Penetration_Guru 12.11.2007 18:07 |
A thought occurred to me earlier, and I wonder how th erest of you feel about it. Paedophilia is a sexual preference that society deems unacceptable based (at least partly) on the lack of informed consent on both sides. However, at its base level, it is no more than a sexual preference, just like...redheads, or large chests, or even homosexuality. Now, at this point I can hear the sucking of teeth and the sharpening of knives so I should say that the militant wing (child abuse) is a horrendous thing which should be stamped out, as should its grown up cousin (rape). I'm just curious as to why (especially with the age of consent varying throughout the world) we deem being attracted to the young as irrevocably evil, when other preferences are tolerated? Discuss... |
Micrówave 12.11.2007 18:15 |
Well, you don't give a baby a nice fat juicy steak for their first meal. I'd say, metaphorically, there you have it. This isn't about your "thing" for the Olsen twins again, is it? They're legal, they just don't eat, P_G! |
Mr.Jingles 12.11.2007 19:12 |
Micrówave wrote: This isn't about your "thing" for the Olsen twins again, is it? They're legal, they just don't eat, P_G!Isn't Lance Armstrong boinking one of them? |
Music Man 12.11.2007 22:28 |
Pedophilia is taboo because in order for one to satisfy his pedophilia, he must inevitably take advantage of a person who is incapable of making an informed decision. |
YourValentine 13.11.2007 03:41 |
Also, a child's body is not fit for sexual activities. It's about sheer physical abuse, too. I don't think it's a taboo, it's simply illegal for very good reasons. |
i-Fred 13.11.2007 05:01 |
and in most sick cases of it, its not like a 18-25 year old liking some one 10 years younger tha them, its 45-60 year old men who go for 8-14 year old girls that really gets dark. |
Mr.Jingles 13.11.2007 07:08 |
YourValentine wrote: Also, a child's body is not fit for sexual activities.The only one who can abuse a child's body is the child himself. |
AspiringPhilosophe 13.11.2007 08:54 |
Have to agree with Barb on this one. Children's bodies (especially girls) are not mature enough for sexual activity. If a young girl is a victim of pedophilia, it causes serious and potentially permanent damage to her body with of course all of the life long consequences that come with it. Young boys is a bit of a different story (as always) but that probably has more to do with the emotional linkages that are made between young children and adults in any relationship. However, I think another important aspect for this the ancient societal aspect of protection. From the time of cavemen on, children have been seen as vulnerable, and needing to be protected from all harm so that they can grow up and become adults and fully functioning members of society (that's the theory anyway). The idea of a child being subjected to something they don't fully comprehend or understand that could cause them serious mental and physical harm is enough to make any normal adult recoil and want to protect the child from whatever the potential harm is. Maybe another aspect is the place of sex within modern society? Most people today are active with at least two people in the course of their lifetime, and especially for women who form emotional attachments with their partners, when it all comes crashing down it can be very painful. Therefore, sex is viewed as a risky behavior that often leads to pain or increases the pain when a relationship ends. So the protection of children aspect could relate to protecting them from that kind of emotional pain? I don't know...that was kinda random, but it's nine AM and I just woke up! |
magicalfreddiemercury 13.11.2007 09:36 |
I'd say also that the majority of adults attracted to children are not attracted to them in a romantic way. Instead it's a matter of control. Just as rape is not about the sex, but about humbling or overpowering the victim. It's extremely easy to overpower and control the body and mind of a child. Besides what YourValentine and HistoryGirl said about the anatomy of a child, HistoryGirl is also correct, IMO, about the emotional toil a sexual relationship would cause a child. They're still trusting and learning, so to 'love' them and take all they have only to soon end the relationship could be/would be devastating. We all know how painful first love is and that usually happens between teens - 'children' close in age. Imagine a younger child not just loving but IN love with an adult - someone they've been taught to trust and obey - who seems to suddenly abandon them. It's emotional abuse no matter how you look at it because the adult is not seeing or treating that child AS a child in any way. |
john bodega 13.11.2007 10:15 |
Good question; nice and confronting. I spose it's frowned upon because most other sexual preferences involve people on a mostly even ground making a consensual agreement on what floats their boat. I've never met anyone under the age of consent who was really smart enough to offer their body to an adult, to be honest. Even those early bloomers who 'think' they're ready... they're just idiots, really. There's no getting around it - and idiot is not a dirty word, so I don't want any angry e-mails from 14 year olds here. Young people are just stupid. Their brains are still changing shape (literally). Hell, I'm not sure mine has stopped yet, I'm only 21.. You guys just aren't 'there' enough to be making decisions about taking big sausages in your cornholes. Basically, sexual preferences aren't held up to scrutiny unless they tread on thing ground concerning hygiene or the ability of either party not really being mature enough to agree to the act. I like what my friend said about it once : "Ugh, go and get a normal fetish, like boots or something". He's a funny guy, really. |
John S Stuart 13.11.2007 12:25 |
While we are being open about this, what I do not understand (it's OK I've never seen it myself - and I have no desire to either - but as a purely academic question) why is just LOOKING at an image illegal? (I am not talking about exploitation or fuelling a need - so let's imagine all concearned died many years ago). I mean, if I take this to a logical conclusion am I not guilty of slavery because I have seen pictures of black slaves in the 'National Geographic' or guilty of murder because I have seen pictures of dead soldiers in history text books? Also, I read that some users of a fantasy web site 'Myalternativelifestyle.com' (or something like that) have been reported to the police for inventing paedophilia like activities. But hello, it's fantasy. I know it's sick fantasy, but it is still not real. Other users of this 'Sims' like 'game' can torture, maim or hack virtual 'people' to death and still have this is accepted as harmless 'fun' - but even fantasy paedophilia (at least in legal terms) is seen as a thought crime too far. Why? |
magicalfreddiemercury 13.11.2007 12:33 |
John S Stuart wrote: While we are being open about this, what I do not understand (it's OK I've never seen it myself - and I have no desire to either - but as a purely academic question) why is just LOOKING at an image illegal? (I am not talking about exploitation or fuelling a need - so let's imagine all concearned died many years ago).I'd like to take a stab at this one... There's the thought among psychologists that pedophilia is 'not curable'. Looking at photos of children - even if those children have grown up and are long gone - implies a need to see or a lust for naked children. It's considered a precursor to child abuse/rape since behavior and need tend to escalate. Therefore, making it illegal to even look can hopefully stop a potential predator at phase one. ??? |
YourValentine 13.11.2007 12:40 |
"I mean, if I take this to a logical conclusion am I not guilty of slavery because I have seen pictures of black slaves in the 'National Geographic' or guilty of murder because I have seen pictures of dead soldiers in history text books?" John, the slaves were not made slaves and the soldiers were not killed in order to take pictures for some sickos to enjoy while child porn pictures are exclusively taken for the pleasure of paedophiles. The children are used as models in a sexually arousing manner which is a crime. The virtual "child porn" is not illegal in all countries, it's illegal in Germany but not in the USA as far as I know. I am not sure why it's illegal, it's virtual, no children are harmed. |
John S Stuart 13.11.2007 13:41 |
magicalfreddiemercury wrote:Good answer - so why aren't gun magazines or pornography itself not illegal? Surely, using your argument, from these little acorns further crimes can grow too?John S Stuart wrote: While we are being open about this, what I do not understand (it's OK I've never seen it myself - and I have no desire to either - but as a purely academic question) why is just LOOKING at an image illegal? (I am not talking about exploitation or fuelling a need - so let's imagine all concearned died many years ago).I'd like to take a stab at this one... There's the thought among psychologists that pedophilia is 'not curable'. Looking at photos of children - even if those children have grown up and are long gone - implies a need to see or a lust for naked children. It's considered a precursor to child abuse/rape since behavior and need tend to escalate. Therefore, making it illegal to even look can hopefully stop a potential predator at phase one. ??? As for social mores - do violent movies breed further violence - or are they cathartic and keep violence at bay? For the record, I do not actually know - but I do find the debate interesting! |
John S Stuart 13.11.2007 13:54 |
YourValentine wrote: ...the slaves were not made slaves and the soldiers were not killed in order to take pictures for some sickos to enjoy while child porn pictures are exclusively taken for the pleasure of paedophiles...Are you sure this this so in all cases? If you are saying that children 'model' for proxy-gratification, I agree with your logic and you are obviously so correct. However, what about 'observed' or action photography? (By that I do not mean staged - but a photographic witness of a real life event - just like the war photography I alluded to above). (In general) No-one is 'shot' for the camera - rather the camera captures the event - so what if that event was paedophilic - would it still be illegal to view, even if it was (as Pete Townsend claimed) for academic research (such as anti-child war-crimes)? Again, I do not know the answer, but as a pacifist, I find it abhorent that websites like rotten.com can legally exist (and in most cases show images WORSE than paedophilia), but, as long as they do not stray into an anti-child area, these images are accepted by most internet service providers. I just do not understand the double-standards involved in how the act of VIEWING an image can be criminalised in some cases - and not in others. |
Music Man 13.11.2007 14:10 |
Child pornography is illegal because it is largely exploitative, where the subject of the media is inevitably taken advantage of in order for it to be produced. However, I have no idea why the minimum age to consent to pornography would be higher than the age of consent, as it is in many cases. It is illegal to view child pornography because such largely eliminates the demand for the material, which logically would save many children from being exploited. It's very indirect legislation, much like speed limit laws. |
magicalfreddiemercury 13.11.2007 14:18 |
John S Stuart wrote: Good answer - so why aren't gun magazines or pornography itself not illegal? Surely, using your argument, from these little acorns further crimes can grow too? As for social mores - do violent movies breed further violence - or are they cathartic and keep violence at bay? For the record, I do not actually know - but I do find the debate interesting!I think violent movies soften the shock of the violence. I'm not sure they make the average person more violent, but can possibly plant how-to seeds into an already twisted mind. I think that's why, as you asked above, gun magazines and porn are not illegal. Porn alone does not lead to rape and gun magazines don't lead to murder. At least not for the average person. Thing is, the average person isn't looking at child porn or the like. I'd say that's where the difference lies. The type of person looking at child porn is a person interested in sexualizing children. To protect children from that possibility, even the viewing of it needs to be scrutinized and made illegal. Another point about violent movies vs. reality... While everyone was stunned on 9/11, so many people equated what they witnessed with Bruce Willis' Die Hard movies. Some of those interviewed went as far as to say they almost expected him to come save the day. I found that to be both disturbing and interesting. EDIT - <font color=666600><b>Music Man wrote: It is illegal to view child pornography because such largely eliminates the demand for the material, which logically would save many children from being exploited.Well, there you go. And in one sentence, no less. :-) |
Killer Queenie 13.11.2007 14:39 |
Okay - I am against paedophilia - and I make no bones about it. I think that it is just wrong for kids to be looked at when they don't know it is happening or why it is happening. I know if was my kid that had or was beening subjected to paedophilia I would be extremely upset and angry. I wouldn't want my kid to be looked at by some person who might take advantage and possibly take advatage of him or her sexually. Thats my view... People may disagree or agree... but there you go... |
Poo, again 13.11.2007 15:31 |
Paedophilia or Pedophilia? |
Freya is quietly judging you. 13.11.2007 15:45 |
<font color=pink>Poo wrote: Paedophilia or Pedophilia?Depends whether you're from England or the US. |
Ms. Rebel 13.11.2007 16:06 |
<b><font color=007788>?Freya? wrote:Yeah, that's like favourite and favorite.<font color=pink>Poo wrote: Paedophilia or Pedophilia?Depends whether you're from England or the US. I'm against it by the way. How could I not be? But I feel sorry for some of those sick people. Huge number is fighting against those feelings but they can't help their self. Yep...that's really sick. |
Poo, again 13.11.2007 16:49 |
<b><font color=007788>?Freya? wrote:Thank you. Something tells me that the former is the British spelling.<font color=pink>Poo wrote: Paedophilia or Pedophilia?Depends whether you're from England or the US. |
Music Man 13.11.2007 18:20 |
<font color=0099FF>Killer Queenie wrote: Okay - I am against paedophilia - and I make no bones about it. I think that it is just wrong for kids to be looked at when they don't know it is happening or why it is happening. I know if was my kid that had or was beening subjected to paedophilia I would be extremely upset and angry. I wouldn't want my kid to be looked at by some person who might take advantage and possibly take advatage of him or her sexually. Thats my view... People may disagree or agree... but there you go...You don't have to pretend you have a daughter, you know...if you're 15 as your profile indicates. You could just use yourself in the example. |
Sergei. 13.11.2007 19:37 |
Paedophilia... Certainly popular amongst the ancient Greeks and Romans.. And the Samurai. X_x |
-fatty- 2850 13.11.2007 19:50 |
Why is paedophilia such a taboo? Because the media says so. If it wasn't for The Sun I wouldn't know what to think. Paedophilia = Bad. Princess Diana = good. It really is that simple. fatty. |
Vincent. 13.11.2007 19:51 |
Uhm...Age is not but a number? Excepting when the man or woman's an old creep-o. O_o |
QueenMercury46 13.11.2007 20:01 |
A lot of paedifiles (spelling?) go for children because they can take advantage of them...they have control over them. They abuse innocent, vulnerable children because they have problems and want to feel power over something. That's my opinion. |
IanR 13.11.2007 20:56 |
fatty wrote: Why is paedophilia such a taboo? Because the media says so. If it wasn't for The Sun I wouldn't know what to think. Paedophilia = Bad. Princess Diana = good. It really is that simple. fatty.Anyone who needs the guidance of the media to form their own moral boundaries of what is right or wrong really needs to seek help. I assume you were being ironic with this post, fatty... |
Music Man 14.11.2007 01:38 |
Ian wrote:I'm guessing you're new here?fatty wrote: Why is paedophilia such a taboo? Because the media says so. If it wasn't for The Sun I wouldn't know what to think. Paedophilia = Bad. Princess Diana = good. It really is that simple. fatty.Anyone who needs the guidance of the media to form their own moral boundaries of what is right or wrong really needs to seek help. I assume you were being ironic with this post, fatty... |
Tero 14.11.2007 01:43 |
What's the definition of paedophilia these days? In Switzerland a dozen footballers are suspected of having consentual sex with a 15-year old. It's stupid all by itself to have sex with the town slut, but is that paedophilia if the law happens to say so? Obviously paedophilia is a taboo, or otherwise this story would at the most have been reported as an orgy in the weekly gossip magazines. |
john bodega 14.11.2007 05:49 |
If they can read, they can bleed. If they can crawl, they're in the right position. I think we've covered the topic now! |
YourValentine 14.11.2007 06:23 |
Paedophilia = an adult person is attracted by a pre-pubescent child. It's not about age of consent and sex with teenagers. The law usually defines the age of consent but that has nothing to do with the abuse of children which is illegal everywhere. |
Mr.Jingles 14.11.2007 07:48 |
I am pro pedophilia but only if it involves me and my hot MILF teacher from 5th grade. |
Tero 14.11.2007 07:59 |
YourValentine wrote: Paedophilia = an adult person is attracted by a pre-pubescent child. It's not about age of consent and sex with teenagers. The law usually defines the age of consent but that has nothing to do with the abuse of children which is illegal everywhere.If it only was that simple, there would be no problem with it. ;) My dictionary says a paedophile is somebody who is sexually attracted to children. The paedophilia in ancient Greece was something that happened between middle-aged men and teenage boys. What's confusing the issue is the fact that the participants themselves don't necessarily feel they are children, even though the society around them does, e.g by setting the age of consent. If were talking about the paedophilia that happens with children who don't know what sex is, it's obvious to everyone that it's wrong. That's NOT a taboo subject in any way. However the sexual relationships between adults and teenagers are a taboo subject, because they are deemed illegal by the society. They aren't openly discussed because it would be more harmful to the participants. |
.DeaconJohn. 14.11.2007 16:55 |
YourValentine wrote: Paedophilia = an adult person is attracted by a pre-pubescent child. It's not about age of consent and sex with teenagers. The law usually defines the age of consent but that has nothing to do with the abuse of children which is illegal everywhere.Indeed - pre-pubescent is the point to note. For post-puberty, see: link However regardless, an adult who has sex with say a sexually active 15 year old like in the example above is still called a paedophile by most people, when that isn't strictly true. Whilst the 15 year old in the example above was clearly taken advantage of (and I think in the vast majority of such cases the immaturity of the younger participant is probably being taken advantage of), comparing it to sex with a child who is not sexually active and who isn't equipped to have sex without being physically hurt makes it clear the two things are different. |
wstüssyb 14.11.2007 19:18 |
I have never really understood this....why look at something so undeveloped when you can look at something that is sooooo developed with curves and.. and uhhhh give me a minute to collect my thoughts here |
Music Man 14.11.2007 20:05 |
Seriously, though...who _isn't_ attracted to "adolescents?" |
deleted user 14.11.2007 20:23 |
<font color=666600><b>Music Man wrote: Seriously, though...who _isn't_ attracted to "adolescents?"I don't know, I've always preferred people in general past age 25 if we're talking about looks alone. |
Mr.Jingles 14.11.2007 23:04 |
<font color=666600><b>Music Man wrote: Seriously, though...who _isn't_ attracted to "adolescents?"Rihanna is so friggin' hot. Back when she was 17 I could have sworn she was in her early 20s. |
Music Man 15.11.2007 16:31 |
<font color=red>The Audacity of Charles wrote:Come to think of it, it's quite different when it comes to females. But from a male perspective, and I reiterate:<font color=666600><b>Music Man wrote: Seriously, though...who _isn't_ attracted to "adolescents?"I don't know, I've always preferred people in general past age 25 if we're talking about looks alone. Who isn't attracted to adolescents? |
thomasquinn 32989 16.11.2007 07:24 |
Penetration_Guru wrote: A thought occurred to me earlier, and I wonder how th erest of you feel about it. Paedophilia is a sexual preference that society deems unacceptable based (at least partly) on the lack of informed consent on both sides. However, at its base level, it is no more than a sexual preference, just like...redheads, or large chests, or even homosexuality. Now, at this point I can hear the sucking of teeth and the sharpening of knives so I should say that the militant wing (child abuse) is a horrendous thing which should be stamped out, as should its grown up cousin (rape). I'm just curious as to why (especially with the age of consent varying throughout the world) we deem being attracted to the young as irrevocably evil, when other preferences are tolerated? Discuss...You raise an interesting point here. I think it'll require a long slab of text to explain my thoughts to this essentially simple question though. First of all, children, especially young children, are, both mentally and culturally, in a dependent position. They are unable to make rational choices, and are easily influenced by adults (or anyone significantly older than they are), whether in good or bad intent. Therefore, it is only natural that children are protected from (sexual) predators. Then there is the physical issue, as raised here before by (I think) HistoryGirl: physical damage can easily be done, and that is never acceptable. However, when puberty is reached, the body becomes mature, and a somewhat rational decisionmaking process should be attained (some children reach this mental level by age 8, others never do, but that doesn't mean the mentally incompetent (not necessarily handicaped) aren't legal sexual partners when they turn 16/18. Therefore, I do not see what would be unhealthy or perverted about a relationship between, say, an 18 year-old boy with a 14 year-old girl. The 'age of consent' is still based on more or less Victorian views on children and young adults, and it should be treated as less of an absolute than it is now (no two 16-year olds are equally mature, but they have the same legal rights, because it is so difficult to legally arrange subjectivity). Of course, there are many scenarios that are unacceptable, and child abuse is, as P_G stated, nothing short of rape. But a mutually consensual relationship is possible before the legal age is reached in some cases, and impossible even beyond the legal age in others. So, essentially, the law is an over-generalization that, in protecting those it should protect, also hinders those it shouldn't. But in all honesty, I can't find a more practical solution save having the law take subjective conditions into account. |
thomasquinn 32989 16.11.2007 07:26 |
<font color=666600><b>Music Man wrote:That is part of my point: girls reach physical maturity a LOOOOONG time before boys do. Meso-American peoples, for instance, realized this by considering girls legal adults at age 16 and boys at 21. Apart from this, individuals may differ from this standard tremendously (I know a 13-year-old girl who has no trouble convincing anyone that she is 18, for instance). Therefore, such a legal absolute is not a good solution, IMHO. Subjectivity is what is required.<font color=red>The Audacity of Charles wrote:Come to think of it, it's quite different when it comes to females. But from a male perspective, and I reiterate: Who isn't attracted to adolescents?<font color=666600><b>Music Man wrote: Seriously, though...who _isn't_ attracted to "adolescents?"I don't know, I've always preferred people in general past age 25 if we're talking about looks alone. |
John S Stuart 16.11.2007 08:46 |
Just a thought: 'Legal' pornography (consisting of consenting adults) is also subject to 'fashion' and technology. For example, it is broadly easy to 'date' pornographic material from the 1940's, 1950's, 1960's, 1970's etc. However, it seems that current pornographic trends are towards a 'smooth-shaved-body' look. Therefore, by creating a demand for adults to look like pre-pubescent children, is this not blurring the edges of what is - and what is not socially acceptable? |
thomasquinn 32989 16.11.2007 12:33 |
John S Stuart wrote: Just a thought: 'Legal' pornography (consisting of consenting adults) is also subject to 'fashion' and technology. For example, it is broadly easy to 'date' pornographic material from the 1940's, 1950's, 1960's, 1970's etc. However, it seems that current pornographic trends are towards a 'smooth-shaved-body' look. Therefore, by creating a demand for adults to look like pre-pubescent children, is this not blurring the edges of what is - and what is not socially acceptable?In fact, up to (I think) the 1960s, it was legal for minors to perform in porn-movies so long as they had parental consent. These movies didn't become illegal until after they were made. Which raises a number of interesting legal questions, but is totally unimportant in any other way. Just thought I'd flaunt the one bit of knowledge I have about the subject :P |
deleted user 18.11.2007 12:11 |
<font color=666600><b>Music Man wrote:Well, I meant what I said about girls, too. :P<font color=red>The Audacity of Charles wrote:Come to think of it, it's quite different when it comes to females. But from a male perspective, and I reiterate: Who isn't attracted to adolescents?<font color=666600><b>Music Man wrote: Seriously, though...who _isn't_ attracted to "adolescents?"I don't know, I've always preferred people in general past age 25 if we're talking about looks alone. |
Poo, again 18.11.2007 13:20 |
I would love to have sex with someone under 18. |
Carol! the Musical 20.11.2007 21:53 |
I see nothing wrong with pedophilia- it's only an acquired sexual preference. I couldn't care less if you think 12- year old Macaulay Culkin was sexy ( which he was ;) and you'd tap that ( which I would ;), I just ask that you don't go raping the boy. Fantasize that he'd consent to whatever you wanted, but don't count on it happening in real life. Especially now that he's old and not attractive to you, the pedo, anymore. :P |
Music Man 20.11.2007 23:21 |
<font color=660066>Carol wrote: I see nothing wrong with pedophilia- it's only an acquired sexual preference. I couldn't care less if you think 12- year old Macaulay Culkin was sexy ( which he was ;) and you'd tap that ( which I would ;), I just ask that you don't go raping the boy. Fantasize that he'd consent to whatever you wanted, but don't count on it happening in real life. Especially now that he's old and not attractive to you, the pedo, anymore. :PThe preference is acceptable, the actions are not - even if they were consensual. |
Carol! the Musical 20.11.2007 23:40 |
<font color=666600><b>Music Man wrote:The thing is, they COULDN'T be consensual- not at that age. Which is the unconvincing excuse so many abusers use, that "the children were in a accord". -_-<font color=660066>Carol wrote: I see nothing wrong with pedophilia- it's only an acquired sexual preference. I couldn't care less if you think 12- year old Macaulay Culkin was sexy ( which he was ;) and you'd tap that ( which I would ;), I just ask that you don't go raping the boy. Fantasize that he'd consent to whatever you wanted, but don't count on it happening in real life. Especially now that he's old and not attractive to you, the pedo, anymore. :PThe preference is acceptable, the actions are not - even if they were consensual. |