Peadophillia. Forgive the strong subject.

Personally, I think it's purely psychological. Not sure how or why, but I think it is.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

In every era human beings create social constructs defining behaviour and then create rules about what is right or wrong regarding behaviour which falls outside these arbitrary limits.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

I'm not sure thats quite it, SAM. I don't think it's a rebellion kinda thing. I think it's just an attraction. Everyone is attracted to a certain type of people. Some white people are more attracted to certain non-white people. Some people are attracted to big people, some to skinny people. Some people are attracted to brown hair, blond hair, green eyes, brown eyes, some to tall people, some to short people etc. I think it's just another attraction. Its just a question of what makes people attracted to children rather than adults. While I don't support pedophelia at all, I do think it would be interesting to see what makes pedophiles "tick".

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Except certain limits are not merely arbitrary.

If it's between consenting adults, then it's not wrong. Fucked up, sure. Disturbing, sure. Vomit inducing, yes, some of the stuff out there certainly is. But not morally wrong. No one is the victim. Both are choosing to take part in that activity.

Pedophilia is outside that limit. That child doesn't understand what he or she is being manipulated into. Therefore pedophilia is always, always wrong.

 

What if the child does know? I'm sure when you were 12,13, 14 etc that you knew exactly what sex was. What if it was mutual? Does that make it wrong? OOooo I love debating morals lol

 

(1) No
(2) No
(3) No other reason, correct

Pedophilia is a psychological disorder; a medical diagnosis; an illness. I suspect that there are more causal theories than curative ones, but I haven't looked into this since the Lawrence Franklin scandal, 20 years ago.

The actual 'legal' crimes which involve minors range from mere possession of pornography, to the most shocking and egregious offenses of child sexual abuse; abduction and torture; even murder and violation of the corpse of a minor.

These are all more flagrant versions of other personal crimes (as distinct from property crimes and/or procedural crimes), and what makes them much more heinous under various state and federal statutes is essentially two-fold; exploitation of the power and age/experience difference between perpetrator and victim, and the lasting physical and psychological harm inflicted by such assaults.

In many (but not all) cases of such personal crimes committed against children there is some sort of psychological gratification for the perpetrator(s); some percentage of such crimes involve incentives other than pleasure for the criminals however (human trafficking, assassination, etc); the unifying and underlying characteristic, even in cases of pornography, the subject or victim endured trauma and/or violation of civil liberties.

...

One interesting point of consideration regarding porn, is if written words or audiovisual materials arise exclusively from within an artist's imagination, whether the medium is prose, painting, or sculpture (I exclude photography, film and video purposely here), at what point(s) in the process of artistic creation did the material become pornographic? Was there one word or "stroke of the pen" too many? (pardon the pun)

This spawns lots of other philosophical tangets; like, are there thought crimes? If it is "okay to fantasize" is it okay to record or to interpret one's fantasies? How many observers makes an audience? And can one person (or a democratic minority of people) declare what is pornographic or not for anyone but themselves? If so, on what basis (authority theory?)...

Apologies for widening the discussion.

 

Pedophile and child molester are being conflated ITT. A pedophile is an adult who has a strong to exclusive sexual attraction to prepubescent children. In the US, popular usage has distorted it to also mean adults who sexually attracted to post pubescent children (jailbait). A child molester is an individual who has committed acts of a sexual nature with a child. Not all pedophiles are child molesters, and not all child molesters are pedophiles.

The pedophiles who act on their impulses and sexually assault and even rape children have far more problems than just being strongly to exclusively attracted to children. If you were to wake up tomorrow, and find that, out of the blue, your only sexual attractions were to children, do you think you would ever act on your impulses? Who knows how many people there are who choose to lead a life without sex because they know that acting on their desires would likely harm a child for life, not to mention the social sanctions such as loss of friends, job, prosecution for felonies. It could very well be that the majority of pedophiles are never known because they never act on their desires.

I think the ones that become known are sociopaths. They don't care about the harm they may cause, and as Fraggle touched on earlier, that may even be part of the thrill for them. Going back to how I mentioned some child rapists are not pedophiles, interviews with criminals have revealed that a certain percentage of child rapists aren't any more sexually attracted to children than a normal male; they just preyed on targets of opportunity, and a child was what was available.

 

To lighten things up, a cure for pedophilia

 

Different countries, each for their own reasons, define adulthood at different ages. England, for instance, states that people of both sexes become adults at the age of 16, whereas it's 18 in the USA.

In America, 18-year-olds can marry, buy cars and houses, and even be actors in adult videos. In England, they can do all the above at the age of 16. Europeans have a different attitude towards sex, including public nudity on beaches and in advertisements. This cultural difference was one of the reasons why some people left Europe three centuries ago and came here. Their religion disapproved of any "sins of the flesh", such as the sight of bare bodies.

The following link will tell you where you can find Europeans of all ages walking about completely nude. The sight of old, fat, and ugly people walking around with everything they have open to public view will discourage all but the worst of them.
http://www.euronaturist.com/links1.htm

 

So as long as they never lay a hand on any child, let them do what they want with pixels on a screen.

If you are old enough to have a sex drive of your own, by which I mean actually want it with another human being and be emotionally mature enough for it, I don't think you count as a child in that sense, although you are still a minor.

But someone who isn't yet a sexual being? Yes it's wrong and the fucker needs to be locked up where he or she can never hurt anyone.

 

Judging by that sentance, your saying that if all a Peadophile is doing is jerkig off to images and videos its ok?... then how did those images and videos get there in the first place?

 

No..sorry, my bad, I should have phrased that better...

If it was purely virtual and no actual children were being abused...I can't say I can find a moral argument against it. It makes me want to puke, yes, but since no one anywhere would be being harmed, I can't see how to justify making that illegal. You can't make a law against something just because it makes you feel like puking.

 

Japanese anime sometimes has characters that appear to be young enough to be considered children, if these computer animations were real actors and actresses. Since they aren't, no children were hurt in any way by the production of such videos, and people can have all kinds of emotional or sexual reactions to these images without any guilt.

Here's a short list of what's available.
http://www.happyhentai.com/

I mentioned earlier that England and the US had different standards of adulthood. I have no idea what age a Japanese person becomes an adult under Japanese laws, but I have heard that in China, some of their male political leaders had very young girls as their personal overnight guests, and some of them were quite open about the practice.

 

I do not believe that an attraction to post pubescent girls can be called pedophilia. Some girls as young as 12 can be extremely well developed, and very curvaceous.

Being attracted to such young girls is probably not pathological, though when a man actually goes through a sex act with one of them, that has to be seen as criminal.

 

It shouldn't be, but it all too often is here in the US. Even though no one but an idiot thinks that finding an unusually physically mature thirteen year old physically attractive is the same thing as being sexually attracted to a six year old. People shouldn't say "begs the question" when they mean "raises the question" either.

I personally think the proper adjective for grown men who pursue sexual relationships with teenage girls is idiot.

 

The other piece of sexual idiocy that has had a couple of well publicised cases recently is when a woman has sex with a young teenage guy, and is convicted for under age sex.

When an adult male has sex with a young girl - say 14 years old - he is doing something that is extremely likely to cause her major grief - pregnancy or heartache. When an adult woman has sex with a young guy - she is doing him a favour. He cannot become pregnant, and young guys do not respond in the same way a young girl does, so heartache is likely only for the woman.

Instead, a 14 years old guy who has been having sex with a mature woman will tell his friends, and his status will rise within his peer group. He will feel smug and superior, because he is having sex. He will face the world with straight back, chest well out and head held high. He is now The Big Man!

How ludicrous that a woman who has done so much to help the young guy's self esteem then gets convicted and jailed for practising under age sex. Political correctness at its most insane.

 

Consent? Moral? Legal? All human social constructs

Biology is something else again - the study of other primates sexuality is a window into our own. But man has the capacity to rise above instinct and think about concepts such as harmful/good and right/wrong. And so we evolve social constructs which define our behaviour and draw lines between normal and excessive. The way people think about pedophilia now is the way they have thought of same sex intercourse and female sexuality before. Both homosexuality and nymphomania have at one time, been classified as psychological disorders and shunned in society. And yet there has never been a society free from homosexuality, "nymphomania" or pedophilia.