Paedophiles are not perverts

hallelujah

Am I the only person who thinks paedophiles are not perverts? Years ago it was considered sick/perverted to be a homosexual. Nowadays it is considered acceptable and to reject this is seen as unacceptable. I think paedophiles cannot help how they feel. I mean, could you stop being attracted to the opposite/same sex?

Its like say you had a brother who confides in you and tells you he fancies animals. He says he hates himself for it but has tried and failed to get rid of the attraction. Would you call him sick eben though his plight is out of his hands?

I think its wrong of paedophiles to have sex with minors and also viewing images (as the children in the images are being exploited) but to have feelings for children is not perverted.

petes

hallelujah wrote:

Am I the only person who thinks paedophiles are not perverts? .

Yes. Sorry didn't read the rest of your post.

Sir Digby Chicken Caesar

*shrug*

wasn't an older man marrying a young teenage girl quite common back in the day?

what's that phrase, old enough to bleed....

burnedfaceman

stop trolling you sick fcuker

pwd

what's the major cause of paedophilia?
-sexy children.
it is perverted yes

hallelujah

petes wrote:

Yes. Sorry didn't read the rest of your post.

Dont respond then.

TerrorFirmer

It's a good argument. I would tend to somewhat agree with you - people do have tendancies they cannot surpress, and often do not want at all. The only true perverts in my opinion though is those that act on such desires - we're all guilty at once stage of thinking or fantasizing about something outside the limits of social acceptability...

Hail 2 Da Chimp

I'm hoping some one got a hold of his log in and this post is actually a very sick practical joke...

Sir Digby Chicken Caesar

thought crime alert!
thought crime alert!

seamus

I was just about to respond with something reasonable, but then realised it was After Hours.

Hasn't someone got a "Polees Kat iz wachin U" picture or something?

HelterSkelter

Mordeth wrote:

*shrug*

wasn't an older man marrying a young teenage girl quite common back in the day?

what's that phrase, old enough to bleed....

If there's grass on the pitch...

hallelujah

I'm amazed at the amount of people who cant open their minds and have a think about what I'm saying. Instead people see the word paedophile, think the worst and post nonsense. Instead of saying I'm a bad person, try creating a counter-argument.

ronbyrne2005

You have a valid point . Of course its wrong to sexual assault anyone but we have to accept its likley that a small percentage of people are sexually attracted to prepubescent childen. There are therapies to help these people but if you accept that people are innately attracted to others of same sex, to inanimate objects, and non human animals it is an unacceptable but natural occurance. Some people are naturally born psychopaths, its not nice but its natural in sense the person has no control over it.

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/life_and_style/article681489.ece

hallelujah

HelterSkelter wrote:

If there's grass on the pitch...

This is unhelpful and gives the knockers clout.

r3nu4l

I think the humanities forum would have been better for this thread. I've heard that argument before and while it has purely logical merit I'm not sure that it has any other merit as we simply don't know enough about paedophilia.

Some paedophiles despise themselves for their actions while others see no wrong in what they have done. Does the paedophile who despise himself do so because he is restrained by our moral compass or because he is sexually repressed? Do those paedophiles who see nothing wrong with their actions have other abnormal behavioural socio-pthologies evident? I don't know the answers.

As a scientist I can't help wondering if we will ever discover a (neuro)biological cause for paedophilia.

6th

You do have a point and my problem is only with those that offend (how do we tell those that dont?), they choose to carry out the acts that they do be that assaulting a child or viewing offending material.

tbh

r3nu4l wrote:

I think the humanities forum would have been better for this thread.

exactly. don't complain about unhelpful responses if you post in AH

WellyJ

To Be Honest

hallelujah

can someone of power move this to its proper home?

Degsy

hallelujah wrote:

I'm amazed at the amount of people who cant open their minds and have a think about what I'm saying. Instead people see the word paedophile, think the worst and post nonsense. Instead of saying I'm a bad person, try creating a counter-argument.

I'm sure you can justify anything to yourself.Everybody else things its cowardly,perverted and dangerous for society.A disproportionate number of people serving life in prison were abused as children.Paedophiles are the scum of the earth.

Tar.Aldarion

I'm glad to see how far his point sailed over your head.
Look at it go..

Sir Digby Chicken Caesar

even worse than mass murderers or warmongers?

really?

simu

Paedophiles lulz and cry like everyone else! Hey mods, move this thread to humanities quickly! That's the only way of saving it!

Tar.Aldarion

It's gone past twenty posts, there is no saving it. Half the replies don't even look like the poster read the OP.

nesf

Moved from AH.

hallelujah

I wasnt aware AH was a no-no for intelligence. Lesson learned.

nesf

Tar.Aldarion wrote:

It's gone past twenty posts, there is no saving it. Half the replies don't even look like the poster read the OP.

I don't know about you, but I don't want this headache.

Crucifix

Perversion is relative, but I agree that molestation and child pornography are the problem not paedophilia itself.

The Corinthian

hallelujah wrote:

Years ago it was considered sick/perverted to be a homosexual. Nowadays it is considered acceptable and to reject this is seen as unacceptable. I think paedophiles cannot help how they feel. I mean, could you stop being attracted to the opposite/same sex?

From Wikipedia

Homosexuality was previously listed as a paraphilia in the DSM-I and DSM-II. Consistent with the change in consensus among psychiatrists it was not included in later editions.

So Paedophiles are actually perverts or paraphilacs, as are any people who get their sexual jollies from something which is abnormal, in the strictest sense of the word. That goes for homosexuality too, but we're not allowed to call them perverts any more.

The principle issue with paedophilia however in not that it is peverted, but that it is considered a harmful paraphilia in that it involves non-consensual (due to age) participation of another party.

Where modern liberal society would actually be better tested to either stick by its principles or go with its gut is in cases such as consensual incest, where it meets the criteria of a "consensual sexual relationship" but people will still go 'ugh' (and before people suggest the genetics argument, remember that can be applied to lots of unrelated couples).

Sir Digby Chicken Caesar

hallelujah wrote:

I wasnt aware AH was a no-no for intelligence. Lesson learned.

spot the noob

simu

OK, they are perverts in the sense that they stray from what is considered normal and healthy by society in what they fantasize about. This norm can change as it has done with homosexuality - most people don't consider that to be "wrong" anymore - but paedophilia is a bit different in that carrying it out can cause damage to other people (i.e. kids). Still, there's no point in demonising people that have these thoughts - we have to understand it like any other human behaviour and help them to live with themselves without hurting others.

nesf

hallelujah wrote:

I wasnt aware AH was a no-no for intelligence. Lesson learned.

Don't be condescending. Paedophilia isn't about minors anyway, it's about pre-pubescent children, big difference there.

Degsy

Tar.Aldarion wrote:

I'm glad to see how far his point sailed over your head.
Look at it go..

It wasnt the gettysburg address.I read his point,understood it and just happened not to agree with it.In my view peadophiles ARE perverts and there can be no analogy with homosexuality because the issue is one of consent.There is consent between a same-sex couple but there can be no consent between a peadophile and a child.In law there are a lot tof things children arent permitted to do because they are immature and innocent with no emotional intelligence.Peadophiles prey on thisd innocence and attempt to justify themselves by saying its perfectly normal.Its not normal because children have no choice.Many peadophiles are skilled manipulators and sexual predators,to them its not about love but sexual dominance and the loss of innocence.They have more in common with rapists than any other group of people.

Fremen

I think I'd be inclined to agree with hallelujah. You can't really expect people to control how they feel.

I think it is fair to expect them to control how they act, on the other hand. Someone who's attracted to young children should realise that acting on those impulses could mess a child up pretty badly, and they should behave accordingly.

The spectrum of human sexual behaviour is pretty damn broad. If you don't believe me, type "scat" into google images...
I think if someone's going to use the word pervert, they should give a reasonable definition first.

Binomate

To compare pedophiles to homosexuality is laughable. True, pedophiles can't help their attraction to children. They need help. They have a mental disorder. If they can't learn to contain it, it may result in them affecting a child in a very negative way. I do how ever think pedophiles are slightly misunderstood, since it's not something they can really help. The social taboo shouldn't be on being attracted to children, it should be on acting on that attraction. Also known as sexual abuse and in the case of pedophilia child sex abuse.

Homosexuality is an attraction to the same adult sex. There's nothing morally wrong with having sex with an adult because you can more or less take it for granted that they know what they're getting in to. If they do not consent, they can say no.

Tar.Aldarion

Degsy, If you had read his post you would have noticed that you agree with him that paedophiles acting on their thoughts are in the wrong, as they hurt children. You agreed with him?
The point he is making that is because somebody finds a child attractive it does not make them a bad person, they can not help the way they are born, and if they do not act out on it, they are bad people.
They are only perverts in the sense that they don't like what is normal, but everybody likes stuff that is different.

it's ok nesf, it's not like you dare to say no to a request from the missus.

Fremen

They have more in common with rapists than any other group of people

Rapists are a group of people now? Do they have a club?

nesf

Binomate wrote:

Homosexuality is an attraction to the same adult sex. There's nothing morally wrong with having sex with an adult because you can more or less take it for granted that they know what they're getting in to. If they do not consent, they can say no.

The problem that is usually raised is that it is impossible for a minor under a certain age to give informed consent so it isn't a matter of whether or not they know what they are getting in to or whether they want to per se.

simu

Binomate wrote:

To compare pedophiles to homosexuality is laughable. True, pedophiles can't help their attraction to children. They need help. They have a mental disorder.

Is it a mental disorder, though? Who decides on that? Is there some fundamental difference in brain chemistry between paedophiles and non-paedophiles?

nesf

Tar.Aldarion wrote:

it's ok nesf, it's not like you dare to say no to a request from the missus.

I say no occasionally. It makes me feel like I still have a backbone.

Plissken1

Everyone is a pervert in some way, no one can claim not to be, and if they do they are lying. :rolleyes:

Iago

Binomate wrote:

To compare pedophiles to homosexuality is laughable. True, pedophiles can't help their attraction to children. They need help. They have a mental disorder.

Some would argue that pedophilia is actually less perverted than homosexuality in that it involves male/female relations as opposed to male/male or female/female. A mental disorder is how a lot of people still refer to homosexuality, like there is a cure somewhere through a pill or prayer and reflection. as opposed to an unconcious sexual preferance. Both groups of dissenters are coming from the same point of view, that being that they don't understand it and can't give a frame of reference for the mindset of the pedophile or homosexual and therefore there must be something missing in their mental makeup.

I have a similar blind spot when it comes to rapists and murderers, I don't "get" why they do it. I can't understand the mentality of someone that would do that, and I find that a perversion of what I know. Do rapists and murderers have a mental disorder, or are they just throwbacks to our less civilised past, when the strong took what they wanted, when they wanted until someone stronger stopped them.

A number of countries have an age of consent as low as 12-13 so if an adult has sex with a 13 year old in those countries are they perverted or just products of their envoirnment? I'm aware that most of these countries still have age-gap restrictions on what is and isn't acceptable, and also that pedophilia as strictly defined is pre-pubescent as opposed to teenagers. My point is more the fact that just because I don't understand a certain mentality, that doesn't make it a disorder, simply a different way of processing and acting on information.

seamus

Unfortunately a lot of these things fall into that grey area that's tough to study. The one that deals with behaviour, desire, cognition, and all sorts of other mental functioning.

We know so very little about it, that we have no real other option than to fall back onto moral and ethical values which we've set up for ourselves. Since a lot of these values are based on religious values we've inherited from times past, there are a whole raft of values which require examining, to see if we need to abandon, correct or reaffirm them.

Any free society will accept that societal "norms" and moral values do not need to see eye-to-eye - that what is normal is not necessarily moral, and that non-normal things are not necessarily immoral.

Of course, there is much resistance to the idea. Religion for one, strongly resists any scrutiny of itself. So by extension its followers don't question it. People also have trouble examining what they do not understand - if the current position works for them, they don't see the need to change it. And particularly if it repulses them, they are afraid to ask the question just in case the answer they get doesn't agree with what they believe. Hence why people in this thread instantly thought "Sick" or otherwise completely withdrew from even considering the question posed by the OP.

Although homosexuality is the perfect example of something that was considered absolutely horrific by the majority just a few years ago and is now accepted, I don't see the need to "compare" it to paedophilia. Like any sexual preference, it requires more study. Homosexuality (and heterosexuality for that matter) are now accepted as valid ways of being. Some will argue vehemently that it's a choice, and others will argue equally strongly that it's an inbuilt desire, something in their being. We still have no evidence either way and I haven't heard of any major, unbiased attempt to prove either stance.
More scientific study of sexual desire would probably yield better results. Such a study would cover all sexual desire - beastiality, foot fetishes, etc etc - and not be specifically aimed at any one desire.

The best argument I've heard puts the source of sexual desire as being somewhere internal (i.e. not a choice), but at the same time not being something that you are particularly born with. Instead you develop your sexual self mainly through childhood experiences. Much in the say way as you develop food preferences - many people can tell you that they hate a particular food because of association with a particular childhood experience. This means that the dislike of that food isn't an inbuilt thing, but at the same time it's not a choice the person has made. That simplifies it a bit, but it's possible that sexual desire works on the same principles, albeit at a much baser, more subconcious level.

NotMe

Fremen wrote:

Rapists are a group of people now? Do they have a club?

The first rule of rape club is, you do not talk about rape club.


IMO paedophiles are rapists,
rapists are perverts
therefore paedophiles are perverts.

Binomate

simu wrote:

Is it a mental disorder, though? Who decides on that? Is there some fundamental difference in brain chemistry between paedophiles and non-paedophiles?

I'm just refering to how it's described by 'The Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders'.

ronanp

IMO paedophiles are rapists,
rapists are perverts
therefore paedophiles are perverts.

Likewise heterosexuals are rapists (much more commonly than paedophiles), rapists are perverts, therefore heterosexuals are perverts...

Amazing how many people haven't even read the original post, or any of the subsequent explanations of it, yet still criticize it. More worrying if not surprising are the ones who have read it but don't understand it.

Funnily enough, when The Slate tried to have this debate a few years back, The Sun caught hold of it and jumped on the same high horse as a few on this thread. Says it all really!

nesf

Binomate wrote:

I'm just refering to how it's described by 'The Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders'.

Heh, opening a big can of worms there mate. There's more controversy over the DSM than about the efficacy of Prozac!

humbert

ronanp wrote:

Likewise heterosexuals are rapists (much more commonly than paedophiles), rapists are perverts, therefore heterosexuals are perverts...

Amazing how many people haven't even read the original post, or any of the subsequent explanations of it, yet still criticize it. More worrying if not surprising are the ones who have read it but don't understand it.

Funnily enough, when The Slate tried to have this debate a few years back, The Sun caught hold of it and jumped on the same high horse as a few on this thread. Says it all really!

I think he probably means that kids are below the age of consent therefore any sexual relations are rape.

I believe paedophiles are perverts by the definition of the word but it is not inherently harmful. What would legally define someone as a paedophile here would be acceptable in other countries with a lower age of consent.

I also think that being attracted to prepubescent girls is a lot more unnatural than a girl who is simple below the age of consent even though acting on either impulse is obviously unethical.

karen3212

I think paedophilia may be either genetic or environmental or a bit of both. Pretty much as part of the article says. Which may be why there are some that regret what they do and know they are doing wrong and others my lack empathy as well and not even realize they are hurting a child.

To a previous poster who said "a disproportionate number of people in prison were abused as children but then said paedophiles are preverts"
well I would say that you are pointing to an environmental reason for their actions that put them in prison,
so you really think there are reasons why people do the wrong thing.

I can't believe this is new to anyone, of course we in a fairly religious country will have problems getting money to treat more people before they end up in prison,
we'd rather punish them for choosing to sin and pay more for their prisons.

Dudess

I agree with the OP. Surely nobody who is cursed with the burden of finding children sexually desirable actually WANTS this in life. It's the acting on it though, that's unacceptable. I think those who profit from child porn are even more reprehensible than paedophiles. They're probably not even paedophiles themselves.

seastar

OP, while i understand the logic of what you are saying, most people, myselft included have a strong, emotional reaction to paedophiles. I feel disgust and hatred towards them for what they do. I know it's not logical to hate someone you don't know, but that's the way it is for me.