I can't really think of anything, for everything a human can do I can see a psychological reason why they would want to do it.
I see the issue of paedophilia going round this thread though, I personally have a very strong view on it as it's a subject I have devoted much thought to, and this is something I see as a downright appauling injustice in the UK. Paedophilia is a sexual deviance, people don't choose to have it, in fact many of the people who are paedophiles (Not child molesters, I wish people would learn the difference) were abused in some way themself in the past which could be attributed as the most likely cause. The reason I state the UK is because I live there, and the fact we have this particular law.
http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2009/25/section/65
For those of you who don't know this bit of archaic legislation was introduced in 2009 and pretty much shows the downright intolerence that this society breeds against paedophiles. Inside it, drawn images, of imaginary children, in imaginary sexual acts, are considered against the law. This is the only piece of legislation that I know of that makes an imaginary crime against the law.
Sexual acts with Children are against the law based on the fact that the child can't legally consent, therefore it has to always be regarded as sexual assault. In our society this particular sexual deviance is demonised because instead of using logic, and detaching ourselves from the situation, people tend to let their emotions get in the way because of their evolutionary protective instinct for children.
To use an analogy I frequently like to repeat. Almost all males encounter the urge for agression in their lives. It's an instinctal thing for us to assert domainance. However, we live in a civilised society so we have the ability to (most of the time) stop ourselves from attacking the other person. Essentially, blindly condemning paedophiles who have never harmed a child and who probably never will is the same as assaulting someone who you feel any urge of agression towards, it's letting instinct override logic and tolerence.
Furthermore, this law was passed (to the best of my knowledge) without any psychological study showing a correlation between drawn child porn and actual unlawful acts (This would have to be within a group of identified paedophiles, which means any psychological study would be nigh impossible to do as almost everyone who are would deny it either consciously or subconsciously).
Continuing on... (Man this is a long post)
gonzo20 said:
now this will probably be controversial but i dont get why prisons are so dam comfortable for prisoners in britain and why they are so dam soft on people who commit crimes! it honestly enrages me, it kinda makes me wish they would bring back the gladiatorial games for murderers and child molesters etc. yes you can call it barbaric but in my mind that is fair justice, you kill someone, you have to fight for your life or be killed.
While I don't agree with the latter part of your post, for reasons that are fairly obvious. I do agree that prisons are too soft (or too hard). My view is that our prisons have some of the worst reoffending rates because of middle ground syndrome. They should be either really nice, giving refuge to criminals who want to reform and allowing them to reform (Which would incur short term costs but we would reap long term benefits). The majority of criminals are either...
A: Psychologically damaged.
B: Commiting crime out of desperation.
Or prisons could of course be made to be a living hell so that no one would ever want to commit a damn crime in the first place, yet alone reoffend. Of course this has the problem of becoming a police state. In which the masses are kept in line out of fear, which can easily be more destructive than crime.
I'd like to if I may, cite the treaty of versailles to explain my view. France wished that Germany, after the first world war killed so many French and destroyed so many resources, that they pay huge unreasonable reperations, and that they would be crippled for the rest of the forseeable future. America however wanted to let Germany of lightly, they essentially wanted to forgive them and move on. Britain however (and its people) wanted to punish, but not too harshly. SO when the treaty ended up turning out like that, what happened?
The Second World War. As far as I know it's largely considered that the second world war was a cascading consequence of the treaty of versailles and how it angered the people of Germany. Not only were they bitter, but they had just enough resources and flexibility in the treaty to build up enough military forces to start a major world war. If either France or Americas idea had gone through, the second world war would have never happened, (although arguably the second world war may have happened far later if France had had it's way as the bitterness would still be there after a long time).
So yeah, prisons should be either stricter or lighter because World War II happened.
Phew, long post. I bet absolutely no one will read this now, oh well. Just my... many cents.
] , just because they get a hard on for kids doesn't mean they aren't attracted to adults too.
