Ped0philia

[The Sum of Awe]

(I put a 0 for the o otherwise it will be blocked, my laptop was given to me by the school so)

Anyway, is pedophilia really 'wrong'? I seen someone on another forum say "If you're a pedophile I'm keeping my kids away from you" and it was not a joke. It sounded similar to "If you're gay I'm staying away from you" (said by a guy).

Now, I'm not really addressing that homosexuality is the same as pedophilia, because heterosexuality, bisexuality, etc is just as close.


Pedophilia is a natural sexuality, something pedophiles are born with. Not all pedophiles are rapists. They cannot engage in activity obviously, but we have to accept that their sexuality is there and cannot be controlled.


So, if you shun at their sexuality without them being active in it, why?

If you shun their activity in it but not their sexuality, I am with you.


Not all pedophiles are active.

 

[Gjallarhorn]

Children are not able to consent.

 

[The Sum of Awe]

Children are not able to consent.

I know, and I agree that's why they can't have sex with them.

But does that mean we have to frown upon all pedophiles?

 

[Gjallarhorn]

I know, and I agree that's why they can't have sex with them.

But does that mean we have to frown upon all pedophiles?

If they attempt to have sex with a child, yes. Otherwise, it is still wise to watch them.

 

[The Sum of Awe]

If they attempt to have sex with a child, yes. Otherwise, it is still wise to watch them.

Why frown upon an entire group for a few peoples' mistakes?

 

[Gjallarhorn]

Why frown upon an entire group for a few peoples' mistakes?

Not frown on, but watch. Take it another way: say a guy comes up to you and says he's a pyromaniac. Would you not be wary of giving him a lighter?

 

[The Sum of Awe]

Not frown on, but watch. Take it another way: say a guy comes up to you and says he's a pyromaniac. Would you not be wary of giving him a lighter?

Yes, but you're talking about pedophilia like it's a mental disease, otherwise pyromania is a very bad example.

We could have laws against not raping kids, of course, but if they are a pedophile we shouldn't just make the parents hesitate or make them look like a bad person around children, they might not even rape them.

It's like women watching men around homosexuals.

It makes a person feel uncomfortable or unaccepted

 

[Gjallarhorn]

Yes, but you're talking about pedophilia like it's a mental disease, otherwise pyromania is a very bad example.

We could have laws against not raping kids, of course, but if they are a pedophile we shouldn't just make the parents hesitate or make them look like a bad person around children, they might not even rape them.

It's like women watching men around homosexuals.

It makes a person feel uncomfortable or unaccepted

Disease or not, there is a desire there. If you add stimuli that could allow that desire to gain a foothold, you are feeding the desire.

Your example about women watching their men is not accurate because a man can (usually) defend themselves and actually know their rights. Children don't know the laws. If an adult tells them it's okay, they are likely to believe them, and if they do not trust that adult and are assaulted, they are less able to defend themselves than an adult man or woman could.

 

[The Sum of Awe]

Disease or not, there is a desire there. If you add stimuli that could allow that desire to gain a foothold, you are feeding the desire.

All sexualities are based on desire.

Besides, I'm not saying they have the right to fullfil that desire, obviously that'd be child molestation.

Your example about women watching their men is not accurate because a man can (usually) defend themselves and actually know their rights. Children don't know the laws. If an adult tells them it's okay, they are likely to believe them, and if they do not trust that adult and are assaulted, they are less able to defend themselves than an adult man or woman could.

Obviously, but the parents shouldn't be worried as sick because of it or walk with them, just be as cautious as letting your children go to a friend's house.

If the parent is "up on their grill" it's making the man look bad when he has done nothing wrong.

 

[Gjallarhorn]

All sexualities are based on desire.

Besides, I'm not saying they have the right to fullfil that desire, obviously that'd be child molestation.

Neither would a pyromaniac necessarily feel the need to burn a house down, but would you supply them the means to do so?

Obviously, but the parents shouldn't be worried as sick because of it or walk with them, just be as cautious as letting your children go to a friend's house.

If the parent is "up on their grill" it's making the man look bad when he has done nothing wrong.

Another bad example. A child going to a friend's house is two children (typically). Pedophilia is between a child and an adult, and in this case an adult who has admitted to the fact that they are attracted to children.

Should parents be more wary of sending their child to a friend's house alone than to a known pedophile's house alone?

 

[Alex_G]

(I put a 0 for the o otherwise it will be blocked, my laptop was given to me by the school so)

Anyway, is pedophilia really 'wrong'? I seen someone on another forum say "If you're a pedophile I'm keeping my kids away from you" and it was not a joke. It sounded similar to "If you're gay I'm staying away from you" (said by a guy).

Now, I'm not really addressing that homosexuality is the same as pedophilia, because heterosexuality, bisexuality, etc is just as close.


Pedophilia is a natural sexuality, something pedophiles are born with. Not all pedophiles are rapists. They cannot engage in activity obviously, but we have to accept that their sexuality is there and cannot be controlled.


So, if you shun at their sexuality without them being active in it, why?

If you shun their activity in it but not their sexuality, I am with you.


Not all pedophiles are active.

As with most labels, one must always be aware of the spectrum of variability within its definition, and this word is no exception.

Obviously you could break the word down to its literal meaning 'liking children' but its not much help. The word is riddled with connotations and stigma (for undersatandable reasons really), and most of the time we are talking about adult sexuality with regards to children.

Of course one must meaningfully define 'child' (which likely is closely linked with a level of maturation and ability to give valid consent) and separate out those who have thoughts and feelings, with those that actually act on them.

There is i think a meaningful difference between the lonely man with learning disabilities taking a liking to a friendly 15year old girl, enjoying her company and so on as compared to the lucid child rapist, even though both might come under the same broad label, and unfortunately be considered morally the same due to that.

The wrongfulness of all of this i think revolves around the theme of abuse and capacity to give valid consent, as has been mentioned already.

Alex

 

[Kerr]

(I put a 0 for the o otherwise it will be blocked, my laptop was given to me by the school so)

Anyway, is pedophilia really 'wrong'? I seen someone on another forum say "If you're a pedophile I'm keeping my kids away from you" and it was not a joke. It sounded similar to "If you're gay I'm staying away from you" (said by a guy).

Now, I'm not really addressing that homosexuality is the same as pedophilia, because heterosexuality, bisexuality, etc is just as close.


Pedophilia is a natural sexuality, something pedophiles are born with. Not all pedophiles are rapists. They cannot engage in activity obviously, but we have to accept that their sexuality is there and cannot be controlled.


So, if you shun at their sexuality without them being active in it, why?

If you shun their activity in it but not their sexuality, I am with you.


Not all pedophiles are active.

No, I guess that they are not. And to be completely honest, I am happy as long as they dont act on it. Would probably still find it disturbing, though. And I do imagine I would keep a closer eye on them when they are close to children.

 

[Drolefille]

As with most labels, one must always be aware of the spectrum of variability within its definition, and this word is no exception.

Obviously you could break the word down to its literal meaning 'liking children' but its not much help. The word is riddled with connotations and stigma (for undersatandable reasons really), and most of the time we are talking about adult sexuality with regards to children.

Of course one must meaningfully define 'child' (which likely is closely linked with a level of maturation and ability to give valid consent) and separate out those who have thoughts and feelings, with those that actually act on them.

There is i think a meaningful difference between the lonely man with learning disabilities taking a liking to a friendly 15year old girl, enjoying her company and so on as compared to the lucid child rapist, even though both might come under the same broad label, and unfortunately be considered morally the same due to that.

The wrongfulness of all of this i think revolves around the theme of abuse and capacity to give valid consent, as has been mentioned already.

Alex

Attraction to a 15 year old would not meet the definition of pedophilia as a sexual orientation as this post discusses. This is one of those tricky areas where legally and colloquially "pedophilia" tends to refer to an attraction to anyone under 17 or 18, psychologically it refers to an attraction to a prepubescent child.

So yes, looking at pedophilia as an orientation and assuming that someone has not acted on it, you have two major issues. One is that complete celibacy is an incredibly high standard that few people live up to. Some pedophiles have castrated themselves, chemically or physically, to prevent feeling those desires they find disgusting because they involve harming a child.

The second issue is that this has a major negative impact on the individual's life. That is typically the key component to diagnosing something as a mental illness or disorder. Fetishes are, for example, in the DSM but only if it causes a problem to the individual's life.


Should we penalize someone just for their orientation or for having a mental illness? No.

Is this a situation where it is fairly understandable why many people do? Yes.

Should those people be receiving some sort of treatment? Probably yes, although if this is truly an orientation to them it is not likely to change even with therapy but there may be ways to vent the desires that do not involve children or child pornography.

Is most child abuse perpetrated by people who are sexually oriented toward pedophilia? No. Most is committed by heterosexual males - their preferred partner would be an adult woman but their acts of abuse are about power, replacement, and a bunch of other things. And most are known to the family - a family member, a teacher or family friend, etc.


(Not all a response to you but just stole your post to use as a jumping off point)

 

[The Sum of Awe]

Neither would a pyromaniac necessarily feel the need to burn a house down, but would you supply them the means to do so?

Pyromaniacs are a bad similarity, because pyromaniacs act on it, they are maniacs, pedophiles are not maniacs.

Another bad example. A child going to a friend's house is two children (typically). Pedophilia is between a child and an adult, and in this case an adult who has admitted to the fact that they are attracted to children.

Attraction to children =/= being mean and will rape children.

Should parents be more wary of sending their child to a friend's house alone than to a known pedophile's house alone?

Why are you assuming all of the pedos are rapists?

True, it'd be another child, let's say a neighbor's then, or to the park.

 

[The Sum of Awe]

No, I guess that they are not. And to be completely honest, I am happy as long as they dont act on it. Would probably still find it disturbing, though. And I do imagine I would keep a closer eye on them when they are close to children.

Fine with me, just don't make them feel uncomfortable.

 

[The Sum of Awe]

As with most labels, one must always be aware of the spectrum of variability within its definition, and this word is no exception.

Obviously you could break the word down to its literal meaning 'liking children' but its not much help. The word is riddled with connotations and stigma (for undersatandable reasons really), and most of the time we are talking about adult sexuality with regards to children.

Of course one must meaningfully define 'child' (which likely is closely linked with a level of maturation and ability to give valid consent) and separate out those who have thoughts and feelings, with those that actually act on them.

There is i think a meaningful difference between the lonely man with learning disabilities taking a liking to a friendly 15year old girl, enjoying her company and so on as compared to the lucid child rapist, even though both might come under the same broad label, and unfortunately be considered morally the same due to that.

The wrongfulness of all of this i think revolves around the theme of abuse and capacity to give valid consent, as has been mentioned already.

Alex

Noun:
A person who is sexually attracted to children.

Does the definition say anywhere that they act on it?

How about this definition:

Web definitions:
(child molester) pederast: a man who has sex (usually sodomy) with a boy as the passive partner.



Child Molester- Pedophile, two different words.

 

[Kerr]

Attraction to children =/= being mean and will rape children.



Why are you assuming all of the pedos are rapists?

True, it'd be another child, let's say a neighbor's then, or to the park.

If someone has desires to rape women but didnt act on them, then I would accept it but would still keep on eye on him because if he ever acts on it, he will harm someone. It is the same with pedophiles, except that the target is not an adult but a child and children tend to make people rather protective.

 

[Gjallarhorn]

Pyromaniacs are a bad similarity, because pyromaniacs act on it, they are maniacs, pedophiles are not maniacs.

No, but they are philiacs.

Attraction to children =/= being mean and will rape children.

Why are you assuming all of the pedos are rapists?

True, it'd be another child, let's say a neighbor's then, or to the park.

I am not assuming all pedos are rapists. I am assuming that humans, in general, are weak and at the mercy of their desires. I would not leave an addict alone with their addiction, and if they happened to be the vicinity of their desire I would be justifiably wary, especially if acting on that desire would result in very bad results.

 

[The Sum of Awe]

If someone has desires to rape women but didnt act on them,

Wrong already, Pedophiles don't have desires to rape them, just to sleep with them. If you are going to compare their sexuality to that of a heterosexual you should just say "if someone has desires to sleep with women".

If women didn't know what was going on, if they didn't really get a choice, it'd be rape and thus bad, that's why molesting children is bad, it's rape. But pedophiles most likely don't have a "fetish" of raping them, just sleeping with them. In reality the only way it works is raping.

then I would accept it but would still keep on eye on him because if he ever acts on it, he will harm someone. It is the same with pedophiles, except that the target is not an adult but a child and children tend to make people rather protective.

But if you aren't sure if they'll act on it why make them feel uncomfortable. Watch them all you need but don't do it so much that you go into their private bubble.

 

[Gjallarhorn]

Wrong already, Pedophiles don't have desires to rape them, just to sleep with them. If you are going to compare their sexuality to that of a heterosexual you should just say "if someone has desires to sleep with women".

If women didn't know what was going on, if they didn't really get a choice, it'd be rape and thus bad, that's why molesting children is bad, it's rape. But pedophiles most likely don't have a "fetish" of raping them, just sleeping with them. In reality the only way it works is raping.

Rape is non-consensual sex. Children by law cannot be said to consent. Therefore all sex with a child is rape.