PDA

View Full Version : Is paedophilia inherently wrong?


Sodom
July 15th, 2011, 09:55 PM
OK lol, firstly, posting a topic like this, I feel the need to announce that I am not a paedophile, nor do I condone any sexual acts involving children. However, my general dislike for children and my apathy regarding their welfare allows me to feel like I can be detached enough from this topic to objectively discuss it.

Now that that's out of the way, here goes:

We are living in a time where many different sexual orientations are becoming more socially acceptable, and rightly so. The message in society is slowly changing into that of sexuality being irrelevant, where it was once thought of as wrong or immoral to have homosexual thoughts (or even heterosexual ones outside of marriage, if you go back far enough). It is becoming the view of educated society that it is impossible to control who we are attracted to, and that that is OK.

So, how does paedophilia differ from this formula? Homosexual thoughts and feelings were once regarded as sick. So is it inherently wrong, or sick, to be attracted to children? Assuming that these feelings are never acted upon, is it hypocritical for us to judge a paedophile based solely on his or her sexual preference? Is it really an illness, or is it just another - albeit an incredibly unfortunate - sexual orientation?

Just to make absolutely sure that I am clear - this is not discussing whether it is wrong to engage in child pornography or in sexual acts involving children, because this is of course the case. This topic is discussing whether the thoughts alone are immoral when no children are harmed.

Hybrid Trainer
July 16th, 2011, 03:56 AM
I think i can see where your coming from there, i remember this coming up in my psychology class where they were saying that it could in fact be a sexual orientation to be attracted to young children o.o
But saying that though it doesn't make it right, seeing as they are taking advantage of people who dont know any better.

in my opinion i think they should be chemically castrated so they loose all urges to perform sexual acts and can function well in society.

twocows
July 16th, 2011, 08:17 AM
It's sad that the condition of society is such that whenever you try to bring up a rational discussion about this topic, you first have to announce "no I am not a pedophile" lest people start accusing you and ruining any chance you have of anyone hearing what you have to say. One's sexual desires have no bearing on his or her ability to make rational arguments.

(sigh) And no, I'm not one, because people will still inevitably misunderstand despite me saying all that. The point is that it should not matter.

There is nothing wrong, in my mind, with having an attraction to something. I don't care what it is, so long as you don't act on it there's no problem. The idea that people with such an attraction are some sort of risk factor is also asinine. Simply having an attraction doesn't mean that person is going to go out and start molesting children anymore than people with more common desires will go out and start raping everyone. It's silly paranoia and a lot of people who have done nothing wrong have suffered for it.

I recall the case of a father who called in to a radio station and admitted he had such attractions, but that his wife was aware and that they both agreed that he was not a risk to anyone. He claimed that the people on air were treating people like him unfairly. He was then called in to the police by the radio and had his daughter taken away because the court deemed him a threat to his child. Putting aside the irony, I find this absolutely sickening; he was no more a threat to his daughter than an old man is a threat to his grown daughter. Why should he be treated differently under the law because of what he is attracted to so long as he doesn't act on such things? When did the US become a place where Orwellian thoughtcrime is prosecuted?

Esper
July 16th, 2011, 10:40 AM
I'm having trouble thinking of anything I could add to what twocows said. I guess I should just play devil's advocate then.

Many people with attractions - whatever their attraction - act on them. It's somewhat reasonable to assume that a significant percentage of all types of people will do something based on their attractions. That's why people are worried about anyone attracted to children, because not everyone has the strength to stay completely celibate. What happens when someone with those feelings doesn't have the strength to stop themselves?

twocows
July 16th, 2011, 03:56 PM
I'm having trouble thinking of anything I could add to what twocows said. I guess I should just play devil's advocate then.

Many people with attractions - whatever their attraction - act on them. It's somewhat reasonable to assume that a significant percentage of all types of people will do something based on their attractions. That's why people are worried about anyone attracted to children, because not everyone has the strength to stay completely celibate. What happens when someone with those feelings doesn't have the strength to stop themselves?
A rapist is a rapist, regardless of whom he victimizes. I won't act like I know what the correct thing to do with criminals is because I don't. However, I will say that rapists are a vast minority of the people on this planet, and there are checks in place to deal with them. Rapists of any nature ought to be dealt with by whatever legal standard is in place. However, many of the people who are persecuted are not child molesters and have not done anything wrong, legal or otherwise. Treating an entire group of people as "rapists by default" is discrimination; actually prosecuting people like that father I mentioned who haven't done anything wrong is flat out Orwellian.

It really seems like a simple matter to me; as long as it stays in your head, there's no problem. Most people (by virtue of being people and not animals) can understand the difference between "right" and "wrong" and can (again, by virtue of being people and not animals) easily suppress their instincts or find some morally tolerable outlet for their desires. Those who can't should be dealt with appropriately.

Azonic
July 16th, 2011, 06:09 PM
I don't suppose that simply having an attraction to children is a problem. It becomes a problem when you act on it.

OK lol, firstly, posting a topic like this, I feel the need to announce that I am not a paedophile, nor do I condone any sexual acts involving children.

http://fotpforums.com/images/smilies/lmfao.gif i can't.

Masqueraine
July 16th, 2011, 07:34 PM
There is nothing wrong, in my mind, with having an attraction to something. I don't care what it is, so long as you don't act on it there's no problem. The idea that people with such an attraction are some sort of risk factor is also asinine. Simply having an attraction doesn't mean that person is going to go out and start molesting children anymore than people with more common desires will go out and start raping everyone. It's silly paranoia and a lot of people who have done nothing wrong have suffered for it.

I don't think there's anything wrong with having an attraction to something either, but pedophilia can be a really scary thing for some people. Most people's exposure to them has only been in cases of abduction, and when you say you think things about children that's what people automatically assume. Is that right? No. But surely you can empathize.

As for simply having an attraction, it's different with pedophilia. When you're attracted to a women or a man you can pursue that legally. In the case of pedophilia you can only sexually abuse a child, which is illegal and morally disgusting. I'm not saying that means they're going to. I'm saying that with the fact that some pedophiles DO rape children, it's enough to scare any parent.

Don't get my post wrong, I'm not saying thoughts should be controlled, I'm only rationalizing the general public's fear. You don't need to approach ever argument as if your side is the only one that's justified..


I recall the case of a father who called in to a radio station and admitted he had such attractions, but that his wife was aware and that they both agreed that he was not a risk to anyone. He claimed that the people on air were treating people like him unfairly. He was then called in to the police by the radio and had his daughter taken away because the court deemed him a threat to his child. Putting aside the irony, I find this absolutely sickening; he was no more a threat to his daughter than an old man is a threat to his grown daughter. Why should he be treated differently under the law because of what he is attracted to so long as he doesn't act on such things? When did the US become a place where Orwellian thoughtcrime is prosecuted?

That's really awful..

Melody
July 16th, 2011, 07:44 PM
It's not wrong to feel that way, so long as you DON'T act upon that in any genuinely harmful or inappropriate way. I feel that it's better to trust people rather than persecute them, because if you persecute them, it may well become a "self-fulfilling" prophesy and they might end up doing exactly the thing you wouldn't want them to do.

With that being said I believe that both men and women have very strong parental instincts wired into them at birth. Some people, when they encounter something that triggers those instincts for the first time, may confuse it for something else. At this point it's absolutely critical that the person knows it's WRONG to have sex with a child, and I don't blame parents who'd shame their child into tears for even thinking about it. It's a scary thing for anyone, and it appropriately appalls anyone with their parental instincts fully developed.

We must however be aware that this is reality. Children go improperly raised all the time and they grow up to make trouble. This is why we have laws and such in place to prevent it. Sometimes the person is no more responsible for their twisted sense of right and wrong than anyone else is. That doesn't mean the deed should go unpunished, but it should be taken into account.

Let it be known, that I believe that a remorseless rapist deserves all the stigma and life ruining legal scrutiny that they get. I only feel sorry or outraged if a young couple gets forced to register as sex offenders because they didn't wait until they were both 18 to do what couples inevitably do.

That's part of the issue however. There should be no stigma attached to someone who does that to someone who is within 5-7 years of them age wise as long as they've been a dating couple and such. That isn't pedophilia in my eyes.

Not to mention the fact that online interaction brings another issue into the light. It makes lying about your age much much easier. Everyone knows what problems that can cause, and more. It wouldn't be fair to blame a guy who didn't know his 'online girlfriend' was 16.



All in all, I understand the reasons for the stigma. I also feel that it's not necessary, because the law is harsh enough on people who have actually been proven to commit this type of crime. Society need not follow up on it.

FreakyLocz14
July 17th, 2011, 11:49 AM
No; but acting on it is.

It can be argued that teenagers, many whom are sexualy active, are old enough to consent to sex. I say that a 16-17 year old is fine being with a 18-21 year old, imo.

As for prepusecent children: Their bodies are not sexually developed yet; nor have they began to develop.

QuilavaKing
July 19th, 2011, 04:37 PM
Obviously, rape is a horrible thing, regardless of the circumstances, and anyone who does that should be punished appropriately. However, you can't just assume that people are going to become rapists because they like certain things. I mean, you don't have to have sex with something, just because you like it.

Gymnotide
July 19th, 2011, 04:45 PM
Pedophilia being "wrong" is a relatively new idea, just like homosexuality. The Greeks, whom we attribute much of our modern day science and philosophy, very much condoned (and relished in) both acts. If you were well off, you would hire a young man to have sex with you--just because that's what was cool. They even had a festival called Gymnopedia where young children would prance around naked and display their bodies in public. If you got raped in Ancient Hellenes--"Whatever. **** happens all the time; get over it." It's just a matter of frame of reference.

So it's not inherently wrong in itself, but it's that "wrongness" has changed since then (and will continue to change).

twocows
August 1st, 2011, 05:13 PM
If you are a pedo, then you have big problems!
Only if you're a guy, female pedo is more Shotaconny and sexy :cool:
This is a serious issue, you're not really contributing to the discussion.

On the off chance that you are being serious, I grieve for humanity's future prospects.

2Cool4Mewtwo
August 1st, 2011, 06:22 PM
Paedophilia itself isn't wrong IMO. Different people have different sexual orientation. However, they should control themselves from their sexual desires if they don't want to get registered as sex offenders or get in trouble or any of that sort.

U.Flame
August 1st, 2011, 10:49 PM
Sexual thoughts are usually fine, and I know pedophiles can't control their thoughts, but I still think this is the one of the few sexual orientations that is actually really wrong. Other sexual acts are harmless if it's consensual and between adults, but this is actually harmful. Because childrens' minds aren't ready for sex, any sexual acts can seriously harm them, consensual or not. It's a difficult opinion because people can't control or change their sexual preference. But I think pedophiles should get help in controlling their urges long before they think about acting on them. This is the one of the few preferences that should be subdued as much as possible.

twocows
August 2nd, 2011, 05:28 PM
Sexual thoughts are usually fine, and I know pedophiles can't control their thoughts, but I still think this is the one of the few sexual orientations that is actually really wrong. Other sexual acts are harmless if it's consensual and between adults, but this is actually harmful. Because childrens' minds aren't ready for sex, any sexual acts can seriously harm them, consensual or not. It's a difficult opinion because people can't control or change their sexual preference. But I think pedophiles should get help in controlling their urges long before they think about acting on them. This is the one of the few preferences that should be subdued as much as possible.
I disagree. You are failing to distinguish between fantasy and reality. Most people don't act on their fantasies if they know them to be inherently immoral.

Speaking from experience with a few I know from IRC (mostly Rizon), pedophiles that don't act on their desires usually find some outlet for them (such as drawn pornography). As long as there's some sort of safe outlet for these people, I don't see why we should try and change their nature (something which history has found rarely works and which seems too Orwellian for my tastes).

Really, unless someone actively plans on committing a crime, I feel like the situation is a non-issue and society ought to just back off. It's one thing to deal with people who have commit real crimes, but the mind is not and should not be within the US' jurisdiction.

U.Flame
August 2nd, 2011, 05:32 PM
I disagree. You are failing to distinguish between fantasy and reality. Most people don't act on their fantasies if they know them to be inherently immoral.

Speaking from experience with a few I know from IRC (mostly Rizon), pedophiles that don't act on their desires usually find some outlet for them (such as drawn pornography). As long as there's some sort of safe outlet for these people, I don't see why we should try and change their nature (something which history has found rarely works and which seems too Orwellian for my tastes).

Really, unless someone actively plans on committing a crime, I feel like the situation is a non-issue and society ought to just back off. It's one thing to deal with people who have commit real crimes, but the mind is not and should not be within the US' jurisdiction.

I agree that people can choose not to act on their urges, but sometimes, drawn pornography, fantasies, and other outlets can escalate, and lead to real abuse. It depends on how much willpower the person has.

twocows
August 2nd, 2011, 05:55 PM
I agree that people can choose not to act on their urges, but sometimes, drawn pornography, fantasies, and other outlets can escalate, and lead to real abuse. It depends on how much willpower the person has.
That's called a slippery slope fallacy (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slippery_slope_fallacy). Just because it can happen doesn't mean that it does happen to any significant degree. I would argue that trying to forcibly change someone's sexual nature or trying to bottle it up is far more likely to lead to an explosion of dangerous action than regularly venting urges in a safe manner.

For instance, in studies done on violent video gaming, it was found that for an extended period after playing violent video games, peoples' aggressive tendencies were significantly lower (though during and immediately after the session, their aggressive tendencies were higher, as was expected). In other words, venting violent desires regularly leads to lower overall levels of aggression.

While to my knowledge this sort of study has not been conducted specifically in the realm of pedophilia (they would probably have trouble finding a significant sample size), it seems likely that the same idea applies to sexual desires. However, I cannot prove this, it just seems to follow logically. Likewise, though, I am certain you will not and never will find any studies showing that people who vent their urges are significantly more likely to offend than those who bottle them up or try to change their nature (generally speaking, the only two other options).

EDIT: The violence study follows what history has taught us, as well. If you give people a great deal of cutthroat entertainment (a Colosseum, for instance), they're far less likely to, say, rise up and overthrow the government.

U.Flame
August 2nd, 2011, 06:09 PM
That's called a slippery slope fallacy (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slippery_slope_fallacy). Just because it can happen doesn't mean that it does happen to any significant degree. I would argue that trying to forcibly change someone's sexual nature or trying to bottle it up is far more likely to lead to an explosion of dangerous action than regularly venting urges in a safe manner.

For instance, in studies done on violent video gaming, it was found that for an extended period after playing violent video games, peoples' aggressive tendencies were significantly lower (though during and immediately after the session, their aggressive tendencies were higher, as was expected). In other words, venting violent desires regularly leads to lower overall levels of aggression.

While to my knowledge this sort of study has not been conducted specifically in the realm of pedophilia (they would probably have trouble finding a significant sample size), it seems likely that the same idea applies to sexual desires. However, I cannot prove this, it just seems to follow logically. Likewise, though, I am certain you will not and never will find any studies showing that people who vent their urges are significantly more likely to offend than those who bottle them up or try to change their nature (generally speaking, the only two other options).

EDIT: The violence study follows what history has taught us, as well. If you give people a great deal of cutthroat entertainment (a Colosseum, for instance), they're far less likely to, say, rise up and overthrow the government.

You do have a point. So what can be done to avoid actual abuse?

twocows
August 3rd, 2011, 05:07 PM
You do have a point. So what can be done to avoid actual abuse?
The first step is the one that will probably never happen. We have to destigmatize those who merely have an attraction to children. We need these people to feel safe coming forward and looking for help or advice on how to keep their feelings in check. Right now, no person in his or her right mind would so much as admit to having such desires. That means they can't get help and the only people they can talk to are others in the same situation. Those are the wrong people to talk to; those are people who are either in the same situation or have actually commit a crime and will try to justify it. And as history and numerous social experiments have taught us, if you are subjected to a single point of view for long enough, you start to see legitimacy in it and eventually come to agree with it. This is the entire problem. We're driving people with a potential problem underground to talk with other people with the same problems instead of professionals who can help them deal with it in a safe way.

Past that, I would suggest law enforcement officials spend more time tracking down people who actively molest children or distribute child pornography. Right now law enforcement concentrates largely on finding people who download the stuff in a strategy roughly similar to how they deal with drug trafficking (e.g., attacking an obscenely large and unknown market instead of going after the source, which would be far easier and more effective). That is the wrong approach; going after distributors would cut off the problem at the source. This (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-14396194) is a step in the right direction, however.

Also, it's worth noting that the minimum penalty for possession of child pornography according to the federal sentencing guidelines (as I understand them) is (for a first offense) approximately three to four years. Statutory rape (sexual action with a person under 16 years of age) carries a minimum sentence of roughly two years. Seem backward to anyone? Source (http://www.ussc.gov/Guidelines/2010_guidelines/ToC_HTML.cfm). It seems most states do actually distinguish between under 16 and under 12, though some likely don't (and I didn't see such a distinction in the federal guidelines) for statutory rape. However, the fact that statutory rape carries a lower sentence than possession of child pornography just blows my mind. That's like saying it's worse to watch someone commit murder without taking action than it is to actually commit murder. Sure, both are bad and ought to be punishable, but I think everyone can agree actually killing a person is a far worse crime than passive assent.

I think this would make much more sense: statutory rape in situations with a person under 12 ought to carry a 10 year minimum sentence (I agree with "inability to consent" at that age), statutory rape with a person under 16 ought to be judged based on circumstances (maximum of four years in situations of definite consent; minimum of 10 in situations where the offender obviously was trying to take advantage of the victim), and intentional possession (without intent to redistribute) of child pornography ought to carry a two year maximum prison sentence and some sort of mandatory rehabilitation (these are people who have committed a passive crime but are at high risk of active offense regardless of their time in prison, so rehabilitation makes sense). These sentencing guidelines would be much more sane, in my opinion.

And of course, as I have said, there should be no penalty, social or legal, on those who keep themselves in check.

U.Flame
August 3rd, 2011, 05:26 PM
The first step is the one that will probably never happen. We have to destigmatize those who merely have an attraction to children. We need these people to feel safe coming forward and looking for help or advice on how to keep their feelings in check. Right now, no person in his or her right mind would so much as admit to having such desires. That means they can't get help and the only people they can talk to are others in the same situation. Those are the wrong people to talk to; those are people who are either in the same situation or have actually commit a crime and will try to justify it. And as history and numerous social experiments have taught us, if you are subjected to a single point of view for long enough, you start to see legitimacy in it and eventually come to agree with it. This is the entire problem. We're driving people with a potential problem underground to talk with other people with the same problems instead of professionals who can help them deal with it in a safe way.

If there are groups that help pedophiles, then the blame would go to the people who aren't brave enough to come forward and get help. They don't need to tell anyone else, just a help group. If they are too afraid to do that, then any of their actions are entirely their own fault. But I can see why they're afraid though.

twocows
August 3rd, 2011, 05:35 PM
If there are groups that help pedophiles, then the blame would go to the people who aren't brave enough to come forward and get help. They don't need to tell anyone else, just a help group. If they are too afraid to do that, then any of their actions are entirely their own fault. But I can see why they're afraid though.
The reason people are afraid to come forward and ask for help is because admitting that is putting your career and personal reputation on the line for something that most probably feel that they can control (and most probably can). There are plenty of examples in the past few years where people have admitted to being attracted to children (though not acting on it) and having their lives ruined because of it.

Myles
August 3rd, 2011, 06:03 PM
Pedophilia being "wrong" is a relatively new idea, just like homosexuality. The Greeks, whom we attribute much of our modern day science and philosophy, very much condoned (and relished in) both acts.

Are you sure about that? Pedophilia requires them to be prepubescent. You're probably thinking of the Greeks' pederasty, which is different.

Also keep in mind that places like Greece weren't the only ancient civilisations. Just because they didn't object to homosexuality, doesn't mean homophobia is new. e.g. Plato was against homosexuality way back in 350 BCE.

FreakyLocz14
August 3rd, 2011, 06:48 PM
Some teens might not be mature enough to enter into a consenual sexual relationship; then again, neither are many adults.

Sodom
August 8th, 2011, 06:09 PM
Well it's definitely an orientation, albeit one you can change.. I think that anyone who is found to not have a hetero orientation should be paid to go to re-orientation classes.
One of the best examples is showing an attractive human of supposedly the same gender- very medium hair so it's harder to tell- and the aforementioned human taking off his/her clothes to reveal that he/she is the watcher's opposite gender. I'm not sure if it works or not, but sounds pretty smart to me.

Oh no you don't.

http://29.media.tumblr.com/tumblr_lpljaeanzg1qe9r2fo1_250.gifhttp://30.media.tumblr.com/tumblr_lpljaeanzg1qe9r2fo2_250.gif

Firstly, it has been proven time and time again that sexuality is not changeable. It is not possible to turn a gay man straight, nor a straight man gay. Similarly, it would not be possible to stop a paedophile from being attracted to children (which by the way is the subject of this thread, not homosexuality).

Furthermore, I'm not sure if you're trolling or just extremely prejudiced, but as someone who is not heterosexual I can guarantee you that there is nothing acceptable or correct about anything you just said. To even suggest that a person 'should' be approached to change their sexual orientation is just disgusting.

fango pango
August 10th, 2011, 02:42 PM
honestly i'm not a pedophile nor will i ever be one
but....the definition i find it
a pedophile is a male/female over 18 who fantasizes or has intercourse with males/females under 18
now this is definitely wrong in most cases
but....if it is mutual then i guess it's ok
....i mean my girlfriend is 16 and i'm 14....in 2 years does that make her a pedophile?
according to the definition i see it is
....but im ok with it so...i dont think its wrong
....so
if its mutual its ok
if it isnt then its certainly wrong in this day and age

DowntownDumpling
August 28th, 2011, 03:56 PM
Pedophilia being "wrong" is a relatively new idea, just like homosexuality. The Greeks, whom we attribute much of our modern day science and philosophy, very much condoned (and relished in) both acts. If you were well off, you would hire a young man to have sex with you--just because that's what was cool. They even had a festival called Gymnopedia where young children would prance around naked and display their bodies in public. If you got raped in Ancient Hellenes--"Whatever. **** happens all the time; get over it." It's just a matter of frame of reference.

So it's not inherently wrong in itself, but it's that "wrongness" has changed since then (and will continue to change).

Yes.

Pedophilia may not be the right choice for most of the world's population, but it isn't outrageous by any means. Furthermore, non-human animals have oft been documented in acts of both pedophilia and homosexuality, which damages the argument that it is not "natural."

Ice Car
August 28th, 2011, 04:37 PM
This depends entirely on who you are asking. Are you asking those who do have these feelings, those who are neutral, or those who are against or strongly against it? I'm neutral. People have their own interests, fetishes, or "things". I have no right to tell them they are wrong for having those thoughts. As long as they don't act upon them, I am completely fine and would treat them as a normal person.

I'll treat everyone the same way as long as they don't act like a jerkass or do something that violates what I think is right or wrong, if in a major way. In this case, pedophilia/sexual acts upon children deeply disturb and offend me. I would break all ties with such a person if I knew they had done so unless there was a very good reason for it.

Machu Pichu
August 28th, 2011, 05:00 PM
It really all depends on your standards.

Would a Christian find it wrong? Would an Atheist find it just as wrong? Would a Buddhist find it wrong? Would someone from China find it as wrong as someone from Finland?

The answer, on average, would be yes. It has been imbedded into most cultures that sexual intercourse with a child is "wrong" because they are not fully coherent enough to understand such actions towards them.

But then, there's a twist. What if the child is fully consenting and engaged in the relationship, and, under no circumstances, is being forced into it? Without the rape factor, is it still a crime? Is it still "wrong"?

This is where your standards come into play.

How large must the age gap be for such a relationship to become illegal? 6 years? 8 years? 10 years? Does the maturity of the child ever come into the consideration? What about the circumstances? Is the child happy? Would it still be "wrong" then?

The answers to these questions, I do not know, because, as I said, it's based on your standards. What do I believe? I believe that such matters are taken way too lightly, and the American Legal System will simply jump on anything that seems like Pedophilia to them, and mash a "sexual predator" label on the defendant in an instant, because we have to "protect the children."

And I'm definitely not saying that there aren't sick people out there, which do NOT fall into the category above, that do hurt children and do need to be imprisoned, but I've heard of people simply talking to children on the street who were immediately listed as sexual predators, their lives ruined in the process. Could you imagine trying to apply for a job with the words "sexual predator" listed on your record?

*is not a pedophile*

OmegaRuby and AlphaSapphire
August 28th, 2011, 06:39 PM
I wondered this too but about Polygramy, why should polygramy be illegal sure it's seen as bad but so was/are same sex couples.
On topic: Age only seems to be relevent between kid-adult couples...
I think people don't like to accept pedophilia cause they feel it's creepy/ pedo's are creepy. Also some of those kids are too immature to be in relationships (even with kids there age no matter what they might think) especially a sexual one with a grown man/woman.

Sodom
August 29th, 2011, 04:51 AM
This is actually a fair point some people bring up. If you were talking to someone with the knowledge that they were indeed sexually attracted to children, would you be more likely to judge them if they looked like this:

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/0/0a/Jeffrey_Jones_mug_shot.jpg

than if they looked like this?

http://data.whicdn.com/images/12229748/boy-cute-guy-hot-man-Favim.com-111239_large.jpg
--

Would having a stereotypical 'creepy paedophile' look influence whether or not you thought of them as a threat?

PkMnTrainer Yellow
August 29th, 2011, 07:57 AM
One would suggest that because we accept homosexuality we should accept pretty much every other sexual orientation. However, that is a pretty shallow point in that it is defeated by simply pointing out that just because two things are a sexual orientation does not make them the same thing or even necessarily comparable. Let's just leave it at the fact that homosexuality is /extremely/ tame on the list of non-standard orientations.

As you go down the spectrum of non-standard orientations you would find that orientations farther down the line cease to be like homosexuality. They become everything we used to think homosexuality was. There are orientations out there that objectively hint at a very sick mind. Hence, somewhere along that spectrum we have to say "Kay, this is going too far. We need to stop here."

Where exactly that somewhere is is not for me to say or discuss. I merely point out that such a somewhere exists for the purposes of implying that Paedophilia is probably past that line.

Is it inherently wrong? No. Problably not. Neither is murder, or pretty much /anything else/. Most of what we view as right and wrong is not just there magically but rather is instilled in some way and can be changed in some way. Does not being inherently wrong mean it's not wrong at all? Heck no.

Oryx
August 29th, 2011, 08:38 AM
But then, there's a twist. What if the child is fully consenting and engaged in the relationship, and, under no circumstances, is being forced into it? Without the rape factor, is it still a crime? Is it still "wrong"?

This is where your standards come into play.

How large must the age gap be for such a relationship to become illegal? 6 years? 8 years? 10 years? Does the maturity of the child ever come into the consideration? What about the circumstances? Is the child happy? Would it still be "wrong" then?

I have to point out that often, children will want to do things that are bad for them. When I was a kid, I wanted to run away because I read The Boxcar Children and thought that running away was "cool". I was perfectly happy at home, I just wanted an adventure. If I had gone through with it, my life would have been drastically different today. Looking back on my past, especially 13-16, I can see that I thought I was as mature as an adult when I really had the maturity of...well, a 13-16 year old.

It's not about "age gap", except when it gets above the age of 14-16. Before that, there is no child that has the maturity to handle a sexual relationship with someone over the age of 18. They may think they do, just like I thought at 14 that I knew everything and was totally ready to go out into the adult world, but they're wrong. I'm not getting into sexual relationships with other people their own age because that's an entirely other topic here.

You're a bit off topic from the idea of pedophilia being wrong and the idea of child molestation being wrong. No one here is arguing that children can be in a consenting relationship at any age and therefore cannot be molested as long as they consent. It's pretty obvious that the laws (in most places) account for a higher level of maturity in older teens, while being strict on younger children because they in no way can consent. In many places, if a child is over the age of 14-16 (it varies), there is a small age gap that makes it okay to have sex with them if they consent. Usually it goes up to ~5 years older than the child, or to 20. This weeds out the people that are actually interested in the person because they're more mature for their age, and the people that are interested in them because they're 14-16.


On topic: Age only seems to be relevent between kid-adult couples...

Age becomes less relevant with...age. A 40 year old woman married to a 50 year old man doesn't turn any heads, but an 18 year old interested in an 8 year old? Yeah. This is relevant to the maturity level of the people involved; at a young age you mature quite quickly, and there's a large difference between years. 2 years can irrevocably change a person from 16-18 or younger, for example. A 40 year old aging 2 years won't change their personality and mindset too much, not compared to the changes they go through in youth.

However, once the age gap becomes too great, age does become a factor no matter how old you are. I would say that age gap is ~20 years. When you're older it doesn't turn heads as much as when you're younger (think 18/38 relationship), but then you have to deal with one of you growing older much faster than the other, which is its own set of challenges.

@Shining Raichu: I do think that appearance, as well as age, play a part in the opinions of people towards pedophiles...but it's the same as anything else. That's why as a defendant in a court case, no matter what you were accused of, you make sure you come into court wearing professional clothes and looking neat. That first man, while also looking dirty, immediately makes the mind jump to "there's something wrong in his head". Obviously he doesn't feel the need to take care of himself to a point that he looks neat, so combining that innate knowledge of neatness and mental capacity, people subconsciously make the leap that he's dangerous because he's not mentally stable.

The second man, on the other hand, is well-groomed to show that he's just the average guy. Other than his attraction to children, he does not look at all mentally unstable or likely to prey on the average child. In fact, most people would even go so far as to assume that if he was a 'sexual predator', it was due to a mishap with a younger girlfriend that consented instead of a child.

Esper
August 29th, 2011, 11:26 AM
What if the child is fully consenting and engaged in the relationship, and, under no circumstances, is being forced into it? Without the rape factor, is it still a crime? Is it still "wrong"?

This is where your standards come into play.

How large must the age gap be for such a relationship to become illegal? 6 years? 8 years? 10 years? Does the maturity of the child ever come into the consideration? What about the circumstances? Is the child happy? Would it still be "wrong" then?

The answers to these questions, I do not know, because, as I said, it's based on your standards. What do I believe? I believe that such matters are taken way too lightly, and the American Legal System will simply jump on anything that seems like Pedophilia to them, and mash a "sexual predator" label on the defendant in an instant, because we have to "protect the children."
I think it's sad that some mature, if underage people have to be denied the freedom to engage in relationships, but since there is no sure way to find out who is and who isn't mature enough we have to have arbitrary standards and in this case that's age. That's why we say that children can't legally consent. To protect as many children as we can because we can't be sure, but we're pretty sure that most of the time it would be the wrong choice to let them into relationships like that.

But I agree with you in that we're quick to start witch hunts and that's the wrong mindset.

Chikara
August 29th, 2011, 06:22 PM
LOL DOESN'T READ ENTIRE THREAD AT ALL.

We live in a society with people who watch and make pornographic videos involving waaaay stranger kinks than finding a child attractive. Like say... feet.

I don't think there's a problem with it, as long as it's never acted upon, like you said. I'm not generally opinionated about what people like in a sexual way, and I don't find it strange for people to get off on that.

New paragraph to avoid redundancy in my post. Whatever gets someone / you / me / anyone off, just as long as they're not a criminal about it.

Freedom Fighter N
September 2nd, 2011, 12:14 PM
It really all depends on your standards.

Would a Christian find it wrong? Would an Atheist find it just as wrong? Would a Buddhist find it wrong? Would someone from China find it as wrong as someone from Finland?

The answer, on average, would be yes. It has been imbedded into most cultures that sexual intercourse with a child is "wrong" because they are not fully coherent enough to understand such actions towards them.

But then, there's a twist. What if the child is fully consenting and engaged in the relationship, and, under no circumstances, is being forced into it? Without the rape factor, is it still a crime? Is it still "wrong"?

This is where your standards come into play.

How large must the age gap be for such a relationship to become illegal? 6 years? 8 years? 10 years? Does the maturity of the child ever come into the consideration? What about the circumstances? Is the child happy? Would it still be "wrong" then?

The answers to these questions, I do not know, because, as I said, it's based on your standards. What do I believe? I believe that such matters are taken way too lightly, and the American Legal System will simply jump on anything that seems like Pedophilia to them, and mash a "sexual predator" label on the defendant in an instant, because we have to "protect the children."

And I'm definitely not saying that there aren't sick people out there, which do NOT fall into the category above, that do hurt children and do need to be imprisoned, but I've heard of people simply talking to children on the street who were immediately listed as sexual predators, their lives ruined in the process. Could you imagine trying to apply for a job with the words "sexual predator" listed on your record?

*is not a pedophile*
To be honest, I don't think children can be in love. Like and enjoy spending time with someone, of course. But love.. no way. Seriously my mother could have raped me and used that excuse, but ehh.. why did I get there.

As for maturity.. I don't know what the hell was up with her at that time, but one day my mother took me with her to a business meal, along with some other people who I have no idea who they are, what their position is and I don't really care. What I did get is positive comments about how mature I am. Add me a few centimetres, give me an adult body build, clothes that would fit me, and I'll blend in perfectly as one of the people in the meeting. Oh, I almost forgot, normal child behaviour was still there. Shyness is the only thing I can remember. Ohh, I almost forgot this as well: I was a completely uninterested in relationship child. Seriously, other than the way girls look.. or, some of them, I never really had an interest. I just said "I like girls" like what you expect a kid to say.

Age gap.. yeah that's something I hate. Seems like university students are what's hot for high school girls now. The excuse? Crap like "who are you to judge", "They're looking for someone mature", and my personal favourite, "love has no age". So said the paedophile!
Oh well, more reasons for me to get enjoyment from mocking girls about their night-spending habits.
Besides, it's too goddamn easy to manipulate children.

*Is a paedophile, absolutely loves children.

Oh, and this might be slightly inappropriate, but since we're already at a topic close to (or one that can relate to child sexuality), what do you think of:
http://www.confessionpost.com/10411/raised-son-daughter-to-have-sex-with-each-other

22sa
September 4th, 2011, 04:22 PM
Attraction itself isn't anything physical. A person thinking about punching somebody but doesn't do it has not committed a crime.

Since all humans must be free to think, nobody can be criminalized for their interests, only their actions, which should be guided by their own morals.

But morals and character is a separate matter from attraction and interest. You can have strange interests but still be morally upright to know not to harm kids.

LOL DOESN'T READ ENTIRE THREAD AT ALL.

We live in a society with people who watch and make pornographic videos involving waaaay stranger kinks than finding a child attractive. Like say... feet.

I don't think there's a problem with it, as long as it's never acted upon, like you said. I'm not generally opinionated about what people like in a sexual way, and I don't find it strange for people to get off on that.

New paragraph to avoid redundancy in my post. Whatever gets someone / you / me / anyone off, just as long as they're not a criminal about it.
lol

Yes... it's pretty innocent to compliment a kid. Definitely not inherently wrong.

There's nothing bad about finding a pre-pubscent person beautiful - what if they are? O_o No sense in denying credit where it is due.

Anyway, attraction isn't rape or intention to do harm, so it's silly to criminalize it. =D

Mr. X
September 4th, 2011, 11:11 PM
N... You do know that that story is most likely fake?