Compassion with pedophiles?

[Anakha1]

I don't think it will ever be acceptable to kill someone for what they WANT to do, no matter what people (coughSmegcough) think. Only if they do it. It's actions that are condemnable. Thinking things don't hurt others. If they did, we'd all be going to jail for thought murder.

 

[AgentDoubleOhEighteen]

Okay, how do we define a pedophile? How old do you have to be to be considered a pedophile? Is a 16-year-old in love with a 11-year-old a pedophile? How about a 19-year-old in love with a 16-year-old?

Pedophiles who've done nothing wrong should be left alone. Child molesters are a different can of worms and should be imprisoned for life or whatever solution seems best.

 

[BasTyra]

I pity pedophiles, whos natural urges is illegal and horrible. But I truly admire those who refrain from doing such actions. Imagining never being able to touch a person of the gender you are attracted to, even if they came on to you and wanted you to do it.

But little kids don't come onto old men nor do they want old men to fiddle with them.

Personally I think I'd be ok with never being able to touch a person of the gender i'm attracted to. I'd deal with it. I honestly don't think it would bother me too much.
That said, I don't have the same sex drive as a male.

 

[Raistlin Majere]

Think of it as the same drive you have for chocolate.

 

[Bortaz]

But little kids don't come onto old men nor do they want old men to fiddle with them.

Personally I think I'd be ok with never being able to touch a person of the gender i'm attracted to. I'd deal with it. I honestly don't think it would bother me too much.
That said, I don't have the same sex drive as a male.

Your assumption that all pedophiles are male is very much incorrect.

 

[BobCox]

I don't think it will ever be acceptable to kill someone for what they WANT to do, no matter what people (coughSmegcough) think. Only if they do it. It's actions that are condemnable. Thinking things don't hurt others. If they did, we'd all be going to jail for thought murder.

Don't bet on it - have you had a look at this?
H.R. 1955 the Violent Radicalization and Homegrown Terrorism Prevention Act?
Seach it in this weeks news.
Here's a selected link.
http://axisoflogic.com/artman/publish/article_25621.shtml

 

[Dondrei]

I would have no remorse in punishing them for their actions against the weakest, most innocent, unable-to-fight-back victims they could possibly choose.

Hmm, what about disabled children? People in comas?

There is a test involving sensitive measuring devices and exposure to certain porn. I've only read about it in newspaper articles so who knows how effective and accurate it is.
There was recently an article about some new study that found brain differences. It also said they tend to be shorter and left handed.
Personally I'm more in interested in what's done to help the victims.

Homosexuals tend to be left-handed too. As do artists.

Oh, and I think lesbians tend to have a longer ring finger than index.

Ok, that makes a little more sense.

Sexual orientation being beyond your own control is something I have been on the fence on for years. I just don't know. Part of me says no...it has to do with their upbringing, surroundings, etc, etc. The other part of me semi-agrees that it might be something encoded into them.

I just don't know. (It's definitely not a disease though... :azn: )

You're straight, right? Do you think you could force yourself to not be attracted to women and instead be attracted to men?

To be clear, I'm talking about actual preference and attraction, not behaviour.

Just like Homosexuals, Pedophiles aren't born that way, but they are also not consciously choosing to have the desires they're having.

Can you prove that?

Okay, how do we define a pedophile? How old do you have to be to be considered a pedophile? Is a 16-year-old in love with a 11-year-old a pedophile? How about a 19-year-old in love with a 16-year-old?

Pedophiles who've done nothing wrong should be left alone. Child molesters are a different can of worms and should be imprisoned for life or whatever solution seems best.

Legally speaking, over here anyone 16 or over can consent, anyone 12-16 can consent provided the other person is no more than two years older, and prior to that cannot consent at all. I think that's not too bad a rule, can't see us doing much better.

In the real world there are shades of grey, but the law has to put dividing lines somewhere. There will always be borderline cases that seem a little unjust, but that's the way the cookie crumbles.

Your assumption that all pedophiles are male is very much incorrect.

I wouldn't say "very much".

 

[snowieken]

Best way is to castrate them with a rusty spoon. :evil:

Feel free to disagree with me, but I say, if that is the only thing you are bringing to the thread, you seemed to have missed its point entirely. :smiley:

But little kids don't come onto old men nor do they want old men to fiddle with them.

Little kids don't, but pubers might do. Well, probably not to old men, but there are definately 12 to 14 year olds who are physically attracted to, let's say, a handsome 30-year old teacher.

While disease doesn't seem quite right, what would you call it? derangment? disability? There's really no good term. All of these imply that we need a cure, a fix, a way to rectify a wrong. At the same time, it's hard for me to say it's merely a preference. Perhaps a fetish? I think that's as close as I can get.

From what i've seen there are definitely some fetishes that society can accept and some that society can't. pedophiles are one we can't, homosexuals are one we can, and will in time.

In essence, homosexuality can be compared to pedophilia (only in the strict sense, of course, meaning that it is a certain sexual preference). And that is why referring to pedophilia as a derangement or disability (like a disease) is not completely correct. As toader already said, it would imply that homosexuality is also something like that, and that is something I refuse to acknowledge. Heck, calling homosexuality merely a fetish sounds awfully wrong to me already.

Actually, "a certain sexual preference" is not a bad term for pedophilia, I think. You can add that is "a certain despicable sexual preference", but then you are not really defining it in an objective way. As Wildberry kind of stated already, though, it is hard to look at this in an objective way. That's why words like derangement and disability, or even disease, are so easily used for this.

Just like Homosexuals, Pedophiles aren't born that way, but they are also not consciously choosing to have the desires they're having.

How can you be so sure? This is something that hasn't been proven yet, to my knowledge.

We have to know that at some point, maybe soon, maybe not for a long time, but eventually we'll have a "cure" for pedophilia, but that means we'll also have a "cure" for homosexuality. I'm not sure society is ready to deal with that yet.

When I say we need to give them professional help, I'm saying we need to help them find a way to not infringe on the rights of children.

I agree, that is also my understandment of giving professional help to pedophiles. Guidance (therapy, counseling, ...) should be aimed towards keeping those urges under control, and eventually learning to live with the fact that you can never ever give in to these desires.

Even if there will eventually be a "cure" (which I am definately not certain about) I am not sure if I would be able to support this - although, again, I don't condone pedophilia in any way. "Cure" implies that pedophilia is a disability or a disease, and I have already stated that I don't agree with that. Basically because it would mean there would be a cure for homosexuality as well, and that just sounds awfully wrong.

One could argue that homosexuality is just a "positive" disability, one that doesn't need curing, but that still doesn't sound right at all.

Okay, how do we define a pedophile? How old do you have to be to be considered a pedophile? Is a 16-year-old in love with a 11-year-old a pedophile? How about a 19-year-old in love with a 16-year-old?

According to belgian law, sex is prohibited for anyone under the age of 16. And last time I heard, the law here states that for ages 16 and 17, there can be a maximum age difference of 5 years. So, for example, a 20-year old can legally have sex with a 16-year old, but a 23-year old can't. Above the age of 18, of course, any age is permitted.

These laws apply only when sex is involved, though, as far as I know. I don't know if there are any regulations to relationships without sex, but since it is impossible to really control that, I would expect there are.

On a side note, I really appreciate the way you guys are debating this controversial topic. My faith in the OTF hasn't let me down. :thumbsup:

 

[Heilage]

But little kids don't come onto old men nor do they want old men to fiddle with them.

Personally I think I'd be ok with never being able to touch a person of the gender i'm attracted to. I'd deal with it. I honestly don't think it would bother me too much.
That said, I don't have the same sex drive as a male.

I never said that children do, but it's a fair analogy, it's the closest we can get to our own lives. Children are naive, and not very hard to "seduce", so I suspect that it's much more difficult to refrain from sexual actions when you're a pedophile.

I don't know though, I don't have any personal experience in the area.

 

[kobold]

I've been in the odd position where I've been friends with a pedophile for a while. ~snip~ His victims, and himself.

Vivi, I'm not sure how to respond. I could not do this, not even in the abstract. I would more likely want to go hunting with the fellow, maybe have an "accident". This has to be one of the most heinous of crimes that a person can commit, and (although perhaps not very christian of me) not one that I could forgive.

In terms of snowieken's original topic, a person who has such urges and doesn't act on them... While I want to condemn them just as I would a person who has acted on them, I can't. I don't think that it is a person's choice to feel a certain way (qualified). Therefore it would not be appropriate to condemn a person for their thoughts. To further that though, viewing/watching child porn (to me) is almost as condemnable as committing the act in person, as it is supporting others who do.

 

[disgruntled]

Vivi, I'm not sure how to respond. I could not do this, not even in the abstract. I would more likely want to go hunting with the fellow, maybe have an "accident". This has to be one of the most heinous of crimes that a person can commit, and (although perhaps not very christian of me) not one that I could forgive.

In terms of snowieken's original topic, a person who has such urges and doesn't act on them... While I want to condemn them just as I would a person who has acted on them, I can't. I don't think that it is a person's choice to feel a certain way (qualified). Therefore it would not be appropriate to condemn a person for their thoughts. To further that though, viewing/watching child porn (to me) is almost as condemnable as committing the act in person, as it is supporting others who do.

I was going to post a long (probably "overly emotional") post on this, but I have to say that Kobold wrote very well what I was thinking.

I think that anyone that has these 'urges' should recognize that they aren't healthy. There are wonderful medications people can take now that control overpowering, unhealthy urges. Craving is a neurochemical reaction, and is controlled with medications. (IE-Bupropion for food or smoking urges, methadone for heroin, naltrexone for alcohol) These people obsessing about sex with a child should seek out treatment and get help to control themselves. Otherwise, it's criminal and stupid.

Vivi, I also could never befriend a pedo, and that is no doubt part of the problem (getting shunned). It would be more prudent to have places these people could go for treatment without being shunned, but I'm sure as soon as you admit you have an urge like this, your life becomes hell. Rehab used to be a dirty word, and now it's almost a badge of honor to have gone and fought your addiction demons. It's too bad there isn't some sort of recognition for people with socially unacceptable urges. (Socially unacceptable and RIGHTLY SO, in my opinion)

 

[AeroJonesy]

Don't bet on it - have you had a look at this?
H.R. 1955 the Violent Radicalization and Homegrown Terrorism Prevention Act?
Seach it in this weeks news.
Here's a selected link.
http://axisoflogic.com/artman/publish/article_25621.shtml

I figured it was only a matter of time before someone posted something saying H.R. 1955 is evil. Do you know what it really does? It creates a commission to study why we have terrorism. But let's get all bent out of shape anyway because it's a fun thing to do!

 

[toader]

You're straight, right? Do you think you could force yourself to not be attracted to women and instead be attracted to men?

To be clear, I'm talking about actual preference and attraction, not behaviour.

Oh man...I see this degenerating into a homosexuality argument real quickly...

To answer your question...no. The reason being, I have accepted "normal" as being attracted to the opposite sex for reasons of reproduction and continuation of the species. The tendency would be to bring people back to normal, not to bring the normal away from normal.

Yes, I realize I'm going to anger all the homosexuals (and pedophiles?) by saying that...but it is what I believe. If nature didn't intend for that to be normal, then the species would not persist.

I hope that answers your question, Donny. I'm sure you will disagree with me, because we probably have different definitions of what "normal" is. But, that is what it is for me...take it or leave it.

 

[buttershug]

Oh man...I see this degenerating into a homosexuality argument real quickly...

To answer your question...no. The reason being, I have accepted "normal" as being attracted to the opposite sex for reasons of reproduction and continuation of the species. The tendency would be to bring people back to normal, not to bring the normal away from normal.

Yes, I realize I'm going to anger all the homosexuals (and pedophiles?) by saying that...but it is what I believe. If nature didn't intend for that to be normal, then the species would not persist.

I hope that answers your question, Donny. I'm sure you will disagree with me, because we probably have different definitions of what "normal" is. But, that is what it is for me...take it or leave it.

What do you mean by normal?
The most common?
Common enough to be accepted?
What should be?
I would not be suprised if there are behaviours that are less common than homosexuality that would accept as normal.


It's quite possible a population with a per centage of homosexual members is stronger than one without any. There are animals where there is one breeding pair per group and most members of the group never have offspring.

 

[toader]

What do you mean by normal?

I explained that above. But I guess I'll type it again since you are trying to goad me. Normal is the species natural instinct/ability to reproduce.

 

[buttershug]

I explained that above. But I guess I'll type it again since you are trying to goad me. Normal is the species natural instinct/ability to reproduce.

Care to explain how having a per centage of homosexual members interferes with that? AFAIK a lot of species have non-repoducing members within it's population. In other species afaik the non-repoducing members don't engage in sexual activity. Maybe in humans the sex drive is so strong it's better to have homosexual behaviour.

And I meant what is your general definition of normal, not your definition in this particular case.

 

[toader]

Care to explain how having a per centage of homosexual members interferes with that?

I never said it did, did I? I was answering Donny's question, and giving a reason for my answer.

And I meant what is your general definition of normal, not your definition in this particular case.

Why do you care what my definition of normal is in general, when I clearly explained what it is in this case?

 

[Bortaz]

I wouldn't say "very much".

Ok, I'll rephrase. It's absolutely, positively, 100% incorrect. Is that better?

 

[buttershug]

I never said it did, did I? I was answering Donny's question, and giving a reason for my answer.

Why do you care what my definition of normal is in general, when I clearly explained what it is in this case?

At least you didn't say "natural".
I'm just curious why "normal" is at all relavent.

 

[toader]

At least you didn't say "natural".

Out of curiosity...what would you have done if I would have? Told my mom?

I'm just curious why "normal" is at all relavent.

It's not overly relevant, it merely helped me establish some background into my thinking so Donny would understand my answer to his question.