This discussion is now closed.
Check out other Related discussions
Is Paedophilla always wrong? Should it be legalised?
Scroll to see replies
No, you are wrong - because someone who takes part in these acts is properly described as a paedophile. Having sexual thoughts about children in itself may not be illegal (but it certainly is not normal), but the term paedophilia properly includes both the mental and physical manifestations of this psychological ailment.
This is likewise for necrophilia and beastiality. The Oxford definition of beastiality is unequivocal on this issue:
Necrophilia:
Paedophilia:
This is likewise for necrophilia and beastiality. The Oxford definition of beastiality is unequivocal on this issue:
sexual intercourse between a person and an animal.
Necrophilia:
Sexual intercourse with or attraction towards corpses.
Paedophilia:
Sexual feelings directed towards children.
Original post by StrawbAri
You can not criminalize a though or feeling
paedophiliaˌpiːdə(ʊ)ˈfɪlɪ ə/noun
sexual feelings directed towards children.
sexual feelings directed towards children.
You can not criminalize a though or feeling
Try reading and understanding what that definition means. It means both thoughts and actions. While you may not be able to criminalise a thought, the reason for this is not that "thoughts" per se cannot be prosecuted, but that it difficult to show the evidence that any law has been infringed.
On the other hand, any manifestation of paedophilia would almost certainly be prosecuted: ie writing about sexual contact with children, or making drawings of sexual contact with children. These are not actual contact with children, or the direct sexual abuse of children, but they would still be illegal in the UK.
Original post by Doctor_Einstein
What is and isn't a "mental illness" is cultural.
Homosexuality was a "mental illness" in the past but it isn't anymore.
Homosexuality was a "mental illness" in the past but it isn't anymore.
My first reaction is that you are misunderstanding what is a mental illness.
But I shall research what is required nowadays for something to be labelled as one. I may be wrong in this case.
The past was ignorant and bigoted, I would not think much about what was labelled mental illness then.
CONSENT YOU NEED CONSENT. informed Consent!!!. CHILDREN CAN'T GIVE YOU THAT
Original post by Plantagenet Crown
What are you on about lassie? Child abuse will never be legalised, tolerance doesn't mean everything is tolerated, just like murder, racism and hate speech won't be legalised.
They are calling it a sexual orientation and the abuse issue will be solved by giving consent rights to minors. I'm appalled but tbh it doesn't shock me anymore. They are using arguments that have worked very well in the past. It will take years if not decades but it will happen. Media manipulation will have a role too. As I said, it all happened already but with different issues.
And lmao the political world is full of hate speech. Even in the UK.
(edited 8 years ago)
Original post by LenaSim
They are calling it a sexual orientation and the abuse issue will be solved by giving consent rights to minors. I'm appalled but tbh it doesn't shock me anymore. They are using arguments that have worked very well in the past. It will take years if not decades but it will happen. Media manipulation will have a role too. As I said, it all happened already but with different issues.
Of course it won't happen. We don't randomly legalise things and especially things such as that which would only cause harm and have no beneficial points whatsoever.
Original post by jido
My first reaction is that you are misunderstanding what is a mental illness.
But I shall research what is required nowadays for something to be labelled as one. I may be wrong in this case.
The past was ignorant and bigoted, I would not think much about what was labelled mental illness then.
But I shall research what is required nowadays for something to be labelled as one. I may be wrong in this case.
The past was ignorant and bigoted, I would not think much about what was labelled mental illness then.
Yes you should do your research on how a disorder is added to the DSM. It is very subjective and opinionated.
The past is always ignorant and bigoted from the perspective of those in the future.
The people of 1000 years from now will label us as ignorant and bigoted.
No. The common view on necrophilia and bestiality etc haven't changed, just things such as homosexual and interracial partnerships being accepted unlike long (or not so long, depends on your definition) ago.
The difference is that, for example, a homosexual relationship between two consenting adults is the same as a heterosexual relationship between two consenting adults; old timey baseless stigma aside, nobody can actually name a reason (aside from hypocritical religious ones) for homosexual relationships to be considered wrong, and are usually based in the thought of "I don't like the thought of that", which is as absurd as if I said "I don't like the idea of blonde haired people being together, so every blonde must be paired with a brunette". The acceptable quota for a relationship is "it's between two consenting adults", without any manipulation.
A sexual relationship with a minor is not between two consenting adults, and isn't without manipulation considering the impressionable nature of youths. While basing the stigma purely on "ew, I wouldn't want to do that" wouldn't be justified, the sheer fact that this is a child dealing with such matters makes it wrong. A child can't understand the full impact of the consequences, the risks involved for a child getting pregnant are significantly higher and the timing for supporting the potential child would be terrible, the list of reasons for it being a terrible thing just go on and on. In my opinion, such a thing will never be legal, and that's for the best.
For the record, I don't feel it should be illegal to BE a pedophile, unless you act on it. People can't help their sexual orientation; if being gay or straight isn't a choice, then being a pedophile isn't a choice either. It must be terrible being cursed with such a stigmatized urge, and someone having to deal with it should be allowed to get help without judgement. However, while sexual orientation isn't a choice, acting on it certainly is and deserves full judgement.
In short, yes, such actions are always wrong and should not be legalized.
The difference is that, for example, a homosexual relationship between two consenting adults is the same as a heterosexual relationship between two consenting adults; old timey baseless stigma aside, nobody can actually name a reason (aside from hypocritical religious ones) for homosexual relationships to be considered wrong, and are usually based in the thought of "I don't like the thought of that", which is as absurd as if I said "I don't like the idea of blonde haired people being together, so every blonde must be paired with a brunette". The acceptable quota for a relationship is "it's between two consenting adults", without any manipulation.
A sexual relationship with a minor is not between two consenting adults, and isn't without manipulation considering the impressionable nature of youths. While basing the stigma purely on "ew, I wouldn't want to do that" wouldn't be justified, the sheer fact that this is a child dealing with such matters makes it wrong. A child can't understand the full impact of the consequences, the risks involved for a child getting pregnant are significantly higher and the timing for supporting the potential child would be terrible, the list of reasons for it being a terrible thing just go on and on. In my opinion, such a thing will never be legal, and that's for the best.
For the record, I don't feel it should be illegal to BE a pedophile, unless you act on it. People can't help their sexual orientation; if being gay or straight isn't a choice, then being a pedophile isn't a choice either. It must be terrible being cursed with such a stigmatized urge, and someone having to deal with it should be allowed to get help without judgement. However, while sexual orientation isn't a choice, acting on it certainly is and deserves full judgement.
In short, yes, such actions are always wrong and should not be legalized.
Original post by Plantagenet Crown
Of course it won't happen. We don't randomly legalise things and especially things such as that which would only cause harm and have no beneficial points whatsoever.
It's not random if someone makes a social issue out of it. Just wait til Murica does it. There will be people for and against it of course but it will all be a matter of politics in the end.
Original post by LenaSim
It's not random if someone makes a social issue out of it. Just wait til Murica does it. There will be people for and against it of course but it will all be a matter of politics in the end.
I'd like to know how someone would justify decriminalising sex with people and animals that are unable to consent? Sounds like a dead end to me.
Whether 16 is a good cut off age is an interesting discussion considering 16 year-olds can be pretty mature, but abolishing a legal age minimum altogether? Don't know about that.
Posted from TSR Mobile
Original post by LenaSim
It's not random if someone makes a social issue out of it. Just wait til Murica does it. There will be people for and against it of course but it will all be a matter of politics in the end.
Of course it's random. There is no possible justification for legalising paedophilia, ever. If you disagree then provide one.
Original post by typonaut
Try reading and understanding what that definition means. It means both thoughts and actions. While you may not be able to criminalise a thought, the reason for this is not that "thoughts" per se cannot be prosecuted, but that it difficult to show the evidence that any law has been infringed.
On the other hand, any manifestation of paedophilia would almost certainly be prosecuted: ie writing about sexual contact with children, or making drawings of sexual contact with children. These are not actual contact with children, or the direct sexual abuse of children, but they would still be illegal in the UK.
On the other hand, any manifestation of paedophilia would almost certainly be prosecuted: ie writing about sexual contact with children, or making drawings of sexual contact with children. These are not actual contact with children, or the direct sexual abuse of children, but they would still be illegal in the UK.
No it doesn't. It means sexual attraction towards children.
People can choose not to act on sexual desires. and if everyone would just stop demonizing these people who are clearly struggling with this mental issue and give them the help they need maybe the number of child sexual abuse crimes would decrease.
Did you not read my post or all the other numerous posts here blatantly saying that there is a HUGE difference between having thoughts and desires and actuating them?
For goodness sake don't twist the actual definition of pedophilia to suit your opinion.
Pedophilia or paedophilia is a psychiatric disorder in which an adult or older adolescent experiences a primary or exclusive sexual attraction to prepubescent children, generally age 11 years or younger.
No where in this does it say that the people are acting on these desires.
No one ever said child sexual abuse is right. What people are trying to say is that child sexual abuse and paedophilia are two different things.
(edited 8 years ago)
Original post by LenaSim
It's not random if someone makes a social issue out of it. Just wait til Murica does it. There will be people for and against it of course but it will all be a matter of politics in the end.
Oh please you know it is not going to happen. Do you also think murder and rape of adults is going to be legalized when someone makes a social issue out of it?
This was already made into a social issue in the UK some decades ago and members of the group who advocated for the lowering of the age of consent eventually got arrested when it turned out they were watching kiddie porn / ****ing children. If someone made a 'social issue' out of it again, it would just be a perfect opportunity for the authorities to know whom they should look out for.
Original post by Reue
Yes, it should be treated more as a mental illness.
No, it should'nt be legalised.
No, it should'nt be legalised.
Not that I agree with paedophilia at all, however, if being homosexual is no longer considered a mental illness then why is paedophilia?
Original post by Lemon Haze
Not that I agree with paedophilia at all, however, if being homosexual is no longer considered a mental illness then why is paedophilia?
Who knows, I'm not a psychologist or mental health expert.
Original post by StrawbAri
For goodness sake don't twist the actual definition of pedophilia to suit your opinion.
Pedophilia or paedophilia is a psychiatric disorder in which an adult or older adolescent experiences a primary or exclusive sexual attraction to prepubescent children, generally age 11 years or younger.
No where in this does it say that the people are acting on these desires.
No one ever said child sexual abuse is right. What people are trying to say is that child sexual abuse and paedophilia are two different things.
Pedophilia or paedophilia is a psychiatric disorder in which an adult or older adolescent experiences a primary or exclusive sexual attraction to prepubescent children, generally age 11 years or younger.
No where in this does it say that the people are acting on these desires.
No one ever said child sexual abuse is right. What people are trying to say is that child sexual abuse and paedophilia are two different things.
They are not two different things, you are just being selective in your definition.
Oxford:
paedophilia |ˈpiːdə(ʊ)ˌfɪlɪə| noun
sexual feelings directed toward children.
sexual feelings directed toward children.
Personally I think Oxford is being a bit gentle in its definition here, compare for example:
necrophilia
Pronunciation: /ˌnɛkrə(ʊ)ˈfɪlɪə/
Sexual intercourse with or attraction towards corpses.
Pronunciation: /ˌnɛkrə(ʊ)ˈfɪlɪə/
Sexual intercourse with or attraction towards corpses.
logophile |ˌlɒgə(ʊ)fʌɪl|
noun
a lover of words.
noun
a lover of words.
Now look at the definition of the composite terms:
-philia |ˌfɪlɪə|
combining form
denoting fondness, esp. an abnormal love for a specified thing : pedophilia.
• denoting undue inclination : spasmophilia.
ORIGIN from Greek philia ‘fondness.’
combining form
denoting fondness, esp. an abnormal love for a specified thing : pedophilia.
• denoting undue inclination : spasmophilia.
ORIGIN from Greek philia ‘fondness.’
paedo-
combining form
of a child; relating to children : pedophile.
combining form
of a child; relating to children : pedophile.
necro- |ˌnɛkrəʊ|
combining form
relating to a corpse or death : necromancy
combining form
relating to a corpse or death : necromancy
It follows, quite clearly (through standard etymology), that if necrophilia can mean sexual activity with a corpse, then paedophilia can mean sexual activity with a child. These are quite normal and everyday uses of these terms that are easily understood by most people.
Original post by typonaut
They are not two different things, you are just being selective in your definition.
Oxford:
Personally I think Oxford is being a bit gentle in its definition here, compare for example:
Now look at the definition of the composite terms:
It follows, quite clearly (through standard etymology), that if necrophilia can mean sexual activity with a corpse, then paedophilia can mean sexual activity with a child. These are quite normal and everyday uses of these terms that are easily understood by most people.
Oxford:
Personally I think Oxford is being a bit gentle in its definition here, compare for example:
Now look at the definition of the composite terms:
It follows, quite clearly (through standard etymology), that if necrophilia can mean sexual activity with a corpse, then paedophilia can mean sexual activity with a child. These are quite normal and everyday uses of these terms that are easily understood by most people.
By that logic logophilia can also mean sexual activity with words
Original post by Cherie Amour
Sexuality is thinking about someone of the same sex and you are officially that sexual orientation when you act on it and like it and continue to act on it. Same for hetero. Pedophilia is not a sexuality because children are not a sex. So your analogy between pedophiles and homosexuals doesn't apply.
I've not had sex with men or women or a trans individual or a third gender individual or an agender individual, but I am pansexual despite not having actually acted on this. That is my sexual orientation.
Sexuality is a combination of sexual orientation, paraphillias, fetishes, sexual behaviours etc.
Latest
Last reply 17 minutes ago
Official UCL Offer Holders Thread for 2024 entryPosted 18 minutes ago
Application approved before evidence was able to be submittedLast reply 36 minutes ago
Official University of York Offer Holders Thread for 2024 entryLast reply 38 minutes ago
LSE Economic history departmentLast reply 1 hour ago
Goldmansachs Degree Apprenticeship 2024Trending
Last reply 4 hours ago
Why is the political left now censorious and authoritarian??Last reply 6 hours ago
If the Russell Group was now a fair representation of what it still claims to beLast reply 2 days ago
Is it true that British unis are prejudiced towards degrees from Scottish unis?Last reply 1 week ago
TSR Goes Green: How important will the environment be in this year's election?Last reply 2 weeks ago
Research Rankings of universities if you add Research Quality & Intensity percentagesLast reply 4 weeks ago
Is University of Birmingham prestigious and respected well enough in UK ?Trending
Last reply 4 hours ago
Why is the political left now censorious and authoritarian??Last reply 6 hours ago
If the Russell Group was now a fair representation of what it still claims to beLast reply 2 days ago
Is it true that British unis are prejudiced towards degrees from Scottish unis?Last reply 1 week ago
TSR Goes Green: How important will the environment be in this year's election?Last reply 2 weeks ago
Research Rankings of universities if you add Research Quality & Intensity percentagesLast reply 4 weeks ago
Is University of Birmingham prestigious and respected well enough in UK ?
