Quantcast

Jump to content

» «
Photo

Should Paedophilia be Seriously Defended?

235 replies to this topic
A J
  • A J

    Aggressively Honest

  • BUSTED!
  • Joined: 19 Oct 2009
  • Wales
  • Best Event 2012 [Gang Wars]

#31

Posted 18 July 2013 - 10:20 PM

Well said throughout El Diablo.

My personal perspective is that I am attracted to a woman because I see she has a nice rounded figure and large breasts, or she has a personality that matches mine and makes me feel comfortable, I'm sure this would be same for every man.

Now quite what about a child does a paedophile find attractive?

They must be just very sick individuals who should all be castrated if they go out and decide to rape a child (in my opinion someone who hasn't hit puberty).

Typhus what the f*ck are you talking about? Technology to support rapists? Get real.



Ari Gold
  • Ari Gold

    Ghetto Star

  • Andolini Mafia Family
  • Joined: 14 Oct 2009
  • Australia

#32

Posted 18 July 2013 - 10:53 PM Edited by Stefche, 18 July 2013 - 11:01 PM.

QUOTE (ajbns87 @ Friday, Jul 19 2013, 08:20)
They must be just very sick individuals who should all be castrated if they go out and decide to rape a child (in my opinion someone who hasn't hit puberty).

Typhus what the f*ck are you talking about? Technology to support rapists? Get real.

That's all well and good, but what if they haven't actually molested a kid? They'd still have paedophilic thoughts, it's not something that can just be withered away through one's own rational thinking. Probably not even the most extensive of CBT could "cure" it.

Typhus' point is that instead of having a knee-jerk emotional reaction to the issue (I'm sure everyone posting in this thread can conlude that paedophilia, from their own subjective point of view and personal moral compass, is just f*cking disturbing) which simply involves dumping these people out to dry, we should be trying to find some sort of compromisable solution which minimises the amount of net harm caused to society, obviously reducing the numbers of instances of child molestation cases, while still satiating people's sexual desires. Ignoring your own moral views on the issue (which, as I just said, are probably no different to El_Diablo's or mine or Melchior or Typhus' etc.), what is the actual problem in that? We can have a debate on how effective that would be, but to simply discard it without giving any further thought is a little bit hasty, amigo.

EDIT: This is just a little off-topic addendum in regards to something El_Diablo said on the previous page.

QUOTE
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.


You mentioned the DSM a few times, and I'm certain at least a few others would know this fact, but I think it'd be interesting to put it out there that homosexuality was included as a disorder in the DSM from its creation until 1973. I know that, practically, it doesn't explain that much, given that since the DSM started the National Institute of Mental Health were highly critical of the DSM's inclusion of homosexuality in the manual due to a lack of empirical evidence to support their assertions (which were probably based on social conservative bias of the time), but I just found it interesting given how keen you were to use the DSM as an automatic reference point for psychiatric disorders.
  • HolographicBunny likes this

SagaciousKJB
  • SagaciousKJB

    Captain tl;dr

  • The Connection
  • Joined: 21 Jun 2003
  • None

#33

Posted 19 July 2013 - 02:18 AM

QUOTE (El_Diablo @ Thursday, Jul 18 2013, 00:15)
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.

Somehow I wonder how you infer the things you do from my posts. I'm not even going to bother reiterating what I've said. Maybe try re-reading it with this in mind: I'm not suggesting that this is what distinguishes pedophiles from non-pedophiles, or suggesting it somehow makes it right or wrong. I'm just saying that this is typically what separates people who feel that it is completely and utterly unacceptable for any reason, and others who feel that there could be some leniency or understanding of it.

The idea that you think I'm playing devil's advocate just shows me you either didn't understand what I was saying, or just wanted to twist it into me somehow saying that if you had sexual feelings as a child you're a pedophile... I think you're a little uncomfortable with someone suggesting that you might possible be a pedophile. I mean it's like all this die-hard defense of it just being completely ghastly no matter what is kind of like when homophobic try to act like homosexuality is just so wrong in an effort to prove they're not gay. No one is going to think you're a pedophile because you had sexual feelings as a child, that's not what I'm saying at all. Why would I even say such a thing and then admit in the same statement that I had sexual feelings as a child?

I seriously don't understand how you misconstrue my points so badly...

Fedor
  • Fedor

    Crackhead

  • Members
  • Joined: 07 Jun 2013
  • None

#34

Posted 19 July 2013 - 03:09 AM

Pedophile or not, if an adult touches a child in any sort of sexual manner, no, that person should not be seriously defended. That person should be tortured and killed. Period.

If you're sexually attracted to children and you can't control it than you should commit suicide immediately because you have serious f*cking issues, and because someone else will probably kill you for it anyways.

El Diablo
  • El Diablo

    "The Devil" ™

  • Leone Family Mafia
  • Joined: 03 Aug 2002
  • Mars
  • April Fools Loser 2015

#35

Posted 19 July 2013 - 05:28 AM Edited by El_Diablo, 19 July 2013 - 05:38 AM.

QUOTE (Typhus @ Thursday, Jul 18 2013, 13:24)
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's not that I disagree in principle so much as I disagree in practice.

because there's no easy solution.
pedophiles force themselves underground because they - as well as anyone - understand how dangerous their fetish is both to themselves and to their victim. society doesn't force anything on pedophiles that a non-pedophile doesn't have to endure; it's obviously illegal either way.

unfortunately for pedophiles, they're just going to have to wear masks.
I'm sorry. either you need to seek professional help or you need to work really hard on hiding your urges from the world and downloading a lot of Japanese lolita porn.

or I guess the third option is to seek out your desires, harm an innocent child, and potentially wind up in federal prison for life.
pedophiles really don't have many options and I do not believe that society owes them any other options.

QUOTE (mincemate003 @ Thursday, Jul 18 2013, 14:15)
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.

I'm sorry but this argument doesn't fly.

it's not "weird" to imagine an 11 year old child being in love.
it's WEIRD for an adult to be in love with an 11 year child.

get it?
pedophilia is unhealthy and unsustainable. period.

if you're attracted to little kids you have to keep in mind that they GROW UP at some point.
so what do you do when they grow up?

you have to go find another kid...
this is a sickness. this is not a sustainable or healthy way for an adult to live or experience relationships.

QUOTE
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.

holy crap.
how many times do I have to say it??

interracial and homosexual relations ARE NOT COMPARABLE TO PEDOPHILIA.
stop doing that. stop it. it's wrong.

interracial and homosexual relations implies normal, healthy, consensual, adult relationships.
it has nothing to do with child abuse or the molestation of children.

QUOTE
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.

ok sure.
but that's where the comparison ends. that's it. it doesn't go any further at all.

homosexuality is about normal adult relationships.
they just happen to be of the same gender.

I'm going to ignore everything else you said about comparing pedophilia to homosexuality because it's bullsh*t and has no place in this discussion.

QUOTE
At the bottom of this, pedophiles are people.

SO ARE THEIR VICTIMS.
and their VICTIMS right to life overrides the pedophiles right to have an orgasm with a child.

pedophiles are people. yeah, great. the children they want to rape are people too.
hello?? rolleyes.gif

QUOTE (Stefche @ Thursday, Jul 18 2013, 16:53)
You mentioned the DSM a few times, and I'm certain at least a few others would know this fact, but I think it'd be interesting to put it out there that homosexuality was included as a disorder in the DSM from its creation until 1973.

yes.

and as I've said numerous times, homosexuality is not comparable to pedophilia.
obviously it was a mistake to label homosexuality as a mental disorder because it does not imply abuse or molestation. they screwed that one up. humans wrote the DSM and humans aren't perfect. oh well.

but it's not mistake with pedophilia.
I would confidently bet my life savings that the entry for pedophilia will never be removed from the clinical DSM.

QUOTE (SagaciousKJB @ Thursday, Jul 18 2013, 20:18)
I'm just saying that this is typically what separates people who feel that it is completely and utterly unacceptable for any reason, and others who feel that there could be some leniency or understanding of it.

well you're saying that now.
that's not quite how you said it the firs time wink.gif

QUOTE
I mean it's like all this die-hard defense of it just being completely ghastly no matter what is kind of like when homophobic try to act like homosexuality is just so wrong in an effort to prove they're not gay.

so you're accusing me of being a pedophile now?

lol.gif you're not very good at this 'debate' thing...
hate to break it to you, but pedophilia IS a little ghastly.

however, I didn't actually say "no matter what."
if you had been following this entire discussion from my first post you'd notice that I've included several caveats for allowing pedophiles to exist in society without having to live in abstinence. I've talked about pornography, roleplaying, age of consent laws that must be reviewed in individual cases, and peer-support therapy groups for getting help.

pay attention.
thanks.

QUOTE
No one is going to think you're a pedophile because you had sexual feelings as a child, that's not what I'm saying at all.

then try saying it again.
because that's how it came out.

sorry bro.
they were your words. not mine.

Melchior
  • Melchior

    ♥ Ⓐ

  • The Connection
  • Joined: 16 May 2009
  • Unknown

#36

Posted 19 July 2013 - 06:54 AM Edited by Melchior, 19 July 2013 - 07:10 AM.

QUOTE (El_Diablo @ Thursday, Jul 18 2013, 09:31)
Roman society is not the magical gold standard by which modern society should measure itself.

Erm, yes, but that was never the argument I was making. You said that paedophilia is and always has been, stigmatised in all cultures. At no point did I say "Rome did it and therefore so should we." In fact, I'm not even necessarily saying we should do it- I'm saying we should discuss it. I'm saying it deserves to be seriously defended, like it was in intellectual circles before public opinion changed due to infamous cases of abduction and abuse. I'm not saying we should all be having sex with children, I'm saying we don't know for sure that children are incapable of consenting and reciprocating sexually.

QUOTE
pedophilia IS WIDELY STIGMATIZED around the world and you've proven my point.

So by listing examples of societies that accept paedophilia... I've "proven your point" that "there is nowhere on Earth that the entire culture considers pedophilia a normal thing[sic]"?

QUOTE
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.

You haven't really countered my point at all. I'm not saying that everyone besides us accepts paedophilia, I'm saying that it is accepted in some cultures (that fact that you think the fact that "these societies no longer exist" means anything is strange since they were out cultural and political precursors) some large and centralised, some small and isolated. You need to stop strawmaning me. You're responding as if I'm claiming we are backwards or repressed for not accepting paedophilia while everybody else it out having child orgies.

QUOTE
they're prepared for peanut butter jelly sandwiches, grass stains, skinned knees, time outs, temper tantrums, bedtime stories, and Santa Clause.

Temper tantrums, bedtime stories and Santa Clause? You do realise we're talking about kids of around eleven, not six. It's somewhat rare for someone to be attracted to a six year old and they have no concept of sex anyway.

QUOTE
I would confidently bet my life savings that the entry for pedophilia will never be removed from the clinical DSM.

It's already been explained to you that paedophilia, in a mental health context, refers to exclusive or predominant attraction to children. You are not a clinical paedophile if you are sexually attracted to children, it has to be exclusive or predominant. Obviously someone incapable of being attracted to someone over the age of fourteen has a mental disorder.

QUOTE (Sag)
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.

This somewhat implies that it's simply random whether or not someone is sexual at a young age. That seems unlikely. It's much more probable that people who were sexual at a young age were equipped through sexual experimentation with friends, exposure to pornography or other, more complex and nuanced factors. It's absurd to say that, in a society that completely rejects child sexuality, that because some children have no concept of sex or sexual attraction, that they are incapable of it and we should dismiss the idea here and now. In fact, I'm sure we all knew a few girls growing up who didn't become sexual until they were like, fourteen. It's obviously not the case with men because they are conditioned to be sexual (in the sense that women are sexualised and we live in a heteronormative society). That gives us some insight into the role socialisation plays in the discrepancies in when people reach sexual maturity.

I think I was sexual as a child. If I could have had sexual contact with an attractive woman, I probably would have enjoyed it thoroughly and I really don't see how it would have scarred me for life or whatever.

EDIT: I'm surprised Typhus is getting so much flak. What's so controversial about sexbots? I mean sure, the idea is gross, but it's not unethical or asinine.

A J
  • A J

    Aggressively Honest

  • BUSTED!
  • Joined: 19 Oct 2009
  • Wales
  • Best Event 2012 [Gang Wars]

#37

Posted 19 July 2013 - 07:25 AM

Your points are weak.

Winner of this debate is : El Diablo .

Anyways in regards to Typhus' idea of feeding the fetish in harmless ways through technology.

People get high from killing others, should robots be made so that they can kill them...no because it's not the real thing, and an actual killer feelling the urge to kill is going to go out and kill someone to get their fix, the same would apply to a rapist, they can rape their robot constantly but it's not going to stop them going out for the real thing.

Right and Wrongs, the wrongs in society shouldn't be accepted as a flaw people can't avoid, they should be enforced through laws as they are now.

Typhus
  • Typhus

    OG

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

#38

Posted 19 July 2013 - 07:32 AM Edited by Typhus, 19 July 2013 - 07:42 AM.

QUOTE (ajbns87 @ Thursday, Jul 18 2013, 22:20)
Typhus what the f*ck are you talking about? Technology to support rapists? Get real.

Using technology to simulate rape with a lifelike being who is not actually human will give potential rapists the ability to sate their urges in a way which harms no one.
Rape, abuse and perversion are going nowhere, you see that, don't you? And yet we prescribe the same medicine for this illness time and time again - condemnation, ridicule, punishment. And it never works, it never stops the cycle of pain and no one learns a damn thing.

My idea would stop all of that, it would enable potential criminals to manage their desires and so not have to hurt anyone. People like you make monsters out of them because you feel superior, you don't know what it's like to hide what you are, to have the whole world tell you that urges which feel right are wrong.

I find it incredible that people like you expect sexual beings to be virgins if their notions of beauty differ to yours. If you rob them of their right to give in to what their bodies are telling them, then don't be surprised when they lash out.
My idea is the answer to that question and, in regards to the original intent of the topic, I must reiterate my stance that the sexualisation of children is a necessary evil to do away with prejudice towards other minorities. By accepting something so many find repugnant, what possible chance would there be of people continuing to view Homosexuals or Transgender individuals as deviants?

I just want to know what your objection is to allowing pedophiles a harmless outlet for their desires? Is it purely moral? Or do you have any logical arguments against it?

El Diablo
  • El Diablo

    "The Devil" ™

  • Leone Family Mafia
  • Joined: 03 Aug 2002
  • Mars
  • April Fools Loser 2015

#39

Posted 19 July 2013 - 09:00 AM Edited by El_Diablo, 19 July 2013 - 09:06 AM.

QUOTE (Melchior @ Friday, Jul 19 2013, 00:54)
that was never the argument I was making.

good.
then let's drop it.

QUOTE
So by listing examples of societies that accept paedophilia... I've "proven your point" that  "there is nowhere on Earth that the entire culture considers pedophilia a normal thing[sic]"?

you referenced some isolated tribal communities and the minority aspects of ancient Roman culture.
that hardly constitutes societal acceptance of pedophilia.

it's proving my point that there is no society in which pedophilia is accepted as completely normal.
and even if there were it STILL wouldn't make pedophilia right.

pedophilia would still be wrong.

QUOTE
I'm saying that it is accepted in some cultures

I never said it wasn't.

but that STILL doesn't make it right.
QUOTE
You do realise we're talking about kids of around eleven, not six.

yeah. maybe YOU'RE talking about 11... which is still wrong.

but you don't speak for all pedophiles.
and there are plenty of them who seek out children 10 years old and YOUNGER.

we have to talk about all of them.
not just the ones who go for 11 and up... as though that somehow makes it less immoral lol.gif

QUOTE
I think I was sexual as a child. If I could have had sexual contact with an attractive woman, I probably would have enjoyed it thoroughly and I really don't see how it would have scarred me for life or whatever.

apparently you don't understand what pedophilia is.

pedophilia is not a school boy fantasizing about f*cking his teacher.
pedophilia is when the adult seeks out the child. not the other way around rolleyes.gif

horny school boys will gladly accept pussy. this is not the definition of pedophilia.

QUOTE (ajbns87)
Your points are weak.

Winner of this debate is : El Diablo .


this isn't about winning or losing a debate.
this is about reality. and in reality, pedophilia will never become an accepted part of any mainstream culture. it's absurd. the proposition of this topic is whether or not pedophilia is defensible.

and it's pretty much indefensible from any angle.

Melchior
  • Melchior

    ♥ Ⓐ

  • The Connection
  • Joined: 16 May 2009
  • Unknown

#40

Posted 19 July 2013 - 10:45 AM

When did I give any indication that we're restricting this discussion to "adults seeking out children"? Did you even read the first post? We're discussing the sexualisation of children, not allowing those guys at the play park in trench coats and dark glasses to hunt with impunity. This thread is about children's sexuality. And it's not that I don't understand what paedophilia is, it's that you don't understand the context in which it's being used. The definition- pertaining to this thread- is obviously "adults having a role in child sexuality." You still seem to be under the impression that we're talking about handing over children to clinical paedophiles because why not. That's not it at all. I suggest you make more of an effort to understand the discussion that's taking place; maybe read the OP a few dozen times and let it sink in.

And apparently, according to you, children are incapable of being sexual, but it's totally okay for ten year old Melchior to f*ck his teacher and you concede that he'll probably enjoy it? And you use the word honry. Does not compute. You also say it's "immoral" to have a sexual encounter with a prepubescent even though you concede that the prepubescent will probably enjoy it and it won't affect them negatively.

Also paedophilia in a non-clincal context is defined strictly as an attraction to children. I don't know where you are pulling this stuff about it meaning "sexual encounter between adult and child with only the former enjoying it."

El Diablo
  • El Diablo

    "The Devil" ™

  • Leone Family Mafia
  • Joined: 03 Aug 2002
  • Mars
  • April Fools Loser 2015

#41

Posted 19 July 2013 - 04:06 PM

QUOTE (Melchior @ Friday, Jul 19 2013, 04:45)
This thread is about children's sexuality.

then perhaps you chose a poor thread title.

"children's sexuality" is a little different than "pedophilia" and has completely different connotations when it comes to defense or support.

QUOTE
maybe read the OP a few dozen times and let it sink in.

I read it once.
it wasn't difficult to understand.

you summed it up yourself.
the question you want us to consider is this:

"is it inherently wrong to sexualise children the way we do adults?"

and the answer that I've been giving you - with the many reasons that I have supplied - is yes.
yes, it is wrong to sexualize children in the same way that we sexualize adults.

that's what you asked.
that's what I've been answering, in addition to providing numerous layers of context in reply to other people's questions or claims.

QUOTE
according to you, children are incapable of being sexual

that's not what I said.
try again sigh.gif

QUOTE
but it's totally okay for ten year old Melchior to f*ck his teacher and you concede that he'll probably enjoy it? And you use the word honry. Does not compute.

lol...
you don't get it, do you?

when a young boy who is undergoing the effects of puberty fantasizes about sex with his teacher, that is NOT pedophilia.
it's perfectly ok for young boys (or young girls) who are feeling horny for the first time to think about sex.

it's a completely different matter when a grown adult seeks out sexual fulfillment from the child.

QUOTE
You also say it's "immoral" to have a sexual encounter with a prepubescent even though you concede that the prepubescent will probably enjoy it and it won't affect them negatively.

wrong and wrong.

what I said is that it's immoral when an adult seeks out sex with a prepubescent child.
I didn't say it was immoral for children to experiment with sex with each other or in general. that's fairly natural.

please pay attention.

A J
  • A J

    Aggressively Honest

  • BUSTED!
  • Joined: 19 Oct 2009
  • Wales
  • Best Event 2012 [Gang Wars]

#42

Posted 19 July 2013 - 07:48 PM

QUOTE (Typhus @ Friday, Jul 19 2013, 07:32)
QUOTE (ajbns87 @ Thursday, Jul 18 2013, 22:20)
Typhus what the f*ck are you talking about? Technology to support rapists? Get real.

Using technology to simulate rape with a lifelike being who is not actually human will give potential rapists the ability to sate their urges in a way which harms no one.
Rape, abuse and perversion are going nowhere, you see that, don't you? And yet we prescribe the same medicine for this illness time and time again - condemnation, ridicule, punishment. And it never works, it never stops the cycle of pain and no one learns a damn thing.

My idea would stop all of that, it would enable potential criminals to manage their desires and so not have to hurt anyone. People like you make monsters out of them because you feel superior, you don't know what it's like to hide what you are, to have the whole world tell you that urges which feel right are wrong.

I find it incredible that people like you expect sexual beings to be virgins if their notions of beauty differ to yours If you rob them of their right to give in to what their bodies are telling them, then don't be surprised when they lash out.
My idea is the answer to that question and, in regards to the original intent of the topic, I must reiterate my stance that the sexualisation of children is a necessary evil to do away with prejudice towards other minorities. By accepting something so many find repugnant, what possible chance would there be of people continuing to view Homosexuals or Transgender individuals as deviants?

I just want to know what your objection is to allowing pedophiles a harmless outlet for their desires? Is it purely moral? Or do you have any logical arguments against it?

Both moral and logical.

Logically, whilst there is no evidence to say it wouldn't work, none exists to say it would.
Morally as I said previously it would normalise the behaviour and I'd rather society as a whole be built upon a strong moral compass that would have no tolerance for such sick individuals.

Excuse my bluntness but Paedo's aren't going to go to an arcade, to play f*ck the three year old no matter how real that simulation could potentially be to feed their 'urge'. If a person wants to rape a child, they will rape a child and not stick their dick in some sort of virtual/robotic thing as you suggest. Infact most probably your idea would lead to an increase in this sort of crime, because you'd get lonely guys unable to get laid giving it a try and then getting a taste for the real thing, because potentially in their mind it's perfectly fine, because society provides this sort of proposed solution.

The best medicine for this is castration, not rape simulators.

The fact you find it incredible that people like me expect this because what I find attractive is natural, and what they find attractive is both harmful, damaging and sickening is odd to say the least, it's almost as if you consider paedophilia to be a two way thing between a consenting child and adult.



Mince
  • Mince

    Ménage à trois

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

#43

Posted 19 July 2013 - 08:17 PM Edited by mincemate003, 20 July 2013 - 12:57 AM.

QUOTE (El_Diablo @ Friday, Jul 19 2013, 05:00)
this isn't about winning or losing a debate.
this is about reality. and in reality, pedophilia will never become an accepted part of any mainstream culture. it's absurd. the proposition of this topic is whether or not pedophilia is defensible.

and it's pretty much indefensible from any angle.


QUOTE (El_Diablo @ Friday, Jul 19 2013, 01:28)
stop doing that. stop it. it's wrong.


QUOTE (El_Diablo @ Friday, Jul 19 2013, 01:28)
I'm going to ignore everything else you said about comparing pedophilia to homosexuality because it's bullsh*t and has no place in this discussion.


QUOTE (El_Diablo @ Friday, Jul 19 2013, 01:28)
humans wrote the DSM and humans aren't perfect. oh well.

but it's not mistake with pedophilia.
I would confidently bet my life savings that the entry for pedophilia will never be removed from the clinical DSM.


Not exactly very convincing assertions, but okay

Not everyone that a pedophile has sex with is a victim. You've said that some children (I'm going to include teenagers in this because you've said that teenager and adult relationships are also bad) are capable of giving consent, falling in love, etc. If some of them are capable, all of them can't be victims. The number of teacher/student relationships you see in the news contradicts the idea that all kids are victims to adults.

You also keep calling pedophiles rapists and molesters. You skipped over my point where I pointed out that "molesting" is just the word we use for when adults have sex with kids, and that it's comparable to using the word "sodomy" for same-sex interaction. The definition of molest means to assault, but this is only used with regards to pedophiles because people assume that all kids are victims, which I just pointed out can't be true. All of them also can't be rapists if the children aren't all victims.

QUOTE (ajbns87 @ Friday, Jul 19 2013, 03:25)
People get high from killing others, should robots be made so that they can kill them...no because it's not the real thing, and an actual killer feelling the urge to kill is going to go out and kill someone to get their fix, the same would apply to a rapist, they can rape their robot constantly but it's not going to stop them going out for the real thing.


Looks like someone forgot that they are on a forum about violent video games that simulate the killing of innocent people. Not everyone that plays violent video games necessarily has the urge to go out and kill people. Most people just enjoy the games regardless. Now, do some people use violent video games as a release for their violent urges?

Absolutely. Just like people use pornography as a release for their sexual urges. Not all of them are going to rape people. But the rise of the internet has led to a drop in the amount of rape. More ways to release sexual urges easily = less rape. What makes you think that won't hold true with sex robots or pornographic virtual reality?

Now you probably wouldn't be happy if you couldn't look at actual photographs of naked women, and all you had was cartoon porn for your entire life. The same applies to pedophiles. If we have the chance to provide them with something realistic, and it will help "save our children", why would you be against it?

_________________________________

edit - so I was reading up on World Net Daily (a site of hardcore conservatives and conspiracy theorists) when I saw this article. Conservatives like this connect homosexuality and pedophilia together as equal perversions, say that liberals will push for the sexualisation of children, that it will take 40 years before "their children are being taken away from them", etc. I think it's a bad slippery slope that nobody is advocating for, but then I saw this link about a group of mental health "professionals" that want to reclassify pedophiles as "minor-attracted persons" and to give them certain protections in society. I'm not so sure I agree with their specific views, but I thought this was a fairly interesting/relevant thing. Even if this group is a microscopic minority, it shows that there's at least some dissent regarding pedophilia in the mental health scene.

SagaciousKJB
  • SagaciousKJB

    Captain tl;dr

  • The Connection
  • Joined: 21 Jun 2003
  • None

#44

Posted 19 July 2013 - 09:34 PM

QUOTE (El_Diablo @ Thursday, Jul 18 2013, 00:15)
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

Well, I can only articulate my thoughts as well as I can. I have no control over how you interpret it or comprehend it, all I can do is correct it if you do so incorrectly. Though... It doesn't seem that any others have misinterpreted my points quite as badly, so maybe it's you? wink.gif

As far saying you're a pedophile, once again you've run away with your own inference. What I'm saying is that I think a lot of people have a tendency to not want to entertain the idea that it is anything but wrong and ghastly because they are afraid of appearing to be a pedophile, which means that meaningful and sincere discourse on the subject is often not reached. To give you an example: The fact that this discussion hasn't devolved into "Anyone who thinks or touches a child is a sicko pervert who should have his nuts burned off" is amazing to me. In a debate format, simply saying something is "ghastly" and "immoral" doesn't work. We've debated the morality of many, many things in this forum that should be far more controversial than pedophilia, so I think you should be able to come up with more elaborate arguments than just simply shouting how wrong it is, but you seem to be of the mindset that if you somehow don't absolutely disapprove then there's something "wrong" with you--but maybe that's my own inference. I'm not necessarily disagreeing with you, just saying that your arguments are no more remarkable than the typical "Oh my god you're a sick bastard" rhetoric.

QUOTE (Melch)

This somewhat implies that it's simply random whether or not someone is sexual at a young age. That seems unlikely. It's much more probable that people who were sexual at a young age were equipped through sexual experimentation with friends, exposure to pornography or other, more complex and nuanced factors. It's absurd to say that, in a society that completely rejects child sexuality, that because some children have no concept of sex or sexual attraction, that they are incapable of it and we should dismiss the idea here and now. In fact, I'm sure we all knew a few girls growing up who didn't become sexual until they were like, fourteen. It's obviously not the case with men because they are conditioned to be sexual (in the sense that women are sexualised and we live in a heteronormative society). That gives us some insight into the role socialisation plays in the discrepancies in when people reach sexual maturity.

I think I was sexual as a child. If I could have had sexual contact with an attractive woman, I probably would have enjoyed it thoroughly and I really don't see how it would have scarred me for life or whatever.

EDIT: I'm surprised Typhus is getting so much flak. What's so controversial about sexbots? I mean sure, the idea is gross, but it's not unethical or asinine.


No I agree that there are other factors that influence it, but I think that such factors are so wide and varying that it might as well be random. I see what you're saying that just because a child has no concept of sex doesn't mean that they are incapable of it, but what I'm saying is that there's too great a risk. I mean like I said, I know people who had such experiences who had no apparent harm caused by it. I neglected to mention that I also know a couple who claim they were molested at a young age who do have emotional trauma from it. What I find most curious when talking to people is how many have actually admitted to having this occurrence in their past... So I'm not sure how rare having sexual experiences as a child, with someone older than yourself, really is.

I just think children are too suggestible. Even if there are kids who can conceptualize sexuality just fine, I don't believe there's a way to distinguish genuine consent from manufactured-consent, and so therefore to protect some it must apply to all.

I agree that I was sexual as a child, thought about my pre-school teacher enough. tounge.gif But what I'm saying is say your pre-school teacher made an advance toward you... Now, you're a very young, suggestible child. You try things with the guidance of adults, and you trust them to tell you what is and isn't all right. Now imagine if your pre-school teacher suggested to you that, "Oh, this is really fun. Everyone likes this," and did whatever. Now you're 13, and you look back on it and think "Oh my god, I didn't know what it really was! I didn't want to do that with her! I'm such a horribly dirty person! I was going to wait until marriage, now I've violated my religion and I'm going to hell. I want to kill myself." That's the type of thing I think is too likely to happen--and yes I know my example seems really contrived, but it's not too unlike what victims of sexual abuse actually go through.. I mean sure, there are guys like my friend who slept with his cousin, but they've been able to process that and stay healthy--that might not even have anything to do with them having a well-formed concept of what sex is at the age it occured, but just moreso having a development that did not indoctrinate them to feel shameful or guilty about it. There are others who will not be so lucky.

I mean, look at it this way... How many adults have had a sexual encounter they regretted? Felt whatever shame, guilt, or whatever over it. But you were an adult. You can say, "Well, it was my choice, I made a mistake, I'll learn from it," and maybe you'll move on, maybe you'll need counseling, maybe you just cry about it every once in a while when you have a beer. But you still function and for the most part you're fine. Now think about that same type of experience, but if you're a child. I think there should be laws in place that protect children from making such mistakes, but obviously such laws need to apply to the adults.

I feel the reaction to Typhus' suggestion is typical of the knee-jerk reaction most of society gets when discussing this. The idea that if you can tolerate or entertain for even a second the idea that sexual fantasy involving children is okay, that you're a sicko weirdo pervert and there's something wrong with you. As I was saying I think it's re-inforced by the desire of some to not appear to be a pedophile themselves, and I guess another factor is just the whole band-wagon dynamic in general. Long story short, people with idea's like Typhus' tend to learn not to express them for fear of reprisal, so go figure that type of thought seems so radical to everyone else: People are too reserved to say what they really think.

I mean, I'm quite sure that at least one of you is thinking "Wow, that Sag... He's a total pederast," now. But I don't think I should let that kind of ignorance stymie what is a very interesting and controversial topic of discussion.


As far as having children sex robots... Okay well, so now you're definitely going to think I'm a pederast, but I happen to know they already have these things. Anyone heard of Real Doll's? They're like several-thousand dollar, simulant sex dolls basically. Well, what some people don't know, is that they do have children models. So there's already a market for them, and the people who want them already can get them.

Past that though, I'm not sure it is such a great idea. Because I don't really support child pornography either because I think it leads to the exploitation of young girls. Even animated or 3D imagery of it is typically modeled after a real-life child. There's just too much chance of these girls being exploited, taken advantage of etc. without some kind of regulatory agency involved, and I really doubt that anyone is going to support a "Child Porn Association of America". It's just... Not going to happen. I don't think that child pornography should or would come out of the taboo that now surrounds it.

So long story short... I kind of feel that possession of such material shouldn't be treated as a criminal matter, but production, manufacture and distribution of it still should. So with that thought in mind, I don't see a place for child sex robots.

El Diablo
  • El Diablo

    "The Devil" ™

  • Leone Family Mafia
  • Joined: 03 Aug 2002
  • Mars
  • April Fools Loser 2015

#45

Posted 21 July 2013 - 12:49 AM

QUOTE (mincemate003 @ Friday, Jul 19 2013, 14:17)
Not everyone that a pedophile has sex with is a victim. You've said that some children (I'm going to include teenagers in this because you've said that teenager and adult relationships are also bad) are capable of giving consent, falling in love, etc. If some of them are capable, all of them can't be victims. The number of teacher/student relationships you see in the news contradicts the idea that all kids are victims to adults.

LOL.
this is a terrible argument.

the vast majority of victims of pedophilia feeling nothing but shame, regret, and confusion over their experience.
just because a handful of them might truly enjoy it and never regret it does not mean it's OK, or right, or moral, or acceptable.

you cannot know which child will turn out OK before you molest them rolleyes.gif

QUOTE
people assume that all kids are victims, which I just pointed out can't be true.

MOST of them ARE victims.

just because 1% might (seemingly) turn out fine doesn't mean it's ok to normalize or allow pedophilia in society.
that's just a terrible argument.

QUOTE
Now you probably wouldn't be happy if you couldn't look at actual photographs of naked women, and all you had was cartoon porn for your entire life. The same applies to pedophiles. If we have the chance to provide them with something realistic, and it will help "save our children", why would you be against it?

it's not fair to compare to pedophiles to people who want regular adult porn.

that being said... you're right about providing pedophiles with a release.
I have no problem with sex dolls that are modeled after children or even realistic, 3D, animated child porn.

it's perfectly acceptable as long as no actual human children are involved.

QUOTE (SagaciousKJB @ Friday, Jul 19 2013, 15:34)
What I'm saying is that I think a lot of people have a tendency to not want to entertain the idea that it is anything but wrong and ghastly because they are afraid of appearing to be a pedophile, which means that meaningful and sincere discourse on the subject is often not reached.

yeah. ok I guess... but that's still a pretty silly thing to say.

I'm pretty sure that people consider pedophilia wrong and ghastly because - to most people - pedophilia is wrong and ghastly tounge2.gif
it has nothing to do with them being afraid of "appearing to be a pedophile." that literally makes no sense.

I argue vehemently against the Drug War too.
is that because I'm afraid of being scene as pro-drug war?? lol.gif

no.
it's because I really hate the Drug War. it's pretty straightforward.

QUOTE
To give you an example: The fact that this discussion hasn't devolved into "Anyone who thinks or touches a child is a sicko pervert who should have his nuts burned off" is amazing to me.

why is that amazing?
if that's amazing to you, then you've obviously never participated in a good argument before.

because a good debate does not devolve into petty hyperbolic rhetoric, it purposefully avoids it.
the fact that no one has said that yet just means that Sivis has done a great job of controlling the tone, tenor, and attitude of his forum.

QUOTE
In a debate format, simply saying something is "ghastly" and "immoral" doesn't work.

but that's not all I have said.

I said it's immoral and wrong in addition to providing numerous social, medical, and psychological reasons to support my claim.
I didn't simply say "it's wrong" and leave it at that. I've given several examples from several different angles as to why I (and most other people) believe it's wrong.

QUOTE
I'm not necessarily disagreeing with you

then don't wink.gif

once again; we all know that pedophilia is wrong.
the extremely rare, pseudo-ethical, individual case in which pedophilia might be defended is so ambiguous and so uncommon that it's almost impossible to debate it with a straight face.

QUOTE
As far as having children sex robots...  Okay well, so now you're definitely going to think I'm a pederast, but I happen to know they already have these things.  Anyone heard of Real Doll's?  They're like several-thousand dollar, simulant sex dolls basically.  Well, what some people don't know, is that they do have children models.  So there's already a market for them, and the people who want them already can get them.

no.
I do not think you're a "pederast" for suggesting sex dolls.

I've said before that this is actually the ideal solution.
anyone who has used the internet for more than a few years knows about sex dolls and is well aware that they could be shaped into anything you want (even animals like dogs).

this is definitely one of the best (and only acceptable) solutions that we have for serious pedophiles.
I say let them have extremely realistic dolls that look like children. and let them have extremely realistic 3D child porn.

as long as it doesn't involve real people but still provides the pedophile with their catharsis in life, it cannot be a bad thing.
the courts and law enforcement have to get over this idea that "simulated" child porn is the same as child porn because it's not. you need to let these people have it so they keep their hands off of actual human children.

we're definitely on the same page in that respect.
these people don't deserve to go through life without any sexual satisfaction... but they cannot do it at the expense of children.

Melchior
  • Melchior

    ♥ Ⓐ

  • The Connection
  • Joined: 16 May 2009
  • Unknown

#46

Posted 21 July 2013 - 07:02 AM

QUOTE (El_Diablo @ Saturday, Jul 20 2013, 02:06)
then perhaps you chose a poor thread title.

People tend to read the OP- not just look for keywords in the thread title and start ranting.

QUOTE
and the answer that I've been giving you - with the many reasons that I have supplied - is yes.

And your only reasoning was that children weren't equipped for it. Now you've conceded that a prepubescent can enter a sexual relationship so I'm not sure what your point is.

QUOTE
that's not what I said.

Then what were you saying?

QUOTE
when a young boy who is undergoing the effects of puberty fantasizes about sex with his teacher, that is NOT pedophilia.
it's perfectly ok for young boys (or young girls) who are feeling horny for the first time to think about sex.

And that's what we're supposed to be discussing. I don't care how you define paedophilia, this discussion is about whether or not children can be sexual. I'm not going to repeat myself- go back and read my last post.

QUOTE
what I said is that it's immoral when an adult seeks out sex with a prepubescent child.

And the reasoning you provided was that they couldn't reciprocate, now you've conceded that they can? So what is your point now?

As usual, you struggle to understand what's being posited to you, you strawman your opponent and change your argument midway through the debate so your responses appear incoherent and contradictory.

El Zilcho
  • El Zilcho

    Virtuoso

  • The Connection
  • Joined: 14 May 2008
  • European-Union

#47

Posted 21 July 2013 - 04:01 PM

Paedophilia should be primarily treated as an anti-social mental condition, as opposed to something malevolently nefarious. It is obvious that the mistreatment of children is heinous; more so than most other crimes, for the reasons of their vulnerability, innocence and our very human condition (e.g. our inclination to protect them in our society). However, as Typhus noted, paedophiles are not making a choice. Just as homosexuals and straight people 'fall into' those orientations, so do too paedophiles fall into their attraction to children.

I can't say I have a convenient solution for the dilemma of what to do with them - I would leave that to mental health professionals and rehabilitation staff. Whatever the options for post-conviction, it is still as clear and obvious that any sort of molestation with children, whether or not it is aggressive, is to be avoided.

On the matter of relations with teenagers, I would say that the age of consent should be lowered, as a 15 year having a consensual relationship with a 19 year old is far from horrendous. However, this is a different matter.
  • The Yokel likes this

El Diablo
  • El Diablo

    "The Devil" ™

  • Leone Family Mafia
  • Joined: 03 Aug 2002
  • Mars
  • April Fools Loser 2015

#48

Posted 22 July 2013 - 01:42 AM Edited by El_Diablo, 22 July 2013 - 10:03 AM.

QUOTE (Melchior @ Sunday, Jul 21 2013, 01:02)
People tend to read the OP- not just look for keywords in the thread title and start ranting.

yeah.
I read the OP. I addressed it. I addressed the questions you asked and many others that have been raised since.

just because you don't like the answers doesn't mean I didn't read it.

QUOTE
your only reasoning was that children weren't equipped for it. Now you've conceded that a prepubescent can enter a sexual relationship so I'm not sure what your point is.

yes because MOST children are not equipped for it mentally or physiologically.

I only said they might be equipped for it in the most basic physical sense.
it doesn't mean they're ready for it and it doesn't give adults the right to molest them.

I don't know why this is so hard for you to understand rolleyes.gif

QUOTE

I don't care how you define paedophilia, this discussion is about whether or not children can be sexual.

some children can be sexual.
MOST are not ready.

and you cannot know who might ready BEFORE you attempt to molest them, at which point it's too late for those who aren't.
the topic is about pedophilia within modern society. so the definition is important whether you admit it is or not.

I don't care if some children might be able to handle a sexual relationship with an adult.
it still doesn't make it right and still doesn't mean that pedophilia is defensible categorically.

QUOTE

And the reasoning you provided was that they couldn't reciprocate

that wasn't the reason.
of course they can physically reciprocate. that's not the issue.

learn how to interpret the things you're reading.
I'm tired of repeating myself.

QUOTE
As usual, you struggle to understand what's being posited to you, you strawman your opponent and change your argument midway through the debate so your responses appear incoherent and contradictory.


you don't know what a Strawman is because I haven't used one.
that's when you attack something that wasn't actually said, like putting words in someone's mouth. I've only replied to what people have said.

I haven't changed my argument. it's been consitent from reply #1.
it's you who keeps changing the target.

feel free to try again.

Ferocious Banger
  • Ferocious Banger

    Big Homie

  • Members
  • Joined: 17 May 2012
  • India

#49

Posted 22 July 2013 - 01:02 PM

Paedophilia just can't be wholly defended. How the f*ck can you defend a 45 year old f*cking the bones out of a 4 year old? How? If it's between a 19 year old and a 17 year old, it is different in my view, for both have about the same mental maturity.


sivispacem
  • sivispacem

    The Wolf Hunger Rises

  • Moderator
  • Joined: 14 Feb 2011
  • United-Kingdom
  • Contribution Award [D&D, General Chat]
    Most Knowledgeable [Vehicles] 2013
    Best Debater 2015, 2014, 2013, 2012, 2011

#50

Posted 22 July 2013 - 01:59 PM

QUOTE (Ferocious Banger @ Monday, Jul 22 2013, 14:02)
Paedophilia just can't be wholly defended. How the f*ck can you defend a 45 year old f*cking the bones out of a 4 year old? How? If it's between a 19 year old and a 17 year old, it is different in my view, for both have about the same mental maturity.

Nice job of reading the thread. Next time want to contribute something worthy of discussion?

Melchior
  • Melchior

    ♥ Ⓐ

  • The Connection
  • Joined: 16 May 2009
  • Unknown

#51

Posted 22 July 2013 - 03:44 PM

So El_Diablo, your point now is that, even though children are capable of being sexual, some might not be ready? So why can't society make them ready? Or do you not feel socialisation plays a role in when people reach sexual maturity?

El Diablo
  • El Diablo

    "The Devil" ™

  • Leone Family Mafia
  • Joined: 03 Aug 2002
  • Mars
  • April Fools Loser 2015

#52

Posted 23 July 2013 - 06:11 AM

QUOTE (Melchior @ Monday, Jul 22 2013, 09:44)
your point now

my point now?
my point hasn't changed since reply #1 sigh.gif

but go on...

QUOTE
even though children are capable of being sexual, some might not be ready?

lol wow you're bad at this.
no that's not my point.

my point is that just because the very rare child might be able to handle it emotionally and physiologically - and just because their body might be physically capable of accepting an erect penis and feeling pleasure - does not make pedophilia right, moral, or defensible categorically.

you cannot know which child might be able to handle it before you molest them... at which point it's too late.

get it?
how many times do I have to repeat this...

King Andreas
  • King Andreas

    (_)

  • Members
  • Joined: 12 Jun 2013
  • None

#53

Posted 27 July 2013 - 02:31 PM

Would you condone granting a prepubescent governing powers? Of course not, being that they're still in school. They don't have the foresight for such, nor do prepubescents have the wherewithal for adult interactions. You see, both these scenarios amount to the concept of premature. What part of the prefix "pre" is so complex to fathom?

Melchior
  • Melchior

    ♥ Ⓐ

  • The Connection
  • Joined: 16 May 2009
  • Unknown

#54

Posted 27 July 2013 - 02:55 PM Edited by Melchior, 27 July 2013 - 02:58 PM.

QUOTE (El_Diablo @ Tuesday, Jul 23 2013, 16:11)
you cannot know which child might be able to handle it before you molest them...

Why are you acting like this point has already been substantiated? How do we know that in a much less repressed society that there'd be no way to determine who was prepared and who wasn't? So fine, let's say, hypothetically that we could ascertain which children were prepared for sex and which weren't (the ones that are are presumably the "horny school boys" you mentioned), why is it immoral for those children to engage in sexual interaction with an adult.

QUOTE
lol wow you're bad at this.

Quite ironic you should say that, since throughout this thread you've done nothing but misconstrue other's points, present your subjective opinions as facts and struggle embarrassingly with the very context of the debate. It's very ironic indeed that I've heard you say this to a few people recently considering that in every debate I see you enter, you seem to struggle- not only with the subject matter- but with the very context of the discussion and the nuances of debate itself without even realising it, even when you're right.

El Diablo
  • El Diablo

    "The Devil" ™

  • Leone Family Mafia
  • Joined: 03 Aug 2002
  • Mars
  • April Fools Loser 2015

#55

Posted 28 July 2013 - 04:14 AM

QUOTE (Melchior @ Saturday, Jul 27 2013, 08:55)

Why are you acting like this point has already been substantiated?

because it's true.
you cannot know which child might be able to handle sex before you've molested them.

QUOTE
let's say, hypothetically that we could ascertain which children were prepared for sex and which weren't (the ones that are are presumably the "horny school boys" you mentioned), why is it immoral for those children to engage in sexual interaction with an adult.

sorry, I don't deal in hypothetical situations.
not on an issue like this.

you've said NOTHING to prove that pedophilia should be "seriously defended" in modern society.
and I don't believe you ever will.

we all know it's wrong.
it will never be legal.
it will never be normalized.

SagaciousKJB
  • SagaciousKJB

    Captain tl;dr

  • The Connection
  • Joined: 21 Jun 2003
  • None

#56

Posted 28 July 2013 - 04:47 AM

QUOTE (El_Diablo @ Sunday, Jul 21 2013, 18:42)
learn how to interpret the things you're reading.
I'm tired of repeating myself.

...and the pot calls the kettle black.

QUOTE
So El_Diablo, your point now is that, even though children are capable of being sexual, some might not be ready? So why can't society make them ready? Or do you not feel socialisation plays a role in when people reach sexual maturity?


I would think of it in relation to examples of other activities parents suggest to their children... Think of a kid who plays baseball or something like that. The dad tells him, "Baseball is so fun, you'll love it." Then when the kid hates it, but sees how excited his Dad is that he's playing, feels pressured to say that he likes playing baseball, keeps playing it until eventually admitting he doesn't, or resenting his dad for making him play...

Obviously with things like baseball, there's probably not going to be real psychological damage done, but with what we're talking about here... If they wind up not enjoying it, and continuing to do so by their own choice, that choice will still likely be a mistake on their part--and then the obvious ramifications entail.

El Diablo
  • El Diablo

    "The Devil" ™

  • Leone Family Mafia
  • Joined: 03 Aug 2002
  • Mars
  • April Fools Loser 2015

#57

Posted 28 July 2013 - 06:50 AM

QUOTE (SagaciousKJB @ Saturday, Jul 27 2013, 22:47)
If they wind up not enjoying it, and continuing to do so by their own choice, that choice will still likely be a mistake on their part--and then the obvious ramifications entail.

I love how you made fun of me... then agreed with me.

Shifty41s_beerhatsmilie2.gif

something tells me this debate has run its course.

Melchior
  • Melchior

    ♥ Ⓐ

  • The Connection
  • Joined: 16 May 2009
  • Unknown

#58

Posted 28 July 2013 - 10:33 AM

QUOTE (El_Diablo @ Sunday, Jul 28 2013, 14:14)
you cannot know which child might be able to handle sex before you've molested them.

You can repeat that as much as you like but that doesn't mean it's substantiated. Why is it impossible? How do you even know that any efforts to better understand child sexuality will never bear fruit? Basically, what you're saying is "some people become sexual at eleven and some at fourteen and we can't tell which is which and we never will be able to and it's only a coincidence that some people are sexual at a young age and others aren't and I know this to be true because I treat my intuition as fact debate over!"

QUOTE
sorry, I don't deal in hypothetical situations.

Um, okay? Except this is clearly a hypothetical debate...

QUOTE (Sag)
I would think of it in relation to examples of other activities parents suggest to their children... Think of a kid who plays baseball or something like that. The dad tells him, "Baseball is so fun, you'll love it."

I'd say that's a bit of a facile comparison. Kids put a lot of importance on school marks and doing well at sports because of competitiveness and the desire to please their parents and teachers. But is that really the same as sex acts? If you give a kid a meal they hate, by and large, they'll express their displeasure and possibly stop eating. I'd say that's also a superficial comparison (though it's very hard to discuss sexuality by comparing it to other things in life since sexuality is such a unique thing), but you seem what I'm getting at. I'm not dismissing the fact that their consent can be manufactured, I'm just saying it might not be a permanent, intrinsic problem.

As an aside, our society seems to already think it's okay to manufacture adult's consent so we've got a ways to go before we're anywhere close to sexually liberated enough to include children. For instance, see that sitcom where Neil Patrick Harris uses huge webs of deceit to essentially coerce women into having sex with him... and the whole thing is played for laughs. Make of that what you will.

El Diablo
  • El Diablo

    "The Devil" ™

  • Leone Family Mafia
  • Joined: 03 Aug 2002
  • Mars
  • April Fools Loser 2015

#59

Posted 29 July 2013 - 05:51 AM

QUOTE (Melchior @ Sunday, Jul 28 2013, 04:33)
You can repeat that as much as you like but that doesn't mean it's substantiated. Why is it impossible? How do you even know that any efforts to better understand child sexuality will never bear fruit?

I can repeat it as much as I like because it's reality and virtually everyone (take a poll if you could, I'm betting at least 95%) would agree with me.
if you've figured out a method for determining which children are ok to molest and which children are not ok to molest, lemme know. but that still won't make the molestation right. there's no court of law that would defend your actions post-rape.

we can put "efforts" into better understanding child sexuality all day long. that's fine from a psychological and health care perspective.
but that still won't make pedophilia right, moral, or something that should be defended in normal society.

sorry.
that's the way it is... at least on planet Earth.

Otter
  • Otter

    sea dwelling madman

  • Administrator
  • Joined: 30 Jan 2003
  • Canada

#60

Posted 29 July 2013 - 05:42 PM Edited by Otter, 29 July 2013 - 06:03 PM.

If I can agree with anything El_Diablo's said in here, it's that the topic title is incredibly misleading. wink.gif And the comparison to the perception of homosexuality is infuriatingly trite. But that has all been addressed.

Sexualizing children victimizes them. It's abuse. They are not emotionally equipped to defend themselves and, more often than not, don't even understand that they're being preyed upon - the immense power of authority an adult has over a child is such that most children believe a magical rabbit delivers candy to them to help them put up with an entire boring day of church.

Now take an arguably victimless scenario that feeds an adult desire for such things. A comic book, for example, videogame, or novel. On one hand there's a case to be made for defending the freedom of expression - but can we truly say that such a thing is victimless? Will such indulgences stave-off the urge for real confrontations or only add fuel to the fire? I guess this is the question you're asking - if we can, irrefutably, remove the victim from the equation, can we defend pedophilia as benign?

The only rational answer is a disturbing yes.

edit - apologies if I'm rehashing some sh*t, I missed about a page of replies. mercie_blink.gif




1 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 1 guests, 0 anonymous users