Should Paedophilia be Seriously Defended?

[Otter 7,928]

 

I don't see how his thought process is broken.

Well, you could note that he just posted a "gotcha" comment, despite the fact that I haven't posted anything to the contrary and, in fact, shared the same sentiment in my first post in this thread. This is, if course, just the tip of the iceberg.

[nlitement 11]

 

In purely hypothetical terms, it doesn't pose a threat. There's no clear objective and empirical connection between exposure to simulated child pornography and violent or abnormal sexual behaviour as far as I'm aware. But there are tangible links between people who view real child abuse images, and an increased likelihood of going on to commit criminal sexual acts. Whilst I do believe that the best way to treat paedophiles is medically as opposed to judicially, I don't buy into the idea that providing them with all the legal but simulated sexual gratification they want will reduce the number of paedophiles who go on to commit violent or abhorrent sexual acts against real people. Any more than providing rape porn for other kinds of violent sexual offenders would.

This might even be unknowable, honestly. It is very difficult to collect data to determine using rigorous statistical analysis whether there is a significant link between the provision of erotic drawings/images and acts of child abuse. We can use our reasoning, but that will always lead to disagreements.

 

There is one major fact that often goes missing in this debate, though, and it is that cases of child sexual abuse have gone down to at least half of the rate 20 years ago. This wasn't because of pedophiles jacking it to porn being arrested as much as it was about increasing awareness and establishing support networks. I'm glad the discussion is becoming more civil, because this video is a good example of how pedophilia was treated like a decade ago:

 

 

[sivispacem 21,263]

A fair point, but there have been numerous cases of violence- not necessarily sexual- against children that have occurred in recent years where the perpetrator has been shown to possess sexual material in reference to children. You're right about there being a total lack of actual statistical information but it stands to reason give that the number of people exposed to child pornography must be such a small proportion of society that the frequent tangential links between child porn and violence against children can't be disregarded. In reference to your second point, I'd argue that proliferation of child pornography is probably lower today than it has been historically- given that the metric for assessing the age of individuals involved in voluntary pornography before about the early 1990s were much less stringent, and given that the age of consent for involvement in pornography in several parts of continental Europe during the 1960s through 1980s was considerably below 18.

 

OT (shut up, it's my subforum so I'm allowed to) but Monkey Dust is the funniest f*cking thing ever.

Edited August 5, 2013 by sivispacem

[El Dildo 14,384]

 

Well, you could note that he just posted a "gotcha" comment, despite the fact that I haven't posted anything to the contrary and, in fact, shared the same sentiment in my first post in this thread. This is, if course, just the tip of the iceberg.

sticks and stones, nigga.

 

if you have nothing to add but spam, please stop referencing me and move on with the discussion.

[BRITLAND 84]

Pedo type sh*t is overrated in terms of satan, sure it's bad but not the worst crime in the world

[sivispacem 21,263]

Pedo type sh*t is overrated in terms of satan, sure it's bad but not the worst crime in the world

Please leave D&D and don't come back until you've learned how to contribute.

[D4 Damager 125]

Pedo type sh*t is overrated in terms of satan, sure it's bad but not the worst crime in the world

A couple of points:

 

1. Pedo type sh*t. What is that? Are you referring to the paraphilia or the act of having sex with children? Or both?

2. terms of satan. What are they? Certainly an expression which I've never heard used before.

3. Your whole one line post doesn't really relate to the topic at hand. You're talking about crimes when the debate at hand is actually about the sexualisation of minors by adults.

[AtomicPunk 310]

I think the U.S. should hang pedophiles upon evidence gathered. Straight to the rope. Satanist pedo's trying to convince others that there's nothing wrong with it is usually in left-winged forums that I've been to.

[D4 Damager 125]

Well I think that that is a terrible idea. And as well as being ridiculous it also doesn't relate at all to the topic. We aren't talking about sex crime against children -- we are talking about a specific paraphilia.

[RockStarNiko 22]

Paedophilia is the primary or exclusive adult sexual interest in pre-pubescent boys or girls, generally aged 10 and below

 

Hebephilia is the primary or exclusive adult sexual interest in pubescent boys or girls, generally aged 11-14

 

Ephebophilia is the primary or exclusive adult sexual interest in mid-to-late adolescents, generally aged 15-19

 

 

If a man finds a girl in her mid to late teens attractive, does that make him a paedophile

 

Technical definition says no

 

Mother nature says no

 

Media says yes

 

Law of the land says yes or no depending on the country

 

Angry abuse victim says yes

 

Happy abuse victim says no

 

Religious zealot says yes or no depending on which religion

 

So who is right and who is wrong?

 

 

The law of the land would probably win if it was a game of top trumps

 

 

What I believe is also important and should be a factor is whether the person is a virgin or not as the laws and morals around age of consent are primarily to do with protecting innocence

 

There might be a 19yo bible thumping innocent virgin on one hand and an experienced 14yo slut who has had more cocks in her than Miley Cyrus on the other hand

 

Who is the more innocent?

 

Age of consent also varies greatly around the world

 

One extreme you have age of consent being basically "if married" with no minimum age required for marriage

 

The other extreme would be 21 (Think that is the highest but wouldn't be surprised if there was a 25 somewhere)

 

Which country has got the age of consent right?

 

 

Mohammed, the prophet for over 1 billion people on the planet had many wives, one of whom was only 9 years old when he popped her cherry

 

Do those billion followers of his believe that is morally acceptable or unacceptable

 

What does the rest of the world think?

 

Personally I think it a tad too young myself, but when I see a gorgeous bit of jailbait walking down the street, then once get home have a tommy tank over her I don't feel guilty in the slightest

 

 

Finally, what about celebrities

 

Roman Polanski and Woody Allen, both had sexual relationships with underage girls, both still being nominated for academy awards

 

Rolf Harris, had sexual relationship with underage girls, currently being crucified by the press

 

What about the Beatles, Rolling Stones and other huge rock and pop bands?

 

Do you really think that McCartney and Jagger never f**ked some jailbait groupie? Seriously?

 

 

Needs to be little more consistency and less hypocrisy methinks

[Cilogy 479]

This is a very interesting discussion.

 

I can see a circumstance in which pedophilia may be considered an "orientation", but I think acting on those impulses has pretty tremendous consequences. Our society has agreed that children often do not have the maturity and level of responsibility to actually understand what 'consent' means. They don't understand the implications of giving someone consent, sexually speaking. If they do so, they might not even truly grasp what that means until they themselves are much older. Not only that, most children may not truly grasp the implications of the major decisions they make. To be at such an impressionable age and also be subjected to a sexual experience that we may not even entirely understand can have lasting effects throughout our lifetime. Think of all the people who are adults or elders now who may be somewhat messed up because of sexual experiences they had as children.

 

Simply being attracted to young children doesn't seem entirely wrong to me, because it's innately human to be attracted to things that appeal to us, but I guess acting on these impulses is where it crosses into very gray territory. Unfortunately our society overreacts and immediately criminalizes people who even consider thoughts of pedophilia.

[Gasmasks 319]

I really need to read the rules better around here. And possibly the whole damn thread before I comment, in future. Please, everyone laugh at me.

Edited November 1, 2013 by sivispacem
Read the damn thread next time.

[theNGclan 9,725]

What about all the people who are into age-play? You know, sexual roleplay in which one person pretends to be a younger age? A lot of people are into that and nobody ever really acknowledges it. Does that instantly make them a candidate for pedophilia? By what most of the people are saying on here, you can't have a SINGLE BIT of attraction to someone younger than you.

 

Admit it, EVERYONE has checked out that 16 year old girl at the mall. Everyone has looked at some guy's daughter and wanted to hit that, but most people never act upon those thoughts. If you can't accept that having an attraction to those younger than you isn't a medical condition, you're judging people off of something that they can't change.

 

Pedos KNOW having sex with children is ethically wrong, and they risk their life to have sex with a child sometimes. Is it wrong? Ethically, yes, but they can't help it. It's either the thrill of the struggle for power or the whole attraction to a minor. If they could stop themselves, they would, nobody wants to be bashed constantly. People just want to be accepted. Year ago, paedophilia was accepted in dozens of cultures, now it's shunned. It isn't really fair to those who can't help but check out younger people, now is it?

[El Dildo 14,384]

What about all the people who are into age-play?

Does that instantly make them a candidate for pedophilia?

 

Pedos KNOW having sex with children is ethically wrong

 

first of all, age-play is not pedophilia.

it's age-play. it's adults.

 

pedophilia is clear; it's physical sexual relations with a child.

age-play is just another fetish between consenting adults.

 

I would also argue that some pedophiles DO NOT KNOW that their desires are wrong.

I think you're being very naive if you assume that all pedophiles are aware of their sickness. many real/true pedophiles are sick in the head the same way that a Schizophrenic is sick in the head. some of them honestly believe that children are hitting on them or desire to be violated. they see harmless small-talk with a child @ a playground as the child coming on to them.

 

I'm not pulling this out of my ass either.

it's been revealed time and time again in psychiatric research into the minds of sex offenders and members of NAMBLA (North American Man Boy Love Association). people who engage children sexually usually have a chemical imbalance issue with their brains.

[Tracksuit Hitman 732]

Most children below the age of sixteen don't understand such problems in life as well as young adults and adults do. To me, any sexual contact with a child below the age of sixteen is wrong. At that age, children still have a lot to learn about life and sex. Teenagers experimenting with one another is not necessarily a good thing, but it's better than experimenting with people ten, twenty years older than them. If a sixteen year old and a fifteen year old, for example, want to experiment sexually, it's better than a fifteen year old girl having sex with a forty year old. Children need to learn with their peers.

 

Taking advantage of a child is disgusting. Taking advantage of anybody, despite their age is disgusting. It's just morally wrong. Even with a child's consent, the adult should have some level of self control to wait until the child is old enough to properly know what they're getting into. Sixteen and eighteen are both ages that are set as the legal age and those laws should be respected. They shouldn't be respected just as laws, but for moral-based reasons. Even if a fifteen year old and a twenty four year old are in love the twenty four year old should control themselves.

[Clem Fandango 5,167]

Teenagers experimenting with one another is not necessarily a good thing

Um, okay? Care to tell us why?

 

Also sixteen sounds a bit arbitrary. A lot of people lose their virginity at fifteen, sometimes to people that are like eighteen. It's really not that unusual.

[Tracksuit Hitman 732]

 

Teenagers experimenting with one another is not necessarily a good thing

 

Um, okay? Care to tell us why?

 

Also sixteen sounds a bit arbitrary. A lot of people lose their virginity at fifteen, sometimes to people that are like eighteen. It's really not that unusual.

In some cases it's just to an attempt to get popular and sometimes can totally change their lives, especially girls nowadays. Some girls that are fourteen "dress to impress" by wearing revealing clothes, most of the time after having sex. It may seem good to the teenage boys but it isn't when you think about it. Dressing like that is the reason why somebody is sexually abused in some cases. It's not all wrong, just in some cases.

 

Whether there's a law or not, it's always going to be broken. I know girls who lost their virginity when they were thirteen or younger. I also know girls that have been sexually abused at those ages. Parents, family members and teachers need to start teaching children to avoid being a potential target of sexual abuse rather than just saying "don't walk home on your own" or "don't speak to strangers".

[Clem Fandango 5,167]

...

 

The way a woman dresses has nothing to do with her sexual availability. What, so, chaste girls all wear baggy shirts and long skirts?

 

Also here's a newsflash: girls want sex too. Teenage girls are just as horny and eager to f*ck as teenage boys. I don't think you mean to be, but you're being quite sexist.

[Finn 7 five 11 928]

...

 

The way a woman dresses has nothing to do with her sexual availability. What, so, chaste girls all wear baggy shirts and long skirts?

 

Also here's a newsflash: girls want sex too. Teenage girls are just as horny and eager to f*ck as teenage boys. I don't think you mean to be, but you're being quite sexist.

Agreed.

 

Besides which, Sex isn't as big a deal as some people make it out to be, I don't think it matters if someone is 13 when they lose it, provided it's with someone of similar age, simply because someone older is likely taking advantage and manipulating them.

[Tracksuit Hitman 732]

...

 

The way a woman dresses has nothing to do with her sexual availability. What, so, chaste girls all wear baggy shirts and long skirts?

 

Also here's a newsflash: girls want sex too. Teenage girls are just as horny and eager to f*ck as teenage boys. I don't think you mean to be, but you're being quite sexist.

 

I'm not being sexist. I said that in some cases men are more attracted to girls that reveal more. I wasn't implying that because somebody's wearing revealing clothes they're asking to get sexually abused. There's nothing wrong with dressing to impress, but it will cause more looks to be given.

 

I'm not trying to say girls who don't reveal anything don't get abused, either.

Edited December 2, 2013 by Unoriginal Gangster

[Clem Fandango 5,167]

Erm, your point was that girls who are sexually available will reveal more, and therefore be more likely to be sexually assaulted. Girls dress according to fashion, personal taste and a host of other things before impressing men.

 

Besides, what does "revealing" clothes even refer to? Short skirts, singlets? These are pretty common amongst girls of all ages and levels of sexual experience.

[sivispacem 21,263]

Quite aside from whether it's morally questionable to imply that, I'm not even sure it's true. It's a totally moot point unless he can support it with evidence.

[Tracksuit Hitman 732]

Erm, your point was that girls who are sexually available will reveal more, and therefore be more likely to be sexually assaulted. Girls dress according to fashion, personal taste and a host of other things before impressing men.

 

Besides, what does "revealing" clothes even refer to? Short skirts, singlets? These are pretty common amongst girls of all ages and levels of sexual experience.

My point was that more revealing clothing catches the eye more often and will almost probably end up with somebody having sexual desires which may lead to sexual abuse. I've not implied that the only factor which causes sexual abuse is revealing clothing, hence why I've used the words some and most a lot. However, it's my opinion and I'm not trying to imply that everything I believe is a fact and can be proven with evidence. I do believe that most children who're sexually abused when teenagers are probably targeted because of what is revealed such as legs (if they're in a school uniform).

 

However, I've caused us to swerve off topic a bit, whoops!

 

Recently in the news was this Lost Prophets member and how he'd been having sex with babies (one of which was eleven months old); he even took pictures whilst in the act. This is sick and this is the kind of thing that's hard to even think of defending, even for argument sake. The parents that said nothing are been worse than the offender, if you ask me.

 

Pre-teens seem to be being targeted more than when I was in that age group. You've got people hanging around schools and driving around the block over and over; it's as if they're trying to get caught, either that or they're just stupid. My little brother told me that his teachers had been telling the kids at his school that there'd been a van and an old man seen outside the gates and fences and that the kids should either get picked up or walk in groups. So why is nothing done? Surely the school have CCTV, so shouldn't the authorities be contacted, shown the footage and asked to deal with the suspicious dudes appropriately? And then people wonder how kids get picked up not so far from their schools.

 

I reckon teenage boys and girls are being targeted via social networking and IM services more than anything these days. You've got Snapchat, BBM, Omegle, Skype and all sorts and you always hear people complaining about receiving explicit images or being threatened and blackmailed by people they met over the internet. There's probably more targeting via online services than in reality nowadays. Of course there's still offences happening in reality though.

 

In some cases it could be because the offender was abused himself/herself as a child or it could be down to a disability, it could even be nothing. Either way, no matter what the excuse, I don't think offending or non-offending pedophiles should be defended in any way if they've not even tried to seek help.

 

I'm posting from my iPad by the way, so I apologise if anything is worded wrong or if there's f*cked up grammar. That's probably why my previous posts (which we were talking about) are worded so terribly.

 

EDIT: Today's fashion is f*cked, everything's about sex these days. Well, not everything but there's too much of it. There's advertisements on TV that joke about things that refer to sex, some celebrities are just all about sex and being sexy (Miley, yeah?) and it's just all f*cked up. I'm not blaming the teens that wear the clothes that are in fashion, I blame whoever made it cool to practically skip your childhood.

Edited December 3, 2013 by Unoriginal Gangster

[sivispacem 21,263]

I doubt it's happening any more than it used to, just being picked up on more. Partially because the sheer volume of ill-informed paranoia surrounding the subject that the media feeds with sensationalism and vitriol, and partially due to recent events concerning historic abuse in the UK shining a light on current abuse and resulting in a dramatic increase in people coming forward to highlight cases of abuse that have happened to them or those they know. I personally doubt that the last decade's worth of media crusade has done anything to actually reduce the amount of abuse taking place; nor do I believe that increased surveillance, more attention from the media or any of the recent government incentives will have any more effect than creating deluded mob justice that results in the targeting of completely innocent people based on Chinese Whispers, as happened with the Iraqi immigrant who was beaten to death and set on fire in Bristol because he was arrested for disturbing the peace for photographing the teenagers who vandalised his house.

[Tracksuit Hitman 732]

I doubt it's happening any more than it used to, just being picked up on more. Partially because the sheer volume of ill-informed paranoia surrounding the subject that the media feeds with sensationalism and vitriol, and partially due to recent events concerning historic abuse in the UK shining a light on current abuse and resulting in a dramatic increase in people coming forward to highlight cases of abuse that have happened to them or those they know. I personally doubt that the last decade's worth of media crusade has done anything to actually reduce the amount of abuse taking place; nor do I believe that increased surveillance, more attention from the media or any of the recent government incentives will have any more effect than creating deluded mob justice that results in the targeting of completely innocent people based on Chinese Whispers, as happened with the Iraqi immigrant who was beaten to death and set on fire in Bristol because he was arrested for disturbing the peace for photographing the teenagers who vandalised his house.

You're probably right. There's no denying that these social applications (such as Snapchat) are a problem though. I read a few Snapchat reviews and almost every one referred to the explicit picture swapping 'games'. Sure, the application wasn't made for them reasons but nowadays it's as if swapping explicit pictures with people you hardly know is okay because it's being referred to so much on the internet.

 

I don't even agree with half of these people who're coming forward with their experiences. Most of them came forward after the whole Jimmy Savile thing came out. You see people coming forward twenty to forty years after the events. If you've gone on that long then why come forward now? Especially those who are still coming out blaming Savile. He's dead, what the f*ck are they trying to achieve?

[Clem Fandango 5,167]

My point was that more revealing clothing catches the eye more often and will almost probably end up with somebody having sexual desires which may lead to sexual abuse.

Erm, your point was that women shouldn't become sexually active at a young age, because they'll use revealing clothes to advertise their availability and that this will lead to rape. The point is essentially "don't have sex for a long time so you can stay innocent and not get raped." Horribly sexist and offensive.

 

Even the less extreme claim that "short skirts make guys rapey" I find highly offensive as it shifts the focus away from the perpetrator and onto the victim. If a man sees revealing clothes as an invitation to rape, then culpability lies with him and the culture that socialised him to think that way, not the victim that didn't radically alter her sartorial sensibilities so as to be unappealing to rapists.

 

 

 

Today's fashion is f*cked, everything's about sex these days. Well, not everything but there's too much of it. There's advertisements on TV that joke about things that refer to sex, some celebrities are just all about sex and being sexy (Miley, yeah?) and it's just all f*cked up. I'm not blaming the teens that wear the clothes that are in fashion, I blame whoever made it cool to practically skip your childhood.

And now it seems like you're claiming that rape and sexual abuse stem from a sexually permissive culture? Can you really not see how "there's too much sex these days! we're telling young girls to wear short skirts when there are rapists out there!" is both fundamentally wrong and offensive?

[Tracksuit Hitman 732]

I've not once said anything to imply that I blame girls for wearing the revealing clothing and I've not said anything to defend the perps. I know that my wording is f*cked because of the iPad crashing and making me we-write my posts two or three times but it's not so bad that it should be giving implications that I'm sexist, blaming girls for what sh*t culture and society we have or defending pedophiles.

[Clem Fandango 5,167]

Even if you aren't blaming the victims you're still shifting the focus onto them, and doing other offensive things like implying a connection between fashion sense and sexual availability.

[Tracksuit Hitman 732]

Even if you aren't blaming the victims you're still shifting the focus onto them, and doing other offensive things like implying a connection between fashion sense and sexual availability.

 

To me, there's no sense in revealing half of your body in the streets on a daily basis.

 

But just to elaborate as we don't seem to be on the same page, by revealing clothing I'm not talking about the majority of what's in the catalogs. I'm talking about wearing clothes that show way too much cleavage and shorts that show arse cheeks (literally showing the bottom of their bum). You can't possibly be saying that that's a fashion sense? There's no f*cking sense in that at all, there's no need.

 

And no, I'm not being sexist. I'm saying that sh*t like that catches the eye more than a girl who's got a fashionable but not OTT style. It's not the only factor but you've made such a big deal out of nothing but an opinion which deserved one or two responses max.

[Clem Fandango 5,167]

I'm "making a big deal out of it" because you've offended my sensibilities. You're literally claiming that women should dress a certain way to avoid "catching the eye" of a rapist. That's totally asinine.