Peadophilia

[Dyson]

But that's the ting: He's asking the question. I do in now way condone paedophilia, nor do I think it should be allowed. Children are in no way ready for that kind of thing, neither mentally nor physically, and so they shouldn't be involved in it. But I agree with Dyson, I believe it's all in the head. Per instinct, sexual attraction is aimed at reproducing, which means a 20 year old is per instinct more attractive than say a 50 year old. But we humans often find people/traits that are NOT optimal at reproducing, for example children, who cannot even reproduce yet. It is in no way more criminal to have that kind of philia than having, say, homophilia. The problems start when peadophiles cannot control their lusts and start acting them out in real life.

 

Pretty much nailed it imo.

[thunderer]

But that's the ting: He's asking the question. I do in now way condone paedophilia, nor do I think it should be allowed. Children are in no way ready for that kind of thing, neither mentally nor physically, and so they shouldn't be involved in it. But I agree with Dyson, I believe it's all in the head. Per instinct, sexual attraction is aimed at reproducing, which means a 20 year old is per instinct more attractive than say a 50 year old. But we humans often find people/traits that are NOT optimal at reproducing, for example children, who cannot even reproduce yet. It is in no way more criminal to have that kind of philia than having, say, homophilia. The problems start when peadophiles cannot control their lusts and start acting them out in real life.

 

The above is pretty much exactly what i was about to type out. Though i would of made less sense, i was never good in arguments/discussions.

[Paj!]

According to my mum, who is technically qualified to make this statement, Paedophilia is a recognisable disorder/syndrome or whatever the term is.

 

And if one isn't stopped at the stage where it's just curiosity/pictures, it will turn into full-on abuse of children.

 

No idea if that's true or not, but it's presumably a textbook definition.

[Dannyboy-the-Dane]

Pretty much nailed it imo.

 

And I didn't even need a hammer. [/terrible, terrible pun]

[Dyson]

And if one isn't stopped at the stage where it's just curiosity/pictures, it will turn into full-on abuse of children.

 

Hmm, see I disagree here. I think that in most cases this is probably true, but I don't think it's true in 100% of cases. It sounds like you're saying anyone who researches or is interested in the Titanic disaster will go out and engineer a boat to sink when it hits an iceburg because they were fascinated with it when it happened.

 

Edit: ..extreme/crap example. thunderer stole the violent crime/video game analogy I was going to use below, refer to that for it is much better than my argument

[thunderer]

And if one isn't stopped at the stage where it's just curiosity/pictures, it will turn into full-on abuse of children.

 

That statement annoys me so much. It's utter bs. You may as well say any one who repeatedly plays violent games is going to go out and kill people. I play GTA4 a fair bit, but when i went driving to drop my sister off at her boyfriends earlier, i didnt run people down. Most people have self control, the people who don't, those are the people who go and act on feelings towards children.

[Dannyboy-the-Dane]

Hmm, see I disagree here. I think that in most cases this is probably true, but I don't think it's true in 100% of cases. It sounds like you're saying anyone who researches or is interested in the Titanic disaster will go out and engineer a boat to sink because they were fascinated with it.

 

..extreme/crap example. thunderer stole the violent crime/video game analogy I was going to use

 

Agreed ... again. I don't believe having those attraction means you're inevitably going to go out and rape a child.

 

EDIT: Yeah, thunderer said it way better.

[Paj!]

Uh...did you read the first part? I was referring to it as a symptom of Paedophilia supposedly being a syndrome/diease or something.

 

I wasn't saying it in general...I'm not that stupid.

[Dannyboy-the-Dane]

Uh...did you read the first part? I was referring to it as a symptom of Paedophilia supposedly being a syndrome/diease or something.

 

I wasn't saying it in general...I'm not that stupid.

 

And you're absolutely sure about that ...?

 

Just kidding. Well, we didn't say it was aimed at you, merely at the statement itself.

[Dyson]

Paj, could you rewrite your post then? I'm not sure I understand. It read as if you were saying that anybody who was curious, or looked at the pictures would eventually molest a child. Is that what you were saying? If so my original reply applies. If not, elaborate, I've misunderstood. : peace:

[Sheikah]

I agree with that line of thought, except for the part of the gay gene, I really doubt it exists.

 

Considering genes make up for every cell in our body, including those in our brain, in some way the genes that encode us must allow us to have certain attractions - and if our attractions are a result of the environment, this is still the way in which the environment acts on a product of our genes.

 

In short, we are completely coded from our genes, so even if the environment is responsible for our thoughts and attractions, the way in which we all are different to each other despite some people leading similar lives is somewhat down to our genetic makeup. I don't think there are any genes you could say are 'gay genes', but genes that affect personality and the way we react to the environment are certainly key.

[navarre]

I really dislike the fact you're technically comparing someone that finds the same sex attractive to a peadophile. It's simple, there's nothing wrong with a man finding another man attractive and wanting to do something about it even though like you say this was once illegal. But we know there is obviously something incredibly wrong about someone finding a child sexually attractive, there's no question about that.

 

Would I throw a brick through their window if I knew where one lived? No. I think thats pointless behaviour.

 

Why? They're both attractions which can't be helped. Who are you to say what's wrong and right? Morals are influenced by society; as I said earlier, if this was 40 years ago, you'd be saying the same thing about homosexuality. Moreover, if it was legal to be sexually attracted to children, no doubt your opinion would change. It would be deemed socially acceptable.

 

Obviously, having sex with a child is wrong. There's no two ways about it. As previously stated, children are too young and don't understand (I don't understand it, their bodies aren't even developed, but it's isn't a choice). But just because I fancy mixed-race women, it doesn't mean I'm going to go out one day and forcibly have all mixed-race women I see have sex with me. I just won't.

 

My point: Peadophilia is wrong. It is socially unacceptable, because society has branded it that way. But it isn't an inexcusable crime. Obviously, pursuing a peadophile's fantasies would be inexcusable. But merely being attracted is excusable. Peadophiles have as much control over their sexual attractions as they do over the weather.

[Emasher]

Well peadophiles have done one thing correct, they helped to create the legendary "To catch a predator" program! So funny.

 

Otherwise, peadophilia is wrong, I don't have any stories to add either.

 

 

 

Thought I might as well post a link to its homepage for people who haven't seen it.

 

I should also mention that Looking at child pornography is almost as wrong as going out to rape a child. You are promoting child abuse by watching it. If nobody watched it, they wouldn't make it, and the "child porn-stars" wouldn't get abused.

[triforce_keeper]

Why? They're both attractions which can't be helped. Who are you to say what's wrong and right? Morals are influenced by society; as I said earlier, if this was 40 years ago, you'd be saying the same thing about homosexuality. Moreover, if it was legal to be sexually attracted to children, no doubt your opinion would change. It would be deemed socially acceptable.

 

Obviously, having sex with a child is wrong. There's no two ways about it. As previously stated, children are too young and don't understand (I don't understand it, their bodies aren't even developed, but it's isn't a choice). But just because I fancy mixed-race women, it doesn't mean I'm going to go out one day and forcibly have all mixed-race women I see have sex with me. I just won't.

 

My point: Peadophilia is wrong. It is socially unacceptable, because society has branded it that way. But it isn't an inexcusable crime. Obviously, pursuing a peadophile's fantasies would be inexcusable. But merely being attracted is excusable. Peadophiles have as much control over their sexual attractions as they do over the weather.

 

Whats wrong in comparing them? For one, fucking a guy (who is also gay) wouldn't fuck up their life. Whereas an adult having sex with a child would :/

[Daft]

Peadophiles have as much control over their sexual attractions as they do over the weather.

 

People with psychological problems who are deemed dangerous to the general public are generally sectioned to the mental health act.

 

I think Haggis has a point, why would you likened peadophilia to homosexuality as opposed to someone who is mentally unstable and could cause harm.

[Paj!]

Paj, could you rewrite your post then? I'm not sure I understand. It read as if you were saying that anybody who was curious, or looked at the pictures would eventually molest a child. Is that what you were saying? If so my original reply applies. If not, elaborate, I've misunderstood. : peace:

 

Apparently Paedohpilia is a syndrome/disease/officially diagnosed mental problem. It's progressive. One thing inevitably leads to another, so to speak. So yes, it's almsot certain it would lead to child abuse.

 

[/not my opinion/conclusion, only what I understand of the situation]

 

 

Being interested in GTA games isn't the same. It's not a dieases or whatever. People thought I meant that. Same way being interested in the history of Titanic and it's sinking doesn't mean you will go out and sink a boat. Just in the case of Paedohilia, apparently you will go the extremes.

 

Again, I was told this.

[Sheikah]

I think Haggis has a point, why would you likened peadophilia to homosexuality as opposed to someone who is mentally unstable and could cause harm.

 

Because mental instablity and paedophilia are more unrelated. One suggests someone can't look after themself / self-harm, the other suggests one who likes children. Homosexuality refers to sexual attraction, as does paedophilia. Even if morally speaking, one is very wrong while one isn't.

[Emasher]

Being interested in GTA games isn't the same. It's not a dieases or whatever. People thought I meant that. Same way being interested in the history of Titanic and it's sinking doesn't mean you will go out and sink a boat. Just in the case of Paedohilia, apparently you will go the extremes.

 

Again, I was told this.

 

Exactly. If a few people jump of a cliff and survive, it doesn't mean that you are guaranteed to survive if you did the same thing. If you understand what I mean by this.

[navarre]

People with psychological problems who are deemed dangerous to the general public are generally sectioned to the mental health act.

 

I think Haggis has a point, why would you likened peadophilia to homosexuality as opposed to someone who is mentally unstable and could cause harm.

 

What? Since when did having different sexual attrations ensure you are mentally unstable?

 

I could cause harm. A gay man could cause harm. Harming someone you're attracted to isn't restricted to peadophilia.

 

Whats wrong in comparing them? For one, fucking a guy (who is also gay) wouldn't fuck up their life. Whereas an adult having sex with a child would :/

 

As I said earlier, that's only because society would destroy you. If having sex with a child became legal, no-one would turn a blind eye.

[Emasher]

Because mental instablity and paedophilia are more unrelated. One suggests someone can't look after themself / self-harm, the other suggests one who likes children. Homosexuality refers to sexual attraction, as does paedophilia. Even if morally speaking, one is very wrong while one isn't.

 

Not all mental disabilities are the same. There are alot of mental disabilities that would lead you to harm another person.

[Sheikah]

Not all mental disabilities are the same. There are alot of mental disabilities that would lead you to harm another person.

 

Well the point is, paedophilia and homosexuality are both terms used to define attraction a particular subset of people, despite one being considered morally wrong. That is why they were compared, as paedophiles may well know what they are doing, so possibly are not mentally instable.

[Daft]

Because mental instablity and paedophilia are more unrelated. One suggests someone can't look after themself / self-harm, the other suggests one who likes children. Homosexuality refers to sexual attraction, as does paedophilia. Even if morally speaking, one is very wrong while one isn't.

 

Mental instability leading to someone being sectioned, like peadophilia, can lead to a pretty heinous crime.

 

Homosexuality leads to....

 

I think mental instability and paedophilia have more in common.

[Shino]

Considering genes make up for every cell in our body, including those in our brain, in some way the genes that encode us must allow us to have certain attractions - and if our attractions are a result of the environment, this is still the way in which the environment acts on a product of our genes.

 

In short, we are completely coded from our genes, so even if the environment is responsible for our thoughts and attractions, the way in which we all are different to each other despite some people leading similar lives is somewhat down to our genetic makeup. I don't think there are any genes you could say are 'gay genes', but genes that affect personality and the way we react to the environment are certainly key.

 

Your edit was basically my reply.

[Sheikah]

Mental instability leading to someone being sectioned, like peadophilia, can lead to a pretty heinous crime.

 

Homosexuality leads to....

 

I think mental instability and paedophilia have more in common.

 

Hang on, some wires crossed here. Paedophilia is the term used to describe someone who likes children, not actually comitting any acts. Homosexuality similarly defines a specific attraction, even though it is not a moral problem.

 

From an objective standpoint, the two terms are related in the sense that they define attractions to different subsets of people.

[Slaggis]

Nav, what are you saying?

 

You keep saying if being sexually attracted to Children became legal then no one would question it. But the thing is it NEVER will because we KNOW it's wrong and rightfully so. Whereas Homosexuality was wrongfully classed as illegal, but is now perfectly legal because there is nothing at all wrong with a man wanting to have sex with another man. Simple, surely?

 

Why bring up something for discussion that's never going to happen? Surely it will just cause arguments.