Hey there! Sign in to join this conversationNew here? Join for free

Why is homosexuality accepted, but not peadophilia? Watch

    • TSR Support Team
    • Very Important Poster
    • Reporter Team
    • Welcome Squad
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Psyk)
    Why would it be statutory rape is they are 16, i.e. over the age of consent? :confused:

    Anyway, I don't think the term statutory rape is used in the UK. Having sex with someone between the ages of 13 and 15 is illegal, but it's not considered rape. 12 and under it is though.

    To be honest, I don't think being attracted to a 16 year old necessarily makes you an anything phile. I think it's just normal hetero or homo sexuality. The problem is when someone has an obsession with young people and doesn't really have any interest in people of a more appropriate age. I don't think it makes sense to brand someone an ephebophile just because they have some attraction to the occasional teenager.
    Sorry, I should have said just under 16, you've made a valid point.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    Slightly off topic, but I read somewhere about this study of a man who had a brain tumor, and had developed paedophillic tendencies. He had an operation to remove the tumor, and his attraction to children vanished.
    then the tumor grew back, and the tendencies returned.

    Does this suggest that paedophillia is just an imbalance in the brain?
    if so, does that mean it's "treatable"?
    Offline

    9
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by BarackObama)
    Well, let me summarise: homosexuality used to be classified as a mental illness (along the lines of schizophrenia, kleptomania, anorexia, etc) and a criminal offense. Peadophilia is still classed as a mental illness, I believe (if not, then definitely as a criminal offense).

    On that note: is peadophilia defined as an attraction to children or having sexual relations with children? I've Googled and it seems nobody can make up their mind, really.
    I could very well be wrong here, but I'm pretty sure paedophilia is defined as an attraction to children, not having sexual relations with children. And the only reason I say that, is because when people are sent to prison for this sort of thing, they aren't charged with "paedophilia," they're charged with sexual assault etc. on a child. So I don't think it's necessarily the same thing. In the same way, someone looking at inappropriate videos or images of children on the internet could be classed as a paedophile, without actually having had sexual relations with them.
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by BarackObama)
    THANK YOU! That's exactly what I was wondering about.

    One of you up there mentioned "children can't make conscious decisions about this" and yes, that's a valid point, thank you. I didn't think of that. What about a hypothetical relationship between an 18-year-old and an 80-year-old, then? How come that technically isn't classed as peadophilia, but a relationship between a 15-year-old and a 20-year-old is inherently "wrong"?

    Or is it only peadophilia if the kid is under 12?

    Once again: genuinely curious. Not a troll. Breathe, guys. It's just a controversial topic.
    For goodness sake: the young child hasn't the maturity to consent and does not understand the act they are taking part in, making them vulnerable to considerable psychological harm and pregnancy at a time which is FAR too early. In a homosexual relationship between two consenting adults is fine, NONE of the problems occur. The reason homosexuality was scorned was because of religious reasons. Paedophilia as well of course. In the secular world homosexuality has no intrinsic problem but paedophilia still does. The only way it can be justified is if you suddenly decide the mental and physical development of a child shouldn't be protected and they should be subject to possibly severe harm if the older party decides they want to (the child of course can't). You cannot justify paedophila unless you want to justify the harm of children. You can justify homosexuality as it inflicts no harm upon either party involved.


    This was posted from The Student Room's iPhone/iP
    Offline

    9
    ReputationRep:
    Okay, so, here's what I think.

    Earlier on in the thread, you said that the main argument against both sexual preferences is that "it's not natural" but personally, I think that you can argue that homosexuality is far, far more natural than paedophilia.

    If we look at the evolutionary stance on attraction on the most basic level, human beings are attracted to signs of fertility. So in women, that's a good waist to hip ratio, symmetrical features etc. In men that's broad shoulders tapering down to a narrower waist, symmetrical features etc. These are all signs of health and fertility. So, with homosexuality, while two same sex partners cannot actually reproduce, they can still be attracted to the signs of fertility in their own sex. With paedophilia, however, this isn't the case. Children are not fertile, they do not show any signs of fertility, and therefore having an attraction to children is different to having an attraction to a member of the same sex.

    That being said, I would still argue that the main difference between the two is the issue of consent. Homosexuality, when practised properly, does not harm anybody. Both parties are consenting, both parties are getting something out of it, everybody wins. Paedophilia, however, does not afford the child these rights. The children cannot consent, it will be painful and traumatic for the child, and often will cause long lasting damage that will stick with them throughout their entire lives.

    Not all issues are as black and white as whether or not an action can be defined as "natural." Some issues are just morality issues through and through. Take murder, for example. Murder happens in plenty of places across nature, animals do it on a more primitive level, it can easily be argued that murder is just survival of the fittest. But it's still thoroughly wrong to kill someone. Same with paedophilia. Whether or not the attraction is natural, the effects that acting on that attraction can cause are so devastating, that it cannot be considered right. Homosexuality on the other hand, doesn't cause anyone any harm. So again, whether or not you think it's natural doesn't really matter.
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by MusicNerd)
    Slightly off topic, but I read somewhere about this study of a man who had a brain tumor, and had developed paedophillic tendencies. He had an operation to remove the tumor, and his attraction to children vanished.
    then the tumor grew back, and the tendencies returned.

    Does this suggest that paedophillia is just an imbalance in the brain?
    if so, does that mean it's "treatable"?
    There are stories of patients who show certain personality traits, have a part of their brain removed, and the trait disappears. However there would be no such "paedophilia" section that could be cut out; I think that case was coincidental. Neuroscience can isolate certain areas of the brain but sometimes things like sexual attraction is a complex, emotional, multi-faceted phenomenon based on different contributing factors of your psyche. Neuroscience is making advances in mapping out our mental lives but it is still miles off accounting for many qualities of experience and causes of various emotional, mental processes. Maybe in the future we could programme our minds to get rid of certain aspects but at the moment we are only looking at, what some neuroscientist called, a city of lights with each light being a window with something behind it: we don't have the ability to look through each window, so to speak. I think in that man's case the tumour gave hi psyche a concentrated mental phenomenon that coincidentally created paedophiliac tendencies, meaning it coul be extracted. I doubt it would be as simple for everyone though, the psyche remains and dark and slippery place for scientists and psychiatrists.


    This was posted from The Student Room's iPhone/iP
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    6
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Chloro)
    I know the author is playing "devils advocate" but its completely unreasonable to compare homosexuality and peadophilia on the same level because one is viewed by the majority of the population as a legal and OK thing, whereas the latter is not accepted because it is quite a heinous crime.
    I wasn't comparing, I was contrasting. But sure.

    What's wrong with devil's advocate? You think I'm just using it as an excuse and I really truly do believe that paedophilia is fine in all cases?
    Offline

    12
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Amelia-Babe)
    Are you ****in kidding me.
    This must be a troll. Cos it's sick to think that you think it's right or okay for an adult person to be in a relationship with a CHILD.
    You sick ****.
    Omg
    i cant believe you made a thread about this.
    This is a mature forum. Take your OMG's and immaturity elsewhere.
    Offline

    12
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Amelia-Babe)
    Are you ****in kidding me.
    This must be a troll. Cos it's sick to think that you think it's right or okay for an adult person to be in a relationship with a CHILD.
    You sick ****.
    Omg
    i cant believe you made a thread about this.
    I'm really worried that 9 people negged you. That's disgusting, there are at least 9 paedophiles on this forum apparently.
    Offline

    12
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by nohaynada)
    I'm really worried that 9 people negged you. That's disgusting, there are at least 9 paedophiles on this forum apparently.
    I have a girlfriend a year older than me and I negged her. Why? Not because I dislike her post, but because it sounds ridiculously immature. Like oh my god?
    Offline

    12
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by uktotalgamer)
    I have a girlfriend a year older than me and I negged her. Why? Not because I dislike her post, but because it sounds ridiculously immature. Like oh my god?
    huh? What does your girlfriend being a year older have to do with anything? Not trying to be rude, I'm not sure what you mean.

    Ok sure, her post came off immature a bit, but the message is there, what's worse being immature or agreeing with paedophilia?
    Offline

    12
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by nohaynada)
    I'm really worried that 9 people negged you. That's disgusting, there are at least 9 paedophiles on this forum apparently.
    Woohoo, now I got negged, sorry I find paedophilia disgusting.
    Offline

    12
    ReputationRep:
    I never thought about it like that..homosexuality was once illegal? That's not to say I'm homophobic or condone paedophilia. Incest is another weird area to start discussing and people often can't say why it's wrong apart from "it's just disgusting"
    Offline

    12
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by nohaynada)
    huh? What does your girlfriend being a year older have to do with anything? Not trying to be rude, I'm not sure what you mean.

    Ok sure, her post came off immature a bit, but the message is there, what's worse being immature or agreeing with paedophilia?
    You said 'there atleast 9 paedophiles on this forum' simply because they negged her. Grow up.

    Can't believe I'm having to say this. I don't agree with paedophilia, at all. It's sick, but I don't go like oh my god about it.
    Offline

    12
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by minthumbugs)
    I never thought about it like that..homosexuality was once illegal? That's not to say I'm homophobic or condone paedophilia. Incest is another weird area to start discussing and people often can't say why it's wrong apart from "it's just disgusting"
    The thing is, you have to be gay or straight to be a paedophile, or have incest with someone. So I don't get why people compare them.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    Maybe because in legal homosexual acts both members of the couple are homosexual and consenting, but with paedophilia only the one is a paedophile and consenting?
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    I don't know man but I don't think you're going to eat away at the core Republican voter base by raising issues like this.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    Paedophiles are fine and should be offered mental help, child molesters are not ok.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by BarackObama)
    Let me clarify: I am not homophobic to any degree (I'd be a hypocrite if I was – I like girls too, hello), but the idea popped into my mind and I know of no better people to discuss this with than, well, the kind of TSRers who lurk on the Debate & Current Affairs forum.

    So, let's just compare the two.

    Paedophilia:
    — viewed as 'unnatural' by some
    — viewed as 'gross' by some
    — is arguably just a natural preference

    Homosexuality:
    — viewed as 'unnatural' by some
    — viewed as 'gross' by some
    — is arguably just a natural preference

    So what's the difference? Do you think in 50 years' time we'll be seeing peadophilic pride matches, for instance?

    I do know and understand that a) most paedophilic relations tend to be forced (i.e. one of the people involved has given no consent or been bribed/blackmailed) and that b) legally, there is no maximum age difference requirement for brides and grooms (?), so obviously the two differ in those respects, but honestly, I haven't been able to get this out of my mind.

    Literally, the only arguments I've ever heard being used against paedophilia are "it's not right" and "it's disgusting" – so, basically, exactly the same as the arguments most commonly used against homosexuality.

    Can someone help me out here? What do you think?

    EDIT: Guys, come on. Why the thumbs-down? Is it not blatantly obvious that I'm playing devil's advocate?
    The world is becoming corrupt.. I feel that everything is changing now from what the Bible wants it to be, what God said..
    • Welcome Squad
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by BarackObama)
    Of course. However, what's a peadophile to do if, say, he genuinely only likes pre-pubescent girls and society (and most ethics philosophers, tbh) deem it unacceptable for him to actually have a relationship with the girl he loves?

    ^ HYPOTHETICAL SITUATION.

    Also, the vast majority of rapists are heterosexual men, right, but none of us are even thinking about whether or not heterosexuality is "wrong" or "gross".

    ^ DEVIL'S ADVOCATE.
    He's supposed to not rape her. I'm attracted to men all the time - I don't kidnap and rape them, and most people, whether or not they are gay, would never force someone to have sex with them, no matter how attracted they are to them. It's called self-control - no one is incapable of stopping themselves from rape.

    Heterosexuality is, again, being attracted to people who are old enough to consent. No relevant at all.
 
 
 
  • See more of what you like on The Student Room

    You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

  • Poll
    Did TEF Bronze Award affect your UCAS choices?
    Useful resources
  • See more of what you like on The Student Room

    You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

  • The Student Room, Get Revising and Marked by Teachers are trading names of The Student Room Group Ltd.

    Register Number: 04666380 (England and Wales), VAT No. 806 8067 22 Registered Office: International House, Queens Road, Brighton, BN1 3XE

    Quick reply
    Reputation gems: You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.