... and calling it a "sexual orientation" and conflating it with "underage sex". http://www.independent.co.uk/voices...d-to-have-a-sense-of-proportion-a6704201.html I do agree that we shouldn't daemonize those who've never harmed a child, but come on...
It's not a sexual orientation. An attraction to pre-pubescent children is not the same as post-pubescent but underage teenagers. They are trying to turn this into the next "gay-rights-movement", now that actual gay-rights are (rightly so) done and recognized (in the US anyway).
Apart from the (well founded) prejudice against it, there's no reason not to regards it as a genuine sexual orientation. People aren't just doing it because of TEH EVILZ.
Fucking hell! :wft: These people aren't evil. But this is so obviously a mental disorder when people are attracted to sexually immature children and not a "genuine sexual orientation". Gays are sexually attracted to persons of they own sex. Straights are sexually attracted to persons of the opposite sex. Bis are sexually attracted to persons of both sexes. Paedophiles are sexually attracted to children. One of those is different than the others. Can you guess which one? Yeah, no. Fuck yourself if you think this is a "genuine sexual orientation".
It's different because it relates to people (children) who are unable to provide informed consent. That doesn't make it any less a sexual orientation.
Why not? Do you interpret its recognition as such as being acceptance that its practice should be tolerated? I'm afraid that biological urges don't always fall nicely into your ethical system, or mine.
You are wrong, I'm afraid. It's a psychiatric disorder. http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2013/oct/31/apa-correct-manual-clarification-pedophilia-not-se/
The definition held to by the APA is disputed by others. That's the entire point here. And you aren't providing much support to your argument other than incredulity.
No one here disagrees with that. The argument is classifying it as an orientation over mental disorder, as homosexuality once was. I don't eer see pedophilia being normalized but getting clarification on which ones are most likely to offend would do a lot to prevent victimization.
This has been going on for a while. I can see it is a sexual orientation or fettish. There is a range for people who have this. The people at the hard end are truly born with this desire and it seems to be as hard as homosexuality to change. It is so much so that often the cures focus on removing sexual desire entirely to help the subject to overcome the urges. Without approving of sex with children, there are those who have a very real compulsion to do so. A compulsion is not just a desire. A compulsion is something that if you do not do you go squirrly. As a trans person I understand compulsions. Mine is to be a girl or feminine. If i am restricted from doing that, or do not do that I get really fucking crazy. OCD people suffer from compulsions also. They just simply cannot stop doing it. Many child molestors suffer from an unwanted compulsion to act sexually with children. Not every one is severe, and yes they are born that way. That does not mean we can allow it, but it does mean we can recognize that we would like to find some form of cure or something to alleviate or govern the impulses. It is one of the tough shits of life to be born a compulsive pedophile, but perhaps science can do something. Your little twit brain needs to recognize that some pedophiles go through insane things to keep themselves from molesting children. Some are physically or chemically castrated by their own choice. Some are mandatory. I personally see a number of ways to help them satisfy the urge without allowing them sex with children. There is porn, roleplaying, and perhaps developing alternative fetishes. The law really can only punish after there is a victim. However, if we recognize this problem we might be able to help a certain number of these people into a sustainable place where they do not act on their impulses. I do not think we will get the more serious ones, and I also think that by treating them instantly as evil we show them no reason to ever come to use for help. Some of them can get by with some help, and if we can get them help before they molest then we have less victims. That is a reason to make a good effort in my book. None of what I have said in any way should imply I ever feel that adult child relationships should ever be sexual.
This one is a testy little cunt isn't he. However, he does have a good point that he screws up in the end. I have had arguments with people who have an attraction to children who claim that their attraction is sustainable with an individual. It is wrong when they associate their attractions with the attractions of a homosexual or straight person. It is fundamentally different to be attracted to age. Though some people may be vapid in their relationships, attraction normally consists of an attraction to personality also. An attraction to youth is an attraction to a quality that will change both physically, emotionally, and intellectually. That is one of the reasons why the attraction is so wrong because it really is just a momentary attraction and does not go on. That would not be so bad if it were with an adult, but with children it cannot be allowed as it would warp their development.
I've never understood why people see attraction to underage children as weird. There all kinds of atypical sexual attractions. Why should this me any different? After all, none of choose who or what we are attracted to. I'm not sure I would use the word orientation, but I don't see that someone should demonised whatever their attraction. Indeed, I have advanced the majority of the views in the article for years. Hell, for thr most part I go for women my own age and sometimes older. But I have occasionally been attracted to an underage girl. I was watching a movie yesterday featured an relatively unknown actress who was 16 at the time of shooting. I found her attractive. I don't consider myself a peado for thinking it. For me, the issue is not the attraction itself, it's whether or not it is morally correct to act on such attraction, and that to me is where the wrongdoing occurs. Acting on it obviously harms children, and in most cases, be it sex, the promotion of child porn or other offenses, it will occur outside the control of the children it involves, often without consent, where the child is incapable of making adult choices or where the child is unable to give maturity informed consent. It is at that point that wrongdoing occurs IMO.
A momentary attraction? Are you sure that applies to everyone who was ever attracted to someone underage? If you're attracted to someone at 18 and you marry them and are still with them at 50 is that really that different from, say, being attracted to someone at 15 and still being with them at 50? It's awfully presumptuous to assume that a person who is attracted to a child cannot still be attracted to that person when they come of age. After all, the legal age of consent and adulthood is somewhat arbitrary in that it cannot accurately reflect the physical and mental aspects of aging anyway.
Actually, I don't see the difference at all. Each and every one is a sexual attraction. Why not add pre-op transgender to your list....or will that be the odd one out as well? Like I said above, the issue with peadophilia comes when it is acted upon. But I see nothing but four sexual attractions in your list. The irony is that most straight people are likely to be more predisposed to finding younger people of the opposite sex attractive than they are an adult of opposite sex. Have you considered that?
There's a difference between accepting a type of attraction as a sexual orientation and accepting specific behaviors related to a sexual orientation. If two opposite-sex individuals consent to have sex with each other, most people would agree that's okay. If a man has sex with a woman against her will, or a woman has sex with a man against his will, that is rape, and most would agree it is not okay. Both of these are expressions of heterosexuality. If two same-sex people consent to having sex with each other, most people would agree it's okay. If a man has sex with another man against his will, or a woman has sex with another woman against her will, it's rape, and most would agree it isn't okay. These are both expressions of homosexuality. Pedophilia, on the other hand... children cannot legally consent, therefore consensual sexual contact between an adult and a child is not possible. So, anything involving the exploitation of actual children is bad. Other expressions of pedophilia, fantasizing, drawings and animated porn, age play, et cetera, don't actually harm anyone, and it's yet another case of "I think it's icky, therefore it's objectively wrong." Classifying pedophilia as a sexual orientation simply means "adults being sexually attracted to children is a thing that happens sometimes." It's no more an endorsement of child molestation than classifying homosexuality as a sexual orientation is an endorsement of prison rape.
I forgot to get out the crayons for the dunce. It is perfectly natural for teens to be attracted to each other. Children being children is not something we need to stop. You are just being stupid about all of this. The law requires a defined line. This is why we do not parent by law. Children are a special case where their rights are not taken into account.
You might want to go back and re-read what I actually said before calling people dunces Master Troll (TM) since you've obviously not understood what I am saying. None of your reply addresses my comment. It's almost as if you've just tried to guess what I've said and stated something entire irrelevant, unless you can tell me what part of your reply addresses the notion that attraction doesn't automatically stop just because someone comes of age? Your statement above is quite explicit namely that due to physical changes with age the attraction can no longer continue. I think that's total bullshit. It's like saying that a 50 year old who marries a 30 year old will no longer be attracted to the young partner 20 years later because the partner has grown older, gone through physical and personality changes. It's nonsense. While there will certainly be those for whom the attraction ends once the object of affection reaches adulthood, it is equally the case that for others it won't. What you are doing is slapping a fixed and inflexible idea on a great many people and claiming it's how they all think and feel. It's very ignorant and borderline bigoted, and I'd expect better from someone who claims to be transgender. Perhaps if you didn't think you're the smartest person here and lash out every time someone challenges what you say, you might be able to engage proactively....
I think what you are describing, Chup, isn't pedophilia per se, so much as somebody being attracted to a person who happened to be young, but not because they were young.
Paedophilia need not be exclusive attraction to pre-pubscent children. It can be coupled with other attractions and continuing attractions. That's what I'm discussing. I think there is a mis-conception that peados are only those with exclusive attraction to children, and that's not true.
