Could pedophiles be equivical to homosexuals?

[BGH122]

that are mature enough to handle it. I would say that this is probably 16 and up, and that's a bit stretching it for some people.

This is why we need studies. 'Mature enough to handle it' and your guesses as to what that might be aren't exactly the best definitions for either morality or legality.

Also, I was left no other option than to assume vast swathes of your beliefs on paedophilia since you typed a couple of sentences and then declared /thread.

 

[Ashcrexl]

pedophilia is not like homosexuality. it is like date rape. where one party wants the sex and the other party has no idea whats going on and would most likely not want what the other party wants if they were more lucid. until date rape becomes acceptable (which wont happen), pedophilia doesnt stand a chance.

 

[Dexiro]

Paedophilia is massively demonized. They can't control who they're attracted to, what matters is what they do about it.

Not enough people differentiate between paedophiles that actually do stuff involving real children and those that don't.

To summarise: Doing stuff with kids and paedophilia are completely different things, the former is sick and the latter just happens

That's just an opinion that's developed through the increase in threads like this.
I always feel the need to say that I'm not a paedo with these posts because I know what some people can be like >.>

 

[BGH122]

This is flamebaiting of the highest degree.

I don't think you understand what that term means. It doesn't mean 'controversial' or 'will raise split opinions'.

It absolutely is flamebait. The OP has created a topic about a very sensitive, yes, controversial, issue, then proceeded to make it outright offensive to a lot of people, whether he meant to or not, by comparing pedophilia to homosexuality.

Also, not only is your avatar tasteless, but your first post was absurd. It doesn't matter that they were born attracted to children, acting on that, or even thinking about acting on it is repulsive and wrong. They're defective, and anyone that isn't disgusted by the idea of an adult permanently scarring a child for their own sexual gratification is a foul human being.

Nice un-emotionally charged answer you gave there.

/sarcasm

Re-read my first post. You'll see that I wasn't legitimising acting upon paedophilic urges, I was saying that we have no right to judge them for merely having those urges. If they act upon them then we can absolutely judge them.

 

[Comrade_Beric]

So in essence as long as it is unlawful to have sex with someone under the normal sexual age limit pedophiles cannot exercise their natural desires and so will always be removed from society..

Except that there are several countries, particularly in North Africa and the Middle East, where marriage, not age, are the deciding factors in the morality of the act. To assume that a class of people can never fit into society assumes that society is unchanging. This is demonstrably untrue.

 

[googleboy]

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.

Pedophilia will not be legalized in our lifetime, nor should it be. The connection implied by this thread is grossly offensive, illogical and lacks evidentiary standing. Now that I have bated all of you apparent pedophile apologists let me bring some cold hard honesty.

Children are gullible. They will quite literally believe anything they are told. Please see suicide bombers, child thiefs and pedophilia victims as evidence. also: Children and Advertising. [http://www.businessweek.com/lifestyle/content/healthday/644479.html]

Pedophiles, whether predisposed towards their sexual proclivity or not, are praying on those who quite literally cannot help themselves. In the United States 67% of all victims are under 18 and 34% are under the age of twelve. CPIU [http://www.cpiu.us/statistics-2/] In the US 80% of those convicted of sexual assault committed their crime against a minor(1. We can argue the merits of a younger age of consent all day. The 'statutory' rape laws of the United States will jail 18 year olds for dating/sleeping with 16 year olds in most constituencies even though they could logically be in school together.

As nearly everyone here has said, Homosexuals knowingly engage in desired sexual activity with a consenting and capable adult; pedophiles by definition are engaging in sexual activity with someone who cannot consent.

{opinion}
There is nothing valid about pedophilia, culturally or otherwise. The defense that they were 'born this way' is not convincing. We as a society would not allow a sociopath in the style of Ted Bundy or Hannibal Lector to go free, so why are we making excuses for people who prey on children? Children who are victims are more likely to become predators themselves (see references below). Not all will of course, but enough to justify harsh measures to protect society and our children. Children MUST be protected at all costs. Society, Civilization, America, Europe, Arabia, China are all irrelevant if the future is not safeguarded. The misguided acts of our ancestors cannot be used to defend unsafe and antisocial behavior whether inherited genetically or not.
{/opinion}

Reference:
"Amber Plan." National Center for Missing and Exploited Children. Available online at <www.missingkids.com> (accessed May 7, 2003).

Szasz, Thomas. 2002. "Sins of the Fathers: Is Child Molestation a Sickness or a Crime?" Available online at <www.reason.com> (accessed May 7, 2003).

Child Molestation - Children, Sexual, Abuse, Amber, Alert, and Convicted http://law.jrank.org/pages/5182/Child-Molestation.html#ixzz1E4QmKeuD

 

[BGH122]

What exactly is complex about this again? Pedophiles need to be removed from society for a ton of very good reasons which all could be summed up in the statement "they (pedophiles) break children". You want me to cite the validity of that statement? Fuck you; do your own research and try to prove me wrong. I am speaking from experience. You wanna try to parse out the act into age groups in the hopes of obfuscating the issue? You can try I guess, but the act and the results are the same: the child in question remains broken.

You have no basis to claim they break children unless you can cite evidence proving that fact. All other beliefs are anecdotal and ergo worthless when trying to applying to large groups. Furthermore, it is not the duty of the respondent to prove their argument, the burden of proof is on s/he who made the original statement.

So both a 17 year old and a 4 year old are equally mentally immature? The age clarification is a valid point and has nothing to do with obfuscation. Still, I guess you could respond to people's logical propositions as if they were deliberately set up with an agenda, that's certainly one way of going about things.

 

[daemon37]

Another thing I would like to point out, is how people cry "Pedo" in most of the USA if you show interest in a 16 year old. People treat you like some kind of sick, twisted pervert despite the fact that showing interest in such a person IS PERFECTLY LEGAL IN MANY OTHER COUNTRIES. Just to name a few:
Australia, Azerbaijan, Bahamas, Fiji, Finland, Jamaica, Netherlands, New Zealand, Singapore, Taiwan, and even the USA (Alabama, Alaska, Conneticut, D.C., Hawaii, Nevada, Ohio, etc.)

The point I'm trying to make is that "What is pedophilia?" is not answered by the government, they simply provide more or less conservative estimates. I'm not going to even bother listing places where the age of consent is 14 years old or lower.

 

[LCP]

Why not necrophilia? or Bestiality?

IT depends where you draw the like of "disgusting" and what you consider acceptable.

Just to be safe, i drew my like before homosexuality. Some are more extreme than others. I don't think homosexuality should be as accepted as it is now. Needs more stigma. You can't disagree with homosexuality without having self-righteous idiots calling you homophobe. "*gasp* an idea that does not think gay is normal! he must be a republican redneck!" Both sides need growing up to do

I do believe pedophilia, homosexuality and psychopathics are all conditions of the brain not willing choices, if humanity takes the path of becoming increasingly patient and caring then we will eventually accept a lot of things as being life choice, however I don't think that we will go that way and it is likely that pedophiles (at least active ones anyway) will never have a space in society..

I think it would be best if we all just accepted that people behave differently, some for reasons perhaps beyond human understanding.

I think the problem you have here is that the human is wired to protect its children from anything and so pedophiles will never be allowed to just get with consenting children because of the nature of parenthood. Homosexuals are different as they are adults. Now in my mind that shouldn't make a difference but it does.

So in essence as long as it is unlawful to have sex with someone under the normal sexual age limit pedophiles cannot exercise their natural desires and so will always be removed from society..

Yeah, also this.

 

[BGH122]

-snip-

Thanks for a well referenced answer. I do resent, however, being quoted as 'the person sticking up for paedophilia legalisation' as I have never publicly nor privately presented such a claim.

EDIT: However, you have failed to distinguish between a paedophile who acts on their urges and one who does not. We absolutely would (and do!) allow a previous convict to go free if they show contrition. People can change and people can control their urges. Merely having despicable urges is not immoral, it's acting on such urges that's immoral.

EDIT 2: Hate to resort to a poisoning the well argument here, but

Szasz, Thomas. 2002. "Sins of the Fathers: Is Child Molestation a Sickness or a Crime?" Available online at <www.reason.com> (accessed May 7, 2003).

is a complete fraud and utterly disrespected in medical circles after he tried to pull a stunt a few decades ago claiming schizophrenia doesn't exist (based on heinously flawed methodology where he had participants exhibit schizophrenic symptoms to a psychiatrist and then marvelled that they were diagnosed with schizophrenia as if it challenged the diagnostic criteria) and that 'it's just the psychiatrists keeping people down, man'. I'll still tentatively trust this study, since poisoning the well is just a logical fallacy, but it's just worth noting that he's not very reliable.

 

[okogamashii]

This is flamebaiting of the highest degree.

I don't think you understand what that term means. It doesn't mean 'controversial' or 'will raise split opinions'.

It absolutely is flamebait. The OP has created a topic about a very sensitive, yes, controversial, issue, then proceeded to make it outright offensive to a lot of people, whether he meant to or not, by comparing pedophilia to homosexuality.

Also, not only is your avatar tasteless, but your first post was absurd. It doesn't matter that they were born attracted to children, acting on that, or even thinking about acting on it is repulsive and wrong. They're defective, and anyone that isn't disgusted by the idea of an adult permanently scarring a child for their own sexual gratification is a foul human being.

Nice un-emotionally charged answer you gave there.

/sarcasm

Re-read my first post. You'll see that I wasn't legitimising acting upon paedophilic urges, I was saying that we have no right to judge them for merely having those urges. If they act upon them then we can absolutely judge them.

Oh, no, not emotions!
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.

 

[Lord Kloo]

So in essence as long as it is unlawful to have sex with someone under the normal sexual age limit pedophiles cannot exercise their natural desires and so will always be removed from society..

Except that there are several countries, particularly in North Africa and the Middle East, where marriage, not age, are the deciding factors in the morality of the act. To assume that a class of people can never fit into society assumes that society is unchanging. This is demonstrably untrue.

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..

 

[BGH122]

Oh, no, not emotions!

Emotionalism has no place in logical discourse.

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 this logic all criminals in all crimes should receive life with no parole. Hey, they clearly had destructive urges at the time of the crime so what's the proof they'll ever be able to control them?

 

[okogamashii]

Oh, no, not emotions!

Emotionalism has no place in logical discourse.

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 this logic all criminals in all crimes should receive life with no parole. Hey, they clearly had destructive urges at the time of the crime so what's the proof they'll ever be able to control them?

Except stealing a TV and raping a 6 year old are two very different things. And most criminals can stop being criminals through therapy, or just, I don't know, not doing that thing. You can't ever stop being a pedophile.

 

[Actual]

Another thing I would like to point out, is how people cry "Pedo" in most of the USA if you show interest in a 16 year old. People treat you like some kind of sick, twisted pervert despite the fact that showing interest in such a person IS PERFECTLY LEGAL IN MANY OTHER COUNTRIES. Just to name a few:
Australia, Azerbaijan, Bahamas, Fiji, Finland, Jamaica, Netherlands, New Zealand, Singapore, Taiwan, and even the USA (Alabama, Alaska, Conneticut, D.C., Hawaii, Nevada, Ohio, etc.)

Hey! England! The most civilised country in the modern world. *Dons top-hat and monocle.*

So in essence as long as it is unlawful to have sex with someone under the normal sexual age limit pedophiles cannot exercise their natural desires and so will always be removed from society..

Except that there are several countries, particularly in North Africa and the Middle East, where marriage, not age, are the deciding factors in the morality of the act. To assume that a class of people can never fit into society assumes that society is unchanging. This is demonstrably untrue.

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 the example given by Lord Bleric shows that those cultures don't believe this is something that the children need protecting from. So it's not really an unchangeable aspect of the human mind, just a modern western concept.

 

[Gaming King]

*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.

 

[tigermilk]

Foucault's 'History of Sexuality' is an interesting read on the subject.

Although having read it you ought to understand that there's no such thing as homosexuality in ancient Greece.

Men putting their penises in other men does not = homosexuality. That's one of the key points of the book.

I structured my post poorly, you are right I should have explicitly stated Foucault argues that homosexuality is a discourse.

 

[BGH122]

Oh, no, not emotions!

Emotionalism has no place in logical discourse.

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 this logic all criminals in all crimes should receive life with no parole. Hey, they clearly had destructive urges at the time of the crime so what's the proof they'll ever be able to control them?

Except stealing a TV and raping a 6 year old are two very different things. And most criminals can stop being criminals through therapy, or just, I don't know, not doing that thing. You can't ever stop being a pedophile.

No, if we accept urges drive people to do things (if not, postulate something else as a driving mechanism; environment doesn't count because the environment stimulates urges) then all criminals were driven by 'evil urges' and all criminals are forever criminals.

Besides, we all have urges to do things we shouldn't but we keep them in check. Who's to say a paedophile couldn't learn to keep theirs in check?

 

[Actual]

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.

Wait what!? Should I be killed because I'm attracted to women and in a moment of weakness may rape one? That's absurd, the only connection between paedophiles and rapists is that you see the ones convicted of rape on the news. There's no evidence to state that that means all paedophiles are rapists.

 

[ShadowsofHope]

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.