Could pedophiles be equivical to homosexuals?

Recommended Videos

Leg End

Romans 12:18
Oct 24, 2010
2,948
58
53
Country
United States
BGH122 said:
LegendaryGamer0 said:
BGH122 said:
LegendaryGamer0 said:
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. :p
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.
I disagree with your disagreement. :/

How is it a predisposition to harm?
 

BobisOnlyBob

is Only Bob
Nov 29, 2007
657
0
0
BGH122 said:
LegendaryGamer0 said:
BGH122 said:
LegendaryGamer0 said:
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. :p
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.
By that definition of "personality defect", pretty much all human social interaction is defective. That is, I understand where you're coming from in labelling it as such, but when it labels everything with the same name, it's not a very useful label at all.
 

banthesun

New member
Apr 15, 2009
188
0
0
BGH122 said:
banthesun said:
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.
Well, it is a symbol generally used to make fun of paedophillia. That and I've had a few interactions with people with pedobear avatars that might have coloured my perception.

LegendaryGamer0 said:
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.
Ok, since I made my last post based on that single story I linked to, I'd love to hear your opinion on how society should treat paedophiles.
 

Dexiro

New member
Dec 23, 2009
2,977
0
0
LegendaryGamer0 said:
BGH122 said:
LegendaryGamer0 said:
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. :p

Dexiro said:
LegendaryGamer0 said:
Dexiro said:
LegendaryGamer0 said:
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. :/
Yeah platonic relationships are fine. But when I say kids aren't physically or mentally developed enough this includes the fact that up kids have no sexual desire up until early puberty.
 

BGH122

New member
Jun 11, 2008
1,307
0
0
Simiathan said:
1.) Hrrmmm... I seem to remember that the point I was driving at in the first paragraph in my original post was that ANYTHING (be it external stigma, or therapy) that may help to reduce the likelihood of a pedophile having sex with a child is positive. It was my mistake to use the term "effective deterrent", I should have simply left it as "deterrent". However, my belief still stands. I'm not interested in data on smokers. Different types of fear affect different types of people, and I'd be interested to see if you possess any studies that are actually relevant to the subject at hand. Such as: how does the method of "self efficacy" effect pedophiles in particular? How do fear tactics affect pedophiles in particular? How do pedophiles without any assistance fare? I understand we're dealing with a common human denominator here, but the general smoking population and the general pedophilic population are not one of the same mind. Smokers are not subjected to the same types of social stigma as pedophiles, is my point here I suppose. (Also, Smoking is oft glamorized in media/entertainment, while pedophilia is not, for what that is worth. Also, smoking is an addiction, while pedophilia is a genetic/mental illness.)
The smoking study highlights attempts to change a behaviour which is extremely difficult to overcome. It is not directly related, but it is valid as a measure of the impotence of fear as a recidivist reducing mechanism. It is worth noting that both cognitive therapy and token economy have strong negative correlations with schizophrenic episode reoccurrence (I can dig up those studies if you'd like).

There is also evidence to suggest that cognitive therapy works in the reduction of paedophilia recidivism (Marshall et al (1991)). So far there is zero evidence that fear works as a behaviour modification strategy and good evidence that cognitive and behavioural therapies do work.

Simiathan said:
2.) My argument was not that all pedophiles are incurable, but rather that no attempt should be made due to their high rate of recidivism. These are not machines, they are human beings. They have the capacity to reason, to realize what they must not do, to seek help from others if needed. If that reason fails, that individual in itself fails and is unfit for society.
This argument is rendered invalid by the fact that you've already stated that any therapy which would decrease paedophilic sexual assault is a good thing. Since there's evidence that psychological therapies work (see above) and that fear tactics don't work in all assessed behavioural modifications (see above) it necessarily follows that you must be in favour of an end to unhelpful vengeance-based incarceration and in favour of low-recidivism based therapeutic incarceration.
 

Jamous

New member
Apr 14, 2009
1,941
0
0
LegendaryGamer0 said:
Jamous said:
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?
Yeah, of course. Basically, I meant to add /sarcasm. Some people hold the view that thinking or feeling things that are 'wrong' is as bad if not worse than acting with them. They're usually the types that go on to rail against video games. I think they spout utter bollocks.
 

BobisOnlyBob

is Only Bob
Nov 29, 2007
657
0
0
BGH122 said:
Simiathan said:
2.) My argument was not that all pedophiles are incurable, but rather that no attempt should be made due to their high rate of recidivism. These are not machines, they are human beings. They have the capacity to reason, to realize what they must not do, to seek help from others if needed. If that reason fails, that individual in itself fails and is unfit for society.
This argument is rendered invalid by the fact that you've already stated that any therapy which would decrease paedophilic sexual assault is a good thing. Since there's evidence that psychological therapies work (see above) and that fear tactics don't work in all assessed behavioural modifications (see above) it necessarily follows that you must be in favour of an end to unhelpful vengeance-based incarceration and in favour of low-recidivism based therapeutic incarceration.
May I suggest that Simiathan perhaps meant that no attempt should be made to "cure" pedophiles who have not acted on their condition, as opposed to attempting behavioural therapy on individuals convicted of sexual assault? I would certainly be loathe to attempt to condition another human mind that is unwilling to undergo therapy, unless they had committed a criminal act and there was no other means of preventing them from being a repeat offender.
 

BGH122

New member
Jun 11, 2008
1,307
0
0
BobisOnlyBob said:
By that definition of "personality defect", pretty much all human social interaction is defective. That is, I understand where you're coming from in labelling it as such, but when it labels everything with the same name, it's not a very useful label at all.
Untrue, pro-social behaviours aren't labelled as defective e.g. love, their anti-social counterparts are labelled as defective e.g. jealousy. It makes valid distinctions between pro and anti-social behaviours, it's just a little bit harsh.

banthesun said:
Well, it is a symbol generally used to make fun of paedophillia. That and I've had a few interactions with people with pedobear avatars that might have coloured my perception.
Yeah, it makes fun of paedophilia. Can't make a joke out of something you irrationally hate, now can you? It further shows I bear (ha, bear) no hatred of paedophiles. Hate the sin, not the sinner (no, I'm not religious, but I do like that motto).

BobisOnlyBob said:
May I suggest that Simiathan perhaps meant that no attempt should be made to "cure" pedophiles who have not acted on their condition, as opposed to attempting behavioural therapy on individuals convicted of sexual assault? I would certainly be loathe to attempt to condition another human mind that is unwilling to undergo therapy, unless they had committed a criminal act and there was no other means of preventing them from being a repeat offender.
It's possible you're correct in your interpretation, but I certainly haven't received that impression. However, there should be a complete end to paedophile hatred and paedophiles should be encouraged to seek working treatments. S/he advocates the opposite.

LegendaryGamer0 said:
How is it a predisposition to harm?
This [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Child_sexual_abuse#Psychological_harm] stuff doesn't sound like a walk in the park. I wouldn't wish that stuff upon anyone. Although it is debatable whether these ill-effects are caused by the act of paedophilia or the social reaction to it and resultant feelings of victimisation in the child.
 

BobisOnlyBob

is Only Bob
Nov 29, 2007
657
0
0
BGH122 said:
BobisOnlyBob said:
By that definition of "personality defect", pretty much all human social interaction is defective. That is, I understand where you're coming from in labelling it as such, but when it labels everything with the same name, it's not a very useful label at all.
Untrue, pro-social behaviours aren't labelled as defective e.g. love, their anti-social counterparts are labelled as defective e.g. jealousy. It makes valid distinctions between pro and anti-social behaviours, it's just a little bit harsh.
It is a harsh system, and I was implying that many pro-social behaviours, such as love, are inherently entangled with anti-social behaviours, and that the sum of them have merits. In other words, that which you classify as "not defective" can often be reliant upon or the direct cause of "defective" behaviours.

BGH122 said:
banthesun said:
Well, it is a symbol generally used to make fun of paedophillia. That and I've had a few interactions with people with pedobear avatars that might have coloured my perception.
Yeah, it makes fun of paedophilia. Can't make a joke out of something you irrationally hate, now can you? It further shows I bear (ha, bear) no hatred of paedophiles. Hate the sin, not the sinner (no, I'm not religious, but I do like that motto).
I agree with your intent here. I do not hate or dislike pedophiles; I despise anyone who would commit a sexual assault, against a child or otherwise. Assault is defined as an action directed towards another person without their will or consent; determining the age and individual maturity at one can say a person is capable of giving consent is often the crux of these debates.

BGH122 said:
BobisOnlyBob said:
May I suggest that Simiathan perhaps meant that no attempt should be made to "cure" pedophiles who have not acted on their condition, as opposed to attempting behavioural therapy on individuals convicted of sexual assault? I would certainly be loathe to attempt to condition another human mind that is unwilling to undergo therapy, unless they had committed a criminal act and there was no other means of preventing them from being a repeat offender.
It's possible you're correct in your interpretation, but I certainly haven't received that impression. However, there should be a complete end to paedophile hatred and paedophiles should be encouraged to seek working treatments. S/he advocates the opposite.
Well, I can't speak for them and won't try to, but personally I'm taking the middle ground between your two stances as I perceive them. Behavioural therapy for people with any kind of -philia should be available, as it is a limit on their behaviour that can be self-destructive in many cases, not just paedophilia. I would encourage individuals who are exclusively paedophilic to undergo such therapy, for their own personal health and well-being. Those who are non-exclusive - that is, they have a sexual attraction to those underage as well as adults - have no reason to undergo such treatment unless they feel it is becoming a problem. The only people who such therapy should be required for are those who have or have attempted to commit sexual assault against a child.
 

Zuljeet

New member
Jan 14, 2010
129
0
0
snip, I guess.

- You stated that pedophiles are born that way. Prove it. Burden of proof is on you. It's really not very complicated.
- British spelling of pedo notwithstanding you intentionally parsed the groups with the intention of creating an argument you could defend. I'm mildly surprised you didn't drag hebephilia into this.
- The difference between a 17 day and 364 day year old [sic]? Umm both babies, dude. Assuming that the infant survived the incident, my argument is still valid and pretty much puts you in the category of "monster" if you actually support that. I'm really hoping that is a typo, otherwise, I hope you aren't running around free. If it is a typo, you clearly have time on your hands. Slow down and make sense.
- re. statutory rape laws: they make the distinction of one day illegal, the next legal because they have to. People of course don't develop according to how laws are written and maturity will vary with the person which is why we have people called judges who talk to other people called lawyers in order to interpret and apply the laws. You want some kind of age-related grace period so you can nail kids? change the laws. I understand that requires time and the ability to build a consensus. You clearly have time, good luck with the other bit.
- Trolling. People who troll don't always troll by pissing people off. I feel strongly about this topic, so I am sounding off on it.
 

BGH122

New member
Jun 11, 2008
1,307
0
0
BobisOnlyBob said:
It is a harsh system, and I was implying that many pro-social behaviours, such as love, are inherently entangled with anti-social behaviours, and that the sum of them have merits. In other words, that which you classify as "not defective" can often be reliant upon or the direct cause of "defective" behaviours.
This is true, but it doesn't render the system invalid. Dark cannot exist without light, but it doesn't render shades an invalid way of categorising the world.

BobisOnlyBob said:
I agree with your intent here. I do not hate or dislike pedophiles; I despise anyone who would commit a sexual assault, against a child or otherwise. Assault is defined as an action directed towards another person without their will or consent; determining the age and individual maturity at one can say a person is capable of giving consent is often the crux of these debates.
Agreed.

BobisOnlyBob said:
Well, I can't speak for them and won't try to, but personally I'm taking the middle ground between your two stances as I perceive them. Behavioural therapy for people with any kind of -philia should be available, as it is a limit on their behaviour that can be self-destructive in many cases, not just paedophilia. I would encourage individuals who are exclusively paedophilic to undergo such therapy, for their own personal health and well-being. Those who are non-exclusive - that is, they have a sexual attraction to those underage as well as adults - have no reason to undergo such treatment unless they feel it is becoming a problem. The only people who such therapy should be required for are those who have or have attempted to commit sexual assault against a child.
Agreed again.
 

BGH122

New member
Jun 11, 2008
1,307
0
0
Zuljeet said:
- You stated that pedophiles are born that way. Prove it. Burden of proof is on you. It's really not very complicated.
Okay, so let's say I can't prove it. That just renders your hatred of paedophiles even more invalid. If the behaviour is learned rather than innate then it can almost certainly be permanently cured.

Zuljeet said:
- British spelling of pedo notwithstanding you intentionally parsed the groups with the intention of creating an argument you could defend. I'm mildly surprised you didn't drag hebephilia into this.
This is laughable. Suddenly it's a valid criticism to state that creating a defensible argument is somehow suspicious or problematic?

Zuljeet said:
- The difference between a 17 day and 364 day year old [sic]? Umm both babies, dude. Assuming that the infant survived the incident, my argument is still valid and pretty much puts you in the category of "monster" if you actually support that. I'm really hoping that is a typo, otherwise, I hope you aren't running around free. If it is a typo, you clearly have time on your hands. Slow down and make sense.
Haha! Yeah, it's a typo. I should be 17 years. I can't 'slow down' because at the time I was receiving a phenomenal number of replies and I've replied to everyone individually. You knew what I meant.

EDIT: Nope, you made that [sic] up. This is what I posted

Me said:
And the effects upon a 17 and 364 day year old?
Please don't just make things up.

Zuljeet said:
- re. statutory rape laws: they make the distinction of one day illegal, the next legal because they have to. People of course don't develop according to how laws are written and maturity will vary with the person which is why we have people called judges who talk to other people called lawyers in order to interpret and apply the laws. You want some kind of age-related grace period so you can nail kids? change the laws. I understand that requires time and the ability to build a consensus. You clearly have time, good luck with the other bit.
Yeah, lawyers are judges are definitely the best judges of scientific consensus.

/sarcasm

You know full well that I'm arguing that the age of consent laws (and by extrapolation the laws on what constitutes paedophilia) are currently invalid. Surely, no-one would pretend that 17 year olds are incapable of making decisions? If so then is all the sex in Britain that occurs at 16 rape, according to American morality?

Zuljeet said:
- Trolling. People who troll don't always troll by pissing people off. I feel strongly about this topic, so I am sounding off on it.
This doesn't do anything to prove I'm a troll and you haven't addressed the argument. I accept you feel strongly about this, that doesn't make everyone who disagrees with you a troll.
 

Leg End

Romans 12:18
Oct 24, 2010
2,948
58
53
Country
United States
banthesun said:
Ok, since I made my last post based on that single story I linked to, I'd love to hear your opinion on how society should treat paedophiles.
Well, like human beings for starters. Not trying to stab them in a dark alley is even better. :/

Possibly seeing if there is a logical reason for the attraction and if such... "activities", would actually be harmless. Though, I refer to consensual activity. Raping a child in a van near a park is still fucked.

BGH122 said:
This [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Child_sexual_abuse#Psychological_harm] stuff doesn't sound like a walk in the park. I wouldn't wish that stuff upon anyone. Although it is debatable whether these ill-effects are caused by the act of paedophilia or the social reaction to it and resultant feelings of victimisation in the child.
I agree, all of that is horrible and whomever would inflict that upon anyone deserves 5 minutes alone time with me in my sword room.

But, I believe such only happens if it is an act of force or coercion. Consensual, I believe, would have none of those effects. But, it would also possibly cause such trauma because of the social reaction, not the act itself.

Though, just my opinion. Take it with a grain of salt.

Jamous said:
LegendaryGamer0 said:
Jamous said:
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?
Yeah, of course. Basically, I meant to add /sarcasm. Some people hold the view that thinking or feeling things that are 'wrong' is as bad if not worse than acting with them. They're usually the types that go on to rail against video games. I think they spout utter bollocks.
I hate the internet for that. :p So hard to detect sarcasm. XD
 

Dexiro

New member
Dec 23, 2009
2,977
0
0
LegendaryGamer0 said:
BGH122 said:
LegendaryGamer0 said:
BGH122 said:
LegendaryGamer0 said:
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. :p
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.
I disagree with your disagreement. :/

How is it a predisposition to harm?
Well you have a sexual attraction that you're not allowed to act on. It kind of makes you predisposed to want to act on children, but you have to make the effort not to for legality.

And paedophilia is a defect since it's an entirely negative trait, you can't say life wouldn't be easier for you if you didn't have the attraction.
For comparison Homosexuality could be seen as a defect too, but that has benefits and also doesn't step on legal issues.

This doesn't mean you should be ashamed of who you are. As long as you don't do anything with real kids you have my respect.
 

BGH122

New member
Jun 11, 2008
1,307
0
0
LegendaryGamer0 said:
I agree, all of that is horrible and whomever would inflict that upon anyone deserves 5 minutes alone time with me in my sword room.

But, I believe such only happens if it is an act of force or coercion. Consensual, I believe, would have none of those effects. But, it would also possibly cause such trauma because of the social reaction, not the act itself.

Though, just my opinion. Take it with a grain of salt.
It's possible you're correct, but I'd need to see some evidence that small children can ever engage in sexual activities with someone in a position of authority without receiving negative effects.
 

BobisOnlyBob

is Only Bob
Nov 29, 2007
657
0
0
BGH122 said:
BobisOnlyBob said:
It is a harsh system, and I was implying that many pro-social behaviours, such as love, are inherently entangled with anti-social behaviours, and that the sum of them have merits. In other words, that which you classify as "not defective" can often be reliant upon or the direct cause of "defective" behaviours.
This is true, but it doesn't render the system invalid. Dark cannot exist without light, but it doesn't render shades an invalid way of categorising the world.
A damn fair analogy.

However, looping back around to the original point - that paedophilia is a defective behaviour - I think that LG0 was simply objecting to being labelled as "having a defective trait". That trait is one that he has, to my knowledge, very healthily reconciled, and is likely not needing any kind of therapy and is otherwise a normal individual. Your classification is fine, but your terminology is perhaps somewhat offensive, unintentionally so. It may be a "negative trait" for some given greater good, but it's not pleasant to point that out in another individual who has no issue with that trait themselves and is not causing any harm to others. Likewise, your implication that "paedophiles need therapy" is honourable and understandable, but is a broad brush for individuals who have essentially already internalised their behaviour with sufficient self-control and willpower.

Essentially, I agree with you, but choice of words can be just as important as the intent behind them when discussing such painfully delicate topics as these.
 

LostAlone

New member
Sep 3, 2010
283
0
0
This has turned into a rather monster post, so feel free to ignore. If your gunna quote, do so selectively and read to the end if you are going to *****.

@RabbidKuriboh... You reap what you sew dude. You started a thread on a pretty mainstream site about if paedophiles might ever be socially accepted, you are reaping the shitstorm of hate that comes around those issues.

To put it as succinctly as I can: Homosexuality and Underage Sex are in no way similar, despite what social attitudes may be. What happens between consenting adults should be no business of anyone else and definitely not the law. On the other hand, sex with children cannot fail to be rape. If you cannot give consent, then it MUST be rape, and thus if rape is illegal then sex with children must be illegal too.

Personally, I think that those nations with more indepth and understanding laws relating to age of consent, those with 'close age exemptions', have the right idea, especially since I was once a horny kid who was occasionally involved in hanky panky with other horny kids. It shows far greater maturity of society and law makers to go down that route.

However, when you get to the point of adults having sex with children there is almost no way that it could not be abusive, exploitive and generally to great detriment of the kid involved. Even assuming that a one in a million case shows up where a pre-consent teenager and an adult genuinely fall in love, what's the big deal about waiting until they are of age to have sex ? Also, what kinda circumstances come around where kids are hanging around with grown ups enough to actually HAVE that kind of relationship ?

Basically, no matter how grown up or mature kids think they are, they really aren't. We all have a baptism of fire in our first few relationships at whatever age and even at its best it can be very painful when your first love turns out to just be out for some nookie. Add to that the messed up psychological baggage you get from trying to please someone the age of your father.

Finally, on the subject of how emotionally immature teens can be: How hard does anyone 'grown up' (ie someone who has a job, a car, their own house and a reasonable kind of disposable income) have to try to chat up someone in their teens ? I mean, you can do stuff for them that no-one else they ever met could. From the point of view of a 14 year old, you can go ANYWHERE, do ANYTHING, stay up late, buy booze, buy drugs, have all the coolest stuff and generally sweep them off their feet so fast, they don't even know it. It is not hard, if you so wish, to utterly make someone love you at that age.

Hell, I used to do that kinda stuff to totally legal 17 year olds when I was 19, fat, beared, drove a clapped out car and was near on flat broke. But I could take them drinking, or share a few joints and stay up till 3am on a school night. Now I'm a reasonably nice guy, but I'm not going to deny that a few quid well spent can get a man to a great many desirable places. It still works today on 20 and 21 year olds.

Basically, the point I'm trying to make is that kids are naive and innocent (or stupid and easily manipulated if you like) and they are uniquely unprepared for the charms of grown men and women. Nor should they have to be prepared. Kids should have stupid relationships with other kids, and more power to them. People get their hearts broken, and sometimes sleep with people they would rather not have done. But at least then it's a level playing field. Kids doing kids stuff with other kids. Changing that offers dangerous precedent.

If you'll indulge me, I'd like to take you through a thought experiment of the social consequences of the social acceptability of grown men sleeping with 14-18 year old girls. Going much younger than that makes me more uncomfortable than I want to be while discussing this.

So... We've established that its not that hard to nail a schoolgirl if you want to. And to put it in no uncertain terms, a lot of people are going to want to. With our 'real world' eyes, that sounds icky. But this is a world where its all cool. If they're hot and no-one cares, and come pre-uniformed (if not you aren't lurking in the right car-park) what are you waiting for ? Flash some cash, get yourself a hot little girlfriend.

So we have a whole generation of horny teenage boys who absolutely can't hope to compete with grown ups for girlfriends, which leads to them looking at even younger girls, which pushes a generation of only just pubescent girls into relationships with mid teen boys who will settle for anyone they can get. That should obviously be a bad thing. Even as it stands boys are pushing girlfriends to have sex before they are ready, going a couple of years younger still is going to create bigger problems.

Next up, we have a bunch of twenty-something girls who are finding that all the guys their own age are going out with teens because we all know that younger = better in those matters, and that teenage girls are as I mentioned much more naive and open to easy seduction, while a couple of times round the block twenty something girls are gunna make you work for it. That puts those young women dating thirty something guys looking for a wife, which means that either they end up in marriages and with families (which history teaches us leads to unhappy lives) or into short meaningless relationships failing to find anyone their own age who they actually like.

Is this an alarmist vision of the future ? Sure. We all know it wouldn't end up exactly like that, but you open those flood gates and its going to start causing big problems in our sexual politics.

I'm all in favour of kids making their own mistakes, but we have always tempered the harsh sandbox of life by ensuring that they make those mistakes with other kids. We even (somewhat illogically) group kids by age not ability, so until they start moving beyond the boundaries of school they will have friends only within months of their age.

Even the law forgives practically all of your misdeeds as a kid because its all a part of growing up. Does anyone here still hold contempt for their first bad break up ? Chances are that it was someone at your school or within a few years of you in age. Sure it sucks at the time, but its a kind of safe-crappy. It's the emotional equal of throwing up after too much candy. Throughout you recognise that the other party was pretty much like you, and even if they were cool or a little older, they still live with their parents, and chances even the most experienced kid still didn't really know what to do with a partner as you did.

Eventually you forgive them and yourself and remember you were all just stupid kids.

Contrast to children who's first sexual experience was with an adult, who either kicked them to the curb once they were done, or continued to mess with them until they got old enough to escape depending on circumstances. Some of them come out ok, or at least okish. More of them end up with huge baggage, with various flavours of depression being the top of that list, while some are just terrified of sex in general and anyone who would want to sleep with them.

Put simply, society is not going to even let it be acceptable for consent age girls to sleep with much older men. It is also not going to let older men sleep with much younger girls than that. Although some people may think they want to do it, kids are stupid, and society is content with the (frankly true) assumption that men who want sex are the most deceitful people on earth, and they don't get to cruise our school-age kids without getting arrested.

Oh, and why have I kept focusing on men with young women ? Because lets no delude ourselves. That is what we are talking about here. Women don't wanna sleep with young boys, because they have emotional needs and don't appreciate fart based humour nearly as much, and as for same-sex underage relationships, I think the same applies. If you want great sex with a male, regardless of gender, you just don't go for someone under 16. They either lack the practice or the size to get the job done. If your a woman and want to sleep with young girls... Well go you. IIRC that's really hard to prosecute. However, I still think that a combination of sloppy teenage technique and lack of emotional maturity is going to mean you look at college girls not kids.

Why haven't I looked at pre-teens ? Because fuck you that's why. If I think its a bad thing for men to sleep with teens, how do you think I feel about pre-teens. Why are you asking that question ?

To help you recuperate, heres some music *hums 'The Girl From Ipanema'*
 

Leg End

Romans 12:18
Oct 24, 2010
2,948
58
53
Country
United States
Dexiro said:
LegendaryGamer0 said:
BGH122 said:
LegendaryGamer0 said:
BGH122 said:
LegendaryGamer0 said:
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. :p
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.
I disagree with your disagreement. :/

How is it a predisposition to harm?
Well you have a sexual attraction that you're not allowed to act on. It kind of makes you predisposed to want to act on children, but you have to make the effort not to for legality.

And paedophilia is a defect since it's an entirely negative trait, you can't say life wouldn't be easier for you if you didn't have the attraction.
For comparison Homosexuality could be seen as a defect too, but that has benefits and also doesn't step on legal issues.

This doesn't mean you should be ashamed of who you are. As long as you don't do anything with real kids you have my respect.
Actually, no it doesn't. At least, not for me. :/

I can actually say, that not being one would actually make life harder for me. At least, to me. It does have benefits.

For a while, Homosexuality did step on legal issues. Technically, it still does. :/

BGH122 said:
LegendaryGamer0 said:
I agree, all of that is horrible and whomever would inflict that upon anyone deserves 5 minutes alone time with me in my sword room.

But, I believe such only happens if it is an act of force or coercion. Consensual, I believe, would have none of those effects. But, it would also possibly cause such trauma because of the social reaction, not the act itself.

Though, just my opinion. Take it with a grain of salt.
It's possible you're correct, but I'd need to see some evidence that small children can ever engage in sexual activities with someone in a position of authority without receiving negative effects.
Um... and post it here? I would be banned faster than... well, the last time I was banned. :/

In other words, stories of those that had consensual sexual activities with late adolescents and adults. Though, you might not even believe them considering they are on a pro-Pedo website. :/
 

BGH122

New member
Jun 11, 2008
1,307
0
0
BobisOnlyBob said:
BGH122 said:
BobisOnlyBob said:
It is a harsh system, and I was implying that many pro-social behaviours, such as love, are inherently entangled with anti-social behaviours, and that the sum of them have merits. In other words, that which you classify as "not defective" can often be reliant upon or the direct cause of "defective" behaviours.
This is true, but it doesn't render the system invalid. Dark cannot exist without light, but it doesn't render shades an invalid way of categorising the world.
A damn fair analogy.

However, looping back around to the original point - that paedophilia is a defective behaviour - I think that LG0 was simply objecting to being labelled as "having a defective trait". That trait is one that he has, to my knowledge, very healthily reconciled, and is likely not needing any kind of therapy and is otherwise a normal individual. Your classification is fine, but your terminology is perhaps somewhat offensive, unintentionally so. It may be a "negative trait" for some given greater good, but it's not pleasant to point that out in another individual who has no issue with that trait themselves and is not causing any harm to others. Likewise, your implication that "paedophiles need therapy" is honourable and understandable, but is a broad brush for individuals who have essentially already internalised their behaviour with sufficient self-control and willpower.

Essentially, I agree with you, but choice of words can be just as important as the intent behind them when discussing such painfully delicate topics as these.
Euphemising only serves to get people on your side through deception. That's demagoguery and I for one won't be party to it. My logic alone should be the reason people agree or disagree with me, if they have qualms with my opinions for any other reason then their qualms are invalid.

I'm a scientist, not a politician. It's not in my job description to tentatively dance around issues so as not to offend anyone.

LegendaryGamer0 said:
Um... and post it here? I would be banned faster than... well, the last time I was banned. :/

In other words, stories of those that had consensual sexual activities with late adolescents and adults. Though, you might not even believe them considering they are on a pro-Pedo website. :/
If it's not just anecdotal (i.e. I had sex with this kid and s/he loved it ergo paedophilia is fine) and is actually a methodologically valid study I'd believe it. I don't care about sources, I care about data and method.

I appreciate, however, that you're in no hurry to get yourself banned so we'll drop the issue.