'Bout them PaedophilesFollow

Some of you appear to be very bored. As whiny as I find those "Somebody post something!" threads, I do happen to feel the same way at this time, so let's have at it. Last time I flipped on the magic box paedophilia was still a remotely edgy topic well worth debating. The topic has popped up a few times in the past on the OOT, and I remember many users positions well. That is why I will be taking up the side with which I believe most of you will disagree. One sided discussions are boring.



First I feel it is necessary to define some terms, as most westerners are even more confused about the meaning of the word than the topic as a whole.

1. @#%^philia is a persistent attraction to prepubescent children. Diagnosis criteria typically include having reoccurring sexual fantasies, urges, or behaviors involving prepubescents for a period of at least six months.

2. Ephebophilia is a specific sexual attraction towards post pubescent youths. Too often paedophilia is used as a "cover all," term inaccurately. These are two distinctly separate attractions and issues.

3. Preferential, surrogate, and sadistic types. These are three categories within which most psychologists agree sexual feelings for children fall. Preferential type is as it sounds. They prefer children in much the same way a straight person prefers the opposite gender or a homosexual prefers someone of the same gender. Surrogate type substitutes the child for the preferred sexual object. They would prefer, for examples, to have intercourse with a fully adolescent person, but such a thing is unavailable to them. Think of it as a straight man who gets lonely on a navy ship and so experiments with other gentlemen. Then there is the sadistic type which is more about power control than it is the child.



I believe paedophiles to be a widely abused and misunderstood demographic. It is a very demonizing term, one you would scarcely hear someone declare proudly in the street. I've seen respected papers use the descriptors "paedophile," and "child rapist," synonymously throughout an article. Shows like To Catch a Predator parade around would be criminals as a representation of all those attracted to children.

Sexual orientation is a mostly immutable characteristic. Developmental or genetic, it doesn't matter. People do not choose such an attraction so how can they be judged based on such an aspect?

Edited, Oct 26th 2007 9:59pm by Allegory

As long as they don't react on the urge I don't have a problem with them. When I hear about some little girl being gangbanged by a group of old farts, that's when I lose it.

Edited, Oct 27th 2007 5:00am by Mazra

Nor was I trying to imply such. Rape is a crime regardless of the orientation of the perpetrator. But one should not say "paedophile," and think "child rapist."

Again, rape is rape. But are you suggesting that any such acting on the urge is disgusting?

Ignoring the automatic classification as rape due to statutory laws, do you believe it is fully impossible for a prepubescent child to consent to sex?

Somewhat of a reiteration of my previous comment, but I will be more direct. Do you believe it to be fully impossible for a child to engage in a healthy sexual relationship?

With an adult or another child. For the purposes of this discussion I suppose the adult part is more relevant.

.

I would say, Allegory, in the case of a child having a relationship, that if she is mentally and physically mature enough for it not to be a danger to her (or him, i apologize, but specifically "her"), then i believe (although grudgingly) that it should be ok.

I say "her" above, because of the nature of sexual penetration, vaginal and penile sizes, etc.

now you have me all randy. let me go grab that schoolgirl walking down the road ^^

And what is it with you and all the boy-love anime? i'm just curious. (because i cant remember the exact name of the type. reminds me of Death Note, just not as creepy as your sig!)

No. However, it is highly unlikely and that's why we have age requirements for anything.

There are some people who could probably handle the responsibilities of voting, smoking, drinking, or gambling at a young age. Maybe some exceptionally tall ones who could handle driving at a young age as well. There are also a decent number of adults who cannot handle these things well after their current age limits. But in general it's safe to assume that people under a certain age can't handle them, and people above that age can.

It is also extremely unlikely that someone who was specifically prepubescent (under 11-15 depending) would both be capable of informed consent and actually want to give it. Being prepubescent means that someone would probably not feel any sexual desire.

Bull ticky. Humans are sexual beings from birth.

This discussion brings up a thought though, don't you wish it was ethical to do all sorts of developmental psychology expirements on humans? O' the **** we could learn.

Damn Ethics.

I'm pretty sure the police/DA in some states can automatically press charges against the people involved in said underage sex.

The problem is that now, all the boys look younger and all the girls look older. And at 15, they all want to be getting it on. As the underage girls prefer men they have to look for those who are waaay overage (20+, anyone?) and this leaves the men branded peadophiles because the amount of make-up on a girl's face can effectively hide her age entirely.

O_o; Boobs at 5? I can't even imagine how that would look.

And to echo Galkaman, it's hard to tell how old someone is by looking at them. Not too long ago I asked a waitress out who turned out was 17. I had her pegged as 20-something. I think based on her skin maybe she was a heavy smoker.

Makeup should be illegal until you turn 18. Until then it's just sinister, misleading temptation. Like Satan.