[lightburns]

(Original post by Kiss)
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?

No no, you misunderstand me, I agree with you. Any 'cure' is talking hypothetically here. Less hypothetically is therapy to help an individual with the fact that their sexual attraction is something that they can't help.

Those with criminal convictions and intent society must try to change to rehabilitate them; not because of their attraction, but because of their criminality.

A non-criminal with attraction to children should not be shamed, and should never be forced into a hypothetical cure, or therapy, but should be offered therapy for if the individual felt that it would benefit them.
It is different from homosexuality, because there is no way for paedophiles to have consensual relationships from their attraction. The attraction itself is not their choice.

I am grateful for the fact that my kinks are fairly socially acceptable and non-harmful. It is from this that I do not believe that non-criminal paedophiles should be shamed; a great many people have sexual kinks or even main attractions that are outside the norm. It is just the luck of the draw who gets the ones that cannot be played out (e.g. paedophilia), and the ones that are non-harmful but incredibly socially unacceptable (e.g. dendrophilia) - again, there should be no shame, especially as no harm is done from dendrophilia!

As a species with a wide variety of sexual attractions and fetishes, it is inevitable that some individuals will have one that they can't act upon. The act of child rape is shameful. The attraction to the idea is not.
To anyone who disagrees - have you ever imagined physically hurting or killing anybody? Either in general, or a person who you really dislike? The act of assault or murder is shameful; fantasising about it is not.

[noisy06]

(Original post by mmmpie)
Except that you can't provide a reason why homosexuality should not be acted upon.

I can provide a reason, anyone can provide a reason. But whether you think it's an acceptable reason or nor is entirely and totally subjective. Just like with pedophilia.

[Kiss]

(Original post by noisy06)
I can provide a reason, anyone can provide a reason. But whether you think it's an acceptable reason or nor is entirely and totally subjective. Just like with pedophilia.

What's your reason?

[badcheesecrispy]

(Original post by NuckingFut)
Dont be daft. Pedobear getting equal rights? Not in my lifetime..

Strange you should say that, as you support a 1400 year old technical paedo, but not a modern day one

anyway, has anyone ever been on psych forums, under the sexual paraphilia section theres loads of paedos writing about their attraction to children, its quite shocking on a first time read and I wouldnt read it if I was easily offended

on it there are paedophiles who say they keep themselves away from children as they know they cannot touch the child as it will cause harm, some are extremely mentally anguished by their condition and have tried to get help however apparently psychiatrists and such dont want to know once a person says they have paedophilia

i cant see it becoming acceptable any time soon but there is a difference between a paedophile and a child abuser, the latter has committed a crime the former hasnt and some people should remember that

[ufo2012]

(Original post by vedderfan94)
I think some people need to realise that there is a world of difference between being just a paedophile and being a child molestor.

I'm not so sure about 'a world of difference'.

It is said there is a 'fine line between sanity and insanity' - the same could be said between paedophile and child molestor.

[Kiss]

(Original post by Skip_Snip)
Paedophillia is endorsed by some religions which condemn homosexuality, go figure

Endorsed by whom?

[adsm_inamorta]

Nice speech Kiss.
I agree that peadophile's shouldn't be treated like their sexual preference is a disease just like homophobia once was. I also agree that their sexual preference is beyond their control and that they shouldn't be punished for who they are.

I for one believe that peadophilia is too harshly looked down upon. Why? For the reason I stated above. They can't help who they are attracted to! I believe that there is nothing wrong with having a sexual preference for children. Although I do believe it is wrong for an adult to abuse and rape a child. But to WANT to is not wrong at all. You wouldn't get arrested for WANTING to kill someone would you? You wouldn't get arrested for WANTING to steal something? No you wouldn't. So why should peadophiles be treated like the scum of this earth just because they have desires that are seen as abnormal.

As for the future, then I would like to see pedophiles be treated as equally as murderers, terrorists, frauds etc. If a peadophile is found to have indecent images or videos on his personal PC, then this should not be an offence. He should not be stoned by society for this. As for the person(s) who shot the images and video, then it would depend on how they treated the children at the time as for how they are punished.

I have kind of reached a dead end here. So I will leave my debate be unless I'll start waffling :P

[sorafdfs]

(Original post by Kiss)
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?

There is a cure, it's called chemical castration. Homosexuality is akin to interracial sex - weirds some people out but is harmless. People are made to change if their behaviour is potentially harmful to themselves/others, being gay does not fall within this bracket.

[Kiss]

(Original post by sorafdfs)
There is a cure, it's called chemical castration. Homosexuality is akin to interracial sex - weirds some people out but is harmless. People are made to change if their behaviour is potentially harmful to themselves/others, being gay does not fall within this bracket.

That isn't a cure, that's sick and unjustified to use on someone who can't help their attractions. You really would use that on someone who's not done anything wrong?

[ufo2012]

(Original post by adsm_inamorta)
I for one believe that peadophilia is too harshly looked down upon. Why? For the reason I stated above. They can't help who they are attracted to! I believe that there is nothing wrong with having a sexual preference for children. Although I do believe it is wrong for an adult to abuse and rape a child. But to WANT to is not wrong at all. You wouldn't get arrested for WANTING to kill someone would you? You wouldn't get arrested for WANTING to steal something? No you wouldn't. So why should peadophiles be treated like the scum of this earth just because they have desires that are seen as abnormal.

As for the future, then I would like to see pedophiles be treated as equally as murderers, terrorists, frauds etc. If a peadophile is found to have indecent images or videos on his personal PC, then this should not be an offence. He should not be stoned by society for this. As for the person(s) who shot the images and video, then it would depend on how they treated the children at the time as for how they are punished.

I don't know how you can put paedophiles on a platform like this as if they are some gift that society hasn't endorsed as being worthwhile yet.

Although I am not the biggest fan of shrinks, the DSM clearly indicates that paedophilia is mental disorder. Yes this means there is some mentally wrong with them. A little like an autistic - they just don't see the world through the same eyes as a 'normal' person.

Whether or not they have been diagnosed is almost irrelevant here, because a better question would be - if you had a child and you knew a person was a paedo, but that's okay for you because they haven't done anything about it, they haven't committed a crime, haven't been punished and they haven't been diagnosed yet - would you even take the risk of leaving your child with that person?

I know I wouldn't.

[ncsoftlover]

This is what I believe is going to happen.
Pedophilia is not really a mental disorder but a natural sexual paraphilia much like Sadomasochism, or Necrophilia, but for the convenience of it all, and because acting out on it can potentially harm others, people will probably insist to keep it as a mental disorder.
People will slowly realize that accusing Pedophiles to all be child molesters is like accusing all heterosexuals will go out and rape other women, or that every one who fantasized about killing another human being has absolutely done so. And all necrophiliacs all have gone and stole corpse so they can have sex... It's ridiculous.
So, sex with children will not be legalized, neither will Child pornography, but for the offenders, their sentence will focus less on punishment but more on psychiatric treatment on integration with the society and control of sexual desire. The society will have a better understanding of the topics, that's not to say the offenders won't be condemned, but probably not to the degree they are condemned today. People will no longer wish all child molesters to get their intestines pulled out and murdered in prison by a convicted murder, and will no longer try to give that murderers some sort of honorable citizen status.
For non offenders, the pedophilia will have the stigma associated with it removed, people who are having trouble controlling their desire will be encouraged to seek treatment and all kinds of public funded help will be available, and they will be helped with compassion and understanding.
People would no longer wish for them to be locked up for life with no parole simply for having an "unspeakable" attraction, and certainly wouldn't suggest for them to be locked up in a fence and electrocuted. Instead, people will focus on things that can truly prevent crimes and making the society a more tolerant place, instead of the blind hatred they're filled with right now.

[ncsoftlover]

(Original post by Spaz Man)
It will happen. It's the inevitable consequence of rampant liberalism. Mark my words. It will be seen as "progress" in the future.

As we are more civilized today than yesterday, we will be more civilized tomorrow than today.

[ncsoftlover]

(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.

you should always be proud of who you are, a natural given attraction to kids is another perspective in life, in ways, it's almost like noticing beauty in another angle that no one has seen before.
when you have hurt no one, you have every reason to be proud.
Is this view too liberal?

[ncsoftlover]

(Original post by TurboCretin)
Legally, yeah. But is that based on anything other than social norms? Which are the very things being questioned?

A lot people don't actually realize that Child cannot consent is a social construct, taking to a 13 years old girl online in US can get you 110 years in prison apparently, while in Japan, 13 is the Age of Consent.
In canada, a 14 year old can legally have sex with a 19 years old, in the US, the 19 years old can be sentenced to decades in prison to feed the incarceration industry.

[ncsoftlover]

(Original post by joey11223)
What we need is virtual reality, so they can indulge in their desires without harming anyone. Though that applies to many groups as there are many obscure paraphilias, hell if people knew it was virtual and it had no consequences, I think the number of "deviants" would be rather high, making "vanilla" individuals the more unusual...

Realistically though, what needs to happen is a shift in public opinion to be sympathetic and not hateful. Problem is with the tabloids in existence that'll never happen, hell people attacked a paediatrician because they read something in the paper about paedophiles in our communities and thought paediatrician meant paedophile... idiots.

You could also argue that the endless association of gays to aids, drugs, alcohol, unstable relationships, cross dressing will never allow LGBT rights to progress forward, and you'd be wrong.
Public opinion will shift, it's a matter of when not if.

[TurboCretin]

(Original post by ncsoftlover)
A lot people don't actually realize that Child cannot consent is a social construct, taking to a 13 years old girl online in US can get you 110 years in prison apparently, while in Japan, 13 is the Age of Consent.
In canada, a 14 year old can legally have sex with a 19 years old, in the US, the 19 years old can be sentenced to decades in prison to feed the incarceration industry.

I'd submit that anyone who seriously thinks about the issue will realise that children don't undergo a sudden mental maturation on the day of their 13th, 14th or 16th birthday, depending on the country they live in. Anyone who does must have serious problems distinguishing between the law and the rational basis for it, and deserves sympathy.

[Kiss]

(Original post by ncsoftlover)
You could also argue that the endless association of gays to aids, drugs, alcohol, unstable relationships, cross dressing will never allow LGBT rights to progress forward, and you'd be wrong.
Public opinion will shift, it's a matter of when not if.

I don't know if you know or not but you can quote more than one person in one post, just click that little sign on the right of where it says 'Quote'.

[bronzevolley]

Yes, I think we are heading in that direction.

[ncsoftlover]

(Original post by TurboCretin)
I'd submit that anyone who seriously thinks about the issue will realise that children don't undergo a sudden mental maturation on the day of their 13th, 14th or 16th birthday, depending on the country they live in. Anyone who does must have serious problems distinguishing between the law and the rational basis for it, and deserves sympathy.

I find it hard to believe why people everywhere just assume everyone who have underage sex is a pedophile, they don't seem to understand Age of consent is a legal definition, pedophilia is a sexual attraction that doesn't necessarily have much to do with AOC at all. It can be perfectly natural for one to be attracted to people under AOC, which is 18 in many US states. These days, it's an abomination, in US at least to even say you're attracted to someone not an adult. Just the other day, some 70 years old terminal cancer guy showed off his Justin Bieber Memorabilia, said that the young man gives him hope. He was accused a pedophile again by the internet, Justin Bieber is actually over 18!!
It's crazy how people seem to have the tendency to demonize this group of people, fueled by the media and they'd just label everyone with this stupid label, and start the segregation movement I guess. I think this has a much negative effect on the society.

(Original post by Kiss)
I don't know if you know or not but you can quote more than one person in one post, just click that little sign on the right of where it says 'Quote'.

Thanks so much for reminding me, I actually don't know But I will multiquote from now on.

[adsm_inamorta]

(Original post by ufo2012)
I don't know how you can put paedophiles on a platform like this as if they are some gift that society hasn't endorsed as being worthwhile yet.

Although I am not the biggest fan of shrinks, the DSM clearly indicates that paedophilia is mental disorder. Yes this means there is some mentally wrong with them. A little like an autistic - they just don't see the world through the same eyes as a 'normal' person.

Whether or not they have been diagnosed is almost irrelevant here, because a better question would be - if you had a child and you knew a person was a paedo, but that's okay for you because they haven't done anything about it, they haven't committed a crime, haven't been punished and they haven't been diagnosed yet - would you even take the risk of leaving your child with that person?

I know I wouldn't.

I'm surprised that the DSM states that pedophilia is a mental disorder.
Why is finding children attractive any different from an over 16? Their age is the only variable between them. That's not enough to diagnose finding children attractive as a mental disorder.
And I agree with you that I wouldn't leave my child with a peado but I wouldn't treat the peado any different to how I treat anyone else - if he hadn't previously commited any offence surrounding his peadophilia.