By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close

Forums - Politics Discussion - Why Does Society On A Whole Look Down On Pedophilia?

wyluzuj said:
distasteful OT ... because it's fuc*** discusting to feel thrilled on sexual abuse of children !!!
It does not mater whether they want to rape in real or just in their fantasy, in both ways its discusting and a mental disease.

btw. "sexual orientation" and "sexual preferences" have been invented by the WHO to justify "homosexualism".
So they classify homosexualism as "sexual orientation" which is a good thing per WHO definition. On the other hand pedophilia, necrophilia, zoophilia etc. are classified as "sexual preferences" which are bad thing per WHO definition, means mental diseases.

So as you see in both cases you could say "they are just born like this" ... and it is still a stupid "excuse"

According to gender ideology there is no inborn sex/gender but only a sociological gender which you acquire during your life and which can also chage during your life. Which is bullshit of course, but you see how ridiculous some people argue for or against sth. just to justify their ideology.

So once again, according to gender ideology supporters:

Inborn SEX/GENDER does not exist at all (olthoug men are born with a penis and woman with a vagina ?!). There is only a sociological gender which you acquire during your life, so it's not possible to say/justify "they are just born with a gender like this" ...

but if it's up to "sexual orientation" then it's not something you acquire during your life but your are just born like that, inborn "sexual orientation" ?

HTF is the sex/gender itself not inborn and can be changed during life, but the "sexual orientation" is inborn and can't be changed ?!?! Just to justify the ideology?

SICK IDEOLOGIES FOR SIC PEOPLE !


Don't know why you're using definitions that you think are BS...

 

At any rate, regardless of how disgusting the actual act may be, there is never any reason to stigmatize thoughts.  I personally don't see any problem in a person being attracted to those younger than them, so long as they realize that actually following through on the act would be unfair and harmful and don't do it. 

Being a good person does not mean never having the impulse to harm another.  We have all thought of doing things that would hurt another.  Being a good person means that you have desires that would be pleasing to you but harmful to another, yet you realize that person's feelings are as important as yours, and so you restrain yourself.



Around the Network
Talal said:
reggin_bolas said:


I'm using historical fact to illustrate a point about slippery slopes. You think these so called civil rights end with gays being able to marry? Did feminism stop at the first wave? These groups always expand, hence why I resist and protest. 


You're literally admitting to using the slippery slope fallacy.

Not a fallacy if it's true and rooted in historical observation. You are, however, guilty of cherry picking who is considered normal and who is considered a perv. 



reggin_bolas said:

Sure they can, what do you mean they can't give informed consent? 

Can a child truly understand sex before they reach puberty and feel the urge to have sex? I think that is what qualifies as "informed" consent. 



reggin_bolas said:
Talal said:


You're literally admitting to using the slippery slope fallacy.

Not a fallacy if it's true and rooted in historical observation. You are, however, guilty of cherry picking who is considered normal and who is considered a perv. 


I think pedophilia is bad. The only thing I said in this thread is that they shouldn't be punished for only having thoughts, because that would be very dumb.

As for you comparing them to gays: When you ask me why having sexual relations with kids is wrong I can answer it easily. Because kids cannot give informed consent. When I ask you why homosexuality is wrong you'll probably answer "unnatural" "religion said it was wrong" or something like that. Homosexuality between 2 consenting adults does not harm anyone which is why it cannot be compared to pedophilia.



sc94597 said:
reggin_bolas said:

Sure they can, what do you mean they can't give informed consent? 

Can a child truly understand sex before they reach puberty and feel the urge to have sex? I think that is what qualifies as "informed" consent. 


I was going to say something along those lines, but then I realized that it's pointless.  You can't reason someone out of a position they weren't reasoned into.  So if you want to take the argument up, go for it, but I have to imagine there are more fruitful ways to spend your time.



Around the Network

Here you go. I don't care where or in who you put your dick, but at least be consistent about your political views. If you espouse gay rights, you must necessarily espouse the rights of other marginalized groups.

From
http://www.narth.org/docs/whatapa.html

In 1981, Dr. Theo Sandfort, co-director of the research program of the Department of Gay and Lesbian Studies at the University of Utrecht, Netherlands, interviewed 25 boys aged 10 to 16 who were currently involved in sexual relationships with adult men. The interviews took place in the homes of the men.

According to Sandfort, "For virtually all the boys ... the sexual contact itself was experienced positively..." Could an adult-child sexual contact, then, truly be called positive for the child? Based on the research presented, Sandfort answered that question in the affirmative.

Harris Mirkin recently wrote a lead article in the Journal of Homosexuality entitled "The Pattern of Sexual Politics: Feminism, Homosexuality and Pedophilia." Using social-constructionist theory, he argues that the concept of child molestation is a "culture- and class-specific creation" which can and should be changed.

He likens the battle for the legalization of pedophilia to the battles for women's rights, homosexual rights, and even the civil rights of blacks.



reggin_bolas said:
Here you go. I don't care where or in who you put your dick, but at least be consistent about your political views. If you espouse gay rights, you must necessarily espouse the rights of other marginalized groups.

From
http://www.narth.org/docs/whatapa.html

In 1981, Dr. Theo Sandfort, co-director of the research program of the Department of Gay and Lesbian Studies at the University of Utrecht, Netherlands, interviewed 25 boys aged 10 to 16 who were currently involved in sexual relationships with adult men. The interviews took place in the homes of the men.

According to Sandfort, "For virtually all the boys ... the sexual contact itself was experienced positively..." Could an adult-child sexual contact, then, truly be called positive for the child? Based on the research presented, Sandfort answered that question in the affirmative.

Harris Mirkin recently wrote a lead article in the Journal of Homosexuality entitled "The Pattern of Sexual Politics: Feminism, Homosexuality and Pedophilia." Using social-constructionist theory, he argues that the concept of child molestation is a "culture- and class-specific creation" which can and should be changed.

He likens the battle for the legalization of pedophilia to the battles for women's rights, homosexual rights, and even the civil rights of blacks.

Notice how it is 10 - 16. Most of them likely post-puberty (some start earlier than others.) That means he is not advocating pedophilia, but rather ephebophilia and/or hebephilia. 

 If he did the same study for 5-10 year olds, do you think it would be overwhelmingly true that the boys would like it? I can guarantee you a few would not from people I know who were molested as children. 



SuaveSocialist said:
Considering the thousands upon thousands of years where it was considered normal for 30 year old men to breed with young girls, pedophilia itself is unsurprising. A century ago, children were fair game for cheap labor and it hasn't been many generations since it was considered wrong to give a kid a good thrashing.

That being said, we as a people ha've moved on from this. We have reached the point where it is considered common sense to realize that child exploitation is BAD in any form. Pedophilia, as an attraction, is not harmful in of itself, but to act on that attraction is manifestly horrible and those who do deserve every consequence for doing so. It is in everyone's best interest that pedophiles accept this and get help, treatment, or whatever course of action limits the potential threat they pose to defenseless kids.

This. But people who claim they are pedophiles will be seen as sick, disgusting bastards; instead of having a mental disorder. So, a lot of pedophiles won't dare to go and get help because it's socially stigmatized. They need help, and some of them know that. I suppose that you can be a pedophile and be aware that it's wrong. 



Hmmmm, this is an interesting question and I'm impressed that someone asked it. It's definitely a complicated issue.

Do you agree that society looks down too much on Pedophilia? Probably so. I think most people like to think they have the monopoly on morality, but I'd like to think pedophiles deserve as much sympathy, compassion and chance for change (if they want to change) as anyone else.

Is this hate justified?

Again, I don't think so. It's categorized as one of the most taboo things you can do since society has such an innate instinct to protect its children. But pedophilia and child molestation are two very different things. The desire isn't inherently wrong, but acting on it is. That's just my initial opinion without much knowledge on the subject.

Overall what do you think on Pedophilia ( The attraction not the act of child abuse )?

I'm not disgusted by it since I've never personally known any pedophiles or been a subject of their desires (as far as I know). But just as a general group, I think it's no better or worse than any other sexual deviation considered socially unacceptable. People can have attraction to animals, robots, cartoon ponies, children, etc. and as long as they don't act on it by harming another individual, I guess it's whatever they want to do? Sounds weird me typing that, but I guess that's my opinion on the matter.

As a side note, it wasn't that long ago that all homosexuals were suspected pedophiles. To my knowledge, that theory has been largely discredited as society became more accepting of the LGBT population and learned to understand and educate itself about things that it once feared (LGBT people). I think the same should go for pedophiles, like I said above. They deserve the same amount of compassion and sensitivity towards their issues as anyone else. I realize the fundamental difference is that homosexuality is between two consenting adults, while pedophilia is not; however, I'm just saying, it's easy to pass judgment and much more difficult to try and understand. We're all humans on this earth and deserve that understanding. I'm sure I might feel differently if I had children, or had been abused myself, or known anyone that had been sexually abused as a child.



It'll be awhile before I figure out how to do one of these. :P 

Ka-pi96 said:
SuaveSocialist said:
Considering the thousands upon thousands of years where it was considered normal for 30 year old men to breed with young girls, pedophilia itself is unsurprising. A century ago, children were fair game for cheap labor and it hasn't been many generations since it was considered wrong to give a kid a good thrashing.

That being said, we as a people ha've moved on from this. We have reached the point where it is considered common sense to realize that child exploitation is BAD in any form. Pedophilia, as an attraction, is not harmful in of itself, but to act on that attraction is manifestly horrible and those who do deserve every consequence for doing so. It is in everyone's best interest that pedophiles accept this and get help, treatment, or whatever course of action limits the potential threat they pose to defenseless kids.

1. Just thought I'd point out that breeding with young girls and paedophillia aren't the same. Paedophillia is strictly children that have yet to reach puberty, making breeding with them impossible.

2. Even when men would marry much younger girls they wouldn't go 'that' young.

1. Correct.  But after thousands of years of this, it is hardly inconceivable that there would be people who'd feel a natural attraction towards the prepubescent.  

2. Actually, it was once very common that the men in question would choose the wife years before her first blood.  The marriage typically wouldn't happen until after (as it would have been utterly pointless before hand), but there was plenty of room for attraction to exist before she was biologically ready to become a mother.