Quantcast

Jump to content

» «
Photo

Should Paedophilia be Seriously Defended?

186 replies to this topic
Melchior
  • Melchior

    come on and tell me twice

  • Andolini Mafia Family
  • Joined: 16 May 2009
  • Unknown

#1

Posted 16 July 2013 - 01:48 PM

Until the last few decades it was a quasi-mainstream debate, and while the average person may have thought you were a sicko for defending it, defending homosexuality would likely garner the same reaction. It was pretty common for people on the far left- or even more moderate intellectuals- to seriously advocate not stigmatising paedophiles and sexual acts with children.

As I see it, infamous cases of child abduction and subsequent abuse are what seemingly permanently ended the debate. Though it's worth keeping in mind that I'm fairly certain a lot of these offenders weren't even paedophiles. That is, though they may have raped and abused children, clinically speaking they weren't paedophiles. They didn't abduct children because they couldn't control their perverse lust and just had to nab some kiddies, the abuse was just a way to torture them and feel in control, likely the same reason they torture and murder them.

I think the debate has merit. Yes, sexually abusing children will scar them. But is it because children are intrinsically asexual and should be off limits, or is because children haven't been equipped to consent? What typifies the abuse; is it abuse people children are incapable of consenting or reciprocating, or is it abuse because they aren't equipped to consent and reciprocate and thus all all adult-child sexual interactions take the form of abuse? Basically, what we should be discussing is: is it inherently wrong to sexualise children the way we do adults?

Typhus
  • Typhus

    OG

  • $outh $ide Hoodz
  • Joined: 11 Sep 2007

#2

Posted 16 July 2013 - 02:04 PM

It is not wrong to sexualise children because pedophilia is a sexual orientation that cannot be controlled.
If it cannot be controlled and if the pedophile does not make a conscious choice to feel that way about children, then it can not - in any way - be considered 'wrong' because there is not choice, they are reacting to what their bodies are telling them.
Now, the issue with this is that despite being an orientation, it is not between two consenting adults and so the issue of 'accepting' pedophilia is far, far more difficult. We cannot let our children be abused and yet we expect those who feel an attraction to children to remain eunuchs for the rest of their lives, unable to even look at stimulating images for fear of being imprisoned and having their entire lives destroyed.

Pedophilia may disgust you and I would never wish abuse on a child, but it should be defended and there should be a concerted effort to give pedophiles a way to legally gain sexual release. In the future, should robotics become advanced enough, I genuinely feel that providing a robotic child to these people will end the fuss once and for all.
But until that point, we are persecuting them for following the same natural urges that drive almost everyone else.

To summarise - it should be defended, ways should be devised to give them material to sate their urges and there should be no talk of 'curing' them.

Melchior
  • Melchior

    come on and tell me twice

  • Andolini Mafia Family
  • Joined: 16 May 2009
  • Unknown

#3

Posted 16 July 2013 - 02:14 PM Edited by Melchior, 16 July 2013 - 02:18 PM.

QUOTE (Typhus @ Wednesday, Jul 17 2013, 00:04)
It is not wrong to sexualise children because pedophilia is a sexual orientation that cannot be controlled.

I mean is it wrong for our culture to sexualise children? As in, is it inherently wrong to view and treat children has sexual entities? Let's keep in mind that other cultures have done so.

We aren't discussing paedophilla aas a medical condition. We aren't even necessarily discussing people with an exclusive- or even predominant- sexual attraction to children. We're talking about whether or not it is okay to treat child sexuality in a similar vein to how we treat adult sexuality.

Typhus
  • Typhus

    OG

  • $outh $ide Hoodz
  • Joined: 11 Sep 2007

#4

Posted 16 July 2013 - 03:50 PM

Well, in a wider, cultural sense, I don't see the problem with them being sexualised. It may sicken a great many people, and I understand that, but am I alone in thinking that prudishness and repression has caused more ills to human civilisation than sexual permissiveness?
When I consider how much suffering has been caused by supposedly civilised socieities attempting to stamp out sexual 'deviance', I cannot help but think that there are no firm arguments against an anarchic approach to the various orientations and fetishes that exist.
Allowing the sexualisation of children in the media would eventually lead to society becoming more open and tolerant of social groups who are still the subject of bigotry. Intolerance only exists where barriers exist, therefore removing those barriers is the logical answer to removing intolerance, no?

reform
  • reform

    Beaten, battered, bruised, Told to get down

  • Members
  • Joined: 10 Jan 2009

#5

Posted 16 July 2013 - 05:58 PM

I don't think that the sexualisation of children is entirely indefensible, but there are clearly real problems.

Many fetishes such as schoolgirl uniforms, autonepiophilia and it's associated counterparts, and so on can be seen as the sexualisation of children, even though no children are involved directly.

When children are directly involved it obviously becomes more complicated. I can't say I would ever condone the persuit of sexual acts involving real children under circumstances such as manipulation or otherwised forced participation. Clearly below a certain age, a child could never have the maturity to understand, consent or avoid a sexual act, but that age is not certain. I would say that some individuals are indeed mature enough while still technically a child to decide to actively participate in sexual acts of their own will, even when it might be against the laws of that country.

To expand further though, we could look at typical forms of sexualisation of children in media, which children could potentially be exposed to. I think it's important for Children to be exposed to certain things, including sexual concepts where appropriate, as long as it's not something that can potentially influence their actions in a detrimental way. As such, if the sexualisation of children is applied to younger and younger children in mainstream media, It could be harmful.


In summary; the sexualisation of children in itself is defendable as long as any associated attitudes (and actions) are not imposed on anyone without the maturity to deal with such concepts.

Zugzwang
  • Zugzwang

    Snitch

  • Members
  • Joined: 18 Apr 2013

#6

Posted 16 July 2013 - 06:58 PM Edited by Zugzwang, 16 July 2013 - 07:01 PM.

In theory, there may exist some situation in which sexual conduct between an adult and a child is acceptable. However, in practice, this situation is so extremely rare that it's best to keep adult-child sexual relations illegal. Society should not sexualise children. We shouldn't, as a culture, put forth the attitude that adult-child sex is okay under certain circumstances even if that may be the case. The reason being, that if we were to allow the sexualization of children, inevitably, people would not abide by the circumstances the law would prescribe because they would be frustratingly narrow.

The solution, as Typhus points out, is to find some way for pedophiles to satiate their urges without harming children. However, I'd recognize that even with advances that make this possible we'll still see some illegal and immoral adult-child sex from people in search of the real thing. That's reality.

Mince
  • Mince

    Ménage à trois

  • Leone Family Mafia
  • Joined: 19 Apr 2008
  • United-States

#7

Posted 17 July 2013 - 12:04 AM

(Sorry if the grammar is bad, my eyes are hurting) Yes, we as a society need to take another look at our views on pedophiles. There are too many incorrect generalizations when it comes to this matter; for example, the fact that most people, when asked what they think of pedos, will just assume that all of them have the desire to rape and murder children. There's never going to be any real changes in our laws or our culture as long as people hold these views.

Some people get offended when you compare pedophilia to homosexuality, and I think it's unfair to say that all comparisons are null. Opinions will change over time when more pedophiles get high positions in society. There's not many people like that now, and the few that exist (like Mark Foley, who was never technically a pedophile and simply asserts that he is gay) are lambasted by everyone and essentially forced to abandon their positions. The same has held true for homosexuality over the years. I understand this topic isn't about the medical side of pedophilia, but there is some dissent as to whether or not pedophilia is necessarily a disorder/disease. Those who hold the view that it isn't are generally ignored and pushed aside, but attitudes are changing.

So yeah, I was basically focusing on what it will take to get opinions changed. Nobody should be forced to change their views, but they should at least open themselves up to the other side and realize that they aren't out to harm anyone.

Whether or not it can be defended also depends on the age we are talking about. Pedophilia mostly applies to an attraction to prepubescents, i.e. preteens. However, it's often used as an umbrella term to identify every adult that has attraction or interaction to anyone under 18, and that's simply not right. I do believe that, if a teen that has gone through puberty and is willing and capable of entering into sexual relations wants to do so with some adult, they should be allowed to do so. The adult shouldn't be thrown in jail for a consensual relationship, especially in any case where the teen would be allowed to have sexual relations with a person their age. That being said, like it was said earlier in the topic, there will be people that take advantage of this and will use their power over sex-capable teenagers to take advantage of them. I don't think this is a reason to throw all of these adults in jail, though. Also, I think that all child pornography above that certain age should be free game (I.E. adults shouldn't get 20 years in jail for downloading some picture of a 15 year old).

Of course, we are mostly talking about really young kids here. I think it's important to encourage that these adults should have the same rights as everyone else, and are given certain legal protections, as long as they don't have sex with any child. Like Typhus said, we need a way for these people to have a release. I think that virtual reality will solve this problem one day (along with other things like bestiality). Everybody wants to love someone, and that attraction shouldn't be a crime, but sex shouldn't be allowed in cases where a child clearly can't consent or even be capable of it.

So yeah, adult+teen = sex and attraction good to go, should be totally legal if consensual. Adult+child = attraction shouldn't be a crime, sex should be. Both of these groups should be defended and get certain legal protections. I think we as a society can successfully manage this without opening the gate to any kind of rape, which is totally wrong and can never be accepted. But attraction =/= rape.

Also, I'm surprised to hear that pedophilia was once more common in the political scene. I know that many pedophile advocacy groups popped up at the same time as homosexual advocacy groups, but they have lost their influence over time.
  • HolographicBunny likes this

El_Diablo
  • El_Diablo

    "The_Devil" ™

  • Leone Family Mafia
  • Joined: 03 Aug 2002
  • Mars

#8

Posted 17 July 2013 - 02:18 AM

there's no defense for pedophilia.

being sexually attracted to children is a disease of the mind. it's not healthy for the adult and it's certainly not healthy for the child.
even if it's not rape, it's still wrong. consent from a child does not make having sex with a child right or acceptable; it doesn't matter if you coerced the child into consent because it's still coercion on the part of the adult who is supposed to be mature and responsible.

children can have sex with children. that's relatively normal.
2 people of the same age (or very close together, in the same school) exploring their sexuality is normal.

an adult seeking out sex with a child (because they're a child) is not normal.
it's indefensible.
  • Doc Rikowski likes this

Zugzwang
  • Zugzwang

    Snitch

  • Members
  • Joined: 18 Apr 2013

#9

Posted 17 July 2013 - 03:08 AM

QUOTE (El_Diablo @ Wednesday, Jul 17 2013, 02:18)
there's no defense for pedophilia.

being sexually attracted to children is a disease of the mind. it's not healthy for the adult and it's certainly not healthy for the child.
even if it's not rape, it's still wrong. consent from a child does not make having sex with a child right or acceptable; it doesn't matter if you coerced the child into consent because it's still coercion on the part of the adult who is supposed to be mature and responsible.

children can have sex with children. that's relatively normal.
2 people of the same age (or very close together, in the same school) exploring their sexuality is normal.

an adult seeking out sex with a child (because they're a child) is not normal.
it's indefensible.

How are you defining adult and child? You mention kids within the same school having sex with each other, presumably high schoolers. What about a 19 year old having sex with a 17 year old? I don't find that especially wrong.

I think it's important to outline exactly what's being talked about in a thread like this- for clarity sake. I also think it's important to differentiate between pedophilia and ephebophilia and even hebephilia where applicable.

El_Diablo
  • El_Diablo

    "The_Devil" ™

  • Leone Family Mafia
  • Joined: 03 Aug 2002
  • Mars

#10

Posted 17 July 2013 - 04:56 AM

there's nothing confusing about this.

pedophilia is when an adult seeks out sex with a child because they're a child.
and it's always wrong. it's indefensible.

a 19 year old and 17 year old is not pedophilia.
they're kids in the same school. it's completely different.

Typhus
  • Typhus

    OG

  • $outh $ide Hoodz
  • Joined: 11 Sep 2007

#11

Posted 17 July 2013 - 06:43 AM

QUOTE (El_Diablo @ Wednesday, Jul 17 2013, 04:56)
pedophilia is when an adult seeks out sex with a child because they're a child.
and it's always wrong. it's indefensible.

An adult molesting a child is indeed wrong.
But is finding a way to sate that attraction WITHOUT physical interaction with a child also wrong in your eyes? I do not agree that it is a mental illness and I think it's the height of cruelty to tell people that they are diseased simply because they see beauty where you do not, it is how they are and you can dislike it all you want, but to claim that they are simply deranged lunatics who need to be 'cured' is false. The answer, as I've said before, is for society to create a way for them to gain release without physical interaction with real children.

I think we make criminals of these people when all they probably want is to have access to the same kind of pornographic material that is so readily available to both Heterosexuals and Homosexuals.
We must accommodate them, as we have learned to do with people of other orientations who were likewise labelled as 'diseased'.

Melchior
  • Melchior

    come on and tell me twice

  • Andolini Mafia Family
  • Joined: 16 May 2009
  • Unknown

#12

Posted 17 July 2013 - 07:02 AM

Well, according to El_Diablo, all of ancient Rome had a "disease of the mind."

El_Diablo
  • El_Diablo

    "The_Devil" ™

  • Leone Family Mafia
  • Joined: 03 Aug 2002
  • Mars

#13

Posted 17 July 2013 - 07:54 AM

QUOTE (Typhus @ Wednesday, Jul 17 2013, 00:43)
But is finding a way to sate that attraction WITHOUT physical interaction with a child also wrong in your eyes?

I would agree that there's nothing technically wrong with harboring an attraction to children... as long as you do not act on this attraction physically.
that's just child abuse.

and I suppose that technically there are different kinds of 'attractions'.
but I personally would consider any sexual attraction to children - by an adult - to be a form of mental illness. it's very simple; adults should not be sexually attracted to children. at the very least, they should not be acting on these desires. again, to act on this attraction amounts to little more than child abuse.

QUOTE
I do not agree that it is a mental illness and I think it's the height of cruelty to tell people that they are diseased simply because they see beauty where you do not

I'm sorry, but this is the kind of thing that a child molester would say right before he molests a child.
you realize that, right?

I don't mind if you happen to think that per-pubescent child bodies are beautiful or sexually arousing.
some people find horses and dogs to be beautiful and sexually arousing too. I'm not really going to argue what is in the eye of the beholder.

but I have no problem calling you "sick."
adults who are sexually attracted to children are sick in the mind. not "sick" like "eww gross" (even though that's a part of it...) but "sick" like an honest mental issue.
it's not necessarily their fault either. but it doesn't make them any less sick.

pedophilia is listed in the DSM-IV-TR for a reason.
the DSM is the standard manual on human psychological diagnosis. I find it comical that anyone would try to normalize the classification of pedophilia or have it removed from the discussion of mental illness.

QUOTE
you can dislike it all you want, but to claim that they are simply deranged lunatics who need to be 'cured' is false.

lol.
it's not FALSE just because you say so.

but we'll agree to disagree.

QUOTE
The answer, as I've said before, is for society to create a way for them to gain release without physical interaction with real children.

ok sure.
I have no problem with that obviously.

I would rather they jerk off than molest children.
so I guess the solution is for Japan to draw lots and lots of child porn cartoons, eh?

Japan saves the day!

QUOTE
I think we make criminals of these people when all they probably want is to have access to the same kind of pornographic material that is so readily available to both Heterosexuals and Homosexuals.

if you're talking about ACTUAL child porn then you're still wrong.

they cannot have child porn with real children in it.
they can certainly have cartoon or 3D porn with drawings / models of children. I'm fine with that because no humans are being molested.

but we cannot normalize child porn just to "accommodate" the people who are sick enough to require it.
that will never happen.

QUOTE (Melchior @ Wednesday, Jul 17 2013, 01:02)
Well, according to El_Diablo, all of ancient Rome had a "disease of the mind."

all?

no. because not everyone in ancient Rome had sex with children.
more of them did than we do today, but there was also more slavery back then there is today.

maybe you want to have a discussion about normalizing slavery, too?
just because people did things a long time ago when the world was still largely ignorant and bigoted doesn't mean we should engage those things today.

Melchior
  • Melchior

    come on and tell me twice

  • Andolini Mafia Family
  • Joined: 16 May 2009
  • Unknown

#14

Posted 17 July 2013 - 10:01 AM

All of ancient Rome sexualised children. That's why their statues have such small penises (no, really) because the child form was considered beautiful and ideal. Maybe not every single man was intimate with young boys, but child sexuality had a place in Roman culture.

Slavery isn't a mental illness either so I'm not sure what you are getting at with that parallel. You said attraction to children is a mental illness. If an entire culture partook I don't see how it can be classified as a mental illness.

You aren't really explaining your problem with sexualising children. You haven't even said that you think children are inherently incapable of being sexual entities, or that they're inherently unable to be equipped to give consent and reciprocate. You've just repeatedly said that it's wrong without any explanation.

El_Diablo
  • El_Diablo

    "The_Devil" ™

  • Leone Family Mafia
  • Joined: 03 Aug 2002
  • Mars

#15

Posted 17 July 2013 - 11:15 AM

QUOTE (Melchior @ Wednesday, Jul 17 2013, 04:01)
All of ancient Rome sexualised children.

that's simply not true.

I'm not denying it was an aspect of Roman society; especially amongst the warrior and noble classes but prevalent throughout. even moreso amongst men than amongst women, as you noted with young boys. but it's really beside the point; Roman society is not the magical standard by which modern society should measure itself.

QUOTE
You said attraction to children is a mental illness. If an entire culture partook I don't see how it can be classified as a mental illness.

but there is nowhere on Earth that the entire culture considers pedophilia a normal thing.
there's no society for pedophiles outside of the underground places in which they're forced to meet.

pedophilia has been a standard diagnosis in the DSM and isn't going anywhere.
there's a reason why the people who engage and/or fantasize with pedophilia are a minority.

QUOTE
You've just repeatedly said that it's wrong without any explanation.

you haven't really explained why it's right.
you've just said that some people find children sexy. I get it. that doesn't make it right lol... but I'll explain.

pedophilia is an adult disorder.
it's an adults desire to sexualize and potentially consummate sex with a child. it's a selfish fulfillment that does not benefit the child regardless of their ability to physically experience pleasure at the time. it only benefits to satisfy the adults fetish. the child is ultimately unprepared - both emotionally and physically - to consider this act and the relationship itself as a normal aspect of life during their most formative years of development as a human being.

at the very least, this robs them of their childhood. but that's rarely the only side effect. there are VERY FEW victims of pedophilia who grow up to feel anything but shame, regret, and confusion over their experience. we're not talking about kids struggling with gay or straight for instance. homosexuality is not listed as a disorder in the DSM but pedophilia is, and that's because there are real moral, ethical, and medical issues to be considered here.

so I'll say it one more time.

there's nothing technically wrong with sexualizing children in fantasy and/or roleplay (with another adult) or through pornography.
but it cannot involve real children, I'm sorry. that's where it ends.

someone's urge to get off through sex with children is overruled by the child's right to life, liberty, and happiness.
it's pretty simple. pedophilia will never be legal, let alone normalized.

Melchior
  • Melchior

    come on and tell me twice

  • Andolini Mafia Family
  • Joined: 16 May 2009
  • Unknown

#16

Posted 17 July 2013 - 12:05 PM

QUOTE (El_Diablo @ Wednesday, Jul 17 2013, 21:15)
I'm not denying it was an aspect of Roman society; especially amongst the warrior and noble classes but prevalent throughout. even moreso amongst men than amongst women, as you noted with young boys

We're not talking about the odd wealthy Roman paedophile raping his slave boy. We're talking about 1) relationships between men and boys being widely accepted and not stimatised at all, and in fact, it was an almost universal practise in ancient Greece 2) an entire culture treating children as sexual. It doesn't matter whether or not everyone found boys attractive and had sex with boys, boys were still considered sexual entities. Their forms were considered beautiful. So yes, entire societies sexualised children.

QUOTE
but there is nowhere on Earth that the entire culture considers pedophilia a normal thing.

Apart from the aforementioned societies in antiquity, there are several. Tribal cultures in the Asian Pacific (forget which ones specifically) and the Pashtun in Afganistan. I'm not sure why you thought paedophilla was widely stigmatised and were so confident in your assumption.

QUOTE
you haven't really explained why it's right.

I didn't say it was right. I said nobody has explained to me why children are incapable of being equipped for sexual interactions.

QUOTE
pedophilia has been a standard diagnosis in the DSM and isn't going anywhere.

I think you are somewhat confused here. Paedophilla, as a mental disorder, refers to cases where you are predominantly or exclusively attracted to children. Someone who is attracted to children is not necessarily a clinical paedophile.

QUOTE
the child is ultimately unprepared - both emotionally and physically - to consider this act and the relationship itself as a normal aspect of life during their most formative years of development as a human being.

That is because we don't equip them. You haven't explained why they can't be prepared for sex acts. Are they inherently incapable, and if so, why?

Irviding
  • Irviding

    No bed crew

  • Andolini Mafia Family
  • Joined: 06 Nov 2008
  • United-States

#17

Posted 17 July 2013 - 09:48 PM

QUOTE

I didn't say it was right. I said nobody has explained to me why children are incapable of being equipped for sexual interactions.

Because they can't properly give consent. A 16 year old child? your argument holds up. 8 year old? nope. An 8 year old child who barely has a developed enough brain to determine right from wrong is not able to consent to entering a sexual relationship. This isn't something that's debated in psychological circles.

QUOTE

We're not talking about the odd wealthy Roman paedophile raping his slave boy. We're talking about 1) relationships between men and boys being widely accepted and not stimatised at all, and in fact, it was an almost universal practise in ancient Greece 2) an entire culture treating children as sexual. It doesn't matter whether or not everyone found boys attractive and had sex with boys, boys were still considered sexual entities. Their forms were considered beautiful. So yes, entire societies sexualised children.

Perhaps those societies died for good reason then

El_Diablo
  • El_Diablo

    "The_Devil" ™

  • Leone Family Mafia
  • Joined: 03 Aug 2002
  • Mars

#18

Posted 17 July 2013 - 11:31 PM

QUOTE (Melchior @ Wednesday, Jul 17 2013, 06:05)
We're not talking about the odd wealthy Roman paedophile raping his slave boy. We're talking about...

ok look I don't freakin' care.

it doesn't mattert what Rome did.
Roman society is not the magical gold standard by which modern society should measure itself.

end of discussion.

QUOTE
I'm not sure why you thought paedophilla was widely stigmatised and were so confident in your assumption.

are you daft or just pretending to be?

pedophilia IS WIDELY STIGMATIZED around the world and you've proven my point.
the only examples you can name in your defense are some ancient societies that no longer exist, some tribe stuck in the Pacific ocean, and the Taliban-controlled region of Afghanistan where they don't even let women attend school.

these are not societies we want to replicate.

99% of the world condemns pedophilia.
it's not an assumption of mine, it's basic fact.

QUOTE
I didn't say it was right.

good.
because it's not right. it's very wrong.

QUOTE

That is because we don't equip them. You haven't explained why they can't be prepared for sex acts.

because they're children!

is this so hard to understand?
they're prepared for peanut butter jelly sandwiches, grass stains, skinned knees, time outs, temper tantrums, bedtime stories, and Santa Clause.

they're not equipped or prepared to be having sex with adults who are trying to fulfill their sick fetish.
it's not healthy and it's not sustainable.

Mince
  • Mince

    Ménage à trois

  • Leone Family Mafia
  • Joined: 19 Apr 2008
  • United-States

#19

Posted 18 July 2013 - 02:15 AM

QUOTE (El_Diablo @ Wednesday, Jul 17 2013, 00:56)
there's nothing confusing about this.

pedophilia is when an adult seeks out sex with a child because they're a child.
and it's always wrong. it's indefensible.

a 19 year old and  17 year old is not pedophilia.
they're kids in the same school. it's completely different.

Would you say this always applies when there's a big age gap, say five years or so (since that's the medical definition of pedophilia), and the younger person is under 18? I.E. 25 year old Kevin hooks up with 15 year old Susan. 15 year old Susan has previously hooked up with, say, 16 year old Jason from her school. Ignoring the fact that Susan probably needs some time with Jesus, do you think that Kevin deserves to get jailtime for this, because he was ruining Susan's chance at life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness?

Now you might say "that's not pedophilia", regardless of whether or not you think that particular incident is wrong, but the discussion of pedophilia brings up lots of other things too. Namely age of consent and Romeo and Juliet laws regarding teenagers. This incident is one example of an 18 year old facing jail time for a relationship for a 15 year old. Now you might say "that's just a bunch of bible thumpers in Florida that are being homophobic". I would agree, but there's plenty of cases like that. You're not presenting any idea of compromise with regards to pedophilia (whatever your definition of that is, since you didn't really answer Zugzwang when he said that), but do you think that age of consent laws in general are too restrictive?

But yeah, it really does depend on your definition of "child". I'm not trying to defend any sick behavior or mince my way with words, but imo there's a big difference between young children (I.E. prepubescent) and teenagers, with teenagers very clearly being capable of sex. But if you still think there's some sort of age gap limit, I.E. so that my example of 25 y/o and 15 y/o is wrong, and Zugzwang's example of 19 y/o and 17 y/o is okay, what exactly sets the age limit? In other words, what determines the age when sex becomes "wrong and immoral"?

If you're only referring to really young kids, where everyone would be against them having sex, then I would basically agree with your points, although Typhus still has a point. Western society, at least the liberal part of western society, has the idea that 'love is love' and that everyone deserves to love someone. If pedophilia is a disease, surely pedophiles don't choose to be attracted to children? Would they choose to be condemned by 99% of the world? If it's not a choice, do you really think that pedos should live their entire lives with no sexual release? If you're okay with digital child porn, that's one thing, since it's a victimless crime.

Also, seeing as this debate is more about the sexualization of children, and not about the legal status of pedophiles, I'll try not to go off topic. But the way I see it, a person's moral views about pedophilia and the sexualization of children shouldn't interfere with their opinions on the legality of pedophilia. Pretty much everyone I encounter on a regular basis in real life believes that homosexuality is immoral, yet most of them wouldn't actually say they favor gay people being dragged off to jail and hated by most of society. And if being attracted to children isn't a choice, then this comparison to homosexuality is reasonable

SagaciousKJB
  • SagaciousKJB

    Captain tl;dr

  • The Connection
  • Joined: 21 Jun 2003

#20

Posted 18 July 2013 - 02:57 AM

I think the question of whether children are capable and equipped to enter a sexual relationship is going to come back to being divided amongst two groups...

Those who had very clear sexual desires as a child, and those who didn't.

The former will never be able to understand how a child could possibly consent to an act of sexuality with an adult. The latter will tell you up front that they thought about boning their pre-school teacher again and again. The former will then deny this, or treat it as some kind of naive, underdeveloped notion of sexuality to defend their notion that, "No, no child ever thinks about sex with an adult."

Realistically, I think there are many children who are equipped and able to be sexually consenting with an adult. My reasons for this? Personal experience and anecdotes from other close friends with similar experiences. In fact, one close friend had sexual relations on a regular basis with his cousin when he was 4 and she was 17. They're still in close contact, and neither one has any obvious signs of mental trauma. Of course I'm sure the naysayers will just say that they're mentally effected, but just don't know it, haven't been diagnosed, haven't related it to these incidents, so on and so forth...

But I'm not going to argue against them, because there's the thing: The fact that these people cannot understand how a child would be equipped or able to consent to sex now, means they certainly weren't able to do so as a child. The fact that some children can, in no way shape or form changes the fact that some children can't and a society can simply not risk harming the ones who can not. Children are simply too suggestible... If you tell a child they want to have sex, they will believe they want to have sex. That type of coercion means that you can never be sure if a child is actually consenting to have sex with you, or if you are coercing them. Even if the child is making their own advances, you can never be sure if this is something they're emulating after seeing something they weren't supposed to, or a natural urge.

I think this divide is what causes controversy between the two groups... One group knows that as children they were sexual and could consent, while the other group knows that as children they weren't. However I insist that there's simply no safe way for an adult to partake in a sexual relationship with a child without the risk that the child is not ready and that is simply inexcusable.

With that in mind and commenting on Greek and Roman cultures... How many young children do you think were unalterably effected by an early sexual relationship and simply told they were over-reacting because of the many who came before them who were able to remain healthy after such experiences?

In the end I don't think it's okay to sexualize children in culture because the risk of harming children is just too great. In fact, I think the current atmosphere for pedophilia ( on the Internet especially ) has been somewhat fostered by our lax position on pedophilia up until the 00s. Many people don't even know this, but child pornography wasn't even illegal in the U.S. during a large part of the 80s. I remember seeing a very popular hair metal band being interviewed, talking about how "All the girls that show up are so young, 12, 11... It's a good thing," and all of his bandmates and the interviewer cheered in agreement. It seemed that pedophilia at that time was seen more or less as some kind of quirky fetish that didn't do any real harm.

I think that all began to turn the more obvious it became that these people weren't just harmless perverts. The Internet begot file sharing, which begot little girls being sold into what basically amounts as slavery, and now days there is an entire industry based upon keeping children in substandard conditions, taking naked photos of them, and then making money off of these pictures on line. You have stories of people who were basically held hostage in their own home until they were rescued as an adult... The type of grizzly tales that come from this are surely not anything that makes this seem like it's something that could or should be tolerated.

stu
  • stu

    I'm finished.

  • Andolini Mafia Family
  • Joined: 22 Feb 2011
  • United-Kingdom
  • Funniest Member 2013
    Funniest Member 2012

#21

Posted 18 July 2013 - 03:13 AM

I think it's an interesting subject. First of all, how do you even go about classifying what makes a person a child? Is it someone under the age of 18? Under the age of 16? Before they reach puberty or sexual maturity? Historical comparisons would place the elder children of present as being practically OAP's. You'd be married in your early teens at the latest throughout the majority of history. Even in present day, in Europe the age of sexual consent is as low as 13. And that's not in some "backwards" Eastern European country as some might say, That's in Spain.

Also it's worth saying that although pedastry was a practice in places like Rome and Greece, it still had limitations. It wasn't just no holds barred bum whoever you want. You could basically only do it with slaves in Rome, and you could do whatever you wanted with them anyways as they had no rights. It was illegal for regular citizens. In Greece where it was more widespread, it's not like these were really young boys of 6 or 7. They were generally in their early teens or 11 or 12 at the youngest. Girls were expected to be getting married at that age.

I guess the age of children has increased in recent centuries up to the present day, as we too have aged in general. We're living longer, and so I think it's kinda stretched out the age classifications. Even at 25 maybe some might say up to 30ish you might still be considered a young man or woman.

But we are evolved and we are programmed to be attracted to younger people, and those who have reached sexual maturity. Then you get problems because societal expectations and the law says you are not supposed to be attracted to 15 year olds. An 18 year old would be classed as a criminal and could face some pretty serious charges if they had sex with a 15 year old in many places.

As for "proper" peadophilia where you get people attracted to children who are like 8 or 9 or even younger, I don't know if you can really defend that. You can say that they were born that way, but I honestly don't know. I just think it's removing the blame. Can you really be born so that you will be sexually attracted to children when you're an adult? Either way, I'd say it's a mental sickness and creating child robots or any other messed up "substitute" for them to satisfy their desires with is just wrong. For one, it's not something which should be encouraged, and I feel that's exactly what it would do. Just like how child pornography can push them onto committing their own acts against children.

El_Diablo
  • El_Diablo

    "The_Devil" ™

  • Leone Family Mafia
  • Joined: 03 Aug 2002
  • Mars

#22

Posted 18 July 2013 - 06:53 AM Edited by El_Diablo, 18 July 2013 - 10:13 AM.

QUOTE (mincemate003 @ Wednesday, Jul 17 2013, 20:15)
Would you say this always applies when there's a big age gap, say five years or so (since that's the medical definition of pedophilia), and the younger person is under 18? I.E. 25 year old Kevin hooks up with 15 year old Susan. 15 year old Susan has previously hooked up with, say, 16 year old Jason from her school. Ignoring the fact that Susan probably needs some time with Jesus, do you think that Kevin deserves to get jailtime for this?

I can't really comment on a specific case like that, because that kind of situation will be decided in the courts of whichever local jurisdiction in which it occurred.
at that point, whatever happens to Kevin is based on the local age of consent laws.

a 25 year old who hooks up with a 15 year old is less 'pedophilia' and more 'white trash.'
although it's close either way.

QUOTE
You're not presenting any idea of compromise with regards to pedophilia (whatever your definition of that is, since you didn't really answer Zugzwang when he said that), but do you think that age of consent laws in general are too restrictive?

I feel like my definition of pedophilia is clear.

it's the adult fetish on sexual relations with a prepubescent child because they're a child.
I've stated this more than once.

as for age of consent laws "in general," I think they have their place in society. I wouldn't abolish them across the board.
but they have to be employed on a case-by-case basis.

QUOTE
In other words, what determines the age when sex becomes "wrong and immoral"?

it's wrong and immoral anytime an adult seeks out sex with a prepubescent child who is totally outside of his social range (IE not attending the same school or something like that).

if you're a grown man - living on your own and finished with public school, at least 22 years old or so - and you're interested in sex with kids who aren't even in high school then you've got a problem. you should be interested in relationships with your peers and people you associate with in your social range. I'm not saying that a 60 year old man cannot date an 18 year old girl because they're both adults. but adult men should not be seeking out sex with children.

it's pretty simple.

QUOTE
Western society, at least the liberal part of western society, has the idea that 'love is love' and that everyone deserves to love someone.

ok look. I'm a liberal.
but I'm not THAT liberal. I don't know of any liberals who are THAT liberal.

I agree that love is love.
but a child's right to have a normal life and a normal childhood OVERRULES some guy's fetish desire to have sex with that child.

end of story.
if that guy is not willing to seek professional help then he needs to settle on some 3D/cartoon child porn because that's as close as he should ever be allowed to get in terms of fulfilling his urges.

QUOTE
If pedophilia is a disease,  surely pedophiles don't choose to be attracted to children?

yes I agree.
often times they cannot help it. the reasons that someone becomes a pedophile are obviously complicated.

it doesn't change the fact that it's wrong.
their access to actual children should be limited for protection of the children. if we find out who these people are before they attempt to act on their desires, then they cannot be allowed jobs such as a teacher, camp counselor, pediatrician, babysitter, etc.

QUOTE
Pretty much everyone I encounter on a regular basis in real life believes that homosexuality is immoral, yet most of them wouldn't actually say they favor gay people being dragged off to jail and hated by most of society. And if being attracted to children isn't a choice, then this comparison to homosexuality is reasonable


well first of all you must live in a very... interesting part of the country.
where I'm from, pretty much everyone I encounter on a daily basis believes that homosexuality is NOT IMMORAL. where I'm from, people who think that homosexuality is immoral account for the minority. as they should.

secondly; homosexuality is not comparable to pedophilia.
homosexuality still implies normal, healthy, and sustainable relationships between consenting adults.

homosexuality is not a choice.
pedophilia is likely not a choice.

but homosexuality is not about the molestation of minors. that's the difference.
and that's why pedophilia is illegal and homosexuality is not.

Typhus
  • Typhus

    OG

  • $outh $ide Hoodz
  • Joined: 11 Sep 2007

#23

Posted 18 July 2013 - 07:11 AM

QUOTE (GTA_stu @ Thursday, Jul 18 2013, 03:13)
I'd say it's a mental sickness and creating child robots or any other messed up "substitute" for them to satisfy their desires with is just wrong.

So, for the sake of your precious morals, you'd have these people suffer through a life of abstinence? Even if society could create things that would give them comfort and hurt no one?
El Diablo is right, we must never give them REAL images of children, because those images were obtained via a campaign of grooming and abuse. To look at them is to tacitly approve that abuse.
But recognising that it is an orientation, doing what we can to accomodate them and setting them free from persecution and ruin is the only noble thing to do.
You guys might not believe this, but once upon a time, I wanted all pedophiles to be killed by the state. Why? To set them free. I don't hate them, I pity them, because they can never be who they really are. They must hide and lie and live in shame, what kind of life is that? But as technology improves, that needn't be the case, we can provide them with the tools for a healthy sexual life so that they can lead a safe social life.

I am genuinely curious as to why you would try to deny them artificial sexual stimuli that would effectively solve this entire issue.

El_Diablo
  • El_Diablo

    "The_Devil" ™

  • Leone Family Mafia
  • Joined: 03 Aug 2002
  • Mars

#24

Posted 18 July 2013 - 07:15 AM Edited by El_Diablo, 18 July 2013 - 10:08 AM.

QUOTE (SagaciousKJB @ Wednesday, Jul 17 2013, 20:57)
I think the question of whether children are capable and equipped to enter a sexual relationship is going to come back to being divided amongst two groups...

Those who had very clear sexual desires as a child, and those who didn't.

I should stop you right here, because that's a ridiculous statement which I believe you cannot defend.
but I'll elaborate...

QUOTE
The former will never be able to understand how a child could possibly consent to an act of sexuality with an adult.  The latter will tell you up front that they thought about boning their pre-school teacher again and again.  The former will then deny this, or treat it as some kind of naive, underdeveloped notion of sexuality to defend their notion that, "No, no child ever thinks about sex with an adult."

do you realize what you just said?

you've classified potential pedophiles as anyone who was sexually active at a young age.
and you've classified all non-pedophiles as anyone who was NOT sexually active at a young age.

in spite of being totally untrue this is also an impossible claim to attempt to make.
you'll never be able to support this claim and most people already know it's BS.

I was sexually active fairly regular by age 14. most of my friends became sexually active between 13 and 17.
I'm not a pedophile. they're not pedophiles.

I don't seek out or fantasize about sex with prepubescent children. none of my friends do either unless all of them are just really good at hiding it.
but we're all dating - or married to - women around our own age. at the very least, our relationships are with other adults.

your shallow and callous classification does not hold any water.
moving on...

QUOTE
The fact that these people cannot understand how a child would be equipped or able to consent to sex now, means they certainly weren't able to do so as a child.

this statement is laughable.
I was masturbating from a very young age (obviously to ideas about other little girls my own age) and became sexually active in middle school but I'm STILL against pedophilia... which runs counter to the point you just tried to make; a point which is patently false. and that's because the issue is not a lack of understanding on the part of anti-pedophiles sigh.gif

we understand perfectly well that children are equipped for sex in the most basic physical sense.
they can feel pleasure. their dicks and their vaginas work. we get it.

it doesn't mean that they're ready emotionally or physiologically.
a grown man can cause serious medical trauma to the uterus, ovaries, and labia of a prepubescent girl or anus, sphincter, and rectal cavity of a prepubescent boy.

now apparently you personally know someone who was a victim of pedophilia... sort of. you said they're cousins which changes the situation a little.
but that's beside the point. you said that you know a victim of pedophilia who basically turned out just fine.

that's great. I'm glad they grew up without (seemingly) any issues.
but your personal anecdote is not evidence to build a pro-pedophilia case on top of. most victims of pedophilia feel nothing but shame, regret, and confusion about their experience. it's almost unanimous but I never said it was 100%. just because the rare child might TRULY enjoy it and grow up without any regrets doesn't mean it's ok to normalize pedophilia in society.

there's exceptions to literally every rule.
it doesn't mean you throw out the rulebook.

QUOTE
In the end I don't think it's okay to sexualize children in culture because the risk of harming children is just too great.

then stop playing devil's advocate tounge2.gif
this is terrible issue to do that with.

the sexualization of children will never be normalized or legalized.
we all know why. we know it's wrong.

the freakin' OP of this topic knows it... despite the tone of his subsequent posts.
remember he started this whole thing by saying

QUOTE (Melchior @ Tuesday, Jul 16 2013, 07:48)
Yes, sexually abusing children will scar them.

so we all know it's wrong from the get-go.
of all the topics in the world for debate, I really find it comical that we're debating this with a straight face. but I'll entertain the discussion as long you Devils want to keep it going sly.gif

stu
  • stu

    I'm finished.

  • Andolini Mafia Family
  • Joined: 22 Feb 2011
  • United-Kingdom
  • Funniest Member 2013
    Funniest Member 2012

#25

Posted 18 July 2013 - 03:59 PM

QUOTE (Typhus @ Thursday, Jul 18 2013, 07:11)
QUOTE (GTA_stu @ Thursday, Jul 18 2013, 03:13)
I'd say it's a mental sickness and creating child robots or any other messed up "substitute" for them to satisfy their desires with is just wrong.

So, for the sake of your precious morals, you'd have these people suffer through a life of abstinence? Even if society could create things that would give them comfort and hurt no one?
El Diablo is right, we must never give them REAL images of children, because those images were obtained via a campaign of grooming and abuse. To look at them is to tacitly approve that abuse.
But recognising that it is an orientation, doing what we can to accomodate them and setting them free from persecution and ruin is the only noble thing to do.
You guys might not believe this, but once upon a time, I wanted all pedophiles to be killed by the state. Why? To set them free. I don't hate them, I pity them, because they can never be who they really are. They must hide and lie and live in shame, what kind of life is that? But as technology improves, that needn't be the case, we can provide them with the tools for a healthy sexual life so that they can lead a safe social life.

I am genuinely curious as to why you would try to deny them artificial sexual stimuli that would effectively solve this entire issue.

Why do we have to accommodate their desires in the first place? If sounds like your arguing that because they cannot control what they are sexually attracted to, well then they're basically victims and we should try and give them what they want. We wouldn't do that to people who are sexually attracted to cars, or have a fantasy about incest. So why paedo's in particular? Why do they deserve to have this special treatment?

It's one thing to be sexually attracted to children, but that doesn't mean that because they cannot fullfilll these fantasies or desires that they cannot live normal healthy lives. The majority of peadophiles have families and are on the face of it normal people. They are still attracted to what the regular person is i.e. fully grown women. They just have a sexual fetish or desire or whatever you want to call it. They should be able to not act on that, and use self control and restraint.

Who says that they even want these substitutes? It might only be a small minority who would actually want to use one. I wouldn't personally want to have sex with a robotic woman, as I'm sure many others also wouldn't. Like I said previously there's also the danger that they use these use these robots, and it drives them on to committing acts against children. It might serve to increase their desire to offend, rather than limit it.


Typhus
  • Typhus

    OG

  • $outh $ide Hoodz
  • Joined: 11 Sep 2007

#26

Posted 18 July 2013 - 07:24 PM

QUOTE (GTA_stu @ Thursday, Jul 18 2013, 15:59)
Why do we have to accommodate their desires in the first place? If sounds like your arguing that because they cannot control what they are sexually attracted to, well then they're basically victims and we should try and give them what they want. We wouldn't do that to people who are sexually attracted to cars, or have a fantasy about incest. So why paedo's in particular? Why do they deserve to have this special treatment?

It's one thing to be sexually attracted to children, but that doesn't mean that because they cannot fullfilll these fantasies or desires that they cannot live normal healthy lives. The majority of peadophiles have families and are on the face of it normal people. They are still attracted to what the regular person is i.e. fully grown women. They just have a sexual fetish or desire or whatever you want to call it. They should be able to not act on that, and use self control and restraint.

Who says that they even want these substitutes? It might only be a small minority who would actually want to use one. I wouldn't personally want to have sex with a robotic woman, as I'm sure many others also wouldn't. Like I said previously there's also the danger that they use these use these robots, and it drives them on to committing acts against children. It might serve to increase their desire to offend, rather than limit it.

You have made a lot of good points and I shall address them succinctly, one-by-one smile.gif

- Why do they deserve special treatment? In truth, they don't. But I feel sick at the thought of any group, no matter how bizarre and condemned their fetish, being forced underground and having to conceal their true selves. I initially wanted them to die in order for them to be free. Now I think that it is socieities obligation to free them and all those we have so narrowly viewed as 'perverse' or 'deviant'. I see no future in prudishness or repression, pedophiles are but one group who should not have to hide what they are.

- Yes, it is true that they have families. But have you considered why that is? I propose that, as in the past, a sexual minority has opted to emulate the traditional life touted as 'normal' in order to escape persecution. It cannot have escaped your attention that after a certain age, single men stop being classed as 'bachelors' and start being viewed as weird, asocial and possibly dangerous. If you actually WERE a pedophile, being alone would tip off a lot of people. Society forces them to hide. That's how I see it because I see it as an orientation and not a mental illness. I know that both you and El Diablo disagree, but I believe that the 'community' of pedophiles so often hauled to jail for sharing pornographic images is but a dark mirror of other sexual minorities and the insular worlds they create. As pedophilia is almost universally loathed, more of them wear masks and are forced into these false lives.

- It is true that they might not want sex with a robotic partner. But, in this hypothetical situation, the robot would be fully lifelike and fully capable of being programmed to do anything required. You would barely be able to tell the difference. The idea is to give them an easy out, you see. A way to healthily, privately and safely do all that they need to do. They may not like the idea at first, but who would pass it up? It would stop them from trying to gain material that could land them in prison and it would negate the need to abuse innocent children and so also risk their liberty. It is the perfect solution to the problem, I truly believe that.

sivispacem
  • sivispacem

    Absolute Dunkel:Heit

  • Moderator
  • Joined: 14 Feb 2011
  • United-Kingdom
  • Contribution Award [D&D, General Chat]
    Most Knowledgeable [Vehicles] 2013
    Best Debater 2013, 2012, 2011

#27

Posted 18 July 2013 - 08:13 PM

In relation to your first point, Typhus, what about people who gain sexual gratification from committing murder? Andrei Chikatilo, for instance. Do you feel that they deserve that the requirement to prevent them from doing harm to society through their sexual deviancy is surpassed by their right to express themselves as humans, regardless of their whims?

Mince
  • Mince

    Ménage à trois

  • Leone Family Mafia
  • Joined: 19 Apr 2008
  • United-States

#28

Posted 18 July 2013 - 08:15 PM Edited by mincemate003, 18 July 2013 - 08:36 PM.

QUOTE (El_Diablo @ Thursday, Jul 18 2013, 02:53)
ok look. I'm a liberal.
but I'm not THAT liberal. I don't know of any liberals who are THAT liberal.

I agree that love is love.
but a child's right to have a normal life and a normal childhood OVERRULES some guy's fetish desire to have sex with that child.

end of story.
if that guy is not willing to seek professional help then he needs to settle on some 3D/cartoon child porn because that's as close as he should ever be allowed to get in terms of fulfilling his urges.


I know. I wasn't accusing you of such a thing. Pretty much nobody who employs the "love is love" mindset towards same-sex couples or interracial couples, for example, would imagine it being used for pedophiles or anywhere else.

Yes, I think there is a point where you might be glorifying someone's kiddie fetish. However, for those who are attracted to kids, it's pretty hard for us to say knowingly, without being in their minds, that it's impossible for them to love or to want a consensual relationship. And I'd say the same applies with the kids too. Yes, it seems to weird to imagine an 11 year old falling in love with some older person, but in the same way, it's shortsighted to say that everyone under 18 is incapable of falling in love or wanting a consensual relationship with someone older.

People for the longest time viewed interracial relationships and homosexuality as nothing more than a unhealthy fetish, or an abuse of power from one of the persons. Views on things can change.

(Also man, there are female pedophiles too wink.gif )

QUOTE (El_Diablo @ Thursday, Jul 18 2013, 02:53)
well first of all you must live in a very... interesting part of the country.
where I'm from, pretty much everyone I encounter on a daily basis believes that homosexuality is NOT IMMORAL. where I'm from, people who think that homosexuality is immoral account for the minority. as they should.

secondly; homosexuality is not comparable to pedophilia.
homosexuality still implies normal, healthy, and sustainable relationships between consenting adults.

homosexuality is not a choice.
pedophilia is likely not a choice.

but homosexuality is not about the molestation of minors. that's the difference.
and that's why pedophilia is illegal and homosexuality is not.


Well I live in a rural part of a southern state. It's to be expected I guess.

I understand that there's a difference between homosexuality and pedophilia. However, if neither of them are a choice, then there's definitely a comparison. It seems unlikely that people would choose to become pedophiles, to be hated by the whole world, to be rejected in every part of society, even if they are celibate and are not trying to "get" children.

Homosexuality is about being attracted to the same gender. Pedophilia is about being attracted to prepubescents. Molesting is just our word for having sex with kids, just like sodomy is our word for having sex with the same gender (usually). It mostly gives the negative connotation because we've made it that way. Like I said in my first post, most people assume that adults choose to pursue and rape children. That's not molesting, that's rape, and it's probably not even an attraction for children, just a desire to abuse power. People who are charged for having sex with kids and not for raping them are charged with molestation.

At the bottom of this, pedophiles are people. Which is why I think this should be an issue that's discussed, even if it does sound silly or gross. Maybe the topic should be less about "is it okay to sexualize children?" and more about "how should we treat pedophiles?". Because if pedophiles don't choose to be attracted to kids, we can't let our society lock them away forever and not even let them try to contribute normally (I.E. firing them jobs that don't involve children, or reporting harmless pedophiles to the police).

QUOTE (GTA_stu @ Thursday, Jul 18 2013, 11:59)
Why do we have to accommodate their desires in the first place? If sounds like your arguing that because they cannot control what they are sexually attracted to, well then they're basically victims and we should try and give them what they want. We wouldn't do that to people who are sexually attracted to cars, or have a fantasy about incest. So why paedo's in particular? Why do they deserve to have this special treatment?


Typhus pretty much said what I wanted to. But if people don't choose to be attracted to kids, then it's quite different from an attraction to cars or an attraction to family members. At least I don't think attraction to cars or incest are actual conditions/diseases, I think they are just chosen fetishes, correct me if I'm wrong though. Like I said above, pedophiles are people that want to be in society just like everyone else. Most people have sexual attractions to something, and they are capable of living their lives alongside it, it's just that pedophiles have an attraction that doesn't work most of the time or usually harms someone. On the other hand, if being attracted to cars is even a real thing, a person can have fun with that on their own time, assuming it doesn't kill them... incest is also fine, imo, assuming you don't have kids. Having a baby through incest will harm someone (the baby), but shagging your brother/sister/cousin with some protection on really isn't going to bother anyone.

QUOTE (sivispacem @ Thursday, Jul 18 2013, 16:13)
In relation to your first point, Typhus, what about people who gain sexual gratification from committing murder? Andrei Chikatilo, for instance. Do you feel that they deserve that the requirement to prevent them from doing harm to society through their sexual deviancy is surpassed by their right to express themselves as humans, regardless of their whims?


Well I'd say there is some difference between murder, which always harms someone (unless they are consenting, which would be assisted suicide, but that's a whole different topic), and having sex with someone under 18, which doesn't always necessarily harm someone. That, and while I believe Typhus is right in saying that we need to look at all sexually oppressed minorities, there is a point where the minority is too small to really single out. Most people don't really think of achieving sexual gratification through murder. You ask people what kind of weird sexual fetishes/types they can think of, they'll say pedophilia, incest, polygamy, bestiality, etc. things that have a relatively large presence.

Typhus
  • Typhus

    OG

  • $outh $ide Hoodz
  • Joined: 11 Sep 2007

#29

Posted 18 July 2013 - 09:00 PM

QUOTE (sivispacem @ Thursday, Jul 18 2013, 20:13)
In relation to your first point, Typhus, what about people who gain sexual gratification from committing murder? Andrei Chikatilo, for instance. Do you feel that they deserve that the requirement to prevent them from doing harm to society through their sexual deviancy is surpassed by their right to express themselves as humans, regardless of their whims?

I believe that if technology can find a way to create an arena in which to realise their fantasies, then murder-fetishists deserve the chance to engage in their sexual activities in a safe setting.
I do not believe there is a single sexual act on this planet that I would not condone if the perpetrator was able to do it without hurting anyone. The fact that they can only express themselves through hurting people at the moment does not invalidate the rights of those who do not hurt others.

So, whilst I have no pity for the jailed child molester, I support the right of the pedophile to be given a way to gain sexual release legally. Anyone with a murder-fetish works along the same lines. Accommodate them so that it remains an achievable fantasy that need never cross over into reality.

Madmonk420
  • Madmonk420

    "The One Man Riot"

  • Members
  • Joined: 13 Jul 2010
  • Scotland

#30

Posted 18 July 2013 - 10:13 PM Edited by sivispacem, 19 July 2013 - 06:36 AM.

The main cause of pedophilia in the world is ....SEXY KIDS tounge.gif

- You've been here three years, you should know better than this -




1 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 1 guests, 0 anonymous users