Is paedophilia inherently wrong?

[Shining Raichu]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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.

i can't.

 

[Masqueraine]

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]

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]

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.

 

[Alice]

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]

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]

If you are a pedo, then you have big problems!
Only if you're a guy, female pedo is more Shotaconny and sexy

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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. 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]

That's called a 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]

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 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. 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]

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.