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

    18
    ReputationRep:
    They should all be killed or tortured to death human rights be damned
    Offline

    7
    ReputationRep:
    As far as I can tell, paedophilia is not a sexual orientation. I.e. people who're heterosexual aren't normally attracted to members of the same sex. They're mostly attracted to members of the opposite sex. That's a sexual orientation. Αs far as I know, paedophiles are attracted to post-pubescent women and men. They just take extra pleasure from having sex with minors like anyone with a fetish does. If you've an ass fetish, you take extra pleasure from looking at a girl's booty when having sex (or w/e). But that doesn't mean you don't like anything else about her or that you can't enjoy sex or a relationship with girl unless she has a great ass.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by L'absurde)
    No, paedophilia shouldn't be accepted at all in society, it should be rejected 100%.
    A sexual attraction to children is disgusting and sick and I'm glad people are harsh on them (paedophiles).
    Do you agree that paedophiles cannot help that they are sexually attracted to children, i.e. they cannot just decide not to be attracted to children?

    Do you agree that someone sexually attracted to children could live his entire not acting on that attraction and, therefore, not committing any criminal (/civil) offence?

    In that case, in what sense is it justified to be "harsh" to someone who cannot help his attraction and doesn't act on it, harming no-one?
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    To think that 7 people On TSR actually liked the OP's opening statement.
    Offline

    10
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by lawyer3c)
    Do you agree that paedophiles cannot help that they are sexually attracted to children, i.e. they cannot just decide not to be attracted to children?

    Do you agree that someone sexually attracted to children could live his entire not acting on that attraction and, therefore, not committing any criminal (/civil) offence?

    In that case, in what sense is it justified to be "harsh" to someone who cannot help his attraction and doesn't act on it, harming no-one?
    Yes, it's not a choice. (I think, one cannot be certain).

    Yes, it's possible but there will always be a risk attached to that.

    Paedophilia isn't a sexual orientation like heterosexuality or homosexuality, where people can engage in sexual activities without harming anyone. Essentially if you are attracted to children it isn't possible to engage is such activities without harming someone (a child). Yes they can refrain from such, but there is a big what if attached to it. Being harsh is the only way, we cannot afford to condone or encourage paedophiles. It is not something that is okay.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by L'absurde)
    Yes, it's not a choice. (I think, one cannot be certain).
    Can you try and be sexually attracted to paedophiles? If not, I think that settles it.

    Paedophilia isn't a sexual orientation like heterosexuality or homosexuality, where people can engage in sexual activities without harming anyone. Essentially if you are attracted to children it isn't possible to engage is such activities without harming someone (a child).
    Obviously.

    Yes they can refrain from such
    I'm glad you accept that. So, for those that do not cause any harm or commit any offence during their lives, why is it justified to treat them "harshly"?

    You seem to treat paedophiles as criminals, which is akin to being a thought criminal. The implications of what you are saying are worrying.
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by sleepysnooze)
    ...okay but why though? what happens, specifically, at 16, biologically, for girls that causes them to suddenly have the "mental capacity" to consent to sex? I mean, the biological processes that are about sex and sexual development begin as early as 13 generally (usually earlier but I'm being conservative here so at not to say that all 12 year old girls can consent). so why 16? most girls, for instance, get their final breast size, and height, earlier than 16, and the *vast* (can't stress that word enough) majority of girls around 13 have started their periods, so why 16 of all ages?
    If we're going by cognitive maturity, the age of consent should be something like 25.
    • Political Ambassador
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    Political Ambassador
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Twinpeaks)
    Because they're cognitive development does not perfectly align with their biological development. They may have breasts which make them look like women, but cognitively, emotionally, simply psychologically, they aren't women. Our brain is still developing into our early 20s. There are so many reasons as to why a 14 year old hasn't the decision making capacity that a 20 year old does.
    you're venturing pretty far to justify yourself here with that one...if it's still developing iinto our 20s, why isn't the age of consent in our 20s?

    Some girls start their period at 10, do you think that because they started their period, that they are psychologically more mature than their peers who've yet to? It doesn't work like that.
    I mean, it's technically possible if you want to go that far :|
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Cremated_Spatula)
    If we're going by cognitive maturity, the age of consent should be something like 25.
    most people cognitively mature, or at least do the vast majority of their maturing, before they're 25 though. like, something like a full decade before that...
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by neal95)
    They should all be killed or tortured to death human rights be damned
    Everyone born with such an attraction that they did not choose to be born with, nor can change, should be killed? Even those that haven't acted upon it or harmed anyone, nice.
    • Political Ambassador
    • Welcome Squad
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    Political Ambassador
    Welcome Squad
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by sleepysnooze)
    most people cognitively mature, or at least do the vast majority of their maturing, before they're 25 though. like, something like a full decade before that...
    I'd argue most adults aren't able to fully comprehend all the consequences of their actions.

    It's a compromise to say 18 or 16, where the line is drawn is fairly arbitrary, and based on public opinion. But that doesn't negate the need for the line to be drawn.
    So why is the current age of consent not satisfactory? And where do you think it should be drawn?
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Cremated_Spatula)
    I'd argue most adults aren't able to fully comprehend all the consequences of their actions.
    who cares? how is that a thershold for responsibility? surely it's not the necessary reality of each and every situation but rather the principle that an individual has the *means* to be responsible?

    It's a compromise to say 18 or 16, where the line is drawn is fairly arbitrary, and based on public opinion. But that doesn't negate the need for the line to be drawn.
    So why is the current age of consent not satisfactory? And where do you think it should be drawn?
    so if it's based on nothing but public opinion, as opposed to science or even logical philosophy, why is that even an argument from you? public opinion if it's not based on anything has absolutely no technical merit. if an argument in a debate was "because most people agree with me" then if we were talking about the shape of the earth in 1400 then that might win a debate of proving that the earth is flat.

    and I think everything from the government should be as good as it can possibly be, in the sense that each tax payer shouldn't be subject to unjust laws just because somebody can't be bothered to change them. and it should be based on science. and science says that most girls and boys are in puberty (the period of sexual development) by the age of about 13. and by "development", I mean, the point in which sexuality materialises.
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by sleepysnooze)
    who cares? how is that a thershold for responsibility? surely it's not the necessary reality of each and every situation but rather the principle that an individual has the *means* to be responsible?



    so if it's based on nothing but public opinion, as opposed to science or even logical philosophy, why is that even an argument from you? public opinion if it's not based on anything has absolutely no technical merit. if an argument in a debate was "because most people agree with me" then if we were talking about the shape of the earth in 1400 then that might win a debate of proving that the earth is flat.

    and I think everything from the government should be as good as it can possibly be, in the sense that each tax payer shouldn't be subject to unjust laws just because somebody can't be bothered to change them. and it should be based on science. and science says that most girls and boys are in puberty by the age of about 13.
    You seem to think I'm attacking your opinion or 'debating' with you. You're mistaken, I'm just having a friendly discussion, pointing certain things out.
    Why do you think that I'd care, whether or not if anyone else cares? What's the point in telling me, 'who cares?'?

    I'd say being responsible is having a good awareness of consequence, among other things. If some adults, with fully, biologically developed minds have a poor awareness of consequence, how is a child going to have equal capabilities?

    I said it's a compromise, the 'scientific merit' is the age of cognitive maturity.
    Public opinion -meaning that the public will not agree with an age of consent that high. Public opinion is important to those responsible for the public.

    The start of puberty doesn't really have much relevance on the *means* to consent.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by abc_123_)
    Couldn't it make them more sexually frustrated tho?
    idk maybe
    Offline

    21
    ReputationRep:
    Which Labour candidate do you support?
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Cremated_Spatula)
    You seem to think I'm attacking your opinion or 'debating' with you. You're mistaken, I'm just having a friendly discussion, pointing certain things out.
    Why do you think that I'd care, whether or not if anyone else cares? What's the point in telling me, 'who cares?'?
    ...okay then...?

    I'd say being responsible is having a good awareness of consequence, among other things. If some adults, with fully, biologically developed minds have a poor awareness of consequence, how is a child going to have equal capabilities?
    why are you setting the bar so high for sexual intercourse? because of pregnancy? the risk of pregnancy doesn't actually affect an individual's ability to consent to sex, though. it could be the case that an individual has the consent for sex but doesn't appreciate the risks of pregnancy. that doesn't make that consent invalid though. if they feel that they desire sex with a particular individual, that's all that matters. what you'd be considering wouldn't be a correct age of consent but a prohibition on consensual sex for those that don't know enough about sex, which obviously could be remedied by early ("earlier) sex education in schools like in nordic countries with lower ages of teen pregnancies

    I said it's a compromise, the 'scientific merit' is the age of cognitive maturity.
    Public opinion -meaning that the public will not agree with an age of consent that high. Public opinion is important to those responsible for the public.
    again, this doesn't change anything here - truth is a matter of reason, not government or democracy. if one person has the truth, it doesn't matter how many people don't have the truth, for the sake of this discussion.

    The start of puberty doesn't really have much relevance on the *means* to consent.
    yes it does - what do you mean? I'm not merely talking about the body, I'm talking as well about the mind. puberty and the hormones involved affect both.
    Offline

    18
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by sleepysnooze)
    you're venturing pretty far to justify yourself here with that one...if it's still developing iinto our 20s, why isn't the age of consent in our 20s?



    I mean, it's technically possible if you want to go that far :|
    Are you being serious? I seriously think they need to teach Psychology as a compulsory subject, this is basic stuff. I haven't got to justify myself, I'm merely repeating knowledge.

    Because at around the age of 16, you are considered sufficiently developed for full-informed consent, and decision making. No one has ever stated that at 16 you are a fully developed human being. You only need to compare your current self to you at 16 to see that.

    Summary.
    Basic information-processing skills such as abstract thinking, logical reasoning increase through childhood and adolescence to around 15/16, and then level off. At 15/ 16 we are considered to be more or less as proficient as adults in such basic skills as moral reasoning and logical analysis.
    So in that respect, we are considered to have the cognitive capacity to make fully informed decisions.

    But we still have some way to go, to being a fully developed adult. we still are less proficient at weighing the costs and benefits of risky decisions, still lack ability in planning ahead. Our prefrontal cortex doesn't fully develop until our 20s for example, and that's responsible for more higher level cognitive processes such as problem solving, judgement, reasoning, impulse control.

    At 16 it's a lot better than at 12/ 14, but we still have some way to go. In contrast, our limbic system which is involved in reward, pleasure, stimulation-seeking, matures earlier in puberty. Hence why 16 year old's are likely to partake in risky behaviours. The part of our brain which seeks pleasure and reward is developed more than the part of our brain which is involved in reason, planning and moderation.

    Bit of a tangent there I realise. Remember, no one is saying that at 16 you are a fully developed human being. But you are significantly more developed than at 12-14. Yes, we still have a lot more developing to do. But at 16 you are considered mature enough to start experiencing life and developing as more of an adult, to make your own mistakes in a way.
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by sleepysnooze)
    ...okay then...?



    why are you setting the bar so high for sexual intercourse? because of pregnancy? the risk of pregnancy doesn't actually affect an individual's ability to consent to sex, though. it could be the case that an individual has the consent for sex but doesn't appreciate the risks of pregnancy. that doesn't make that consent invalid though. if they feel that they desire sex with a particular individual, that's all that matters. what you'd be considering wouldn't be a correct age of consent but a prohibition on consensual sex for those that don't know enough about sex, which obviously could be remedied by early ("earlier) sex education in schools like in nordic countries with lower ages of teen pregnancies



    again, this doesn't change anything here - truth is a matter of reason, not government or democracy. if one person has the truth, it doesn't matter how many people don't have the truth, for the sake of this discussion.



    yes it does - what do you mean? I'm not merely talking about the body, I'm talking as well about the mind. puberty and the hormones involved affect both.
    I'm just discussing, I have no agenda. You make a good point about it being a prohibition of consent. Consent is too much of a grey area atm.

    Reason is subjective, no one can be truly objective. What if the objective truth is that there is no definitive year to make a 'threshold'? Surely, there would still be a need for a law protecting children from sexual trauma and bad decision making?

    Puberty is a progression. So although the body might have matured by then, it would still be nearer the start of cognitive maturity.
 
 
 
Poll
Do you agree with the PM's proposal to cut tuition fees for some courses?
Useful resources

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

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