Pedaphelia, why is it wrong

[blazedaces]

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.

I concur.

Other things I wish people did extensive studies on possible damage caused by:

Forcing religious study/religion
Forcing school to an extreme degree, like forcing kids to go to special schools or advanced schools, etc.
Forcing sports
Forcing home schooling

-blazed

 

[HyugaRicdeau]

There was some controversy a few years ago involving sex with minors on the Pitcairn Islands, where the descendents of the HMS Bounty mutineers live. It is kind of an example of the society that has been referred to.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pitcairn_sexual_assault_trial_of_2004

I think the reason the sex is treated differently is that if you suffer from abuse, it has a potential to impede forming intimate relationships, because attitudes towards sex is necessarily a part of that, whereas there's no reason to think being forced to go to piano lessons (or whatever) would. You may say that the nature of what a 'good' relationship is again society-dependent, but sexual abuse may damage the ability of the abused to consider such things on their own terms, as opposed to whatever was instilled in them by the abuse.

 

[Crimson King]

I'm willing to leave this open. I believe my reasons for closing the topic are personal because I have a short fuse when it comes to pedophilia, and I feel this topic is only working towards validating it.

I apologize for letting my personal opinion interfere.

 

[MojoMan]

well, I'm glad you didn't close it. being a child myself who is barely above the age pedophiles target, I think pedophilia is especially grotesque, and of course i have a short fuse too.

 

[snex]

well, I'm glad you didn't close it. being a child myself who is barely above the age pedophiles target, I think pedophilia is especially grotesque, and of course i have a short fuse too.

i wonder if you would mind so much if it were a hot woman in her 20s that was trying to go after you..

i know that when i was 10 i would have welcomed it.

 

[Jam Stunna]

i wonder if you would mind so much if it were a hot woman in her 20s that was trying to go after you..

i know that when i was 10 i would have welcomed it.

You continue to miss the point. Does a 10-year old fully comprehend the physical, emotional and psychological consequences of sex? Most reasonable people would agree that they don't. Hell, most 20-year olds don't fully appreciate those consequences.

 

[MojoMan]

well, I'm not ten I understand the concept, but of course not the experience. And snex, I find that a rather ingnorant thing to say and I'm not answering.

 

[arrowhead]

You continue to miss the point. Does a 10-year old fully comprehend the physical, emotional and psychological consequences of sex? Most reasonable people would agree that they don't. Hell, most 20-year olds don't fully appreciate those consequences.

sex used to be a way to admire the human body. greek children used to have sex with their teachers with no regards to gender. if we got rid of our negative attitudes toward sex, the only negative consequence of pedaphelia would be physical, if there was a consequence at all.

 

[snex]

You continue to miss the point. Does a 10-year old fully comprehend the physical, emotional and psychological consequences of sex? Most reasonable people would agree that they don't. Hell, most 20-year olds don't fully appreciate those consequences.

a 10 year old doesnt fully comprehend the physical, emotional, and psychological consequences of playing peewee baseball. yet i dont see you arguing that it should be illegal. you havent given a reason why sex is qualitatively different.

And snex, I find that a rather ingnorant thing to say and I'm not answering.

if you arent going to debate, get out of the debate hall.

 

[MojoMan]

that was ancient greece and this is now. The image of what sex is is not going to change any time soon.

 

[snex]

that was ancient greece and this is now. The image of what sex is is not going to change any time soon.

so what the society you live in says is whats right? had you lived 200 years ago youd be arguing for the legality of slavery.

 

[Jam Stunna]

The physical consequences alone of sex are enough to make it quite obvious why we don't allow adults to have sex with children. Not to mention the issues of trust, self-worth, innocence, power, and all of the other feelings that get wrapped up in sex, and can have a profound impact on a child.

 

[snex]

The physical consequences alone of sex are enough to make it quite obvious why we don't allow adults to have sex with children. Not to mention the issues of trust, self-worth, innocence, power, and all of the other feelings that get wrapped up in sex, and can have a profound impact on a child.

what physical consequences would those be? orgasm? we certainly wouldnt want children to experience that!

 

[MojoMan]

i have a question for all of you debating against me. Are any of you even children that might be targeted by a pedophile? For people of my age sex is sort of "the big unknown", something that people joke about and know what it is, know that it is essentially a good thing, but have never experienced it. It's like a second coming of age type thing, you might say. When released to it too early, your feelings will probably be that youhad experienced something you weren't ready for yet, which could lead to trauma. When we are ready for sex, we will have it. but I think I'm giong to drop out of this debate because I can tell it's going to get a bit R-rated at some point.

 

[snex]

i have a question for all of you debating against me. Are any of you even children that might be targeted by a pedophile? For people of my age sex is sort of "the big unknown", something that people joke about and know what it is, know that it is essentially a good thing, but have never experienced it. It's like a second coming of age type thing, you might say. When released to it too early, your feelings will probably be that youhad experienced something you weren't ready for yet, which could lead to trauma. When we are ready for sex, we will have it. but I think I'm giong to drop out of this debate because I can tell it's going to get a bit R-rated at some point.

the only reason you think those things about sex is because you live in a society in which such mores are promoted. why should your first sexual experience be any more "special" than your first home run in baseball? i dont know of any children who want to wait to hit a home run until they feel they are emotionally ready to handle it.

 

[Jam Stunna]

what physical consequences would those be? orgasm? we certainly wouldnt want children to experience that!

1) STD's
2) Pregnancy
3) Physical injuries associated with sex (particularly between two people that vary greatly in size and development)

EDIT- MojoMan may only feel that way because of our mores, but they still are our mores. Are you suggesting that somehow X would not be bad if we stopped believing that X was bad?

 

[snex]

1) STD's
2) Pregnancy
3) Physical injuries associated with sex (particularly between two people that vary greatly in size and development)

and all of those can be avoided if the adult in the situation acts responsibly.

are you suggesting that peewee baseball doesnt also have possible bad consequences? you STILL havent differentiated between sex and peewee baseball. nothing youve brought up is something that doesnt also exist in other activities that we think are perfectly ok for children to engage in.

EDIT- MojoMan may only feel that way because of our mores, but they still are our mores. Are you suggesting that somehow X would not be bad if we stopped believing that X was bad?

if we all stopped believing it was bad, who would there be to argue otherwise?

 

[Jam Stunna]

and all of those can be avoided if the adult in the situation acts responsibly.

are you suggesting that peewee baseball doesnt also have possible bad consequences? you STILL havent differentiated between sex and peewee baseball. nothing youve brought up is something that doesnt also exist in other activities that we think are perfectly ok for children to engage in.

That's a straw man. Baseball and sex have absolutely nothing to do with each other, and you've avoided my initial question by setting up other straw men (kids can't consent to school, etc.). I pose it again: How can a child consent to sex if they can't appreciate the consequences of it? You said yourself that the responsible adult must protect against those things. Is that because the child is unaware of them?

if we all stopped believing it was bad, who would there be to argue otherwise?

So you don't believe that some things are inherently bad? Slavery, murder, ****, robbery, lying, child abuse and pushing down old ladies are all just relatively bad?

 

[snex]

That's a straw man. Baseball and sex have absolutely nothing to do with each other, and you've avoided my initial question by setting up other straw men (kids can't consent to school, etc.). I pose it again: How can a child consent to sex if they can't appreciate the consequences of it? You said yourself that the responsible adult must protect against those things. Is that because the child is unaware of them?

ive already explained how a child can consent to something. they say "yes."

what a child cannot do is give informed consent, but the baseball analogy shows that this is entirely irrelevant. if the inability to give informed consent were actually an argument, you would be just as fervently opposed to peewee baseball leagues. children cannot give informed consent in order to join a team. they cant appreciate the possible bad consequences of it. everything from catching chicken pox from other kids to broken bones, and even death, can occur. the analogy is perfectly apt and you havent shown why sex is qualitatively different.

So you don't believe that some things are inherently bad? Slavery, murder, ****, robbery, lying, child abuse and pushing down old ladies are all just relatively bad?

there is no such thing as "inherently bad." it immediately prompts the question, "bad for whom?"

 

[blazedaces]

So you don't believe that some things are inherently bad? Slavery, murder, ****, robbery, lying, child abuse and pushing down old ladies are all just relatively bad?

there is no such thing as "inherently bad." it immediately prompts the question, "bad for whom?"

Going to have to agree with snex on this one. The idea of things being "inherently" bad implies some kind of set of ethics derived by absolutist dogma, which always leads to contradictions.

But snex, how about this for an argument against pedophilia compared to pee-wee baseball:

Economically, let's analyze this and try to imagine over time, statistically, what will occur (lets even assume this can be for a society where sex is not taboo):

If pedophilia was socially acceptable, this would lead to massive amounts of abuse. That's why I think it's wrong. Think about it, right now, even amongst consenting adults there's plenty of times abuse occurs involving sex (**** is the biggest one I can think of, but other forms of abuse exist). But at least adults have often in our society been cautioned about such things. There could be a fear in an individual to not commit **** because the other person could sue them later, for example.

But with children, an adult would be much less worried about consequences for these actions later on. A person having sex with a child can much more easily abuse and manipulate the child. They could threaten them more easily than an adult and I'm sure there are other ways of control they could administer more easily than on an adult.

So it's not the act of sex, which could possibly do nothing bad to them, it's the increased possibility of abuse in other forms that comes with the act. You can't avoid this. If people can abuse children more easily, it will happen more times and by more people.

Now, with pee-wee baseball I don't think much will have changed in our new hypothetical society. The amount people would/could abuse it now is the same.

The question is a bit of a why though, they are still children, so why is this act "qualitatively" different?

Well, for one, there are a number of adults involved in pee-wee baseball. There are are a number of children involved. It's harder to keep abuse a secret in this situation. And unless you're going to argue that we should respond by making pedophilia only done in a sports-like environment, I think this is something that differentiates the two activities.

So what do you think?

-blazed

 

[Mediocre]

snex, I am having trouble understanding your position on this.

Are you asserting that children should be able to have consenting sex because there's no reason it's quantitatively different from baseball or other inherently dangerous activities?

If so, I'd say your argument is absolutist bullcrap. There is a huge difference in risk and danger between five year olds playing baseball and five year olds engaging in intercourse.


Let's take another example. You agree that five year olds should legally be allowed to watch professional wrestling on television? They don't understand the dangers of preforming these moves, and there is a chance that they might harm themselves and others. But I'd still support their right to watch it, and I imagine you would too. Now, would you support allowing these five year olds access to handguns, and teaching them how to use them? How about teaching them how to drive and giving them access to cars.

If you look at it simplistically, all three examples are the same. You are giving children knowledge and abilities which are potentially dangerous to both themselves and others. However, the level of danger inherent in these different examples varies wildly.

The same is true of baseball and sex. Sure, baseball carries its risks, but the vast majority of the time, no serious bodily or mental harm comes to the five year olds playing it. The same cannot be said of sex. A substantial amount of harm would often come to the vast majority of five year olds who consented to sex. This harm might be physical, or it might be mental. Not infrequently, it would be lifelong harm. Do you deny this?


I understand your comparisons, but there are gradations to these things. It's not as simple as "it can cause death or permanent harm" or "it cannot cause death or permanent harm". It's much more subtle than that. It's not a simple one or zero. It's a huge range of risk and potential harm. The level of risk and possible harm that is deemed acceptable is inherently subjective.

It's just silly to try to bludgeon people into a concession with that kind of binary, absolutest logic. Reality is significantly more complicated than that.

 

[snex]

ok, the baseball analogy has its merits but you both bring up good points on which it ceases to compare.

sex is generally a private act and therefore it is much easier for a person with a mental and physical advantage to abuse the child and get away with it. however, there are many other private acts that happen between adults and children which carry the same, if not worse, risks; and we (society, that is) agree that these acts are allowed, and sometimes encouraged. to cite a stupidly obvious example, we allow and encourage doctors to examine children. of course, we have immense controls in place to prevent and punish abuses by those doctors. the same controls could conceivably be put in place for any other private act youd care to name, including sex.

your arguments seem to be more against unregulated private contact between adults and children than against sex itself. and even unregulated private contact between adults and children is given a lot of leeway when those adults are the parents of the children. parents are allowed to indoctrinate their children with racist beliefs, and they are allowed to force their children into dangerous cults like scientology. like richard dawkins, i would argue that these are far more dangerous than sex acts with them.

it just seems to me that nobody here who is claiming that pedophilic acts are wrong can offer a consistent moral system that doesnt lead to absurdities.

 

[samdaballer]

it is almost always against the other persons will, that is why

 

[blazedaces]

ok, the baseball analogy has its merits but you both bring up good points on which it ceases to compare.

sex is generally a private act and therefore it is much easier for a person with a mental and physical advantage to abuse the child and get away with it. however, there are many other private acts that happen between adults and children which carry the same, if not worse, risks; and we (society, that is) agree that these acts are allowed, and sometimes encouraged. to cite a stupidly obvious example, we allow and encourage doctors to examine children. of course, we have immense controls in place to prevent and punish abuses by those doctors. the same controls could conceivably be put in place for any other private act youd care to name, including sex.

You mean, have them go to school for 9 years more then everyone else, license them by a self-regulating ethical society, have them state an oath in which they vow to not harm others, then give them a very high-paying job that they would lose if they ever broke certain ethical codes?

Is that what you mean by submit them to the same controls as doctors? I'm sorry, but a doctor wasn't the best example you could have given.

your arguments seem to be more against unregulated private contact between adults and children than against sex itself. and even unregulated private contact between adults and children is given a lot of leeway when those adults are the parents of the children. parents are allowed to indoctrinate their children with racist beliefs, and they are allowed to force their children into dangerous cults like scientology. like richard dawkins, i would argue that these are far more dangerous than sex acts with them.

it just seems to me that nobody here who is claiming that pedophilic acts are wrong can offer a consistent moral system that doesnt lead to absurdities.

Snex, now you're making claims to things many would agree with you are wrong. The system I propose to you is consistent, it's just not the system all people agree upon and follow.

But honestly, if you consider both acts, parents parenting all the time versus pedophilia, pedophilia comes with a much higher chance of abuse.

And if you would consider the alternative to trusting parents, trusting parents versus never trusting parents to parent their kids in private: if we were to take privacy away from children alongside adults would have grave consequences. Firstly, children would not be able to get very close to anyone who could possibly teach them in a manner to help them succeed in our society. Furthermore, parents are often very protective of their children, and so the safety they make sure to uphold would probably disappear if we told them they could not see their children in private.

As for a last example that I can think up: private tutoring. Private tutors are probably the best example against our statements. It's private interaction between an adult and a child where the tutor does not have much to lose, nor had the tutor needed to work very hard to be in his current position. But to be honest, think about the settings in which private tutors arise: they come to the privacy of people's homes and they sometimes have children be brought by parents to institutions such as school.

In both situations you can see that the odds of abuse simply drop quite a bit.

So the next question you might ask is, why don't we exhibit those same controls? But the truth is, even under those same controls, pedophilia is an act that comes with quite a high potential of abuse. Even in an institution built for the sole purpose of having an adult and child have sex, so long as the act is private I can imagine quite a bit of abuse.

Is it just a coincidence that those who enjoy pedophilia also enjoy abusing children while they are at it? Is it a result of our society? I don't know, but that's the truth of the matter.

-blazed

 

[samdaballer]

Is it just a coincidence that those who enjoy pedophilia also enjoy abusing children while they are at it? Is it a result of our society? I don't know, but that's the truth of the matter.

-blazed

there is the answer, in my opinion, I have never met a minor be in love or sexually like an adult. But the percentage that pedephelia leads to abusing children and shattered lives, is extremely larger than the number of children that are happy due to sexual relations with a pedophile

 

[snex]

So the next question you might ask is, why don't we exhibit those same controls? But the truth is, even under those same controls, pedophilia is an act that comes with quite a high potential of abuse. Even in an institution built for the sole purpose of having an adult and child have sex, so long as the act is private I can imagine quite a bit of abuse.

what if it were some kind of brothel where the children were guaranteed to have certain protections, and they had the full weight of law behind them? this kind of thing already exists for adult brothels in nevada. legal prostitutes in nevada suffer none of the abuse we commonly associate with prostitution.

or what if its the parents themselves engaging in the sex acts? if we are to say that parents have the right to raise their children as they see fit, how can we say that sex acts are out of bounds to them? even if the child doesnt consent, we let parents force plenty of things on them that they cant or dont consent to.

Is it just a coincidence that those who enjoy pedophilia also enjoy abusing children while they are at it? Is it a result of our society? I don't know, but that's the truth of the matter.

perhaps that is because it is an illegal act, and the only pedophiles willing to risk breaking a law with such a huge penalty behind it are ones who dont care about getting caught; and also due to the fact that they generally have no access to willing children, they *have* to abuse children to have sex with them.

there are probably plenty of pedophiles out there who arent willing to abuse children and so just go celibate, and plenty who are too afraid to get caught so never try to risk it.

 

[Jam Stunna]

or what if its the parents themselves engaging in the sex acts? if we are to say that parents have the right to raise their children as they see fit, how can we say that sex acts are out of bounds to them? even if the child doesnt consent, we let parents force plenty of things on them that they cant or dont consent to.

As a father, it is literally beyond comprehension to me that you would suggest such a thing.

Okay, you're saying that sex between an adult and a minor is okay because the minor can actually consent to it. For the moment, let's say you're right. Should a child be able to tell his parents he's not going to school? Or operate a car? Or own a firearm? Or sign a contract?

 

[snex]

As a father, it is literally beyond comprehension to me that you would suggest such a thing.

Okay, you're saying that sex between an adult and a minor is okay because the minor can actually consent to it. For the moment, let's say you're right. Should a child be able to tell his parents he's not going to school? Or operate a car? Or own a firearm? Or sign a contract?

your questions have nothing to do with consent. in fact, they are evidence that children consenting to things is entirely irrelevant. they DONT have to consent to go to school, yet we make them go anyway.

 

[samdaballer]

guys, going to school is law. operating a car and a firearm are privileges that can be taken away and they are not given to minors. Sgning a contract as a minor, your parents are held responsible

 

[blazedaces]

what if it were some kind of brothel where the children were guaranteed to have certain protections, and they had the full weight of law behind them? this kind of thing already exists for adult brothels in nevada. legal prostitutes in nevada suffer none of the abuse we commonly associate with prostitution.

Listen, I'd really like to know what age we're talking about here. Because if you're talking about children above a certain age, this can make sense. I assume these brothels have security standing somewhere (a bodyguard of some kind) and other precautions to enforce protection of the prostitutes. But if we're talking about that age, what is the big deal of doing all this JUST so some people can have sex with 15 year olds instead of 18 year olds? Why not just use the brothel idea with prostitutes.

If you start talking about children below that age we again get into the idea that in a private room they can easily be manipulated and abused. I'm not convinced that the pros of allowing a few "psychologically healthy" pedophiliacs outweighs the cons of potential abuse to many children. Abuse at a young age has a much greater impact on people than abuse at a later age.

or what if its the parents themselves engaging in the sex acts? if we are to say that parents have the right to raise their children as they see fit, how can we say that sex acts are out of bounds to them? even if the child doesnt consent, we let parents force plenty of things on them that they cant or dont consent to.

Incest leads to way too many genetic disorders. Again, pros vs. cons, or benefit vs. cost, whatever you want to call it. The pros of allowing the few parents who would want to commit this act vs. the cons of allowing the potential of genetically disordered children springing up... The cons outweigh the pros.

perhaps that is because it is an illegal act, and the only pedophiles willing to risk breaking a law with such a huge penalty behind it are ones who dont care about getting caught; and also due to the fact that they generally have no access to willing children, they *have* to abuse children to have sex with them.

The fact that children aren't willing isn't exactly helping your argument. And pointing out other actions that children aren't willing to do is also not helping. It's a negative. Sometimes, the positive, like in forcing children to attend school that day even if they don't want to, outweighs the negative of the child not wanting to do that...

I agree there are plenty of things that parents force their children to do, but this isn't a debate about those things, and I would agree with you that a lot of those things aren't acceptable. But taking away all the power from parents to decide anything for their children is not the solution.

there are probably plenty of pedophiles out there who arent willing to abuse children and so just go celibate, and plenty who are too afraid to get caught so never try to risk it.

This assumes that pedophilia is either genetic or part of one's "nature". I personally think this is rubbish and even if one is a pedophiliac they can decide to not be one if they tried hard enough (they might have to seek professional help, but still)...

Let's even say it is genetic and they can't help themselves. What if you tried to use the same argument for a murderer? A murderer may be a murderer, but can't help himself. It's still ethically wrong to murder. We may send him to a mental institution instead of jail, but we're not going to provide him public service to let out his urges to murder.

-blazed

 

[pockyD]

Listen, I'd really like to know what age we're talking about here. Because if you're talking about children above a certain age, this can make sense. I assume these brothels have security standing somewhere (a bodyguard of some kind) and other precautions to enforce protection of the prostitutes. But if we're talking about that age, what is the big deal of doing all this JUST so some people can have sex with 15 year olds instead of 18 year olds? Why not just use the brothel idea with prostitutes.

sex with a chaperone? O_o

I'm not sure anyone wants that

If you start talking about children below that age we again get into the idea that in a private room they can easily be manipulated and abused. I'm not convinced that the pros of allowing a few "psychologically healthy" pedophiliacs outweighs the cons of potential abuse to many children. Abuse at a young age has a much greater impact on people than abuse at a later age.

I don't think this is true at all; **** victims often come out just as badly as childhood sexual abuse victims

The fact that children aren't willing isn't exactly helping your argument. And pointing out other actions that children aren't willing to do is also not helping. It's a negative. Sometimes, the positive, like in forcing children to attend school that day even if they don't want to, outweighs the negative of the child not wanting to do that...

What? Obviously any change would be targeted at children who WERE willing; otherwise, it would fall under the umbrella of "standard" ****

 

[blazedaces]

sex with a chaperone? O_o

I'm not sure anyone wants that

I meant that the bodyguard would stand at the entrance to the facility. There are, I assume, private rooms for the *echem* business transactions.

I don't think this is true at all; **** victims often come out just as badly as childhood sexual abuse victims

Well, you got me there. I did some research and found there is nothing pointing to age being a factor on how bad of an effect this has on a person, or how long... At least not in the limited amount of research I looked into. Here's probably my best find on the subject: The Worst Combinations of Child Abuse and Neglect

I would say just read the abstract. I didn't read the entire paper...

What? Obviously any change would be targeted at children who WERE willing; otherwise, it would fall under the umbrella of "standard" ****

I concur.

-blazed

 

[riboflavinbob]

should it really be viewed as wrong?
Your thoughts...

Do you expect to make a serious debate on "wether having sex with a child is wrong" ???

 

[Byronman]

I agree with jam stunna and riboflavin on this one...I can't see any possible way that pedophilia would be anything near acceptable!

 

[pockyD]

because people often don't find it strange when a 19 year old and a 17 year old have sex

the argument isn't about pedophilia itself per se (basically, sexual attraction action as a direct result of their actual age), but about the laws that are designed to counteract it, and its 'side effects'

 

[link6616]

This assumes that pedophilia is either genetic or part of one's "nature". I personally think this is rubbish and even if one is a pedophiliac they can decide to not be one if they tried hard enough (they might have to seek professional help, but still)...


-blazed

And yet this fact is rarely questioned about homosexuality by the non religious debates in the homosexuality topic.

Do you expect to make a serious debate on "wether having sex with a child is wrong" ???

I didn't actually, but it seems that suprises are everywhere as thats what we have.

 

[blazedaces]

And yet this fact is rarely questioned about homosexuality by the non religious debates in the homosexuality topic.

Re-read the threads. The "fact" was questioned by ME ... in this debate, the human nature debate, and the homosexuality debate.

Yeah... and just ignore narrow-minded people like riboflavinbob and Byronman. They have absolutely nothing good to contribute AND don't know how to read.

Guys... I guess we've been discussing the mystery of what's on the other side of the moon for these last 6 pages. We couldn't possibly be having a rational discussion about the ... topic... in the... thread.

-blazed

 

[chucklesXcore]

I seriously cannot believe I am reading this...but I'll try to keep it cool and be nice about this.

Pedophilia seriously only has negative effects. The child's consent? What child is that messed up they would want to do sexual acts or be touched in inappropriate places? I am of course referring to the younger children right now, as for teens and older people...eh I consider teens and older people to just be creepy more than pedophilia. Usually with teens its because the teen has failed romantically and is very insecure and will go with anything to make them feel better and more mature.

but anyway, back to children....theres no way any kid in their right mind is going to ask or want to do things with an older person that would label it as pedophilia. At that age you are thinking about when your favorite cartoon is coming on, what game you will be playing with your bro or sis, etc. You aren't thinking about sex or being touched inappropriately. I won't go as far as to say there is no such thing, but I will say if there is, its a very twisted kid who has a messed up mental state. (probably from growing up in a bad environment)

And when a child goes through something like that it affects them for the rest of their lives. Not only can they be physically damaged because they are not ready, but emotionally it destroys them. My sister had some stuff happen to her by her father (we have different fathers) and she seriously has not lived a normal life. She can't emotionally trust anyone and jumps from guy to guy. Shes a **** to some extent, but I won't say its because she had bad events happen with her dad. It could have though..

Either way, all in all, there are no positives from pedophilia. Its just wrong on every level. Even if for some twisted reason the child wanted to....they are too young to comprehend what they are doing so its not really their choice at this point.

This is a way different situation than with homosexuality, which is mutual and uncontrolled between two people. By uncontrolled I mean homosexuality from what it seems appears to be either inborn or something that you just cant help. Its like you can't explain why you are attracted to the opposite sex correct? Well, most of the time they don't "choose" to be attracted to the same sex. They just are. They are still both older and have the choice to do what they want. Its not a matter of one person taking advantage of another...as the case is with pedophilia. So its drastically different and you cannot compare the two.

 

[GhostAnime]

What child is that messed up they would want to do sexual acts or be touched in inappropriate places?

well, they are a child after all.. they'll practically do anything a higher authority tells them.

Either way, all in all, there are no positives from pedophilia. Its just wrong on every level. Even if for some twisted reason the child wanted to....they are too young to comprehend what they are doing so its not really their choice at this point.

well they can't comprehend a lot of things. as snex brought up ages ago, they don't comprehend school and even a few games.

This is a way different situation than with homosexuality, which is mutual and uncontrolled between two people. By uncontrolled I mean homosexuality from what it seems appears to be either inborn or something that you just cant help. Its like you can't explain why you are attracted to the opposite sex correct? Well, most of the time they don't "choose" to be attracted to the same sex. They just are. They are still both older and have the choice to do what they want. Its not a matter of one person taking advantage of another...as the case is with pedophilia. So its drastically different and you cannot compare the two.

actually you probably could compare the two. though i am speaking more than i know, i see no reason why pedophilia is controllable.

 

[chucklesXcore]

well, they are a child after all.. they'll practically do anything a higher authority tells them.

actually you probably could compare the two. though i am speaking more than i know, i see no reason why pedophilia is controllable.

just because they obey doesn't mean they are willing or want to, which is still my point.

And pedophilia I consider something that is either more of a health and psychological issue than anything else. That's not the same as homosexuality which is something I believe personally is inborn and uncontrollable. You can't treat homosexuality. You can try to help someone who has pedophilia.