Poll: Pedophilia

[wightblack]

Ok, i know this thread might get me banned, but its something thats been on my mind for a while. I know that over the course of history, people have become more accepting of different things like homosexuality. Ive been wondering: will pedophilia ever be accepted as something that isnt something to be ashamed of? Is it still wrong?

There have been a lot of replies to the last question in this post, which isn't surprising because it's also the question specifically posed by the poll, so although it's pretty much been exhausted and really shouldn't need saying anyway: yes, pedophilia is wrong.

But- though I hate to bring semantics into it- that's implied in the term itself, at least as we understand it today (which has admittedly taken on a different meaning to its etymology). If someone's referred to as a pedophile it's because they've acted on a sexual attraction to a minor, whereas if someone is *known* to be sexually attracted to minors but *hasn't* acted on them the term is less likely to be applied. Even so, having those desires, whether acted upon or not, is still considered wrong. And rightly so: the individual may not have any control over what he or she finds sexually stimulating, but nor may a different individual have any control over those desires to, say, take the meat cleaver from the knife rack, butcher his largely blameless family and make clothes out of their skin (dramatic over-exaggeration, I know, but there's a point to it); simply *not acting* on those impulses doesn't make them *right*, or even neutral. Why doesn't the individual act? Because they *know* it's wrong.

On the other hand, simply having the desire is no indication of the individual's character, which is what matters and I think is what people are actually getting at when they say things like:

I suppose in its base state, paedophilia isn't wrong. It's just a sexual preference. If you have your fantasies, fine, keep them in your head. It's only when a person acts on them that it becomes a problem.

By which I mean the preference is wrong, acting on it would be wrong, but not acting on it redeems the individual somewhat. Of course if they *really* have it under control no-one would have any inkling of their preference to begin with and it wouldn't be an issue.

Now back to the original point: pedophilia as we understand it (and it's important to say 'as we understand it', because what pedophilia more closely means is a *platonic* love of children, usually reciprocated; our understanding would more accurately represented by 'pedosexual') is wrong and will always be wrong. That fact can't be disputed. We see pedophilia as a power relationship wherein a mature person exploits a minor unable to protect themselves or understand what's happening, whether exploiting their trust, their weakness or both. And we see a minor as being someone unable to consent because they have no concept of what they would be consenting to. To put it another way, pedophilia is rape, and the only culture in which rape would be acceptable is one that operates under the credo of 'get whatever you can grab'.

On the other hand, the legal definition of 'minor' in any given society will almost certainly change in the future, just as it's changed in the past. We would consider the man in his late 20's consummating his marriage to the 10-year-old girl to be a pedophile, but in his 18th-or-so-century society (my dates may be off but you get the point) not only was this acceptable, it was practically standard amongst the upper classes. Whether individuals condemned it or not doesn't matter; the society as a whole had no problems with it. And it's conceivable that in another 200 years our reaction to that will be mirrored by theirs when learning that 30-year-olds used to sleep with people barely in their 20s.

To sum up: pedophilia as a sexual orientation will never be accepted in society (unless, as mentioned, we regress to the primitive 'right of the strong' philosophy), but what actually constitutes that offense will change. There's no way to be sure that specific example we currently have may not be considered wrong in the future. For all we know, 'minor' might eventually be pushed back to mean 'in the womb'. We hope not, but there's just no way to be sure.

On the other hand I'm a 21st-century Australian, raised in a certain culture to hold certain widely held moral values and hence think in a certain way. So I could be completely wrong, because superimposing my morals onto a theoretical future in no way leads to certainty. Hell, maybe in the future pedophilia will be standard and you'll get locked up for letting your gaze linger too long on a shapely 20-something, but then again maybe in the future our legs will be on our head and we'll hear the way the world's smell looks.


And finally (for real this time), I don't see why people are worried that this thread should be closed. It's a valid question and merits discussion, if nothing else than at least as a hypothetical. Although yes, it's contentious, so if people start flaming/playing an extremely dumb devil's advocate, or even worse *seriously* interpret it as an invitation to start posting their pics of the "Here's a little boy I met in the park, here he is in my van..." variety, then there might be grounds to close it. But again, I could be wrong.

 

[Unesh52]

I wonder if the OP is an FBI agent....


On the other hand, I don't like questions of universal morality. They bring up big problems with how we judge things.

Like universal moral standards, for one.

Agreed. In my opinion it's impossible to define morals in any absolute sense. They are all relative and personal.

Also, shame on the people who include assertions that pedophilia is "gross" or "sick," etc., in their arguments against it. Those are subjective ideas and are irrelevant. If they were relevant, then it could be argued in the same way that homosexuality is wrong, but everyone here seems to agree that it's not.

Now, as I understand it, the reason it's "wrong" is because it causes some type of damage to a relative innocent. Now, I can see how children in these situations can generally be assumed to be innocents, but I have to question the damage part. Obviously penetration physically hurts the child, but (to put it cleanly) there are plenty of other sexual acts that could be considered pedophilia that, I suppose, are not physically harmful. I am to understand that children are mentally damaged by this sort of thing, but I have reason to think the sexual acts themselves are not directly the cause.

My question is: What is the nature of the psychological damage put to victims of pedophilia? And how does this damage occur?

 

[arsenicCatnip]

Finding little kids attractive is something that I personally find disturbing, however, I accept that it's a fetish and isn't inherently wrong. People have no control over what they feel.

Acting on those feelings is an entirely different matter. I firmly stand behind castration and/or life imprisonment for the sick fucks that go out and fiddle with kids. Possibly the death penalty for anyone that does it multiple times or with a gang. It's wrong and I hope to hell that every country eventually comes to accept that it's wrong and punishes it accordingly.

I feel mostly the same way as the poster here, although I'm sorry, but the fetish itself is disgusting. You're fantasizing about KIDS. Pre-pubescent KIDS. What the hell, man?

Pedophilia is wrong. Plain and simple. Screwing a little kid is beyond sick and nasty, and I very much support castration (chemical or physical) for anyone who does it.

 

[OneStrikeOut]

Also, shame on the people who include assertions that pedophilia is "gross" or "sick," etc., in their arguments against it. Those are subjective ideas and are irrelevant. If they were relevant, then it could be argued in the same way that homosexuality is wrong, but everyone here seems to agree that it's not.

I completely agree on this. Those people are doing nothing but regurgitating what has been shoved down their throats, and they view it as if it was the objective truth upon wich all of Existence depends.(slight exaggeration )

My question is: What is the nature of the psychological damage put to victims of pedophilia? And how does this damage occur?

Due to the knowledge the child has that this is wrong and impossible to not take damage from.
The label that is associated with abuse is a heavy label to bare in todays society.
Also if the experience itself was bad the step to tell anyone about it is often unbearable to take.
And seeing where the interests of those in power lies, this is not going to change anytime soon.

 

[VivaciousDeimos]

The physical attraction itself means that there might be a chemical imbalance in your brain, but it isn't wrong, per se. The act, on the other hand, will always be wrong regardless of what society says, as it has been show to cause psychological damage, regardless of getting permission.

It's not so much a chemical imbalance as it is the way your brain is "wired" if that makes sense. No one is quite sure how the different paraphilias get wired to sexuality, but the worst of them are usually linked to some kind of childhood trauma that is reinforced to sexual drive.

snip

its not that simple, define pedophile, you cant, because someone who sleeps with a 17 year, 364 day old girl is labeled as a pedophile, I mean really, theres more to it than a good/bad rating.

Yes and that label is wrong. Pedophilia is, as has already been stated, the sexual desire for prepubescent children. If whoever is sleeping with the seventeen year old is older and is specifically attracted to her because she's a teenager then you're veering into ephebophilia territory. But yes, there is more to it than good and bad labels. Is the act itself wrong? Most definitely. Is it wrong to have those urges and not act on them? No.

 

[Iron Lightning]

Childern are, by definition, not sexually mature; therefore it is impossible to have sex with them without raping them.

I want no part of a society where rape is legal.

Sorry Pal, I don't approve of anyone sticking anything into anyone who isn't legal, and I'm pretty sure most people feel the same way.

In some places on this earth homosexuality is illegal, so if I may extrapolate and really stretch an assumption here (I am not in any way implying that you actually think like this), your definition of what is right and wrong is based on the laws of the land, therefore if an 80 year old having sex with an 8 year old was legal you would approve and if homosexual acts were illegal you would disapprove.

Perhaps my point is that you should really make up your own mind instead of letting the govornment dictate your morals, otherwise you could end up a mindless person incapable of individual thought and subject to the whims of those who make up the rules. I mean seriously would you immediately make Saudi morals your own if you went there?

Good sir, you must realize that asking asking a prepubescent to be sexually active is akin to asking a sexually healthy woman to stop menstruating. It is simply not possible to have sex with a child without raping them. I can not abide by any society wherein rape is legal.

Although you are quite right insofar as morality being partially dictated by society. However, as a free-minded man, I find myself opposed to rape. I like to think that I would still be so in spite of any of society's or government's (the formalization of society) edicts.

I would appreciate it if you take biological limitations into account in your arguments. Of course, this is assuming that you don't advocate rape, please correct me if I am wrong in this assumption.

 

[Callate]

I tend to be of the camp that feels that nothing is wrong until it is put into action, that right and wrong become nearly meaningless when the actor isn't capable or allowed to contemplate actions that are both right and wrong. I don't know the circumstances that make someone a pedophile (that is, one who feels sexual desire for pre-adolescent children), and while I reject comparisons of the act of pedophilic sex and homosexual sex for reasons that have already been mentioned, in one respect the desire might be similar: that is, that the person feeling the desire may not have any choice in the directions or objects of that desire.

Now the act of pedophilia- of molesting or having intercourse with a child? That's an incredible wrong. Whatever one might think of sex, it's a powerful and life-changing thing, and no one should have that choice made for them, whether it's a matter of forcible coercion or simply not understanding the ramifications and consequences of the act.

 

[OneStrikeOut]

Good sir, you must realize that asking asking a prepubescent to be sexually active is akin to asking a sexually healthy woman to stop menstruating. It is simply not possible to have sex with a child without raping them. I can not abide by any society wherein rape is legal.

I find your way of thinking quite dangerous, first of menstruation is a bodily function, it is needed for the survival of the human race. To compare that to something wich has no impact what so ever on the survival of the human race, wich is also optional, it's the same kind of logic creationists use to draw analogies between animate and inanimate objects to prove the existence of a designer.

Also your idea of what is concidered rape is not yours to begin with. There is no statement deciding what is rape or not except in the laws of your particular country. Decided by that particular society. for you to personally claim exlusives on being right, and everyone that thinks otherwise is wrong, can definetly cause massive damage. How do wars break out?

I'm sorry if this seem personal, its not you just the way you put forth your thoughts.

 

[Iron Lightning]

I wonder if the OP is an FBI agent....


On the other hand, I don't like questions of universal morality. They bring up big problems with how we judge things.

Like universal moral standards, for one.

Agreed. In my opinion it's impossible to define morals in any absolute sense. They are all relative and personal.

Also, shame on the people who include assertions that pedophilia is "gross" or "sick," etc., in their arguments against it. Those are subjective ideas and are irrelevant. If they were relevant, then it could be argued in the same way that homosexuality is wrong, but everyone here seems to agree that it's not.

Now, as I understand it, the reason it's "wrong" is because it causes some type of damage to a relative innocent. Now, I can see how children in these situations can generally be assumed to be innocents, but I have to question the damage part. Obviously penetration physically hurts the child, but (to put it cleanly) there are plenty of other sexual acts that could be considered pedophilia that, I suppose, are not physically harmful. I am to understand that children are mentally damaged by this sort of thing, but I have reason to think the sexual acts themselves are not directly the cause.

My question is: What is the nature of the psychological damage put to victims of pedophilia? And how does this damage occur?

I'll fucking tell you what the damage is. When I was but four years old I was sexually violated by my uncle. The act was simply something that my juvenile mind was unable to comprehend. I blocked out the memories for fourteen goddamn years, and all throughout that time strange mental echos of imaginary penises tainted my half-conscious thoughts. I could scarcely sleep most nights because of my haunted unconsciousness. I'm about a hundred pounds above my proper weight for my height because of a need for self-medication. All throughout my childhood I was deeply antisocial because of an irrational fear that other boys wanted to have sexual relations with me. As a straight male I found this notion particularly terrifying. I spent all my time doing school work which I found trite and annoying because I was subconsciously afraid that being raped was a punishment. For this same reason I still find myself profusely and painfully (due to self-harming) apologizing at the slightest error. I've been a fucking wreck, I've been so damned scared of sexuality that I have never been able to even attempt to acquire a girlfriend. I'm only now starting to recover and regain some normality in my life.

The damage stems from confusion and a violation of every natural law hardwired into my brain. I've re-experienced being raped in my adult form, and I can tell you that the utter trauma was akin to the most horrible of tortures.

I am not a man prone to rage, but sir, you have driven me to it. While I can certainly understand your scientific curiosity, I hypothesize that if you were to think more about your query and do some of your own research, then the answer would be made evident.

My question is: What is the nature of the psychological damage put to victims of pedophilia? And how does this damage occur?

Due to the knowledge the child has that this is wrong and impossible to not take damage from.
The label that is associated with abuse is a heavy label to bare in todays society.
Also if the experience itself was bad the step to tell anyone about it is often unbearable to take.
And seeing where the interests of those in power lies, this is not going to change anytime soon.

As for you, OneStrikeOut, if you have neither firsthand experience nor documented professional sources, then I would ask you not to comment on matters of trauma which I doubt you have the ability to understand the scope of. As I do have firsthand experience I can tell you that you are completely incorrect in your misinformed opinion. I had no concept of sex at age four nor did I have any concept of society's view on it. That did not detract from how unbearably traumatic and damaging being raped was.

However, I must agree with your statement that "And seeing where the interests of those in power lies, this is not going to change anytime soon." I believe that this is quite fortunate, for evil does exist and I should like to see it remain to be punished.

You fellows have no idea how much focus it's taken me to retain any modicum of civility. For that small favor, I hope that you fellows are thankful as it is more than you both deserve to be given.

 

[OneStrikeOut]

As for you, OneStrikeOut, if you have neither firsthand experience nor documented professional sources, then I would ask you not to comment on matters of trauma which I doubt you have the ability to understand the scope of. As I do have firsthand experience I can tell you that you are completely incorrect in your misinformed opinion. I had no concept of sex at age four nor did I have any concept of society's view on it. That did not detract from how unbearably traumatic and damaging being raped was.

Even if it has no effect, I want to say my sympathies goes out to all victims of abuse.
My point was never to try to diminish the fact that this is extremely harmful to children.
But rather to point out the inherrent problem with deciding what is right and wrong based on a system created to sustain itself rather then for the best of the individual.

While not a victim of sexual abuse, I certainly know what it means to be alienated due to irrational beliefs caused by abuse.
All individuals deal with this differently.
I did not talk at all untill I was moved out of the abusive enviroment. Experience lends itself extremely poorely to words. So if there is anything in my words that makes your suffering seem trivialized, thats just meaningless words and they have connection to what you have lived.
I mean nothing ill by them.

 

[Iron Lightning]

Good sir, you must realize that asking asking a prepubescent to be sexually active is akin to asking a sexually healthy woman to stop menstruating. It is simply not possible to have sex with a child without raping them. I can not abide by any society wherein rape is legal.

I find your way of thinking quite dangerous, first of menstruation is a bodily function, it is needed for the survival of the human race. To compare that to something wich has no impact what so ever on the survival of the human race, wich is also optional, it's the same kind of logic creationists use to draw analogies between animate and inanimate objects to prove the existence of a designer.

Also your idea of what is concidered rape is not yours to begin with. There is no statement deciding what is rape or not except in the laws of your particular country. Decided by that particular society. for you to personally claim exlusives on being right, and everyone that thinks otherwise is wrong, can definetly cause massive damage. How do wars break out?

I'm sorry if this seem personal, its not you just the way you put forth your thoughts.

Sir, might I ask you to see my post directly bellow the one which I am herein quoting (I hadn't wished to share my experience, but I have been given reason to do so.) With the menstruation analogy, I meant to say that it is as biologically impossible for a prepubescent to be sexually active as it is for a sexually healthy woman to not menstruate.

My idea of rape is simply unwanted sexual contact. It is impossible for someone who is not capable of sexual activity to want it. Therefore, sex with a prepubescent can not be anything but rape, as I define it. Some things should simply never be a part of any society that I would want to associate with, being okay with rape is certainly part of that. Yes, wars do get started because of absolutes, not all wars are unjust. Hitler decided on an absolute that all Jews, Gypsies, and homosexuals should be murdered or worked to death. The Allies of World War II decided on an absolute that Hitler's absolute was wrong. Sometimes absolutes are just, because evil, true evil undefined by society's ethos exists, and the fact that it must be stopped is self-evident.

If you are okay with rape, that's fine, but if you ever try to perform rape, then I will do everything in my power to halt your attempt and/or punish you.

 

[Iron Lightning]

As for you, OneStrikeOut, if you have neither firsthand experience nor documented professional sources, then I would ask you not to comment on matters of trauma which I doubt you have the ability to understand the scope of. As I do have firsthand experience I can tell you that you are completely incorrect in your misinformed opinion. I had no concept of sex at age four nor did I have any concept of society's view on it. That did not detract from how unbearably traumatic and damaging being raped was.

Even if it has no effect, I want to say my sympathies goes out to all victims of abuse.
My point was never to try to diminish the fact that this is extremely harmful to children.
But rather to point out the inherrent problem with deciding what is right and wrong based on a system created to sustain itself rather then for the best of the individual.

While not a victim of sexual abuse, I certainly know what it means to be alienated due to irrational beliefs caused by abuse.
All individuals deal with this differently.
I did not talk at all untill I was moved out of the abusive enviroment. Experience lends itself extremely poorely to words. So if there is anything in my words that makes your suffering seem trivialized, thats just meaningless words and they have connection to what you have lived.
I mean nothing ill by them.

If you mean to apologize, sir, then I accept. I must, however, ask you to refine your grasp of the language so that you may make your point clearly, without causing offense. While I understand your issue with using a system designed to sustain itself as a moral compass, it is my belief that all abuse has an effect on the victim, if it did not then it would not be called abuse.

 

[DarkPanda XIII]

Well, here's the thing, Pedophilia is sad because it's *normally* having stuff done to children of 12 and below, which really is sick.

Funny how back in the day, and even in some countries now, 14 and above is considered workable by marriage. But in America, it is condemned to statutory rape.

So yes, pedophilia is wrong

 

[OneStrikeOut]

If you mean to apologize, sir, then I accept. I must, however, ask you to refine your grasp of the language so that you may make your point clearly, without causing offense. While I understand your issue with using a system designed to sustain itself as a moral compass, it is my belief that all abuse has an effect on the victim, if it did not then it would not be called abuse.

Ok I'll try to focus on what I feel is the problem in this issue, Damage control.
If Pre pubescent sexual activity wasn't as distant from reality as it is today.
It would be easier to help the victim to handle the experience and not suffer the deep long lasting trauma that is evident in most cases.
Not to make it more accepted to commit the act, but letting victims know that having bad experiences is not in it self bad.

To throw around remarks of how wrong this is and sick and revolting, is not helping.
On the contrary it is further alienating this experience from what is accepted to have.

Thank you for your time.

Peace!

 

[Booze Zombie]

Go watch the Louis Theroux documentary where he goes round a prison mainly for paedophiles - they aren't big and hairy, I was taking the piss, but generally are plump with glasses and something "off" about them. It's very weird and there is probably a paper to be had with it, but there certainly is a trend in appearance with paedophiles.

I hate to be pseudo-psychological about that, but I think that could link in with the theory my father told me that paedophilia, that childhood being invented caused a massive rise in it's occurrence.

The off, fat, momma's boy appearance implying someone stuck in the idea of innocence, dreaming of being a thin "innocent child" again.
Then they realise they can't be and take their anger out on the world.

Perhaps we need to destroy the idea of childhood and just get on with the idea that children are smaller people to stop things like this happening so much?
Then you only have to worry about people with "size" issues, as opposed to innocence-lost fiends.

Anyway, thanks for responding, have a good one.

 

[HvD]

Childern are, by definition, not sexually mature; therefore it is impossible to have sex with them without raping them.

I want no part of a society where rape is legal.

Sorry Pal, I don't approve of anyone sticking anything into anyone who isn't legal, and I'm pretty sure most people feel the same way.

In some places on this earth homosexuality is illegal, so if I may extrapolate and really stretch an assumption here (I am not in any way implying that you actually think like this), your definition of what is right and wrong is based on the laws of the land, therefore if an 80 year old having sex with an 8 year old was legal you would approve and if homosexual acts were illegal you would disapprove.

Perhaps my point is that you should really make up your own mind instead of letting the govornment dictate your morals, otherwise you could end up a mindless person incapable of individual thought and subject to the whims of those who make up the rules. I mean seriously would you immediately make Saudi morals your own if you went there?

Good sir, you must realize that asking asking a prepubescent to be sexually active is akin to asking a sexually healthy woman to stop menstruating. It is simply not possible to have sex with a child without raping them. I can not abide by any society wherein rape is legal.

Although you are quite right insofar as morality being partially dictated by society. However, as a free-minded man, I find myself opposed to rape. I like to think that I would still be so in spite of any of society's or government's (the formalization of society) edicts.

I would appreciate it if you take biological limitations into account in your arguments. Of course, this is assuming that you don't advocate rape, please correct me if I am wrong in this assumption.

I was merely questioning the logic set forth by the person I quoted, as to whether their notions of right and wrong being strictly based on law make sense. Secondly, without getting into all the nitty gritty of why your argument is somewhat flawed stating that children cannot derive pleasure from sex, I would like to catergoically state that as someone who was sexually abused by their own mother from before I could even talk, until I left home, I am 100% against rape, peadophilia etc. And as some people have already stated I don't think that this thread really belongs on this site.

 

[Unesh52]

Too long, edited out.

I'm sorry I upset you, I was trying to be as objective as possible to avoid that. No, I didn't do any outside research, but I wasn't really trying to make any assertions. I just asked a question.

Though I don't disagree with or invalidate anything you've said, you have to understand that for someone with little or no experience with this subject, the idea seems a little absurd. The fact that a child does not understand what is happening to him doesn't imply that it is hurting him, and I had reasoned that children experienced things they didn't understand on a daily basis. I've also heard it stated that children "aren't ready to handle" sex, or something to the effect. That seemed a little perplexing all by itself, but that may be because I've often heard the expression applied to teen relations to imply that teenagers would abuse sexuality to manipulate each other or explore it irresponsibly, leading to pregnancy, STDs, or what have you. That understanding doesn't make much sense when applied to young children, you see. Anyway, I was only trying to isolate the part of the interaction that results in mental trauma. A proper scientific understanding could lead to greater consistency and practicality in sex laws than is afforded by traditional cultural and moral standards. In fact, I'd say the implications of such an understanding could extend to other areas of public disagreement; the thing that comes to mind is censorship of sexuality in the media.

To reiterate: I don't deny that kids have been hurt by rape, including yourself. I'm sorry for what happened to you and I wouldn't want anyone else to be in that situation. However, I can entertain the idea that the source of the pain and trauma endured by these individuals may be more complex than what it is typically given credit for. Further, I entertain the idea that sex and kids may not be ENTIRELY incompatible. No, I do not support child rape, I only want to understand more about how this works.

note: sorry I couldn't reply sooner, my computer crashed.