- Joined
- Jun 11, 2009
- Messages
- 19,657
- Reaction score
- 8,454
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Libertarian
That would make the sexually attracted to the same sex---If they commit some sexual act.
Men that "molest" young boys in a non-sexual manner are still criminals, and hang them as well.
Duress is harmful.
I've read people dealing with pedophiles are opposed to that kind of porn, but I can't see how it's any more problematic than any kind of fantasy porn, or different than a Hollywood movie that includes assassinations, murder, rape, robbery, drug dealing, drug use, etc. Compelling evidence could convince me otherwise, but I can't imagine why a LEGAL outlet for a fantasy that is illegal and harmful to society to act on is a problem. Especially, as I imagine the alternative to 'fake' kiddie porn involving no children is real kiddie porn that will harm the children involved.
I just had another thought that complicates things even more. What about men who were sexually abused as children that repeat the cycle? They weren't "born that way" but Bc of what was done to them, they now continue the cycle of perversion. One could say they are a prisoner of their own unfortunate circumstance.
Incorrect. The distress that it can cause, either through action, non-action, or because of the thoughts themselves demonstrate the disorder.
Exactly and the same is true for gays
Are there ways to rid society of pedophilia?So if it is all beyond a person's control I.e. an imbalance in their brain, I suspect that there are various ways to rid ourselves of this pervasive problem. But, if a medical solution is not found, then a purely physical one could be used as a stronger deterrent.
I don't think it's that simple. Many who are abused never repeat the cycle, nor do they have any inclination whatsoever. This suggest... as a possibility, not a certainty... that those who do are 'born that way'.I just had another thought that complicates things even more. What about men who were sexually abused as children that repeat the cycle? They weren't "born that way" but Bc of what was done to them, they now continue the cycle of perversion. One could say they are a prisoner of their own unfortunate circumstance.
Or it could not. Really, that kind of projection... or stereotype... is dangerous, and is why we have commonly believed misinformation on a myriad of topics.If you find yourself distressed by gays, it could be due to some sort of fascination with them.Exactly and the same is true for gays
It can also be perfectly legal, as it seems to have been in Delaware in 1895, where according to the New York Times the age of consent seems to have been 7.
Not at all. Please post where I said that.
It was a question thus the question mark at the end of the sentence. I don't see how being attracted to the same sex is not a disorder if being attracted to children is. Both are deviant behaviors so the distinction is???
That seems to me a bit of circular reasoning. Being attracted to the same gender is a disorder since it is a deviant behavior, or at least acting on the attraction is, so being gay is a disorder.
The bottom line to all of this is that acting on same sex attraction among adults hurts no one, while acting on an attraction to young children does.
Moreover, an attraction to young children seems to me to stem from having been abused or from other trauma, and is thus better defined as a psychological disorder. An attraction to the same gender is something some people are simply born with, and not something acquired through a psychological trauma.
Being a pedophile is not a crime... it IS a disorder. ACTING on being a pedophile is a crime. It's a little bit sematical but that's the distinction.
There is no evidence that I know of to show that pedophiles are born that way.Is it? Or, are you succumbing to trendy political correctness in making this distinction?
In a way it kind of comes off as a cop out. The stuff of which we approve "just is" and is nobody's fault, while the stuff of which we disapprove just has to be somebody's fault, we have this inner need to blame somebody. Yet if you look at apples & apples as in motivation vs motivation and action vs action (not effect on those who may be unable to give consent), there's really not a whole lot of difference between the two. Both have an inner desire/urge that drives them to do 'X'.
I suspect you're confusing the concepts of evidence and proof. Which only serves to reinforce my suspicion that you are viewing them from a PC mindset. There's plenty of evidence. Proof? Not so much.There is no evidence that I know of to show that pedophiles are born that way.
And the real distinction is that homosexuality hurts no one. Pedophilia does.
If you're going to "deny my point", then it behooves you to present some evidence that pedophiles are actually born pedophiles.I suspect you're confusing the concepts of evidence and proof. Which only serves to reinforce my suspicion that you are viewing them from a PC mindset. There's plenty of evidence. Proof? Not so much.
And I specifically addressed the effect part, and no, effect has nothing to do with an individual's motivation. Point denied.
Are there ways to rid society of pedophilia?
If it were possible to eliminate every single person who has committed pedophilia, AND every single person who has even thought about committing pedophilia, and the world were completely void of any person even slightly prone to it... would it then be truly eliminated? Or, would new people be born pre-disposed and it begin all over again?
There is a way to eliminate child molesters from society, or at least to cut back on the incidence of it dramatically. Think about it: An armed robber, even after he's payed his debt to society, is not allowed to have a gun. He can still get one illegally, of course, but he's risking going back to jail.
A pedophile, in contrast, can not get his weapon back once it's been removed, so he's no longer a threat to anyone.
Just remove their weapons after the first offense. Problem solved.
If the individual's motivation is dominance, as some researchers suggest is a possibility at least for some, then it wouldn't matter. They'd just use some inanimate object.
I would agree with this, but now I'm going to play Devil's Advocate and extend the question a bit?
Would creating/sharing/obtaining "kiddie porn" that is either animated or portrayed by adults made up to look like kids... in other words, no actual children were used at all... qualify as acting on it?
It was a question thus the question mark at the end of the sentence. I don't see how being attracted to the same sex is not a disorder if being attracted to children is. Both are deviant behaviors so the distinction is???
One causes harm when acted upon, the other does not.
Incorrect. The distress that it can cause, either through action, non-action, or because of the thoughts themselves demonstrate the disorder.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?