Could pedophiles be equivical to homosexuals?

[Comrade_Beric]

I was talking from a typical western point of view I didn't know about the N. Africa/Middle East stuff though.. I would hope in the future that society would change to allow everyone to live together peacefully but I don't think it can happen, not whilst such a fundamental and unchangeable aspect of the human mind is to protect the young, I think this will never change..

Except that, as I mentioned, there are societies where either this impulse does not exist, is not to the extent to which it is held in the west, or simply does not apply to the concept of sex. If there are societies elsewhere that do not hold the same beliefs on the issue as the west does, then it is by no means impossible for western society to change its mind on the matter.

Also, I just realized how pretentious it must look for a pair of "Lords" to be debating societal views. Ha

 

[googleboy]

-snip-

-snip-

BGH122, I do apologize if you felt personally maligned. Yours was merely the first post handy to quote which helped incapsulate the subject being opined upon. Again, no personal attack was intended as I have absolutely zero reason to assume that you condone or engage in the acts under discussion. Please accept my profound apology for any confusion.

On your other point, I have no doubt that there are many 'non-practicing' pedophiles on planet Earth (though no study or accounting has ever been taken to prove such a conclusion to my knowledge). I suspect however, a non-practicing pedophile is rather like a tofu eating lion, a beast of myth. We all overcome urges in our lives and during the course of our existence. It is that ability to overcome and go beyond our mere construction that has made us rise above the other animals on our planet. [We all have a latent killer in us after all]. The law cannot differentiate between the two categories you propose because the law can and must only codify specific infractions of societal norms. I would personally be all for a definition of the age of consent which is equal to the proven age of reason. With that said, I would make the voting and drinking ages the same as well. We are either capable of reason or we are not. All sexual relations with people who are incapable of reason MUST be considered wrong. This is the litmus test that I would desire to see employed because a mentally handicapped adult is no more capable of reasoning (as defined by sexual desire/consent etc) than a child.

So, I say to the OP and to many others here, the age of reason is what we ought to be debating. Is 12 too young? 14? 15? Where do we draw the line? If pedophilia is a natural proclivity (which all evidence seems to suggest), then there may be a way to integrate them into society while still punishing those who steal choice from the reasonless.

{edit}
Thankfully the argument does not hinge on Thomas Szasz. His was simply the first article to appear in my quick Medical DB search. Given it was '02, I"m sure others could be found. Also, I read the schizophrenia study and was left wondering, "Dementia?"

 

[tigermilk]

*stops reading like 5 posts in when people get to be bigoted shitheads*

I commend you, first poster. Thanks for noticing something completely obvious that most people are too retarded to see.

I will acknowledge, however, that bigoted as they are, the people who said shit like "because homosexuality is two adults blah blah blah," that's fine, but treating paedosexuals like SHIT isn't fair, because THEY DON'T FUCK CHILDREN, STUPID. Most are in fact abstinent. Some gay people are, too. Paedophiles know the difference between right and wrong. They aren't going to just do something horrible to a child, especially because THEY LOVE THEM and DO NOT WANT TO HURT THEM. Isn't that obvious? The people that DO commit that sort of sick crime against children are nothing but sociopathic fucks who would go rape a regular adult woman if they weren't paedosexual.

BALANCED POSTING. Try it sometime.

I would presume those peadophiles that don't abuse children are not found out and thus not treated like shit. Those who do, I have no sympathy for them.

AS for peadophiles knowing right from wrong and not wanting to hurt children... Well I am sure someone else will pick you up on what seems like a series of spurious statements.

 

[Zechnophobe]

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!

It could very well be true, to be honest. Obviously it is hard to imagine a paradigm shift like this... but culture IS weird like that. It really comes down to whether or not a hard line really exists between a person too young to have sex, and not. It is currently very strongly believed to exist, but hey, we've been wrong before.

There will of course be difficulties. How would you study against something like this? How would your "Does having sex when you are young" experiment work, in such a way as to not be horribly unethical if your findings uphold the status quo and say that yes, it IS in fact bad you sick fuck?

All I'm saying is that a test group may be required as "A bunch of people above consenting age have sex as the test population" and I think I'd like to be on it.

 

[BGH122]

-snip-

Thanks for addressing me politely and kindly, much appreciated.

I agree with everything you posted. I posit that the only scientifically valid way of limiting age of x (consent, voting, substance abuse etc) is to definitively prove when the parts of the brain responsible for reasoning, perception and planning are completely finished developing. However, do note that I am all in favour of (and have been throughout the entire thread, which I why I was annoyed) prosecuting paedophiles who act on their urges. I would like to see them prosecuted and helped to control their urges, not merely locked up because that serves no purpose other than vengeance.

 

[googleboy]

-snip-

Thanks for addressing me politely and kindly, much appreciated.

I agree with everything you posted. I posit that the only scientifically valid way of limiting age of x (consent, voting, substance abuse etc) is to definitively prove when the parts of the brain responsible for reasoning, perception and planning are completely finished developing.

Here here! I have often wondered why so little time is spent trying to determine that given the number of social problems that could be solved with that tiny piece of information.

 

[ckam]

Thing is pedophilia, incest, polygamy, etc. are sexualities that were treated as normal and not bad in the olden times. People were all right with that stuff going on.

However, homosexuality was persecuted from the start and only now has humanity begun to accept them. So no, I doubt that pedophilia will ever be accepted since the histories of the two sexualities were completely different.

 

[thegermanguy]

oh,come on. you just wanted to create a thread where everybody is so shocked by reading the title that they just have to reply...and it works.

you can't possibly be thinking about this subject seriously. just comparing it is bad enough...

 

[BGH122]

-snip-

Thanks for addressing me politely and kindly, much appreciated.

I agree with everything you posted. I posit that the only scientifically valid way of limiting age of x (consent, voting, substance abuse etc) is to definitively prove when the parts of the brain responsible for reasoning, perception and planning are completely finished developing.

Here here! I have often wondered why so little time is spent trying to determine that given the number of social problems that could be solved with that tiny piece of information.

Because the voters act on emotion and aren't massively intelligent, just see some of the responses in this thread, just see the number of people who've read my arguments and have responded in such a way that shows they completely missed the point. In an age where people refuse to believe in global warming or evolution I find it very hard to believe that the general populace will accept a theory that's scientifically well founded but strikes a chord with their particular bent on reality.

 

[Escapefromwhatever]

The difference between homosexuality and pedophilia is that while an adult of the same sex is capable of giving consent, a child of either is, at least by a modern standpoint, incapable, thus making it rape. With advances in technology only leading to longer lifespans, I don't see this view changing, and so find it highly unlikely that pedophilia will eventually become accepted by society.

 

[Actual]

-snip-

-snip-

BGH122, I do apologize if you felt personally maligned. Yours was merely the first post handy to quote which helped incapsulate the subject being opined upon. Again, no personal attack was intended as I have absolutely zero reason to assume that you condone or engage in the acts under discussion. Please accept my profound apology for any confusion.

On your other point, I have no doubt that there are many 'non-practicing' pedophiles on planet Earth (though no study or accounting has ever been taken to prove such a conclusion to my knowledge). I suspect however, a non-practicing pedophile is rather like a tofu eating lion, a beast of myth. We all overcome urges in our lives and during the course of our existence. It is that ability to overcome and go beyond our mere construction that has made us rise above the other animals on our planet. [We all have a latent killer in us after all]. The law cannot differentiate between the two categories you propose because the law can and must only codify specific infractions of societal norms. I would personally be all for a definition of the age of consent which is equal to the proven age of reason. With that said, I would make the voting and drinking ages the same as well. We are either capable of reason or we are not. All sexual relations with people who are incapable of reason MUST be considered wrong. This is the litmus test that I would desire to see employed because a mentally handicapped adult is no more capable of reasoning (as defined by sexual desire/consent etc) than a child.

So, I say to the OP and to many others here, the age of reason is what we ought to be debating. Is 12 too young? 14? 15? Where do we draw the line? If pedophilia is a natural proclivity (which all evidence seems to suggest), then there may be a way to integrate them into society while still punishing those who steal choice from the reasonless.

I like your post and agree with much of what you've said. I have a couple of points I'd like to pick at though.

There is in fact a non-rapist, non-child molesting paedophile who posts regularly on the Escapist. He's really fucking annoying but he doesn't rape kids. *thumbs up*

Also if we overcome our urges why should a paedophile be any different, but as I read the rest of your post I feel you are leaning that way too.

 

[thylasos]

Given the difference between informed consent and non-consensual sex (i.e. rape), no.

 

[okogamashii]

I disagree. "Having those urges" makes them a danger to children. One lapse in judgment or self-control and they've ruined someone's childhood, and damaged them for the rest of their life. For that, they should be culled. Or at least castrated or something.

By that logic, we must condemn the entire human race for the potential to be able to rape someone else given the right lapse in judgment or self-control at the time, right?

Seriously. If you act on it, you get burned. If you merely think it and nothing more, than everyone else can fuck right off. While I find pedophilia distasteful in all manners, witch hunting everyone whom seems to have the "potential" to rape a child is going to be a very long and very invasive inquisition.

True, and I guess you have a point, and I am going too far. I have to admit that the people in here defending pedophilia kinda make me wanna scream. Still, I'll never be able to accept that a pedophile can also be a good, or even a decent person. Nor can I accept that they belong in society with the rest of us.

 

[BGH122]

I disagree. "Having those urges" makes them a danger to children. One lapse in judgment or self-control and they've ruined someone's childhood, and damaged them for the rest of their life. For that, they should be culled. Or at least castrated or something.

By that logic, we must condemn the entire human race for the potential to be able to rape someone else given the right lapse in judgment or self-control at the time, right?

Seriously. If you act on it, you get burned. If you merely think it and nothing more, than everyone else can fuck right off. While I find pedophilia distasteful in all manners, witch hunting everyone whom seems to have the "potential" to rape a child is going to be a very long and very invasive inquisition.

True, and I guess you have a point, and I am going too far. I have to admit that the people in here defending pedophilia kinda make me wanna scream. Still, I'll never be able to accept that a pedophile can also be a good, or even a decent person. Nor can I accept that they belong in society with the rest of us.

And yet you've posited no reasons for these beliefs. I accept that we all have 'gut feeling' beliefs which we can't really defend when pushed, but can't bring ourselves to overcome, but I'd advise (not to be horribly patronising) that you try and make sure your beliefs are based on more than just irrational hatred.

 

[Nvv]

pedophilia is illegal and considered by most the most haneous crime a person can commit

Is that your personal opinion?
Because that certainly isn't mine, assault, murder or rape is much worse in my view.

I think it's important distinguish between peadophilia (the sexual attraction towards a pre-pubescent child) and child molestation/rape. A unactive peadophile who knows his attraction is not to be acted upon is not a monster, and is no more to blame for his sexuality than any other person. However I do think that when acted upon it is truly horrendous, yet not the most haneous crime someone can commit.

 

[Kunzer]

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

It's the internet. This is fairly light for an "obsession with pedophiles."

Which is kind of sad in and of itself.

Agreed.

Although recently I've noticed that there's been an overflow of sexually deviant threads over the past couple months around here. Guess people are getting curious/bored etc.

 

[HentMas]

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.

why am i not surprised that the first guy that is in support of such thing, haves the "avatar" of "pedobear"

now, me personaly if i found out that my kid was "diddled" by a pedophile (forget the differences between act and atraction we all know what we mean by saying pedophile) i would hunt him down and kill him, easy, now imagine people know that there is a guy next door that "likes" in a "sexual" way small children, obviously, they would think that its just a matter of time before he acts on his urges, and restraining him is the only way of making him not do it

and YES, ME personally as a PARENT CAN and WILL treat "PAEDOPHILES" with abhorrence and hate, because i know what can happen wen a guy that "likes" kids, "acts" on such urges

my son is 3 years old, tell me, is the kid mentally mature to know, act or even enjoy the act?, does he makes the desition one day that he is going to suck that guys cock? of course not!, its COMMON SENSE, and as such i dont need to cite any studies.

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

 

[googleboy]

-snip-

I like your post and agree with much of what you've said. I have a couple of points I'd like to pick at though.

There is in fact a non-rapist, non-child molesting paedophile who posts regularly on the Escapist. He's really fucking annoying but he doesn't rape kids. *thumbs up*

Also if we overcome our urges why should a paedophile be any different, but as I read the rest of your post I feel you are leaning that way too.[/quote]

1) I know of the person you are referencing and do likewise applaud his self control. The gist of my argument is that he could be integrated into normal society and allowed to fulfill his urges if an honest conversation about the age of consent took place. He would then STILL be required to respect the law and the demands of the rest of us who make up society. While I would never have sex with a 14 year old (I did when I was 14 and thats why I wouldn't ever do it again (ba-zing)) I feel that if the 14 year old can understand the choice and choose to make it, then that should be allowed.

 

[Frozen Donkey Wheel2]

Never- one is between consenting adults and the other is not

Bingo. This here is called common sense, and I don't think anything else needs to said on the subject, so lets all just pack this topic up and forget it ever-oh, there's been four pages.

Oooooof course there has.


Also, can we please stop talking about pedophiles? There are other issues out there, you know.