Dan_Dare Posted August 31, 2008 Share Posted August 31, 2008 that was far more to do with social issues than sexual though Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Slaggis Posted August 31, 2008 Share Posted August 31, 2008 but they're beyond comparison. With homosexuality, the taboo was down to people being wrong. Exactly, this is why I'm a little confused into why people comparing them. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rokhed00 Posted August 31, 2008 Share Posted August 31, 2008 Exactly, this is why I'm a little confused into why people comparing them. Maybe beastiality/zoophilia would be a better comparison. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
navarre Posted August 31, 2008 Author Share Posted August 31, 2008 Having paedophilia = being attracted to children. Not wrong. Committing acts of paedophilia = having sex with a child or watching child porn. Definitely wrong. What do we classify as a mental instability? Both peadophilia and homophilia are sexual preferences, not instabilities. Instability is when the paedophile can't control his or her urges, which leads to committing acts of paedophilia. Yes. An intelligent post. People are still mixing the words Paedophile and child molester. Just because someone is attracted to kids doesn't mean they're going to go molest one. Saying they 100% will, is like saying, because I'm attracted to blondes or whatever means I'm going to go rape a blonde? There is such thing as self control, and just because 10,000 people in the UK are attracted to kids, are you guys seriously saying every single one of them is going to try and have sex with one? Yes! Another intelligent post. I've skimmed this thread, and these guys have understood what I'm trying to say. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MoogleViper Posted August 31, 2008 Share Posted August 31, 2008 In the very old days it wasnt a taboo at all, 30 year old men would marry girls as young as 12. Exactly. IIRC wasn't Julier 12/14 and Romeo in his twenties? by today's stnadards that's paedophilia but people still class that as romance. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rokhed00 Posted August 31, 2008 Share Posted August 31, 2008 Exactly. IIRC wasn't Julier 12/14 and Romeo in his twenties? by today's stnadards that's paedophilia but people still class that as romance. Blame Skaespeare, he wasn't averse to a little pervery. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kirkatronics Posted August 31, 2008 Share Posted August 31, 2008 Exactly. IIRC wasn't Julier 12/14 and Romeo in his twenties? by today's stnadards that's paedophilia but people still class that as romance. I believe he was in his 30's, that was an example i had in my head. Blame Skaespeare, he wasn't averse to a little pervery.That was the norm then though. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rokhed00 Posted August 31, 2008 Share Posted August 31, 2008 That was the norm then though. Yep, pretty much everyone was a pervert one way or the other back then, and the clothes were fabulous too, what I'd give to live in an age where corsets and petticoats are the norm. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kirkatronics Posted August 31, 2008 Share Posted August 31, 2008 Yep, pretty much everyone was a pervert one way or the other back then, and the clothes were fabulous too, what I'd give to live in an age where corsets and petticoats are the norm. But showing any skin, excluding face and hands, was thought to be showing too much. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Twozzok Posted August 31, 2008 Share Posted August 31, 2008 Why is everyone ignoring the fact that just because you're attracted to something doesn't mean you're going to act on those urges? Also, Peadophilia is the attraction to prepubescent people, for being attracted to teenagers it's Ebebophilia. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rokhed00 Posted August 31, 2008 Share Posted August 31, 2008 But showing any skin, excluding face and hands, was thought to be showing too much. Fine by me, I tend to cover up a fair bit anyway, long skirts wouldn't be too much of a change. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Indigo Posted August 31, 2008 Share Posted August 31, 2008 I can't even believe we need to debate this. Though I guess this is the inevitable conclusion of a culture that subscribes to the view that whatever gives you pleasure must be fine and healthy. Things aren't right or wrong merely because a majority of people believe so. We as humans are not so primitive as to be entirely conditioned morally and socially by our societies - we have deeper moral intuitions. In the case of this subject our moral intuition against it is derived from how obviously unnatural it is to be attracted to people who are not even by nature's design supposed to be attractive to us. Just think why physical attraction itself exists - it exists as a function to encourage us to reproduce, hence why we are attracted by signs of fertility in the opposite sex. Being attracted to children isn't simply wrong because it's weird in society's eyes, it's a subversion of our nature. Exactly. IIRC wasn't Julier 12/14 and Romeo in his twenties? by today's stnadards that's paedophilia but people still class that as romance.Juliet was 14. She would have been fertile and capable of bearing a child. Cases like that are entirely different to having an attraction for someone who hasn't even reached adolescence. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jamba Posted August 31, 2008 Share Posted August 31, 2008 I can't even believe we need to debate this. Though I guess this is the inevitable conclusion of a culture that subscribes to the view that whatever gives you pleasure must be fine and healthy. Things aren't right or wrong merely because a majority of people believe so. We as humans are not so primitive as to be entirely conditioned morally and socially by our societies - we have deeper moral intuitions. In the case of this subject our moral intuition against it is derived from how obviously unnatural it is to be attracted to people who are not even by nature's design supposed to be attractive to us. Just think why physical attraction itself exists - it exists as a function to encourage us to reproduce, hence why we are attracted by signs of fertility in the opposite sex. Being attracted to children isn't simply wrong because it's weird in society's eyes, it's a subversion of our nature. Wait a sec... so if it's not biologically productive then it's wrong? I'm guessing that you believe homosexuality is wrong too then? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sheikah Posted August 31, 2008 Share Posted August 31, 2008 it exists as a function to encourage us to reproduce, hence why we are attracted by signs of fertility in the opposite sex. It ain't just a case of being weird in society's eyes, it's a subversion of our nature. Not to bash your points about paedophilia, but that explanation would imply that homosexuality is a subversion too (I guess it is from reproduction, but you get my point). Juliet was 14. She would have been fertile and capable of bearing a child. Cases like that are entirely different to having an attraction for someone who hasn't even reached adolescence. Didn't they live to 30 then? Juliet was having her mid-life crisis. :p Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MoogleViper Posted August 31, 2008 Share Posted August 31, 2008 Juliet was 14. She would have been fertile and capable of bearing a child. Cases like that are entirely different to having an attraction for someone who hasn't even reached adolescence. I thought she was, but did her mother or nurse say that she should have been married by now. (now as in relating to the story not now as in 400 years later.) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Emasher Posted August 31, 2008 Share Posted August 31, 2008 Ok. Pretend for a moment that you are a child. An adult comes up to you and rapes you. How would you feel about that. Now do you understand exactly why its wrong. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jamba Posted August 31, 2008 Share Posted August 31, 2008 Ok. Pretend for a moment that you are a child. An adult comes up to you and rapes you. How would you feel about that. Now do you understand exactly why its wrong. Who's that aimed at? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chris the great Posted August 31, 2008 Share Posted August 31, 2008 well, peadophilia seems to have been viewed with rare maturity, and in an internet forum of all places! it always annoys me that newspapers imediate reaction to peadophiles is to say "hang em!", who wins then? far better would be to study them search for reasons for the attraction to children, be they chemical, neurological, social or what ever. im not defending peadophillia, it is after all, a vile act. not just because it isn't procreative, hell if sex was only for procreation life would be alot less fun. it is so wrong because it involves children, who in most cases are unable to make a reasonable decision based on sex, they are taken advantage of, not mentaly or physicaly ready for sex. anouther asspect that makes peadophillia so wrong is that alot of it seems to involve torture and pain (this is going from media reports, as well as a few lectures on crime as part of my fprensic psychology course, given by investigators). to me, this surgests that the attraction to children isnt just physical, but perhaps its some deep psychological rejection of social norms. as many have said, the notion of when a person is ready for sex seems to change with society, with 14 being considered old enough in many civilisations, though lets not forget, death for adulterers and homosexuals has also been common in history, that dosent make that defendable does it? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dan_Dare Posted August 31, 2008 Share Posted August 31, 2008 http://www.theonion.com/content/news/pedophile_nervous_for_first_day_of?utm_source=onion_rss_daily lawl. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dannyboy-the-Dane Posted August 31, 2008 Share Posted August 31, 2008 On the topic about paedophilic actions, what about watching cartoon porn of children? Should that be considered wrong? It doesn't hurt any children, but it may encourage people to go out and do the real thing. Or it may prevent people from doing exactly that. What about porn in general? Does it prevent or encourage rape? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Indigo Posted August 31, 2008 Share Posted August 31, 2008 Wait a sec... so if it's not biologically productive then it's wrong? I'm guessing that you believe homosexuality is wrong too then?I guess that's the consequence of my argument. Aside from the nature argument I'm just struggling to see another way of arguing that being attracted to children is wrong that doesn't appeal to conscience (personally I think moral intuition is a legitimate basis for an argument, but I'm trying to argue on the terms of the thread-starter). Harm arguments seem quite weak if it's all thought and there's actually no action involved. as many have said, the notion of when a person is ready for sex seems to change with society, with 14 being considered old enough in many civilisations, though lets not forget, death for adulterers and homosexuals has also been common in history, that dosent make that defendable does it?I think that's a weak parallel to draw. Obviously biology restrains all societies' notions of when someone is ready for sex. Attitudes have only changed in terms of us raising the age because societies have considered more when someone is emotionally ready for sex. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sanchez Posted August 31, 2008 Share Posted August 31, 2008 Ok. Pretend for a moment that you are a child. An adult comes up to you and rapes you. How would you feel about that. Now do you understand exactly why its wrong. Well if I was 14 and it was a hot teacher then I know exactly why its so so right. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Indigo Posted August 31, 2008 Share Posted August 31, 2008 What about porn in general? Does it prevent or encourage rape?I certainly don't think it prevents rape. Any desire is only ever temporarily satisfied. And it doesn't really quell lustful desire anyway - if anything it stirs up more desire as people tend to get desensitised to the images and hence pursue ever more explicit and stronger images. Psychologically I think on the subconscious level it encourages us to see women as objects for our pleasure - and it seems only logical that such an attitude in a person would make it slightly more and not less probable that they might commit rape. Now I'm not saying there's then some direct causal link between watching lots of porn and committing a sexual crime, but I think it's naive to consider being regularly exposed to porn as having absolutely zero effect on our psychology. Just think how vulnerable we are to the messages of advertising infiltrating our subconscious and influencing our decisions (why do you think so many billions are pumped into the industry?). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jonnas Posted August 31, 2008 Share Posted August 31, 2008 Well if I was 14 and it was a hot teacher then I know exactly why its so so right. You mean like a male teacher? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
navarre Posted August 31, 2008 Author Share Posted August 31, 2008 I can't even believe we need to debate this. Though I guess this is the inevitable conclusion of a culture that subscribes to the view that whatever gives you pleasure must be fine and healthy. Things aren't right or wrong merely because a majority of people believe so. We as humans are not so primitive as to be entirely conditioned morally and socially by our societies - we have deeper moral intuitions. In the case of this subject our moral intuition against it is derived from how obviously unnatural it is to be attracted to people who are not even by nature's design supposed to be attractive to us. Just think why physical attraction itself exists - it exists as a function to encourage us to reproduce, hence why we are attracted by signs of fertility in the opposite sex. Being attracted to children isn't simply wrong because it's weird in society's eyes, it's a subversion of our nature. Juliet was 14. She would have been fertile and capable of bearing a child. Cases like that are entirely different to having an attraction for someone who hasn't even reached adolescence. I disagree. As warandchaos and rokhed00 have previously discussed, peadophilia was once upon a time considered the 'norm', and everyone was 'a pervert then'. Why, you have to ask yourself? Were children invariably more attractive then then they are today? Or was it a medieval trait? No, it was simply because of society's perception of it. Now, I do agree with you to a point. If murder wasn't against the law, I doubt I'd go out and kill someone. And, your argument stands no ground against homosexuality. It may not be deemed unaccaetable by society, but seeing as it's so unnatural, how comes our moral tuition doesn't dislike it? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts