed it.



So you would hire an admitted pedophile as a babysitter? I mean he hasn't molested any children yet, why be discriminatory?

No I wouldn't, but that's my own prejudices at work, what relevance is it to the topic?

For the record, my prejudices also mean I'm surprised to see women in IT and science-related courses, or as doctors, or in positions of authority in companies or the police force or fire department. Not because I think they shouldn't be, but because I don't expect it as they're still male-dominated areas.

My prejudices don't define what is or is not.

You just lost by suggesting that homosexuality and bisexuality is a choice.

Incidentally, I once knew a guy who said that, as a bisexual, if he ever had a choice, he'd be straight homosexual (errr, awkward phrasing, I know, but you know what I mean), as he'd been hurt more by women than he ever had by men.

Perversion is a matter of definition. There are many of your Bible-thumping ilk that would tell you that anything but the missionary position is a perversion. Sex for pleasure is perversion.....


Sex for pleasure when in marriage and for the purpose of drwawing the cuople closer together is fine, and positions don't really make a difference.


So the fact that it exists in the animal kingdom means what? God is fallible?



No, god made us with the ability to act on our own free will, that ability allows us the possibility of creating things, sometimes what we do creates evil, perhaps teh fact that your daddy never hugged you and made you gay is evil, try to think in more than one direction would you.(not saying that dad never hugging you makes you gay, no one knows exactly what messes you up like that)


You just lost by suggesting that homosexuality and bisexuality is a choice.


No, I said it was a perversion caused by events. Those events are usually beyond our control, and thus, not a choice. I am saying that perhaps it may be possible to gain an understanding of these events in such a way that you can prevent them from affecting you in certain ways, but such an understanding is practiacally impossible for someone at the age where their sexuality is molded.


Actually, you are.


No i didn't, I said acting on them sends you to hell, if you get an erection from looking at a guy but then do nothing to act on it and understand it is wrong, you have commited no sin, usually not your fault your gay. However, if you and have gay sex then you are sinning.


You can not cure it.


Not always no, but it can be reversed in some cases. it is quite possilbe for someones psychological sexual preference to gchange, its not easy, takes a lot of effort on the part of the participant and go look it up if you don't believe me.


No not really. Ignorant? Probably.


Ignorant? Hah! I am quite aware of things around me, I say everythign I say with strong reasoning and logic behind them. Also, faith, and meditation, and deep thought on the subject. I don't just spout crap without thinking it through. The attempt to dismiss a strong point of view with the guise of ignorance doesn't work.

But alright, would you say you're claiming that all, or even the majority of, rapists fantasised about it beforehand? Prove it.

Short of post-facto telepathy, you know I can't do that.

We could ask rapists, but who says they'll be honest? Being sick perverted degenerate criminals, I doubt they would be able to answer honestly even if they meant to.

However, it makes sense. Can you find anyone who never fantasized about sexual activity before having it?


No I wouldn't, but that's my own prejudices at work, what relevance is it to the topic?

The topic is pedophilia.

Seems to be fairly relevant. And why are you so prejudiced? You're obviously a close-minded, oppressive bigot. ;)


My prejudices don't define what is or is not.

So, you should get over them already, since you can already see the infallible truth that pedophiles are not any more likely to become child molestors than anyone else. If you can, I suggest hiring multiple pedophile babysitters just to cure yourself of ignorant prejudices.

I am not a voilent man, but, seriously, if i met a pedophile, I would have had to exercise a lot of restraint not to go medieval on his (or her) ass.

Chemical castration and GPS-tracking is a good punishment for these... sub-humans.

Arguing, in any shape or form, for acceptance of this deviant behavior is inacceptible.

Prove it. Where is the gay gene?


There is no gay gene, he just said it was caused by pschological trauma. What that specific trauma is, we aren't sure, but we have ideas. It's not genetic, that wouldn't coinside with your idea of evolution by natural selection now would it?

It's also arguably fiction. They're imagining an ideal circumstance where the child isn't harmed, or where they engage in innocent play for which society doesn't demonise them.



Or, they wish to be able to interact iwth children such that they are not harmed, but they're aware that current circumstances make that impossible.



But they still required that the urges disrupt other aspects of their lives, or cause depression.

And those aren't signs of mental disorders? Being unaware of what is correct in society? Being in denial about the nature of their desires and behaviors?
To be honest, I'm getting quite sick of arguing with you. I don't believe that pedophiles are bad people, but I do believe that it's wrong to want to have sex with a child. I'm being as leniant in the case of a child molester as one can be, without actually condoning pedophilia. As I see it, it's more sympathetic towards the pedophile to suggest that he cannot control his desires (ie, he is mentally ill) than to suggest that he can. If the pedophile chooses to fantasize, he would obviously be a cookie-cutter "bad guy." You know, the ones who do bad things, with no actual realistic motivation. I'm suggesting there is a motivation. The motivation is a disorder. If you want to ignore the idea of it being a disorder, then call it a perverted sexual perference. But in no way is being a pedophile the same as being hetero/homo/bisexual. Pedophilia is in a league of it's own. If you want to go on thinking that pedophilia is a perfectly decent thing, I'll leave you to it. There is, however, no sense in arguing with a brick wall. You want to live in a world where children enjoy being raped and exploited? Go ahead, but I'm through with this arguement.

Incidentally, I once knew a guy who said that, as a bisexual, if he ever had a choice, he'd be straight homosexual (errr, awkward phrasing, I know, but you know what I mean), as he'd been hurt more by women than he ever had by men.

A straight homosexual? I like it. :D

I knew a guy that didn't know he was gay. Dated, had sex with a few girls and married one. He said he always felt absolutely nothing when he was with them. One day he mentioned it to a friend and she said "Maybe you are gay?"

He decided he was, got divorced, hooked up with a guy and has basically been married ever since.

His ex-wife was at first hurt but after thinking about it decided it was for the better and it made sense. She remarried and is happy as well.

There is no gay gene, he just said it was caused by pschological trauma. What that specific trauma is, we aren't sure, but we have ideas. It's not genetic, that wouldn't coinside with your idea of evolution by natural selection now would it?

Nobody knows if there is a gay gene as nothing has been identified to suggest or deny it's existence.

You suggested it was a mutation.

Your psychological trauma arguement is bullshit. There are many many battered women and they aren't "converting" to lesbianism.

In other words, prove it.

The Bonobo are something you need to review if you want an easy example of the animal kingdom.

Right. Try and make some basic points.

Sex with children below the legal age of consent is wrong, moreso with pre-pubescent children since it is more likely to be harmful to them, but in general sex with children is wrong. You can haggle over ages of consent, 16 in the UK 18 in the US, based on development etc. But at the end of the day that's arguing about your definition of children, not about whether it's wrong or not.

In an ideal world the age of consent would be determined by individual anatomical and cognitive tests. In the real world an arbitrary line is the only really practical solution. So we have to stick by that.

I'd say that almost everyone agrees with the above.

The debate seems to basically rage between two factions, those who believe that having a sexual attraction to children is wrong. And those who believe that thinking something is never wrong.

Of the first faction, they seem to be split into several groups.

1. Those who believe that sexuality is choice, and hence those with the attraction are deliberately committing an offence. They seek to classify paedophilia as a mental disorder (though I'd argue that paedophilia comes in multiple types, both through desire for domination similar to rape etc, and through sexual attraction etc) and should be treated as such.

2. Those who believe that impulse always leads to action in this case, due to in this case there being no opportunity for legal fullfillment that eventually all paedophiles will convert fantasy to action. (I'd argue that you can't convict someone for something you believe they will do, it goes against the entire legal system. Innocent until proven guilty, and you can't prove that a person will succumb to their impulses.)

3. Those who never looked further than the word paedophile and assumed it referred solely to people who abused children (to which I'd hand them a dictionary).

Of the second faction, the general consensus (of which I agree with) is that you can't convict someone for thinking something. Choice or not they are allowed to think anything they want. Add in mentions of thought crime etc, and to point out that British (and I believe American Law, though I don't know how much their legal system was based off the old British Common law when it was set up) that a crime requires two parts. Actus Reus and Mens Rea. Mens Rea being guilty mind (intention/recklessness/etc) and Actus Reus being the guilty action.

You can't convict someone for thinking something.

And those aren't signs of mental disorders? Being unaware of what is correct in society?

I'm saying they are aware of the effects of their behaviour, and that's why they choose not to act. They don't want to hurt people, so they don't hurt people.

As I see it, it's more sympathetic towards the pedophile to suggest that he cannot control his desires (ie, he is mentally ill) than to suggest that he can.

And I think it's wrong to suggest those are the only two options. Much like how gay people can't help being gay, but no one claims that they're mentally ill.

But in no way is being a pedophile the same as being hetero/homo/bisexual.

But I can't imagine what the difference is before they act. Prior to action, they're all just people with preferences. None of them chose their preferences, and they have the ability to act on their preferences or not as they choose. That the pedophiles can't act on ther preferences and get results they'd like influences that decision.

You've drawn some arbitrary line around preferences you deem normal.

I don't see any value in telling anyone that his thoughts are somehow wrong, if those thoughts don't cause anyone any trouble.

No, god made us with the ability to act on our own free will, that ability allows us the possibility of creating things, sometimes what we do creates evil, perhaps teh fact that your daddy never hugged you and made you gay is evil, try to think in more than one direction would you.(not saying that dad never hugging you makes you gay, no one knows exactly what messes you up like that)


You have never looked into the biological aspects of attraction eh? The same chemical reaction that a hetro has for certain individuals also happens with the homosexual.


No, I said it was a perversion caused by events. Those events are usually beyond our control, and thus, not a choice. I am saying that perhaps it may be possible to gain an understanding of these events in such a way that you can prevent them from affecting you in certain ways, but such an understanding is practiacally impossible for someone at the age where their sexuality is molded.

Events? As in no daddy love? Sorry it don't work that way. Homosexuality is not a choice. People don't simply think "I am bored today. I think I am going gay!"


No i didn't, I said acting on them sends you to hell, if you get an erection from looking at a guy but then do nothing to act on it and understand it is wrong, you have commited no sin, usually not your fault your gay. However, if you and have gay sex then you are sinning.


Bible theory/philsophy. I will leave that to somebody else.


Not always no, but it can be reversed in some cases. it is quite possilbe for someones psychological sexual preference to gchange, its not easy, takes a lot of effort on the part of the participant and go look it up if you don't believe me.


You do not cure homosexuality.

You post your evidence to cures.


Ignorant? Hah! I am quite aware of things around me, I say everythign I say with strong reasoning and logic behind them. Also, faith, and meditation, and deep thought on the subject. I don't just spout crap without thinking it through. The attempt to dismiss a strong point of view with the guise of ignorance doesn't work.

Actually your arguments show you don't understand the biological aspects of attraction.

I can meditate and pray to God all I want about Astro-physics, it's not going to help me understand it. I have to study it.

Short of post-facto telepathy, you know I can't do that.

True, and perhaps a trifle unfair. But I maintain that there are far more people who have had a rape fantasy than there are people who have committed rape. In fact, many people have fantasised about being raped. Doesn't mean they actually wish to be.

I'll also continue to believe that there are those who have never fantasised about it, but have nevertheless committed it.


We could ask rapists, but who says they'll be honest? Being sick perverted degenerate criminals, I doubt they would be able to answer honestly even if they meant to.


Well, except perhaps those who pleaded 'guilty'. Hmm.


However, it makes sense. Can you find anyone who never fantasized about sexual activity before having it?


About sexual activity at all? Or in specific cases?
If the former, then we're back to the child-molesters, and perhaps young teens (or those troubled adults who are mentally far behind their physical age). If the latter, then the choices expand somewhat. It may very well be that someone experiences their first Dom/Sub session without ever imagining partaking in it. Or Bondage, or a homosexual encounter.

It's not that much of a stretch of the imagination.


The topic is pedophilia.

What? Not babysitting? Damn! ;)


Seems to be fairly relevant. And why are you so prejudiced? You're obviously a close-minded, oppressive bigot. ;)

Sadly, I am not as open-minded as I attempt to be. I am still influenced by the prevailing mores of the common, narrow-minded majority.


So, you should get over them already, since you can already see the infallible truth that pedophiles are not any more likely to become child molestors than anyone else. If you can, I suggest hiring multiple pedophile babysitters just to cure yourself of ignorant prejudices.

Eh, I'd need kids before I could attempt this perception-modification exercise. ;)

Yes, I was pretending, mostly because you weren't here and I wanted to see how people argued against pedophilia. I wasn't making myself loo like a sociopath, actually, you read my arguments and agreed with them in the first part of your post. If my arguments look sociopathic to you, then revise your own, as they are more or less the same.

No thanks for the ignorant jackass part, it's not like I was writing an opinion without revising arguments first. I posted the arguments that usually pedophile groups or parties use in their defense. Do not hurl insults carelessly, think first, it usually helps.
You know, when I read this post, I did go back and reread the relevant posts, and I find that I still stand by my statements. I did not agree with all of the arguements you stated, and some of them were simply so outrageous they didn't really deserve a response. I wouldn't have accepted the sorts of arguements you put forward if you were on my side, and the fact that you're not suggests ulterior modives.

The last time someone from my side made statements like you put forward, I called them on it too. One of the primary reasons I joined this forum in the first place was to respond to the idiots who posted crap like you did while playing "devil's advocate".

If you think the crap you were saying was representative of my arguements, I think you need to reread my posts, because you've somehow gotten a very distorted view of my platform.
They certainly do need help. It worries me that 53 people voted for it. I'm very surprised this site doesn't expose them and kick them out for this support.
If it helps make you feel better, because the original poster made this a public poll, you can identify all the people who voted for a given option. Just click on the number and all the user names will be made visible to you.

The admins have every ability to kick us out, but so far they haven't done so because they firmly believe people like me are better off debating here amid descent than being kicked out and only being able to post on forums where everyone agrees with me. I personally think it's a good policy, and it's for your benefit as much as mine that unpopular opinions aren't silenced here.
Well now. I guess I should read before responding! Can I claim the lack of coffee defense? ;)

As long as it was honest ignorance, no one should hold it against you. You know now and that's what's important.

Personally, I don't like the concept and will never accept it due to the ability of children in the matters of consent.

Wait, are you talking about actual child molestation here?

However, you can't nail them because they have "sick" desires. Rule of Law only plays when they act on them.
And that's as it should be.
I don,t think he's saying that. If anything, a male homo can be attracted to a male hetero: it's all fine if he doesn't act on his attraction.

If he does, however, that becomes rape.

Agreed so far.

In the same light, a pedophile being attracted to children isn't inherently wrong, but since children are unable of enlightened consent, acting on his desires becomes pedophilia, which is treated pretty much as rape.
Incorrect. Pedophelia is the condition of being attracted to children. The word you're looking for is child molestation.

Other than that correction (and perhaps wanting some details about what "enlightened consent" means) I agree with your statements. Nonconsentual sex is rape by definition.

The only real question then is who's able to conscent. Legally, you're right, there's no conscent ever, so it's always rape. The question then becomes, is does the current legal definition accurately describe the real qualifications for conscent. I haven't seen many people here on either side who would honestly contend that it does.
No. Raping a heterosexual man is not a sexual preference.

When two homosexual men do it with each other, it's sex between consenting adults.

When a homosexual man tries to force it on a heterosexual man, it's rape. When a pedophile tries to force it on a child, it's pedophilia, which is akin to rape.

When anyone forces sex on someone else, it's rape. That's the definition of rape. When a pedophile forces it on a child, it's still rape.

The word pedophelia reffers to the state of having the attraction to children, not the act of raping them.

So, a pedophile is pretty much the same thing as someone who gets turned on by fantasms of rape. Which isn't very troublesome if he doesn't act on it, mind you, but becomes dangerous if he does.
I can accept that. At the very least you have agknowledged a difference between thought and action, and that's a very good first step.
But a preference is a desire, not the act.

If I have sex with a woman, does that mean I'm straight? No. What makes me straight is that I prefer women - that I find women appealing.

I don't think anyone's arguing that child molestation is somehow the same as consensual sex. Even Five Castes sees that.
Exactly.
Well, it's sometimes hard to draw the line between desire, preference, sexual orientation and/or fetish.

I admit it's somewhat of a grey line. What we need to look at to asnwer that to the best of our abilities is the reason of the desire. I've read many psychological studies that concludes that most pedophiles aren't in fact attracted to children themselves, but rather enjoy the situation of power and control over them.

I'm afraid you are mistaken. The very definition of a pedophile is an adult who is attracted to children. If they aren't attracted to children, then they aren't pedophiles.

Those studies you're reffering to were probably about child molesters, and indeed, most child molesters aren't pedophiles because they aren't attracted to children.

So, in my opinion, it comes closer to a fetish, like S&M or B&D, than a sexual orienation or preference. Because it's not the child itself that is the object of desire, but rather the situation in which it is presented. I'll be the first one to admit I am by no way a specialist on the subject, thought, and not all pedophiles may react like this.

Would you call it a sexuality if, as I've stated, pedophiles are by definition attracted to children?

I guess whetever the causes/reasons/explanantions of this phenomena, the important part is simply to make sure we do our best to prevent acts of pedophilia without going around and inflicting mob justice for thoughts of pedophilia.
I will agree that preventing child sexual abuse is a worthy cause, and that the persecution of thought-criminals needs to be prevented. All in all, I think you have the right idea, if your information on pedophiles is a tad inacurate.
Hmm, how exactly do you define the difference between a pedophile and a child molester? Child molesters are the ones who act on their impulses, whereas pedophiles need not to act on them but only feel attracted to?

A square is a rectangle but a rectangle isn't a square?

Think of it like a Ven diagram (that Master Card logo for the uneducated) the circle on the left represents pedophiles. The circle on the left represents child molesters. Neither circle is completely contained within the other. In fact, since FBI statistics have the number of pedophelic offenders at something like 10% of all child molesters, the ammount of intersection isn't even large. Not all pedophiles are child molesters, and only a minority of child molesters are actually pedophiles.
Don't worry about him. He lacks the credibility to discuss with the adults.
Please. You do a disservice to children everywhere by associating them with trolls like that.
Homosexuals are grown men/women who love eachother- just let heterosexual couples. The fact that they are attracted to the opposite sex is biological- there have been studies. A gay man is essentially just a woman in a man's body, and vice versa. A completely harmless and adult relationship.

To be honest, I disagree with your characterization of gays as being the oposite gender mentally. I believe your statement applies more accurately to the transgender community. Gays are members of their own gender who are different only in that they preffer members of the same rather than the oposite gender as sexual partners.

Though I will agree that it's no more harmful than heterosexual pairings.

A pedophile is a man or woman (though typically a man) who gets sexual pleasure from watching, touching, or molesting children (age range from 4-15).

Okay, I think I'd better stop you right there.

First off, I want a source that says most pedophies are men, okay? It's not so much that I disbelieve you, but that it's something new that I feel I should verrify rather than take at face value.

Secondly, the age range is actually closer to 5-12 for the classic definition of a pedophile. Lower ages of attraction use the term nepiophile and higher ages of attraction (that don't break the age of conscent) use the term hebephile (or ebeophile).

Basicly the break down is this:
nepiophile - attracted to infants and toddlers
pedophile - attracted to prepubescents above the toddler mark
hebephile - attracted to pubescents often teenagers
teliophile - attracted to postpubescent adults

NOtice- I used 'molesting' instead of 'having sex with' because to have sex, both parties must have consented to the activity.

I should again stop you, because rape is conventionally defined as "nonconscentual sex". I'm not trying to justify anything here, but rather trying to get you to use words the same way the rest of us do.

Molestation doesn't require consent. it is a one-way act. This makes the psychology behind it utterly more complex. Sometimes the predator enjoys bullying the kid- seeing the fear in thier eyes- the screaming and crying- the bleeding- often times it's the innocence (or the removing of) in such a young age that turns a predator on. Rarely does a pedophile do thier thing for the sex- it is a deeper desire to harm children (whether from a bad childhood, or YY chromosomes, etc). That desire is, apparently, best released via sexual activity. Pedophilia is often directly linked to anti-social behavior, so do some research on that.

Everything you've said has to do with child molesters, particularly those identified as situational offenders. They make up about 90% of child molesters, and since they aren't attracted to children, that means they aren't pedophiles.

Homosexuals are rarely anti-social. They're not mentally f-ed up, like pedophiles.

I feel you've still mixed pedophiles and child molesters up again.

Here's an easy way to tell the difference. Child molesters actually fuck kids. Pedophiles are the ones who think about fucking kids. One thinks, one acts.

See how easy it is to tell the difference?

LIke the man below me pointed out- the key word is consent. Pedophiles are not the same as homosexuals, because they victimize the other person. The child is seen as prey, whereas (to eachother) a homosexual partner is seen as exactly that: a partner. Not a victim- not an object- but someone you love and care for.

Are you suggesting I wouldn't be interested in an equal partner, and could only be happy in a situation of dominence and rape? You would be mistaken.

The fight for homosexuality is based on love. But I can guarentee you'll never see a fight for pedophiles: not only is one party destroyed mentally and physically, but also a child is just a child! Therefore lacks the capacity to understand (much less agree to) a sexual act. Whereas a homosexual can call themselves such because they know what it is to be sexual, and seek out partners who (are old enough to) have an equal understanding of themselves.

Actually, the fight for homosexuality is a fight about sex. It's a fight about whether people have the right to control what they do with their own bodies and minds or if the government can interfear with conscentual sexual activities even if a majority of people think it's gross.

The way I see it- the only people who will compare Homos to Pedos are using that as a last ditch against homosexual marraige. They are not the same- not in the least.

I'll admit that I've been made a boogie man by ultracoservatives who need someone to scare people on a number of issues. They want to censor the internet, so they bring up pedophiles. They want to squash gay marriage, so they bring up pedophiles. They want a distraction from the failed policies and the abuses of the child protective service agencies, so they bring up pedophiles.

They do this because they know people have a hell of a time thinking rationally once the "p" word has been uttered. After all, you want internet censorship, right? Or do you support pedophiles?

To prove that one last time: you see states (one by one) legalizing gay marraige. But you will never see a state legalize a child-adult marraige. For one- marraige deals with love, not sex.

Actually, marriage is largely an economic arrangement, and comes with a number of rights including the right to make medical decisions, automatic inheritence upon the death of the spouse, and a number of other benefits. While the marriage itself is about publicly agknowledging the love of the couple, that can be done without government approval. The Gay Marriage movement is about homosexual couples getting the same legal rights as heterosexual couples.

Pedos only seek sex pleaure from reluctant, struggling children.

Are you suggesting that I wouldn't enjoy sex with an eager, enthusiastic little girl?

And that, my friends, are the differences.
While I'll admit that there are real differences, I don't feel they are significantly greater than the differences between heterosexuality and homosexuality. The only difference I can really see is that this one can't be morally acted on.
Here's my stance: Pedophilia is different from homosexuality in the sense that it's a harmful, disgusting thing, while homosexuality is just an average show of love between to people.

I should point out that many people consider homosexuality disgusting. That just goes to show you how relative a thing "disgusting" is, doesn't it?

However, the two are similiar (and similair to hetrosexuality) in a sense that neither is chosen. Yes, I said it. It's my belief that pedophilia isn't a choice.

Good to hear. It's really surprising how many people think it is. I mean what possible reason would there be to chose this sexuality? It's more unpopular than being gay, and it's impossible to act on it without breaking the law and exposing your partner to a massive amount of social torture. No one would chose that.

It's a mental illness.

Well, according to the APA, you're correct, but then again, they only recently removed homosexuality from their list.

Here's my logic: Raping children is very bad, and causes a lot of harm.

You're good so far.

And yet pedophiles do it.

And you've lost it. Some pedopiles (people attracted to children) rape children, but more teliophiles (people attracted to adults) rape children than pedophiles. It's on the level of 9-1 with the majority of such rapes commited by teliophiles.

Clearly, if pedophiles are willing to do something so horrific, they must be at least a bit touched in the head.
I'm personally not willing to do something so horific, thanks.
Now, hypothetically, a hom man was attracted to a hetero man...the homo makes his move and the hetero says: "I'm sorry, dude, I don't swing that way!" or any of the other euphemisms. Obviously, you will seize the attraction or will deter from following actions, since it's futile, same thing with any other situation. Case in point, People with sexual preferances only have relationships with people of like preferances, not so with pedophiles.

Actually, only homosexuals have relationships with people of like preferences (ie. both interested in men, or both interested in women).

Now that I've got that out of my system, I'm a little confused if you think pedophiles have relationships (by which I assume you mean only romantic relationships) with people we aren't attracted to. While it no doubt happens, it used to happen with gays a lot more too, back when they felt the need to hide that they were gay. I believe the partners in this case were reffered to as beards.

What about the other points I raised in my points? You seemed to ignore all of them, I wonder why. :rolleyes:
I've tried not to ignore any valid points in this thread. What were your other points again?
It's not like equating homosexuals and prison rapists, as it's not like equating heterosexuals and rapists. It's equating people who fantasize about rape with people who commit it.

I rather think the're all equally valid comparisons.

Okay, maybe not all pedophiles actually act on their fanatasies. However, their fantasies are still perverted.

So is wearing leather or preffering to be called "daddy" in bed. Being a pervert isn't a good reason for prejudice.

Masturbating to a picture of a child is a sign that a person's mind is not working in the way that it should, to function as a human.
Are you saying I'm not human? I don't think you'd like the results if that were officially declared legal truth.
What are you trying to say? Do you feel that pedophiles are perfectly sane?

I'd contend we aren't insane simply by virtue of being pedophiles. I mean there's a lot of depression among our sexuality, but that's an issue of social condemnation and sexual frustration more than a unique feature of being a pedophile.

If they are, why can't they control their urges and change their ways?

Are you accusing me of raping a child? You must be if you suggest that I can't control my urges.

People who have sudden impulses to harm others, whether or not they act on said impulses, are not sane.
Tell me, you've never once felt the urge to punch someone in the face? Never had the urge to rear end someone on the highway? I guess you aren't sane either, regardless of whether you actually did anything.
yes that is what he and the other pedophile apologists are trying to say. that pedophila is NORMAL, harmless and that those who demonize it are the "pedophilephobes".

I should point out that among pedophile circles, there is made a clear distinction between those who hate and attempt to demonize us and those who are simply misinformed by the massive amounts of propoganda in the media and can be reasoned with. The first group is commonly reffered to as antis, and the second is reffered to as nons.

not all pedophiles offend.

Much as not all heterosexuals rape. Good observation.

some have their urges under control enough that they never touch a child inappropriately.

Also correct, again I'm an example of this.

that doesnt make them RIGHT, but it does mean that they shouldnt be hunted down and castrated.
If someone shouldn't be punished, how exactly are they in the wrong? I'm not sure how you hold these two statements side by side within yourself.
Obviously, if they don't want to hurt children, then they're not in control of their sexual desires. If they're not in control of their sexual desires, then they are not sane.

No one's in control of their sexual desires. The difference between sane and insane (at least legally speaking) is about being in control of your actions.

Believe it or not, I'm trying to be kind towards pedophiles by saying this.

You've got a funny way of showing it.

I'm trying to convince people that it's not really a choice. That pedophiles don't desire to have sexual fantasies about children, but have some sort of malfunction in their brains that causes them to feel that way. It's not shameful to be mentally ill.

To anyone who honestly believes this is a choice:
Chose to be a pedophile for a day. (And of course, no one who lacks the self-control to avoid raping attractive potential mates should attempt this, just in case. ;) )

By the way, saneness implies an ability to be responsible for one's own actions and brain patterns. Pedophiles, seeing as they can't choose their sexual desires, clearly aren't responsible for all of their brain functions, and so, aren't fully sane.

Since you aren't fully incontrol of your own brain functions (try not to think about a square) then you aren't fully sane either, I guess.

EDIT: And, yes, there impulses are to harm people. Maybe they don't think that having sex with a child will be harmful, but it will be. Perhaps their intentions are not to do harm, but their intentions will cause harm.
It is true that harm would result, but I question whether the act itself is what's harmful, rather than what is made of it afterward.
Yeah, and not every schizophrenic hurts people either. But somehow, there's still something "wrong" with them.

Because of course pedophiles are exactly like schizophrenics :rolleyes:

I thought you said that most pedophiles don't like what they're feeling. Don't they want it "fixed" then?

I'm sure some do. Let me, however, be the first to point out that I don't want to be "fixed" even if there did exist an effective treatment (which there doesn't).

Anyways, my objective isn't to go around changing people to fit my view of the human race. My objective is to help people. Not all pedophiles need help; some of them avoid harming children on their own. But many more don't have their illness under control.

Anyone who commits rape is a rapist, and should be treated accordingly. Everyone else, is not a rapist and should also be treated accordingly. Why is that so dificult for some people to understand?

Don't believe that it's an illness? Lot's of people do. I didn't just make this up for fun.

These Sites list it as a disorder:
http://cancerweb.ncl.ac.uk/cgi-bin/omd?paraphilia
http://www.medem.com/MedLB/article_detaillb.cfm?article_ID=ZZZUZRUZGLC&sub_cat=355
http://www.psychnet-uk.com/dsm_iv/pedophilia.htm
Its listing in the DSM IV is the reason the other sites are listing it. The APA has declared it a mental illness, so that means other people will reffer to it as such. Homosexuality also had that dubious honor, but as people grew more accepting of gays, the APA had to reevaluate the inclusion of homosexuality.
That's true, but then, so could a serial rapist. Doesn't prove anything.

While a serial rapist might well be a good neighbor who maintains his garden, I think it's a stretch to say someone can be a serial rapist who never hurts anyone.

No. Mammals love children.

Actually, the human concept of love is something we've never actually confirmed exists in the animal kingdom.

Pedophiles are sexually attracted to children.

If "loving children" was the definition of "pedophile," than a mother who loves her daughter is a "pedophile." That's clearly not the case.
In this regard, you are absolutely correct.
casual fantasizing about sex with children doesnt make you a pedophile, it makes you a pervert. by which i mean that people fantisize about all kinds of nasty nasty things in order to fuel their sexual experiences. that doesnt mean that a person has a desire to do such a thing in real life. it means that for some people the more disgusting the fantasy, the better it is.

Actually, having sexual thoughts about children is the only thing that makes a person a pedophile.

a person who has a deep desire to rape women in real life is similar to a pedophile. at least for a certain category of pedophile.

I'll tentatively agree with this statement, since those people's deep desires are also not punishable, and are also often contained by the combined forces of law and consience.

for other pedophiles, they want to have a loving sexual relationship with a child but it is impossible for that to happen. so they seduce, bribe, cajole, and threaten a child into a sexual relationship fooling themselves that it is somehow right and that the child wanted it all along.

While I won't deny that such beings exist, I should point out that their mental illness isn't being attracted to children, it's being deluded.

a pedophile who realizes that there is no good sexual relationship with a child is sometimes able to keep his deep desires under control. it requires excellent control of his urges and a true understanding that a child is hurt by sexual relationships with adults.

I'm not sure it's as hard as you make it out to be. Merely understanding that people would harm that child out of prejudice against me is enough to convince me of the immorality of engaging sexually with children.

i would never trust a confessed but unoffending pedophile alone with a child.

I guess admitting your problem is the first step twoard recovery. I believe I have stated that 90% of child molesters aren't pedophiles, right? Your trust in normals is misplaced.

i also would never punish him for acts he has never committed.
And that, at least, is a rational viewpoint.
And a pedophiles perception of the world isn't disorted? Ever read a story written by one? Where little girls play with sex toys and are capable of loving and consenting to older men? That's pretty distorted, if you ask me.

You do realise that reading stories like that happens to be illegal in many parts of the world, and that by demonstrating your apparent knowledge of such things, you are offering evidence of having commited a crime, right?

Anyway, pedophiles see the world exactly the same way you do. Show us a square, we see a square. Show us an apple, we see an apple. Show us a child, and we see a child. The only difference is in the interpretation. With schitsophrenics, they actually don't see the same things the rest of us do, so their actions and reactions are in response to things most people don't percieve.

You told me that pedophiles do not intend to harm children. So, either they are unsatisfied with their condition, or they do not understand that they cause children harm, which is a sign of distorted perception.

Tell me, how do I cause children harm? Prove that I harm children, and you can say I have a distorted perception. Go ahead. This ought to be rich.

If a person ignores facts that are clearly and inrefutably true, that person is not sane.

I think you're assuming that social norms and bias count as facts. They don't.

Ok, going to piss off some liberals here. Pedophilia is a perversion of normal sexuality. Also, homosexuality and bisexuality are perversion of normal, natural sexuality. The way God made us is taht men are attracted to women and that women are attracted to men. Homo and bisexuality are perversion of what is natural caused by some event, lifestyle, or series of events that corrupt and pervert the normal state of being. Not saying your going to hell if your gay, but if you are I encourage you to realize that these attractions are unnatural and perverted and that you should rebuke them and seek a way to right your sexuality. (and yes there has been successful cases where a homosexual was able to revert to heterosexual with various forms of therapy)

Wohoo, now i get to hear everyone bitch at me for being a bigot. Love the sinner hate the sin... I really do believe that. Your only sinning if you act on the homosexual desires, not jsut having them. Majority of sins are actions not just thoughts. Its what we do not what we say and think that makes us who we are. It is a sin, however, to endrse certain thoughts, if you stay up at night jst dreaming about doing wrong things you are essentially sinning the same as doing it. We all have thoughts that are bad, we jsut can't follow them.

I should point out that while there is (very little) evidence for God condemning homosexuality, pedophelia isn't mentioned once in the Bible. God specificly damned shellfish and polly-cotton blends, but said not one word about pedophelia. You'd think if God was worried about it, he would have added "Thou shall not lie with a man or child as you would with a woman" don't you think?

In fact, if you take the King James standard and look at numbers 31:17-18 you'll even see God not only ordering the slaughter of male children, but also advocating that the female children be taken as part of the spoils.

The Bible, while a questionable source for biggotry against Gays in the first place, is not even appropriate to use against Pedophiles.
I disagree with both. There may be a portion who fit into either category, but not many. Given the rape rates in this country, to be 'many' in either category, every male would have to be considered someone who wanted to rape.

So then you disagree with all men? You have a rather strange platform.

So you would hire an admitted pedophile as a babysitter? I mean he hasn't molested any children yet, why be discriminatory?
People have. Who you hire to watch your kids is about trust. You don't leave your child with someone you don't trust. I've been repeatedly told I'm good with kids (and people've tried to push me into a career in education), and the fact is that it takes a great deal of trust in someone to admit to being a pedophile. That trust relationship, assuming it doesn't evaporate with the admission, is strengthened by such displays of trust. At least that's been my (admitedly limited) experience with coming out to people.

Technically, pedophilia is a sexual attraction to pre-pubescent children. There certainly may be 14 year olds that are pre-pubescent, but they'd be few and far between. When talking about pedophilia, we are talking more about young children - from infancy through the onset of puberty.

Actually, attraction to infants and toddlers is called nepiophelia.
I am not a voilent man, but, seriously, if i met a pedophile, I would have had to exercise a lot of restraint not to go medieval on his (or her) ass.

Of course you aren't a violent person. You've just been misled by a media which equates pedophelia with child molestation (they can't even keep the terms straight in their reporting) and a culture which holds sex to be something harmful rather than something positive.

I understand that your violent impulses don't stem from mallice, but just because I understand, don't think I'd hesitate to defend myself with deadly force if need be.

Chemical castration and GPS-tracking is a good punishment for these... sub-humans.

For thought-criminals?

Arguing, in any shape or form, for acceptance of this deviant behavior is inacceptible.
Pedophelia doesn't describe a behavior. I describes a pattern of thoughts.

There is no gay gene, he just said it was caused by pschological trauma. What that specific trauma is, we aren't sure, but we have ideas. It's not genetic, that wouldn't coinside with your idea of evolution by natural selection now would it?

He did mention genetic mutation as a possible cause.

And homosexuality being possibly genetic doesn't contradict evolution. People who don't reproduce personally can be very reproductively effective by helping their family members (particularly ciblings nieces and nephues) to improve their lot in life. Look at the ant. Most ants are sterile, yet theirs is a perfectly viable species (evolutionarily speaking) because the queen who is fertile can reproduce much more effectively and prolificly because of the aid of her sterile sisters.
And those aren't signs of mental disorders? Being unaware of what is correct in society? Being in denial about the nature of their desires and behaviors?

Nope. They aren't. Adherence to, or even knowledge of, social norms is not the grounds on which someone is determined to be mentally ill.

To be honest, I'm getting quite sick of arguing with you. I don't believe that pedophiles are bad people, but I do believe that it's wrong to want to have sex with a child.

So... what? I'm just a decent person who happens to think bad things? I don't follow.

I'm being as leniant in the case of a child molester as one can be, without actually condoning pedophilia.

And that's part of your problem right there. No one should be leniant on child molesters. They're rapists, plain and simple, and no one should be lenient on rapists.

As I see it, it's more sympathetic towards the pedophile to suggest that he cannot control his desires (ie, he is mentally ill) than to suggest that he can. If the pedophile chooses to fantasize, he would obviously be a cookie-cutter "bad guy." You know, the ones who do bad things, with no actual realistic motivation. I'm suggesting there is a motivation. The motivation is a disorder. If you want to ignore the idea of it being a disorder, then call it a perverted sexual perference.

No one can control their desires. Not me. Not you. That in itself isn't a sign of a disorder.

But in no way is being a pedophile the same as being hetero/homo/bisexual. Pedophilia is in a league of it's own.

You know, most of the time, that's used as a complement.

If you want to go on thinking that pedophilia is a perfectly decent thing, I'll leave you to it. There is, however, no sense in arguing with a brick wall.

I can see I'm not setting a good enough example then. I've been arguing with brick walls most of this thread. Of course those aren't the people I've been trying to convince of anything. The people I'm trying to sway are the lurkers and whatnot who are open to having their minds changed to a more favorable opinion of me.

You want to live in a world where children enjoy being raped and exploited? Go ahead, but I'm through with this arguement.
Um, if they enjoy it, in what way is it rape and exploitation? Or are you reffering strictly to statutory rape. In that case, there are children who enjoy being "raped". That's no excuse for doing it, since you can't conscent to be tortured (and society does torture kids who've been involved sexually with pedophiles), but it seems that this world you're so afraid of already exists.

Personally, I'd like a world where children enjoy conscentual sexual activities with adults and aren't harmed or repressed by society, but I know that dream isn't coming true any time soon.

True, and perhaps a trifle unfair. But I maintain that there are far more people who have had a rape fantasy than there are people who have committed rape. In fact, many people have fantasised about being raped. Doesn't mean they actually wish to be.

On some level, yes, it does mean exactly that.

I'll also continue to believe that there are those who have never fantasised about it, but have nevertheless committed it.

No? Not even in the seconds and minutes before committing it?

Well, except perhaps those who pleaded 'guilty'. Hmm.

You mean, their lawyers entered a guilty plea. Doesn't mean they'll be honest about their motives or objective enough to evaluate their own mental condition.


What? Not babysitting? Damn! ;)

Har. Well it's not about legality, either. Nor who can be a good neighbor with a fucken' garden. Nor about half the subjects that do get mentioned in a thread as big as this...


Sadly, I am not as open-minded as I attempt to be. I am still influenced by the prevailing mores of the common, narrow-minded majority.

I don't think that's sad. I rather respect that of you. Unlike The Five Castes, who seems to think his right to drool over my niece overrides that pesky, healthy-minded majority...

Eh, I'd need kids before I could attempt this perception-modification exercise. ;)

Alas. Well, I don't recommend performing it anyway. There's more than enough baby raping in the world as it is.

The Five Castes: If you can't be arsed to respond to people individually, I can't be arsed to chop up your 10 page post to find the parts that respond to anything I've said. I can't say that bothers me too much though, since we've established that you, an admitted pedophile, are doing nothing but desperately trying to justify and rationalize your perverted desire. Have a nice day, and stay the FUCK away from children.

I don't think that's sad. I rather respect that of you. Unlike The Five Castes, who seems to think his right to drool over my niece overrides that pesky, healthy-minded majority...

It is sad when people know they're prejudice and find themselves ruled by those prejudices in spite of that.

Alas. Well, I don't recommend performing it anyway. There's more than enough baby raping in the world as it is.

I explained myself that people have offered pedophiles a chance to babysit their kids. The question of who you let babysit your children is ultimatly about how much you trust them, and it is not impossible for am admited pedophile to earn someone's trust. In fact, in order to admit to being a pedophile in the first place, a very strong relationship of trust must already exist. Assuming that trust isn't shattered by the admission, an act of trust like that can strengthen the trust between people. At least that's been my experience with telling people in real life.

The Five Castes: If you can't be arsed to respond to people individually, I can't be arsed to chop up your 10 page post to find the parts that respond to anything I've said.

Is it my fault you people are so fastenated by this topic that between my visits to the forum you've disussed ten pages worth of stuff?

I do object to you characterising me as lazy, as I've attempted to respond to evey relevant post in the thread. If I were lazy, I'd just pop in and talk about the last post. If anyone's lazy, it would be the one who can't be bothered to read my post.

I can't say that bothers me too much though, since we've established that you, an admitted pedophile, are doing nothing but desperately trying to justify and rationalize your perverted desire.

Oh, we've established that, have we? You know, some of us actually read the threads we're in. You've established nothing of the sort except in your own mind.

Have a nice day, and stay the FUCK away from children.
It really is hard to believe you missed your own freudian slip in your choice of explatives there.

I am not a voilent man, but, seriously, if i met a pedophile, I would have had to exercise a lot of restraint not to go medieval on his (or her) ass.

Chemical castration and GPS-tracking is a good punishment for these... sub-humans.

Arguing, in any shape or form, for acceptance of this deviant behavior is inacceptible.
I would suggest instead putting them in work camps and having them do hard labor in conditions unfit for regular humans until they die. Das Herrenrasse trampoelt die Untermensch.

Accuse me of pulling a Godwin here, but not only is that irrelevant because I still have a valid point, but also because he brought it up first.

Nobody knows if there is a gay gene as nothing has been identified to suggest or deny it's existence.

You suggested it was a mutation.

Your psychological trauma arguement is bullshit. There are many many battered women and they aren't "converting" to lesbianism.

In other words, prove it.

The Bonobo are something you need to review if you want an easy example of the animal kingdom.
There are also many gay men who haven't suffered any psychological trauma in their childhood.

I'm a living example of it.

Right. Try and make some basic points.

Sex with children below the legal age of consent is wrong, moreso with pre-pubescent children since it is more likely to be harmful to them, but in general sex with children is wrong. You can haggle over ages of consent, 16 in the UK 18 in the US, based on development etc. But at the end of the day that's arguing about your definition of children, not about whether it's wrong or not.

In an ideal world the age of consent would be determined by individual anatomical and cognitive tests. In the real world an arbitrary line is the only really practical solution. So we have to stick by that.

I'd say that almost everyone agrees with the above.

The debate seems to basically rage between two factions, those who believe that having a sexual attraction to children is wrong. And those who believe that thinking something is never wrong.

Of the first faction, they seem to be split into several groups.

1. Those who believe that sexuality is choice, and hence those with the attraction are deliberately committing an offence. They seek to classify paedophilia as a mental disorder (though I'd argue that paedophilia comes in multiple types, both through desire for domination similar to rape etc, and through sexual attraction etc) and should be treated as such.

2. Those who believe that impulse always leads to action in this case, due to in this case there being no opportunity for legal fullfillment that eventually all paedophiles will convert fantasy to action. (I'd argue that you can't convict someone for something you believe they will do, it goes against the entire legal system. Innocent until proven guilty, and you can't prove that a person will succumb to their impulses.)

3. Those who never looked further than the word paedophile and assumed it referred solely to people who abused children (to which I'd hand them a dictionary).

Of the second faction, the general consensus (of which I agree with) is that you can't convict someone for thinking something. Choice or not they are allowed to think anything they want. Add in mentions of thought crime etc, and to point out that British (and I believe American Law, though I don't know how much their legal system was based off the old British Common law when it was set up) that a crime requires two parts. Actus Reus and Mens Rea. Mens Rea being guilty mind (intention/recklessness/etc) and Actus Reus being the guilty action.

You can't convict someone for thinking something.

(applause)

Absolutely 100% correct in all aspects. A superior argument.

Trostia, I've thought about what you said, and I think you may be right. My posts lately probably were too long to be accessable. I'll try to sum up my feelings on the issue in this post, and hopefully things will be easier to read.

The first thing I should say is my feelings on the main question. Whether pedophelia is considered a sexuality or not is going to depend largely on how you define sexuality. Trostia, you seem to have defined sexuality in a strange way that I don't understand. I personally feel pedophelia is a sexuality, because, as I understand it, sexuality is defined by the broad category of who you are attracted to and fetish fills in the details. "Little girls" in this case is just as much a broad category as "adult women".

Before going any further, I should declare, for anyone unfamiliar with my past posts in this thread and elsewhere, that I'm a pedophile. By this I mean an adult who is sexually attracted to children, in my case girls from 0 to approxamately 10 years old.

The term pedophelia, as I have and will continue to use it, describes a sexual atraction, not an action. Many people believe the word pedophile to be a synonym for the word child molester, and this is innacurate.

As many people have posted in this thread alone, most child molesters aren't attracted to their victums, which means they aren't pedophiles. FBI statistics have put the ratio at about 90% of child molesters being what is known as "situational offenders" meaning that they are not sexually interested in children, but abuse for other reasons (mostly for a feeling of power).

On the other side of the equation, I'm a pedophile who has never performed any sexual act with a child, and who never intends to. I remain celebate because I am fully aware of the damage that would occur to the child should I do so.

To recap:
pedophile =/= child molester

If anyone here can learn that simple inequality, then I've accomplished something important today.

Now, on to the element of choice.
Who we are attracted to is not something anyone has consious control over. I should have thought that after the gay rights movement has made such progress that anyone would realise this simple truth. Much as no one can chose to be gay, no one can chose to be a pedophile. Further, just like no one would want to be gay considering the social stygma that still surrounds homosexuality in our culture, no one would want to be a pedophile.

I don't know if it's genetic or if there's something in early childhood which triggers pedophelic interest, but I can refute the "all pedophiles were molested as kids" theory. I wasn't. Regardless of other factors that may or may not have contributed, I was not abused or molested as a child.

I believe that pedophelia differs from homosexuality in two ways:
1) Pedophelia cannot be acted upon without causing harm. Homosexuality can.
2) There is far more prejudice against pedophiles than there is against homosexuals.

Now, I've said at least twice in this post that I cannot act on my sexuality because I believe the result would be harm to the child, but I haven't explained where I believe this harm comes from.

I don't know enough about human anatomy to know at what ages different sexual acts can be performed without physical harm. I do know that there are some activities which are certainly not physically harmful at all. Unless someone has experienced serious injury from manual stimulation before? The issue of penetration, which has come up before in this thread isn't really one I am informed enough to say anything about one way or the other, except that I can't see much physical trauma when it's the adult being penetrated.

This of course leaves completely aside the question of STDs and pregnancy, which of course would need to be addressed before any activities involving fluid exchange ought to even be considered. Regular testing, limiting the number of partners, and using good birth control should be a given even among adults.

As for any inherent psychological damage, I don't think anyone knows this one. Of course I'm not going to even question the damage of forced or cohersive rape. No sane person would suggest that these are not traumatic, regardless of the age of the victum. I further believe that incestuous relationships are a problem because they will undermine the concept of unconditional love parents are supposed to have for their children. By making a parent's love contingent on pleasure the child could provide, that deprives the child of a sense of stability and could cause major developmental problems. As for the rest, studies have been done, but all of them had to take place amid the current climate of hysteria.

I believe that this climate of hysteria, even if everything else were to be proven benign, would traumatise most children as much as though they'd been raped. After all, conscentual activites are treated as rape. They're repeatedly bombarded with the idea that they'll be scarred for life, so it's little wonder when that's the result. This is agrivated by the behavior of protective services, the courts, and the psychologists involved in treating these "victums". They, respectively, take a person the child has come to care about away, ensure that the child blames him or her self for the fact that the adult has been removed by compelling the child to testify against his or her lover, and then force the child to relive the experience again and again, with a focus on the child learning to feel angry at her "molester".

I don't support child molesters of any stripe, even the ones who actually are in loving, caring, mutually pleasurable relationships, because I can't support the kind of person who would willingly expose someone they supposedly cared about to a lifetime of emotional torture.

As for any of the christian right who are so used to saying "God hates gays", don't try that with pedophelia. The Bible isn't exactly clear on homosexuals in the first place, but on the subject of pedophelia, I reffer you to Numbers 31:17-18. Please read that before you come here saying that I'm a horrible sinner. You'll look like less of a fool when I quote it.

Oh yes, mental illness. Pedophelia is classified as a mental disorder, one of several "paraphelias" by the APA. In layman's terms, in order for a person to fit the definition, one needs to be attracted to children, but that isn't enough to fit the definition. One also needs to have either acted on that attraction or the attraction must have caused significant stress and interpersonal dificulty.

Because of the extreme nature of this taboo, it is virtually impossible not to experience significant stress. (I know death threats cause me stress, and there've been a few in this thread alone broadly directed at all pedophiles.) Further, interpersonal dificult comes with the territory of being forced to keep a huge secret from friends and family.

Now, the disempowerment of children.
I've seen a lot of people saying that children are conditioned to obey adults, and that this makes them easy to manipulate, even if you don't mean to. To this, I have two major points to make. First, have those of you making such statements never had dificulty convincing a small child to eat his or her vegtables? Secondly, assuming I believed your premis that children are so perfectly conditioned that they'll do anything an adult tells them to, that, to me, implies a major problem with the way they're being raised.

Children should be taught to think for themselves, and adults grooming their kids to obey without question is just setting their kids up for problems. To blame here, would be the additude of "because I said so", which is saddly common these days. Freedom of choice is denied to children in every aspect of their lives, and then those same adults supressing and repressing their children bemoan how their children would go along with anything an adult said to do.

Let's consider the concept of self-determination. This is something children are denied as a matter of course. They don't have the right to the kind of personal autonomy we consider a basic human right. That they can't make their own choices about their sexuality is just one aspect of their overall denial of self-determination.

The way the opression of children is justified is that they are deemed to be subhuman. Thus children are relegated to the status of property, either of their parents, or of the state. Sure, this slavery ends after 18 years, but that's really the only difference between the current, accepted view that children are property, the old idea that adults could be property.

Have I missed anything?

You know what I really get off on? I mean really get off on, is brutally killing babies, then fucking the living shit outta them. They should make that legal. You know why? becuase thats the only way I can express myself sexualy, and there are thousands of others out there like that, so you should allow us our rights to practice such things.:eek:

IMPORTANT CLARIFICATION

Pedaphilia is a form of psychosis, wereas homosexuality is actually genetic. There is absolutely no correlation between pedaphilia and homosexuality. The only reason pedaphiles tend to prefer boys is, because boys are *already there* from a much younger age. Pedaphiles who prefer boys generally still have sex with adult women. There are actually two different kinds of pedaphilia: sex with preteens (those who are developing) and sex with children (those who remain undeveloped). While those who prefer preteens generally prefer members of the opposite gender (These are most commonly girls, because male pedaphiles are more common than females.), pedaphiles that prefer children usually go for boys for the reasons previously stated. Pedaphilia is generally caused by (in fact I know no incidents of anything else) abuse as a child. Essentially, the mind has been bent to preversion. Homosexuality, however, is a predisposed genetic condition. It is generally goes unnoticed, though, until adolescence, because that is when sexuality developes. As you can see, homosexuality and pedaphilia are two completely different things.

You know what I really get off on? I mean really get off on, is brutally killing babies, then fucking the living shit outta them. They should make that legal. You know why? becuase thats the only way I can express myself sexualy, and there are thousands of others out there like that, so you should allow us our rights to practice such things.:eek:
You can't practice a sexuality that is harmful to other people. You wanna fuck a corpse, that's your buisiness, but you can't kill people just to gratify yourself sexually.

This looks remarkably like a slippery slope falacy, doesn't it?
<snip huge post title>

Pedaphilia is a form of psychosis, wereas homosexuality is actually genetic.

When exactly did they discover the gay gene?

There is absolutely no correlation between pedaphilia and homosexuality. The only reason pedaphiles tend to prefer boys is, because boys are *already there* from a much younger age.

Incorrect. Girls actually mature faster than boys do. Please read up on your developmental biology before making statements like that.

Pedaphiles who prefer boys generally still have sex with adult women.

While I question the source you got this tidbit of information from on the grounds that your previous two "facts" I know to be incorrect, at the moment, I just have to question the relevance.

There are actually two different kinds of pedaphilia: sex with preteens (those who are developing) and sex with children (those who remain undeveloped).

Wrong on two major counts. First off, pedophelia is not sex with anyone. pedophelia is sexual attraction. If there weren't a difference, everyone on this forum would be a rapist.

Secondly, there are three (not two) broad categories to what is commonly reffered to as pedophelia.
Nepiophelia - attraction to infants and toddlers
Pedophelia - attraction to prepubescents
Hebephelia - attraction to pubescents.

While those who prefer preteens generally prefer members of the opposite gender (These are most commonly girls, because male pedaphiles are more common than females.), pedaphiles that prefer children usually go for boys for the reasons previously stated.

Where are you even getting this stuff from? Are these child molester statisitics or did you just pull them out of your ass?

Pedaphilia is generally caused by (in fact I know no incidents of anything else) abuse as a child.

I was never abused as a child, and am a pedophile. I said this like, two posts above yours.

Essentially, the mind has been bent to preversion. Homosexuality, however, is a predisposed genetic condition. It is generally goes unnoticed, though, until adolescence, because that is when sexuality developes.

Again, the gay gene?

As you can see, homosexuality and pedaphilia are two completely different things.
While I don't think anyone is saying gay people are pedophiles, they are both sexual attractions which deviate from the norm, and thus they are, at least superficially, similar.

I just wish to point out that instead of the slightly perverted "pedophilia", which means "feet-fucking", you probably mean the equally perverted but more taboo subject of "paedophilia", "child-fucking".

*quietly bows out of room*

I just wish to point out that instead of the slightly perverted "pedophilia", which means "feet-fucking", you probably mean the equally perverted but more taboo subject of "paedophilia", "child-fucking".

*quietly bows out of room*
First off, pedophelia doesn't mean child fucking. It means sexual attraction to children.

As to the main thrust of your post:
*points to sig*

I just wish to point out that instead of the slightly perverted "pedophilia", which means "feet-fucking", you probably mean the equally perverted but more taboo subject of "paedophilia", "child-fucking".

*quietly bows out of room*

No, pedophilia is a correct spelling, sorry.

First off, pedophelia doesn't mean child fucking. It means sexual attraction to children.

As to the main thrust of your post:
*points to sig*
I was generalising obnoxiously on purpose. :D

And TAM, the root "pedo-" comes from the Greek word "pedis" or something or other, also the source of "pedestal", "bipedal", and so on. "Paedo-", on the other hand, means child (also Greek, or maybe Latin, no idea). In AmerEng they're pronounced the same way for some reason.

No, pedophilia is a correct spelling, sorry.
Kinda off topic, but you wouldn't happen to know the word he was looking for about foot fetishes, would you?

I was generalising obnoxiously on purpose. :D

If you're being deliberately abnoxious, you shouldn't be surprised or offended when someone finds you abnoxious.

And TAM, the root "pedo-" comes from the Greek word "pedis" or something or other, also the source of "pedestal", "bipedal", and so on. "Paedo-", on the other hand, means child (also Greek, or maybe Latin, no idea). In AmerEng they're pronounced the same way for some reason.
Um, wouldn't that mean that the foot fetish one would be pediphelia?

If you're being deliberately abnoxious, you shouldn't be surprised or offended when someone finds you abnoxious.
I happen to know that 90% of the universe finds me obnoxious anyway, and I do not care in the slightest....


Um, wouldn't that mean that the foot fetish one would be pediphelia?
Don't ask me; I have no idea. Look it up somewhere, I guess.

I happen to know that 90% of the universe finds me obnoxious anyway, and I do not care in the slightest....

All right then.

Don't ask me; I have no idea. Look it up somewhere, I guess.
Meh. It isn't really worth the effort. Anyway, once you posted the word roots, I was pretty sure that the foot fetish one was spelled with an "i" instead of an "o".

We...are...losing...ground! One day...it'll be dogs we're talking about...

We...are...losing...ground! One day...it'll be dogs we're talking about...
If you want a bestiality thread, go ahead and make one. I'll be happy to weigh in.

If you want a bestiality thread, go ahead and make one. I'll be happy to weigh in.

JESUS FUCKING CHRIST! TO ALL HUMANS. THIS IS A SENSE OF LOGIC. YOU CANNOT JUST GO STICK YOUR DICK INTO ANYTHING YOU PLEASE, JUST BECAUSE YOU WANT TO. WANTING TO DO IT DOESNT MAKE IT RIGHT OR NATURAL. WHAT IS SO WRONG WITH HAVING TO HAVE SEX WITH A NORMAL CONSENTUAL ADULT. DO YOU HAVE TROUBLE GETTING ONE OF THOSE? CAN YOU ONLY GET LAID BY MANIPULATING YOUNG MINDS. IF YOU WANT TO PUT YOUR PENIS INSIDE A CHILD OR BABY YOU SHOULD BE BRUTALLY RAPED AND MURDERD YOURSELF. :upyours: :sniper: :upyours: :mp5: :mad: :headbang: :sniper:

all should be shot on site :sniper:

JESUS FUCKING CHRIST! TO ALL HUMANS. THIS IS A SENSE OF LOGIC. YOU CANNOT JUST GO STICK YOUR DICK INTO ANYTHING YOU PLEASE, JUST BECAUSE YOU WANT TO. WANTING TO DO IT DOESNT MAKE IT RIGHT OR NATURAL. WHAT IS SO WRONG WITH HAVING TO HAVE SEX WITH A NORMAL CONSENTUAL ADULT. DO YOU HAVE TROUBLE GETTING ONE OF THOSE? CAN YOU ONLY GET LAID BY MANIPULATING YOUNG MINDS. IF YOU WANT TO PUT YOUR PENIS INSIDE A CHILD OR BABY YOU SHOULD BE BRUTALLY RAPED AND MURDERD YOURSELF. :upyours: :sniper: :upyours: :mp5: :mad: :headbang: :sniper:Dude, have a cup of rationality. This thread has primarily (and surprisingly) remained a discussion. Based on your little icon-infested rant, you obviously haven't been reading any of the preceding posts.

JESUS FUCKING CHRIST!

Isn't the official church doctrine that Christ remained celebate throughout his life?

TO ALL HUMANS. THIS IS A SENSE OF LOGIC.

The all caps really suggest emotion rather than logic.

YOU CANNOT JUST GO STICK YOUR DICK INTO ANYTHING YOU PLEASE, JUST BECAUSE YOU WANT TO.

I agree with that, but then you've made this so vague, I don't think anyone could disagree with that.

WANTING TO DO IT DOESNT MAKE IT RIGHT OR NATURAL.

And I assume you consider natural and right to be one and the same?

WHAT IS SO WRONG WITH HAVING TO HAVE SEX WITH A NORMAL CONSENTUAL ADULT.

Not a thing, why?

DO YOU HAVE TROUBLE GETTING ONE OF THOSE?

Well, yes, but I keep trying.

CAN YOU ONLY GET LAID BY MANIPULATING YOUNG MINDS.

I really hope not.

Regardless, this statement rests on a false assumption, that pedophiles are all too lazy or incompotent to get adults and this "resort" to kids. Would you go after little kids if you weren't getting laid enough?

IF YOU WANT TO PUT YOUR PENIS INSIDE A CHILD OR BABY YOU SHOULD BE BRUTALLY RAPED AND MURDERD YOURSELF. :upyours: :sniper: :upyours: :mp5: :mad: :headbang: :sniper:
I don't know whether it's the death threat, the all caps, or the overuse of smilies, but I think somewhere along the line you lost the high ground.

all should be shot on site :sniper:

Damn right, I dont have children but if i did and one of them was being molested physically or even verbally consent or not, I would personally disembowel them and torture them to fucking death. Then I would kill thier family for allowing them to be such a fuck up.:sniper: :upyours: