Paedophiles are not perverts

metrovelvet

Round them all up, stick them in a pen and let them watch each other age and rot until they die.

luckat

Paedophiles are perverts.

Loving sex between adults is the only correct expression of sexuality.

Hobbes

pickarooney wrote:

nor even unnatural to want to kill your neighbor when he plays trumpet music at 4am

I am pretty sure that is classed as unnatural.

McSandwich

pervert
verb |pərˈvərt| |pərˌvərt| |pəˌvəːt| [ trans. ]
alter (something) from its original course, meaning, or state to a distortion or corruption of what was first intended : he was charged with conspiring to pervert the course of justice.
• lead (someone) away from what is considered right, natural, or acceptable : Hector is a man who is simply perverted by his time.
noun |ˈpərvərt| |ˌpərvərt| |ˌpəːvəːt|
a person whose sexual behavior is regarded as abnormal and unacceptable.

pedophile |ˈpedəˌfīl| ( Brit. paedophile) noun a person who is sexually attracted to children. ORIGIN from pedo- 1 + -phile .

right |rīt| adjective 1 morally good, justified, or acceptable : I hope we're doing the right thing | [with infinitive ] you were quite right to criticize him.

normal |ˈnôrməl| adjective 1 conforming to a standard; usual, typical, or expected : it's quite normal for puppies to bolt their food | normal working hours. • (of a person) free from physical or mental disorders.

Is it regarded as normal and acceptable (right) to be sexually attracted to children? If not then yes paedophiles are perverts.

In all cases where a persons sexual actions/ preferences, etc. are considered normal, then that person is not a pervert.

WhackaMole

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. <snip>

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.

Thats some twisted logic right there. By your logic if homosexuals resisted thier urges like peado's...eh.. Confusing really.

Sadly people have all sorts of things going on in their heads and Society dictates what is right and wrong to the masses.

I try not to classify sexual practises as perverted. More just weird and not my cup of tea. Why would some one want to have sex with pavements?!? Weird!

But vunerable people need the protection of the law. Kids, mentaly handicapped etc. But even that is open to debate given the world wide differences in age of consent for example. In south Korea its 13 :eek:

Personally I'll sitck to my own moral compass. It's safer with people like binomite running around ;P

InFront

pickarooney wrote:

The problem is that there are to very different connotations of the word "paedophile"

Possibly there are different connotations, but there is only one intended meaning, and that is a person who is sexually attracted to children (as opposed to a child abuser,which is an actively abusive role).

The sexual attraction that a paedophile has to a child might be natural in that it is biological, but it is unnatural in that it is 100% undesirable, just like miscarriage or siamese twinnage or cancer.

Unlike the above examples, however, personally I'm not convinced that the paedophile has no psychological power over his condition, even though it is not his choice.

Tar.Aldarion

McSandwich wrote:

Is it regarded as normal and acceptable (right) to be sexually attracted to children? If not then yes paedophiles are perverts.

In all cases where a persons sexual actions/ preferences, etc. are considered normal, then that person is not a pervert.

So everybody is a pervert, as most people sexual desires that are not consider 'normal'.
So everybody is a pervert or because everybody is different, they are the same, which makes nobody a pervert.
Ta da.

Bottle_of_Smoke

Agree to an extent with the OP/

I hope everyone replying noted he said he believes the acts of paedophilia are unacceptable.

I don't believe any more than an absoloutly tiny proportion of people could be 100% peado(can't think of an evolutionary advantage to it), therefore I think that if most peadophiles could resist it enough they could still lead a satisfied life with a man or a woman consentually. I don't believe anyone is 100% homosexual either for similar & other reasons.

So I'm not really sure if we should try & come up with an "answer" for it. Prostitutes that look really young are the only thing that come to mind & I don't think it's very practical.

On a side note has everyone on humanities switched their attention to politics recently!?

nesf

InFront wrote:

The sexual attraction that a paedophile has to a child might be natural in that it is biological, but it is unnatural in that it is 100% undesirable, just like miscarriage or siamese twinnage or cancer.

Eh, miscarriages, siamese twins, cancer etc are all natural. Undesirable, sure but not unnatural. A psychopath is a nice example in that this is something 100% undesirable but is natural. The natural/unnatural problem only arises if you hold the false belief that everything natural is "good" somehow. Nature is inherently neutral, attributing moral tags to it is simply a category error.

The Corinthian

nesf wrote:

Eh, miscarriages, siamese twins, cancer etc are all natural. Undesirable, sure but not unnatural. A psychopath is a nice example in that this is something 100% undesirable but is natural. The natural/unnatural problem only arises if you hold the false belief that everything natural is "good" somehow. Nature is inherently neutral, attributing moral tags to it is simply a category error.

I think people are getting bogged down in semantics. Paraphilias are natural, but they are abnormal - that is they are not within the demographically and socially accepted parameters of what is considered normal or average.

Sociopathy (~2% of the population), while not a paraphilia, is abnormal. Paedophilia (no idea what the figures are, but I would think them small) is abnormal. And, like it or not, homosexuality (~10% of the population) is also abnormal.

Thus the first question is whether something, be it abnormal or not, is desirable within society, means looking at both the direct and indirect effects upon society. In the case of paedophilia, this can be safely said to be a negative effect.

Also, what is more interesting is the violence of the reaction towards paedophiles, as it tends to be indicative of emotive, mob, mentality rather than reason. This is why I earlier raised the question of consensual incest, which is another abnormal sexual desire, that meets the Western criteria of 'consenting sexual relationship' but is treated with a similar revulsion. Ask the average man on the Clapham omnibus what they think and you'll get an "ugh" followed by some half hearted attempt about how the children will have genetic defects (typically forgetting that society seems to have no problem with people with severe genetic defects breeding).

So it has been raised that paedophiles cannot help what they are, but can help how they act, which is more pertinent to the the discussion. Thus if these two statements are both true, then given the emotive reaction to them becomes the thing that is ironically wrong with society rather than the paedophiles (who cannot help their inclinations but can suppress them) themselves.

nesf

The Corinthian wrote:

I think people are getting bogged down in semantics. Paraphilias are natural, but they are abnormal - that is they are not within the demographically and socially accepted parameters of what is considered normal or average.

Very true, I was only bothered by the idea that they were "unnatural" more than anything else. Natural and abnormal might be a good way of putting it.

metrovelvet

Its remarkable how people dont use the term "unnatural" with such protest when it comes to things like boob jobs and indoor toilets.

There are pedophiles who are exclusively so and then there are those who just venture there from time to time.

Then there are those who prefer pre pubescents while some prefer the under 5s.

Of course then there are those AIDS victims in Africa who rape baby girls because they think it will cure them. Is that pedophilia or plain old fashioned superstition?

One of the defining characteristics of it, is the seduction element in it. There is no love involved in it, it's purely a need that they have to get off on ****ing a child or exposing themselves to one or whatever. There is no mutuality in it, contrary to what NAMBLA want you to think, and the number ONE reason NOT to support father's rights.

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

nesf

metrovelvet wrote:

There is no mutuality in it, contrary to what NAMBLA want you to think, and the number ONE reason NOT to support father's rights.

What?

metrovelvet

Oh sorry I should explain. I dont know if this is an exclusively American thing, but a common gay rights protest chant in New York is about "getting your children" and one of the objections to father's rights here is that it is tied into gay [male] adoption which is suspected to have alterior motives other than wanting to raise a child.

InFront

nesf wrote:

Eh, miscarriages, siamese twins, cancer etc are all natural. Undesirable, sure but not unnatural.

Of course, as I said it is just the connotation that occurs, I'm not suggesting that something that is natural is good. As I said in the post before the one you mentioned

A problem here is that there are various connotations to the word "natural". It may be natural in the sense that it arose out of the subconcscience or possibly a neurological disorder, but that doesn't mean it is anyway natural in the social or moral context.

Obviously something being literally "natural" in biology doesn't say anything whatever about its desirability.

nesf

metrovelvet wrote:

Oh sorry I should explain. I dont know if this is an exclusively American thing, but a common gay rights protest chant in New York is about "getting your children" and one of the objections to father's rights here is that it is tied into gay [male] adoption which is suspected to have alterior motives other than wanting to raise a child.

Hmm, no that doesn't really come up here. Most of the father's rights movements are about equality of custody arrangements etc. Though, you are equating gay and paedophile which is a big claim to be making. One does not equal the other, especially regarding abuse.

InFront wrote:

Of course, as I said it is just the connotation that occurs, I'm not suggesting that something that is natural is good. As I said in the post before the one you mentioned

I'm more against the idea of identifying natural and unnatural through a moral context more than anything else. It has awkward implications (i.e. moral absolutism and the idea of morality being a "natural" thing).

seamus

metrovelvet wrote:

Oh sorry I should explain. I dont know if this is an exclusively American thing, but a common gay rights protest chant in New York is about "getting your children" and one of the objections to father's rights here is that it is tied into gay [male] adoption which is suspected to have alterior motives other than wanting to raise a child.

*boggle*

So you're basically saying that those gay males who wish to adopt a child probably have some paedophilic ulterior motive?

metrovelvet

Im not saying that, Im saying that many people have their suspicions based on NAMBLA's agenda and the speech that you hear at gay rights marches - about getting your kids.

eth0_

NotMe wrote:

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.

The majority of paedophiles have never and will probably never have sexual relations with a child. It's the ones who can't control their urges and assault children who are 'perverts'. I do believe that paedophilia is a form of sexuality that can't be 'helped' anymore than you can help a gay man become a straight man.

Then there are child rapists who probably don't fit into the mold of paedophile, who assault children because they were abused themselves as children.

At the end of the day, there's probably a miniscule amount of paedophiles out there, despite what you hear the tabloid press screaming at you every day.

mountainyman

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....

That isn't paedophilia. It is ephebophilia. Very common among male homosexuals.

MM

LadyJ

I'm too terrified to read past page one of this! I will eventually but for now I'll just say OP, I agree with your post and it's something that I have always been interested in researching because people are so eagar to tear into paedophiles and shout about how they should all be murdered.

People get very emotional about paedophilia and rightly so I suppose but I really think a lot more research needs to be done in this area instead of just making these people out to be monsters. It's nuts!

metrovelvet

^ That is all part of an agenda to make it normative like homosexuality was made normative and "you cant help it - your born like that."

Anyone who thinks that ****ing kids or getting them to get you off is ok is a nothing less than a monster.

LadyJ

metrovelvet wrote:

^ That is all part of an agenda to make it normative like homosexuality was made normative and "you cant help it - your born like that."

Anyone who thinks that ****ing kids or getting them to get you off is ok is a nothing less than a monster.

Where in my post did I say it was ok to fcuk children? This is what I mean, it's a touchy subject. You can't say anything without someone inferring that you think riding kids is perfectly fine. Sigh.

karen3212

LadyJ wrote:

I'm too terrified to read past page one of this! I will eventually but for now I'll just say OP, I agree with your post and it's something that I have always been interested in researching because people are so eagar to tear into paedophiles and shout about how they should all be murdered.

People get very emotional about paedophilia and rightly so I suppose but I really think a lot more research needs to be done in this area instead of just making these people out to be monsters. It's nuts!

Yes, and once we understand the whole thing better, we as a society can set about preventing children being hurt in the first place.

Preventing children being hurt in the first place is surely the most important thing.

LadyJ

karen3212 wrote:

Yes, and once we understand the whole thing better, we as a society can set about preventing children being hurt in the first place.

Preventing children being hurt in the first place is surely the most important thing.

Obviously no one wants children to be abused at all. I don't think anyone is saying that the rights of the child are not number one priority. However, the thread seems to be more about "Do we think paedaphiles are inhuman monsters?" and I'm just saying that I don't.

a-k-47

LadyJ wrote:

instead of just making these people out to be monsters. It's nuts!

so what should they made out to be?.

op, yes perverts. I dont know much about the subject but as i far as i know ppl arent born with it. Its a disease that you develop in time.

LadyJ

a-k-47 wrote:

so what should they made out to be?.

They are still humans. I've said the same thing in the past about murderers. They are just people. They think differently and it is our job to find out why and what causes this but it is completely unreasonable and unhelpful to just write them off as monsters. If we do that then how can we ever hope to learn about their state of mind and thus help to prevent them committing the crime and also help them to live normal lives and deal with this "condition", for want of a better word, without acting on the urge?

eth0_

metrovelvet wrote:

^ That is all part of an agenda to make it normative like homosexuality was made normative and "you cant help it - your born like that."

Anyone who thinks that ****ing kids or getting them to get you off is ok is a nothing less than a monster.

And you're very ignorant. There's nothing wrong with homosexuality between consenting adults.

There is a difference between someone who is sexually attracted to children but can keep it in check because he/she knows it is wrong, and those paedophiles in the news who rape children for the same reason adults rape other adults - usually because they were abused and raped as a child. Obviously this is a barbardic act and is totally wrong.

seamus

metrovelvet wrote:

^ That is all part of an agenda to make it normative like homosexuality was made normative and "you cant help it - your born like that."

Anyone who thinks that ****ing kids or getting them to get you off is ok is a nothing less than a monster.

There is a HUGE difference between having a sexual attraction to an individual (or group of individuals), and forcing one of those individuals to have sex with you (or otherwise engage in sexual activity). People just tend to get hysterical because there are kids involved, but child rape, male rape and female rape all refer to the same horrific crime.

karen3212

LadyJ wrote:

Obviously no one wants children to be abused at all. I don't think anyone is saying that the rights of the child are not number one priority. However, the thread seems to be more about "Do we think paedaphiles are inhuman monsters?" and I'm just saying that I don't.

And yes I was agreeing with you and adding to the point.

With research etc. we will be better able to prevent paedophilia, act before anyone gets hurt, rather than just acting as a society after an horrific crime.

Just that crime prevention is better than paying for prisons.