Pedaphelia, why is it wrong

[link6616]

I think given the discussion on Homosexuality the same question should be asked of pedaphelia. Assuming that pedaphelia is not a choice like homosexuality should it really be viewed as wrong? If it is done with consent from a child who could understand it is it wrong?

Your thoughts...

 

[Jam Stunna]

I would think that this would be almost axiomatic.

Given the risks (STDs, pregnancy), and the emotional/psychological baggage that sex carries, how can you allow someone to engage in an act with someone who (presumably) is not old enough to appreciate the consequences?

 

[fkacyan]

You expect a young child to know what that type of thing means? What it entails?

That's just the decision part. There are also physical issues, such as size discrepancies, that can lead to severe injury and/or death of the child.

 

[Crimson King]

Regardless if it's a choice or not, most acts of pedophilia are for power, just like ****. Sure, there are a few who are sexually aroused by children, but more often than not, it's the ability to control someone completely that has so much trust in your.

That's where it becomes a problem. A child does not understand consequences of emotional damage, and most children, just want love and trust, and do not understand why someone would want to touch them in inappropriate ways.

Fact is pedophilia, the actual act, is just like murder. You are destroying a child's foundation for trust and normalcy while they are developing, and for the rest of their lives, they will have the emotional burden.

Choice or not, there is nothing even remotely positive about pedophilia.

 

[cF=)]

I think given the discussion on Homosexuality the same question should be asked of pedaphelia.

I don't see the link DOH, LOOK AT THIS!!

 

[Modest_Egoist]

I haven't posted in the Homosexuality discussion yet, but I believe the same question cannot be asked of pedophilia. Homosexuality is between two consenting adults. Be it moral or immoral, the two individuals are both fully aware of the consequences.

The same cannot be said about a child. The reason is that no child, no matter how mature they may act, cannot fully grasp the emotional, physical, and psychological consequences an act like this would entail. Children are coerced by the pedophile into doing such acts; usually it's children who are vulnerable in some way, making them an easier target for the pedophile.

 

[blazedaces]

Assuming that pedaphelia is not a choice like homosexuality

Give me even one shred of evidence that pedophilia (please check your spelling before you post) is not a choice.

-blazed

 

[Crimson King]

It's actually hard to prove whether or not it's a choice due to the fact that the attraction towards children runs SO deep they will even attack children despite all the laws against them. The very least, they are mentally ill.

Homosexuality is not a choice, regardless.

 

[blazedaces]

It's actually hard to prove whether or not it's a choice due to the fact that the attraction towards children runs SO deep they will even attack children despite all the laws against them. The very least, they are mentally ill.

Homosexuality is not a choice, regardless.

It's either genetic or environmental. If it can't be proved to be genetic, it's environmental. That's it.

There's already a thread discussing homosexuality and we can take its specifics there. But as for pedophilia, there's absolutely no evidence to suggest it has anything to do with genetics.

-blazed

 

[arrowhead]

It's either genetic or environmental. If it can't be proved to be genetic, it's environmental. That's it.

just because something is environmental doesn't mean it's a choice.


this discussion is in no way linked to homosexuality. what were you thinking, link?

 

[blazedaces]

just because something is environmental doesn't mean it's a choice.


this discussion is in no way linked to homosexuality. what were you thinking, link?

I'll agree, the definition of choice is very vague. What does it mean to be a choice? No one seems to be able to answer. That's why I wouldn't even deal with it. You'll agree with me though that at least if it's not at all influenced by genetics, then it must be influenced entirely by environmental factors?

I mean, imagine if we establish it's genetic (we haven't, but let's just say for argument sake we could). Then it could be argued that jail time is not effective and that a person who is a pedophile couldn't possibly ever be changed (or change).

Help in the form of psychological therapy would be completely and utterly pointless.

-blazed

 

[arrowhead]

I'll agree, the definition of choice is very vague. What does it mean to be a choice? No one seems to be able to answer. That's why I wouldn't even deal with it. You'll agree with me though that at least if it's not at all influenced by genetics, then it must be influenced entirely by environmental factors?

yep

I mean, imagine if we establish it's genetic (we haven't, but let's just say for argument sake we could). Then it could be argued that jail time is not effective and that a person who is a pedophile couldn't possibly ever be changed (or change).

Help in the form of psychological therapy would be completely and utterly pointless.

-blazed

psychological therapy won't be able to "cure" the thoughts of the person, but it may be able to help them control their desires.

 

[Kur]

True pedophilia is an inborn attraction to children. You can't help it, you feel what you feel. It is the same with homosexuality. You are what you are.

The difference is that pedophiles can not act on their attraction because it is very damaging to children, who are not old enough to really understand what is going on.

I have no problem with pedophiles as long as they don't act on their urges.

Is it at all fair to them? No, not at all. But it is even more unfair to the children.

And CK is right. Some pedophiles are not attracted to children because of some crossed wire in their brain, they just want the control and (usually) total trust of a child while in a sexual situation.



That being said, I don't understand why there are such harsh penalties for having child porn. I understand punishing the people who make, sell, or buy the porn, but people who got it for free, or accidentally downloaded it from limewire or whatever, and have not ever molested a child, should not get 20 years in prison per picture. It is just silly to punish a person like that who hasn't done anything to hurt anybody.

 

[Jam Stunna]

That being said, I don't understand why there are such harsh penalties for having child porn. I understand punishing the people who make, sell, or buy the porn, but people who got it for free, or accidentally downloaded it from limewire or whatever, and have not ever molested a child, should not get 20 years in prison per picture. It is just silly to punish a person like that who hasn't done anything to hurt anybody.

The children were hurt in the production of it, and that makes you complicit in the acts by consuming that product. Free, accidental, whatever: you are the demand that these people are supplying. It may not be as bad as committing the acts themselves, but it's still really, really terrible. People who view child pornography deserve whatever happens to them.

 

[blazedaces]

True pedophilia is an inborn attraction to children. You can't help it, you feel what you feel. It is the same with homosexuality. You are what you are.

Did you not read any of the previous posts? This thread is only one page.

What evidence do you have to support such a conjecture?

-blazed

 

[Crimson King]

True pedophilia is an inborn attraction to children. You can't help it, you feel what you feel. It is the same with homosexuality. You are what you are.

Pretty much is the case. I'd like to know the actual percentage of pedophiles who are born with just an attraction to children, though. Blazes, let's assume pedophilia IS revealed to be an inborn thing. Then you will have to be prepared on how to control the inevitable backlash. I mean bestiality and necrophilia are illegal in every country, but what if the attraction is genetic. How would you validate laws. Now, I do not think it's anything like homosexuality, but I think there could be some genetic dispositions involved in forming a pedophile's tastes.

The difference is that pedophiles can not act on their attraction because it is very damaging to children, who are not old enough to really understand what is going on.

This is where the issue really lies. Lots of pedophiles commit their acts knowing full well what they are doing is horrible wrong, but since they are incapable of fighting these urges, they continue.

I have no problem with pedophiles as long as they don't act on their urges.

Is it at all fair to them? No, not at all. But it is even more unfair to the children.

I can pretty much agree that if their sickness stays in their head; there is nothing wrong with it, but that is rarely the case.

And CK is right. Some pedophiles are not attracted to children because of some crossed wire in their brain, they just want the control and (usually) total trust of a child while in a sexual situation.

See a lot noted Child rapists and murderers were ***** and molested as children. This also explains why they are more inclined towards boys because at a young age children associate with those of their own gender.

That being said, I don't understand why there are such harsh penalties for having child porn. I understand punishing the people who make, sell, or buy the porn, but people who got it for free, or accidentally downloaded it from limewire or whatever, and have not ever molested a child, should not get 20 years in prison per picture. It is just silly to punish a person like that who hasn't done anything to hurt anybody.

I agree and disagree. Accidental downloading is pretty much why I refuse to download stuff off limewire. There were enough times when I'd download a full-length movie that was in theaters, and it'd be porn or something like that and that traumatized me as a young teenager on Limewire/Kazaa. As for free downloading, well that is just like stealing, so you still benefit from the damage done to those children. People who produce it should be the first target for any child porn laws, though. It's like arresting junkies for having weed, coke, or heroin. Arresting them will not stop the chemicals from getting on the street.

 

[link6616]

I see the connection as this (to those that are curious to why I see a connection)

If its accepted that homosexuality is not a choice then why should it be assumed that a pedophile has the same choice to make. It really is a double standard on the issue.

True that they are different, but the religious side of the homosexuality debate see it as simply wrong. I personally believe pedophilia is wrong too on the basis that a child can't really understand the consequences.

I hope that clears up something at least

 

[arrowhead]

link, you created this thread to bash homosexuality more than you did to ask an honest question

homosexuality hurts nobody, pedaphelia does. that's all the information you need to realize why homosexuality should be accepted and pedaphelia shouldn't

 

[Firus]

How are pedophilia and homosexuality comparable?
Even if it is not a choice, you could argue that **** is "not a choice" and that murder is "not a choice". The thing is, homosexuality doesn't hurt ANYONE ELSE. Pedophilia, ****, and murder do. That's the problem.

Children, even if they give consent, can't understand the seriousness of such an act. They could even be tricked into giving consent, or perhaps forced to say that they gave consent if it comes up. No matter the case, the child is going to feel pressured to do it. How can they refuse?

The fact that you presented this topic in such a manner is really disturbing.

 

[Jam Stunna]

Whether or not pedophilia is genetic is irrelevant. We all control our urges, so this should be no different. We're not punishing people for feeling the way they do; we're punishing them for harming another person.

 

[link6616]

link, you created this thread to bash homosexuality more than you did to ask an honest question

homosexuality hurts nobody, pedaphelia does. that's all the information you need to realize why homosexuality should be accepted and pedaphelia shouldn't

I actually accept homosexuality quite well (being gay myself). So please, don't tell me I'm trying to bash homosexuality, as I'm not.

 

[Kur]

Did you not read any of the previous posts? This thread is only one page.

What evidence do you have to support such a conjecture?

-blazed

Yes, I did read the previous posts. That being said I noticed that nobody provided any evidence that pedophilia is NOT a genetic urge.

"Another study, using structural MRI, shows that pedophilic men have a lower volume of white matter than non-sexual criminals.[45]

Functional magnetic resonance imaging (fMRI) has shown that child molesters diagnosed with pedophilia have reduced activation of the hypothalamus as compared with non-pedophilic individuals when viewing sexually arousing pictures of adults.[49] A 2008 functional neuroimaging study notes that central processing of sexual stimuli in heterosexual "paedophile forensic inpatients" may be altered by a disturbance in the prefrontal networks, which "may be associated with stimulus-controlled behaviours, such as sexual compulsive behaviours." The findings may also suggest "a dysfunction at the cognitive stage of sexual arousal processing."" - wikipedia http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pedophile

Of course it isn't completely conclusive that these things directly lead to pedophilia, but it does appear to be more concrete than any evidence against the idea of pedophilia being a genetic disorder.

The children were hurt in the production of it, and that makes you complicit in the acts by consuming that product. Free, accidental, whatever: you are the demand that these people are supplying. It may not be as bad as committing the acts themselves, but it's still really, really terrible. People who view child pornography deserve whatever happens to them.

Yes I understand that. But when a person accidentally downloads a picture, or even if they download it on purpose but for free, they are not creating demand. The people producing the KP have no idea how many people are downloading their pictures from free share sites. They produce KP for one of two reasons:

1. To make money. They make the KP and sell it. The people who buy the porn are just as responsible as the people that make it, and should be prosecuted as such.

2. They are just perverts who like distributing pictures and movies and will continue to do so for as long as it holds their interest, or they get caught. You can't say they wouldn't do it if nobody looked at the pics because they have no way of knowing if anybody is looking at them. It is no different that somebody posting in a blog that has no viewers. They just want to do it.

Don't misunderstand me. I am all for punishing people who have KP. But the sentences they are getting are just crazy. And if you think about it, in some sick way, those pictures may be what keeps them from going out and molesting a child themselves. And no, I am not suggesting that all pedophiles have KP to keep them from molesting children.

 

[snex]

there is no evidence that consenting sex acts damage a child mentally. studies that show higher correlations between "sexually abused" children and bad behavior are completely unable to control for our attitude against sex with children in this society. societies in which sex with children is considered the norm do not show these correlations.

this seems to say that its our attitude towards sex with children that damages them, not the actual acts themselves.

 

[Jam Stunna]

there is no evidence that consenting sex acts damage a child mentally. studies that show higher correlations between "sexually abused" children and bad behavior are completely unable to control for our attitude against sex with children in this society. societies in which sex with children is considered the norm do not show these correlations.

this seems to say that its our attitude towards sex with children that damages them, not the actual acts themselves.

How can a child possibly consent to sex? This is the definition of pedophilia from the World Health Organization:

Paedophilia
A sexual preference for children, boys or girls or both, usually of prepubertal or early pubertal age.

(Source: http://www.who.int/classifications/apps/icd/icd10online/)

How can a prepubescent child give consent for sex?

 

[Mediocre]

there is no evidence that consenting sex acts damage a child mentally. studies that show higher correlations between "sexually abused" children and bad behavior are completely unable to control for our attitude against sex with children in this society. societies in which sex with children is considered the norm do not show these correlations.

this seems to say that its our attitude towards sex with children that damages them, not the actual acts themselves.

snex, I'm wondering what definition of "child" you're using here.

If you're talking about prepubescent girls and boys, I find that rather hard to believe. First of all, I would find it hard to believe that they would even have an understanding of what sex entailed, because they lack the necessary growth to truly experience it.

If you're talking about people from around twelve to their later teens, I might believe that in certain cultures that is the norm, and they suffer no permanent psychological harm. However, I have a hunch that this kind of very young sexual activity generally only happens to one of the two genders in each of these societies. I'd also bet that it corresponds to a lack of rights and control for the younger gender in these relationships.

Perhaps I'm just being ethnocentric. It's just that I never have heard of a culture that worked in this way that didn't have some kind of significant gender inequality going on.

 

[MojoMan]

I'm sorry if I sound dismissive here, but I really don't think we need a topic for why pedophilia is bad. It's mentally scarring, can cause death, and is basically ****, which is forced sex. There isn't really an argument here, I don' think. You can't argue whether it's mentally scarring or not because of their age, because if a 21 year old woman was *****, i would probably be just as mentally scarring as am 8 year old.

 

[Crimson King]

I can pretty much agree we don't need a topic.

Anyone second that motion?

 

[Amide]

I can pretty much agree we don't need a topic.

Anyone second that motion?

I do, but apparently, not everyone in the topic thinks that it's wrong. I understand that people may think they can't help it, by controlling people that can't make their own decisions isn't ever right, no matter what.

 

[EC_Joey]

Seconded. =)

 

[HyugaRicdeau]

snex, I'm wondering what definition of "child" you're using here.

I don't think the definition of 'child' enters into it as much as whether the person in question understands what sex means in their society. If someone truly does/doesn't understand it, then the physical age doesn't really matter.

If you're talking about prepubescent girls and boys, I find that rather hard to believe. First of all, I would find it hard to believe that they would even have an understanding of what sex entailed, because they lack the necessary growth to truly experience it.

I think his point is that "what sex entails" is culture dependent. Perhaps the more appropriate question is how we can judge 'consent' in the age range where a significant part of the population doesn't understand 'what sex entails.' To TRULY consent, not just saying 'OK,' I would think means that understanding. Then 'consent' means different things across ages and cultures.

To directly address the topic, I don't think any desire is inherently wrong, because otherwise that would seem to violate the notion that we all have the right to hold any thought we like. Wrong is when acting on the desire causes harm to others.

 

[Crimson King]

All right, I'm closing this one. It really disturbs me that we are arguing over pedophilia. Let's have some closing arguments and I'll shut it down tonight.

 

[momochuu]

I can't think of one good reason why pedaphelia isn't wrong.


Edit: Wow. Embarassing. That's supposed to be "Why pedophelia is RIGHT."

I'm sorry. x_x

 

[MojoMan]

I do, but apparently, not everyone in the topic thinks that it's wrong.

I'm sorry but those people's opinions are, and this is one of the only cases in which it is, wrong. There is nothing good whatsoever about pedophilia, and if they think that there are any benefits, I really think they are misguided.

 

[snex]

How can a child possibly consent to sex?
How can a prepubescent child give consent for sex?

by saying "yes."

if you really think that "they cant consent to it by my arbitrary standards that just happen to agree with the government under which i live" then it should be equally immoral to make children *do anything.* its immoral to force them to go to school because they cant consent to it, its immoral to make them take out the garbage because they cant consent to it, etc etc. why is sex somehow different?

 

[EC_Joey]

I can't think of one good reason why pedaphelia isn't wrong.


Edit: Wow. Embarassing. That's supposed to be "Why pedophelia is RIGHT."

I'm sorry. x_x

Nothing to be sorry about. Your first statement was a double negative.

 

[blazedaces]

Yes, I did read the previous posts. That being said I noticed that nobody provided any evidence that pedophilia is NOT a genetic urge.

"Another study, using structural MRI, shows that pedophilic men have a lower volume of white matter than non-sexual criminals.[45]

Functional magnetic resonance imaging (fMRI) has shown that child molesters diagnosed with pedophilia have reduced activation of the hypothalamus as compared with non-pedophilic individuals when viewing sexually arousing pictures of adults.[49] A 2008 functional neuroimaging study notes that central processing of sexual stimuli in heterosexual "paedophile forensic inpatients" may be altered by a disturbance in the prefrontal networks, which "may be associated with stimulus-controlled behaviours, such as sexual compulsive behaviours." The findings may also suggest "a dysfunction at the cognitive stage of sexual arousal processing."" - wikipedia http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pedophile

Of course it isn't completely conclusive that these things directly lead to pedophilia, but it does appear to be more concrete than any evidence against the idea of pedophilia being a genetic disorder.

All of these findings can be indirectly caused by environmental influences, first of all.

Can you get a hold of these so-called "studies"? I would prefer to study their methods and understand them. What does it mean that these men had a "lower volume"? Where are the numbers?

The fact that biological similarities are found is not surprising at all even under the assumption of influence being only derived from environmental factors.

Look, there's plenty of evidence to suppose the origins are from environmental factors, but no conclusive proof to show it's influenced by genetic factors.

The burden of proof is on the person making the assertion, in this case you.

there is no evidence that consenting sex acts damage a child mentally. studies that show higher correlations between "sexually abused" children and bad behavior are completely unable to control for our attitude against sex with children in this society. societies in which sex with children is considered the norm do not show these correlations.

this seems to say that its our attitude towards sex with children that damages them, not the actual acts themselves.

Are there studies done in "societies in which sex with children is considered the norm"? Do you think you could provide a link for it? This sounds very interesting...

-blazed

 

[EC_Joey]

Are there studies done in "societies in which sex with children is considered the norm"? Do you think you could provide a link for it? This sounds very interesting...

Don't join those societies blazed!

 

[snex]

All of these findings can be indirectly caused by environmental influences, first of all.

Can you get a hold of these so-called "studies"? I would prefer to study their methods and understand them. What does it mean that these men had a "lower volume"? Where are the numbers?

The fact that biological similarities are found is not surprising at all even under the assumption of influence being only derived from environmental factors.

Look, there's plenty of evidence to suppose the origins are from environmental factors, but no conclusive proof to show it's influenced by genetic factors.

The burden of proof is on the person making the assertion, in this case you.

if homosexuality is genetic (and the evidence that it is is not conclusive) then there is no reason to assume pedophilia and other fetishes are not also genetic. this stuff all happens in the same part of the brain.

Are there studies done in "societies in which sex with children is considered the norm"? Do you think you could provide a link for it? This sounds very interesting...

nobody has attempted to replicate the studies in these societies as far as im aware, but the fact that such behavior is the norm combined with the fact that there is no insanely high rate of symptoms should tell you that its more than the mere sex acts causing the problems.

you can also find studies that show that marijuana use in children is correlated with similar problems later in life. but does this mean marijuana actually causes them or that our demonization of its use is the cause?

 

[blazedaces]

if homosexuality is genetic (and the evidence that it is is not conclusive) then there is no reason to assume pedophilia and other fetishes are not also genetic. this stuff all happens in the same part of the brain.

I agree. That's sort of why I group them together. It's sort of a package deal. If it's shown conclusively that one is genetic, there's good reason to believe all are genetic (or at least significantly genetically influenced).

nobody has attempted to replicate the studies in these societies as far as im aware, but the fact that such behavior is the norm combined with the fact that there is no insanely high rate of symptoms should tell you that its more than the mere sex acts causing the problems.

you can also find studies that show that marijuana use in children is correlated with similar problems later in life. but does this mean marijuana actually causes them or that our demonization of its use is the cause?

Very interesting to ponder, but without evidence you're just speculating a bit too much there.

I agree, the studies are completely inconclusive. So we don't know whether these acts at a young age are detrimental at a later age. But that's it. We don't know. I don't think "no detrimental effect" is a default position in this case...

-blazed

 

[snex]

Very interesting to ponder, but without evidence you're just speculating a bit too much there.

I agree, the studies are completely inconclusive. So we don't know whether these acts at a young age are detrimental at a later age. But that's it. We don't know. I don't think "no detrimental effect" is a default position in this case...

well as far as im aware, nobody has done extensive studies on the possible damage caused by making unconsenting children do chores, or forcing them to join the boy scouts or a peewee sports team. i just dont see why we automatically treat sex as qualitatively different from these other activities, and merely asking the question in this society gets you labeled as a pedophile.