Could pedophiles be equivical to homosexuals?
- Thread starter RabbidKuriboh
- Start date
Recommended Videos
Does this mean that if in the future all humans are genetically modified to be fully self-aware at five years of age, paedophilia suddenly becomes a non-issue or something?believer258 said:
Just throwing that out there.
I've seen two today. I'll admit it's an interesting topic of discussion if you can get past the whole "It's wrong" thing, and the OP is actually asking a question I've never heard asked before... Oh shit... Not I need a disclaimerMacgyvercas said:
By saying the topic is interesting, I do not mean I am interested in or condoning the act of pedophilia.
OT: I ahve to say I don't think it will. Homosexuality is between two consenting adults with their minds fully develloped. Sure you get some teens and such getting itno it, but Homosexuality simply has to do with gender, for the most part, it's kept within a respectable age range.
What makes pedophilia so heinous is that kids do not have the cognitive understanding of what is going on, the are not old enough to comprehend. Also, they are not really old enough to make their own decisions about this in life. Even back in the old days, when people would marry young and it was normal to have sex at a young age, no 20 year olds were preying on 6 year olds, it was still within the same age range and the kids had no idea what they were getting into. Why am I marrying them? Why do I need to hax sex with them? Why are they making me do this? it was simple: reproduction.
Pedophiles prey for pleasure upon the pure and innocent, those that don't know better. The young will never be fully formed or as intellectually capable as an adult, their minds simply are not formed yet, and so it will still be wrong to take advantage of somsoen pur and not understanding of the situation.
Even worse than that, everyone's using the American spelling, and it's driving me insane.Aris Khandr said:
[sub]I may have a problem.[/sub]
OT: The dictionary definition of a paedophile is someone who is sexually attracted to children which, in and of itself, is not illegal (you can't arrest people for having thoughts) and is quite arguably a position on the sexuality spectrum.
The law comes in to play when someone cannot legally give their own consent.
So really, it all depends on what instance you're using the word paedophile in, whether it's just an 18-year-old shagging a 15-year-old (which does technically make you a paedophile I believe) or someone 18 or above exploiting a much younger child, or whether it's just people who have the attraction but don't act upon it.
I think people will come around to the idea that it is a form of sexuality, but it's never going to be accepted to exploit a child that doesn't know better. The 18-year-old and 15-year-old thing is a bit of a grey spot considering how common it is, and how close the 15-year-old is to being able to have legal sexy-time.
I think pedophilia is already considered a sexual orientation but can also be classified as a psycho sexual disorder (like bestiality).
From what I've read, there are basically three types of pedophiles.
One is they're willing to perform statutory rape only when they are drunk.
One is they're willing to perform statutory rape but only if they feel it's consensual with the child (albeit not in a legal definition). The "groomer" type who likes to seduce kids, I guess?
Then the 1% we all hate so much is the kidnap/rapist/serial killer type. They'll steal your child, rape them, then kill them so they can get away with their crimes. This is the kind most of us know and which the media portrays the most. This is what most of us think of when we hear the word pedophile.
I do not think pedophilia will ever be legalized but the "legal age" has changed more than once and will likely not stay the same forever. I think 16 is legal in Canada but I heard it used to be as low as 14. In most states, I think it's 18 but I hear it can go as low as 16 and 'conditions' are applied (like no more then 2 years apart or something?)
From what I've read, there are basically three types of pedophiles.
One is they're willing to perform statutory rape only when they are drunk.
One is they're willing to perform statutory rape but only if they feel it's consensual with the child (albeit not in a legal definition). The "groomer" type who likes to seduce kids, I guess?
Then the 1% we all hate so much is the kidnap/rapist/serial killer type. They'll steal your child, rape them, then kill them so they can get away with their crimes. This is the kind most of us know and which the media portrays the most. This is what most of us think of when we hear the word pedophile.
I do not think pedophilia will ever be legalized but the "legal age" has changed more than once and will likely not stay the same forever. I think 16 is legal in Canada but I heard it used to be as low as 14. In most states, I think it's 18 but I hear it can go as low as 16 and 'conditions' are applied (like no more then 2 years apart or something?)
Technically pedophilia already had its hay day around the Greek and Roman times when it was completely acceptable for a Male teacher to have sex with his younger Male students so I guess it could come back to being in style again but I highly doubt it.
I have to agree. I really pity them, just because they're brought into a world of shit because they have such preferences that they themselves can't control. However, there's a difference between someone that does their absolute best to control it (even if they hardly can) and those who choose to let it take them over.BGH122 said:
OT: While you might have a point, OP, I kinda have to doubt that anytime in the next few hundred years will there come a time that Pedophiles will be socially accepted.
EDIT: Because every one else is doing it..
DISCLAIMER: I DO NOT CONDONE PEDOPHILIA NOR AM I INTERESTED IN THE PURSUIT OF CHILDREN UNDER THE AGE OF CONSENT.
Bullshit; absolute bullshit.
It's a small, yet critical component of rational human thought called self-control. While the concept of having innate urges and struggling with them is understandable and can be emphasized with, the fact that pedophiles can only get their fixes by either rape or deception is despicable and they deserve to be purged from the world (IMO, the most violent manner possible). We as a society have every damn right to protect our young from perverted deviants who would willingly warp some kid's childhood just to satisfy the craving in their pants.
Normally I'm not as black-and-white on such issues; I've taken several psych courses beyond the gen ed, and I've been introduced to people in that time who do struggle with addictions. Pedophilia does not distort your perception of reality; pedophiles are about as sane as any of the rest of us and deserve no protection for their inability to curb their wants and needs.
How about "asking a question devoid of common sense for a bit of controversy stirring".BGH122 said:
I was going to post this in the latest lolicon thread, but thought it might be better here.
The crux of the arguement between whether or not lolicon is paedophilia seems to boil down to a difference in the definition- I personally define it as the sexual attraction to children, no matter if the child is real or an imaginary cartoon.
On the opposing side, loli fans seem to define it as the act of having sex with a child- to them the attraction is irrelevant it is the act itself thats wrong.
and so my question lies in your opinion of the definition and why you define it as you do.
The crux of the arguement between whether or not lolicon is paedophilia seems to boil down to a difference in the definition- I personally define it as the sexual attraction to children, no matter if the child is real or an imaginary cartoon.
On the opposing side, loli fans seem to define it as the act of having sex with a child- to them the attraction is irrelevant it is the act itself thats wrong.
and so my question lies in your opinion of the definition and why you define it as you do.
Yup, agreed. Acting upon one's 'evil urges' is immoral, simply having such urges isn't. There needs to be social acceptance of paedophiles and programs to help them control their urges. I doubt it's 'curable', but it's probably possible to help them control their behaviour even if it means they always feel unfulfilled.skywalkerlion said:
There needs to be a lot of study on when the brain is 'finished' maturing before we can come up with any semblance of a working sexual lower age limit, however. The commonly cited '18' or '16' just don't reflect neurological opinions on brain development, they're simply dogma (see my above cited source, apologies for the lack of a link to a transcript; it was a closed cross-university medical lecture).
The problem with common sense is that it isn't rational and is rarely correct.LightspeedJack said:
EDIT: I FEEL NO NEED TO DISCLAIM MY SEXUAL PROCLIVITIES BECAUSE THEY AND ALL OTHER EMOTIONAL DRIVES ARE COMPLETELY UNRELATED TO LOGICAL DEBATE
Okies, thanks for the clarification.evilthecat said:
For starters I want to point out the hilarity that members here claim that this forum is the last bastion of intelligence on the internet, and can't even do reading comprehension, and everyone responds to an actually interesting question with immaturity before they no doubt flock to a zombie apocalypse thread.
ANYWAYS
It totally might. Although it's going to take a long time. I don't think it will be acceptable in the sense that people will be allowed to practice it, since children are obviously incapable of handling a sexual relationship. But I wouldn't be surprised if we came to the point where they weren't society's boogeymen and they had support groups or some kind of assistance to help their taste
ANYWAYS
It totally might. Although it's going to take a long time. I don't think it will be acceptable in the sense that people will be allowed to practice it, since children are obviously incapable of handling a sexual relationship. But I wouldn't be surprised if we came to the point where they weren't society's boogeymen and they had support groups or some kind of assistance to help their taste
Can you please reread the post and actually try to comprehend what it's asking and not shut off your brain after you see "homosexual" and "pedophile" in the same sentence?LightspeedJack said:
I think you're missing the distinction that is being raised here. The term "pedophile," as being used here, refers to those who are sexually attracted to children. It does not imply that they have ever, or would ever, act on those desires.Chimichanga said:
There is such a vast difference that it doesnt even matter. Homosexuality is, at its base issue of morality, not bad. Neither party is truly hurt by homosexuality. Pedophilia, however? Children don't know how it truly works with sex, nor can they full comprehend what their actions are. And most of the time, whereas Homosexual Rape is just as common if not less than Heterosexual Rape, Pedophiles tend to force themselves on children more.
Yes, they are treated the same way at different times. That doesnt change the fact that Pedophilia hurts children whereas Homosexuality doesn't.
Yes, they are treated the same way at different times. That doesnt change the fact that Pedophilia hurts children whereas Homosexuality doesn't.