Probably. Gay marriage is on its way to most 1st world countries. Fifty Shades of Grey seems to have made the bondage fetish socially acceptable. Why not paedophilia next? It's not like it can be helped, and as I understand, many paedophiles themselves were abused as children. It doesn't make it okay if they act on they're urges, but it makes it more understandable. I think people could accept the idea of some sort of simulations, perhaps erotic drawings, etc.
But I think that they shouldn't be treated like criminals if they've never acted upon their urges. As bad as it sounds, I have read newspaper stories of people who have been arrested after loads of (non-abusive) pictures of young children have been found on their property. While I think the ones that feed the child porn market should be prosecuted, ones with just an overwhelming amount of pictures of children, probably aren't going to follow their desires more than this.
There should be more help for them. There are a lot more paedophiles in society than people realise.
I think a lot of homophobia comes from the idea that a man may make sexual advances on someone he knows to be straight. Many straight guys seem to have this irrational "backs against the wall" fear, and I think this fear comes fiercely from all corners of society when children are introduced as the object of desire. It comes from a need to protect those who cannot protect themselves. Provided people can come to believe that not all paedophiles are automatically rapists, I think that paedophilia (the desire, not the act of) could become more accepted as a form of sexuality rather than a mental illness. After all, psychologists have noted that most people have some sort of "fetish" so fetishes are considered a psychological norm, and different sexual tastes are as inevitable as different appearances and personalities in people.
A sympathetic attitude from the NHS could help prevention of paedophilic abuse.
Cannot believe how sympathetic I'm being as if they are the victims... But I suppose maybe some of them are This is something I do not want to think about. <That reaction (which is also my own to this topic) will probably be the reason for paedophile rights never to become a reality, because it's one of those things people cannot bring themselves to think about. They would rather dismiss it as a mental illness, than try to approach the issue with understanding and empathy for those who have this sexual appetite. <Lol, note that even the way I refer to paedophiles reflects their predatory interests.
Yeah, it's a tricky one. But I actually don't know if "paedophile rights" will ever exist. But having seen all those cases of terrorists and criminals who don't get deported or arrested on the feeble grounds of "their right to a family", and I think that the rights of paedophiles could potentially overtake the rights of their victims someday in the not-too-distant future.
I'm going to stop now, and listen to some happy music.
Paedophile Rights - A Future Reality?
|Score your uni out of 10 and help thousands of students chose the right uni||21-09-2015|
|Applying to uni? Take our 60-second survey - you could bag an Amazon voucher.||19-09-2015|
(Original post by Kiss)
Not really, its still practiced in parts of Africa, Asia and South America - basically the non-western world. I don't think its my place to question or impose upon their society or ways of life and I am strongly against cultural imperialism.
(Original post by Annoying-Mouse)
Which religion is that? Islam? That's wrong because Islam states you're only allowed to have sex with a child post-puberty. It's not unheard of children to reach puberty at early ages hence why it can seem like Islam allows pedophilia but it actually doesn't.
I think some people need to realise that there is a world of difference between being just a paedophile and being a child molestor.
This means we usually only unfortunately find out when some action (or attempted action) has been carried out.
I agree with you in part. Though I think we should focus on finding a cure. Obviously unlike gays pedophiliac relationships are damaging and wrong. (I know people once thought this about homosexuals, but like one of the main pro-gay argument says, we have no right to interfere with adults but when children are involved we have the right to.) And so they have this sexual attraction which they can't exercise and makes them feel so guilty and self-disgusted. It benefits no one. Unlike gay relationships, this isn't a matter of societal freedom but of practical. It's just not going to work so pschological treatment to help them 'get better' seems fair.
(Original post by Kiss)
I got into a discussion with one of my friends the other day about the recent changes and the forward momentum of society. With the consistent attempts by different minorities all wanting 'equality' in life, it got me thinking about if there will ever be a lobby for pedophilia.
I know a lot of people will get pissy with me when I say that you can compare homosexuality to pedophilia in two aspects: firstly there is significant evidence to suggest that pedophilia is an uncontrollable sexual attraction, as much as any homosexual or heterosexual can only feel attracted to their respective sexualities. Secondly, homosexuality was until the late 1970s considered a mental health disorder, in the same manner as pedophilia is considered a disorder in the present day.
Frankly I find the idea of engaging with children quite disgusting and I don't think it will ever be accepted by society - certainly nobody, or very few people, would want their children with older individuals well before legal age of consent. But I do find a great hypocrisy in that while we promote an idea of 'equality to all', the most prominent case being the LGBT movement at the moment, we immediately distance ourselves from and alienate people who can be identified as paedophiles in a similar way to how homosexuals were and still are treated today. I asked my friend to imagine the scenario where he couldn't help his sexual attraction to younger children and in spite of not doing anything illegal was shunned purely for that attraction; he said he'd probably want to kill himself. It isn't a fair situation for the pedophile who cannot helped their attraction, they have been born into that - likewise it isn't fair on society who both have to put up with the occasional child who gets molested. It is a lose lose scenario which can't ever be fully resolved.
But whilst I am adamantly against paedophilia, I can't help feel a strong dislike at the attempts to find a 'cure' - a 'cure' was sought for homosexuality in the 30s, 40s and 50s. And of course you can argue that two men, two women, or a man and a woman (or a man and two women ) doesn't harm anyone, whilst a child and an older person does, and a child cannot consent. That is true, but It just seems so hypocritical to condemn one sexual attraction and shame people for what they are, even if they haven't actually done anything wrong, whilst accept another. However, whilst there is evidence to suggest it is a sexual attraction that may be subject to falsification in the future - I don't know for sure, I'm not a psychologist.
Whether or not there will be an attempt to legalise pedophila, or other taboo things such as bestiality, is something I don't think will happen - or if it does it won't happen in our lifetimes.
What do you think? Do you believe there will be an attempt to bring rights to paedophiles?
I think what you've said is spot on. There's a great hatred for paedophiles, and talking about the issue is tricky because people bring different definitions of what paedophilia is to the table. To me, 'paedophilia' should just mean the sexual attraction to children, and so by calling a person a paedophile, we're not discussing their sexual history. Paedophilia in this sense is definitely uncontrollable - nobody can control what they're sexually attracted to because if we could then evolution by natural selection would have a really hard time. People hate paedophiles for being what they can't help and I think that's awful. Yes, they shouldn't engage in relationships with children, but people should understand what a miserable existence it must feel like when society blames you for something you can't help.
In the United States there is a prison that essentially locks up paedophiles for life after they've served their crimes because nobody wants to accept them back into their community. Nobody wants to live next to a paedophile, but how can that justify life in prison? I don't see the UK heading that way, but I do think it will be a long and slow process towards treating paedophilia more humanely and as a condition that requires support, instead of having large subsections of society wanting to lynch them.
Out of interest, does anything on this topic know any paedophiles (convicted or otherwise) personally or even one who just lives near to them?
There are some people that have "urges" to kill other people...
I wouldn't try to compare paedophiles with homosexuals, as the latter involves both parties being mature and consenting, while the former involves a misuse of a child's lack of understanding about sex. I think there's a line that needs to be drawn in terms of what we as society should accept and what we should reject; if the parties involved are not harmed (psychologically, physically, emotionally, etc.) we should accept it. Seeing as paedophilia can scar a child for life, I think we shouldn't accept paedophiles outright. Even though paedophiles do not choose to be attracted to children, it doesn't mean that we should attempt to ethically justify their lives.
I think it's highly unlikely that paedophilia will become accepted as a sexuality to practise, as unlike other forms of sexuality between consenting adults it would involve people we consider to be incapable of providing consent.
Whilst sexual activity involving a minor will probably quite rightly remain a crime, I think (and hope) that we'll have a more understanding attitude towards people who feel sexually attracted to children, as they must have an extremely hard time dealing with these urges. If we are able to offer support and guidance to these people, in the way that we do to, say, people with anger issues (used as an analogy because in both cases not being able to control the issue can result in criminal behaviour) then everyone would benefit - those who are sexually attracted to children would have support, and everyone else would be safer because this support network would help to reduce the number of people with these urges that act on them in a way that affects children's lives.
Paedophiles tend to be sexually abused as children. Should there be help for those that recognise that they have sexual feelings towards children? Of course there should. But to compare paedophillia with homosexuality is ridculous. Homosexuality is about finding the same gender attractive, paedophilia is about power.
North American Man/Boy Love Association
I don't think paedophiles are responsible for their attraction. In some ways I have great sympathy for non-sexually active paedophiles, because it must be an enormous struggle to deal with their attraction. Whether it is biological or socially conditioned, they presumably don't 'opt' to become attracted to minors, and to that extent I am sympathetic.
However, the difference between that and homosexuality is that in the case of homosexuality, no one is harmed. Both adults give consent, and lead happy, fulfilled, and committed lives together. Both parties are able to give full, informed consent. With a minor this isn't possible, and I think that is where the crucial distinction lies.
(Original post by ufo2012)
While paedophilia is a mental condition, how likely is it that such a person is going to be diagnosed by going to see a a shrink of their own freewill?
This means we usually only unfortunately find out when some action (or attempted action) has been carried out.
(Original post by mmmpie)
No, it isn't appropriate.
If they can control their desires and not act on them, then it's appropriate to be supportive and even to laud them for doing do. I doubt that something analogous to gay pride would occur, because the whole point is that they cannot act on their sexual preference. But certainly some sort of acknowledgement, some recognition of what they are doing, would be beneficial.(Original post by lightburns)
With consent (it would take a massive post to explain how consent is possible in both of these things), bestiality and necrophilia are okay.
Consent is easy in homosexuality.
Paedophilia cannot work with informed consent (because children aren't mature enough to be able to make those sorts of decisions). For the safety of the rest of society a dangerous paedophile (one who has hurt children in the past) should be changed if possible.
But paedophiles who have never and would never hurt someone should never be victimised, and should be aided with any attempts to 'cure' them being at their own choice.
We live in a cultural situation that these people are unable to seek help if they want it.
This does not help them (as they cannot get help), this does not help society (as some will inevitably snap and hurt a child, when with help they would have got through it), and this does not help general morality (as it was never a choice to have that sexual attraction, so it is not deserving of the shame attached to it).
I just find it incredibly hypocritical and arrogant for society to allow hetero and homosexuality, with the latter being allowed to be 'proud' and empowered for that sense of pride, yet when it comes to another kind they shame them - all the talk of a 'cure' is a little disturbing to me. If we endorse being proud of who and what you are for gays, as well as the constant idea that you shouldn't have to change who and what you are, why doesn't this apply to those with pedophilic attractions?
(Original post by TurboCretin)
I'm afraid I don't really understand how that meshes with my question. You said 'of course children can't consent' as though that were the fact of the matter, and I was questioning that. The inability of children to consent is a matter of law, which can derive from either social norms or mere practicality. I was simply saying that I don't see that all minors are necessarily unable to consent as a matter of concrete fact, so if the social norm were to erode, the basis of the legal proposition that children can't consent would be simultaneously undermined.
(Original post by joey11223)
is with pre-pubescent children or young ones who have entered puberty?
Another issue, especially in the tabloids, is the use of paedophile when it is the incorrect term and ephebophile should be used instead. After all many men will find a 17 yr old attractive, especially if she looks quite mature. In this country that is accepted, but in America a 21 yr old guy having relations with a 17 yr old girl is branded a paedophile and sex offender..it's not always clear-cut, branding them a paedophile confuses things and inflames the situation.
Why should they simply be locked away for an attraction they can't help?
RegisterThanks for posting! You just need to create an account in order to submit the post Already a member? Sign in
Oops, something wasn't right
please check the following: