Paedophiles

HarbinSnowfall

booboo88 wrote: »

thats like saying a drug addict can satisfy their craving, with lollipops.

Not even close.

You know, you can be sexually attracted to people without struggling not to have sex with them. It can be hard, but not that hard.

alibaba12 wrote: »

It gets banned becuase its illegal and wrong

Not always. There's quite a lot of materials that survive all over the place. And I'm obviously not talking about child porn, by the way. I'm talking about the hundreds of thousands of comic books, games and other materials dedicated to this sort of thing. Like this.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bi482MkOyMw

alibaba12 wrote: »

feed, amplyfy them and then they will act.

Utter ridiculousness. Fantasy and "onanism" or whatever does not amplify craving for sex.

alibaba12 wrote: »

To say that they dont act it some form or other is utter nonsense.

What do you mean "act on it", if you're talking about satisfying desires ethically, sure. If you're meaning "rape children", it's utter ridiculousness to assume that all or even the majority of paedophiles molest.

alibaba12 wrote: »

They are predators

Being sexually attracted to someone is not the same as being a predator, not even close.

alibaba12 wrote: »

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

Don't pretend you even have the foggiest clue what goes on inside the minds of most paedophiles. You don't.

And there isn't a single study to back up your claim.

alibaba12

HarbinSnowfall wrote: »

Don't pretend you even have the foggiest clue what goes on inside the minds of most paedophiles. You don't.

And there isn't a single study to back up your claim.

Actually I do have first hand knowledge of paedophiles, and I know what goes in their minds; something yout dont.

Also to say that they can stop themselves is also rubbish, they cant. Once they get the smell of it they cant let go. Feeding their minds with images via comics etc is like saying its ok to rape, abuse and molest children. When in fact its not. Children cant understand or consent.

Comics and other such materiels are pornography - its the sexualisation of children. To say their desire is purely sex orientated is complete bull and you know it. Unless you have ever been in the company of a paedophile or abused by one you have no clue or argument to backup anything you have said.

Unless your harboring some feelings yourself for children? Maybe thats why you feel that paedophiles should be understood and helped?

booboo88

HarbinSnowfall wrote: »

Not even close.




What do you mean "act on it", if you're talking about satisfying desires ethically, sure. If you're meaning "rape children", it's utter ridiculousness to assume that all or even the majority of paedophiles molest.


Being sexually attracted to someone is not the same as being a predator, not even close.


Don't pretend you even have the foggiest clue what goes on inside the minds of most paedophiles. You don't.

And there isn't a single study to back up your claim.

you still havent answered the question on how this would be monitored? how do you know that not ALL peadophiles are molesting?

Comics and other such materiels are pornography - its the sexualisation of children. To say their desire is purely sex orientated is complete bull and you know it. Unless you have ever been in the company of a paedophile or abused by one you have no clue or argument to backup anything you have said.

Unless your harboring some feelings yourself for children? Maybe thats why you feel that paedophiles should be understood and helped?

watch out he'll think this is a "boderline personal attack"

JohnK

alibaba12 wrote: »

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.

Well, for one thing its been shown that increased access to pornography reduces overall child abuse http://www.theregister.co.uk/2011/06/30/smut_freakonomics/

Pornography and Sex Crimes in the Czech Republic wrote:

...Of particular note is that this country, like Denmark and Japan, had a prolonged interval during which possession of child pornography was not illegal and, like those other countries, showed a significant decrease in the incidence of child sex abuse.

Now obviously using real porn would be a bit of a stretch but using something close to the real thing that doesnt involve actual children (ie: cartoons, young looking legal age models etc.) could likely have the effect of making children safer.

alibaba12

JohnK wrote: »

Well, for one thing its been shown that increased access to pornography reduces overall child abuse http://www.theregister.co.uk/2011/06/30/smut_freakonomics/

Now obviously using real porn would be a bit of a stretch but using something close to the real thing that doesnt involve actual children (ie: cartoons, young looking legal age models etc.) could likely have the effect of making children safer.

The link makes reference to legalising actual child porn to make children safer. This is a condradiction in itself; child porn is harming children that are forced into it being raped, molested and tortured repeatedly. Children cant consent.

As for comics or so called fantasies, would you allow your 10 month old, 2 year old or any child of yours pose for this supposed "art". To allow it save another child. I very much doubt it.

Most of the images of the children in these comic books etc, werent plucked out of the imagination of the person who draws these, they are taken of actual real life children.

JohnK

alibaba12 wrote: »

The link makes reference to legalising actual child porn to make children safer. This is a condradiction in itself; child porn is harming children that are forced into it being raped, molested and tortured repeatedly. Children cant consent.

Hence why I said to use either models of legal age that look younger than they are or other non-real children such as cartoon depictions. Furthermore, even in the case of real child porn I fail to see how thats a contradiction since it would make more children safe than are currently so. Its like any safety system - it wont protect everyone but it will reduce the overall number of people being harmed.

alibaba12 wrote: »

As for comics or so called fantasies, would you allow your 10 month old, 2 year old or any child of yours pose for this supposed "art". To allow it save another child. I very much doubt it.

You seem to have missed the point where I was saying to use non-children

alibaba12 wrote: »

Most of the images of the children in these comic books etc, werent plucked out of the imagination of the person who draws these, they are taken of actual real life children.

Most? Seriously? Most? Do you really think that if you went into the offices of some comic producer you're going to find some half naked child standing on a pedestal while the artist draws them? Seriously? :rolleyes:

seamus

alibaba12 wrote: »

Most of the images of the children in these comic books etc, werent plucked out of the imagination of the person who draws these, they are taken of actual real life children.

I loath using pictures to respond to posts, but I can't think of any other way to respond to this one.

Tayla

HarbinSnowfall wrote: »

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.

Hold on now a minute, I am being logical and analyzing things the best I can piece by piece also, we don't agree and yet you think you are being the voice of reason and i'm not.
You said I was slandering you, come on.
Society would say your opinions are illogical.

HarbinSnowfall wrote: »

You claimed I was illogical without giving reason. That's an argument against the person.

We are discussing paedophiles here, PAEDOPHILES, it is a hard subject to deal with, you KNOW why I think you are being illogical, I am agreeing with society here, I don't need to give you a reason why I think you are being illogical, it's obvious, we're not discussing football teams here. Do you really need me to tell you the reason you are being illogical, sorry but i'm not going to pander to you like that.

HarbinSnowfall wrote: »

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?

No, I want high profile cases where the paedophile has expressed remorse.

HarbinSnowfall wrote: »

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

No, not just has, it is nearly always used that way, you referring exclusively to people who don't abuse as paedophiles doesn't mean that the rest of us have to. Your refusal to even refer to them as either 'paedophiles who do' or 'paedophiles who don't abuse' is seemingly to get us to refer to them your way.

HarbinSnowfall wrote: »

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

That wasn't a personal attack, society would agree with the poster who said it, if you were to try to adopt a child and social services knew of your views you would not be allowed to adopt. I don't think anyone would agree with you that that was a personal attack and if the world we lived in today considered what the poster said to you was a personal attack considering you have made your feelings on the matter very very clear in this whole thread, then I am not too sure I would like to live in that world.


What about someone who is sexually attracted to babies, should they be allowed to have or be near children? A parent who is attracted to an infant, what would stop them from abusing them? It's disgusting to think that they're are people out there who think like that and have unrestricted access to babies, society has to protect these children but unfortunately we can't.

barry711

Harbinsnowfall did you forget about my questions?

booboo88

barry711 wrote: »

Harbinsnowfall did you forget about my questions?

probably doesnt like what your asking, as he doesnt know how to answer it, he only picks out parts and replies to same. blatantly ignoring anything else

strobe

booboo88 wrote: »

probably doesnt like what your asking, as he doesnt know how to answer it, he only picks out parts and replies to same. blatantly ignoring anything else

Lot of that going on in this thread...

HarbinSnowfall

alibaba12 wrote: »

Actually I do have first hand knowledge of paedophiles, and I know what goes in their minds; something yout dont.

You have an anecdotal. That doesn't tell you about all paedophiles because not all paedophiles are the same.

alibaba12 wrote: »

Also to say that they can stop themselves is also rubbish, they cant. Once they get the smell of it they cant let go. Feeding their minds with images via comics etc is like saying its ok to rape, abuse and molest children.

Completely baseless claim.

alibaba12 wrote: »

Comics and other such materiels are pornography - its the sexualisation of children.

That depends on your definition of "pornography".

They're not worthy of the legal definition of child pornography, which hurts children. Just about anything can be sexualized in the eyes of a person. And then you could class just about anything as child pornography. The term reasonably applies to an ethical standard which contains real children being violated.

alibaba12 wrote: »

To say their desire is purely sex orientated is complete bull and you know it.

To say their desire cannot be purely sex oriented is complete bull and you know it.

alibaba12 wrote: »

Unless you have ever been in the company of a paedophile or abused by one you have no clue or argument to backup anything you have said.

You're using a useless anecdotal claim to make a blanket statement about a varying group of people again.

alibaba12 wrote: »

Unless your harboring some feelings yourself for children? Maybe thats why you feel that paedophiles should be understood and helped?

Nice job trying to make this argument and the validity of the argument about the person in question arguing and not about their claims.

No, I am not attracted to children. Yes, there have been times in my life that I was, but I was a minor myself. Who didn't have a childhood crush? I like adult men and women. And adult fictional characters sometimes too. Though funny, I live in a world where both are sometimes labeled paeodphilia. I can't count the amount of times I've been labeled a paedophile for being attracted to Asian women, or saying I prefer flat chests, or androgyny in general, or adult twinks, or Touhou characters.

Does give me a curiosity why people seem so apt to call people who are attracted to adult Asian men and women paedophiles when almost nobody thinks that term means anything but a predators. Race mixing = predatory? Apparently according some some of the fools in this world.

Then you've some some people in the Tera Online community claiming anyone who doesn't support Elin censorship is a paedophile. And linking to this thread to try to prove that, since I'm using the same username there. I knew I shouldn't have been using the same username for this long in the internet. But I was too lazy to think of another one.

My perspective doesn't matter. And implying it does is a logical fallacy. Argument against the person instead of the argument is always a logical fallacy.

But if you must know. I do at least probably have a difference background and experience with the word than you all do. Despite not being a paedophile myself. Experience with people calling race mixing paedophilia. Experience with people calling attraction to adult twinks paedophilia. Experience with people calling attraction to androgyny paedophilia. Experience with people calling attraction to adult fictional characters paedophliia. There are some fools out there, it seems, who aren't going to be happy until every fun sexuality is associated with child rape.

No, of course I don't "harbor feelings for children", I harbor feelings for women like Yaguchi Mari and am called a paedophile for it. And instead of getting too irate over these types of people who think EVERYTHING is paedophilia, and they're everywhere. It helped me realize something. It's not paedophilia to be attracted to Yaguchi Mari and even if it was, it wouldn't matter, because you can be a paedophile and not be a danger to anyone. You can be a responsible paedophile. If I can be attracted to Yaguchi Mari and not be a threat to children, so too, can a person attracted to children and not be a threat to them.

barry711 wrote: »

Harbinsnowfall did you forget about my questions?

I can't answer to everyone, even I have a limited amount of time for the internet.

Also, there's no point in answering useless questions, like the ones I just answered.

And if I remember correctly, your questions were pretty useless.

I have an overwhelming amount of people to respond to in this thread, clearly. Don't hold it against a user to not respond to every single statement every single user has made. I've been doing a pretty above average job of it as it is.

alibaba12 wrote: »

Most of the images of the children in these comic books etc, werent plucked out of the imagination of the person who draws these, they are taken of actual real life children.

I don't mean to sound rude, but this is an incredible misunderstanding of art and the processes that typically go into making it.

Most of the images of children in these comic books, were in fact plucked from the imagination. There are loads of books dedicated just to teaching people how to draw a certain comic book aesthetic.

JohnK wrote: »

You seem to have missed the point where I was saying to use non-children

Yes, exactly, if anything trying to satisfying something in fantasy satisfies at least part of the fantasy and desire, not enhance it to the point where you're struggling not to partake in it.

And real child porn is indeed immoral. However, I don't think there's any good case of Kodomo no Jikan to be illegal. I don't think that comic is going to push anyone to go out and rape anymore than Grand Theft Auto is going to push anyone to go out and shoot up a major city.

You can say it is different because the parts of the brain that like violence and like sex are different. But they're not radically different, especially pertaining to control. Humans have at the very least, near as much control over their sexual fantasies as their violent ones. Yes, people are sexual creatures. People are also violent creatures. We live by living with them healthily and ethically.

And someone playing a First Person Shooter game instead of saying "that was a terrible thought, let me try to suppress that", is not going to cause more violence.

Tayla wrote: »

Hold on now a minute, I am being logical and analyzing things the best I can piece by piece also

Yes, you've been saying that, that's logic. Things like this, on the other hand, aren't"

Tayla wrote: »

Society would say your opinions are illogical.

That is an argumentum ad populum logical fallacy.

Tayla wrote: »

We are discussing paedophiles here, PAEDOPHILES

That doesn't make illogical things any less illogical.

Tayla wrote: »

I don't need to give you a reason why I think you are being illogical, it's obvious, we're not discussing football teams here. Do you really need me to tell you the reason you are being illogical, sorry but i'm not going to pander to you like that.

You haven't presented a logical basis, you do need to prove that something is logical for it to have validity, and explaining why something is logical is not pandering.

Tayla wrote: »

No, I want high profile cases where the paedophile has expressed remorse.

And how would that be remotely relevant to our argument?

I'm not arguing that there are any child predators that have expressed remorse. I'm arguing, or at least intend to, argue about the difference between paedophilia and child molestation, like the OP.

Tayla wrote: »

No, not just has, it is nearly always used that way

That goes contrary to all of my experience. Just merely the controversy about Tera Online, the upcoming MMORPG has just the opposite. Not to mention the hundreds of thousands of comics and animation and video games and literature discussions that say "this is paedophilia", not meaning it is child molestation. There's also a great deal of people that speculate that Lewis Carrol was a paedophile.

Tayla wrote: »

you referring exclusively to people who don't abuse as paedophiles doesn't mean that the rest of us have to.

They can, but it's silly. Also, it gives Lolicons quite a high position. Do you want that? This is exactly the logic Lolicons use to defend Lolicon.

In a thread defending Lolicon as not paedophila, would you and most people join in, in saying that these video game representations and attraction to them is not paedophilia, but lolicon? Or would you be in the camp saying "Yeah right, that's paedophilia right there you excuse-makers. No breasts = sick!"?

Tayla wrote: »

Your refusal to even refer to them as either 'paedophiles who do' or 'paedophiles who don't abuse' is seemingly to get us to refer to them your way.

Because it makes sense.

Tayla wrote: »

That wasn't a personal attack

Just because you think the majority of people would think something, does not make it not a personal attack.

Tayla wrote: »

What about someone who is sexually attracted to babies, should they be allowed to have or be near children?

I don't know.

Tayla wrote: »

A parent who is attracted to an infant, what would stop them from abusing them?

Morality and the personal understanding that it is wrong.

Tayla

HarbinSnowfall wrote: »

You haven't presented a logical basis, you do need to prove that something is logical for it to have validity, and explaining why something is logical is not pandering.

It's pandering when you already know the answer but you want me to explain to you why I think people who are sexually attracted to children should not be around them.

You know the bloody answer. Everyone here knows the answer.

HarbinSnowfall wrote: »

And how would that be remotely relevant to our argument?

It's relevant because I asked for you to show me cases where child molesters had shown remorse, it was in response to what you said to another poster who said that there was a paedophile in their family and described what he/she thought child molesters were like.

It's relevant because paedophiles who don't abuse still harbour the same fantasies and it could be possible for any of them to molest a child at any time....I mean technically you can't deny that?

Knowing you you're probably going to say now that 'technically' it would be possible for anyone to do that but please don't bother saying that because that's just trying to derail the issue.

In every high profile child molester case I think that you can sense the evil off them, they are never sorry, never show remorse or guilt, they just look evil.
I read a story the other day about the scumbag who killed little Sarah Payne and I was so upset to read it because he looked like the most evil man and to think that the last pair of eyes she probably looked into were that evil just breaks my heart.

HarbinSnowfall wrote: »

I'm not arguing that there are any child predators that have expressed remorse. I'm arguing, or at least intend to, argue about the difference between paedophilia and child molestation, like the OP.

What you don't understand here is that any paedophile (who hasn't abused) will ALWAYS have the potential to abuse, that cannot be denied, so to try to completely seperate child molesters and paedophiles just won't work. At the end of the day someone who is attracted to children will IMO have the potential to abuse a child until the day they die.

HarbinSnowfall wrote: »

I don't know

So how come you don't know if they should be allowed to be near babies but it's fine for children? (as long as they don't abuse them)

HarbinSnowfall wrote: »

Morality and the personal understanding that it is wrong.

I don't know if that would stop them and that is the sad thing.

HarbinSnowfall

Tayla wrote: »

It's pandering when you already know the answer but you want me to explain to you why I think people who are sexually attracted to children should not be around them.

Okay, first of all, that discussion was tied to being illogical about the subject of paedophilia in general, and did not particularly pertain to being around children as a paedophilia. We've hardly even talking about that, and to be honest, I don't have a strong opinion or a good enough understand to have a strong opinion about how much proximity a paedophile and a child have and it be safe.

Stop trying to make things about things they're not when it is convenient for you. And you know you're doing this.

Tayla wrote: »

It's relevant because I asked for you to show me cases where child molesters had shown remorse,

Well then you shouldn't have asked that. Because it's not relevant to our argument.

Tayla wrote: »

it was in response to what you said to another poster who said that there was a paedophile in their family and described what he/she thought child molesters were like.

Then it's completely irrelevant. Because one child molester or paedophile does not speak for the entirety of paedophiles.

Tayla wrote: »

It's relevant because paedophiles who don't abuse still harbour the same fantasies and it could be possible for any of them to molest a child at any time....I mean technically you can't deny that?

They have all sorts of fantasies. They just involve childlike bodies, do they not?

Did you not claim that attraction to a childlike body is paedophilia? Then it's not about power. Yeah, a paedophile could end up molesting a child at any time, so could a non paedophile.

Tayla wrote: »

Knowing you you're probably going to say now that 'technically' it would be possible for anyone to do that but please don't bother saying that because that's just trying to derail the issue.

Absolutely correct! And for good reason. It's not derail, it's a proper rebuttal. Because that is exactly the issue you're making it. That paedophile, 99% or so of the time are child molesters with certainty. And that this is some unique thing that encompasses all molesters. Just because it the claim doesn't skew some belief in a statistic where paedophiles are overwhelmingly molesters, doesn't make it "derailing".

That's cheap of you to call something that is relevant and disagrees with you "derailing".

Tayla wrote: »

What you don't understand here is that any paedophile (who hasn't abused) will ALWAYS have the potential to abuse

Well, that depends on what you mean by "potential". Any adult human being, paedophle or not, has the potential to molest a child.

A paedophile also has the potential to be as unlikely to molest a child as a non-paedophile. Or at least close. The rest of your paragraph was cut from my quotation for redundancy. I've already addressed it with this statement.

Tayla

HarbinSnowfall wrote: »

Stop trying to make things about things they're not when it is convenient for you. And you know you're doing this.

I'm not doing that at all.

HarbinSnowfall wrote: »

Well then you shouldn't have asked that. Because it's not relevant to our argument.

In your opinion it's not relevant but in mine it is, you're the one that suggested paedophiles all need treatment, they wouldn't need treatment if there was not something for them to turn into, it is relevant, It is very relevant, you are just trying to seperate things that can't be seperated. Child molesters are irrelevant to the discussion apparently but yet you'll go on and on about poxy cartoon characters.

HarbinSnowfall wrote: »

Then it's completely irrelevant. Because one child molester or paedophile does not speak for the entirety of paedophiles.

But yet bizarrely you seem to think you can speak for them, that poster gave an opinion from a scenario from his/her own family and you completely dismissed it.

HarbinSnowfall wrote: »

That's cheap of you to call something that is relevant and disagrees with you "derailing".

It is derailing the issue, you're the one who now keeps going on about the fact that we're talking about paedophiles (who don't abuse) and not child molesters, I commented that all paedophiles can potentially become child molesters and you're bringing non paedophiles into it, what relevance does that have? if a non paedophile suddenly abused a child then they are now a paedophile and child molester in my eyes and in the eyes of society.

HarbinSnowfall wrote: »

Well, that depends on what you mean by "potential". Any adult human being, paedophle or not, has the potential to molest a child.

Yawn Yawn Yawn will you stop nitpicking for God's sake.....maybe there's an absolutely tiny possibility of that out there ( I read a story last year about a man who suddenly started watching child pornography, turned out it was a brain tumour causing him to do it, he got treated and a few years later, started watching child porn again, guess what? Brain tumour is back).

Are we going to list a tiny miniscule minority or will be just continue to discuss paedophiles, the ones who obviously are the most risk of abusing children.

HarbinSnowfall wrote: »

A paedophile also has the potential to be as unlikely to molest a child as a non-paedophile.

Yes that statement can be true to describe some paedophiles but in my opinion does not become entirely valid until the paedophile is deceased.

HarbinSnowfall

Tayla wrote: »

you're the one that suggested paedophiles all need treatment

I didn't say all paedophiles need treatment.

But you're right, my mistake, that was actually relevant to the discussion. And to prove that any paedophiles can be rehabilitated I would have to prove that they could be. I'm personally mostly thinking of people who do want to molest and can seek help and therapy.

I wouldn't want all paedophiles to be associated with them, though. And I heavily doubt that all paedophiles need such help.

Tayla wrote: »

But yet bizarrely you seem to think you can speak for them, that poster gave an opinion from a scenario from his/her own family and you completely dismissed it.

I'm not "speaking for them", I'm merely saying you can't pideonhole paedophiles into one mindset, especially based upon one case.

And I didn't dismiss more than it should be. It's an anecdotal one-case. It doesn't have weight.

And there's no opinions to this, something is either right or it is not. Not everything can be an opinion. Opinions are subjective. And either most paedophiles are child molesters, or they're not.

Tayla wrote: »

I commented that all paedophiles can potentially become child molesters and you're bringing non paedophiles into it, what relevance does that have?

Relevance to the fact you're essentially singling them out as child molesters.

If the second statement, that non-paedophiles can potentially become child molesters is not noteworthy, than neither is the statement "all paedophiles can potentially become child molesters".

But you are making it noteworthy.

Tayla wrote: »

Yawn Yawn Yawn will you stop nitpicking for God's sake

Attempting for clarity in meaning is not "nitpicking". And I addressed every possible meaning you could have by that statement that I could think of. If I was nitpicking, I wouldn't have done that.


.....maybe there's an absolutely tiny possibility of that out there ( I read a story last year about a man who suddenly started watching child pornography, turned out it was a brain tumour causing him to do it, he got treated and a few years later, started watching child porn again, guess what? Brain tumour is back).

Tayla wrote: »

Are we going to list a tiny miniscule minority or will be just continue to discuss paedophiles, the ones who obviously are the most risk of abusing children.

And here's where it becomes relevant to the discussion. It's even possible that the majority of child molesters are non paedophiles and that the majority of paedophiles are non-molestors.

Tayla wrote: »

Yes that statement can be true to describe some paedophiles but in my opinion does not become entirely valid until the paedophile is deceased.

Not if they have a healthy outlet. What if they just just marry an adult who happens to look really young and like a kid? And love her to the point they don't really desire sex with anyone else? That person only has one outlet for their paedophillic urges, their wife or husband. The paedophile will not have been "cured", but they will have found an ultimately fulfilling way to get it out.

You know, I don't think that just because someone likes the body of a child aesthetically, that it means they want to have sex with anyone with the body of a child. And put into the right position, they might only want to do it with their adult lover. I think this is exactly the sort of direction that paedophiles should be pushed towards. They'll be rare, but it can happen, and it's better than the alternative. Also, I think we are reaching the real transhumanism soon. In which not only might we be able to cure paedophilia and modify the human mind in all sorts of ways, there might be full brain emulation. In which there could be childlike gynoids with real adult human minds inside, that a paedophile could gain a romantic and sexual relationship with.

barry711

HarbinSnowfall wrote: »

I can't answer to everyone, even I have a limited amount of time for the internet.

Also, there's no point in answering useless questions, like the ones I just answered.

And if I remember correctly, your questions were pretty useless.

I have an overwhelming amount of people to respond to in this thread, clearly. Don't hold it against a user to not respond to every single statement every single user has made. I've been doing a pretty above average job of it as it is.

Well if thats not a cop out I don't know what is.

You say you cant write back to everyone...You go out of your way to answer everyone in this thread and fail badly at defending your opinions. The fact you even took the time to write this to me and said that you have a limited amount of time on the Internet as an excuse as to why you didn't answer makes me laugh, would you of not just answered the questions in less time it would of taken to make up excuses for avoiding the questions I asked? The fact you didn't just speaks volumes for itself.

In future, The next time someone like me asks questions you find to personal and difficult to answer keep your mouth shut and say nothing because you have just made a fool out of yourself here and lost A LOT of power in your argument. Next time come prepared to answer and deal with anything that comes your way in a discussion or you will lose respect, creditability and overall influence to win your argument your making like you have done today. Nice try though.

Memnoch

I think the one thing that all the posters on this thread would agree on is that the most important thing is to keep children safe, and to figure out what the best way of doing that is.

Most children are abused by someone known to them, someone they or their parents trust. How do you guard against that?

Until we get to the point where we can read people's minds and predict their actions, it's always going to be virtually impossible to predict who could end up harming a child.

If we can create an environment or a system of some kind that encourages people who have this perversion to seek help before they reach the stage that they act on their impulses, then to me, that could be an effective way of reducing the incidence of abuse.

How we do that, I don't know. But right now there isn't much incentive for pedophiles to seek help or self-report because if they reveal what's going on inside their heads it's likely to wreck their life. So they go on, like ticking timebombs.

As much as it might loathe us to do so, taking a humane approach might yield positive results. Of course, it's never been tried, so who knows, it might back fire.

Right now we know so little about why some people are like this. Are they born this way? Is it a genetic thing? Medical science is advancing and maybe there could be a solution there? Or is it something that happens during development? What are the triggers? How many people out there are attracted to children but don't go on to abuse?

I don't see how we can come up with an effective and coherent strategy to protect children from abuse with such little information. Anger and fury are all very well, but I think they do more to make us feel better than achieving anything tangible.

CorkMan

Does pedophilia exist in the animal kingdom? Homosexuality is prevalent in the animal kingdom in many species, lending to the theory that it is a natural behaviour.

I wonder what exists in nature, people's genetic code, that makes an adult sexually attracted to a child. Nature shouldn't have programmed people that way.

Morphie

jive wrote: »

How do people feel about paedophiles?

There used to be a stigma associated with gay people (this is now gone for the most part but is still present). The majority now understand that people are who they are and that they cannot help if they like the same sex. It is now acceptable.

But if someone was to come up to you and say "I fancy pre-pubescent children but I know it's wrong" you would think they are a weirdo - correct? I find this a bit hypocritical. If the person is a good person and does not act on their sexual urges then why is there an issue? They cannot help being attracted to children even though they know it's wrong. How come, as a society, we can accept gay/bi people but not paedophiles? I understand that children cannot consent etc. etc. but if the person who is attracted to them doesn't act on it then why would it be an issue? It seems a bit unfair that a paedophile would be discriminated against over something that he/she cannot change.

Obviously there would be issues in leaving that person alone with your children but even ignoring that I am of the understanding that the person would in fact be perceived as a freak?

While obviously the acts of paedophiles should be condemned and severely punished do you think it is fair that they are discriminated against over something they cannot change? I think this is an interesting topic and hope it will be allowed to be discussed.

Discuss.

Please don't turn into a meaningless discussion as to why pedophiles and gays are different. It is obviously down to the consent of their sexual partner and the fact that a child is not mentally mature enough to consent. I was simply using gays as an example as they used to be outcasts in society years ago for their sexual preference. Pedophiles have now taken that throne and I'm wondering why should they be different as long as they don't act on their urges.

This brings me to my next point. Zoophilia. The consent problem arises here again because the animal cannot consent. What if you present yourself to an animal and he/she is DTF. If you then proceed to have intercourse with them should it be ok? I mean they have instigated it which could be considered consent (but is it because they don't have the mental capacity to consent? I'm not sure). Cows are often impregnated artificially and they don't consent to that so it seems hypocritical. This is only a minor sub-discussion though as I think paedophilia is more common and interesting.

It's because pedophiles and homosexuals are different, that they can not be compared in this way, it's a very different though process to answer it morally. So I can't agree that's it's hypocritical for one to accept homosexuals, but not pedophiles.

Do I think it's fair pedophiles are discriminated over something they can't control? No I don't, you have a point with that, it really isn't fair. I don't think they should be discriminated against due to an uncontrolable urge they have.

But I put it to you, it is unfair to expect people to accept them? I wouldn't be able to control my urge to want to remove myself from where a pedophile exists, that's something I wouldn't be able to control. I wouldn't want to be around a pedophile, have my non-existance children near one. Even if they haven't ever "done" anything.

Protecting young humans is something an adult human I think does instincivly, and to think another adult human has an urge which destroys the innocent, is something so unsettling that it couldn't be accepted. I do say, that for one who is a pedophile, is must be such a cruel thing.

Pedophile don't have the correct requirements to ever be accepted by society, regardless of them never having acted upon urges.

My obvious advice to pedophiles would be, keep it a secret.

midlandsmissus

I don't think anyone's born a paedophile. We all have an option to abuse children and we either act on it or we don't. I would read bill zeller's suicide note to truly get an understanding of the consequences of abusing a child.

midlandsmissus

Do you agree though that paedophilia cannot be classified as a sexual orientation as it differs vastly from other sexual orientations. Heterosexuality and homosexuality do not cause LIFELONG suffering and mental torture to it's participants. It amazes me the things paedophiles tell themselves to try and dress it up: the child really wanted it, I will be nice to the child if I do it. No. Lets state paedophilia for what it is: getting sexual gratification out of terrorising something which is weaker than you. Leaving lifelong mental damage and torture akin to no other. Lets state paedophilia for what it is on this thread while discussing it. Show me any study that said the child enjoyed it, then look at the vast amount of studies of people who's lives have been irreparably ruined from child abuse. Again I would look at Bill Zeller' suicide note as a good example of the extreme agony the child goes through for the rest of their life. Why would you inflict this on anybody?

Tayla

Morphie wrote: »

Do I think it's fair pedophiles are discriminated over something they can't control? No I don't, you have a point with that, it really isn't fair. I don't think they should be discriminated against due to an uncontrolable urge they have.

I agree that the ones who don't abuse shouldn't necessarily be discriminated against because for them (although always a danger) they obviously have controllable urges, if the paedophiles who abuse have uncontrollable urges then shouldn't they be locked up for life as they are a danger to society?

Morphie wrote: »

Protecting young humans is something an adult human I think does instincivly, and to think another adult human has an urge which destroys the innocent, is something so unsettling that it couldn't be accepted. I do say, that for one who is a pedophile, is must be such a cruel thing.

I agree with this completely.

midlandsmissus wrote: »

Do you agree though that paedophilia cannot be classified as a sexual orientation as it differs vastly from other sexual orientations. Heterosexuality and homosexuality do not cause LIFELONG suffering and mental torture to it's participants. It amazes me the things paedophiles tell themselves to try and dress it up: the child really wanted it, I will be nice to the child if I do it. No. Lets state paedophilia for what it is: getting sexual gratification out of terrorising something which is weaker than you. Leaving lifelong mental damage and torture akin to no other. Lets state paedophilia for what it is on this thread while discussing it. Show me any study that said the child enjoyed it, then look at the vast amount of studies of people who's lives have been irreparably ruined from child abuse. Again I would look at Bill Zeller' suicide note as a good example of the extreme agony the child goes through for the rest of their life. Why would you inflict this on anybody?

I also agree with all of this, the fact that some paedophiles want paedophilia to be classed as a sexual orientation just goes to show how dilusional they really are because it is not a sexual orientation, more a fetish like someone mentioned earlier......and obviously a very dangerous fetish but not a sexual preference.

HarbinSnowfall

No, saying you don't have time to answer is quick and painless. It's not an excuse, and it doesn't "discredit users" to admit they haven't the time to respond to every single post. Much less useless tripe like this.

barry711 wrote: »

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?

This, this is your post? This is off-topic, useless trash.

Stop posting off-topic personal tripe, and then claiming that it has relevance to whether someone's claim have validity. This is as bad as when a user asked if I "harbored feelings for children". This is the thing you're claiming I'm making excuses for? Really? Really? This off-topic drivel? I didn't even see this post earlier and focused on the person I was mainly arguing with. But I eventually went back to read it. And this is the thing you thought had weight to it... this? You've gotta be kidding me.

Tell me, how is any of this relevant to the thread? At all? Give me an excuse as to why this is relevant and should even be posted in the thread.

midlandsmissus wrote: »

Heterosexuality and homosexuality do not cause LIFELONG suffering and mental torture to it's participants.

Well actually, there are homosexuals who hate themselves their entire lives for it, usually because of the non-acceptance of it. And then there are a few heterosexuals who also suffer for their heterosexuality, often because of inability to accept gender roles or the "dating game" as they see it.

Or are you not talking about the mental state, but of abusing children? Because you can be a paedophile without harming anyone. And you can be a homosexual or heterosexual and rape someone, giving them lifelong suffering.

I mean, if you're sexually attracted to this, does it make you a paedophile?

Possibly. But she is a 26 year old woman. So it is possible to have consensual sex with her. I don't think there's any "dressing up" needed or even abhorrent to this. If a paedophile dates her because he or she is a paedophile, they can say "she's a legal adult and we love each other", and that would not be wrong, would it?

Again, tell me, can this 26 year old woman consent to sex?

Are most people who like her for how she looks, instead of preferring something else and merely past it for personality, paedophiles?

If the answer is yes to both, then are you saying nobody physically is attracted to her face/body type, without wanting to terrorize her? I think not. Many paedophiles, would simply find her beautifully and desire to date her respectfully.

Edit: My apologies, I got her age wrong. This woman turned 27 this January.

deisedave

Morphie wrote: »

It's because pedophiles and homosexuals are different, that they can not be compared in this way, it's a very different though process to answer it morally. So I can't agree that's it's hypocritical for one to accept homosexuals, but not pedophiles.

Do I think it's fair pedophiles are discriminated over something they can't control? No I don't, you have a point with that, it really isn't fair. I don't think they should be discriminated against due to an uncontrolable urge they have.

But I put it to you, it is unfair to expect people to accept them? I wouldn't be able to control my urge to want to remove myself from where a pedophile exists, that's something I wouldn't be able to control. I wouldn't want to be around a pedophile, have my non-existance children near one. Even if they haven't ever "done" anything.

What you said is exactly how I feel about it in a nut shell:)

Protecting young humans is something an adult human I think does instincivly, and to think another adult human has an urge which destroys the innocent, is something so unsettling that it couldn't be accepted. I do say, that for one who is a pedophile, is must be such a cruel thing.

Pedophile don't have the correct requirements to ever be accepted by society, regardless of them never having acted upon urges.

My obvious advice to pedophiles would be, keep it a secret.

What you said is exactly how I feel about it in a nut shell:)

deisedave

midlandsmissus wrote: »

Do you agree though that paedophilia cannot be classified as a sexual orientation as it differs vastly from other sexual orientations. Heterosexuality and homosexuality do not cause LIFELONG suffering and mental torture to it's participants. It amazes me the things paedophiles tell themselves to try and dress it up: the child really wanted it, I will be nice to the child if I do it. No. Lets state paedophilia for what it is: getting sexual gratification out of terrorising something which is weaker than you. Leaving lifelong mental damage and torture akin to no other. Lets state paedophilia for what it is on this thread while discussing it. Show me any study that said the child enjoyed it, then look at the vast amount of studies of people who's lives have been irreparably ruined from child abuse. Again I would look at Bill Zeller' suicide note as a good example of the extreme agony the child goes through for the rest of their life. Why would you inflict this on anybody?

But I am guessing that the majority of pedophiles would not act on there urges so in fact they are not destroying any lifes.