This discussion is now closed.

Check out other Related discussions

Why is homosexuality accepted, but not peadophilia?

A better topic to discuss would be incest, which in my opinion there is nothing wrong providing both parties are able to consent.

On it's own perhaps that is a debate worth having. Not, however, alongside homosexuality. Homosexuality, like heterosexuality, is a sexual orientation. Incest is not.

Reply 121

thunder_chunky

19

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?

I'm not going to scroll through this entire thread, but I will say that this is a terrible comparison for whatever reason whether it's because you actually are curious in this way or because you are playing devil advocates. This is quite possibly the worst comparison I've ever seen and by doing so you've started yet another thread where people can turn up and hate and be ignorant. Bravo.

(edited 10 years ago)

Reply 122

trololololol1234

7

People should get off the OP's back. It's obvious she's playing devil's advocate by her writing and her explicitly saying she is on every single post. Society can only progress if these questions can be asked and discussed objectively.

It's actually a damn good question and raises even more questions about topics such as morality, law and psychiatry.

I think there's a problem with it's definition. 'Peadophilia' can mean two things. Firstly there's the biological definition - attraction to children. Then there's the legal meaning - attraction to under 16's. A child by nature of the term cannot give consent due to immaturity - but the term child is ambiguous. When is the child ready? It's certainly not 12:00 on the dot on their 16th birthday. But it's a difficult question and one I cannot answer.

Is it immoral? In my opinion, no act is inherently moral or immoral. In fact an entirely universal morality doesn't even exist - it's subjective and based on the cultural zeitgeist of the time. But no topic is more frowned upon worldwide and hence based on my definition of morality and my personal morality system, then yes it's immoral.

Is it a mental illness? Well what makes a mental illness exactly? Everybody's brains are different. People are predisposed to like different colours, foods, feelings and mates (if you think you've actually consciously decided what you 'like' then think again). I can't help but feel that the term sexual preference and mental illness are interchangeable depending on the cultural acceptance of the 'illness'. I think this is what the OP is referring to. So in my opinion, no paedophilia is not a mental illness and neither is homosexuality.

So where do I stand on all this? In my opinion, a paedophile who does not act should not be condemned for who (s)he is attracted to. It is in fact massively unfortunate that they have to experience these urges and they should be met with sympathy rather than hatred and fear. Society should be set up to help these individuals with therapy and the stigma removed. With the current stigma, can you blame one for not coming forward? It ust results in loneliness and eventually underground paedophile rings. However, with all the help available, they should also know that if they do act, then they will be punished. They should be taught of the consequences of their actions - not just the punishment but also the abuse that the child will suffer.

(edited 10 years ago)

Reply 123

QuagmireKatz

i think the first post pretty much nailed it, with pedo's, the victim doesn't know what's fully right or wrong, he/she is being abused but with homo, they both are consenting

what a retarded question

Reply 124

shadowdweller

Volunteer Section Leader

21

Original post by QuagmireKatz

i think the first post pretty much nailed it, with pedo's, the victim doesn't know what's fully right or wrong, he/she is being abused but with homo, they both are consenting

what a retarded question

I think it's talking about in a case where you don't act on your attraction

Posted from TSR Mobile

Reply 125

QuagmireKatz

Original post by shadowdweller

I think it's talking about in a case where you don't act on your attraction

Posted from TSR Mobile

oh right, well in that case, it's a bit of taboo but you can't help who you're attracted to.
As long as the person doesn't act on it, then it's fine...i think :redface:

Reply 126

Sir Fox

18

Original post by BarackObama

EDIT 2:

Okay, so apparently I need to make this even clearer. ASIDE FROM THE CONSENT ISSUE ...

There is no 'aside from the consent issue', the lack of consent IS THE issue.

Reply 127

doobucks

16

Well the kid isn't mentally stable for such a relationship. Same sex relationships the people are mentally ready for a relationship.

Reply 128

Chief Wiggum

20

Original post by Sir Fox

There is no 'aside from the consent issue', the lack of consent IS THE issue.

So a relationship with a 16 year-old is acceptable in some countries, but paedophilia in others?

Surely you can see that such things like "lack of consent" are slightly ambiguous.

Reply 129

Sir Fox

18

Original post by Chief Wiggum

So a relationship with a 16 year-old is acceptable in some countries, but paedophilia in others?

Surely you can see that such things like "lack of consent" are slightly ambiguous.

It's not. Pedophilia is defined as a primary sexual attraction towards a person who is still prepubescent. That pretty much excludes 99.9999% of all 16 year olds. And it is in almost all cases way before the age of consent.

Edit: Of course I meant 'excludes'.

(edited 9 years ago)

Reply 130

Texstyler

4

Original post by Jdizzle15

I've also had this thought before but the reason is because peadophilia involves children and they are emotionally different (weak almost) and can be taken advantage of much more easily even if they don't actually recognise this fact themselves.

One is an act of consent and the other an act of force.

Reply 131

JohnMc_Lpool

I stumbled across this forum by accident.

This is the one of the most considered discussions on the subject I have ever seen. I too have had these questions. I also consider that the world is over-obsessed with the word peadophile (and largely use it incorrectly).

The fact his that most people labeled with the term are not actually peadophiles. Many have merely made the mistake of falling for an underage person (be that under 18, 16 or 14) and are not exclusively attracted to that age group, while most are opportunistic offenders - the children are just there.

Most people condemn "peadophiles" and stir up hatred for such people because a) they don't actually understand the conditions or acts and are informed only by the biased press (who are interested in stirring emotions not reporting facts) and b) because of our innate desire to protect children.

I know it's an old thread now, but I just thought I'd add my two-penny worth.

Reply 132

Milzime

18

Original post by JohnMc_Lpool

I stumbled across this forum by accident.

This is the one of the most considered discussions on the subject I have ever seen. I too have had these questions. I also consider that the world is over-obsessed with the word peadophile (and largely use it incorrectly).

The fact his that most people labeled with the term are not actually peadophiles. Many have merely made the mistake of falling for an underage person (be that under 18, 16 or 14) and are not exclusively attracted to that age group, while most are opportunistic offenders - the children are just there.

Most people condemn "peadophiles" and stir up hatred for such people because a) they don't actually understand the conditions or acts and are informed only by the biased press (who are interested in stirring emotions not reporting facts) and b) because of our innate desire to protect children.

I know it's an old thread now, but I just thought I'd add my two-penny worth.

yep, I think about this a lot

and I hate to ~go there~ but there are heaps of things one could deem 'similar' (although there are obvious differences) to how people thought about homosexuality a couple decades ago, and the way people think about certain things now.

Not just paedophilia (or what people see as wrong; acting on paedophilia), but things like bestiality, necrophilia etc.

I completely see that consent is the main factor here. But other than that (?)

and the EW WTF factor duh

annyywaayy maybe consent is heavy enough to close the door on any such thoughts, as without it, there's no viable relationship amirite

Why is homosexuality accepted, but not peadophilia?

Related discussions

Latest

Trending

Trending

Articles for you