Support NeoGAF

[NinjaFridge]

To avoid derailment I'll send you a PM.

Me too please, if it isn't too much bother.

 

[Acerac]

Well, I agree with the post about there being a difference between the "thought" and the "action."

That said, there should be zero tolerance for any action...including pictures. That is all.

I agree that we should be very strict on this sort of thing to avoid endangering or exploiting children. That said, what is your stance on digitally produced pictures or art? I bring it up as it allows an outlet for these people who lack one otherwise and would serve as a replacement where no children would be harmed or taken advantage of.

 

[i-Lo]

This one hits close to home, in a slightly different and perhaps more sinister way. It's just far too embarrassing for me seek help when it comes to things of such sensitive nature and of such magnitude. The non-sociopathic people who bury it and have yet to transgress in the eyes of society do so because of guilt, fear or humiliation and potentially ending their careers.

 

[THRILLH0]

The main reason why it is very much unlike homosexuality and should never ever be viewed as such:

When an adult man is attracted to another adult man, and it's mutual, and they act on it, no one is harmed.

When an adult man is attracted to a nine year old girl, it's not mutual, because she has no ability to understand attraction. It's also incredibly damaging to the child if its acted upon; most abuse victims never fully recover from their experiences.

So, safe, sane, and consensual sex between two adults vs a man ruining a child's entire life. Get it now?

The research is arguing that paedophilia is akin to hetero or homosexuality as it pertains to the attraction itself.

When it comes to the way that attraction manifests itself, then it certainly is different as you say.

 

[BeesEight]

Sometimes. Honestly this thread is looking a lot less inflammatory than most threads on this topic. Up til now nobody even brought up Sennorin, something that's usually a given.

Wait for the next incest thread.

I want to take this opportunity to ask for your views on bestiality; the lack of consent dismisses any consideration of this. However, we don't bring consent into the equation when we eat meat. Is this not a contradiction especially when consuming eat is not vital to live?

You wouldn't have sex with your salad before eating it, would you?

To be honest, I've never been a huge fan of animal rights. I think that rights are part of the hypothetical social contract and, by their nature, animals can not enter said social contract. So... yeah, if you really want to sex up your sheep, have at it [but obviously don't if your local laws forbid it].

I agree that we should be very strict on this sort of thing to avoid endangering or exploiting children. That said, what is your stance on digitally produced pictures or art? I bring it up as it allows an outlet for these people who lack one otherwise and would serve as a replacement where no children would be harmed or taken advantage of.

Are there studies on this? I know with psychopathy there's an "escalation of action" where people with the disorder generally start off with mild actions and work up to killing. My one concern would be that giving opportunities to indulge you may be promoting further experimentation as well as a need to try and further the exploration of their urges.

On the other hand, if it is an effective replacement then I say give them the dolls and drawings. I just think we need more research on the matter more than anything else.

 

[wandering goat]

I agree that we should be very strict on this sort of thing to avoid endangering or exploiting children. That said, what is your stance on digitally produced pictures or art? I bring it up as it allows an outlet for these people who lack one otherwise and would serve as a replacement where no children would be harmed or taken advantage of.

I think digitally created / drawn pictures should definitely be legal for this very reason. While also being a sexual orientation, pedophilia doesn't allow one to seek willing partners like being straight or gay does. As such, there has to be another form of release. And I don't know about anyone else, but I don't know if I've ever "created" a fantasy women out of midair when jerking it. There could be porn, that hot girl you saw / know, etc. So no matter what you think of it, if the alternative to looking at what is a drawing where no actual children are harmed vs. thinking about that little girl he saw earlier in the day (which though still not really a crime, I think isn't exactly conducive to keeping action from thought / feeling separate), I think the choice is obvious.

 

[Brian Griffin]

I think digitally created / drawn pictures should definitely be legal for this very reason. While also being a sexual orientation, pedophilia doesn't allow one to seek willing partners like being straight or gay does. As such, there has to be another form of release. And I don't know about anyone else, but I don't know if I've ever "created" a fantasy women out of midair when jerking it. There could be porn, that hot girl you saw / know, etc. So no matter what you think of it, if the alternative to looking at what is a drawing where no actual children are harmed vs. thinking about that little girl he saw earlier in the day (which though still not really a crime, I think isn't exactly conducive to keeping action from thought / feeling separate), I think the choice is obvious.

Agreed. Unless good studies found that viewing fake-CP led you to abuse actual children then there is no one being hurt by it and it should be allowed.

 

[Kettch]

though I would still understand limitations that may be put on them, such as restrictions on the ability to work with or care for children. I would think that would be similar to something like not allowing mentally retarded people to work with complex and dangerous machinery (maybe a bad example, but what came to mind.)

I don't particularly like this, as it assumes the worst of someone. Would you also restrict contact with their own children if they have any? That type of avoidance should definitely be encouraged for anyone who is seeking help with their struggles though, making it clear that this would simply make it easier to not give in. Requiring it on the assumption that people cannot control themselves though is not something I'm comfortable with.

 

[dojokun]

I don't particularly like this, as it assumes the worst of someone. Would you also restrict contact with their own children if they have any? That type of avoidance should definitely be encouraged for anyone who is seeking help with their struggles though, making it clear that this would simply make it easier to not give in. Requiring it on the assumption that people cannot control themselves though is not something I'm comfortable with.

That's a good point, and I didn't think GAF had anyone willing to ponder it. You restrict people when they have given you a reason to think they can't be trusted, not because their sexual orientation points in a certain direction.

You don't restrict heterosexual caretakers from taking care of the opposite sex, or homosexual caretakers from taking care of the same sex. You do it when the person, regardless of orientation, has a history (or has come forward to admit having trouble controlling urges) that suggests lack of control. Likewise with someone sexually oriented to be attracted to kids, you don't just assume they lack the self-control not to molest kids anymore than you assume that people attracted to adults lack the self-control not to molest adults.

Of course I say this as a general government policy, which balances the rights of people who have committed no crime with concerns of others. If I had kids I'd obviously feel better with them being taken care of by someone who wasn't attracted to kids, but that doesn't mean the government has to ban the person from taking care of my kids. I am free to make that call by asking someone else to take care of my kids.

 

[Tex117]

I agree that we should be very strict on this sort of thing to avoid endangering or exploiting children. That said, what is your stance on digitally produced pictures or art? I bring it up as it allows an outlet for these people who lack one otherwise and would serve as a replacement where no children would be harmed or taken advantage of.

An interesting question for sure. I would need to see scientific research of how viewing these types of images affect the individual.

In other words, this is a scientific question and not a political one.

 

[Kettch]

You don't restrict heterosexual caretakers from taking care of the opposite sex, or homosexual caretakers from taking care of the same sex. You do it when the person, regardless of orientation, has a history (or has come forward to admit having trouble controlling urges) that suggests lack of control. Likewise with someone sexually oriented to be attracted to kids, you don't just assume they lack the self-control not to molest kids anymore than you assume that people attracted to adults lack the self-control not to molest adults.

Yeah, it also doesn't really take much to go from this to restricting all males from working with or taking care of children, since apparently this is an almost exclusively male problem. That would be the safe thing to do, but I'm guessing people would take issue with the implications of it.

 

[bjb]

This one hits close to home, in a slightly different and perhaps more sinister way. It's just far too embarrassing for me seek help when it comes to things of such sensitive nature and of such magnitude.

Eh...Can you clarify these statements, please. Because unless I am misinterpreting what you've written and insinuated - it's coming off that you have a sexual attraction towards children (or worse).

 

[Acerac]

Are there studies on this? I know with psychopathy there's an "escalation of action" where people with the disorder generally start off with mild actions and work up to killing. My one concern would be that giving opportunities to indulge you may be promoting further experimentation as well as a need to try and further the exploration of their urges.

On the other hand, if it is an effective replacement then I say give them the dolls and drawings. I just think we need more research on the matter more than anything else.

You have to remember you're talking about sexuality here. Ever go without masturbating for a while? After a bit getting horny starts getting real easy. Right now material is not very easy for these people to get. Given no options these people may end up picking their only choice, and that is exploitation of real kids.

Honestly it seems to me that the worst case scenario is that they escalate to where they would have started were this material not available in the first place, and even given that they'd likely have their hunger sated for quite a while, delaying the problem giving more time for them to work with counselors.

 

[wandering goat]

Yeah, it also doesn't really take much to go from this to restricting all males from working with or taking care of children, since apparently this is an almost exclusively male problem. That would be the safe thing to do, but I'm guessing people would take issue with the implications of it.

While I understand your point, I think in a society, there has to be a balance between what's fair for one party and what is thought to be the best for everyone. Obviously just because someone's attracted children in no way means they'll act on it. I have no sources but if I had to guess, I would say the vast majority wouldn't. Though comparing people of other orientations isn't completely fair since they have the means legally and acceptably to seek out other partners.

But in the end, one still has to balance restricting one person's freedom and potentially endangering children as well. This restriction would have to be reasonable - I would say for example you can't deny people going to areas with children like parks or carnivals or something like that, but it would probably be best to restrict the ability to be in a position where they're alone with children. That's completely ignoring the social POV of that kind of situation. What parents would be willing to drop their kids off at a daycare run by an open pedophile for example? And could you really blame them for looking out for the safety of their children? It's not really feasible for them to be in those kind of positions for those reasons alone.

Obviously though, all of this is mostly a hypothetical situation anyway as on the whole, I can't see the motivation for anyone to be open about this orientation as it wouldn't really gain them any benefit and cause them a whole lot of grief. But on the whole, I think there should still be more of an understanding of the difference between pedophilia and actual molestation, sources for them to get support (though there are some already I'm sure), and a lack of discrimination for areas where this orientation wouldn't even come into play, like most job hirings for example.

 

[BeesEight]

You have to remember you're talking about sexuality here. Ever go without masturbating for a while? After a bit getting horny starts getting real easy. Right now material is not very easy for these people to get. Given no options these people may end up picking their only choice, and that is exploitation of real kids.

Honestly it seems to me that the worst case scenario is that they escalate to where they would have started were this material not available in the first place, and even given that they'd likely have their hunger sated for quite a while, delaying the problem giving more time for them to work with counselors.

That's a good point and I would certainly condone research on the topic.

But the worst case scenario is pretty bad. If our goal is to treat the issue, I would prefer a method that's been tested than just throwing in a program that may lead to escalation since that's the exact thing we're trying to avoid. But I am a "more research!" kind of guy.

 

[dojokun]

While I understand your point, I think in a society, there has to be a balance between what's fair for one party and what is thought to be the best for everyone. Obviously just because someone's attracted children in no way means they'll act on it. I have no sources but if I had to guess, I would say the vast majority wouldn't. Though comparing people of other orientations isn't completely fair since they have the means legally and acceptably to seek out other partners.

But in the end, one still has to balance restricting one person's freedom and potentially endangering children as well. This restriction would have to be reasonable - I would say for example you can't deny people going to areas with children like parks or carnivals or something like that, but it would probably be best to restrict the ability to be in a position where they're alone with children. That's completely ignoring the social POV of that kind of situation. What parents would be willing to drop their kids off at a daycare run by an open pedophile for example? And could you really blame them for looking out for the safety of their children? It's not really feasible for them to be in those kind of positions for those reasons alone.

Obviously though, all of this is mostly a hypothetical situation anyway as on the whole, I can't see the motivation for anyone to be open about this orientation as it wouldn't really gain them any benefit and cause them a whole lot of grief. But on the whole, I think there should still be more of an understanding of the difference between pedophilia and actual molestation, sources for them to get support (though there are some already I'm sure), and a lack of discrimination for areas where this orientation wouldn't even come into play, like most job hirings for example.

The comparison to heterosexuals and homosexuals who are attracted to adults is fair when you consider the situation of taking care of adults who need assistance and may not be in a position to fight back.

Heterosexual male nurses are not banned from being alone with a female patient, and vice versa. Homosexual male nurses are not banned from being alone with a male patient, and same for females. I consider this perfectly comparable to someone who is attracted to kids babysitting kids unsupervised.

EDIT: And if you mean pedophiles can't get a "release" from sexual urges and might feel the need to act on it in other ways, then we should consider banning people with unsuccessful sex lives from taking care of adults who need assistance. "Haven't been laid in a long time? Sorry we have to take away your nursing license until you prove to us your urges are being met outside the workplace." No reason to think it's any less likely that a sexually unsuccessful person is any less likely to act out than a pedophile, if that's the reasoning we're going with.

 

[wandering goat]

The comparison to heterosexuals and homosexuals who are attracted to adults is fair when you consider the situation of taking care of adults who need assistance and may not be in a position to fight back.

Heterosexual male nurses are not banned from being alone with a female patient, and vice versa. Homosexual male nurses are not banned from being alone with a male patient, and same for females. I consider this perfectly comparable to someone who is attracted to kids babysitting kids unsupervised.

My point was that they still have an outlet outside of that. Someone may be incredibly attracted to a person they have power over, but at the end of the day, they have other options outside of that. A person who's attracted to children doesn't have any. I think that can make a large difference. Either way though, it's basically all a thought exercise as it wouldn't make sense for this situation to happen anyway, since no one (or very few people) would allow their children to be in such a position knowingly and the potential shitstorm something like this would cause would prevent anyone from putting an admitted pedophile in such authority.

[edit] To respond to your edit, in both cases, while there's a clear advantage that can be taken in such a position, there's the disincentive to do so due to the potential consequences of getting caught, jail time, your image basically being tarnished forever, etc. But what I'm saying, is that straight / gay people have an alternative that's free of this disincentive - to pursue a relationship where both parties accept each other, where no one's taken advantage of. But when it comes to children, there is no such alternative. I'm not saying a person is way more likely to take advantage of a position where they're alone with children, but that given the situation, if they were to pursue a relationship with a child, this would give them the means to do so with, as they're alone and thus less likely to be caught than they would in any other situation. Basically, the safer option for non-pedophiles is not to take advantage of such a situation, while the safer option for pedophiles is to do so. As such, it's not a fair comparison.

 

[Sanky Panky]

You don't restrict heterosexual caretakers from taking care of the opposite sex, or homosexual caretakers from taking care of the same sex. You do it when the person, regardless of orientation, has a history (or has come forward to admit having trouble controlling urges) that suggests lack of control. Likewise with someone sexually oriented to be attracted to kids, you don't just assume they lack the self-control not to molest kids anymore than you assume that people attracted to adults lack the self-control not to molest adults.

It should be your personal choice if you entrust someone with your kids, but the danger of your position is that sex offenders didn't "have a history" or "came forward to admit having trouble controlling urges" before that first molested child. Society in itself should not open up this gate, as much as society does not facilitate a mentally disabled person to teach calculus in college. Pedophiles themselves should recognize that there are situations that they should simply avoid.

I am all for acceptance for the condition as a medical issue, and for embracing those who seek help, but only through campaigns to encourage those to come forward under confidentiality (for their benefit). Family members should also play a part in their support and love, and for aiding in dealing with such desires.

Sympathy for the condition SHOULD NEVER lead to a facilitation of images (drawn or otherwise), or to any lesser punishment under the law for acting on those urges. Any complacency in this area only puts children at risk. Pedophiles that violate the law should carry that stigma for the rest of their lives (obviously a 18 yr old dating a 17yr old is a very grey area).

 

[dojokun]

My point was that they still have an outlet outside of that. Someone may be incredibly attracted to a person they have power over, but at the end of the day, they have other options outside of that. A person who's attracted to children doesn't have any. I think that can make a large difference. Either way though, it's basically all a thought exercise as it wouldn't make sense for this situation to happen anyway, since no one (or very few people) would allow their children to be in such a position knowingly and the potential shitstorm something like this would cause would prevent anyone from putting an admitted pedophile in such authority.

See my edit above on that line of thinking.

It should be your personal choice if you entrust someone with your kids, but the danger of your position is that sex offenders didn't "have a history" or "came forward to admit having trouble controlling urges" before that first molested child. Society in itself should not open up this gate, as much as society does not facilitate a mentally disabled person to teach calculus in college. Pedophiles themselves should recognize that there are situations that they should simply avoid.

I am all for acceptance for the condition as a medical issue, and for embracing those who seek help, but only through campaigns to encourage those to come forward under confidentiality (for their benefit). Family members should also play a part in their support and love, and for aiding in dealing with such desires.

Sympathy for the condition SHOULD NEVER lead to a facilitation of images (drawn or otherwise), or to any lesser punishment under the law for acting on those urges. Any complacency in this area only puts children at risk. Pedophiles that violate the law should carry that stigma for the rest of their lives (obviously a 18 yr old dating a 17yr old is a very grey area).

The problem is the gate IS open. Pedophiles are less likely to come forward and admit they have a problem because of the social stigma. Banning them from taking care of kids is only reinforcing the social stigma which makes them not want to admit they are pedophiles. Thus, pedophiles could be taking care of your kids RIGHT NOW and you won't even know it. If you want to arm yourself with the knowledge of who is a pedophile and who isn't, your best bet is to remove the social stigma, which includes any government-enforced ban on pedophiles from taking care of kids. Once that's achieved, you'll be more likely to be aware of who's a pedophile and who isn't, and will be better able to protect your kids from anyone you feel can't be trusted. But continue things the way they are, and you'll be kept in the dark on who is a pedophile and who isn't.

 

[i-Lo]

Eh...Can you clarify these statements, please. Because unless I am misinterpreting what you've written and insinuated - it's coming off that you have a sexual attraction towards children (or worse).

No, not towards children. It's something else.

 

[dojokun]

No, not towards children. It's something else.

Dead people?

 

[bjb]

No, not towards children. It's something else.

Do you mind elaborating? Because now I'm even more intrigued.

 

[Sanky Panky]

The problem is the gate IS open. Pedophiles are less likely to come forward and admit they have a problem because of the social stigma. Banning them from taking care of kids is only reinforcing the social stigma which makes them not want to admit they are pedophiles. Thus, pedophiles could be taking care of your kids RIGHT NOW and you won't even know it. If you want to arm yourself with the knowledge of who is a pedophile and who isn't, your best bet is to remove the social stigma, which includes any government-enforced ban on pedophiles from taking care of kids. Once that's achieved, you'll be more likely to be aware of who's a pedophile and who isn't, and will be better able to protect your kids from anyone you feel can't be trusted. But continue things the way they are, and you'll be kept in the dark on who is a pedophile and who isn't.

That's why I advocate for a big push to help pedophiles come forward under confidentiality, once they realize that they are not "sick", but were born that way. Any kind of social acceptance will not lead to someone telling you he is a pedophile when they are applying to take care of your kids. Fear of the law is a bigger deterrent at this point. Any social acceptance, and subsequent "coming out", will have the same effect in parents. The solution is for pedophiles to gain understanding of their condition, seek help, and avoid certain situations by their own conscious decision.

 

[Acerac]

That's a good point and I would certainly condone research on the topic.

But the worst case scenario is pretty bad. If our goal is to treat the issue, I would prefer a method that's been tested than just throwing in a program that may lead to escalation since that's the exact thing we're trying to avoid. But I am a "more research!" kind of guy.

Research is amazing. It's just tough to get a study together on this sort of thing is all.

 

[dojokun]

That's why I advocate for a big push to help pedophiles come forward under confidentiality, once they realize that they are not "sick", but were born that way. Any kind of social acceptance will not lead to someone telling you he is a pedophile when they are applying to take care of your kids. Fear of the law is a bigger deterrent at this point. Any social acceptance, and subsequent "coming out", will have the same effect in parents. The solution is for pedophiles to gain understanding of their condition, seek help, and avoid certain situations by their own conscious decision.

With social acceptance of their sexuality (not acceptance of acting upon it by molesting kids), the pedophile can get the kind of help he needs so he won't be any more likely to take advantage of your kids than someone who is attracted to adults. Have you read about sex offenders? Literally about half of the offenses are not due to being sexually attracted to the victims, but are done out of a power complex. Someone attracted to adults (and not attracted to kids) is just as likely to molest your kids as a pedophile who has been able to get the treatment that tempers the sexual urges.

 

[i-Lo]

Dead people?

No. If it were necrophilia then there would be no harm to anyone. I am pretty certain under the right circumstances, nothing is ever going to happen (nothing has happened yet). Primarily it is because of guilt. It represents the presence of remorse and empathy. I have been a proponent of not inhibiting the mind from thinking (because I want to become an author and restricting thoughts is the worst thing you can do) . It's the action, "actus reus" which must be prohibited. For me, involuntary physical reaction to certain stimuli scares and disgusts me. I wish I could have the part of my brain removed as it contradicts certain ideas I hold in the highest regard.

 

[Riddick]

if it becomes medical, are we going to see society start to accept it in the future like they're accepting of homosexuality now?

The comparison you're trying to make here is annoyingly stupid.

 

[Raistlin]

The best estimates are that between 1% and 5% of men are pedophiles

WUT

THE

FUK

 

[Mumei]

Many people see the argument, "There's a circumstantial reason behind someone's actions," and it magically becomes, "Therefore those actions were justified, and the person shouldn't be held responsible at all." In reality, if we understand those circumstantial reasons that lead to crime, we can try to address the root causes and prevent the crimes from happening (in addition to punishing those who commit crimes).

This is no different. It's the reason crimes related to pedophilia have such a high recidivism rate. If we're going to properly understand how to deal with those crimes, we need to have an accurate understanding of the causes of pedophilia. If it's not something we can erase, then treatment strategies have to change.

Mm.

I think that people are drawing too much of a parallel between pedophilia and homosexuality; in both cases there was a strong moral condemnation of a set of attractions. While it was not an immediate consequence (and for a long time actually contributed to the repression of homosexuality and oppression of gay men and lesbians), I think that one of long-term effect of the medicalization of homosexuality was rather convincingly demonstrating that homosexuality is not a choice.

For those whose litmus test for various issues pertaining to gay rights is to ask the question "Is it a choice?", I suspect the idea that pedophilia may not actually be a choice brings up concerns that the same thing could happen here.

Of course, as ThoseDeafMutes pointed out very early on in this topic, there is a rather fundamental difference between the two that made prohibitions of one irrational and of the other justifiable, regardless of what causes those attractions.

 

[dojokun]

No. If it were necrophilia then there would be no harm to anyone. I am pretty certain under the right circumstances, nothing is ever going to happen (nothing has happened yet). Primarily it is because of guilt. It represents the presence of remorse and empathy. I have been a proponent of not inhibiting the mind (because I want to become an author and restricting thoughts is the worst thing you can do) from thinking. It's the action, "actus reus" which must be prohibited. For me, involuntary physical reaction to certain stimuli scares and disgusts me. I wish I could have the part of my brain removed as it contradicts certain ideas I hold in the highest regard.

You're in love with a blood relative?

 

[i-Lo]

You're in love with a blood relative?

It has nothing to do with love or relationship.

 

[dojokun]

It has nothing to do with love or relationship.

Okay... but it has to do with sex?

My next guess: You want to sleep with your sister.

 

[Acerac]

It has nothing to do with love or relationship.

You do realize people will keep asking til you stop responding and assume whatever made you stop responding is your attraction, right?

 

[i-Lo]

Okay... but it has to do with sex?

My next guess" You want to sleep with your sister.

Hahahaha no it has nothing do with incest. I am stopping you right there because once I'd have said, I have no siblings you'd probably have moved to parents.

You do realize people will keep asking til you stop responding and assume whatever made you stop responding is your attraction, right?

Good point. I'm out.

 

[Sanky Panky]

With social acceptance of their sexuality (not acceptance of acting upon it by molesting kids), the pedophile can get the kind of help he needs so he won't be any more likely to take advantage of your kids than someone who is attracted to adults. Have you read about sex offenders? Literally about half of the offenses are not due to being sexually attracted to the victims, but are done out of a power complex. Someone attracted to adults (and not attracted to kids) is just as likely to molest your kids as a pedophile who has been able to get the treatment that tempers the sexual urges.

I'm all for them getting the help they need. Heck, before this study, I wasn't aware that they could be born like this. I think society needs to view and accept this as a natural predisposition, and I understand what you are trying to say. For me, "acceptance of their sexuality" with homosexuality (i.e.) means that I understand why two men/women have sex with each other, and I accept it as natural. This should not apply to pedophiles.

 

[Jenov]

I want to take this opportunity to ask for your views on bestiality; the lack of consent dismisses any consideration of this. However, we don't bring consent into the equation when we eat meat. Is this not a contradiction especially when consuming eat is not vital to live?

Er, the difference is we make it illegal to abuse/torture animals when we slaughter for food (or at least we attempt to be humane). Bestiality can easily fall into abuse/torture on the other hand, and there is no way to discern one way or another, so it should remain illegal.

 

[thefro]

More studies need to be done on this, but the questions I would ask:

- Is there a genetic predisposition to people developing fetishes (to what society deems to be an unhealthy degree) in general?
- Is there something specific to pedophilia that can be pinpointed that's not present in some of the other "weird" or non-weird things people are attracted to?
- Is there a common biological component to lack of impulse control? Is that what's in common with the folks in prison or is it both that and the part of their brains that control sexual attraction not developing properly?

 

[Chrono]

Devote Catholic and left handed? Uh oh...
http://i.imgur.com/Kn14A.jpg[IMG]
In all seriousness the irrational fear of pedophilia always confused me. Also in the past women were sexually active and having babies as soon as they were able to physically. Our society has changed and it's no longer acceptable,but I don't understand why people consider those attractions so "unnatural".

I guess my point is there are sexual predators that target men, women, children, and animals. Sexual preference does not predispose you to be a predator. Hell the articles even says half of all molesters are not sexually attracted to their victims.[/QUOTE]

But the only way to fulfill those attractions is by attacking a child. It's as if a small subset of a population are born with an urge to murder, there's nothing irrational in fearing that a good number of those will commit murder.

 

[malingenie]

Another nail in the coffin of the modern society.

Yeah, let's legalize pedophilia. Soon zoophilia and then necrophilia. I mean, we all have these urges, right? RIGHT?

Fucking disgusting.

Man, way to overreact.

 

[Fantastical]

WUT

THE

FUK

It's actually not that hard to believe when you think about how extremely taboo it is. No one is going to admit to that. It has the appearance of being somewhat rare because we usually think of pedophiles as those who have committed illegal acts, but think of all of those who never act on those thoughts.

 

[Seanspeed]

I think that people are drawing too much of a parallel between pedophilia and homosexuality; in both cases there was a strong moral condemnation of a set of attractions.

Thats kinda what makes it such a good 'parallel'.

 

[Riddick]

Thats kinda what makes it such a good 'parallel'.

No it really doesn't. On one hand homosexuality harms noone and the moral condemnation comes from scared morons who have a juvenile fear of diversity while pedophilia actually results to the harm of the most helpless members of society and the moral condemnation makes perfect sense.

Furthermore, this article doesn't imply that we should legalize pedophilia as some geniuses here assumed, it just explains that maybe we should try to treat instead of punish. Even if it's natural the fact that is harms society means that these people must be detained.

 

[Acerac]

No it really doesn't. On one hand homosexuality harms noone and the moral condemnation comes from scared morons who have a juvenile fear of diversity while pedophilia actually results to the harm of the most helpless members of society and the moral condemnation makes perfect sense.

Furthermore, this article doesn't imply that we should legalize pedophilia as some geniuses here assumed, it just explains that maybe we should try to treat instead of punish. Even if it's natural the fact that is harms society means that these people must be detained.

I'm pretty uncomfortable with the thought of detaining people due to thoughts they can't control. Treatment I can agree with, condemnation will just make them more likely to hide their attraction instead of dealing with it.

 

[Meus Renaissance]

Er, the difference is we make it illegal to abuse/torture animals when we slaughter for food (or at least we attempt to be humane). Bestiality can easily fall into abuse/torture on the other hand, and there is no way to discern one way or another, so it should remain illegal.

The question is, did we get the consent of these animals to eat them [humanely as possible]? Rather we portray non-consensual sex as more reprehensible than killing and eating them. That was my point

 

[Onion_Relish]

In theory, could a childlike robot help these people without creating real victims?

I find this train of thought interesting. Nothing is really stopping someone from getting one of those 4 foot tall barbie dolls and putting a fleshlight in it, so why not capatalise on a niche market? Perhaps the main worry I would have is that allowing someone to partake in this kind of behaviour might inadvertently trigger them to become more reckless trying to seek that dopamine rush. Maybe if a sex robot was capable of stimulating believable enough intercourse that could be what that person needed, but if you took a person formerly suppressing their urge and turn them into someone who can now fulfill it at a moments notice, that might cause them to slide down that slippery slope...

It's not really the most convincing argument as most people are able to stop themselves from going overboard, but i'm not a pedophile so I dont know whats going on in their head...

 

[Riddick]

I'm pretty uncomfortable with the thought of detaining people due to thoughts they can't control. Treatment I can agree with, condemnation will just make them more likely to hide their attraction instead of dealing with it.

I agree, detainment might be the wrong word, what I meant is that the must be separated from society until it's certain they will not harm it.

 

[Nightstick11]

Is not there some way we can quarantine pedos or inject them with something to change their brainwaves? I am unconcerned with whether they are biologically disposed to pedophilia; they are dangerous to our society.

 

[Acerac]

I agree, detainment might be the wrong word, what I meant is that the must be separated from society until it's certain they will not harm it.

In that case detainment is the correct word. As I said earlier, punishing people before they've hurt anyone or anything is an idea I'm not very fond of, especially given the fact that many (most?) of these people will never act on these impulses as long as they live.

Is not there some way we can quarantine pedos or inject them with something to change their brainwaves? I am unconcerned with whether they are biologically disposed to pedophilia; they are dangerous to our society.

We could shoot them in the head. That would stop them.

 

[KHarvey16]

Is not there some way we can quarantine pedos or inject them with something to change their brainwaves? I am unconcerned with whether they are biologically disposed to pedophilia; they are dangerous to our society.

Do you feel the same way regarding all predispositions related to violence or abuse?

 

[Cheerilee]

No it really doesn't. On one hand homosexuality harms noone and the moral condemnation comes from scared morons who have a juvenile fear of diversity while pedophilia actually results to the harm of the most helpless members of society and the moral condemnation makes perfect sense.

Furthermore, this article doesn't imply that we should legalize pedophilia as some geniuses here assumed, it just explains that maybe we should try to treat instead of punish. Even if it's natural the fact that is harms society means that these people must be detained.

It should probably be mentioned that "heterosexuals who can't get laid" aren't described as running around harming society by the nature of their out-of-control heterosexuality, due to all the people that they rape (and by volume, heterosexuals rape more than anyone).

Heterosexuals have a shot at getting laid with maybe 45% of the population.
Homosexuals have a shot at getting laid with maybe 5% of the population.
Pedophiles have a shot at getting laid with 0%.

Those odds by themselves don't make anyone guilty of rape.