well what i find interesting about this topic is that our disgust is influenced by sex

now if its a man and a little girl he is basically the devil for sullying her innocence and we throw him in jail and label him a sex offender which is of course jusitfied

however if its a woman and a young boy people tend to be far more lenient because of course men are sex driven hounds and should thus be glad to be embraced by women even at young and impressionable ages

therefore the women in these situations often get off with comparatively minor punishments, minor social contempt and in some cases free cheques every month if she gets a baby

yet we have a society that claims that sexism only ever affects women

fantasy is not an orientation but most convicted papist are repeat offfenders- so call it what you want results are the same- innocent victims

Fantasy is not an orientation (and neither is rape...), however, it is essentially what you are condemning people for. Nobody is defending those who have commited a crime so the statement about repeat offenders is moot. You however are supporting persecution due to thoughts and preference, not based on actions.

Additionally, innocent victims are involved with most sex based crimes, so why are you suggesting a different prevention plan for paedophiles than people with general sexual desires? You are drawing a line that doesn't really exist...

my post is straight forward-  try to use semantics to justify the most noxious "orientation" you want-  If pedofiles tryuly want help then eliminate the desire or have it done for them if they can t keep away from kids -   Too may laws ARE motivated by pure emotion/politics but fortunatley most laws that help protect children from pedofiles exist for legit reasons-  

I doubt too many parents, if any would let a "well meaning" pedodiles knowingly babsit their kids for good reason- 

It sounds like you favor the rights of pedofiles over the protection of children-  

So what ind of "support" do you think should be affordeded pedofiles?

i did not say i am for prosecution due to thought-  don t try atribute something to me that i did not say-  if yo do please quote it

"drawing a line that doesn t exist?"  The line does exist legally and otherwise

you should not forget that or you might get in serious trouble one day-  

1. How would that even come up? But anyway, in your scenario the parents know even less of their babysitter. So while it is unlikely that in a more accepting society the parents would even know their babysitter is a pedophile, it is almost impossible in the current scenario. Nothing is wrong with parents choosing that their babysitters aren't pedophiles, but how exactly would they find that out now? That is the argument being made. 

2. It is possible to value both. I think children are harmed by the ostracization of pedophiles, as the pedophiles fall into a cycle of depression and have less control over their impulses. 

3. For starters, not all pedophiles are exclusively attracted to children. Some are attracted to both children and adults. If their attraction to children is out in the open and addressed in therapy/counceling/support groups they can focus on their relationships with adults. For those who are exclusively interested in children, then they can focus on trying to find paedomorphic adults who entice them sexually (and advertise this interest) or they can focus on non-sexual human contact in life with maybe sexual outlets through fictional animation and cgi. Castration is a scary option, and like others have noted it doesn't remove sexual desire and has shown no correlation with reduced sexual attacks. It will prevent pedophiles from telling their family and friends about their pedophillia, and the consequence of this is that they are dealing with a moral dillema themselves, depression, and consequently are more susceptible to do things like looking at child pornography, which helps perpetuate the abuse of children in the world. 

OP, how many pedophiles do you know that haven't hurt anyone?

I would still be terrible disturbed if anyone had sexual thoughts about my children. Granted I'm not the thought police and can't control it, I would rather keep the negative stigma that it has.

First of all, pedophilia is attraction to prebubescent childeren. Being attracted to a 15/16 year old does not make you a pedophile (Although it does make you pervert, depending on your age.)

It always surprsises me how often people think that a '100 years ago' or during the Middle Ages or Roman times or whatever pedophilia was considered normal. It wasn't, although what we consider an acceptable age has increased.

It wasn't normal for girls to get married at 10 during the Middle Ages.They didn't marry until they could at least reproduce (or if a political marriage, it wasn't consumated until). Usually they didn't marry until a couple of years later. In Rome there was a law prohibiting having a concubine younger that 12 (although 12 is still ***** disgusting of course)

Anyone who has ever acted on it deserves no mercy..

If somebody said they had attraction to children they are a pedophile. They are also a law-abiding citizen in at the very least - the United States. It is only when they harm a child by looking at pornography or directly by sexually abusing the child that they commit a crime. This is not semantics. 

It is the same thing as somebody having a rape fantasy and actually raping somebody. 

http://www.theawl.com/2014/08/the-pedophiles-who-didnt-want-to-hurt-children

^ Very enlightening article.