Quantcast

Jump to content

» «
Photo

Should Paedophilia be Seriously Defended?

205 replies to this topic
Gilligan
  • Gilligan

    Midnight Toker

  • Andolini Mafia Family
  • Joined: 25 Oct 2011
  • None

#121

Posted 03 December 2013 - 08:14 PM

Lol, I can't even be f*cked. You're claiming I'm this and that for thinking that some men are more attracted to females who reveal more and for thinking an OTT dress sense is wrong? You're saying I claim this and that when I really don't. This debate you've made between us is a load of sh*t.

El_Diablo
  • El_Diablo

    "The_Devil"

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

#122

Posted 03 December 2013 - 10:59 PM

I'm not sure what exactly the two of you have gotten into, so I'm gonna' jump in and sort this out :panic:

or at least try and figure it out.

 

UG mentioned something about the age of 16 being the cutoff.

for starters, that's a little arbitrary. when it comes to high school-age adolescents, those situations need to be handled on a case-by-case basis. we can't use a number like 16 as the magic starting point for classifying a pedophile. that's not fair to most high school relationships or actual pedophiles.

 

I have no problem with the following statement:

Teenagers experimenting with one another is not necessarily a good thing

Melchior; I'm afraid you took this statement completely out of context when you began arguing the point.

you forgot the rest as UG continued by saying "...but it's better than experimenting with people ten, twenty years older than them."

 

when you finish the whole sentence, I'm going to give UG the benefit of the doubt.

I don't think he's saying that it's bad for teenagers to experiment with sex. it could have been worded better, but I think he's just saying that teenagers are naturally clumsy and bad things CAN come of early sexual experimentation (unwanted pregnancy, etc). but at least teenagers should figure it out together, rather than being manipulated by some adult. so he's actually in favor of kids experimenting with each other.

 

he concluded by saying "Children need to learn with their peers" which I can't argue with.

 

I'm not gonna' tackle the rest.

you guys got way off topic when it started to venture down the slut-shaming road. I don't think a young girl wearing a pretty dress contributes to the onset of pedophilia anymore than I don't think a grown woman explicitly dressing like a whore is inviting rape. get it?

 

the whole discussion that followed about how men view women who dress a certain way doesn't really contribute to the topic at hand.


Melchior
  • Melchior

    Big Homie

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

#123

Posted 03 December 2013 - 11:44 PM

The issue is that, when asked to explain his claim that people under sixteen shouldn't have sex with each other, he claimed that it would lead to girls advertising their sexual activity with miniskirts, which invariably leads to rape.

 

He's also gone on to rant about us being too sexualised as a culture and expresses confusion at the notion of girls wearing short shorts, so I think you're wrong to give him the benefit of the doubt.


Gilligan
  • Gilligan

    Midnight Toker

  • Andolini Mafia Family
  • Joined: 25 Oct 2011
  • None

#124

Posted 04 December 2013 - 01:19 AM Edited by Unoriginal Gangster, 04 December 2013 - 01:24 AM.

Where did I mention short skirts? I used the example of wearing something so small that areas of the bottom are literally visual. And again you're twisting the words 'some' and 'most' into 'all'.

You seem to be trying to pick a petty argument out of anything and everything, funnily enough most of your arguments are practically copy and pasted in each post you made after the first/second. You seem to be arguing about points in a sentence rather than the general opinions I've posted and seem to be ignoring sections of sentences here and there rather than respond to a full quote. I think the only reason you haven't yet dropped it is because you feel you have a right to win this debate turned petty argument.

I tried to stop this argument before it got too much by making a post with multiple additional points. You seem to have ignored everything in that post apart from the bits that relate to the previous topic of discussion that we were on.

Melchior
  • Melchior

    Big Homie

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

#125

Posted 04 December 2013 - 01:54 AM

I'm not sure what you're getting so indignant about. The section is called "Debates and Discussions" obviously you'll have to defend your opinions. Yet you apparently don't want to discuss them at all; so tell me, why post them?


Gilligan
  • Gilligan

    Midnight Toker

  • Andolini Mafia Family
  • Joined: 25 Oct 2011
  • None

#126

Posted 04 December 2013 - 02:00 AM Edited by Unoriginal Gangster, 04 December 2013 - 02:00 AM.

Again I never said I didn't want to debate or argue points although practically copying and pasting your content from past posts to future ones isn't exactly a decent argument, is it? Ignoring whole posts and just picking out bits here and there doesn't make for a decent argument either.

Here's a thought, how about either bringing something new to the argument which will move on topic or moving on?

MH60
  • MH60

    Player Hater

  • Members
  • Joined: 10 Nov 2013

#127

Posted 15 December 2013 - 02:30 AM

According to society it's wrong for someone under the age of 18 years (both the idea of age and the unit of years created by mankind) to have sex

 

The human body is more fertile at a younger age and that is when it is at its best to reproduce. The idea of liability and there not being any real meaning to life other than what society portrays it as gives meaning that society of today must put fourth an order to say this is right and this is wrong, or else it will fall apart.


Panz
  • Panz

  • The Connection
  • Joined: 18 Aug 2008
  • United-States
  • Best Returning Member 2013
    Best Member in a Group 2013
    Hottest Member 2014

#128

Posted 15 December 2013 - 03:57 AM Edited by Panz, 15 December 2013 - 04:01 AM.

I have many personal experiences with this issue, so let me share my two cents with you guys (I'm going off what I've read from the first page, so I apologize if I'm bringing back an old aspect of this topic). 

 

The mind is a fragile place during the crucial developmental years we call childhood.  What children learn during their juvenile period stimulates the behaviors and actions that they use for the rest of their lives, and it is our responsibility, as adults, to ensure that those years are full of enrichment that will enable them to thrive in society in the most positive ways possible.  Why should we not defend pedophilia? Because it's sick and manipulative.

 

Allowing an adult to think about photos or videos of children in a sexual manner will only feed this mental disease, further lowering the offender's threshold for abusing a child that they find "attractive".  What I'm saying is that it will only help them to cave in.  The children who are victims of these acts are, in fact, scarred for life, and their minds remain infused with memories and experiences that alter their future actions and thoughts about pedophilia.

 

In society, we teach a child that being touched down there is not okay, but then we have adults doing exactly that, and they're teaching the children that these acts are in fact okay.  So now, we have two conflicting memories in this child's mind, and the kid grows up never knowing which is right and which is wrong.  This tension builds up and the kid eventually releases the energy, either in the form of rage against what they know is wrong, or perhaps in the form of pedophilia themselves.

 

My father raped and molested both of my brothers throughout their childhoods. I was significantly younger, about 2 or 3 years old, and I have some fuzzy memories, so I'm not entirely sure if anything similar occurred with myself. Anyway, one day, my dad hit me, and I screamed, and my brothers thought something else was happening, something of a sexual sort.  The cops came, and to sum it up, my brothers finally admitted to the cops, nearly 10 years later, about what my father had done.

 

They've been in therapy for years, but it doesn't change much because their brains aren't going to capture this information in the way it did when it was still developing.  My brothers use drugs heavily, they drink too much, and they have severe anger issues and depression.  I guess that's their outlet.  No matter how much therapy they go through, they'll still be haunted by these memories, and they'll never thrive to be the young men that they could have been. I blame that on pedophilia and, of course, my scum of a father (who is now in jail, no worries).  During their childhood, my brothers were never allowed a release from this conflict between what was right and what was wrong.  Instead, they grew up and became adults with messed up heads and memories.  Were they to receive the help they needed when their brains were still in that crucial period of socialization, I firmly believe that they would be much better off than they are now.  

 

Basically, what I'm trying to say is that, if we defend pedophilia and provide offenders with ways to "release" this sexual build-up, it will only stimulate their minds to accept the fact that what they are thinking is morally acceptable.  Molestors rarely commit this crime only once.  After they get past that threshold and commit the act once, it only becomes easier to do it again.  This disease is much like a drug, and the best way to control it is to restrain it completely.  As for the abused, it screws them up as well.  Their minds are tampered with during its most fragile period, and that sets them up for a much more difficult mental future.

 

Yes, I understand that these people have a disease and that they deserve a sexual outlet.  Do you ever get so angry that you wish you could hurt someone, maybe think, "I'm so angry I could kill so-and-so."? Did you kill that person? No, of course not (at least I hope not).  You know it's wrong.  These people know that pedophilia is wrong just as well. We can treat it a lot like how we treat alcoholism.  Recovering alcoholics probably don't go a day without thinking of a drink, but they know that if they cave in, they'll end up hurting themselves and others. So what do they do? They remove every speck of alcohol from their lives because they know that, if they have a drink, they'll have to start all over again. If they even see drinks or place themselves in an environment where someone might offer them a drink, they get ever closer to reaching that threshold. So, with pedophilia, we need to do the exact same thing.  Get rid of anything that might stimulate this interest, and that's that.  It's the best we can do.  Anyway, if we want to prevent peoples' minds and lives from being utterly f*cked up, especially childrens', then no, we cannot feed pedophiles with their desires or defend their rights to do so. 

  • Ari Gold, Xavierr and EphemeralStar like this

RedDagger
  • RedDagger

    Crash test dummy

  • Leone Family Mafia
  • Joined: 24 Oct 2011
  • United-Kingdom

#129

Posted 16 December 2013 - 10:26 PM

Well, I have three things to say about that; I agree with what you said about young children being sexulised is a bad thing, for the reasons you described, fragile minds and all.

 

However, paedophilia doesn't mean child molestation, and neither does molestation mean paedophilia. It is entirely possible, and happens often, that this occurs for the abuse of power as opposed to following a sexual desire; the constant labelling of paedophiles as bad for this particular reason is misdirected, as the argument seems to be focused on child molestation.

 

For the part that's not - paedophiles being allowed to think about, or given access to, child pornography - is wrong for two reasons: firstly, like I said, paedophiles aren't inherently child molesters. They often know acting upon their desires would be bad and they feel bad for having them - this kind of person is someone who shouldn't be dehumanised for this.

Secondly, giving access to child pornography has been shown - I can't for the life of me find the study, but if it's required I'll attempt to - reduce the inhibitions of acting out on the desires, which again shows that paedophiles aren't naturally equated to child molesters. Getting rid of any outlet would likely increase the chance for this, and make them feel more uncomfortable as they don't have an outlet. 

 

But, as you said, the power and helplessness from physical child molestation usually messes up the life of the younger, thus sexualising the younger people isn't really the best of ideas. However, when things start getting to teenagers - who are seemingly aware of sexual practise - I find myself in a grey area, and I can't really comment on that. It...depends, really. I know when I was a younger teen I thought I had the aid of rational thought in something as serious as this, but looking back, it doesn't seem like I'd trust myself with that kind of decision, and my classmates certainly were no bastion for maturity and thinking when it comes to sexulisation in general. 


Panz
  • Panz

  • The Connection
  • Joined: 18 Aug 2008
  • United-States
  • Best Returning Member 2013
    Best Member in a Group 2013
    Hottest Member 2014

#130

Posted 18 December 2013 - 03:13 AM Edited by Panz, 18 December 2013 - 03:14 AM.

No, no. I never said one meant the other.  I did imply, however (or at least meant to imply), that one often leads to the other.  If pedophiles express a sexual interest in minors, doesn't that imply that they probably think about engaging in sexual acts with minors?  If this is their true sexual desire and we stimulate that desire by providing child pornography to them, how long can they hold out before allowing themselves to experience the "real thing"? Normal men and women view porn typically because they're not getting the real thing from anyone. What do they think about when they view the material?  The real thing. If they were presented with the opportunity to have sex instead of porn, what do you think they would choose? And is this acceptable in the case of pedophilia? 

 

This is a psychiatric disease.  Mental illness is incredibly fragile, and generally, we know very little about it. If these people truly feel badly about what they're thinking and feeling towards children, why should we perpetuate that by providing material for them? Why not try to help them fight it? 

 

I'd like to see the study that showed what you said, as I'm interested as to how they conducted the research.  It could easily be biased if they followed up their methods with surveys.  I'm not too sure how else they might have gathered that sort of data. I might do some digging myself (I'm a science major in college, so I enjoy this anyway). 

 

And you really have to think about the privacy of the children, too.  If I were to agree and say that pedophiles should be able to view child pornography, how would we obtain that?  What parent would willingly take photos/videos and release this sort of material of his/her own child?  You can't just take it. It's an infringement of privacy, and a child cannot speak for him/herself in this case, either.  

 

This is an unacceptable act in our society and has the potential to lead to the endangerment of others. You're completely correct when you say that pedophilia does not necessarily lead to molestation, and vice versa.  But, do we really want to take our chances on this or maintain our firm control over it?  What would the outcome be if we sided with the prior?


RedDagger
  • RedDagger

    Crash test dummy

  • Leone Family Mafia
  • Joined: 24 Oct 2011
  • United-Kingdom

#131

Posted 19 December 2013 - 12:19 AM

Well this is a testament to my flaky memory, I couldn't find 'the study' because it seemingly doesn't exist, as I've found plenty showing the contrary in final studies- that behavioural therapy in the way of stimulating their arousal does not make any difference, so I'm going to have to retract those parts. In fact, they showed it to be best treated as a psychiatric problem with drugs, so I'm inclined to agree with pretty much everything you're saying. Although It's been suggested that drawn child pornography (e.g. loli) could be used as material if it would help, I can't really think of that as viable so I'm pretty sure there isn't a morally 'correct' way of obtaining material, which goes back to square one anyway.

 

And for that very last part, I say treat it like any other psychiatric problem - it would be best treated, but don't give a negative light on them since it isn't something that's actually doing any harm. 


Panz
  • Panz

  • The Connection
  • Joined: 18 Aug 2008
  • United-States
  • Best Returning Member 2013
    Best Member in a Group 2013
    Hottest Member 2014

#132

Posted 21 December 2013 - 02:01 AM

That's no problem.  I make similar claims myself sometimes.  But yeah, I understand where you're coming from. It's not necessarily harmful, except in the cases of privacy infringement and in cases where it turns into something physical. 

 

It's one of those things that needs further research.  Who knows, it could be something that occurs during development that causes this illness, or it could be a genetic anomaly. I don't know much about how mental illness works myself, but I do know from a biology course of mine that many adult behaviors form during our juvenile period of life, when the brain is developing the most. Granted, this was a course more focused on animals, but it could potentially apply to humans as well.  So maybe they need to be looking at the course of a person's lifetime rather than trying to look into the person's adulthood.  I'm sure they are. It's just a slow process. 


Typhus
  • Typhus

    OG

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

#133

Posted 21 December 2013 - 09:41 AM Edited by Typhus, 21 December 2013 - 09:43 AM.

It's not an illness though, and treating it like something to be 'cured' is what causes a lot of problems to begin with.

It's an orientation, like any other, but one unique in the need for strict control and monitoring.

But don't speak of trying to cure them, or presume the moral authority to want to reach inside their minds and change how they feel. They don't need to be cured, and they don't need to be changed in order to suit us.

 

As I've said before, we need to give them access to artificial materials in which the issue of a child's safety is non-existent because there are no real children involved. But, by the same token, I firmly believe that they need to be privy to a DNA database, a record of where they live and mandatory surveillance of their internet.

Society should give them the freedom to safely practice their orientation - but maintain the right to crush them if they dare attack our children, or tacitly support the abuse of children through consumption of real pornographic material. Both are just as repugnant.

 

I truly believe that we can reach an accord, perhaps not in societal attitudes, but at least in terms of keeping these people sated and sane and reducing the amount who are eventually driven into predatory behaviour by our persecution.

  • Ari Gold likes this

Panz
  • Panz

  • The Connection
  • Joined: 18 Aug 2008
  • United-States
  • Best Returning Member 2013
    Best Member in a Group 2013
    Hottest Member 2014

#134

Posted 21 December 2013 - 02:09 PM Edited by Panz, 21 December 2013 - 02:11 PM.

Well most sources I've seen claim it to be a psychiatric disorder, which constitutes illness in my book, anyway. A disorder is a disruption of the normal state of mind. Illness.

 

I'm sure if you feel that way about "curing" them, then you feel that way about most other mental disorders? Schizophrenia? Depression? Eating disorders? Sure, leave them be who they are. They aren't a danger to themselves or society, right? I'm not saying all pedophiles will become an endangerment to society, no. Not every single one, but if we did a study where we allowed them to view whatever they wanted, what do you think would happen?  Would fewer children get hurt, more, or would it stay the same? We don't know.  If we want to invest the time and money and safety into that study, then fine, but I don't think it's worth the risk without more controlled research first.

 

Do you ever think that maybe the people with this disorder think it's wrong and truly want to be free of it?  Have you asked them? So why feed them something that they don't want? Their brain might say they want it, but, pardon my sappiness, their heart and conscience might say otherwise.  If they do want it, then I'd like to know which materials you'd provide without endangering a child's privacy.  Sure, you can draw up cartoons or life-like pictures, but I'm not sure how that'd fly with all of them.  And getting them into a DNA database and watching their Internet like hawks is gonna cost a lot of money that people won't want to spend.

 

If some of them want to be freed of this illness, then they'd probably be offended by this constant surveillance. Similarly, if their viewing material is not a crime in your book, then why should we treat them like criminals by extracting their DNA and monitoring their Internet activity?  If this isn't an illness, then why are you suggesting mandatory surveillance as if they're sick in the head? We can't call this an acceptable "orientation" and then treat them like it's unacceptable.


Typhus
  • Typhus

    OG

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

#135

Posted 21 December 2013 - 05:55 PM

It's not an illness or a disorder, it's an orientation and part of who they are.

And no, I don't think schizophrenics and others of a similar mentality should necessarily be 'cured', because that 'cure' is nothing but an attempt to make them conform, manage them and turn them into doped-up zombies. I didn't let them do it to me, and I'd rather it not happen to anyone else.

 

Perhaps there are some who wish to be rid of their pedophilia, just as some homosexuals wish that they could be different. But perhaps if people weren't calling them ill, sick, immoral deviants in need of culling, they wouldn't hate themselves so much. You people treat them like animals and wonder why they hate themselves?

 

Logically, though, their orientation - by its very nature - can pose a threat to the younger generation. Making surveillance necessary. Frankly speaking, I don't care if artificial images 'do it' for them or not. They need to understand that they exist solely due to the mercy of their peers, and that those same people can - at any time - destroy them if they step out of line.

 

Let me be frank. I want pedophiles to be free, I want them to sate their urges and live healthy and happy lives within the confines of the law. But no matter how much I may pity them, I don't trust them. And I don't believe that you can be too careful when the safety of children is at stake.

All I am saying is that we need to give these people their humanity and recognise their feelings as being as legitimate as those of heterosexuals - whilst making every necessary arrangement to ensure that tolerance is not repaid by treachery.

 

It seems to me to be the only fair, humane solution. All this talk of 'curing' people makes me sick to my stomach, it's inhuman and offensive.


Melchior
  • Melchior

    Big Homie

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

#136

Posted 22 December 2013 - 03:27 AM

Typhus, if you can't be sexually attracted to someone your own age, there's obviously been some problem with your sexual development. 


Hecate
  • Hecate

    I am for the air.

  • Moderator
  • Joined: 22 Mar 2009
  • NATO
  • Newcomer of the Year 2010

#137

Posted 22 December 2013 - 08:48 AM

Typhus, if you can't be sexually attracted to someone your own age, there's obviously been some problem with your sexual development. 

 

Kind of an unrelated question but would this include people who're mainly attracted to people in an older age group?


Typhus
  • Typhus

    OG

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

#138

Posted 22 December 2013 - 09:37 AM

Typhus, if you can't be sexually attracted to someone your own age, there's obviously been some problem with your sexual development. 

Nonsense. You can't just label something as a sickness because you don't understand it.


Melchior
  • Melchior

    Big Homie

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

#139

Posted 23 December 2013 - 06:15 AM

 

Typhus, if you can't be sexually attracted to someone your own age, there's obviously been some problem with your sexual development. 

Nonsense. You can't just label something as a sickness because you don't understand it.

 

Well, we can. If somebody doesn't function the same way everybody else does, and if said lack of functioning is demonstrably related to emotional and cognitive deficits, then they are "sick" by any applicable metric.

 

To be honest, your position is quite strange. It's somehow morally wrong to treat their disorder and its causes, so we should just give them child porn and sex bots and call it a day? Clinically, paedophilia (meaning a primary- or more often- exclusive attraction to prepubescents) is associated with poor self-image, poor social skills and a lack of self-awareness. They can't understand other people or themselves, and so they turn to children over adults. It's only a sexual orientation superficially, at its heart it's a mental illness with identifiable symptoms.  

 

Also schizophrenia is a physical phenomenon, to some extent, so the point is moot. 

 

@Tyler: I literally have no idea. My gut tells me it's a sexual fetish* but I suppose if an eighteen year old shuns his or her peers romantically and jacks off to old grannies, it could be something clinical.

 

* As an aside, fetishes are a weird quirk of sexuality that are divided into two groups: those with genetic causes, like a foot fetish (essentially, your brain is wired to respond mainly to thighs, boobs and butts, slightly less to stomachs, shoulders and probably fingers, and feet dead last, though you can be wired differently so that feet and arms drive you wild and boobs are only kind of hot) and ones with environmental causes. The general understanding of the latter is that if you're exposed to a concept during crucial moments in sexual development, you sexualise them, so if you watch a lot of Disney movies about princess you'll be attracted to girls in crowns, or something to that effect. So I'd imagine people simply sexualise the concept of being elderly, the way fat fetishists often sexualise the concept of obesity. 

  • Panz and EphemeralStar like this

MH60
  • MH60

    Player Hater

  • Members
  • Joined: 10 Nov 2013

#140

Posted 24 December 2013 - 12:31 AM

 

 

Typhus, if you can't be sexually attracted to someone your own age, there's obviously been some problem with your sexual development. 

Nonsense. You can't just label something as a sickness because you don't understand it.

 

Well, we can. If somebody doesn't function the same way everybody else does, and if said lack of functioning is demonstrably related to emotional and cognitive deficits, then they are "sick" by any applicable metric.

 

To be honest, your position is quite strange. It's somehow morally wrong to treat their disorder and its causes, so we should just give them child porn and sex bots and call it a day? Clinically, paedophilia (meaning a primary- or more often- exclusive attraction to prepubescents) is associated with poor self-image, poor social skills and a lack of self-awareness. They can't understand other people or themselves, and so they turn to children over adults. It's only a sexual orientation superficially, at its heart it's a mental illness with identifiable symptoms.  

 

Also schizophrenia is a physical phenomenon, to some extent, so the point is moot. 

 

@Tyler: I literally have no idea. My gut tells me it's a sexual fetish* but I suppose if an eighteen year old shuns his or her peers romantically and jacks off to old grannies, it could be something clinical.

 

* As an aside, fetishes are a weird quirk of sexuality that are divided into two groups: those with genetic causes, like a foot fetish (essentially, your brain is wired to respond mainly to thighs, boobs and butts, slightly less to stomachs, shoulders and probably fingers, and feet dead last, though you can be wired differently so that feet and arms drive you wild and boobs are only kind of hot) and ones with environmental causes. The general understanding of the latter is that if you're exposed to a concept during crucial moments in sexual development, you sexualise them, so if you watch a lot of Disney movies about princess you'll be attracted to girls in crowns, or something to that effect. So I'd imagine people simply sexualise the concept of being elderly, the way fat fetishists often sexualise the concept of obesity. 

 

So women are sick because they are different from men? Your argument is that of a one-sided argument, you're not considering anyone's opinions or rights but those of yourself.


Melchior
  • Melchior

    Big Homie

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

#141

Posted 24 December 2013 - 05:03 AM

So women are sick because they are different from men? Your argument is that of a one-sided argument, you're not considering anyone's opinions or rights but those of yourself.

At no point did I say that anyone who is different is sick. I said anyone with a deficit of function is sick, which is fairly uncontroversial. 


Panz
  • Panz

  • The Connection
  • Joined: 18 Aug 2008
  • United-States
  • Best Returning Member 2013
    Best Member in a Group 2013
    Hottest Member 2014

#142

Posted 24 December 2013 - 04:08 PM Edited by Panz, 24 December 2013 - 04:12 PM.

 

It's not an illness or a disorder, it's an orientation and part of who they are.

And no, I don't think schizophrenics and others of a similar mentality should necessarily be 'cured', because that 'cure' is nothing but an attempt to make them conform, manage them and turn them into doped-up zombies. I didn't let them do it to me, and I'd rather it not happen to anyone else.

I will recognize that the concept of calling pedophilia a sexual orientation is spreading, yes, but it doesn't mean it's also not an illness or a disorder.  Yes, research has shown that their brains are significantly different from that of others.  It lacks the same amount of connective tissue, and the "wiring" is a bit different.  I work with sick children, some with a long list of mental disabilities.  Bipolar disorder, multiple personality disorder, autism, etc. All are disorders because, as Melchior suggested, they do not function like "normal" individuals.  So yes, pedophilia is a disorder - an ailment that can affect the mind or the physical body.

 

 

 

Perhaps there are some who wish to be rid of their pedophilia, just as some homosexuals wish that they could be different. But perhaps if people weren't calling them ill, sick, immoral deviants in need of culling, they wouldn't hate themselves so much. You people treat them like animals and wonder why they hate themselves?

Well, in my personal case, my pedophilic family member turned into a sexual offender. Yeah, I'm going to treat him like an animal. I want him to hate himself because he hurt the rest of my family, but that's personal of course.  Now, if pedophiles don't act on these feelings, then I don't think there's any need to throw around such words. I don't believe I ever called them those names, and forgive me if I did. They are ill and sick in the medical sense, but I don't mean it in a derogatory sense. I do realize that those with mental illness are different.  Do they need to hate themselves? No.  Do we need to control them? Yes. 

 

 

 

Logically, though, their orientation - by its very nature - can pose a threat to the younger generation. Making surveillance necessary. Frankly speaking, I don't care if artificial images 'do it' for them or not. They need to understand that they exist solely due to the mercy of their peers, and that those same people can - at any time - destroy them if they step out of line.

As I said before, why suggest surveillance if you don't want them to be treated like animals?  Sounds like a very stringent lifestyle if you ask me.

 

 

Let me be frank. I want pedophiles to be free, I want them to sate their urges and live healthy and happy lives within the confines of the law. But no matter how much I may pity them, I don't trust them. And I don't believe that you can be too careful when the safety of children is at stake.

All I am saying is that we need to give these people their humanity and recognise their feelings as being as legitimate as those of heterosexuals - whilst making every necessary arrangement to ensure that tolerance is not repaid by treachery.

 

It seems to me to be the only fair, humane solution. All this talk of 'curing' people makes me sick to my stomach, it's inhuman and offensive.

Honestly, I believe that many pedophiles do live as happily as they can under the law.  Because pedophiles know that they'll never be accepted in our society, they often live in hiding.  You might have friends who are pedophiles, and you'll never know it.  Most likely, they find material in their homes and they look at it and they go on with their day.  The ones we tend to hear about are those who commit sexual acts or something of the sort.  

 

I do agree that we need to instill programs that reach out to these individuals and help them to gain a better understanding of their feelings, but I don't necessarily think we should treat it as we treat heterosexuality. We simply don't have enough research yet, and we really need to figure out whether there is a true correlation between sexual offenses and pedophilia. This involves tracing individuals back to their developmental stages and looking at their history.  Is pedophilia genetic, or is it learned?  Is it something that evolves from a child's surroundings, or is it wired into their brain? Is it both? We do see physical differences in pedophiles. Their IQs tend to be lower, they tend to be shorter, and as mentioned before, their brains are wired a bit differently.  But, as most science goes, rarely is something caused purely by genetics (the field of epigenetics has become a huge deal in the science world recently), and that's what we need to focus on. We need to conduct research on the developmental aspects of this illness and figure out how we can work with pedophiles.  I don't think we should ever provide child pornography or condone it, but I do agree that we need to work with these people to help them understand that they're different but that it's not necessarily something they can change.

 

I don't think we will ever cure it, as much as I wish we could. I'm sure pedophiles want to be normal ("cured") just like other cognizant individuals with mental illness. I'm sure many of them want to marry and have children and achieve that dream, and that involves suppressing their feelings.  Maybe they're ok with that.  Maybe all they need is a bit of counseling on the issue. Helping them to feel a bit more normal in their abnormal mindset is a solid goal, I think, but they still need to understand that it's likely that this "orientation" as you will will never be deemed acceptable in our society. And that's mainly because others will feel threatened by it, as they should. We never know which ones will become sexual offenders and which will not. That's why we feel the need to control it.


Melchior
  • Melchior

    Big Homie

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

#143

Posted 24 December 2013 - 04:15 PM

Two points Panz: 1) It's considered an orientation in the sense that it emerges before sexual maturity and doesn't change or up and vanish the way fetishes can 2) it can be gotten rid of considering evidence suggests it's more a symptom of other cognitive issues than a disorder in and of itself. 


Panz
  • Panz

  • The Connection
  • Joined: 18 Aug 2008
  • United-States
  • Best Returning Member 2013
    Best Member in a Group 2013
    Hottest Member 2014

#144

Posted 24 December 2013 - 07:16 PM Edited by Panz, 24 December 2013 - 07:17 PM.

1) Right, and that's what I've been reading about the new orientation debate. That's why I've retracted my disagreements with that idea. So really, I'd accept that it's both an illness and an orientation.

 

2) Has it ever been gotten rid of, though?  Evidence also suggests that it's genetic. Like I said, IQ.  They've found a correlation between IQ and the age of the children that the pedophile is interested in. In most cases, the lower the IQ, the younger the child of interest. There's also a much lower amount of white matter in the portions of the brains of pedophiles that constitutes response to sexual stimuli. So, the brain isn't communicating properly in this network. We can't jump and say that a low amount of white matter automatically causes pedophilia, but it's certainly something we need to look into. Sure, it could be a symptom of another disorder, but if genetics plays any role in it, I don't think we can necessarily ever get rid of it completely.

 

I'm also finding sources that say it's triggered by childhood trauma, so there's the possibility of that playing into the severity of it as well.  It's interesting, to say the least.  


El_Diablo
  • El_Diablo

    "The_Devil"

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

#145

Posted 25 December 2013 - 01:56 PM Edited by El_Diablo, 25 December 2013 - 01:56 PM.

 

Typhus, if you can't be sexually attracted to someone your own age, there's obviously been some problem with your sexual development. 

Nonsense. You can't just label something as a sickness because you don't understand it.

 

I understand pedophilia in virtually all cases.

I can label it a sickness. because it is.

 

we're 5 pages deep into this discussion.

honestly, if you want to rehash the whole "is pedophilia really an illness?" angle, then you're pretty late to the party.

 

an adult who desires intimate/physical relationships with prepubescent children completely outside of his social range is sick. there's a variety of reasons for this that we've exhausted, but it's definitely a spectrum of sickness.


EphemeralStar
  • EphemeralStar

    おっぱい

  • Andolini Mafia Family
  • Joined: 26 Dec 2013
  • Canada

#146

Posted 26 December 2013 - 08:54 AM

 

 

Typhus, if you can't be sexually attracted to someone your own age, there's obviously been some problem with your sexual development. 

Nonsense. You can't just label something as a sickness because you don't understand it.

 

Well, we can. If somebody doesn't function the same way everybody else does, and if said lack of functioning is demonstrably related to emotional and cognitive deficits, then they are "sick" by any applicable metric.

 

To be honest, your position is quite strange. It's somehow morally wrong to treat their disorder and its causes, so we should just give them child porn and sex bots and call it a day? Clinically, paedophilia (meaning a primary- or more often- exclusive attraction to prepubescents) is associated with poor self-image, poor social skills and a lack of self-awareness. They can't understand other people or themselves, and so they turn to children over adults. It's only a sexual orientation superficially, at its heart it's a mental illness with identifiable symptoms.  

 

Also schizophrenia is a physical phenomenon, to some extent, so the point is moot. 

 

@Tyler: I literally have no idea. My gut tells me it's a sexual fetish* but I suppose if an eighteen year old shuns his or her peers romantically and jacks off to old grannies, it could be something clinical.

 

* As an aside, fetishes are a weird quirk of sexuality that are divided into two groups: those with genetic causes, like a foot fetish (essentially, your brain is wired to respond mainly to thighs, boobs and butts, slightly less to stomachs, shoulders and probably fingers, and feet dead last, though you can be wired differently so that feet and arms drive you wild and boobs are only kind of hot) and ones with environmental causes. The general understanding of the latter is that if you're exposed to a concept during crucial moments in sexual development, you sexualise them, so if you watch a lot of Disney movies about princess you'll be attracted to girls in crowns, or something to that effect. So I'd imagine people simply sexualise the concept of being elderly, the way fat fetishists often sexualise the concept of obesity. 

 

^I think this may be true. I'll use myself as an example. When I was a young girl, I was touched sexually by an older girl.and had no idea what the hell was going on, but didn't stop her. Long story short, although I was a little freaked out back then... ever since I only enjoy lesbian porn. However, I do not consider myself a lesbian as I am not attracted to females in the sense that I want to have a romantic relationship, nor would I want to actually engage in intercourse. The fantasy of it excites me though, but that's it. I'm sure there are pedofiles who are like that as well, and would not act upon it, but no way in hell can I ever trust a person who is, simply because I love children too much (am going to school to become a teacher). It is far too risky, and I certainly do not agree with giving them child porn to help them release their desires. Pedofiles have to know it's not okay and discover newer and healthier fetishes or better things to do with their time. A sexual fantasy should not control your life and have you want to rape a child. If it does, I say rot in hell and gtfo.  


CenMan
  • CenMan

    Big Homie

  • Members
  • Joined: 18 Sep 2005
  • None

#147

Posted 31 December 2013 - 12:07 AM

It should be treated as a mental illness in a place that removes them from the rest of society. Closed psychiatric institutions. I'll admit that paedophiles often can't control themselves and in some sense it's not really their fault, but we can't take the risk of just letting them walk free hoping the psychiatric help takes effect. That is if they've acted on their urges of course. You can't involuntarily lock up people because they're attracted to children since it would be incredibly hard to prove and it's harmless as long as they're rational enough to resist their urges. But if you've been out raping children, I don't care if your uncle touched you as a child or whatever f*cked you up, you have to be removed from society to prevent it happening again.

For the record I feel the same way about many other crimes. What good is it to lock up a murderer with lots of other murderers and then release him after a while? Prison needs to be as much about rehabilitation as punishment, perhaps more.

  • Panz likes this

Iroquois
  • Iroquois

    Mack Pimp

  • Members
  • Joined: 10 Nov 2011

#148

Posted 23 June 2014 - 01:52 AM

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.


I agree, culture nowadays totally sexualises children and this should be stopped. I mean we have the kardashians teaching girls how to be slutty, miley cyrus teaching how to be trashy as both of these examples are role models for children. We had that horrendous movie spring breakers aimed at teens as an audience which was very very inappropriate. Then finally we have underage actors/actresses in kick ass 2 discussing basically every single sexual act that exists in one scene. Words/topics i never expected to come out of a 17 year olds mouth.

Before we can combat pedophilism, one must eradicate sexualism in modern media. They should revert back to the censorship done in the 1930s. As someone has mentioned, the "disorder" cannot be controlled, so unfortunately it could/should somehow be defended or subdued.

Ari Gold
  • Ari Gold

  • Andolini Mafia Family
  • Joined: 14 Oct 2009
  • None

#149

Posted 27 June 2014 - 09:21 AM

Not that I want to digress too far away from the specific topic at hand, but do you really think that censoring media is going to de-sexualise the human populace and eradicate such immoral behaviour like... Promiscuity?

 

I really don't think it will. Even in the hey-day of modern conservative social values (the 1930s to the 1950s, as you select as an example), infidelity was common. People were bonking each other outside of their marriages. Teenagers wanted to rail each other up against a wall with the fury of a thousand suns. Some women were (and I sincerely apologise for the use of this word since I'm only using it as I think it's intellectually contextual) "sluts"; some males were overt womanisers. Low and behold, it's like that today. It's been like that for a long time. Ever since human bodies have possessed gonads which produced gametes required for copulating, sexual desire has been present, and the only originators to suppress/regulate "normal" sexual behaviour has come from those who have a larger, more arbitrary moral mission which is either tied to a political purpose and the exercise of power over particular people, or is tied to a religion/superstition.

 

You can have everyone in the media dress like they're Amish and act as if their views are as conservative as that of the Puritans, but that won't stop from teenagers experimenting sexually or engaging in activities which you view as immoral, repugnant and perverse.

 

With all due respect, I think your suggestion is born out of a very archaic worldview which leads the charge in "culture wars" against more progressive, liberal-minded individuals, something I'd expect from someone of my parent's or grandparent's generation, and not someone in active political debate in 2014.


orbitalraindrops
  • orbitalraindrops

    Homie

  • Andolini Mafia Family
  • Joined: 16 Feb 2012
  • None

#150

Posted 03 July 2014 - 06:02 PM

Not that I want to digress too far away from the specific topic at hand, but do you really think that censoring media is going to de-sexualise the human populace and eradicate such immoral behaviour like... Promiscuity?

 

Censoring the media wouldn't desexualise the human populace or irradicate such moral behaviour however you must note that when the media gives alot of coverage to events such as school shootings then the rate of school shootings does rise. It's obviously not the sole reason for school shootings happening and that's not what I want to turn this debate into but the point I was trying to make was that if the media portrays alot of sexualised imagery especially in regards to teens and younger people then sexual violence against them may go up. I'm not saying the media is the sole factor in this, or even a necessarily significant one. The majority of the blame will always lie with the perpetrators of these crimes. That said if the media showcases something or portrays it in a particular light then it is bringing the attention of such a thing to the whole of society. Paedophiles are a part of society even if they are outsiders to it and being barraged with images of young people in a risque way may add fuel to the fire in regard to there unhealthy urges.





1 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 1 guests, 0 anonymous users