Peadophilia

[navarre]

Now, jokes and insults aside, peadophilia is a serious matter. It's estimated there are 10,000 peadophiles in the UK, and it is a growing concern amongst Police. But, why should we be so judging to other people's attractions? I mean, personally I'm very attracted to mixed race women- gay men are very attrcated to men, and my friend is very attracted to older women (don't ask). The point is, we can't help what we're attracted to. I by no means condoning peadophilia, just trying to find your views on the subject matter.

If there was a peadophile down your road, would you stick a brick thorugh their window?

[nightwolf]

There's a huge difference between wanting to have sex with a mixed race and wanting to have sex with a child.

[Fresh]

.... there kids... There is a huge difference.

[MadDog]

Whats the point in the sex offenders register?

Soembody murders somebody, they dont put there name on a register. They go to prison. So should they.

[Charlie]

Whats the point in the sex offenders register?

Soembody murders somebody, they dont put there name on a register. They go to prison. So should they.

You get put on that for things which aren't criminal actions, a 17 year old pulling a 15 year old for example, is relatively normal, but if the parents complain then the 17 yo could be put on the list.

[navarre]

There's a huge difference between wanting to have sex with a mixed race and wanting to have sex with a child.

Yes, but their sexual attractions aren't hurting anyone unless they do go out and rape a child. Of the 10,000 peados in Britain, remember only a minority have ever acted on their feelings.

[nightwolf]

Yes, but their sexual attractions aren't hurting anyone unless they do go out and rape a child. Of the 10,000 peados in Britain, remember only a minority have ever acted on their feelings.

Most children won't understand what sex is, that could qualify as rape, christ having sex with a child, they haven't even hit puberty

[Daft]

Yes, but their sexual attractions aren't hurting anyone unless they do go out and rape a child. Of the 10,000 peados in Britain, remember only a minority have ever acted on their feelings.

Yeah but it is illegal to chat up a child, it isn't illegal to chat up someone of a different race or a gay person.

[Strider]

I can see what you meen about judging them based on attractions they can't really control, however like others have said there is a big difference between wanting to have sex with a kid compared to other sexual fetishes.

If there was a peadophile down your road, would you stick a brick thorugh their window?

There is a peadophile who lives on my street, opposite the park (coincidence much?) and his front window is always smashed.

[Emasher]

Last year I noticed one of my teachers had a folder on their desktop that was titled "C XXX". Latter that year we saw him creeping up behind a group of girls and trying to touch them, but then he saw us and stopped before they noticed. His name was Mr. Sebestiny(SP) but everyone called him Mr. Seb, we called him "The Sebophile" So throughout that year we left notes around his classroom (It was a computer lab just for the record) that said things like "Seb is a pedophile" and stuff like that. On the last day of school my friend and I tapped a note on his office door that read "Don't feed teh sebophile". I wish I could have seen the look on his face when he found it. We would have talked to the principal about it, however since the girls never new what he was trying to do, they wouldn't have believed us anyway. I hope he gets caught on "To Catch a Predator" one day.

[navarre]

Yeah but it is illegal to chat up a child, it isn't illegal to chat up someone of a different race or a gay person.

It was forty years ago.

[Emasher]

Yes, but their sexual attractions aren't hurting anyone unless they do go out and rape a child. Of the 10,000 peados in Britain, remember only a minority have ever acted on their feelings.

One of the other big problems related to this is child porn. You don't have to rape a child to have acted as a pedophile.

[Daft]

It was forty years ago.

Yeah but that is a completely different fricking context. That is about racial equality. Children can't vote for a reason, not letting non-white middle/upper class people vote is inexcusable.

[MadDog]

Last year I noticed one of my teachers had a folder on their desktop that was titled "C XXX". Latter that year we saw him creeping up behind a group of girls and trying to touch them, but then he saw us and stopped before they noticed. His name was Mr. Sebestiny(SP) but everyone called him Mr. Seb, we called him "The Sebophile" So throughout that year we left notes around his classroom (It was a computer lab just for the record) that said things like "Seb is a pedophile" and stuff like that. On the last day of school my friend and I tapped a note on his office door that read "Don't feed teh sebophile". I wish I could have seen the look on his face when he found it. We would have talked to the principal about it, however since the girls never new what he was trying to do, they wouldn't have believed us anyway. I hope he gets caught on "To Catch a Predator" one day.
:bowdown: haha awesome

[Tyson]

This is one of those few questions you just don't ask. It's like looking for reason to justify it.

[Fierce_LiNk]

Most children won't understand what sex is, that could qualify as rape, christ having sex with a child, they haven't even hit puberty

That's pretty much it. You have to remember that children are exactly that, children. They're still learning, and gaining life experience, as well as what is right or wrong. Now, I'd also say that because of this, children are also very vunerable, meaning that they're at very high risk from paedophiles. Especially when an older person shows them some attention, at an age where they're possibly just starting to get in tune with their feelings and their own body.

So, for that alone, I'd say it's wrong.

[Dyson]

Someone enlightened me recently. He said something about people being genetically attracted to men or women or same sex or something, and then said to bear with him and not to judge instantly, but what if it was the same with paedophiles?

It took some thinking about seriously but I do know what he means. Whilst I don't condone it at all maybe it's wrong to class these people as criminals out to damage the world and perhaps to see them as..mental patients? As in real mental patients who cannot help their 'disorder'. People who have something mentally wrong with them, but perhaps it isn't their problem they are attracted to children, like it isn't gay people's problem they are attracted to the same sex?

I realise this post will probably gain huge flaming but I urge you to give it just a little thought before condemning.

[Slaggis]

I really dislike the fact you're technically comparing someone that finds the same sex attractive to a peadophile. It's simple, there's nothing wrong with a man finding another man attractive and wanting to do something about it even though like you say this was once illegal. But we know there is obviously something incredibly wrong about someone finding a child sexually attractive, there's no question about that.

Would I throw a brick through their window if I knew where one lived? No. I think thats pointless behaviour.

[Shino]

True, they feel attracted to children and if its a mental condition or not is debatable, but an adult can always control its impulses and a child is an easy pray for a sexual predator, even those annoying 13 year old that think they're all grown up. They're easily influenced and can be manipulated into doing thing even if willingly. And that's why its a no-no.

[Dyson]

I really dislike the fact you're technically comparing someone that finds the same sex attractive to a peadophile. It's simple, there's nothing wrong with a man finding another man attractive and wanting to do something about it even though like you say this was once illegal. But we know there is obviously something incredibly wrong about someone finding a child sexually attractive, there's no question about that.

Would I throw a brick through their window if I knew where one lived? No. I think thats pointless behaviour.

I think the point navarre is making is that at one point people viewed homosexuality as we currently regard paedophilia - though I do know what you're saying as well in that we do know it is morally wrong to be attracted in that way to children, and not something anyone will agree with, unlike where with homosexuality there is consent, there isn't with paedophilia, and that is the basis of the problem.

[Paj!]

My P6 teacher was fired after one night, when he got tipsy with older boys (he was a housemaster of the boarding house part of the school), it was discovered that he had "unsuitable" pictures of children from school. I mean, he hadn't done anything to them, just had a disturbing amount of photos of them.

Then, exactly a week ago, I found out my old Youth Coordinator from the church I used to go to had left mysteriously in January, because he's facing a sentence, for being a member of an extreme child porn website.

Because I knew these people to be both nice and (fairly) normal people, I feel deeply sorry for them. The teacher was only on the sex offenders list, nothing else, thank god. But becasue the Youth Coordinator had paid for images of actual child sexual abuse, my feelings are mixed.

I sometimes think that yeah, we can't help what we're attracted to, but then the whoel abuse thing comes into it. It's all extremes.

[Shino]

Someone enlightened me recently. He said something about people being genetically attracted to men or women or same sex or something, and then said to bear with him and not to judge instantly, but what if it was the same with paedophiles?

It took some thinking about seriously but I do know what he means. Whilst I don't condone it at all maybe it's wrong to class these people as criminals out to damage the world and perhaps to see them as..mental patients? As in real mental patients who cannot help their 'disorder'. People who have something mentally wrong with them, but perhaps it isn't their problem they are attracted to children, like it isn't gay people's problem they are attracted to the same sex?

I realise this post will probably gain huge flaming but I urge you to give it just a little thought before condemning.

I agree with that line of thought, except for the part of the gay gene, I really doubt it exists.

I really dislike the fact you're technically comparing someone that finds the same sex attractive to a peadophile. It's simple, there's nothing wrong with a man finding another man attractive and wanting to do something about it even though like you say this was once illegal. But we know there is obviously something incredibly wrong about someone finding a child sexually attractive, there's no question about that.

Would I throw a brick through their window if I knew where one lived? No. I think thats pointless behaviour.

Other than showing your post 80s acquired morals, that's not really an argument.

[Dyson]

I agree with that line of thought, except for the part of the gay gene, I really doubt it exists.


Likewise - I must agree. I disagree there is a gene that makes us feel this way. What I would say is that it's whatever is is that makes people decide they are homosexual or straight or however sexually inclined, that makes people decide they are...attracted to children.

I feel worse and worse every time I post something in this topic, like I'm digging a hole.. :shakehead

[Dannyboy-the-Dane]

I really dislike the fact you're technically comparing someone that finds the same sex attractive to a peadophile. It's simple, there's nothing wrong with a man finding another man attractive and wanting to do something about it even though like you say this was once illegal. But we know there is obviously something incredibly wrong about someone finding a child sexually attractive, there's no question about that.

Would I throw a brick through their window if I knew where one lived? No. I think thats pointless behaviour.

But that's the thing: He's asking the question. I do in now way condone paedophilia, nor do I think it should be allowed. Children are in no way ready for that kind of thing, neither mentally nor physically, and so they shouldn't be involved in it. But I agree with Dyson, I believe it's all in the head. Per instinct, sexual attraction is aimed at reproducing, which means a 20 year old is per instinct more attractive than say a 50 year old. But we humans often find people/traits that are NOT optimal at reproducing, for example children, who cannot even reproduce yet. It is in no way more criminal to have that kind of philia than having, say, homophilia. The problems start when peadophiles cannot control their lusts and start acting them out in real life.

[Ellmeister]

Well peadophiles have done one thing correct, they helped to create the legendary "To catch a predator" program! So funny.

Otherwise, peadophilia is wrong, I don't have any stories to add either.

[Dyson]

But that's the ting: He's asking the question. I do in now way condone paedophilia, nor do I think it should be allowed. Children are in no way ready for that kind of thing, neither mentally nor physically, and so they shouldn't be involved in it. But I agree with Dyson, I believe it's all in the head. Per instinct, sexual attraction is aimed at reproducing, which means a 20 year old is per instinct more attractive than say a 50 year old. But we humans often find people/traits that are NOT optimal at reproducing, for example children, who cannot even reproduce yet. It is in no way more criminal to have that kind of philia than having, say, homophilia. The problems start when peadophiles cannot control their lusts and start acting them out in real life.

Pretty much nailed it imo.

[thunderer]

But that's the ting: He's asking the question. I do in now way condone paedophilia, nor do I think it should be allowed. Children are in no way ready for that kind of thing, neither mentally nor physically, and so they shouldn't be involved in it. But I agree with Dyson, I believe it's all in the head. Per instinct, sexual attraction is aimed at reproducing, which means a 20 year old is per instinct more attractive than say a 50 year old. But we humans often find people/traits that are NOT optimal at reproducing, for example children, who cannot even reproduce yet. It is in no way more criminal to have that kind of philia than having, say, homophilia. The problems start when peadophiles cannot control their lusts and start acting them out in real life.

The above is pretty much exactly what i was about to type out. Though i would of made less sense, i was never good in arguments/discussions.

[Paj!]

According to my mum, who is technically qualified to make this statement, Paedophilia is a recognisable disorder/syndrome or whatever the term is.

And if one isn't stopped at the stage where it's just curiosity/pictures, it will turn into full-on abuse of children.

No idea if that's true or not, but it's presumably a textbook definition.

[Dannyboy-the-Dane]

Pretty much nailed it imo.

And I didn't even need a hammer. [/terrible, terrible pun]

[Dyson]

And if one isn't stopped at the stage where it's just curiosity/pictures, it will turn into full-on abuse of children.


Hmm, see I disagree here. I think that in most cases this is probably true, but I don't think it's true in 100% of cases. It sounds like you're saying anyone who researches or is interested in the Titanic disaster will go out and engineer a boat to sink when it hits an iceburg because they were fascinated with it when it happened.

Edit: ..extreme/crap example. thunderer stole the violent crime/video game analogy I was going to use below, refer to that for it is much better than my argument :heh:

[thunderer]

And if one isn't stopped at the stage where it's just curiosity/pictures, it will turn into full-on abuse of children.

That statement annoys me so much. It's utter bs. You may as well say any one who repeatedly plays violent games is going to go out and kill people. I play GTA4 a fair bit, but when i went driving to drop my sister off at her boyfriends earlier, i didnt run people down. Most people have self control, the people who don't, those are the people who go and act on feelings towards children.

[Dannyboy-the-Dane]

Hmm, see I disagree here. I think that in most cases this is probably true, but I don't think it's true in 100% of cases. It sounds like you're saying anyone who researches or is interested in the Titanic disaster will go out and engineer a boat to sink because they were fascinated with it.

..extreme/crap example. thunderer stole the violent crime/video game analogy I was going to use :heh:

Agreed ... again. I don't believe having those attraction means you're inevitably going to go out and rape a child.

EDIT: Yeah, thunderer said it way better.

[Paj!]

Uh...did you read the first part? I was referring to it as a symptom of Paedophilia supposedly being a syndrome/diease or something.

I wasn't saying it in general...I'm not that stupid.

[Dannyboy-the-Dane]

Uh...did you read the first part? I was referring to it as a symptom of Paedophilia supposedly being a syndrome/diease or something.

I wasn't saying it in general...I'm not that stupid.

And you're absolutely sure about that ...? ;)

Just kidding. Well, we didn't say it was aimed at you, merely at the statement itself.

[Dyson]

Paj, could you rewrite your post then? I'm not sure I understand. It read as if you were saying that anybody who was curious, or looked at the pictures would eventually molest a child. Is that what you were saying? If so my original reply applies. If not, elaborate, I've misunderstood. : peace:

[Sheikah]

I agree with that line of thought, except for the part of the gay gene, I really doubt it exists.

Considering genes make up for every cell in our body, including those in our brain, in some way the genes that encode us must allow us to have certain attractions - and if our attractions are a result of the environment, this is still the way in which the environment acts on a product of our genes.

In short, we are completely coded from our genes, so even if the environment is responsible for our thoughts and attractions, the way in which we all are different to each other despite some people leading similar lives is somewhat down to our genetic makeup. I don't think there are any genes you could say are 'gay genes', but genes that affect personality and the way we react to the environment are certainly key.

[navarre]

I really dislike the fact you're technically comparing someone that finds the same sex attractive to a peadophile. It's simple, there's nothing wrong with a man finding another man attractive and wanting to do something about it even though like you say this was once illegal. But we know there is obviously something incredibly wrong about someone finding a child sexually attractive, there's no question about that.

Would I throw a brick through their window if I knew where one lived? No. I think thats pointless behaviour.

Why? They're both attractions which can't be helped. Who are you to say what's wrong and right? Morals are influenced by society; as I said earlier, if this was 40 years ago, you'd be saying the same thing about homosexuality. Moreover, if it was legal to be sexually attracted to children, no doubt your opinion would change. It would be deemed socially acceptable.

Obviously, having sex with a child is wrong. There's no two ways about it. As previously stated, children are too young and don't understand (I don't understand it, their bodies aren't even developed, but it's isn't a choice). But just because I fancy mixed-race women, it doesn't mean I'm going to go out one day and forcibly have all mixed-race women I see have sex with me. I just won't.

My point: Peadophilia is wrong. It is socially unacceptable, because society has branded it that way. But it isn't an inexcusable crime. Obviously, pursuing a peadophile's fantasies would be inexcusable. But merely being attracted is excusable. Peadophiles have as much control over their sexual attractions as they do over the weather.

[Emasher]

Well peadophiles have done one thing correct, they helped to create the legendary "To catch a predator" program! So funny.

Otherwise, peadophilia is wrong, I don't have any stories to add either.



Thought I might as well post a link to its homepage for people who haven't seen it. (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/10912603/)

I should also mention that Looking at child pornography is almost as wrong as going out to rape a child. You are promoting child abuse by watching it. If nobody watched it, they wouldn't make it, and the "child porn-stars" wouldn't get abused.

[triforce_keeper]

Why? They're both attractions which can't be helped. Who are you to say what's wrong and right? Morals are influenced by society; as I said earlier, if this was 40 years ago, you'd be saying the same thing about homosexuality. Moreover, if it was legal to be sexually attracted to children, no doubt your opinion would change. It would be deemed socially acceptable.

Obviously, having sex with a child is wrong. There's no two ways about it. As previously stated, children are too young and don't understand (I don't understand it, their bodies aren't even developed, but it's isn't a choice). But just because I fancy mixed-race women, it doesn't mean I'm going to go out one day and forcibly have all mixed-race women I see have sex with me. I just won't.

My point: Peadophilia is wrong. It is socially unacceptable, because society has branded it that way. But it isn't an inexcusable crime. Obviously, pursuing a peadophile's fantasies would be inexcusable. But merely being attracted is excusable. Peadophiles have as much control over their sexual attractions as they do over the weather.

Whats wrong in comparing them? For one, fucking a guy (who is also gay) wouldn't fuck up their life. Whereas an adult having sex with a child would :/

[Daft]

Peadophiles have as much control over their sexual attractions as they do over the weather.

People with psychological problems who are deemed dangerous to the general public are generally sectioned to the mental health act.

I think Haggis has a point, why would you likened peadophilia to homosexuality as opposed to someone who is mentally unstable and could cause harm.

[Paj!]

Paj, could you rewrite your post then? I'm not sure I understand. It read as if you were saying that anybody who was curious, or looked at the pictures would eventually molest a child. Is that what you were saying? If so my original reply applies. If not, elaborate, I've misunderstood. : peace:

Apparently Paedohpilia is a syndrome/disease/officially diagnosed mental problem. It's progressive. One thing inevitably leads to another, so to speak. So yes, it's almsot certain it would lead to child abuse.

[/not my opinion/conclusion, only what I understand of the situation]


Being interested in GTA games isn't the same. It's not a dieases or whatever. People thought I meant that. Same way being interested in the history of Titanic and it's sinking doesn't mean you will go out and sink a boat. Just in the case of Paedohilia, apparently you will go the extremes.

Again, I was told this.

[Sheikah]

I think Haggis has a point, why would you likened peadophilia to homosexuality as opposed to someone who is mentally unstable and could cause harm.

Because mental instablity and paedophilia are more unrelated. One suggests someone can't look after themself / self-harm, the other suggests one who likes children. Homosexuality refers to sexual attraction, as does paedophilia. Even if morally speaking, one is very wrong while one isn't.

[Emasher]

Being interested in GTA games isn't the same. It's not a dieases or whatever. People thought I meant that. Same way being interested in the history of Titanic and it's sinking doesn't mean you will go out and sink a boat. Just in the case of Paedohilia, apparently you will go the extremes.

Again, I was told this.

Exactly. If a few people jump of a cliff and survive, it doesn't mean that you are guaranteed to survive if you did the same thing. If you understand what I mean by this.

[navarre]

People with psychological problems who are deemed dangerous to the general public are generally sectioned to the mental health act.

I think Haggis has a point, why would you likened peadophilia to homosexuality as opposed to someone who is mentally unstable and could cause harm.

What? Since when did having different sexual attrations ensure you are mentally unstable?

I could cause harm. A gay man could cause harm. Harming someone you're attracted to isn't restricted to peadophilia.

Whats wrong in comparing them? For one, fucking a guy (who is also gay) wouldn't fuck up their life. Whereas an adult having sex with a child would :/

As I said earlier, that's only because society would destroy you. If having sex with a child became legal, no-one would turn a blind eye.

[Emasher]

Because mental instablity and paedophilia are more unrelated. One suggests someone can't look after themself / self-harm, the other suggests one who likes children. Homosexuality refers to sexual attraction, as does paedophilia. Even if morally speaking, one is very wrong while one isn't.

Not all mental disabilities are the same. There are alot of mental disabilities that would lead you to harm another person.

[Sheikah]

Not all mental disabilities are the same. There are alot of mental disabilities that would lead you to harm another person.

Well the point is, paedophilia and homosexuality are both terms used to define attraction a particular subset of people, despite one being considered morally wrong. That is why they were compared, as paedophiles may well know what they are doing, so possibly are not mentally instable.

[Daft]

Because mental instablity and paedophilia are more unrelated. One suggests someone can't look after themself / self-harm, the other suggests one who likes children. Homosexuality refers to sexual attraction, as does paedophilia. Even if morally speaking, one is very wrong while one isn't.

Mental instability leading to someone being sectioned, like peadophilia, can lead to a pretty heinous crime.

Homosexuality leads to....

I think mental instability and paedophilia have more in common.

[Shino]

Considering genes make up for every cell in our body, including those in our brain, in some way the genes that encode us must allow us to have certain attractions - and if our attractions are a result of the environment, this is still the way in which the environment acts on a product of our genes.

In short, we are completely coded from our genes, so even if the environment is responsible for our thoughts and attractions, the way in which we all are different to each other despite some people leading similar lives is somewhat down to our genetic makeup. I don't think there are any genes you could say are 'gay genes', but genes that affect personality and the way we react to the environment are certainly key.

Your edit was basically my reply.

[Sheikah]

Mental instability leading to someone being sectioned, like peadophilia, can lead to a pretty heinous crime.

Homosexuality leads to....

I think mental instability and paedophilia have more in common.

Hang on, some wires crossed here. Paedophilia is the term used to describe someone who likes children, not actually comitting any acts. Homosexuality similarly defines a specific attraction, even though it is not a moral problem.

From an objective standpoint, the two terms are related in the sense that they define attractions to different subsets of people.

[Slaggis]

Nav, what are you saying?

You keep saying if being sexually attracted to Children became legal then no one would question it. But the thing is it NEVER will because we KNOW it's wrong and rightfully so. Whereas Homosexuality was wrongfully classed as illegal, but is now perfectly legal because there is nothing at all wrong with a man wanting to have sex with another man. Simple, surely?

Why bring up something for discussion that's never going to happen? Surely it will just cause arguments.

[Daft]

Hang on, some wires crossed here. Paedophilia is the term used to describe someone who likes children, not actually comitting any acts. Homosexuality similarly defines a specific attraction, even though it is not a moral problem.

From an objective standpoint, the two terms are related in the sense that they define attractions to different subsets of people.

Yeah, fair enough.

[Paj!]

Paedophilia has more in common with (potentially harmful to others)mental diasabilities, than homosexuality.


Both are diagnosable mental irregularities (whatever the term should be).

[blender]

Last year I noticed one of my teachers had a folder on their desktop that was titled "C XXX". Latter that year we saw him creeping up behind a group of girls and trying to touch them, but then he saw us and stopped before they noticed. His name was Mr. Sebestiny(SP) but everyone called him Mr. Seb, we called him "The Sebophile" So throughout that year we left notes around his classroom (It was a computer lab just for the record) that said things like "Seb is a pedophile" and stuff like that. On the last day of school my friend and I tapped a note on his office door that read "Don't feed teh sebophile". I wish I could have seen the look on his face when he found it. We would have talked to the principal about it, however since the girls never new what he was trying to do, they wouldn't have believed us anyway. I hope he gets caught on "To Catch a Predator" one day.

I think thats a terrible story. There was no real evidence against this guy and his reputation, life, career and mental health has probably been tarnished by a bunch of hysterical teenagers.

Anyway, more generally speaking, I the root cause of pedophilia should be tackled - SEXY Children. Stop them, and you stop the paedofiles in their tracks.

[Shino]

Nav, what are you saying?

You keep saying if being sexually attracted to Children became legal then no one would question it. But the thing is it NEVER will because we KNOW it's wrong and rightfully so. Whereas Homosexuality was wrongfully classed as illegal, but is now perfectly legal because there is nothing at all wrong with a man wanting to have sex with another man. Simple, surely?

Why bring up something for discussion that's never going to happen? Surely it will just cause arguments.

Not simple, no. You don't say why one is ok and the other isn't.

Anyway, I'm not letting any of you guys near my kids.

[Daft]

I could cause harm. A gay man could cause harm. Harming someone you're attracted to isn't restricted to peadophilia.

Yes, but in the case of paedophilia the pedophile will ALWAYS harm the child.

Paedophilia has more in common with (potentially harmful to others)mental diasabilities, than homosexuality.


Both are diagnosable mental irregularities (whatever the term should be).

That's what I was trying and failing to say. :heh:

[Emasher]

Nav, what are you saying?

You keep saying if being sexually attracted to Children became legal then no one would question it. But the thing is it NEVER will because we KNOW it's wrong and rightfully so. Whereas Homosexuality was wrongfully classed as illegal, but is now perfectly legal because there is nothing at all wrong with a man wanting to have sex with another man. Simple, surely?

Why bring up something for discussion that's never going to happen? Surely it will just cause arguments.

He's not saying it could happen, he's saying, what if it did happen.

[Slaggis]

Not simple, no. You don't say why one is ok and the other isn't.

Anyway, I'm not letting any of you guys near my kids.

Thats been said already. One would be consent with an adult who is perfectly minded to make a descision themselves. A child can not do that, that would be why it's illegal. Having sex with a child may harm them for the rest of their lives, having sex with a consenting male would not. You see my point?

[Dannyboy-the-Dane]

Having paedophilia = being attracted to children. Not wrong.

Committing acts of paedophilia = having sex with a child or watching child porn. Definitely wrong.

What do we classify as a mental instability? Both peadophilia and homophilia are sexual preferences, not instabilities. Instability is when the paedophile can't control his or her urges, which leads to committing acts of paedophilia.

[Emasher]

I think we should use the term child rapist or child porn addict in future posts to avoid confusion.

[Dyson]

You keep saying if being sexually attracted to Children became legal then no one would question it. But the thing is it NEVER will because we KNOW it's wrong and rightfully so. Whereas Homosexuality was wrongfully classed as illegal, but is now perfectly legal because there is nothing at all wrong with a man wanting to have sex with another man. Simple, surely?

Some people KNOW that Cannibis isn't wrong and will continue to fight to legalise it. Some people would say it is wrongfully classed as illegal, others would not. Same with homosexuality and to an extent paedophilia.

[Emasher]

I think thats a terrible story. There was no real evidence against this guy and his reputation, life, career and mental health has probably been tarnished by a bunch of hysterical teenagers.

Anyway, more generally speaking, I the root cause of pedophilia should be tackled - SEXY Children. Stop them, and you stop the paedofiles in their tracks.

Trust me, if you were there, you would understand that this man was a pedophile and mentally capable of molesting a child. I didn't mention everything that we saw him do, and I simply cannot list all the evidence we had against him in one post.

[Fierce_LiNk]

Trust me, if you were there, you would understand that this man was a pedophile and mentally capable of molesting a child. I didn't mention everything that we saw him do, and I simply cannot list all the evidence we had against him in one post.

If you had so much evidence against him, why on Earth didn't you do anything about it? Lets just say that he does go on to molest or harm a child. You could've possibly prevented that.

[Shino]

Thats been said already. One would be consent with an adult who is perfectly minded to make a descision themselves. A child can not do that, that would be why it's illegal. Having sex with a child may harm them for the rest of their lives, having sex with a consenting male would not. You see my point?

A child isn't necessarily a baby or bellow 10, we all now the amount of times we thought of sex at the age or 11 or 12 and we were still a child. If at the age of 12 a hot 20+ year old women offered me sex I wouldn't exitate and it would be consenting.

I agree with what you say but not why.

[Dyson]

Trust me, if you were there, you would understand that this man was a pedophile and mentally capable of molesting a child. I didn't mention everything that we saw him do, and I simply cannot list all the evidence we had against him in one post.

If you had so much evidence against him, why on Earth didn't you do anything about it? Lets just say that he does go on to molest or harm a child. You could've possibly prevented that.

+1 with you Flinky. If he was that bad you'd have done something, or someone would have. Writing immature notes isn't the way to go about things.

[Slaggis]

A child isn't necessarily a baby or bellow 10, we all now the amount of times we thought of sex at the age or 11 or 12 and we were still a child. If at the age of 12 a hot 20+ year old women offered me sex I wouldn't exitate and it would be consenting.

I agree with what you say but not why.

Ok, I get you. I was being rather vague with my reasons. It's hard to put it into a post but I mean fine you may be able to say "Yes" - but at that age you are not a fully developed adult. You are still growing, you are changing and you are being shaped into the human being you'll become as an adult. Suddenly being thrust into the adult activity of having sex will obviously effect you in someway. I'm trying to get over what I mean, but I just can't find the words, so I'll stop trying.

[Emasher]

If you had so much evidence against him, why on Earth didn't you do anything about it? Lets just say that he does go on to molest or harm a child. You could've possibly prevented that.

There is a difference in evidence that will prove something to a person, and evidence that is legally able to stand up in court unfortunately. I'm not saying he's a pedophile because I just know he's a pedophile. It was blatantly obvious that he was, but there was no evidence that would actually stand up in court.

+1 with you Flinky. If he was that bad you'd have done something, or someone would have. Writing immature notes isn't the way to go about things.

I honestly hope someone else does something, but in the situation my friends and I were in, we weren't able to. If I ever get the opportunity in the future to do something about it, I will, but there really wasn't anything I could have done at the time and I don't think there is now. I'll try my best to explain it: One person saying their teacher is a pedophile, unless they were actually molested or something like that isn't really going to cut it. Multiple people might, however my friends had really bad records in the school and probably would have been dismissed as just trying to get out of doing their homework for his class. If the girls had actually turned around and noticed what he was trying to do before he noticed we were watching him, It would probably be a different story. If I knew for sure that the folder he had ("C XXX") actually 100% did contain child porn, It would be a different story. There were so many other things this guy did that you could easily tell what he was, but their were similar reasons why it just didn't work out very well for us.

And about the immature notes. I'm sure most people would have done the same thing. And him knowing that someone else knows might have been a slight put off from doing anything in the future, it might seem immature to you, but it was all we could do.

[blender]

I knew for sure that the folder he had ("C XXX") actually 100% did contain child porn, It would be a different story.
.

Everyone knows that porn is stored in C:\Users\workthings\

However if was there was a folder C:\Users\dullstuff then there would be no mistake that he was a peodifile.

actually, thats probably a whole new thread "where do you store your porn?"

[Kirkatronics]

Peadophiles are wrong due to the age of consent, by law anyway.. by moral to most people. Its ilegal as children cannot make serious decisions for them self.

As you sad its no different to liking mixed race women, the ones you are attracted to will either look or be of a consenting age.

Everyone knows that porn is stored in C:\Users\workthings\

However if was there was a folder C:\Users\dullstuff then there would be no mistake that he was a peodifile.

actually, thats probably a whole new thread "where do you store your porn?"
Sounds like a job for me! Im on it!
Joke =]

[Emasher]

Everyone knows that porn is stored in C:\Users\workthings\

However if was there was a folder C:\Users\dullstuff then there would be no mistake that he was a peodifile.

actually, thats probably a whole new thread "where do you store your porn?"

It was a school computer so its quite a bit different. Everything would be work stuff, so a folder called "workthings" would be different. Plus nobody has access to C drive. I know what you mean, but this guy wasn't that bright either.

That could turn out to be quite an epic thread I'd imagine.

[S.C.G]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UvsoVdvtZC4

And on a less serious note, lets take a moment to appreciate Monkey Dust's unique brand of satire on the subject. :heh:

[Twozzok]

People are still mixing the words Paedophile and child molester.

Just because someone is attracted to kids doesn't mean they're going to go molest one.

Saying they 100% will, is like saying, because I'm attracted to blondes or whatever means I'm going to go rape a blonde?


There is such thing as self control, and just because 10,000 people in the UK are attracted to kids, are you guys seriously saying every single one of them is going to try and have sex with one?

[Paj!]

People are still mixing the words Paedophile and child molester.

Just because someone is attracted to kids doesn't mean they're going to go molest one.

Saying they 100% will, is like saying, because I'm attracted to blondes or whatever means I'm going to go rape a blonde?


There is such thing as self control, and just because 10,000 people in the UK are attracted to kids, are you guys seriously saying every single one of them is going to try and have sex with one?

It's just meant to be like, progessive, or whatever. As in one thing inevitably leads to another, as a major thrill/part of it, is the "risk", apparently.

I'm just the messenger of this info. And it's not the same as raping a blonde person, it's part and parcel with the diagnosis of paedophilia.

[Dannyboy-the-Dane]

People are still mixing the words Paedophile and child molester.

Just because someone is attracted to kids doesn't mean they're going to go molest one.

Saying they 100% will, is like saying, because I'm attracted to blondes or whatever means I'm going to go rape a blonde?


There is such thing as self control, and just because 10,000 people in the UK are attracted to kids, are you guys seriously saying every single one of them is going to try and have sex with one?

This good man has cleared up the confusion.

[MoogleViper]

But that's the thing: He's asking the question. I do in now way condone paedophilia, nor do I think it should be allowed.

Now you "way" condone paedophilia? You disgust me.

Whats wrong in comparing them? For one, fucking a guy (who is also gay) wouldn't fuck up their life. Whereas an adult having sex with a child would :/

You comparing two different kinds of people. You're talking about a child molesterer so you should be comparing that to a gay rapist.

Nav, what are you saying?

You keep saying if being sexually attracted to Children became legal then no one would question it. But the thing is it NEVER will because we KNOW it's wrong and rightfully so. Whereas Homosexuality was wrongfully classed as illegal, but is now perfectly legal because there is nothing at all wrong with a man wanting to have sex with another man. Simple, surely?

Why bring up something for discussion that's never going to happen? Surely it will just cause arguments.

But who's to say that one is right and the other is wrong? Society mainly. I'm sure in the past people may have said, "But the thing is it NEVER will because we KNOW that homosexuality is wrong and rightfully so."

Anyway, more generally speaking, I the root cause of pedophilia should be tackled - SEXY Children. Stop them, and you stop the paedofiles in their tracks.

You're the root cause of paedophilia?

(also who did you steal that joke from? Jimmy Carr?)

[Dannyboy-the-Dane]

Now you "way" condone paedophilia? You disgust me.

I saw that typo and hoped nobody would notice it. :p

[EEVILMURRAY]

Let's not just focus on the queer and kid loving people. They're trying to get racism down as a proper mental disorder now. pr0.:blank:
an adult can always control its impulses
In the words of The Joker:

"LUBUBUBUBUBUBUBUB BULLSHIT."

[Jonnas]

Yeah, there's a reason pedophilia is considered wrong.

40 years ago, homophobia was common because people knew barely anything about it. It is human nature to be wary or attack something that we find so strange. In a nutshell, it was irrational, and no one could explain exactly why they disrespected homosexuals.

With pedophilia it's different. We know exactly why it's wrong: anything they can do to satisfy their sexual desires will hurt a child physically, mentally, or both. Wether by molesting a child, or watching child porn, someone is getting hurt.

[Kirkatronics]

Yeah, there's a reason pedophilia is considered wrong.

40 years ago, homophobia was common because people knew barely anything about it. It is human nature to be wary or attack something that we find so strange. In a nutshell, it was irrational, and no one could explain exactly why they disrespected homosexuals.

With pedophilia it's different. We know exactly why it's wrong: anything they can do to satisfy their sexual desires will hurt a child physically, mentally, or both. Wether by molesting a child, or watching child porn, someone is getting hurt.
Nicely said. Homosexuals, most of the time, are consenting and mentally stable adults.

[MoogleViper]

Can the thread title be corrected please?

[Kirkatronics]

Can the thread title be corrected please?
Only a typo, dont worry about it.

[EEVILMURRAY]

This has to be done again.

Skip to 3.45. And enjoy.

8TTtPMy-7RY

[Jamba]

Wow, this thread is messy isn't it? By page 2 we had already established that being a pedophile might actually refer to the attraction rather than the act of child molestation but it took a whole other page for people to point out that others were getting confused.

Honestly, I think that the definitions need to be modified. That people need to start pointing out that being attracted to children itself isn't something that people should be demonised for but helped with.

If it wasn't for the fact that children are a group of society that are easily influenced, manipulated and in some senses emotionally fragile then nobody would have a problem with people being attracted to children. That's why I find it slightly amusing when the gay or bi community get defensive about homosexuality being compared with being attracted to children.

It's no different. Both are biologically unsound in the logic of that attraction but carrying out your desires as a pedophile causes harm and that's why its a no-no. I can understand why the LGB community are a bit bristly though as many people tar any kind of sexual deviation with the same brush. Just cos you don't make you a pedo etc... and I don't think that anyone on these boards is stupid enough to have that view point so please unclench.

[BlueStar]

Stop the sexual exploitation of garden vegetables! All we are saying is give peas a chance!

[Kirkatronics]

What country has the lowest consenting age?
Let all the people who like em young go there.

[blender]

The united nations defintion of a child is someone below the age of 18. Suddenly i feel surrounded by paedofiles or victims of them.

Its really interesting because
we dont want Child soldiers in africa,
But have under 18 year olds in our army
We dont want paedofillia but allow 16year olds to do it
Japan likes school girls
doesnt spain allow over 14 years to do it
and in america, you are a minor at under 21 (is that the same as a child) hmm

So what happens, diplomatically is nothing and PEODOPHILES RUle the worlds


I think we should move to a biological definition of a child based on tits and pubic hair

[Jamba]

By the way, I think I might run with the ball on something blender cleverly hinted at earlier. I society to blame in anyway for making children seem more sexualised?

I personally think that kids are tremendously more flirtacous (sp?) in their attitudes and dress then they ever were when I was younger and it's something that I actually get quite angry about. It sets up lots of kids who are still totally naive to being sexually active at an early age and I would go so far as to claim that people WANT to have sex at an earlier age then they wanted to in the past.

[Kirkatronics]

By the way, I think I might run with the ball on something blender cleverly hinted at earlier. I society to blame in anyway for making children seem more sexualised?

I personally think that kids are tremendously more flirtacous (sp?) in their attitudes and dress then they ever were when I was younger and it's something that I actually get quite angry about. It sets up lots of kids who are still totally naive to being sexually active at an early age and I would go so far as to claim that people WANT to have sex at an earlier age then they wanted to in the past.Yea, i see children as young as 5 walking around in miniskirts and strapless tops. All i think is what their parents must be like...

[MoogleViper]

By the way, I think I might run with the ball on something blender cleverly hinted at earlier. I society to blame in anyway for making children seem more sexualised?

I personally think that kids are tremendously more flirtacous (sp?) in their attitudes and dress then they ever were when I was younger and it's something that I actually get quite angry about. It sets up lots of kids who are still totally naive to being sexually active at an early age and I would go so far as to claim that people WANT to have sex at an earlier age then they wanted to in the past.

I've wanted to have sex since I was about 6. I'd go into details of what me and a friend did when we were 6 but I think I may cause offence.

[Kirkatronics]

I've wanted to have sex since I was about 6. I'd go into details of what me and a friend did when we were 6 but I think I may cause offence.
Surely you didnt even think about that sort of thing at 6, i would't even want to kiss an icky girl at that age.

[MoogleViper]

Surely you didnt even think about that sort of thing at 6, i would't even want to kiss an icky girl at that age.

I did more than think about that stuff.

[Jamba]

I've wanted to have sex since I was about 6. I'd go into details of what me and a friend did when we were 6 but I think I may cause offence.

That's fine, I'm pretty much the same. To me that's just curiosity really whereas nowadays the slightly pre-teens know exactly what they are after and to me that's a different thing all together. They are after something that they understand very little about.

At least if you are experimenting then you kind of learn as you go.

[Kirkatronics]

I did more than think about that stuff.What even put the thoughs into your head at that age?

[MoogleViper]

What even put the thoughs into your head at that age?

I don't know really. When I was 6 my sister told me what sex was so I'm sure that had a lot to do with it. Also whenever there was sex on TV my dad always used to change the channel to hide me from it. But I think it had the adverse affects and made it seem appealing.

[Fresh]

Please don't tell me people are trying to relate Paedophilia to Homosexuality.

[Cube]

What country has the lowest consenting age?
Let all the people who like em young go there.

There are a few places where the age of consent is 12. However there are still laws against Adults (over 16/18/whatever) from taking advantage of them.

There are a few countries that have an age of consent of 13 (as long as they are not deceived in any way) such as Spain.

[EEVILMURRAY]

Please don't tell me people are trying to relate Paedophilia to Homosexuality.
I think it's only being done to the status of mental disorder.

[Kirkatronics]

Please don't tell me people are trying to relate Paedophilia to Homosexuality.It is completly differrent, its the taboo aspect were comparing.

[Dan Dare]

but they're beyond comparison. With homosexuality, the taboo was down to people being wrong.

[MoogleViper]

It is completly differrent, its the taboo aspect were comparing.

They are both sexual preferences that go against the "natural" preference.

[Kirkatronics]

In the very old days it wasnt a taboo at all, 30 year old men would marry girls as young as 12.

[Dan Dare]

that was far more to do with social issues than sexual though

[Slaggis]

but they're beyond comparison. With homosexuality, the taboo was down to people being wrong.

Exactly, this is why I'm a little confused into why people comparing them.

[rokhed00]

Exactly, this is why I'm a little confused into why people comparing them.

Maybe beastiality/zoophilia would be a better comparison.

[navarre]

Having paedophilia = being attracted to children. Not wrong.

Committing acts of paedophilia = having sex with a child or watching child porn. Definitely wrong.

What do we classify as a mental instability? Both peadophilia and homophilia are sexual preferences, not instabilities. Instability is when the paedophile can't control his or her urges, which leads to committing acts of paedophilia.

Yes. An intelligent post.

People are still mixing the words Paedophile and child molester.

Just because someone is attracted to kids doesn't mean they're going to go molest one.

Saying they 100% will, is like saying, because I'm attracted to blondes or whatever means I'm going to go rape a blonde?


There is such thing as self control, and just because 10,000 people in the UK are attracted to kids, are you guys seriously saying every single one of them is going to try and have sex with one?

Yes! Another intelligent post. I've skimmed this thread, and these guys have understood what I'm trying to say.

[MoogleViper]

In the very old days it wasnt a taboo at all, 30 year old men would marry girls as young as 12.

Exactly. IIRC wasn't Julier 12/14 and Romeo in his twenties? by today's stnadards that's paedophilia but people still class that as romance.

[rokhed00]

Exactly. IIRC wasn't Julier 12/14 and Romeo in his twenties? by today's stnadards that's paedophilia but people still class that as romance.

Blame Skaespeare, he wasn't averse to a little pervery.

[Kirkatronics]

Exactly. IIRC wasn't Julier 12/14 and Romeo in his twenties? by today's stnadards that's paedophilia but people still class that as romance.
I believe he was in his 30's, that was an example i had in my head.

Blame Skaespeare, he wasn't averse to a little pervery.That was the norm then though.

[rokhed00]

That was the norm then though.


Yep, pretty much everyone was a pervert one way or the other back then, and the clothes were fabulous too, what I'd give to live in an age where corsets and petticoats are the norm.

[Kirkatronics]

Yep, pretty much everyone was a pervert one way or the other back then, and the clothes were fabulous too, what I'd give to live in an age where corsets and petticoats are the norm.
But showing any skin, excluding face and hands, was thought to be showing too much.

[Twozzok]

Why is everyone ignoring the fact that just because you're attracted to something doesn't mean you're going to act on those urges?

Also, Peadophilia is the attraction to prepubescent people, for being attracted to teenagers it's Ebebophilia.

[rokhed00]

But showing any skin, excluding face and hands, was thought to be showing too much.

Fine by me, I tend to cover up a fair bit anyway, long skirts wouldn't be too much of a change.

[Indigo]

I can't even believe we need to debate this. Though I guess this is the inevitable conclusion of a culture that subscribes to the view that whatever gives you pleasure must be fine and healthy.

Things aren't right or wrong merely because a majority of people believe so. We as humans are not so primitive as to be entirely conditioned morally and socially by our societies - we have deeper moral intuitions. In the case of this subject our moral intuition against it is derived from how obviously unnatural it is to be attracted to people who are not even by nature's design supposed to be attractive to us. Just think why physical attraction itself exists - it exists as a function to encourage us to reproduce, hence why we are attracted by signs of fertility in the opposite sex. Being attracted to children isn't simply wrong because it's weird in society's eyes, it's a subversion of our nature.
Exactly. IIRC wasn't Julier 12/14 and Romeo in his twenties? by today's stnadards that's paedophilia but people still class that as romance.Juliet was 14. She would have been fertile and capable of bearing a child. Cases like that are entirely different to having an attraction for someone who hasn't even reached adolescence.

[Jamba]

I can't even believe we need to debate this. Though I guess this is the inevitable conclusion of a culture that subscribes to the view that whatever gives you pleasure must be fine and healthy.

Things aren't right or wrong merely because a majority of people believe so. We as humans are not so primitive as to be entirely conditioned morally and socially by our societies - we have deeper moral intuitions. In the case of this subject our moral intuition against it is derived from how obviously unnatural it is to be attracted to people who are not even by nature's design supposed to be attractive to us. Just think why physical attraction itself exists - it exists as a function to encourage us to reproduce, hence why we are attracted by signs of fertility in the opposite sex. Being attracted to children isn't simply wrong because it's weird in society's eyes, it's a subversion of our nature.


Wait a sec... so if it's not biologically productive then it's wrong? I'm guessing that you believe homosexuality is wrong too then?

[Sheikah]

it exists as a function to encourage us to reproduce, hence why we are attracted by signs of fertility in the opposite sex. It ain't just a case of being weird in society's eyes, it's a subversion of our nature.
Not to bash your points about paedophilia, but that explanation would imply that homosexuality is a subversion too (I guess it is from reproduction, but you get my point).

Juliet was 14. She would have been fertile and capable of bearing a child. Cases like that are entirely different to having an attraction for someone who hasn't even reached adolescence.

Didn't they live to 30 then? Juliet was having her mid-life crisis. :p

[MoogleViper]

Juliet was 14. She would have been fertile and capable of bearing a child. Cases like that are entirely different to having an attraction for someone who hasn't even reached adolescence.

I thought she was, but did her mother or nurse say that she should have been married by now. (now as in relating to the story not now as in 400 years later.)

[Emasher]

Ok. Pretend for a moment that you are a child. An adult comes up to you and rapes you. How would you feel about that. Now do you understand exactly why its wrong.

[Jamba]

Ok. Pretend for a moment that you are a child. An adult comes up to you and rapes you. How would you feel about that. Now do you understand exactly why its wrong.

Who's that aimed at?

[Chris the great]

well, peadophilia seems to have been viewed with rare maturity, and in an internet forum of all places! it always annoys me that newspapers imediate reaction to peadophiles is to say "hang em!", who wins then?

far better would be to study them search for reasons for the attraction to children, be they chemical, neurological, social or what ever.

im not defending peadophillia, it is after all, a vile act. not just because it isn't procreative, hell if sex was only for procreation life would be alot less fun. it is so wrong because it involves children, who in most cases are unable to make a reasonable decision based on sex, they are taken advantage of, not mentaly or physicaly ready for sex.

anouther asspect that makes peadophillia so wrong is that alot of it seems to involve torture and pain (this is going from media reports, as well as a few lectures on crime as part of my fprensic psychology course, given by investigators). to me, this surgests that the attraction to children isnt just physical, but perhaps its some deep psychological rejection of social norms.

as many have said, the notion of when a person is ready for sex seems to change with society, with 14 being considered old enough in many civilisations, though lets not forget, death for adulterers and homosexuals has also been common in history, that dosent make that defendable does it?

[Dan Dare]

http://www.theonion.com/content/news/pedophile_nervous_for_first_day_of?utm_source=onio n_rss_daily

lawl.

[Dannyboy-the-Dane]

On the topic about paedophilic actions, what about watching cartoon porn of children? Should that be considered wrong? It doesn't hurt any children, but it may encourage people to go out and do the real thing. Or it may prevent people from doing exactly that. What about porn in general? Does it prevent or encourage rape?

[Indigo]

Wait a sec... so if it's not biologically productive then it's wrong? I'm guessing that you believe homosexuality is wrong too then?I guess that's the consequence of my argument.

Aside from the nature argument I'm just struggling to see another way of arguing that being attracted to children is wrong that doesn't appeal to conscience (personally I think moral intuition is a legitimate basis for an argument, but I'm trying to argue on the terms of the thread-starter). Harm arguments seem quite weak if it's all thought and there's actually no action involved.
as many have said, the notion of when a person is ready for sex seems to change with society, with 14 being considered old enough in many civilisations, though lets not forget, death for adulterers and homosexuals has also been common in history, that dosent make that defendable does it?I think that's a weak parallel to draw. Obviously biology restrains all societies' notions of when someone is ready for sex. Attitudes have only changed in terms of us raising the age because societies have considered more when someone is emotionally ready for sex.

[Sanchez]

Ok. Pretend for a moment that you are a child. An adult comes up to you and rapes you. How would you feel about that. Now do you understand exactly why its wrong.

Well if I was 14 and it was a hot teacher then I know exactly why its so so right.

[Indigo]

What about porn in general? Does it prevent or encourage rape?I certainly don't think it prevents rape. Any desire is only ever temporarily satisfied. And it doesn't really quell lustful desire anyway - if anything it stirs up more desire as people tend to get desensitised to the images and hence pursue ever more explicit and stronger images. Psychologically I think on the subconscious level it encourages us to see women as objects for our pleasure - and it seems only logical that such an attitude in a person would make it slightly more and not less probable that they might commit rape.

Now I'm not saying there's then some direct causal link between watching lots of porn and committing a sexual crime, but I think it's naive to consider being regularly exposed to porn as having absolutely zero effect on our psychology. Just think how vulnerable we are to the messages of advertising infiltrating our subconscious and influencing our decisions (why do you think so many billions are pumped into the industry?).

[Jonnas]

Well if I was 14 and it was a hot teacher then I know exactly why its so so right.

You mean like a male teacher?

[navarre]

I can't even believe we need to debate this. Though I guess this is the inevitable conclusion of a culture that subscribes to the view that whatever gives you pleasure must be fine and healthy.

Things aren't right or wrong merely because a majority of people believe so. We as humans are not so primitive as to be entirely conditioned morally and socially by our societies - we have deeper moral intuitions. In the case of this subject our moral intuition against it is derived from how obviously unnatural it is to be attracted to people who are not even by nature's design supposed to be attractive to us. Just think why physical attraction itself exists - it exists as a function to encourage us to reproduce, hence why we are attracted by signs of fertility in the opposite sex. Being attracted to children isn't simply wrong because it's weird in society's eyes, it's a subversion of our nature.
Juliet was 14. She would have been fertile and capable of bearing a child. Cases like that are entirely different to having an attraction for someone who hasn't even reached adolescence.


I disagree. As warandchaos and rokhed00 have previously discussed, peadophilia was once upon a time considered the 'norm', and everyone was 'a pervert then'. Why, you have to ask yourself? Were children invariably more attractive then then they are today? Or was it a medieval trait? No, it was simply because of society's perception of it.

Now, I do agree with you to a point. If murder wasn't against the law, I doubt I'd go out and kill someone.

And, your argument stands no ground against homosexuality. It may not be deemed unaccaetable by society, but seeing as it's so unnatural, how comes our moral tuition doesn't dislike it?

[Jonnas]

I disagree. As warandchaos and rokhed00 have previously discussed, peadophilia was once upon a time considered the 'norm', and everyone was 'a pervert then'. Why, you have to ask yourself? Were children invariably more attractive then then they are today? Or was it a medieval trait? No, it was simply because of society's perception of it.


Bear in mind, though, that we're talking social marriage, which doesn't necessarily imply love, or sex.
And even then, age of marriage started in the beginning of puberty.

[Emasher]

Who's that aimed at?

Anyone who still doesn't get it.

http://www.theonion.com/content/news/pedophile_nervous_for_first_day_of?utm_source=onio n_rss_daily

lawl.

WTF was that about?

On the topic about paedophilic actions, what about watching cartoon porn of children? Should that be considered wrong? It doesn't hurt any children, but it may encourage people to go out and do the real thing. Or it may prevent people from doing exactly that. What about porn in general? Does it prevent or encourage rape?

It may or may not encourage molestation. It probably depends on the person. Also, Porn in general isn't about rape, its about sex. People rape people not to fill a desire like with molestation, but rape people to show that they have control over them.

Well if I was 14 and it was a hot teacher then I know exactly why its so so right.

Lets say you're 7 and the teacher is either ugly or a man.

[navarre]

Anyone who still doesn't get it.




I doubt anyone here thinks the contrary, my friend. We're discussing, however, what makes it wrong, why people do it, and why, for the love of God, it is considering a mental instability.

[Indigo]

Bear in mind, though, that we're talking social marriage, which doesn't necessarily imply love, or sex.
And even then, age of marriage started in the beginning of puberty.
Yeah I think we need to define exactly what we're talking about. When I discuss this I'm referring to people being attracted to pre-pubescent children. There's a big distinction between that and being attracted to say a 14 or 15 year-old girl. It's misleading to equate the two really.

[Emasher]

I doubt anyone here thinks the contrary, my friend. We're discussing, however, what makes it wrong, why people do it, and why, for the love of God, it is considering a mental instability.

I was trying to argue about why it was wrong actually.

[navarre]

I was trying to argue about why it was wrong actually.

I know... 10char

[RoadKill]

It's paedophilia by the way not pea..

Also, sexual abuse cases are usually initiated by a close/trusted member/friend of the family, as opposed to random people on the street.

Also, someone who happened to rape a kid isn't necessarily a paedophile, he may just be an oppurtunist rapist, not someone with a primary attraction to pre-pubescents, so he's a sick fuck, but he may not have the same motivations.

What country has the lowest consenting age?
Let all the people who like em young go there.

I can't remember the country but it's 9 or something

There's a big distinction between that and being attracted to say a 14 or 15 year-old girl. It's misleading to equate the two really.

That's ephebophilia but since nobody remembers/cares about that word everyone just splashes the blanket paedophilia term over everything for ease of use

[Emasher]

International ages of consent:

http://www.avert.org/aofconsent.htm

Lowest is 12 in the Philippines. A few other countries say 12 but this is only if the other person is close to the same age.

[Jamba]

Anyone who still doesn't get it.


That's kind of why I mentioned it. It sounded like you were reacting to something that someone had said and if that was the case, you had likely misunderstood a comment as nobody seemed to be debating whether the act was bad at the time.

I guess to simplify the entire arguement though and hopefully hit the nail on the head I should put this question to the floor:

Is it fair to condemn or demonise someone solely for the fact that they are attracted to children, even if they have not acted upon it?

[RoadKill]

Is it fair to condemn or demonise someone solely for the fact that they are attracted to children, even if they have not acted upon it?

That's the view in the eye of society, welcome to the world that promotes tolerance and understanding yet only has concessions to treat certain mental conditions because of the strong emotions surrounding the issue

[Chris the great]

Is it fair to condemn or demonise someone solely for the fact that they are attracted to children, even if they have not acted upon it?

well, if they didnt act on it, how would any one know? if you download kiddy porn your encouraging its production.

if you simply feel the urges then chemical castration, a blocking of the sex drive is possible. with this done and no crimes commited i see no problem with any individual who may have had said urges.

just think how many times youve had the urge to kill some one but didnt act on it, should you be judged on that?

[RoadKill]

International ages of consent:

http://www.avert.org/aofconsent.htm

Lowest is 12 in the Philippines. A few other countries say 12 but this is only if the other person is close to the same age.

Younger is not uncommon:-

"June 23 2002 at 03:15PM
Tehran - Iranian authorities have approved a law to raise the age at which girls can get married without their parents' consent to 13 from nine and for boys to 15 from 14, newspapers said on Sunday."

"SANA’A, April 9 - An eight-year-old girl decided last week to go the Sana’a West Court to prosecute her father, who forced her to marry a 30-year-old man."

If we go back further, Muslims clearly think younger still is fine:-

"From the 20th century a common point of criticim of Muhammad has been his marriage to Aisha, who was six or seven at the time."

[rokhed00]

Younger is not uncommon:-

"June 23 2002 at 03:15PM
Tehran - Iranian authorities have approved a law to raise the age at which girls can get married without their parents' consent to 13 from nine and for boys to 15 from 14, newspapers said on Sunday."

"SANA’A, April 9 - An eight-year-old girl decided last week to go the Sana’a West Court to prosecute her father, who forced her to marry a 30-year-old man."

If we go back further, Muslims clearly think younger still is fine:-

"From the 20th century a common point of criticim of Muhammad has been his marriage to Aisha, who was six or seven at the time."


Like we need another reason to hate muslims.

[ReZourceman]

Paedophiles are fine as long as they keep their attractions to themselves. Its illegal to...look at kiddy porn on the net? And also to engage in sexual activity with children. As long as they don't do anything illegal then its all gravy. They cannot help it.

Now fuck the serious shit, whos up for touching up some minors with me?

[rokhed00]

Rather touch up some miners myself.
http://www.smh.com.au/ffximage/2007/07/29/miners30707_wideweb__470x314,0.jpg

[Jordan]

Like we need another reason to hate muslims.

Racism anyone?
You might be surprised to know, that not every Muslim in the world is a Western hating terrorist...

[Emasher]

Like we need another reason to hate muslims.

There was a Canadian sit com that started a few years ago about a group of muslims living in a small town. It wasn't racist, it was the opposite, it was trying to get people to understand muslims better. It was very successful and was exported to many different countries. Its called "Little Mosque on the Prairie", I'm not sure if it got to the UK (though I think it did), but if you ever get a chance to see it, perhaps it would help you.

[Shino]

Calm down, its a joke.

[rokhed00]

Calm down, its a joke.

Some people just can't see the obvious.

[chairdriver]

What happens if the relationship between the adult and the child is genuinely one of love? What happens if it's a Romeo and Juliet type situation?

When does a child stop being a child? Some people don't go through puberty until 17/18, some boys have beards at 12 years old.

At the end of the day, I think it's wrong to paint all aspects paedophilia with the same brush. Every situation should be investigated on its own terms.

But yeah, rape is unacceptable. Love-fueled sex is more acceptable.

[Emasher]

Calm down, its a joke.

Some people just can't see the obvious.

TBH, not everything everyone says is obvious to everyone. Perhaps put a smily so people know you're joking.

[Jamba]

well, if they didnt act on it, how would any one know? if you download kiddy porn your encouraging its production.

if you simply feel the urges then chemical castration, a blocking of the sex drive is possible. with this done and no crimes commited i see no problem with any individual who may have had said urges.

just think how many times youve had the urge to kill some one but didnt act on it, should you be judged on that?

Wow, onto chemical castration straight away? Surely getting some help to help mute the urges would be the first step?

[Kirkatronics]

Wow, onto chemical castration straight away? Surely getting some help to help mute the urges would be the first step?
Castration takes that away :p
On the other hand i think ts barbaric to force that on to someone, even if people do think they deserve it.

[Jamba]

Castration takes that away :p
On the other hand i think ts barbaric to force that on to someone, even if people do think they deserve it.

That's exactly how I see it. It's barbaric expecially when they haven't actualy DONE anything yet.

[Kirkatronics]

That's exactly how I see it. It's barbaric expecially when they haven't actualy DONE anything yet.
Thats true, there shouldnt be a punishment if they dont act. Its like arresting someone because they thought about stealing something.
BTW get a sig :p

[Jamba]

Thats true, there shouldnt be a punishment if they dont act. Its like arresting someone because they thought about stealing something.
BTW get a sig :p

Je has a sig, don't have time to mod it into the right file size cos. It's the same one I've had for a while

... but yes... pedos...

[Chris the great]

its not like chopping it off, chemical castration simply blocks the arrousal response.

[Jamba]

its not like chopping it off, chemical castration simply blocks the arrousal response.

Yeah but you are taking away a liberty by doing that, stopping them from having any sex life at all. Just because they like kids doesn't mean that they don't like anyone else. They might be married or in a long term relationship.

Personally I think that it's cruel and I'm guessing that it's irreversible?

[Kirkatronics]

its not like chopping it off, chemical castration simply blocks the arrousal response.
What if they want kids?
Yeah but you are taking away a liberty by doing that, stopping them from having any sex life at all. Just because they like kids doesn't mean that they don't like anyone else. They might be married or in a long term relationship.

Personally I think that it's cruel and I'm guessing that it's irreversible?
Yea, irreversable.

[Mr_Odwin]

I believe it is not irreversible. Regular treatment is required.

(Saw this on CSI. Thank you TV.)

[Kirkatronics]

I believe it is not irreversible. Regular treatment is required.You are correct, but it can have serious side effects.

[MoogleViper]

Did anyone watch Fiona's Story last night?

You might be surprised to know, that not every Muslim in the world is a Western hating terrorist...

Really? I'm surprised to know that.

But yeah, rape is unacceptable. Love-fueled sex is more acceptable.

So if I rape somebody I love then it's ok?

Now we'll see if my girlfriend has anymore "headaches".

[Oxigen_Waste]

Now we'll see if my girlfriend has anymore "headaches".

Ah, so you suck in bed...

[Mr_Odwin]

Ah, so you suck in bed...

Only if she asks.

*ba dum tisch*

[Kirkatronics]

Only if she asks.

*ba dum tisch*
That took me a while lol.

[Mr_Odwin]

That took me a while lol.

That's what she said.

*ba dum tisch*

[Oxigen_Waste]

That's what she said.

*ba dum tisch*

My motto as always been Don't dick it, lick it.

(By the way, you're on a roll, there. :heh:)

[Dan Dare]

By the way, you're on a roll, there. :heh:

incidentally, That's what she said.

[MoogleViper]

incidentally, That's what she said.

I was going to do that one, but I realised it wasn't funny.

[Kirkatronics]

That's what she said.

*ba dum tisch*Walked into that one.
Thats what she said =P

[navarre]

It's paedophilia by the way not pea..

Also, sexual abuse cases are usually initiated by a close/trusted member/friend of the family, as opposed to random people on the street.

Also, someone who happened to rape a kid isn't necessarily a paedophile, he may just be an oppurtunist rapist, not someone with a primary attraction to pre-pubescents, so he's a sick fuck, but he may not have the same motivations.



Amen to that.

[Emasher]

Are you a pedophile quiz:

http://www.newgrounds.com/portal/view/192840

[rokhed00]

Are you a pedophile quiz:

http://www.newgrounds.com/portal/view/192840

You've got to ask?

[Paj!]

Yeah, one thing I greatly disagree with is the castration. Especially in those like the guy I know, who hadn't actually done anything.

[Dannyboy-the-Dane]

Yeah, one thing I greatly disagree with is the castration.

Ditto. I find it a harsh punishment. I don't like permanent punishments. If there's one thing I've learned in life, it's that - contrary to popular belief - people can change. I don't like the idea that we're robbing them of the chance to change their ways. I know it's different when it comes to persons who have trouble controlling themselves due to mental causes, but for goodness sake let's pick an option that won't cause permanent harm. I don't like the idea of robbing people of possibilities permanently, nor do I like punishing people who have mental problems which harm their judging ability.

[Chris the great]

as far as i know chemical castration isnt perminant, though in terms of whats worse, taking away some ones sex drive or leaving children in potential danger, i have to say, id take away the guys sex drive.

[DomJcg]

Whats wrong with peas?

[S.C.G]

Are you a pedophile quiz:

http://www.newgrounds.com/portal/view/192840

I said yes to all of them just for lolz. :heh:

[Dannyboy-the-Dane]

as far as i know chemical castration isnt perminant, though in terms of whats worse, taking away some ones sex drive or leaving children in potential danger, i have to say, id take away the guys sex drive.

But seriously, there have to be less dramatic solutions to the problem. It's not an either/or case scenario.

[Emasher]

I said yes to all of them just for lolz. :heh:

I think we all did.

[RoadKill]

But seriously, there have to be less dramatic solutions to the problem. It's not an either/or case scenario.

You're essentially saying "change how you think, faggot, society hates you".. it's a pretty difficult task

[rokhed00]

You're essentially saying "change how you think, faggot, society hates you".. it's a pretty difficult task

Impossible without medication really.

[Dannyboy-the-Dane]

You're essentially saying "change how you think, faggot, society hates you".. it's a pretty difficult task

You could put it that way, but that wouldn't represent what I intend to communicate. We should offer help to these people, not try to control them. If necessary, medication could help them control their urges. Who says some paedophiles doesn't want to get rid of their special urges? They're not exactly making their lives easy.

[RoadKill]

You could put it that way, but that wouldn't represent what I intend to communicate. We should offer help to these people, not try to control them. If necessary, medication could help them control their urges. Who says some paedophiles doesn't want to get rid of their special urges? They're not exactly making their lives easy.

OK, I understand you're being reasonable, but then, in that case, where's the incentive for any paedophile to come out by choice when they know what the reaction will be?

[Gizmo]

I haven't kept up with this thread but I thought I'd post this in here;

Lifeguard from my school (http://icwestlothian.icnetwork.co.uk/courier/news//tm_headline=high-school-worker-is-jailed-over-child-porn%26method=full%26objectid=21669258%26siteid=92 284-name_page.html) is caught with 5000 images of child pornography on his computer.

My school is a community school, meaning there is a public swimming pool/sports complex and creché (sp?) at one end. This guy worked as a pool attendant in the public pool, which is also used by the high school PE classes and classes from surrounding primary schools that come up for lessons. He's also the brother of one of the deputy head teachers.

W.T.F.

[Dannyboy-the-Dane]

OK, I understand you're being reasonable, but then, in that case, where's the incentive for any paedophile to come out by choice when they know what the reaction will be?

People will always have negative reactions. It's like saying you're an alcoholic or drug abuser. Only, in people's minds, paedophilia is alcoholism and drug abuse times a thousand plus nazism. But I could imagine some paedophiles would rather be rid of their "special" urges if they thought it through - it would make their lives so much easier and better. In that case, I think it'd be great if there were places were they could get help.

[Emasher]

I haven't kept up with this thread but I thought I'd post this in here;

Lifeguard from my school (http://icwestlothian.icnetwork.co.uk/courier/news//tm_headline=high-school-worker-is-jailed-over-child-porn%26method=full%26objectid=21669258%26siteid=92 284-name_page.html) is caught with 5000 images of child pornography on his computer.

My school is a community school, meaning there is a public swimming pool/sports complex and creché (sp?) at one end. This guy worked as a pool attendant in the public pool, which is also used by the high school PE classes and classes from surrounding primary schools that come up for lessons. He's also the brother of one of the deputy head teachers.

W.T.F.

If you watch NBC's Dateline: To Catch a Predator, you will notice that alot of the men they catch were people working with children or who had more respectable jobs. The people you would think they would be catching are in the minority.

[Shino]

If you watch NBC's Dateline: To Catch a Predator, you will notice that alot of the men they catch were people working with children or who had more respectable jobs. The people you would think they would be catching are in the minority.

That show has to be a complete scam.

[Emasher]

How so. I mean, any reality TV could be a scam, but what about this makes you sure it is one?