Shorty Posted June 3, 2006 Posted June 3, 2006 What would you say if the children were willing? Just for intrests sake. How can you tell if a child is really willing? Children are incredibly prone to manipulation, threats, fear tactics and pursuasion. That's part of what make it sick. Not just their physical age, but that their mental age is being taken advantage of.
Shino Posted June 3, 2006 Posted June 3, 2006 People don't get arrested just because they look at children in a strange way! They get arrested because they manifested this fetich, wich is never a good thing, we don't need to discuss the meaning of pedophile because every child molester is pedophile, and that's what matters. How can you tell if a child is really willing? Children are incredibly prone to manipulation, threats, fear tactics and pursuasion. That's part of what make it sick. Not just their physical age, but that their mental age is being taken advantage of. Bulls eye, even adults get used and theathen to do thing unwillingly.
conzer16 Posted June 3, 2006 Posted June 3, 2006 How can you tell if a child is really willing? Children are incredibly prone to manipulation, threats, fear tactics and pursuasion. That's part of what make it sick. Not just their physical age, but that their mental age is being taken advantage of. QFT A child cannot reason with an adult. A child has no conception of right or wrong. A child cannot comprehend the physical trauma and vilation such an act is. A child just does not hold the mental faculties - and thats why a paedophile is able to take advantage.
The Bard Posted June 3, 2006 Posted June 3, 2006 Thats bullshit, it depends on the child in question.
Sarka Posted June 3, 2006 Posted June 3, 2006 This thread has gotten pretty deep, but then again it was always going to eh? I thought it was going to turn into a joke topic about pervy old men... Anyway, very cool Flaight - nice and thoughtful. Sorry if earlier I sounded as if I thought men should sleep with children, as Flaight said I as doing objective thinking. And though I don't think "convicted paedophile"'s should be given the death penalty, it is very wrong if the child is forced and the person should be locked up for many many years. If the child has full knowledge of sex and wants to do it - I am still undecided. every child molester is pedophile, and that's what matters. Come on! That's like saying that every sheep raper is a farmer or every gamer kills people. Sure some do, but not all - most pedophiles don't do anything to children. All child molesters should be locked away - not all pedophiles. Though I thought we had finished defining the word pedophile. Also, what if the child was 13 - s/he would be able to know what was happening, but it would still be illegal. They can make a judgment. I would like to study child phycology (sp?) in more detail - and then make a judgment about whether they could make a judgment about sex, hehe, it kinda ryhmes.
Flaight Posted June 3, 2006 Posted June 3, 2006 Personally, the biggest crunch point is at what point a society completes a "child" into an "adult". Long ago, when the life expectacy was like late 30s for the lay people, everything happened a lot sooner and younger. That is of course very different today. I think physically, there is no 'physiological' reason why a sexual contact should automatically result in an emotional damage. I think there is a point, around just before the early adolescence, where you can actually take a physical damage. But there onward, it becomes a question of social conditioning, generally known as "victimization mentality". Long story short, our mind works in such a way that if you are told over and over that you are a victim, you really become one even if there needn't be a physiological reason why you should be. This is where the link between what happens in physical world and psychology of it gets established. Say, if a 15 year old slept with a 18 year old. Physiologically, there is no reason why there should be any damage, so psychologically too there needn't be any damage. But say, if all of a sudden many people gathered around her, taking pity on her, telling her it's alright, everything will be ok, Here have some sweets and it's ok if you don't want to go to school for a while. She will in the end really do become a victim, not because she actually is, but because she's been conditioned into a mindset which takes damage from a certain occurance of event in life. There are many other examples of this by the way. Incest is similar. Like in the US, there was a case where a brother and a sister ended up sleeping together without knowing. I think the brother got imprisoned in the end, but basically the point was that the psychology behind cringing at the thought of sleeping with your sibling comes from the social conditioning that incest is unethical. Of course there is a very good reason why it was made unethical (the genetic mutation and all), but some argue that in this day and age the act of sexual intercourse itself should not be taught as unethical, because you can prevent fertilization of an egg by using contraception. If the reason why incest is seen as unethical purely based on the fact that fertilization of an egg among siblings cause harmful inheritance problems in the genes, then by making sure the egg isn't fertilized you can make it ethical. And so on so forth. The debate goes on. The point is, so-called "emotional damage" is a very conditional thing, often more defined by men than by nature. There already is a variation of perception around the world depending on different cultures. Cannibalism is another. But it's becoming long again so I'll stop.
conzer16 Posted June 3, 2006 Posted June 3, 2006 Come on! That's like saying that every sheep raper is a farmer or every gamer kills people. Sure some do, but not all - most pedophiles don't do anything to children. All child molesters should be locked away. I think you're confusing things there. How could a child molester NOT be a Paedophile? If they have molested a child surely they would have had sexual urges towrds a child?....paedophilia?!? Also what i highlighted - I 100% agree with you
Sarka Posted June 3, 2006 Posted June 3, 2006 I think you're confusing things there. How could a child molester NOT be a Paedophile? If they have molested a child surely they would have had sexual urges towrds a child?....paedophilia?!? Also what i highlighted - I 100% agree with you Sorry if I was unclear All child molestors should be locked away Not all paedophileare child molestors but all child molestors are paedophiles. So, paedophiles who are child molestors should be locked up, but paedophilia who do not molest children can be free among the reast of us.
Flaight Posted June 3, 2006 Posted June 3, 2006 I think you're confusing things there. How could a child molester NOT be a Paedophile? If they have molested a child surely they would have had sexual urges towrds a child?....paedophilia?!? Actually conzer, I think this is a problem of phraseology. I can't speak for Sarka but from the context, when I first read his post, I read that he's dividing those who have turned thought into action and those who haven't. He happened to associate the term 'paedophile' to those who didn't turn it into action, while using the term 'child abuser' for the other. I think the point here is that a child abuser is a paedophile, but a paedophile is not necessarily a child abuser. Man, this is friggin confusing EDIT: ok... it seems Sarka replied himself just before me, so there we go.
Sarka Posted June 3, 2006 Posted June 3, 2006 Man, this is friggin confusing Haha, yup! I think my opinions are clear now so I will leave this thread alone for awhile... I completely agree with you on pretty much everyhting you've said Flaught and will look out for your wise words in the future. I tried to find out wha percentage of peopel were peado's but I couldnt find anything - it would be interesting to know.
Wesley Posted June 3, 2006 Author Posted June 3, 2006 I've only skim read through some of these lengthy posts, but I feel I should at least give my opinion on this topic - even if brief due to the fact I have to revise for my Politics exam - seeing as I brought it up. Pedophiles shouldn't be killed. Pedophiles are attracted to children in a sexual way, this, although disturbing to most of us, is not as utterly terrifying as you might first think. A lot of people have really messed up sexual desires, often hurting themselves and others too (extreme S&M, anyone?) and actually involving death. Now pedophiles who act upon their impulse and sleep with children, consenting or not, is illegal. It is here that these people should be dealt with appropriately. Also other forms of abusing children, taking pictures, etc. is also a punishable offence. Now to the actual topic of pedophiles forming a political party and trying to abolish the age consent law... it's a democracy. You have to realise that throughout history political parties have suggested things which the mass has found totally outrageous; but to then over time accept these things. Now don't think I'm carefully saying I think the pedophiles' party is a good thing. Because along with the parties with out-there good ideas along comes a few which have really, really bad ideas. But we don't need to worry, democracy is rule by the people and so long as the majority of the people have their heads screwed on properly we're fine and dandy. It's not like we're all going to suddenly think something outrageous is acceptable and then a mad man get in power... God... wait, how did that Hitler thing go? He he, kidding.
Owario Posted June 4, 2006 Posted June 4, 2006 Guess what guys? I am, by definition, a paedophile. But to be honest, that doesn't mean shit. I have no child porn, and would never take advantage of a kid, just like you would never rape a woman. Now this is not something I would usually confess to, but I want to see people's reactions. Am I seen as a different person now?
EEVILMURRAY Posted June 4, 2006 Posted June 4, 2006 How can you tell if a child is really willing? The mouth says no but the eyes say yes yes yes.
The Bard Posted June 4, 2006 Posted June 4, 2006 The mouth says no but the eyes say yes yes yes. You mean..."The mouth says no...no....but the eyes scream yes, yes, oh big daddy yes....."
Athriller Posted June 4, 2006 Posted June 4, 2006 because every child molester is pedophile, and that's what matters. Every child molester is a paedophile, but not every paedophile is a child molester. If these people do not act on their thoughts, how can you punish them for anything? It's like saying a butcher should be put to death for having the potential of stabbing people with his butcher's knife. Ok, kinda beaten.
Shorty Posted June 4, 2006 Posted June 4, 2006 The reason people have negative feelings towards a paedophile who has never 'taken action' on their 'urges' is that they might. The longer your fetish builds up without you getting what you want, the longer it remains taboo and illegal, the more likely you are to snap and take what you want. Most people with weird desires/fetishes/fantasies can eventually find someone to share their idea with. If not they can head to some freaky sex club. But kids? If that's your thing, your only viable option, if you ever hit breaking point, is to break the law and take what you want. If the idea's in your head, the possibility that you could make it into reality is what freaks me out.
Athriller Posted June 4, 2006 Posted June 4, 2006 The problem with might is, it might not happen. Paedophilia is twisted in its own sort of way, but so are many things. It's easy to cuttle people off for their potential for doing things, but there's no right in doing so, as of yet, they are only fantasies. A lot of hetrosexual people have homosexual fantasies, yet never act on them and remain straight. The same is also true for some homosexuals who have hetrosexual fantasies. Why? Because they're fantasies. You could argue their sexuality may be in question, but I'm sure they'd beg to differ. Take an altogether different scenario; a woman is constantly thinking about going over the speed limit, but never does. Should she punished just for thinking about it?
Mr. Bananagrabber Posted June 4, 2006 Posted June 4, 2006 There's a difference between paedophilia and rape that some people don’t seem to get. They haven’t actually harmed anyone else, and I doubt they intend or raping children. Paedophilia is just another fetish as someone has pointed out, they can’t help how they think. The only one’s that should be killed are those close minded enough not to realize this.
Shorty Posted June 4, 2006 Posted June 4, 2006 The problem with might is, it might not happen. Paedophilia is twisted in its own sort of way, but so are many things. It's easy to cuttle people off for their potential for doing things, but there's no right in doing so, as of yet, they are only fantasies. A lot of hetrosexual people have homosexual fantasies, yet never act on them and remain straight. The same is also true for some homosexuals who have hetrosexual fantasies. Why? Because they're fantasies. You could argue their sexuality may be in question, but I'm sure they'd beg to differ. Take an altogether different scenario; a woman is constantly thinking about going over the speed limit, but never does. Should she punished just for thinking about it? The difference is that all these things would never be really bad if they did act on the urges. There are degrees to which harbouring urges can be acceptable - whether acted on or not. The possibility is the crux. - A woman has the urge to speed, one day she might. Maybe she gets a ticket. - A man has the urge to sleep with a man, one day he might. Maybe he questions his sexuality, maybe he never tells a soul. The end. - A person has always wanted to streak accross a footbal pitch. One day they might. There'll be laughs. A warning down at the police station. Now lets take these. - A man has always wanted to rape someone. One day he might. This makes him a danger to society. - A person has always had a thing for little kids. One day they might act on it. They might trick the kid, or manipulate them, or take advantage of their naivety. They can't legally have what they want. So one day they might just take it. And some kid will get hurt. Edit: If people have this urge that they just can't help, it's hardwired in, like me having a thing for redheads, they should seek counselling.
Athriller Posted June 4, 2006 Posted June 4, 2006 Good point, but with greater negative externalities come greater responsibilities. A lot of paedophiles realise the damage it could create, and so, never try it. Some won't even think of trying it all, but just want it as a fantasy. It's a bizarre situation. But people having it hardwired in should seek counselling? That's a very dodgy position to take and leads to a slippery slope. After paedophilia, you can bet there will be plenty of people screaming for gays et al to seek counselling.
AshMat Posted June 4, 2006 Posted June 4, 2006 Michael JAckson and Garry Glitter are starting a political party!!11!one!
Arragaun Posted June 4, 2006 Posted June 4, 2006 All the people who've said that paedophiles should be locked up because they might cause harm advocate thought policing. We all know where that's gonna land us.. in Lack-of-Liberties City drinking cups of Victory tea.
Shorty Posted June 4, 2006 Posted June 4, 2006 After paedophilia, you can bet there will be plenty of people screaming for gays et al to seek counselling. Homosexuality was something I always thought would gradually become less and less taboo, and it did. Paedophilia is something I believe will never be socially acceptable. Heck, I could be wrong It's happened before....
dabookerman Posted June 4, 2006 Posted June 4, 2006 Ever read about the dude who was too obsessed with hentai? The otaku murderer they called him.
Recommended Posts