Paedophiles

Chuck Stone

strobe wrote: »

Would someone that was sexually attracted to children but never acted on it be coercive or abusive? How, exactly? Who are they coercing or abusing?

Chuck Stone wrote: »

I don't see why anyone who is not getting strong urges to act on their deviancy would seek acceptance by society - seems like a bit of a non-issue.

.

strobe

Chuck Stone wrote: »

.

Sorry Chuck, I'm not sure if that is agreeing with what I said or rebutting it. If it's the latter, I don't get it. I'm a little slow sometimes, they tell me.

Chuck Stone

strobe wrote: »

Sorry Chuck, I'm not sure if that is agreeing with what I said or rebutting it. If it's the latter, I don't get it. I'm a little slow sometimes, they tell me.

Obviously if deviant thoughts remain thoughts then it's not really a problem - it's a non issue. Thoughts can't hurt anyone. The problem arises when the thoughts are expressed in behaviour.

Pedophiles need not directly hurt children to be a problem. Downloading child porn would be harmfull without actually directly physically harming a child.

I have no idea on the statistics for child pornography downloading but I'd imagine it's fairly rife.

strobe

Chuck Stone wrote: »

Obviously if deviant thoughts remain thoughts then it's not really a problem - it's a non issue. Thoughts can't hurt anyone. The problem arises when the thoughts are expressed in behaviour.

Pedophiles need not directly hurt children to be a problem. Downloading child porn would be harmfull without actually directly physically harming a child.

I have no idea on the statistics for child pornography downloading but I'd imagine it's fairly rife.

Well downloading child pornography is behaviour/action too.

I'm still a little lost as to your point if I'm honest.

Chuck Stone

Chuck Stone wrote: »

People should be whole-heartedly against societies that are comfortble with coercive, abusive people.

I think this is the statement you're having trouble with?

It's just a throw away comment I wouldn't read too much into it. I guess I'm talking about society in general rather than specifically pedophilia.

Btw I'm not in the 'burn the pedos' brigade. I understand that there is probably a benefit to be had from studying and tackling pedophilia although I think it would be extremely difficult to get good data.

jive

Ms.Odgeynist wrote: »

Discussing paedophilia does not diminish the hurt that it causes. It does not justify the actions of anyone who hurts another. It does nothing but attempt to further our understanding, at least those of us who want to understand. I can't speak for the 'thats just the way it is' brigade, and I would never want to.

Whether a paedophile can or cannot help it, is fundamental to the issue of punishment, treatment, cure, not to mention the safety of children.

OP makes a very valid point, a point however that was always going to mobilise the ignorant and unthinking.
I have a fetish and have done since about the age of 11.

Good post. I often wonder if paedophilia is a fetish. You can't control what makes you tick sexually. Another post in this thread compared paedophilia to psycopathy which is also a fairly valid point; but can those who don't act on their urges be considered psycopaths? I don't think so which is imo where there is a hole in that theory. I'd still consider it a viable point though and probably one worth discussing.

Dudess wrote: »

People on this thread really need to get a grip and stop ****ing saying child abuse is being accepted by some here - much as you'd like that to be the case, you are wrong.

Quoted for truth. Was always going to happen in a thread regarding such a sensitive subject. Some people would prefer not to discuss it but ignoring it doesn't make it go away. It is especially worthy of discussion in this country given events in the not so distant past.

HarbinSnowfall

This is a bit embarrassing to have as my first post. But I did sign up for this website indeed because of this topic. I was searching "causes of pedophilia" today, and it only showed very limited results as usual saying "nobody knows", and switched to "origins of pedophilia" and found this topic in google. The sort of way I find a lot of websites. Whether that's a terrible sort of thing to be google searching, is up to you.

Well, onto my post.

I don't think understanding paedophiles lessens the moral weight of child abuse at all. And I don't think one should assume people do not put moral weight to the actions of paedophiles just because they want to understand it. Serial murders and rapists should also be understood because it would give the world a better understanding of the mind, and how to possibly help prevent or less the occurrence of such mental states. The only possible reasoning I could possibly understand that someone would want to take outrage with understanding paedophiles, is if someone is afraid of them being humanized instead of subhumanized. To which I would say, even the most horrible people are still human. And it does nothing to help society be more moral or ethical. The world not understanding the motivations of Hitler or Ted Bundy helps nobody. In fact demonizing people can often give them a strange sort of mysterious power. Nazi chic wouldn't exist without it.

And just what IS a pedophile, exactly? I seem to have gotten into many arguments on just that, and it's confusing. Liking paedophilia to sadism and sociopathy just seems like one form and interpretation of the word.

A paedophlie seems to mean nothing other than someone who is attracted to children, and especially someone who has a preference for them. In a sexual sense. And interpreted in the broadest of fashions, could have nothing to do with power, but only some kind of aesthetic attraction.

What if someone is attracted to a lack of body hair? Is that paedophilia?
No, you would probably say. But women are already expected to be hairless. They're considered butch if they don't shave, despite the fact body hair on women is natural. And it is a cultural norm, sadly, to show revulsion to pubic hair on female pornographic actors. Certainly few would call it pedophilia without a blatant agenda in favor of deconstruction society's poor, and sexist aesthetic standards. And being attracted to a man without body hair would likely just be seen as attraction to a feminine man, not paedophilia.

Then what of liking a lack of body hair, and liking shorter women? It is also the cultural norm for women to like taller men and men liking shorter women, sadly. Is there a threshold that it's wrong? I highly doubt that, and that would be unfair to people with dwarfism, for lack of a better term.

And what of the "Tanner scale", a lack of so-called "secondary sex characteristics". A man with small genitalia is oft mock and made fun of, sadly. But I doubt the attraction to such would or should be considered paedophilia. And a lack of broad shoulders, breasts, wide hips, all of these are and should be considered features of androgyny. Not paedophila.

And having a "baby-face" seems to be considered attractive by society in general. And saying having an attraction to them is wrong, if you try to isolate certain things, may even sound racist. What are some facial characteristics of children? Often having less pointed noses seems like one.

So again, who is a paedophile? Is attraction to a childlike body comparable enough to being attracted to children enough to consider people who essentially like the body of a child, but not immaturity, paedophiles? And if so, how are such people necessarily dangerous if they know that child molestation is wrong? Certainly such an attraction may be paedophilia, but is it necessarily indicative of delusions? Or of being a strong threat to children? At worst, it may make leading a sexually fulfilling life a bit more difficult.

It doesn't help that our society is currently very liberal with it's application of the word "paedophile". It's become it's own Godwin's Law, of sorts. And anybody who disagrees is often suspected by people of being one. Kind of a "you're with us or you're with the terrorists". Or "only a geek knows what a geek is and the difference between a geek and a nerd".

Tayla

HarbinSnowfall wrote: »

I don't think understanding paedophiles lessens the moral weight of child abuse at all. And I don't think one should assume people do not put moral weight to the actions of paedophiles just because they want to understand it. Serial murders and rapists should also be understood because it would give the world a better understanding of the mind, and how to possibly help prevent or less the occurrence of such mental states. The only possible reasoning I could possibly understand that someone would want to take outrage with understanding paedophiles, is if someone is afraid of them being humanized instead of subhumanized.

We have all seen whenever there are serious crimes committed in this country that there is so much protection given to the people who commit these crimes,
it seems that sometimes this country will do anything to uphold their rights and nothing to protect the people who have their lives ruined by criminals.

I think paedophiles are really in a category of their own, I've read somewhere that there was a movement where they wanted to get paedophilia recognised as a sexual preference so I guess if they had succeeded would probably have been the first step in their eyes to it being ok. (some paedophiles obviously do already think it is ok) This particular group of paedophiles clearly do not realise that other sexual preferences do not harm other people. It is not the same as any other sexual orientation.

I'm babbling here but it's hard to put thoughts into words on such a difficult subject, I don't think understanding paedophiles on it's own would change a thing, if we found out that the ones who abuse definitely can not help it then what do we do? They HAVE to be locked up in that case. If they can help it then why the hell are they doing it?? It's not just sexual urges, i'm a woman and have had many men who want to have sex with me......i've never been abused or raped though. Whatever it is that causes them to do it is dangerous. Will understanding but not being able to change it help us in any way? No

If any research on the subject happened to end with a cure then everyone in our society would rejoice but it doesn't seem like there could be a cure.

HarbinSnowfall wrote: »

The world not understanding the motivations of Hitler or Ted Bundy helps nobody. In fact demonizing people can often give them a strange sort of mysterious power. Nazi chic wouldn't exist without it.

There are some people in this world, very few in recent history, but there are some who will never be understood,there are fascinating strange one of a kind people out there like Hitler or Ted Bundy, paedophilia is not the same as there are so many more paedophiles out there than Hitlers.

HarbinSnowfall wrote: »

And just what IS a pedophile, exactly? I seem to have gotten into many arguments on just that, and it's confusing. Liking paedophilia to sadism and sociopathy just seems like one form and interpretation of the word.

A paedophlie seems to mean nothing other than someone who is attracted to children, and especially someone who has a preference for them. In a sexual sense. And interpreted in the broadest of fashions, could have nothing to do with power, but only some kind of aesthetic attraction.

Personally I would call someone who abuses children a paedophile, I would also consider someone who looks at child pornography a paedophile.

HarbinSnowfall

Tayla wrote: »

I'm babbling here but it's hard to put thoughts into words on such a difficult subject, I don't think understanding paedophiles on it's own would change a thing, if we found out that the ones who abuse definitely can not help it then what do we do?

Science is boundless. I believe in science and human potential to use tools and logic. Our biological understanding of the brain is increasing with every year and we are approaching a complete understanding of what causes people to be homosexual.

If we as humans can find a cause, we can find a solution. Science is a beautiful endeavor not to be taken lightly. We should never underestimate our potential or the potential of science. Nothing good will ever come out of understanding less about the world around us.

Tayla wrote: »

They HAVE to be locked up in that case. If they can help it then why the hell are they doing it??

They're not all doing it. I'm sure plenty of paedophiles die virgins.

And yes, people who are an unstoppable danger to themselves and others with our current understanding and technology, should be prevented from doing back things. Nobody is disputing that in this thread.

Tayla wrote: »

Will understanding but not being able to change it help us in any way?

Understanding is the path to changing.

Tayla wrote: »

doesn't seem like there could be a cure.

It should never be assumed that a cure doesn't exist for something. People trying to cure cancer and AIDS are not trying in vain.

And our society, Western society, has done much to research these. While it has done very little to research paedophilia.

Tayla wrote: »

There are some people in this world, very few in recent history, but there are some who will never be understood,there are fascinating strange one of a kind people out there like Hitler or Ted Bundy, paedophilia is not the same as there are so many more paedophiles out there than Hitlers.

I don't know, there have been a lot of White Nationalists, Nordicists and Antisemites in the world. They just didn't have the power Hitler did. And could be calked up to macroproblems of racist nationalism. Which there are huge studies about the effects of, majority privilege, and the causes of racism. And if there a more paedophiles than there are Hitler, I would think that means it's even more important in terms of trying to understand and accurately deal with. The less isolated something negative is, the more important it is to understand it.

If paedophilia is remotely as pervasive a problem as racism, then I would say people should certainly understand paedophiles as much as Hitler. Because was nothing more than a common racist, with power. Power to kill people for racist reasons.

Just as the problems of child molestation and pedophilia have a negative butterfly effect on society. So certainly does racism. Hitler is not as unique as people like to single him out to be. And largely the utter demonization and distance from such a figure just seems like a way for gentiles to not take notice of gentile privilege pervasive in Western society. Hitler was not created in a vacuum. And Europe cannot place all antisemitism on one figure and reject the fact of gentile privilege.

Tayla wrote: »

Personally I would call someone who abuses children a paedophile, I would also consider someone who looks at child pornography a paedophile.

A paedophile is certainly more than a person who molests children. It is someone who is attracted to children.

Also, what is child pornography, exactly? Where does decency end and child pornography begin? Is the cover art of the album "Virgin Killer" child pornography? Is pornography not a word for anything used to derive nothing more than sexual pleasure? Then one could say a great deal of non lude pictures of children are being used as child pornography. What of someone who reads Lolita for sexual purposes? Or one who draws unrealistic drawings of cartoon children for sexual purposes?

Heck, I can even bring video games into this. Is the person who plays Disgaea and says "Etna is so hot. I'd be her prinny slave in an instant" a paedophile? She certainly looks like a child, despite not having a child's personality or stated age. Most people would agree that liking Etna sexually makes you a paedophile. But I don't think one should necessarily assume from that, that the person is going to molest children.

HarbinSnowfall wrote: »

What if someone is attracted to a lack of body hair? Is that paedophilia?
No, you would probably say. But women are already expected to be hairless. They're considered butch if they don't shave, despite the fact body hair on women is natural. And it is a cultural norm, sadly, to show revulsion to pubic hair on female pornographic actors. Certainly few would call it pedophilia without a blatant agenda in favor of deconstruction society's poor, and sexist aesthetic standards. And being attracted to a man without body hair would likely just be seen as attraction to a feminine man, not paedophilia.

Then what of liking a lack of body hair, and liking shorter women? It is also the cultural norm for women to like taller men and men liking shorter women, sadly. Is there a threshold that it's wrong? I highly doubt that, and that would be unfair to people with dwarfism, for lack of a better term.

And what of the "Tanner scale", a lack of so-called "secondary sex characteristics". A man with small genitalia is oft mock and made fun of, sadly. But I doubt the attraction to such would or should be considered paedophilia. And a lack of broad shoulders, breasts, wide hips, all of these are and should be considered features of androgyny. Not paedophila.

And having a "baby-face" seems to be considered attractive by society in general. And saying having an attraction to them is wrong, if you try to isolate certain things, may even sound racist. What are some facial characteristics of children? Often having less pointed noses seems like one.

And why did I go into all of these specific things? I'm not blaming someone who likes flat chests or short men or women, or a lack of body hair as being a paedophile. No, not one of these individual aspects.

But what do you get when you put all of these things together?: The body of a child. And if you are attracted to, if you prefer the body of a child, regardless of age or mental maturity, are you not a paedophile?

When you take these things separately, they all seem innocent enough. Nobody is going to get harmed from dating a flat chested adult woman who fails the Tanner Scale. But when you put it all together, it becomes paedophilia, doesn't it? It only takes a few pieces of innocent attraction and preference put together to equal paedophilia. You only have to have sexual preference for the very few amount of physical features unique to children. They can be named off very quickly and painlessly. And it is pretty obvious to anybody not being purposely obtuse, when somebody has the body of a child.

RachaelVO wrote: »

I'm pretty sure I'd be the exact same. There is NO way I would let him/her (and it can be a her) near my children. When it comes to this, there is no middle ground. I would walk away and that would be that. I would feel that my children were at risk by this person no matter what, and I'd not be able to take that sort of risk...

That's understandable. Even if the person is harmless, the prejudice itself, like many prejudices society has, is largely understandable.

Humans make prejudiced decisions like this every day. About the clothing one wears, about the size of their breasts, and often even about the colour of their skin.

Nobody here is telling you, however, that you shouldn't have any prejudices against paedophiles.

RachaelVO wrote: »

A Paedophile has very little control and they will used position and power to get access to children. Which in turn will pretty much mess up important times of their lives. Not really that comparable!!!!

While I agree that being gay and being a paedophile are different. I don't like how minorities are treated with various different treatment by the privileged majority and by each other due to have the majority perceives them and how being associated with one thing shames another. For instance, people who have moved past particularly cruel racism, saying that you can't compare black plight to gay plight. Making it look as if blacks should never be compared to gays because it shames blacks. Which reinforces a very cruel majority privilege in which a hierarchy of majority exists. The same goes with gays, while gay people get enough paedophilia accusations and it's cruel and unjust against a perfectly healthy sexuality. That doesn't mean all comparisons between any minority groups are wrong.

And being a paedophile does not mean lacking self control. And there are all sorts of self control. A paedophile without self control could just mean not having the self control to not buy the latest Atlus game. Which is surely the favourite of a lot of paedophiles.

Lewis Carrol was likely a paedophile. But there is no evidence that he did not have self control.

RachaelVO wrote: »

They have no self control!

Hey, just because they have no self to stop them from buying the latest Moetan figurine, doesn't mean they're a harm to anyone.

... except people who aren't fans of Moetan and don't want it to economically succeed.

RachaelVO wrote: »

A Paedophile walks into a youth club or a class room, and they are picking out the vulnerable children.

Don't be too sure of that. They might have dirty thoughts, but there's a good chance they won't act on them.

RachaelVO wrote: »

Paedophiles are predators, they do act on it!!!. They seek out vulnerable children, groom them, and as a direct result of a paeophiles action they will fcuk up lives!!!!

Some of them do.

RachaelVO wrote: »

Simple as.

Eh, paedophilia isn't simple. Or we would understand it's cause already.

It's this sort of logic that is causing many paedophiles to call themselves Lolicons and repeat this reasoning anytime anybody calls them paedophile. And you're just giving them fuel to new labels and loopholes to excuse and find a nicer name to call the fact they prefer prepubescent bodies and particularly flat chests on women and small genitalia on men.

Do you want to help them further escape the label paedophile? Because that's what you're doing. You're giving them an excuse to say they are not paedophiles.

RachaelVO wrote: »

There is no proof that any paedophile does not act on their instincts.

Sure there is. There are plenty of non-molesters who have build communities and published materials on how to be a paedophile happily without molesting children. Of course, you can they likely have and didn't get caught. But there's no proof that they have. And I find it highly likely that many indeed have not. Paedophilia is not some worldwide Freemason conspiracy against children, paedophilia happens. And often without any delusions at all.

RachaelVO wrote: »

It's not a bloody sexuality.

Just because homosexuals are wonderful people that don't need to be associated with child molesters, doesn't mean it's not a sexuality.

RachaelVO wrote: »

There is a study to indicate that paedophiles feel that it is their RIGHT to have sex with children, and that children are sexual creatures.

Could I have a source on this statement? I have seen no such study. And I think it would be hard to create a study that represents the opinions of all paedophiles. Especially since most are likely closeted.

Most homosexuals are already closeted. So I'm sure a great deal many more paedophiles are closeted.

Also, children are sexual creatures. I was a sexual child, you were. Humans are born sexual, we just can't consent. There are instances of 11 year olds raping other people.

Obviously I am not saying children can consent. But the statement that children aren't sexual is patently wrong.

RachaelVO wrote: »

So it's rare a paedophile will NOT act on whatever course of action they have set their mind on.

Now where do you have these statistics from?

Tayla

HarbinSnowfall wrote: »

They're not all doing it. I'm sure plenty of paedophiles die virgins.

I've said many many times on this thread that they don't all do it..

HarbinSnowfall wrote: »

It should never be assumed that a cure doesn't exist for something. People trying to cure cancer and AIDS are not trying in vain.

I think the people who are attracted to children but do not act on it could possibly be 'cured' and have all urges gone...this would benefit the paedophile mainly and allow them to live a normal life without guilt etc.

However the ones who abuse and destroy childrens lives are different, there are 2 things to cure in that case, the first is the sexual thoughts and urges, the 2nd is the sadistic selfish 'evil' part that makes them only care about their own 'wants' and which destroys childrens lives in the process.

HarbinSnowfall wrote: »

Hitler is not as unique as people like to single him out to be. And largely the utter demonization and distance from such a figure just seems like a way for gentiles to not take notice of gentile privilege pervasive in Western society. Hitler was not created in a vacuum. And Europe cannot place all antisemitism on one figure and reject the fact of gentile privilege.

Although not unique, he was extremely charismatic, that type of charisma does not come along very often.

HarbinSnowfall wrote: »

A paedophile is certainly more than a person who molests children. It is someone who is attracted to children.

Yes but I said personally I would consider someone who abuses or watches child pornography a paedophile and personally I would consider those who are attracted to children but have no intention of acting on it to be very unlucky.

HarbinSnowfall wrote: »

Also, what is child pornography, exactly? Where does decency end and child pornography begin? Is the cover art of the album "Virgin Killer" child pornography? Is pornography not a word for anything used to derive nothing more than sexual pleasure? Then one could say a great deal of non lude pictures of children are being used as child pornography. What of someone who reads Lolita for sexual purposes? Or one who draws unrealistic drawings of cartoon children for sexual purposes?

Did you watch the documentary earlier in this thread? where they were trying to cure paedophiles? To check whether they were cured they would show them pictures of kids in swimming costumes and holding water hoses etc.
While it sickens me that paedophiles could find something sexual or pleasurable in a non sexual image or there is nothing anyone can do to stop that as there is too way to remove all the images of children from the world but if someone looks at a photo of a child being abused then they have passed the danger zone as far as i'm concerned.



When you take these things separately, they all seem innocent enough. Nobody is going to get harmed from dating a flat chested adult woman who fails the Tanner Scale. But when you put it all together, it becomes paedophilia, doesn't it? It only takes a few pieces of innocent attraction and preference put together to equal paedophilia. You only have to have sexual preference for the very few amount of physical features unique to children. They can be named off very quickly and painlessly. And it is pretty obvious to anybody not being purposely obtuse, when somebody has the body of a child.[/QUOTE]

I don't agree with this at all, if that were the case would all paedophiles not seek out adults who looked like children instead of destroying innocent childrens lives. You often hear people talking about such and such skinny celebrity saying they have the body of a child but it's just an expression, I don't know any adult with the body of a child.

HarbinSnowfall

Tayla wrote: »

However the ones who abuse and destroy childrens lives are different, there are 2 things to cure in that case, the first is the sexual thoughts and urges, the 2nd is the sadistic selfish 'evil' part that makes them only care about their own 'wants' and which destroys childrens lives in the process.

I think it would be great if sadism could be cured. I would like to see a world without even the tiniest forms of sadism and schadenfreude such as internet troll. Youtube could use less people advocating genocide and kids posting videos of them beating up students onto the internet for all the world to see. And less victim blaming in the world in general.

Though I think that's a very specific type of paedophilia. And I almost think it's a bad idea to call that kind of desire paedophile. Since there's no "philia" involved.

Tayla wrote: »

Did you watch the documentary earlier in this thread?

Nope, sorry. I did respond without partaking in every piece of content in the thread. Though I did make an effort to read almost every post I could before posting myself. I think I did a pretty good job.

Tayla wrote: »

where they were trying to cure paedophiles? To check whether they were cured they would show them pictures of kids in swimming costumes and holding water hoses etc.
While it sickens me that paedophiles could find something sexual or pleasurable in a non sexual image or there is nothing anyone can do to stop that as there is too way to remove all the images of children from the world

Actually, that doesn't appear to harm anyone anyway. Except for the paedophile who can't do more without acting unethically. Nobody is harmed by looking at non-sexual images of children, sexually. Only, again, perhaps the paedophile who cannot get more fulfillment than just fantasy in their mind. With the exception of maybe being lucky and finding somebody with dwarfism.

I'm not sure if those desires even need to be stopped unless the paedophile wants them removed because they find they make them permanently regulated to being without sex and romantic partner. But if they're happy with just that and don't feel lonely or ect., then I'm sure they can just continue on with the sexual feelings they have as long as they act on them responsibly.

Tayla wrote: »

I don't agree with this at all, if that were the case could paedophiles not seek out adults who looked like children instead of destroying innocent childrens lives.

Well, I'm sure that there are some that do. They're pretty rare, though.

I'm sure that you could classify these people and one kind of paedophile, too.

Tayla wrote: »

it's just an expression, I don't know any adult with the body of a child.

It would be nice if it were just hyperbole or trolling. But I'm afraid in many cases it appears not. And is instead a Godwin's Law of sorts against things people don't like associated with Neoteny.

I don't know too many adults with the body of a child personally, that's why it's considered the body of a child, but they do exist. And I'm also saying that aesthetic attraction is paedophilia. This is why they're called paedophiles. They're not attracted to bodies common in adults, they're attracted to bodies common in children. If you're attracted to the body of a child, and you prefer it, you're a paedophile. If you say that adults don't have a child's body, that only proves my point further that they are paedophiles if they like that. So clearly you do agree with this a lot, and you've even supported my statements. The only part you don't seem to agree with is that any type of paedophile would be capable of being sexually attracted to an adult who happened to look just like a child, or that an adult can look like a child. But whether that's true or not doesn't affect my central point or not. Whether it's possible for an adult to have the body of a child or not, or whether a real paedophile would be interested in that, doesn't change the fact that being attracted to a childlike body, or rather preferring it, is paedophilia. In fact, again, if an adult can't have one, it only supports it. Because it means it is certain that it is the body of a child and therefor paedophilia.

But it should be noted it would be very possible to prefer that aesthetically and not rape anyone.

Mawbish wrote: »

How can anyone ignore a crying, screaming child just to satisfy themselves?

I wouldn't jump to equating paedophilia with this.

A good portion of the fantasies, however unrealistic they are, among paedophiles, seems to be the imaginary fantasy that a child could consent to sex, and would enjoy them as a romantic and sexual partner. They don't live in a world in where a child can do that, but they wish they did and they fantasize about it.

Of course, this isn't all "paedophiles", some are simply nasty sadists. But for many it seems to be the case. In fact, when paedophiles group together online, it would appear a lot of them talk about ways to fulfill their fantasies without harming a child. And their arguments about "paedosexuality" instead of "paedophilia" and things seem to be in the area of pushing science in the area of age of consent reform. Trying to desperately push ideas of child consent and child sexuality into the world. And they more often consider themselves proponents of "children's rights", instead of their right to have sex with a child. Always struggling to look for studies which sexualize children or treat them as mature.

They're wrong. But this kind of delusional fantasy is a lot different than wanting to see a child cry or scream or ignoring it.

And also, organize paedophiles seem to be heavily diverse in terms of what is morally right and there is much controversy among them. They are as much individuals as any other person. With a great plethora of interpretations about the issue. Greater in diversity, I would say, than the majority of society at large.

Tayla

HarbinSnowfall wrote: »

Nope, sorry. I did respond without partaking in every piece of content in the thread. Though I did make an effort to read almost every post I could before posting myself. I think I did a pretty good job.

Em...ok...it was a genuine question actually. My tone didn't imply anything otherwise but whatever :rolleyes:

HarbinSnowfall wrote: »

Actually, that doesn't appear to harm anyone anyway.

I didn't say it harmed anyone, I said it sickened me.

HarbinSnowfall wrote: »

I'm not sure if those desires even need to be stopped unless the paedophile wants them removed because they find they make them permanently regulated to being without sex and romantic partner. But if they're happy with just that and don't feel lonely or ect., then I'm sure they can just continue on with the sexual feelings they have as long as they act on them responsibly.

Maybe that is 1 thing that we will find out soon, whether paedophiles who don't abuse would like their thoughts and desires removed, I would have thought that they would have and never really considered the possibilty that they wouldn't to be honest with you.

HarbinSnowfall wrote: »

If you're attracted to the body of a child, and you prefer it, you're a paedophile. If you say that adults don't have a child's body, that only proves my point further that they are paedophiles if they like that. So clearly you do agree with this a lot, and you've even supported my statements. The only part you don't seem to agree with is that any type of paedophile would be capable of being sexually attracted to an adult who happened to look just like a child, or that an adult can look like a child. But whether that's true or not doesn't affect my central point or not. Whether it's possible for an adult to have the body of a child or not, or whether a real paedophile would be interested in that, doesn't change the fact that being attracted to a childlike body, or rather preferring it, is paedophilia. In fact, again, if an adult can't have one, it only supports it. Because it means it is certain that it is the body of a child and therefor paedophilia.

But you see this is where we do differ, I don't think it is just an attraction to a child that makes them decide to abuse them, as i've said before in this thread a straight person doesn't just rape another straight person because they are attracted to them, a gay person doesn't rape another gay person just because they are attracted to them, we are always told rape is a power thing, it is apparently nothing to do with sex but yet when a paedophile abuses it is because it is their sexuality and they desired that child.

I don't think it is just an attraction to the body, what the hell is it? I do not know, do they get a thrill from the fear they cause a child? or a kick out of causing pain? I don't know but it's not simply an attraction to a body.

HarbinSnowfall

Chuck Stone wrote: »

They are not the same - Homosexuality is consensual. Please stop comparing the public perception of homosexuality to peadophila - they are totally different.

A comparison does not mean that two things are exactly the same. Hardly ever, is this the case.

Homosexual sex is capable of being consensual. While child molestation is not.

That doesn't mean that attraction to severe Neoteny, paedophilia, is not just as much an orientation, and a possibly harmless one if one acts responsibly, as being heterosexual.

The point here, the comparison instead of contrast, is that it does not appear to be a choice. And a lot of ethics are based upon treating people fairly because of things they didn't choose, such as skin colour, gender, sexual orientation, or so forth. It morally irks people to punish them for something they did not choose.

Tayla

HarbinSnowfall wrote: »

Homosexual sex is capable of being consensual. While child molestation is not.

If a homosexual man has strong urges and has noone to consent to sex with them then do they go out and rape a man? NO

HarbinSnowfall wrote: »

It morally irks people to punish them for something they did not choose.

What punishment are you talking about? They did not choose it but a child definitely doesn't choose it

HarbinSnowfall

Tayla wrote: »

But you see this is where we do differ, I don't think it is just an attraction to a child that makes them decide to abuse them, as i've said before in this thread a straight person doesn't just rape another straight person because they are attracted to them, a gay person doesn't rape another gay person just because they are attracted to them, we are always told rape is a power thing, it is apparently nothing to do with sex but yet when a paedophile abuses it is because it is their sexuality and they desired that child.

Well, there are surely many gay and straight non-paedophile rapists, even if rape is about power instead of sexuality. The paedophiles that molest are the ones that make the news. Just like the straight or homosexual people who make the news.

I think that many paedophiles don't want to rape. Unfortunately it's just the natural result of wanting sexual relations with a child, because they can't consent, even though the paedophile might want them to or think they can. There are exceptions to the rule about rape that aren't entirely just about power, but sometimes delusion. Like the delusion that children can consent and that the adult can form a consensual loving relationship with them.

A child can likely have sex without crying or screaming, but will nonetheless be disturbed. And the paedophile would not pick up on their disturbia. I doubt if I was molested as a child I would have reacted with crying or screaming, maybe if I were penetrated. But I don't think you have to be penetrated for it to qualify as sex, surely. Of course, it's hard to gauge exactly how I would have been as a child, because I no longer am one. But I might not have shown such outward signs. I have read that many raped children internalize the abuse. Which leads a lot of paedophiles to wrongly think they have done no harm. Because there is no obvious evidence to them.

Tayla wrote: »

I don't know but it's not simply an attraction to a body.

It seems like the most logical explanation to me. Do you think that a person can be attracted to, no, prefer the body of a child aesthetically without being a paedophile.

I one time tried to argue this. And I was soundly defeated. They also told me they lost a lot of respect for me when I did.

Tayla

[QUOTE=HarbinSnowfall;73032013

t Which leads a lot of paedophiles to wrongly think they have done no harm. Because there is no obvious evidence to them.[/QUOTE]

Maybe this is true from years ago but these days everyone would know how much the are damaging the child, maybe they would delude themselves but they would know deep down.

[QUOTE=HarbinSnowfall;73032013
It seems like the most logical explanation to me. Do you think that a person can be attracted to, no, prefer the body of a child aesthetically without being a paedophile.[/QUOTE]

I don't think someone would prefer the body of a child without being a paedophile, straight men love female bodies, some men love skinny female bodies, gay men love male bodies but it's not the only attraction, it's not just the body, it's the person.

Maybe it's the child that they are sexually attracted to like the fact that they are a child and so they like the childs body because it is attached to the child? Like some men will say they love big boobs and then fall in love with a flat chested girl and absolutely love her figure too.

HarbinSnowfall

Tayla wrote: »

but they would know deep down.

I wouldn't be so sure about that.

Tayla wrote: »

I don't think someone would prefer the body of a child without being a paedophile

Well then you can definitely be a very otherwise sane paedophile.

Because there are all sorts of responsible ways to deal with preferring the body of a child.

Tayla wrote: »

straight men love female bodies, some men love skinny female bodies, gay men love male bodies but it's not the only attraction, it's not just the body, it's the person.

I'm not exactly sure I understand the full extent of your point. Are you saying that aesthetic attraction and personality attraction are inseparable? Because you can definitely be attracted to a "tomboy" without being a gay man or a straight woman.

Tayla wrote: »

Maybe it's the child that they are sexually attracted to like the fact that they are a child and so they like the childs body because it is attached to the child?

So are you basically saying that the only reason for liking all of the physical features of a child is being sexually attracted to the idea of raping someone immature?

We're getting into a confusing "I don't know what you're saying exactly area" here. You already said that you didn't think someone would prefer childlike bodies without being a paedophile. But now you seem to say that body and other aspects of being a child are inseparable.

I'd like to clarify your meaning for me, please.

I hate to respond to something when I don't know all of the details. Or exactly how I want to form my argument and avoid holes in logic. But your argument seems to conflate a bit too many things. Is aesthetic attraction not the most important aspect of sexuality? It seems like a chicken or the egg thing. A man who likes woman with a personality indistinguishable from that of a man is not gay. And if a person cannot be attracted to the body of a child, that is, a child-like body, without being a paedophile. Then that person is a paedophile for liking the body of a child, for whatever reason. Your talk of aesthetics versus the rest, talks as if people are only attracted to someone because they are a symbol of something. It's not as simple as that. And if you can only be attracted to the body of a child you're a paedophile, that should mean that you don't have to recognize the body of a child as a symbol for something or a personality type.

I would hope that you wouldn't imply you can't like a certain aesthetic without assuming a certain personality with it.

This is a difficult area to bring to discussion and discuss coherently because people have all sorts of wrong ideas and associations this. And it's hard to rationally discuss because people forcefully conflate certain things to fit their agenda and do not allow the pieces to be broken apart and analyzed coherently. For instance, this overlaps with things such as the Asian fetish and has all sorts of betwix and between controversial issues with sexuality such as being homosexual, nature versus nurture and gender roles, and ect. And isn't something that should have needed to been dragged to begin with and could very well derail the thread. And could pose a great logical roadblock.

For instance, people, given their varying positions on race and what race means, may treat the Asian fetish as a stereotype about culture or based upon someone's looks. Or that it is impossible to like someone's looks without certain stereotypes of personality. Worse yet comes the association with the taboo of racism. In which racism is treated as special and incomparable to other things because of particular disgust society has towards racism that it doesn't share with other things. Making a logical deduction hard to defend. And this is all hard to say without seeming entirely incoherent. People who often think "Asian" means looking a certain way, and also that having a sexual preference for that is absolutely indicative of stereotypes. Which is a long and tired and culturally loaded argument. And shows that many people, when faced with certain things, will assume that aesthetic preference means personality stereotyping and consider it evil. Very murky waters bringing up this sort of thing. And yet people will also assume and avoid understanding sexual orientation, homosexuality and heterosexuality, and it's relation to what is considered other, more shallow and objectifying and racist or ect., fetishes. People hold lots of emotional appeal, irrationality, and cultural indoctrination in this area causing double standards. Because being attracted to a man or a woman is nothing more than an aesthetic preference, because otherwise you are stereotyping the behavior of men and women. And I don't think stereotyping people based upon gender is any better than stereotyping people based upon race. And if having an aesthetic preference outside of personality is objectifying and shallow, well, then heterosexuality itself is shallow. I'm a firm believer that aesthetic preference and personality preference, while often connected, are oft separate beings. Though I seem to be a bit along and this is a confusing and difficult to discuss matter. Confusing in that it is difficult to gauge things and people and a lot of lack of logic is applied to this topic.

Before I ramble on more with this hard issue to discuss, the matter is understand the connections and lack of association with connections, related to paedophilia.

This is why I prefer asking questions or simply disagreeing in a debate, because when I don't do that, I notice I start to ramble. TvTropes users should have noticed this. They were either calling me a sham and obtuse for not being assuming enough. Or that I would ramble on confusingly.

To simplify my point. And get back to asking questions and clarifying instead of rambling on incoherently. What of the furry fetish? Or rather, more than just that issue in this case. I'll compound issues even further for my point.


This is Cream the Rabbit. She is essentially a furry little girl. Is a person attracted to her a paedophile? Is the person also a zoophile? Is being attracted to furries make one a zoophile in general? Are they near to being zoophiles because the characters are near to being animals. This doubles up on the issue of beastiality, an area very similar to paedophilia.

Why is a person attracted to someone like the fictional character Cream? What does the person associate this character, of all things, with? Associations are a lot more than black and white in terms of attraction. Saying that someone only likes a childish body because they associate that with power and dominance over a person seems to over-associate sexual attraction to neoteny with dominance. Associating attraction to neoteny with dominance seems terrible. People could say that people are attracted to furry characters because of dominance, too. Because animals can't consent. But I don't think that represents the furry fetish at all.

Just like you can't paint the attraction to childish bodies and the reasons for with such a broad and simplistic stroke. That conflates way too many things which don't need to be conflated. Just the same you can be attracted to a stereotypical Chinese face without stereotyping people with that look. Or be attracted to men more than women without stereotyping men and women. More people ought to believe that aesthetic preference and stereotyping or objectification can be separated, but sadly the don't seem to. Lord knows what kind of mental juggling people would have to do to explain the furry fetish, or explain why some people are gay or straight.

Let's have another example of personality stereotype and/or symbolism versus aesthetic while I'm still on a confusing ramble. I just hope I don't kill this thread and stop it from getting responded to in the process. I hate being a thread killer and I do it often.

Demon Lord Etna. She is portrayed as dominant, of adult personality, and so forth. And also with the body of a prepubescent child. Is a person a paedophile if they are attracted to her?

And if so, can that really be conflated with all the things you're conflating it with? I highly doubt someone who is a paedophile for Etna is characterized by an attraction to dominance. They may "be attracted to her because she looks like a child", but what does that really truly mean anyway? There are only two aspects of being a child, having the body of a child, and having the mind of a child. Beyond that is just frivolous symbolism.

And now finally one more example.

Famous pedophile fanservice show Kodomo no Jikan and hypsexualized and maturely represented character Kokonoe Rin. Controversial and infamous. Kokonoe Rin is portrayed as nothing less intelligent enough to consent to sex, and sexual dominant and constantly refused. This is nothing less that a paedophilia fanservice show. Is gives paedophiles another escapist medium to live out their fantasies of a "nymphet" instead of going out and molesting a real child. The child is idealized and hypsersexualized to fanservice paedophiles, as well. She does not truly have the personality of a child by a long shot. Instead, she is idealized to specifically cater to the desires of paedophiles.

Again, what does it mean to be "attracted to the body of a child because it is of a child" really mean? It doesn't mean much more than being attracted to the body of a child, does it? Just like being attracted to the body of an animal doesn't mean much more than being attracted to the body of an animal.

Of course, there are underlying psychological reasons for all attractions. To anthropomorphic animals/furries, real animals, children, men, women, Africans, Europeans. Or even aesthetic enjoyment of the colour blue over red. One of those is paedophilia. But you can't draw it with a broad brushstroke of association. Especially if you're going to say that attraction to a child's body and the females above, is itself, paedophilia. Paedophilia and the like for a certain aesthetic is a package deal that does seem to include in it's umbrella the desire to rape. But not everything in the package is connected to it. And I dare say something seems wrong with the idea that if you like a few small things associated with children, that are innocent and fine to like by themselves, it stops being innocent and edges closer and closer to being a rapist. Like flat chests? Okay... so far so good. Let's not go any farther with this, we're in the safe zone. You like hairless women? That's normal enough... getting a little creepier though. Don't like wide hips? Getting pretty bad. Sounding kind of rape-y. Prefer shorter women? Okay, that's it, you're a rapist! What? That's quite a jump from a bunch of innocent aesthetic likes.

Why? It's bizzarre then, that the jump from a small group of innocent aesthetic tastes jumps to the most hated sadism of all time. Something there isn't right. And while it might be paedophilia if you put enough innocent desires together. Is it dangerous to children? Is it sadism? No. Absolutely not. There is nothing actually inherently evil or cruel about being a paedophile. The sum of it's parts, these aesthetic attractions, do not equal the nuclear warhead people are treating it as. Liking a baby face? Pillow. Liking a flat chest? Pillow. Liking unwide hips(is there a better way to word that?)? Pillow. Liking short people? Pillow. Liking a lack of body hair? Pillow. Liking all of them together: Nuclear Warhead?? Yeah, I don't buy it.

Chuck Stone wrote: »

FFS please stop trying to normalise child rape - it is not normal.

Why do you seek to make child rape normal?

That is a blatant strawman argument and you know it.

xxtattyberxx wrote: »

They should be shot on sight, maybe then we'd have decent roads rather then helping these people/things!

But if you shot Lewis Carrol, we'd never have Alice in Wonderland!

AudreyHepburn wrote: »

I'm sorry but fantasising about raping and abusing children is not understandable to me, nor would I want it to be.

You do realize, that this isn't the same as paedophilia, right?

AudreyHepburn wrote: »

Saying things like' I understand why they do it' 'they can't help it' 'it's an illness' or 'some of them were abused themselves' just seems like excuses or making less of it to me.

Well it shouldn't, because it doesn't.

Tayla wrote: »

That is a very important point....there have to be major differences between the paedophiles who abuse and the ones who do not....as I've mentioned before a heterosexual person or homosexual person doesn't usually go out and rape someone because they are having urges so what is it exactly that makes paedophiles do it??

Eh, I'm not sure heterosexuals and paedophiles are all that different.

Both have rapists. And if homosexuals want to have sex out of urges, and not power. Then I would say paedophiles do. It just so happens that the nature of sex with children is rape.

Paedophiles who have an urge to rape likely don't do so out of paedophiles. And the only difference in sexualities is likely that while an adult is able to consent to sex and so heterosexuals can have sex without raping, a paedophile cannot have sex with whom they are attracted to without raping.

It's not the urge that's different, it's the result.

Tayla wrote: »

Personally as a mother if I had to make the choice I would rather live surrounded by murderers rather than paedophiles.

So you'd rather be surrounded by people who might murder your child rather than people who might think your child is sexy?

By the way, just to add some content to the thread, according to this source, and I don't know how reliable it is.
http://wiki.ccv.edu/index.php/Kimberly_Bloomer,_What_Causes_Pedophilia%3F
1/4 of people are sexually attracted to children on some level. While that's not enough to be considered a paedophile, that statistic itself doesn't make it surprising that an even smaller portion, %1-2, prefer or have an orientation towards them.

Tayla

HarbinSnowfall wrote: »

I'm not exactly sure I understand the full extent of your point. Are you saying that aesthetic attraction and personality attraction are inseparable? Because you can definitely be attracted to a "tomboy" without being a gay man or a straight woman.

No i'm speculating, it's pretty obvious that that it's not just sexual attraction to a body that is causing them to lose all self control and rape children, I don't know what it is that makes them attracted to them, I mentioned in another reply that maybe they are turned on by the childs fear.

HarbinSnowfall wrote: »

So are you basically saying that the only reason for liking all of the physical features of a child is being sexually attracted to the idea of raping someone immature?

No I didn't say that, I said I don't know why paedophiles are so attracted to children and you have asked if someone prefers the body of a child does that make them a paedophile, it's a non issue if you ask me as noone (apart from paedophiles) would prefer the body of a child anyway so there is no point asking 'what if'

HarbinSnowfall wrote: »

We're getting into a confusing "I don't know what you're saying exactly area" here. You already said that you didn't think someone would prefer childlike bodies without being a paedophile. But now you seem to say that body and other aspects of being a child are inseparable.

I'd like to clarify your meaning for me, please.

I'm speculating, these are just my thoughts on it, to me I don't think it can simply be sexual attraction as people who are attracted to men or women don't seem to have such little self control.... To me it seems like they must be attracted to the innocence and fear and maybe their body is irrelevant.
I DO NOT KNOW, how would I know what these people are thinking?
If it was simply a sexual attraction to a body then what makes their sexual attraction stronger than that of other peoples, Homosexual or heterosexual people who have no one to have sex with don't go out and rape somebody, it's amazing that people who are attracted to adults won't go out and sexually attack them purely for their own pleaseure but paedophiles do.

HarbinSnowfall wrote: »

Demon Lord Etna. She is portrayed as dominant, of adult personality, and so forth. And also with the body of a prepubescent child. Is a person a paedophile if they are attracted to her?

And if so, can that really be conflated with all the things you're conflating it with? I highly doubt someone who is a paedophile for Etna is characterized by an attraction to dominance. They may "be attracted to her because she looks like a child", but what does that really truly mean anyway? There are only two aspects of being a child, having the body of a child, and having the mind of a child. Beyond that is just frivolous symbolism.

And now finally one more example.

Famous pedophile fanservice show Kodomo no Jikan and hypsexualized and maturely represented character Kokonoe Rin. Controversial and infamous. Kokonoe Rin is portrayed as nothing less intelligent enough to consent to sex, and sexual dominant and constantly refused. This is nothing less that a paedophilia fanservice show. Is gives paedophiles another escapist medium to live out their fantasies of a "nymphet" instead of going out and molesting a real child. The child is idealized and hypsersexualized to fanservice paedophiles, as well. She does not truly have the personality of a child by a long shot. Instead, she is idealized to specifically cater to the desires of paedophiles.

I don't actually know why people are attracted to video games characters etc, I don't necessarily think that that means they are attracted to children, I will have to think about that 1 and get back to you.

HarbinSnowfall wrote: »

Again, what does it mean to be "attracted to the body of a child because it is of a child" really mean? It doesn't mean much more than being attracted to the body of a child, does it? Just like being attracted to the body of an animal doesn't mean much more than being attracted to the body of an animal.

Maybe with the non abusive paedophiles it is simply an attraction to the body, hence why they can control it and then prehaps the ones that do abuse are not only attracted to their bodies but there has to be more reasons for doing what they do.

HarbinSnowfall wrote: »

Of course, there are underlying psychological reasons for all attractions. To anthropomorphic animals/furries, real animals, children, men, women, Africans, Europeans. Or even aesthetic enjoyment of the colour blue over red. One of those is paedophilia. But you can't draw it with a broad brushstroke of association. Especially if you're going to say that attraction to a child's body and the females above, is itself, paedophilia. Paedophilia and the like for a certain aesthetic is a package deal that does seem to include in it's umbrella the desire to rape. But not everything in the package is connected to it. And I dare say something seems wrong with the idea that if you like a few small things associated with children, that are innocent and fine to like by themselves, it stops being innocent and edges closer and closer to being a rapist. Like flat chests? Okay... so far so good. Let's not go any farther with this, we're in the safe zone. You like hairless women? That's normal enough... getting a little creepier though. Don't like wide hips? Getting pretty bad. Sounding kind of rape-y. Prefer shorter women? Okay, that's it, you're a rapist! What? That's quite a jump from a bunch of innocent aesthetic likes.

I don't think that an adult with a body like that would be looked at like a child though, it is the womans body, even if it might be similar to a childs body it's not one. How many men say that they have a type of woman that they go for? Do most of them end up with their type? I don't think so, most men do not like skinnny female bodies, yet they will still fall in love with the person and the body does not matter

HarbinSnowfall wrote: »

Eh, I'm not sure heterosexuals and paedophiles are all that different.

Both have rapists. And if homosexuals want to have sex out of urges, and not power. Then I would say paedophiles do. It just so happens that the nature of sex with children is rape.

Homosexuals and heterosexual people do not rape people because of sexual urges, if they don't have sex for 10 years they don't rape someone because of sexual urges and lack of sex.

HarbinSnowfall wrote: »

Paedophiles who have an urge to rape likely don't do so out of paedophiles. And the only difference in sexualities is likely that while an adult is able to consent to sex and so heterosexuals can have sex without raping, a paedophile cannot have sex with whom they are attracted to without raping.

It's not the urge that's different, it's the result.

I don't consider that to be a valid point because it is not sex, it is rape, a heterosexual or homosexual man who rapes someone is doing it for power, not because they have haven't had sex, one of the things turn ons in most people is seeing how turned on their partner is, I think most normal people would struggle to remain turned on knowing that they are in the middle of forcing someone to have sex with that and that the other person is disgusted and terrified.

HarbinSnowfall wrote: »

So you'd rather be surrounded by people who might murder your child rather than people who might think your child is sexy?

A murderer yes, a child murderer, no probably not.

[/QUOTE]

HarbinSnowfall

Tayla wrote: »

No i'm speculating, it's pretty obvious that that it's not just sexual attraction to a body that is causing them to lose all self control and rape children, I don't know what it is that makes them attracted to them, I mentioned in another reply that maybe they are turned on by the childs fear.

I don't think the majority of paedophiles are child rapists or have a loss of control around children. Or are turned on by rape or sexual pain in others. Just like the majority of heterosexuals are not turned on by sexual pain in others. It's only the paedophiles who get caught. Paedophiles aren't really relevant to people otherwise because they're a hated minority associated with the people who do act out. People tend to stereotype minorities, that's a part of being a minority.

The heterosexuals who rape and the ones who make the news because the rape is notable. The paedophiles who rape are the ones who make the news because the rape is notable. Non-rapist paedophiles don't get any attention because nobody wants to give them any attention. There are many publications by non-rapist paedophiles. But since paedophiles are one of the most extreme minorities in existence, such publications are not common. Heck, nobody wants to even host or sell them. The prejudice of society doesn't always happen for a good reason, because the stereotypes it forces are rarely true. And that prejudice leads to invisibility and a lack of real truth getting out.

A person attracted to seeing pain in others is a sadist. And so a person who is attracted to pain in children is not just a paedo"phile", but a paedosadist.

Just like most zoophiles are not zoosadists. Even though non-human animals can't consent to sex.

Tayla wrote: »

No I didn't say that, I said I don't know why paedophiles are so attracted to children and you have asked if someone prefers the body of a child does that make them a paedophile, it's a non issue if you ask me as noone (apart from paedophiles) would prefer the body of a child anyway so there is no point asking 'what if'

Okay, well then, I definitely think it a great deal of people can have this preference without harming a child. If it takes nothing more than an aesthetic preference like this to be a paedophile, then it's not even particularly "evil".

I mean, really, such a preference says little about behavior and is by itself, pretty innocent.

Tayla wrote: »

I'm speculating, these are just my thoughts on it

I see. Well, it's good that you're thinking about it.

Tayla wrote: »

I don't think it can simply be sexual attraction as people who are attracted to men or women don't seem to have such little self control....

With all due respect, I think it just seems that way to you that paedophiles have less self control than others because they are more of a minority. I don't really see any evidence that paedophiles have less self control than other orientations. There appear to be just as many rapes committed against adults as children, and if there's more by children, it may just be because children are an easier target for rapists. The majority of child rapists might not even be paedophiles.

Tayla wrote: »

To me it seems like they must be attracted to the innocence and fear and maybe their body is irrelevant.

I think we're associating children with 'easy target' here too much, just because children are easy targets.

I mean, what do you think a paedophile would be more attracted to, the body of a child with the mind of an adult, or the body of an adult with the mind of a child?

And fear could apply to many adults as much as children. Rape is terrifying for an adult.

If the body is not relevant, but only innocence and fear, why are they paedophiles? Because this doesn't sound like a paedophile to me, it sounds like something else.

Tayla wrote: »

I DO NOT KNOW, how would I know what these people are thinking?
If it was simply a sexual attraction to a body then what makes their sexual attraction stronger than that of other peoples

I don't think their attraction is stronger than other people's.

In fact, I've read studies claiming that paedophiles are just as likely to be hyposexual as people of other sexualities.

Tayla wrote: »

Homosexual or heterosexual people who have no one to have sex with don't go out and rape somebody, it's amazing that people who are attracted to adults won't go out and sexually attack them purely for their own pleaseure but paedophiles do.

Yes, they do. There are homosadists and heterosadists. Just like the people who actually feel/do this are not just "paedophiles", but paedosadists.

Tayla wrote: »

I don't actually know why people are attracted to video games characters etc, I don't necessarily think that that means they are attracted to children, I will have to think about that 1 and get back to you.

The Lolicon side of the argument would like you, then. Because it's quite common to make the excuse among paedophiles to say "I'm not a paedophile, I'm a Lolicon. I just like my DFC, I'm not attracted to real children! And animated lolis aren't anything like real children to begin with!". How convenient for the lolicons that the majority of, or a good portion of non-lolicons also agree with them on what a paedophile means and that they are not one. And yet, they'll still go to prison if caught.

I personally am not attacking them, but it just seems like an excuse to me. Sure, they might not be dangerous to children, and completely health, sane people with difference of aesthetic taste. But what do these characters represent? What kind of bodies do they have? Just because it's a cartoon doesn't mean it doesn't represent a child in some form or fashion, even if it is labeled being 2000 year old vampire with an adult personality. It is still paedo fanservice. A child by any other name...

Most Lolicon, again, wouldn't agree with me. Because they consider being associated with paedophiles an attack on their orientation and lifestyle. But I'm not attacking Lolicons. I'm pulling some of the demonic veil attached to paedophiia away. It shows just how unfair the persecution of paedophiles gets that they're coming up with alternative terms and complicated lifestyles like this to escape persecution. And weasle around the fact that, at the end of the day, whether Dance in the Vampire Bund has an amazing and well craft plot, or Mina Tepes is an "adult", or has the personality of an adult due to her age, she is still paedo fanservice.

Tayla wrote: »

Maybe with the non abusive paedophiles it is simply an attraction to the body, hence why they can control it and then prehaps the ones that do abuse are not only attracted to their bodies but there has to be more reasons for doing what they do.

That makes sense. Though I think there is a great deal more of the former than you think there is.

Tayla wrote: »

I don't think that an adult with a body like that would be looked at like a child though, it is the womans body, even if it might be similar to a childs body it's not one.

Can a person have all of those features and still be considered having the "body of a woman" and not the "body of a child"? Why wouldn't that person be looked at as a child? A person would only learn to look at them as an adult because they meet the person and learn that they are an adult with an adult personality. This is, only of course, again, if such a thing is even possible. And even if it is, it's highly unlikely. Because indeed, if a person has those physical features, how can they be considered having the "body of an adult" rather than "the body of a child"?

And I doubt this fact would deter many paedophiles.

Tayla wrote: »

How many men say that they have a type of woman that they go for? Do most of them end up with their type? I don't think so, most men do not like skinnny female bodies, yet they will still fall in love with the person and the body does not matter

Well, it may sound shallow, but there are many tiers and thresholds of what is acceptable.

Strict formulas are hardly ever followed. But they still won't likely end up with a member of the same sex if they are heterosexual. Being picky is hard, but people still live by trying to get as many desires as they can. For peadophiles, those desires are all neotenous.

Tayla wrote: »

Homosexuals and heterosexual people do not rape people because of sexual urges, if they don't have sex for 10 years they don't rape someone because of sexual urges and lack of sex.

Paedophiles do not rape because of sexual urges, either. People, all people, rape because of power. And if they didn't, paedophiles would not be the only exception.

Paedophiles are not one anomaly of people who do not rape for power or that their attraction itself or power or some confusing pile of sexual murk like that.

Tayla wrote: »

I don't consider that to be a valid point because it is not sex, it is rape

How does that make sense? Yes, the motivations behind consensual sex and rape are very different. But you can't have "rape" without "sex", can you?

Tayla wrote: »

a heterosexual or homosexual man who rapes someone is doing it for power, not because they have haven't had sex

Right, and so does a paedosadist. Many rapists get sexual pleasure out of raping adults, too.

booboo88

you have to remember guys, the victims are children. gay people are both consenting ADULTS.
Completely different, im finding it difficult to understand the comparison, they were the outcasts of society...blah bah blah. but so were rape victims, single mothers.
the magdeline laundries? where if you werent married and got preggers off you were sent.
the problem with peadophiles is theres never any gaurantee they wont "act on their urges"...how many kids are being abused for years and the peadophile threatens to kill them if they tell.

barry711

I don't really see any evidence that paedophiles have less self control than other orientations

Surely given that the minority of paedophiles exist is not enough proof in itself no?

There are paedophiles who do not engage in sexual misconduct with minors but do have thoughts of it and sexual urges towards them but never act on them. Then you have the others who do and these are the ones we see on the news and read about in the papers who have less self control than the other paedophiles, Hence, why they are caught and brought before the courts....because they act on their impulses i.e poor self control.

HarbinSnowfall

Yeah, but that doesn't tell you what portion of paedophiles lack self control. Yes, in general, those who act out are the ones who . Like heterosexuality and homosexuality, paedophilia is invisible until made note of. And the term is errounously applied to anyone who offends. I wouldn't be surprised if most offenders are non-paedophiles. Because after all, children are easy targets.

booboo88 wrote: »

you have to remember guys, the victims are children. gay people are both consenting ADULTS.
Completely different, im finding it difficult to understand the comparison

Well, you don't appear to be trying.

Neither heterosexuality, homosexuality, or paedophilia appear to be a choice.

And how are children victims of paedophiles merely existing? Nobody is harmed by being sexually attractive to someone. Do you think that paedophiles made the choice to be paedophiles?

Tayla

HarbinSnowfall wrote: »

Well, you don't appear to be trying.

I know that that comment wasn't directed towards me but you don't seem to understand that most people who are participating in this thread are probably the only ones who are willing to actually try to understand, the vast majority of people wouldn't even have a discussion about this.

You seem to want people to completely accept paedophiles but it is NOT going to happen. It's like you won't stop until we all agree its not their fault. This is the best you are going to get really, a discussion with a lot of anger and disgust.

This whole thread all you care about is how the paedophiles feel and to you the fact that children get abused seems to be completely irrelevant.

barry711

HarbinSnowfall wrote: »

Neither heterosexuality, homosexuality, or paedophilia appear to be a choice.

Are you saying that these are predisposed traits of people? That somehow we are born to be gay or straight or paedophiles?

HarbinSnowfall

Tayla wrote: »

You seem to want people to completely accept paedophiles but it is NOT going to happen.

I never said anything that ought to be interpreted like that.

Tayla wrote: »

This whole thread all you care about is how the paedophiles feel and to you the fact that children get abused seems to be completely irrelevant.

That's ridiculous.

Tayla wrote: »

It's like you won't stop until we all agree its not their fault.

Well, that's the point of debate. This thread's sole purpose isn't an all encompassing illogical, unchallengeable bashing ground for people who like DFC. Somebody has to be a voice of reason.

Tayla wrote: »

most people who are participating in this thread are probably the only ones who are willing to actually try to understand

There are plenty of people in this thread who don't care about understanding at all. They just come in and pass judgment, and leave.

And purposely ignoring people's points is not good. And nor is responding to people who you hardly read the posts of in any thread. The point was made quite plainly.

Tayla wrote: »

the vast majority of people wouldn't even have a discussion about this.

That's possible. Most people also probably don't use internet forums.

And that would also be problematic if true, because that would mean most people do not have a good understanding about this issue.

booboo88

HarbinSnowfall wrote: »

Yeah, but that doesn't tell you what portion of paedophiles lack self control. Yes, in general, those who act out are the ones who . Like heterosexuality and homosexuality, paedophilia is invisible until made note of. And the term is errounously applied to anyone who offends. I wouldn't be surprised if most offenders are non-paedophiles. Because after all, children are easy targets.

Well, you don't appear to be trying.

Neither heterosexuality, homosexuality, or paedophilia appear to be a choice.

And how are children victims of paedophiles merely existing? Nobody is harmed by being sexually attractive to someone. Do you think that paedophiles made the choice to be paedophiles?

are you actually telling me that its ok to be attracted to children? as much as its ok to straight or gay?

Tayla wrote: »

I know that that comment wasn't directed towards me but you don't seem to understand that most people who are participating in this thread are probably the only ones who are willing to actually try to understand, the vast majority of people wouldn't even have a discussion about this.

You seem to want people to completely accept paedophiles but it is NOT going to happen. It's like you won't stop until we all agree its not their fault. This is the best you are going to get really, a discussion with a lot of anger and disgust.

This whole thread all you care about is how the paedophiles feel and to you the fact that children get abused seems to be completely irrelevant.

it was directed at me, apparently we should be more considerate of how they didnt choose to be peadophiles, and that should make it ok.

barry711 wrote: »

Are you saying that these are predisposed traits of people? That somehow we are born to be gay or straight or paedophiles?

apparently so

Tayla

HarbinSnowfall wrote: »

I never said anything that ought to be interpreted like that.

No but when someone has an opinion, you are trying to talk them out of that opinion.

HarbinSnowfall wrote: »

That's ridiculous.

It is not in the slightest bit ridiculous, this is a discussion about paedophiles, paedophiles would be irrelevant without victims, the actions of paedophiles are horrific, the results of their actions are horrific, but you don't want to discuss these poor victims.

HarbinSnowfall wrote: »

Somebody has to be a voice of reason.

Ha You think you're being the voice of reason? Seriously???????????

HarbinSnowfall wrote: »

That's possible. Most people also probably don't use internet forums.

And that would also be problematic if true, because that would mean most people do not have a good understanding about this issue.

Can you tell me now what random peoples understanding on this issue would actually achieve? It achieves nothing. It doesn't stop the paedophiles, it doesn't save the children.....you are not providing a good understanding of paedophiles (even if you think you are) I believe i'm making more sense than you are and even so I don't think people believing what I am saying would make a blind bit of difference in the matter.

We don't know enough about paedophiles at all right now for people to be educated in this matter so to say most people do not have a good understanding on this issue is completely irrelevant

HarbinSnowfall

booboo88 wrote: »

are you actually telling me that its ok to be attracted to children?

To a degree, yes. As long as it's not hurting anybody, the worst they might do is sexualize children in their minds. I'm not sure if it's fully "okay" on all scales, but I'm not sure it's not, either. As I don't immediately see any harm in being attracted to children, I would lean to the former. That it is okay to be sexually attracted to children, as long as you don't act on it. In fact, I'm certain a good portion of human beings are attracted to children. Possibly over a forth.

booboo88 wrote: »

as much as its ok to straight or gay?

Not entirely sure about that, but probably close.

Tayla wrote: »

No but when someone has an opinion, you are trying to talk them out of that opinion.

Not everything is an "opinion", I am talking someone out of being misunderstanding and being wrong, objectively.

Tayla wrote: »

It is not in the slightest bit ridiculous, this is a discussion about paedophiles, paedophiles would be irrelevant without victims, the actions of paedophiles are horrific

The very discussion started segmented from child molestation. In fact the very point of the OP was to draw attention to all the people who are sexually attracted to children but have never harmed a child. A surely immense majority. You know, like people who play as an Elin in Tera Online. Or devastatingly do atrocious acts such as collect Precious Moments figurines!

Tayla wrote: »

the results of their actions are horrific, but you don't want to discuss these poor victims.

Yes, sometimes they go to the store and buy milk! The horror!

Tayla wrote: »

Ha You think you're being the voice of reason? Seriously???????????

Quite obviously and with good reason.

Tayla wrote: »

Can you tell me now what random peoples understanding on this issue would actually achieve? It achieves nothing. It doesn't stop the paedophiles, it doesn't save the children.

I don't know, I think the children would be a lot better off if more people knew the difference between a paedophile and a child molestor. As people would spend more time saving children instead of attacking anything that looks like paedophilia that doesn't help one child. The amount of resources that goes into combating the possibility of someone, in their eyes, sexualizing a child, takes away from the effort to actually save real children. Combating paedophilia means policing thoughts. And does nothing to save real children.

And also, if paedophilia is a harm, the average person indeed need not know about the matter. But it certainly ruins and objective, logical, and sensible discussion. Especially when people defend emotions over logic. This is not a venting ground for every illogical prejudice towards any minority who didn't choose who they are. This is the humanities section. And if people are opposed to a logical and sensible discussion, they should kindly leave. As they will only spread useless ignorance.

Chuck Stone

I'm not familiar with those images you put up.

HarbinSnowfall wrote: »

I have read that many raped children internalize the abuse. Which leads a lot of paedophiles to wrongly think they have done no harm. Because there is no obvious evidence to them.

This is murky territory indeed. How do you know that paedophiles 'wrongly think they have done no harm'?

When a paedohile acts on his urges and abuses a child he is no longer just a pedophile. He is now the sexual abuser of a child.

Paedophilia, as I understand it, is a sexual attraction to children. Being sexually attracted to children and not acting on it in any way is obviously a non-issue.

It seems like the most logical explanation to me. Do you think that a person can be attracted to, no, prefer the body of a child aesthetically without being a paedophile.

No. What is he then if not a paedophile?

I one time tried to argue this. And I was soundly defeated. They also told me they lost a lot of respect for me when I did.

What did you try to argue?

Tayla

HarbinSnowfall wrote: »

Yes, sometimes they go to the store and buy milk! The horror!

What kind of pathetic answer is that? It is just proving how little you actually care about the victims of paedophiles, You are deliberating ignoring the victims and making out like the paedophiles horrific actions are just trivial, it's quite disgusting the way you are acting, there would be no need to have a discussion about paedophiles if there were no victims but you'll happily discuss everything else to do with them but not their dispicable crimes. You are losing credibility here by the second.

HarbinSnowfall wrote: »

Quite obviously and with good reason.

Well you're not so don't go fooling yourself that you are.

HarbinSnowfall wrote: »

I don't know, I think the children would be a lot better off if more people knew the difference between a paedophile and a child molestor. As people would spend more time saving children instead of attacking anything that looks like paedophilia that doesn't help one child. The amount of resources that goes into combating the possibility of someone, in their eyes, sexualizing a child, takes away from the effort to actually save real children. Combating paedophilia means policing thoughts. And does nothing to save real children.

And also, if paedophilia is a harm, the average person indeed need not know about the matter. But it certainly ruins and objective, logical, and sensible discussion. Especially when people defend emotions over logic. This is not a venting ground for every illogical prejudice towards any minority who didn't choose who they are. This is the humanities section. And if people are opposed to a logical and sensible discussion, they should kindly leave. As they will only spread useless ignorance.

Here you go again assuming you are the one being logical and sensible..........when in reality you are being anything but! I for one am interested in discussing this, i'm not interested in pitying or accepting child molesters, nobody forces them to rape or abuse children.

alibaba12

To add to this thread; as someone who has had a paedophile in their family.

They do chose to be attracted to children; to say that they are pre-disposed to it like being gay is insane.

They are sociopaths who manipulate their pray to the enth degree, such as playing one child off another to get a reaction, telling the child that if they tell anyone that person will die; telling the child to say the rosary 50 times over a day to atone for their sins as the abuse is the childs fault. Not to mention the effect the physical abuse has on a child.

They have no regard for their victims or for the destruction they inflict on them.

As you may have noticed I have left my sign in name as I feel very strongly about this issue. To say we need to understand them to help them is complete BS. The majority of them dont want help; they dont even admit what they have done. Also there is no real help you can give someone like that, they will always have the urge to control, rape and abuse.

strobe

Tayla wrote: »

i'm not interested in pitying or accepting child molesters

If I could just point out something here that may help you and Snowfall in your discussion...

In the above (and most of your other posts) you are talking about "child molesters" "child rapists" etc where as in most of HarbinSnowfall's posts he is making a distinction between people that are sexually attracted to children and people who act on a sexual attraction to children thereby becoming child molesters.

This seems to be leading the two of you to talking at cross purposes and is probably to explain for the circular nature of your posts to each other.

Tayla

strobe wrote: »

If I could just point out something here that may help you and Snowfall in your discussion...

In the above (and most of your other posts) you are talking about "child molesters" "child rapists" etc where as in most of HarbinSnowfall's posts he is making a distinction between people that are sexually attracted to children and people who act on a sexual attraction to children thereby becoming child molesters.

This seems to be leading the two of you to talking at cross purposes and is probably to explain for the circular nature of your posts to each other.

Thanks I know maybe it might not be clear to other people who are reading the thread so I will try to be clearer for their benefit but I have already made Harbin snowfall well aware of how I feel about non abusing paedophiles and that I do actually pity them.

Harbin snowfall also said the following to me earlier on in this thread so it's obvious to me that he/she is not misunderstanding what I am saying.

HarbinSnowfall wrote: »

Before I ramble on more with this hard issue to discuss, the matter is understand the connections and lack of association with connections, related to paedophilia.

This is why I prefer asking questions or simply disagreeing in a debate, because when I don't do that, I notice I start to ramble. TvTropes users should have noticed this. They were either calling me a sham and obtuse for not being assuming enough. Or that I would ramble on confusingly.

booboo88

HarbinSnowfall wrote: »

To a degree, yes. As long as it's not hurting anybody, the worst they might do is sexualize children in their minds. I'm not sure if it's fully "okay" on all scales, but I'm not sure it's not, either. As I don't immediately see any harm in being attracted to children, I would lean to the former. That it is okay to be sexually attracted to children, as long as you don't act on it. In fact, I'm certain a good portion of human beings are attracted to children. Possibly over a forth. Not entirely sure about that, but probably close.

so in your words, its ok to be attracted to children to sexualise them once you dont physically act on it. child porn is also peadophliia, whether you do it yourself and abuse the kids or look at this stuff, its just as bad

but ah sure didnt choose to be that way:rolleyes:

i hope you never have kids.

barry711

Harbin Snowball, I'm curious now, What's your view on incest then? Would you also feel its ok for parents to be sexually attracted to their kids so long as they don't molest them? If not why draw a line between this and paedophiles?

Tayla

Or people who are sexually attracted to infants? Is that ok in your eyes aswell? Someone said earlier that children aren't sexual creatures, you said they are.......are you going to say babies are sexual creatures too?

Tayla

The danger from people accepting people who are sexually attracted to children (but don't abuse) is simple.

Let's say for simplicities sake that all those who do not abuse and manage to control their urges and thoughts hate having those thoughts and are disgusted with themselves for thinking like that.
If people accepted that the bad effects these people have on society are minimal then maybe the person with the sexual thoughts could feel a bit better about themselves but that's about it.

The problem is that of all that abusers I would be pretty sure that nearly all of them think it is ok, that they're entitled to abuse, that it's their right and they're not going to let anyone stop them, if society deemed thoughts and fantasies about children to be no big deal then that would justify it even more to the abusers, they would be vindicated of any guilt (which I doubt they have anyway).

They would think that if thinking about something is ok then why would the actions not be ok?

IMO these people (non abusers) need to feel that it is a disgusting thing that will not be tolerated, if the vast majority that have these thoughts do not abuse then prehaps it helps that society is so disgusted by it and they know that it will not be tolerated.

While there is currently no successful treatment then what is the point in them coming forward for help and understanding? Perhaps suppressing the thoughts themselves is partly what stops them from abusing.

I presume most paedopiles who don't abuse and don't view child pornography do not ever discuss this with others, however I would presume that most paedophiles who do abuse and do view child pornography have many like minded people who are 'friends' online or wherever. It seems that when you hear about paedophile rings being busted that these paedophiles have immense loyalty to each other, it's because they think it is their right to do whatever the hell they want to do.

Whenever you hear about paedophiles in court they never show remourse, some murderers do, same with rapists.........i'm sure some of them do it for a reduced sentence but nonetheless they still show some (fake or not) You don't hear paedophiles ever doing that though.....why? They have such a sense of entitlement that they would not even say they are sorry to the victim even if they could get a reduced sentence, How can such egocentrism be ever cured?

barry711

Tayla wrote: »

While there is currently no successful treatment then what is the point in them coming forward for help and understanding? Perhaps suppressing the thoughts themselves is partly what stops them from abusing.

Good points there Tayla. I'll add to the bit I have quoted you by saying that I think a lot of these paedophiles who engage in sexual thoughts/fantasies about kids do not abuse them for another reason. That reason I think is obviously a fear of being exposed and branded a paedophile...and rightly so they should be.

They are clever enough to know what will happen if people ever found out. Never mind a prison sentence if convicted, but everyone will know they are a pedo and their "good" name will forever be tarnished, family and friends, bosses and acquaintances will disown them, they might get fired from a job or bring an entire organization in to the media spotlight to be looked at with scrutiny by the public. Its scary to think that we will never really know how many of these people are actually walking around that we pass on any given day or maybe more frightfully who we might even know!:eek: Lots of people have the idea still that the pedo is a horrible, scruffy, disheveled looking low life but in fact its Joe 90 from down the road or Mr Smith you knew for years.

HarbinSnowfall

Tayla wrote: »

Here you go again assuming you are the one being logical and sensible..........when in reality you are being anything but!

Oh, do you have any evidence for that? No? Of course, you're just slandering.

Tayla wrote: »

i'm not interested in pitying or accepting child molesters, nobody forces them to rape or abuse children.

Nobody here is. We're talking about paedophiles.

Tayla wrote: »

What kind of pathetic answer is that? It is just proving how little you actually care about the victims of paedophiles

You're blaming me of being illogical when you make claims like this?

I don't care about the victims of child molestors and less than anyone. And claiming people do because they don't agree with how much you conflate child molestation and paedophilia is highly illogical.

alibaba12 wrote: »

To add to this thread; as someone who has had a paedophile in their family.

They do chose to be attracted to children; to say that they are pre-disposed to it like being gay is insane.

They are sociopaths who manipulate their pray to the enth degree

A personal anecdotal of a child molester in the family does not prove what paedophiles are and are not.

alibaba12 wrote: »

such as playing one child off another to get a reaction, telling the child that if they tell anyone that person will die; telling the child to say the rosary 50 times over a day to atone for their sins as the abuse is the childs fault. Not to mention the effect the physical abuse has on a child.

They have no regard for their victims or for the destruction they inflict on them.

As you may have noticed I have left my sign in name as I feel very strongly about this issue. To say we need to understand them to help them is complete BS. The majority of them dont want help; they dont even admit what they have done. Also there is no real help you can give someone like that, they will always have the urge to control, rape and abuse.

How do you know that this description of a child molester is accurate for the average paedophile?

I'm very sorry for the damage a nasty child molester has done to your family, whatever has happened exactly. But I won't accept such emotions to convince me that this child molester represents all or even most paedophiles.

strobe wrote: »

If I could just point out something here that may help you and Snowfall in your discussion...

In the above (and most of your other posts) you are talking about "child molesters" "child rapists" etc where as in most of HarbinSnowfall's posts he is making a distinction between people that are sexually attracted to children and people who act on a sexual attraction to children thereby becoming child molesters.

This seems to be leading the two of you to talking at cross purposes and is probably to explain for the circular nature of your posts to each other.

Thank you. Oh so very much. That is exactly what is going on.

booboo88 wrote: »

so in your words, its ok to be attracted to children to sexualise them once you dont physically act on it.

Within a certain reason, yes, of course. Because otherwise it simply becomes a thought crime. It doesn't hurt anyone to be sexually attracted to children, so long as one doesn't act on it and rape a child.

booboo88 wrote: »

child porn is also peadophliia, whether you do it yourself and abuse the kids or look at this stuff, its just as bad

The major problem with child pornography that a child has to be harmed to make the film and the child is socially harmed with the distribution of the film. The child involved is too young to consent to the acts involved, and they are also too young to give consent to the distribution of porn involving them. It also facilitates a drive to create more child pornography, a thing which cannot be created without the violation of a child.

Because of this, literal child porn, is also immoral just like child molestation.

However, being sexually attracted to child-like depictions(like Lilith Aensland in the Darkstalkers franchise) that have harmed nobody, does not violate children and is therefor not unethical.

booboo88 wrote: »

i hope you never have kids.

That is a borderline personal attack and I do not appreciate it. Go any further, and I will report you.

barry711 wrote: »

Harbin Snowball, I'm curious now, What's your view on incest then? Would you also feel its ok for parents to be sexually attracted to their kids so long as they don't molest them?

Would that really be incest if the person didn't act upon it.

Also, is someone is sexually attracted to their children, but does not abuse them, I do no see how they have done anything morally wrong.

Tayla wrote: »

if society deemed thoughts and fantasies about children to be no big deal then that would justify it even more to the abusers, they would be vindicated of any guilt (which I doubt they have anyway).

That doesn't make sense. Being attracted to someone has never entitled them to have sex with that person.

Does it justifying to heterosexual men who rape that it was okay if they were attracted to a woman? No, the focus is all on the act. Finding someone sexy is not immoral, raping is. Finding someone attractive has never been a free pass to rape them. Have you ever seen a heterosexual male rapist ever say "well, what's the big deal? It's okay for me to be attracted to a grown woman so why can't I just have sex with whichever I please"? Certainly not.

Tayla wrote: »

They would think that if thinking about something is ok then why would the actions not be ok?

By that logic, then we'd better ostracize and get rid of Grand Theft Auto games. Because as soon as people treat fantasizing about killing as okay, whether in their mind only or in a video game or whatever medium, they'll use it as a justification for their action. They'll think "if thinking about killing is okay, why isn't killing okay?".

That's the same logic used by video game censors in general to try to ban things like Grand Theft Auto.

Tayla wrote: »

While there is currently no successful treatment then what is the point in them coming forward for help and understanding?

There is no perfect cure, but if paedophiles could seek help, a psychologist could help bring them to a point that they are healthier to themselves and others.

Tayla wrote: »

Perhaps suppressing the thoughts themselves is partly what stops them from abusing.

Well, if they're freaky sadists, maybe.

But if they've no interest in harming a child, then all they're going to have is a repressed sexuality that thousands of outlets, comics, video games, books, movies, would all cater to. And they'd probably feel less desire to even go around a child. Sexual repression never cures anybody.

Tayla wrote: »

however I would presume that most paedophiles who do abuse and do view child pornography have many like minded people who are 'friends' online or wherever.

I don't know, but they need to be stopped.

And they shouldn't be associated with paedophiles as much as they are and users here are doing.

barry711 wrote: »

I'll add to the bit I have quoted you by saying that I think a lot of these paedophiles who engage in sexual thoughts/fantasies about kids do not abuse them for another reason. That reason I think is obviously a fear of being exposed and branded a paedophile...and rightly so they should be.

They are clever enough to know what will happen if people ever found out. Never mind a prison sentence if convicted, but everyone will know they are a pedo and their "good" name will forever be tarnished, family and friends, bosses and acquaintances will disown them, they might get fired from a job or bring an entire organization in to the media spotlight to be looked at with scrutiny by the public. Its scary to think that we will never really know how many of these people are actually walking around that we pass on any given day or maybe more frightfully who we might even know! Lots of people have the idea still that the pedo is a horrible, scruffy, disheveled looking low life but in fact its Joe 90 from down the road or Mr Smith you knew for years.

I agree with all of this.

There are likely paedophiles in all walks of life. And more people than you can ever imagine. Because they have to be a thousand times more closeted than any other sexual minority.

I'll repeat that ignored .edu text I linked to either. In a sample group of I would assume hundreds of men, 1/4th were sexually attracted to children.

Tayla

HarbinSnowfall wrote: »

Oh, do you have any evidence for that? No? Of course, you're just slandering.

Slander? come on now don't be silly, by you implying I am slandering you are you not slandering me? :rolleyes:after all you're saying that i'm slandering you by saying you're not being logical and we clearly disagree on a lot of things so you obviously don't think i'm being logical....slander? HA

HarbinSnowfall wrote: »

You're blaming me of being illogical when you make claims like this?

I don't care about the victims of child molestors and less than anyone. And claiming people do because they don't agree with how much you conflate child molestation and paedophilia is highly illogical.

If someone watches child pornography then there have been children harmed to make that video or photo or whatever it is, there are victims but you don't want to mention that at all. Many paedophiles who are not child molesters will watch child porn.

HarbinSnowfall wrote: »

A personal anecdotal of a child molester in the family does not prove what paedophiles are and are not.



How do you know that this description of a child molester is accurate for the average paedophile?

It's obvious that that description is the norm for child molesters, you find me 5 examples that show otherwise and i'll find you 10 that prove the opposite...............because in pretty much every high profile case involving molesters there is no remorse.

*You do know that paedophile can be used to describe someone who does in fact abuse also even though you are using it to describe only people who are sexually attracted to children but do not abuse*

HarbinSnowfall wrote: »

That doesn't make sense. Being attracted to someone has never entitled them to have sex with that person.

Does it justifying to heterosexual men who rape that it was okay if they were attracted to a woman? No, the focus is all on the act. Finding someone sexy is not immoral, raping is. Finding someone attractive has never been a free pass to rape them. Have you ever seen a heterosexual male rapist ever say "well, what's the big deal? It's okay for me to be attracted to a grown woman so why can't I just have sex with whichever I please"? Certainly not.

Oh come on, look at how molesters act when they get caught, where is the remourse, the guilt? Do they care? Are they sorry? No they're ******* not, they never are, these people would use any bit of justification to further justify it to themselves and there is no point in denying it.

HarbinSnowfall wrote: »

There is no perfect cure, but if paedophiles could seek help, a psychologist could help bring them to a point that they are healthier to themselves and others.

I don't think that treatment you mentioned even exists.


You told another poster you would report them if they went any further after they said they hoped you never had kids.
We are having a discussion about one of the most difficult subjects to talk about, we're all trying not to get angry here but the way I read your posts is that if you had pictures of your child, pictures that paedophiles could view as suggestive pictures and you caught someone who was looking at them in a suggestive way, that it wouldn't bother you because your child wasn't harmed. Our society rightly tells us to protect our children and keep them safe, what you have been saying completely goes against the norm.

What can we say about the claim that 1/4 of the men were attracted to children? I'm not interested in getting into a debate about that because to me that number screams BS.

barry711

HarbinSnowfall, Will you answer me these questions,

I don't know if your married or have a partner or whatever but would you discuss this issue with him/her so openly as you have done on this thread?

How do you think your partner would feel about your views on this matter and would you think it might lead to disagreement?

What about your family, would they approve and agree with your views do you think?

Given your opinions that a lot of men out there do think about children in a sexual way, how would you feel If I knew you personally and you had kids and I fantasized about doing sexual things to them? Would you see any harm in me taking a sexual interest in one of your own and what would your thoughts of me be as a person?

strobe

Tayla wrote: »

If someone watches child pornography then there have been children harmed to make that video or photo or whatever it is, there are victims but you don't want to mention that at all. Many paedophiles who are not child molesters will watch child porn.

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=73170041&postcount=240

HarbinSnowfall wrote: »

The major problem with child pornography that a child has to be harmed to make the film and the child is socially harmed with the distribution of the film. The child involved is too young to consent to the acts involved, and they are also too young to give consent to the distribution of porn involving them. It also facilitates a drive to create more child pornography, a thing which cannot be created without the violation of a child.

Because of this, literal child porn, is also immoral just like child molestation.

I'm helping.

Tayla

strobe wrote: »

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=73170041&postcount=240


I'm helping.

Thanks, I knew I would be proved wrong there

What I really should have said was that in most posts Harbin Snowfall seems to say that it's not a big deal, like it's nothing, whereas I think if he or she wants to keep making the point that it's not that harmful then I think they should also keep reiterating the fact that children are indeed harmed if you know what I mean.

Regardless of harbin snowfalls comments that you highlighted the overall tone of all of his/her posts is that paedophiles who don't abuse are doing nothing wrong, i'm trying to say that they are because well let's face it they are.

Does the very fact that these paedophiles watch child porn not prove to us that they are dangerous to society........ok they find them sexually attractive but that's hardly a good enough reason, they KNOW children are abused and practically tortured to make them. They know the children are traumatised but still watch and get a thrill from it? That proves to me that these people are dangerous.

Another thing that really bothers me about child pornography is that surely there is enough of it out there at the moment to satisfy these people, why the need for more children to be abused to create more?

barry711

Tayla wrote: »

Another thing that really bothers me about child pornography is that surely there is enough of it out there at the moment to satisfy these people, why the need for more children to be abused to create more?

Why are drugs still being manufactured?, why are guns still being sold?, why is there a counterfeit business of smokes?....Because there is money to be made in all of this much like there is in child pornography distribution.

When has any "smart" criminal ever said themselves "OK I think there is enough of this product out there now....I don't want to over-saturate the market" lol. You know they never quit while they are ahead or if there is HUGE ill gotten gains to accumulate. These people who make and distribute child porn have no morals and don't stop it...if they did sure they wouldn't even be in the "business"

Tayla

barry711 wrote: »

Why are drugs still being manufactured?, why are guns still being sold?, why is there a counterfeit business of smokes?....Because there is money to be made in all of this much like there is in child pornography distribution.

Money...I genuinely never even considered that...makes sense now!

booboo88

The major problem with child pornography that a child has to be harmed to make the film and the child is socially harmed with the distribution of the film. The child involved is too young to consent to the acts involved, and they are also too young to give consent to the distribution of porn involving them. It also facilitates a drive to create more child pornography, a thing which cannot be created without the violation of a child.

Because of this, literal child porn, is also immoral just like child molestation.

However, being sexually attracted to child-like depictions(like Lilith Aensland in the Darkstalkers franchise) that have harmed nobody, does not violate children and is therefor not unethical.

yoy really think that if they were sexually attracted to children.....they would do nothing to satisfy their craving?? wat planet are you on

That is a borderline personal attack and I do not appreciate it. Go any further, and I will report you.

go right ahead, as in your view, its ok for people to be sexually attracted to children, but once they dont act on it, but tell me this, how exactly would this be monitored? how would you know said person is not molesting children?

HarbinSnowfall

Tayla wrote: »

Slander? come on now don't be silly, by you implying I am slandering you are you not slandering me? :rolleyes:after all you're saying that i'm slandering you by saying you're not being logical and we clearly disagree on a lot of things so you obviously don't think i'm being logical....slander? HA

I wasn't calling you illogical. I was stating the very obvious fact that your arguing in favor of people putting emotions before reason because this is as emotional topic and child molestation is morally wrong, is an illogical thing that shouldn't be promoted. And I'm not self important enough to think that I'm a logical person surrounded by illogical people. I am merely saying that the people actually trying to think logical about this analyzing things as best they can piece by piece are being the "voice of reason", while the people saying "you're wrong because paedophilia is wrong!" are not.

I gave a pretty obvious proof of why something is logical. I said that placing emotions as more sense than logic does not make sense. You claimed I was illogical without giving reason. That's an argument against the person.

Tayla wrote: »

If someone watches child pornography then there have been children harmed to make that video or photo or whatever it is, there are victims but you don't want to mention that at all. Many paedophiles who are not child molesters will watch child porn.

That's true. I'm not trying to avoid mentioning that, I merely think that creating, watching, and distributing child pornography itself constitutes child abuse. So it falls under the umbrella of the distinction I am making instead of outside of it.

Tayla wrote: »

It's obvious that that description is the norm for child molesters, you find me 5 examples that show otherwise and i'll find you 10 that prove the opposite...............because in pretty much every high profile case involving molesters there is no remorse.

What, you want us to go on a search for paedophiles and divvy out the people who have professed to be a paedophile and think that child molestation is wrong and immoral and the sadists who think that there is nothing wrong with raping a child?

That would be quite something. And I don't see why you're so sure of this ratio.

Tayla wrote: »

You do know that paedophile can be used to describe someone who does in fact abuse also even though you are using it to describe only people who are sexually attracted to children but do not abuse

It has been used that way. I don't think it should be used that way, though.

Tayla wrote: »

these people would use any bit of justification to further justify it to themselves and there is no point in denying it.

If this is the case, I doubt they're going to be inflated by the fact some people think that paedophiles who don't molest and aren't a harm to anyone deserve ethical treatment.

Are rapists who rape adult women any more remorseful than rapists who rape children? Your argument essentially assumes this. Also, by this logic, a child rapist could use the fact the sky is blue as an excuse to rape children. Should we then turn it red? The sky being blue is as good of an excuse to rape children as using the excuse that a paedophile might not necessarily be a threat to children or at least deserves ethical treatment as an excuse to rape children. Recognizing paedophilia for what it is does nothing to trivialize the horror of rape.

Tayla wrote: »

I don't think that treatment you mentioned even exists.

It does. And if it didn't, it should.

Tayla wrote: »

You told another poster you would report them if they went any further after they said they hoped you never had kids.
We are having a discussion about one of the most difficult subjects to talk about

It doesn't matter what subject we're talking about, a personal attack is a personal attack.

Tayla wrote: »

What can we say about the claim that 1/4 of the men were attracted to children? I'm not interested in getting into a debate about that because to me that number screams BS.

It's the only statistic I've been able to find. Do you have any evidence better than that report on a .edu site linking to that study? If it is wrong I'm sure if you could report it to an administrator and get it removed. Or at least discredited on that very site.

booboo88 wrote: »

yoy really think that if they were sexually attracted to children.....they would do nothing to satisfy their craving?? wat planet are you on

That's the opposite of what I said. I said that they can and should be able to satisfy their craving ethically. Without abusing children. And yes, there are many ways to do that. There are thousands upon thousands of comic books, stories, cartoons, video games, and other media that cater specifically and exactly to this desire. And a lot of it gets banned because it is seen by the public as encouraging and creating paedophilia. But that seems highly illogical, you can't become a paedophile just by playing Disgaea or by watching Toradora. Nor will keeping such materials from paedophiles save any children. I have no reason to assume that any children have been harmed or will ever have been harmed at the result of this video never having been pulled down from youtube.

You are strawmanning and butchering my position into something it doesn't even resemble.

booboo88

That's the opposite of what I said. I said that they can and should be able to satisfy their craving ethically.

are you serious? thats like saying a drug addict can satisfy their craving, with lollipops.


ok guys im out, this is going no where fast

resmoplus

Paedophiles are everywhere, even in the church. Most of the paedophiles reported are white men though.

alibaba12

That's the opposite of what I said. I said that they can and should be able to satisfy their craving ethically. Without abusing children. And yes, there are many ways to do that. There are thousands upon thousands of comic books, stories, cartoons, video games, and other media that cater specifically and exactly to this desire.

It gets banned becuase its illegal and wrong, morally and just plane wrong. Why should we feed these monsters. Its nonsense to you saying it will satisfy their cravings; if anything it will only amplyfy them and then they will act. To say that they dont act it some form or other is utter nonsense.

They are predators, for most its not even about the sexual act. Its about control, same as an rapist.