Paedophiles Watch

Seanisonfire
Badges: 3
Rep:
?
#141
Report 10 years ago
#141
wat?
0
reply
Schmokie Dragon
Badges: 15
Rep:
?
#142
Report 10 years ago
#142
(Original post by nolongerhearthemusic)
People into BDSM and people who have foot fetishes want to engage in something consensual. Paedophiles do not. They are entirely different.
Not necessarily. You could want to rape someone because they had pretty feet, or you could want to put your five year old daughter in a nipple clamp. What I meant is that it is a sexual preference that the person experiencing it can't help. You may as well tell a heterosexual man to find another man attractive, or tell him not to get sexually excited if a pretty lady stokes his penis. I don't see why you think that just because someone is into BDSM they are also, by definition, interested in consentual sex with an adult. What gave you that idea? You may as well say that homosexuals can't be paedophiles, which we all know isn't true. BDSM simply means "bondage/domination/sadism/masochism" (as far as most of the population is concerned, I can assure you there is a lot more to it than that). It doesn't mean "I like whiping the bottoms of consenting adults".

A paedophile does not necessarily want to engage in sexual activity with a child. They might find the very idea abhorrent and feel disgusted with themselves that they find children sexually attractive.
0
reply
Psyk
Badges: 14
Rep:
?
#143
Report 10 years ago
#143
(Original post by nolongerhearthemusic)
I think you're right actually. I think the 'children under 13' thing is psychologically, not legally.
Well I think there are different offences that apply to under 16s and under 13s. Presumably because 13 is roughly the age where most people become 'developed' physically. But of course there are some people who develop much earlier. There are 13 year olds who could pass for 16, possibly even 18. Would you be a paedophile if you had sex with them? No. Would you have committed a crime? Yes.

The point of the law is to protect young people from sexual predators, regardless of whether they are physically developed or not.
0
reply
unfinished sympathy
Badges: 1
Rep:
?
#144
Report 10 years ago
#144
(Original post by punktopia)
Do you consider our touchy-feely friends to be the worst form of human life? Are they mentally ill? Should they be "cured" instead of punished? Or are current punishments too lenient?

Do you only really start hating the paedos once you get sprogged up? (The whole maternal thing...)

Is murder worse? What about genocide?
i think in a way it's one of the worst crimes there is. i can't say it's worse than murder, but a paedophile is a destroying a child's innocence which is just as terrible imo. I think the worst thing is, that children should be protected, and paedophiles wander in what should be forbidden territory and sadly it isn't. The thought of what some children suffer through makes my stomach turn, and the fact that it happens everyday is disgusting when you think of the amount of bureaucrats there are in social services. I know everyone can't be protected, but god it's disgusting. i do think they should be castrated, depending on the involvement. child rape definitely, without doubt, they should be physically and chemically castrated. why shouldn't they suffer after what they've done to some small kid.
0
reply
Cowz
Badges: 0
Rep:
?
#145
Report 10 years ago
#145
(Original post by Psyk)
There are 13 year olds who could pass for 16, possibly even 18. Would you be a paedophile if you had sex with them? No. Would you have committed a crime? Yes.
Not if you can convince the jury that you had no idea the person who looked 18 was in fact 13.
0
reply
Davetherave
Badges: 10
Rep:
?
#146
Report 10 years ago
#146
What exactly is a paedophile? Someone who finds girls under 18 attractive?
0
reply
Seanisonfire
Badges: 3
Rep:
?
#147
Report 10 years ago
#147
the next person to post is a paedophile
0
reply
Airel
Badges: 2
Rep:
?
#148
Report 10 years ago
#148
o hi guys
0
reply
nolongerhearthemusic
Badges: 11
Rep:
?
#149
Report 10 years ago
#149
(Original post by Schmokie Dragon)
Not necessarily. You could want to rape someone because they had pretty feet, or you could want to put your five year old daughter in a nipple clamp. What I meant is that it is a sexual preference that the person experiencing it can't help. You may as well tell a heterosexual man to find another man attractive, or tell him not to get sexually excited if a pretty lady stokes his penis. I don't see why you think that just because someone is into BDSM they are also, by definition, interested in consentual sex with an adult. What gave you that idea? You may as well say that homosexuals can't be paedophiles, which we all know isn't true. BDSM simply means "bondage/domination/sadism/masochism" (as far as most of the population is concerned, I can assure you there is a lot more to it than that). It doesn't mean "I like whiping the bottoms of consenting adults".

A paedophile does not necessarily want to engage in sexual activity with a child. They might find the very idea abhorrent and feel disgusted with themselves that they find children sexually attractive.
Anyone whose 'sexual orientation' involves non-consential acts is not normal, and I think they are ill. In the same way as I think paedophiles are ill. Comparing a sexual orientation in which someone wants consentual acts with paedophilia is wrong.
0
reply
Psyk
Badges: 14
Rep:
?
#150
Report 10 years ago
#150
(Original post by Davetherave)
What exactly is a paedophile? Someone who finds girls under 18 attractive?
Someone who finds pre pubescent children attractive. So that's roughly up to the age of about 13.
0
reply
Darkeyes28
Badges: 0
Rep:
?
#151
Report 10 years ago
#151
(Original post by Airel)
Same. Chances are, you know a paedophile, everyone. I remember reading a relevant quote somewhere. It would have more impact if I could remember it.

I read the same article I think but yet can not remember it either all I remember is that the chances are that most people either know one or know someone who knows one...........

If I knew one I would shop em.......

Also

What about these sicko's that do it to BABIES ??? there is no way you can honestly defend them if you do then I think you also may need to seek help....
0
reply
rmhumphries
Badges: 15
Rep:
?
#152
Report 10 years ago
#152
(Original post by Cowz)
No that is wrong. Under UK law, you cannot be convicted by a law that was designed to protect you. Hence a 13 year old who takes naked pictures of themselves, although feasibly producing paedophillic images, cannot be arrested for being a paedophile. I think the same would apply in the example you have given.
Two 12 years have sex. Both of them are actually paedophiles. (That is actual law.)

Even if it is 2 people under age, then the older one gets arrested for statutory rape if caught.


(Original post by Cowz)
Nope. I believe it to be under the age of 18, although a child ccan consent to sex at the age of 16.

That is why 16 year olds can't be in porn.
Slightly off topic, but why can 16 years have sex, but not legally look at over 18s having sex?

(Original post by Airel)
Wikipedia answers all, although you're crossing borders.

Sexual preferences go
Child - Teenager - Adult

The Law goes
Child - Adult
Wrong.

http://www.publications.parliament.u...1-4.html#j407b

Sexual Offences Bill. There are sections for unwilling sex/etc with Children, and a different section for someone over 18 doing an under 16. And then laws for adults. While the offical government version is very legal talk, and therefore not the clearest, I confirmed this before in the last debate on this subject.

(Original post by ViolatedTreason)
anything that isnt allowed by law.. thats where the line should be drawn..
In that case, that is anything further than kissing, including but not limited to touching in a manner than can be seen as sexual, oral sex, masterbation with each other / in each others company.
So that dude who is 3 weeks older than his girlfriend, if he is 16, she is 16 in 3 weeks time, they are not even allowed to touch each other? (I believe this is right, I am tired so sorry if it isn't.)

(Original post by nolongerhearthemusic)
Anyone whose 'sexual orientation' involves non-consential acts is not normal, and I think they are ill. In the same way as I think paedophiles are ill. Comparing a sexual orientation in which someone wants consentual acts with paedophilia is wrong.
BDSM, and other things like it can involve the role-playing of non-consensual acts (between consenting partners.) Some people like the control and power, and being controlled, etc. Are all people who like that stuff ill, and not normal?
0
reply
nolongerhearthemusic
Badges: 11
Rep:
?
#153
Report 10 years ago
#153
(Original post by rmhumphries)
BDSM, and other things like it can involve the role-playing of non-consensual acts (between consenting partners.) Some people like the control and power, and being controlled, etc. Are all people who like that stuff ill, and not normal?
Liking role-play is fine. If you like that stuff in a situation where there actually is consent, I have no problem. I would imagine many people who like this would never actually desire it to be literally non-consentual. If this is not the case, then yes they are ill (but as with paedophiles, if they comit no crimes I don't care).
0
reply
Cowz
Badges: 0
Rep:
?
#154
Report 10 years ago
#154
(Original post by rmhumphries)
Slightly off topic, but why can 16 years have sex, but not legally look at over 18s having sex?
Well why do we have an 18 classfication in cinemas? It's to protect minors, which 16 year olds legally are.
0
reply
Psyk
Badges: 14
Rep:
?
#155
Report 10 years ago
#155
(Original post by rmhumphries)
Two 12 years have sex. Both of them are actually paedophiles. (That is actual law.)
Is it? Got a reference for that? The link you posted doesn't contain the word paedophile.
0
reply
Schmokie Dragon
Badges: 15
Rep:
?
#156
Report 10 years ago
#156
(Original post by nolongerhearthemusic)
Anyone whose 'sexual orientation' involves non-consential acts is not normal, and I think they are ill. In the same way as I think paedophiles are ill. Comparing a sexual orientation in which someone wants consentual acts with paedophilia is wrong.
I didn't compare 'the desire to have no consentual sex with children' to 'the desire to tie your spouse up and whip her with her consent'. And who is to define "normal" anyway? Normality vaires with culture and upbringing. What is normal for a British person could well be distinctly abnormal to an Eqyptian, and I know that some of the things that young English girls get up to would make certain religious folk wonder if they were possesed by some demented spirit. Being mentally ill is not simply a matter of conforming to normality.

I didn't even mention consent when I originally compared paedophilia to BDSM. As I said before, what part of "BDSM" includes a clause that limits it to consentual sex? In fact, a sexual attraction to domination and sadism is something that certain sex offenders very definitely have. I think you also need to differentiate between desiring a sexual act and feeling aroused by something. As I said, just because someone feels attracted to 10 year olds does NOT mean that they actively want to have sex with 10 year olds.
0
reply
nolongerhearthemusic
Badges: 11
Rep:
?
#157
Report 10 years ago
#157
(Original post by Schmokie Dragon)
I didn't compare 'the desire to have no consentual sex with children' to 'the desire to tie your spouse up and whip her with her consent'.
Okay, it seemed like you had. In that case, a non-consentual act/fantasy with a child and a non-consentual act/fantasy with an adult is comparable. I would consider both types of people to be ill. I am also fully aware that it's none of my business until a crime in committed.

(Original post by Schmokie Dragon)
And who is to define "normal" anyway? Normality vaires with culture and upbringing. What is normal for a British person could well be distinctly abnormal to an Eqyptian, and I know that some of the things that young English girls get up to would make certain religious folk wonder if they were possesed by some demented spirit. Being mentally ill is not simply a matter of conforming to normality.
I know it varies by culture. However, my sense of morality (which I am fully aware was developed in 1 culture) says that it is not their fault and these people are ill.

(Original post by Schmokie Dragon)
I didn't even mention consent when I originally compared paedophilia to BDSM. As I said before, what part of "BDSM" includes a clause that limits it to consentual sex? In fact, a sexual attraction to domination and sadism is something that certain sex offenders very definitely have.
Okay, they are comparable and I would consider both to mean the person is ill. Again, I know it's none of my business if they've never committed a crime.

(Original post by Schmokie Dragon)
I think you also need to differentiate between desiring a sexual act and feeling aroused by something.
Yes they are different things. I am arguing that the reason why both desiring a sexual act and merely feeling aroused by it can mean that someone is ill. I know they are not choosing what they are aroused by, because they are ill.

(Original post by Schmokie Dragon)
As I said, just because someone feels attracted to 10 year olds does NOT mean that they actively want to have sex with 10 year olds.
But they are still as ill as the person wanting to have sex with a 10 year old.
0
reply
rmhumphries
Badges: 15
Rep:
?
#158
Report 10 years ago
#158
(Original post by Psyk)
Is it? Got a reference for that? The link you posted doesn't contain the word paedophile.
I will look more tomorrow. Afaik, while wording-wise they are not, they are put on the sex offenders register.
0
reply
zeropoint
Badges: 11
Rep:
?
#159
Report 10 years ago
#159
I think people are getting a little too bogged down with definition here. I would be reluctant to call a sixteen year old going out with a fifteen year old a paedophile, whereas a forty year old doing things to an eight year old is.

I hear people comparing paedophiles to dogs, and this really unnerves me, because similar things were said to homosexuals or Jews or many other groups of people over history. I don't think there is too much wrong with someone who is attracted to young people providing they do not act upon this. These people just have a sexual attraction which they cannot and should not act upon, because the acting is the point where it becomes wrong.

The point where it is acted upon, at any level from kidnapping a child, to typing something in to google, that is the point where it is wrong, because it starts hurting people. Looking at child pornography creates a market, and causes other people to do wrong things. At this point they should be victim to the full weight of society and legality.

I don't think paedophillia is worse than murder, or genocide. Lets be realistic, yes it is bad, it is seriously emotionally damaging a person, and obviously it is rape. However mutilating that person is barbaric, it puts us as little better than them. I think the act of sexual molestation should be treated as a legal issue, but the problem of paedophillia should be a medical one.
0
reply
Nu Ordah!!!!!!!!!!!!
Badges: 0
Rep:
?
#160
Report 10 years ago
#160
Basically parents on the whole are incapable of rational/logical thought. In addition many of the working classes frequently make kneejerk and ill thought out comments. Both of these examples make outright statements about morality and then contradict themselves within minutes.
0
reply
X

Quick Reply

Attached files
Write a reply...
Reply
new posts
Latest
My Feed

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.

Personalise

Have you registered to vote?

Yes! (234)
39.39%
No - but I will (40)
6.73%
No - I don't want to (43)
7.24%
No - I can't vote (<18, not in UK, etc) (277)
46.63%

Watched Threads

View All
Latest
My Feed