Could pedophiles be equivical to homosexuals?

[HH19]

Homosexuals go through changes that give them a desire to be with other men. Pedophiles have desires to be with children.

The difference is consent. While (hopefully) homosexuality is becoming more and more accepted, I doubt pedophilia ever will be due to the crimes it motivates. I can't imagine many children would agree to do something so horrid, but pedophiles take advantage of their innocence.

Basically in homosexuality you can have two guys (or girls) that truly love each other, sex or not. Sure, it stems from sexuality, but it evolves into something much more than that.

With pedophilia, it's just sexual desire that leads to terrible crimes.

 

[BGH122]

Being of another skin color and wanting to have sex with children are two very different things, though I see your point. That being said, I can't not hate pedophiles. Their behavior and/or the urges they have are just too abhorrent to me.

Very well, although this leaves us with no further discussion. I cannot change an opinion that is based in emotion.

If it counts for anything I seem to be on your side.

Thanks for letting me know, it's always nice to get sporadic support.

 

[Leg End]

and well, in the end, homosexuality is directly linked by the "mental status" of someone and its amount of "cromosomes" (XY or YY) then tell me, where is the cromosome that says "small children like like!!!"??????

Your lack of understanding of even the most basic genetic concepts appals me. Please re-read:

We can disagree with their sexual proclivities and render them illegal without also hating these people for the way they happened to be born.

If a paedophile acts on their urges then we have every right to sentence them, but we must do so with an eye towards teaching them to control their urges. Please re-read my original post several times until you understand it better.

Just a few weeks ago some guy admitted that he was a paedo but said that he'd never consider acting on the attraction in any way. Despite this he was still labelled as being sick and he even got banned.

Resident Unbanned (Non-Child Molesting) Pedophile at your service Comrade. (O_O)

OT: Eventually, yes. Maybe not in my lifetime, but yes. Both the attraction and possibly the idea of intergenerational relationships.

Being the resident guy at hand that is one half of the subject, I am open to any and all questions regarding my views on the subject. Unless they are questions that are too personal for The Escapist to allow for posting. In which case, PM me.

I suppose that'd be because Paedophilia is so closely linked with Child Abuse now. It's quite sad really. It must ruin many peoples' lives through no real fault of their own; they're just wired differently. I mean, if they don't actually do anything about their urges then what can we really say is wrong with that?
Also, REALLY? He got banned? Ouch.

Yes, I was. But, luckily, I was unbanned.

I love this place too much to leave. D:

 

[Leg End]

The difference is consent. While (hopefully) homosexuality is becoming more and more accepted, I doubt pedophilia ever will be due to the crimes it motivates. I can't imagine many children would agree to do something so horrid, but pedophiles take advantage of their innocence.

Untrue, we defend that innocence to our death. (O_O)

 

[JoeCool385]

You kind of skip over the fact that homosexuality was fine before Jesus came, in many cultures. I mean like ancient greek, roman.

Then again, so was pedophilia.

Homophobia is only an issue because of religion. Hmmm I could get a Catholic church joke in this topic...

Interestingly, I once read an opinion from an atheist* that argued that homosexual acts were wrong. Just because religious people believe a given proposition doesn't mean no one else can. But then again, "you only believe that because you're Christian" is a useful ad hominem to shut them up.

*(I should clarify that he was an atheist at the time he came to conclude that homosexual acts were wrong. He later became Catholic. Make of that what you will.)

OT: Why not? Our laws and mores are informed by the premises held by society. A hundred years ago the premise was that sexuality was ordered for procreation, hence bans on contraceptives and homosexuality. Right now, our premise for sexual ethics is that consent is the only thing required, and children cannot consent. It's entirely possible that in another hundred years, we might have a different informing premise, such as sexuality is an important part of maturing, or that sex is good for children.

It's important to note that premises need not have anything to do with what actually is true or right. Anyone can point to cases where a society held a deep-seated belief that was completely wrong. Just because something is wrong does not mean that society won't tolerate it.

 

[Jamous]

and well, in the end, homosexuality is directly linked by the "mental status" of someone and its amount of "cromosomes" (XY or YY) then tell me, where is the cromosome that says "small children like like!!!"??????

Your lack of understanding of even the most basic genetic concepts appals me. Please re-read:

We can disagree with their sexual proclivities and render them illegal without also hating these people for the way they happened to be born.

If a paedophile acts on their urges then we have every right to sentence them, but we must do so with an eye towards teaching them to control their urges. Please re-read my original post several times until you understand it better.

Just a few weeks ago some guy admitted that he was a paedo but said that he'd never consider acting on the attraction in any way. Despite this he was still labelled as being sick and he even got banned.

Resident Unbanned (Non-Child Molesting) Pedophile at your service Comrade. (O_O)

OT: Eventually, yes. Maybe not in my lifetime, but yes. Both the attraction and possibly the idea of intergenerational relationships.

Being the resident guy at hand that is one half of the subject, I am open to any and all questions regarding my views on the subject. Unless they are questions that are too personal for The Escapist to allow for posting. In which case, PM me.

I suppose that'd be because Paedophilia is so closely linked with Child Abuse now. It's quite sad really. It must ruin many peoples' lives through no real fault of their own; they're just wired differently. I mean, if they don't actually do anything about their urges then what can we really say is wrong with that?
Also, REALLY? He got banned? Ouch.

Yes, I was. But, luckily, I was unbanned.

I love this place too much to leave. D:

Good stuff. You must get a lot of flak; despite not doing everything. Because thinking or feeling things is as bad if not worse than acting upon them.

 

[banthesun]

There's a giant difference between Paedophilia [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pedophilia] and Ephebophilia [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ephebophilia]. Unfortunately, many laws consider them one and the same, setting the age of consent in the range of ephebophilia (roughly 15-19). I personally believe this to be invalid, but I can't cite any evidence to say it's any better to have sex with a 15 year old than a 9 year old, other than the fact that the onset of puberty is roughly 12 years of age. But, of course, the presence of functioning genitals isn't consent, otherwise rape would be a non-crime.

It's a very complex issue, but I certainly wholly disagree with the way society treats paedophiles. Regardless of the morality of the actual act, they were still born as they are. They have not made a choice to become attracted to children and we as a society have no right to treat them with the kind of abhorrence we currently exhibit. We can disagree with their sexual proclivities and render them illegal without also hating these people for the way they happened to be born.

What is the obsession this site has with posts about pedophiles?

This.

Also, homosexuality is a mature decision between two mature adults. Pedophilia is a pre-pubescent child who isn't old enough to make responsible decisions regarding sex.

/thread.

No, not /thread. Cite studies to show those claims are valid and make a distinction between the treatment of paedophiles and the legitimacy of their acts.

How is it someone with your avatar is making the some of the best thought out posts in this thread?

I agree with your opinion on the treatment of paedophiles. Ideally, we would treat it clinically and have support organisations to stop them offending, where potential paedophiles could register after a visit to a doctor or a counsellor. Demonization only damages the chances of finding them before they offend and as such, increases the risk to children. This story [http://hungrybeast.abc.net.au/stories/treating-paedophiles-they-offend] is what I got most of my information from, and is well worth a look in for anyone interested in this topic.

 

[Leg End]

Good stuff. You must get a lot of flak; despite not doing everything. Because thinking or feeling things is as bad if not worse than acting upon them.

I'm not sure what you mean by that. I read it in my mind but it seems like multiple things.

Can you better detail it?

 

[Dexiro]

OT: Eventually, yes. Maybe not in my lifetime, but yes. Both the attraction and possibly the idea of intergenerational relationships.

Intergenerational relationships? Sorry unless I misunderstood that makes me a little uneasy >.>

It's fine that you don't actually doing stuff involving real children but that's the way it should stay. Children simply can't consent to that kind of relationship.

 

[BGH122]

- You made the initial statement which I was responding to, burden of proof is on you chief.

And yet I made no statements in that original post that claimed to have any knowledge about anything other than the fact that paedophiles are born as they are. That's an assumption, but there's a split of opinions on whether or not paedophilia is learnt or inherent and whether or not it's a single phenomenon and if it can be treated (here [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pedophilia#Treatment]).

- The effects of sexual assault on children is well documented, PTSD being chief among these along w/ a pile of other tertiary psychological issues stemming from said assault. My personal experiences serve to validate and enforce what has been researched and validated by others (as if that were needed)

And the effects upon a 17 and 364 day year old? The law views all sex with such a person as rape because, according to the law, one day later and they'd be old enough to make mature decisions but at that point they're unable to consent. I don't doubt paedophilia has awful effects upon children (but that's an assumption), I highly doubt that ephebophilia has negative effects to anywhere near the same degree (another assumption).

- 4 year olds and 17 year olds are not are not equally mature in any respect, and sexual assault affects every age group differently. However, there is little doubt as to what your intent is in using terms like "paedophilia" (there is no functional difference between that and the standard spelling). You are clearly looking to justify your position and/or "argument" that society shouldn't be down on pedophiles because "they were born that way". So yeah, you are absolutely obfuscating the issue by tossing out a complicating factor pertaining to age which attempts to split the argument in "camps", if you will.

I have literally no response to your belief that the British spelling of words is proof of an agenda.

Furthermore, an obfuscating factor is a factor which detracts from a debate and adds no semantic meaning. The issue of the effects of paedophilia upon different age groups are absolutely fundamental to deciding what constitutes immoral sexual activity.

I honestly don't know how you've managed to misunderstand my point about them being born that way for this length of time, but to reiterate (yet again): If someone is born with sexual attraction to children that is not their fault and they should not be despised for this fact alone. If that same person acts upon their desires then they have earned society's ire for not controlling their destructive impulses.

- re. agenda: You use a pedobear avatar and write in support of fucking children. You clearly have an agenda. This is at odds w/ my agenda: to protect children from harm. It's simple, really: Keep your fucking hands off of kids.

I find the concept of Pedobear wearing a suit hilarious. The fact that you think my avatar is as important a variable in a debate as the logic I'm providing suggests we should probably end this here.

- Finally, it occurred to me that this is just a troll for hits. If so, hats off to you, I bit. 6/10

I don't think you understand what a troll is. A troll isn't just 'someone who upsets you'. This is, yet again, affirming the consequent:

Trolling -> I feel offended by this debate

I feel offended by this debate -> Trolling

There are other things that can offend you than a troll, like someone holding a belief that's anathema to yours.

 

[Leg End]

OT: Eventually, yes. Maybe not in my lifetime, but yes. Both the attraction and possibly the idea of intergenerational relationships.

Intergenerational relationships? Sorry unless I misunderstood that makes me a little uneasy >.>

It's fine that you don't actually doing stuff involving real children but that's the way it should stay. Children simply can't consent to that kind of relationship.

But, that is not exactly true. Children have mental grasps on many things. With myself believing in the idea of Informed Consent. But, many factors also play into this.

Just my thought on the matter. Take it with a grain of salt if you wish.

 

[Sir-jackington]

In a way it kind of comes down to different cultures. In some places homosexuality is illegal but the age of consent is 13, so its a bit like them seeing homosexuals like we see pedophiles, evil and see pedophiles as we see homosexuals, fine if thats what your into. I'm not saying this makes it ok, if you ask me pedophiles are up there with rapists, murders and such.

 

[BGH122]

How is it someone with your avatar is making the some of the best thought out posts in this thread?

Thanks for the compliment. I don't know why people assume things about me from my avatar. It's bizarre and says quite a lot about the way human perception works.

 

[Lazzi]

okay let me hang a massive disclaimer over this topic:

1)I am NOT a homophobe, i have nothing against them and don't really care who someone wants to be with

2)I am NOT condoning pedophilia

today pedophilia is illegal and considered by most the most haneous crime a person can commit, but way back when a person was consisered an adult at puberty(around 12-13), but when life expectancies expanded it became clear that more healthy children could be spawned by giving people chances to mature which became around 16, nowadays a person is considered an adult around the age puberty comes to an end, between 17 and 19. So we know that the age of maturity has changed quite a lot over the years, and for all we know it could change again in the near future.

As I'm sure most of you know hundreds of years ago homosexuals were considered evil and under the corruptful influence of satan, and were tortured, lynched and exiled. Fast forward to about 100-150 years ago around the time psychology began to make its strides, homosexuality was considered a mental illness and "sufferers" were given unethical treatment to attempt to cure them. Within the last few decades homosexuals have begun to be recognised as a complete social community, even though there is still a lot of discrimination against them.

What i'm asking is it not feasible that pedophilia could go through the same lifecycle?

Now before i get destroyed by many, many people i want you to consider one thing, the way the world feels about pedophiles was the exact same way the world felt about homosexuals however many years ago

now I sit back and await the mass invasive shitstorm


EDIT: I am NOT saying that the two are the same i just used homosexuality as an example because of the drastic change in public opinion!

I dont think so. The issue with pedophial is that one of the praticipents is much younger than the other an there for easily manipulated by comparison.

 

[BGH122]

-snip-

Thanks a lot for having the bravery to come out and admit that you've got a personality defect everyone seems to find so abhorrent. You've got a hell of a lot more moxy than me.

 

[Dexiro]

OT: Eventually, yes. Maybe not in my lifetime, but yes. Both the attraction and possibly the idea of intergenerational relationships.

Intergenerational relationships? Sorry unless I misunderstood that makes me a little uneasy >.>

It's fine that you don't actually doing stuff involving real children but that's the way it should stay. Children simply can't consent to that kind of relationship.

But, that is not exactly true. Children have mental grasps on many things. With myself believing in the idea of Informed Consent. But, many factors also play into this.

Just my thought on the matter. Take it with a grain of salt if you wish.

Well we're talking pre-pubescent kids here. They aren't physically mature enough for those kind of acts. And while it's harder to define they aren't emotionally mature enough either.

I will say that it's perfectly fine to direct your urges towards fictional material, but doing stuff with real kids is never going to be acceptable.

 

[BGH122]

Well we're talking pre-pubescent kids here. They aren't physically mature enough for those kind of acts. And while it's harder to define they aren't emotionally mature enough either.

I will say that it's perfectly fine to direct your urges towards fictional material, but doing stuff with real kids is never going to be acceptable.

I have to agree. I'm sure there must exist some young children who wouldn't be harmed by sexual assault, simply in virtue of the fact that there's 6-7b humans, but I suspect that vast majority would be permanently scarred by such an act.

I also agree that paedophilic anime/novels etc where no real child was involved should be entirely legal and encouraged for use by paedophiles unless convincing evidence can be produced to show that'd increase paedophilic activity.

 

[Leg End]

-snip-

Thanks a lot for having the bravery to come out and admit that you've got a personality defect everyone seems to find so abhorrent. You've got a hell of a lot more moxy than me.

Not a defect, but ok.

OT: Eventually, yes. Maybe not in my lifetime, but yes. Both the attraction and possibly the idea of intergenerational relationships.

Intergenerational relationships? Sorry unless I misunderstood that makes me a little uneasy >.>

It's fine that you don't actually doing stuff involving real children but that's the way it should stay. Children simply can't consent to that kind of relationship.

But, that is not exactly true. Children have mental grasps on many things. With myself believing in the idea of Informed Consent. But, many factors also play into this.

Just my thought on the matter. Take it with a grain of salt if you wish.

Well we're talking pre-pubescent kids here. They aren't physically mature enough for those kind of acts. And while it's harder to define they aren't emotionally mature enough either.

I will say that it's perfectly fine to direct your urges towards fictional material, but doing stuff with real kids is never going to be acceptable.

Which is why full on intercourse wouldn't always be the smartest idea. Things along the line of just sexual play. With all safety measures taken to ensure the well being of the younger in the relationship.

Hell, Intergenerational Relationships are already happening. It's just that the vast majority of them aren't sexual in nature, but platonic. :/

 

[BGH122]

-snip-

Thanks a lot for having the bravery to come out and admit that you've got a personality defect everyone seems to find so abhorrent. You've got a hell of a lot more moxy than me.

Not e defect, but ok.

I'm afraid I disagree. I would count any personality trait which would cause one to be predisposed to harm others a defect, including 'normal' drives which modern society renders defective like jealousy or avarice.

EDIT: 800 posts and counting, love me or hate me (I'm guessing for most people it's the latter) you're not getting rid of me!