Turn on thread page Beta
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Phugoid)
    But you are wrong. Heterosexuality and homosexuality IS based on age too. I, personally, wouldn't go out with a girl aged below 17, or a girl aged above about 25. I'm 20 years old. So, my heterosexuality does have age factored into it. I'm sure you have a similar age restriction on whatever your sexual preference is.

    You're also wrong that paedophilia doesn't have a gender factor. It does. Many paedophiles have an attraction to only one gender of child.
    I believe that for you and for me (heterosexual), the age factor is due to society, not due to an inherent factor of the sexuality itself. If you saw a girl, found her attractive and then realised she was in fact 16, you would only be imposing these age restrictions on yourself due to society, whether you consciously admit it or not.

    Paedophilia is the opposite - while it may be unacceptable by society to actually act on their feelings, their preference itself is age-based. I'm not actually saying there's no gender factor in there, but it is to do mainly with the age of their preferred sexual partners.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by KimKong)
    This thread is distasteful.

    No, paedofiles are not treated "too harshly". WTF!?

    If anything, all serious sex offenders whould be treated the same as them. Their harsh treatment shouldn't be lowered.
    Paedophiles are creepy sickos who are sexually attracted to children, and then use the internet to lure them, they do bad things to little kids, not because they are driven to it (like most murderers; m nt defending murderers merely illustrating the difference)..they do these twisted things because they WANT TO ACHEIVE SEXUAL GRATIFICATION BY f$%^& UP LITTLE KIDS...:mad: :mad: :mad:

    There isn't enough torture in the world to justify destroying a child's innocence.:mad:
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Phugoid)
    Again, you are making the assumption that the paedophile has made some sort of action against the child.

    You are assuming he has flirted. You are assuming that the paedophile has made it known to the child that he is attracted to him/her.

    The parallel, I feel, still stands. The innocent paedophile is synonymous with the innocent man who is attracted to a woman from afar but has never approached her. The guilty paedophile is synonymous with the guilty man who has found himself attracted to the women, and gone on to have sex with her without her consent.

    The only difference between the two is that the straight man has some acceptable intermediate steps such as approaching the girl, flirting with her, and so forth, as you said, but there is no reason to assume that a paedophile would engage in these activities, so there is no reason to treat them any differently from the quiet man who hasn't put his attraction to the girl into action.
    Right, if you're not even going to read what I am writing, this discussion is pointless.. If you had read what I wrote, you'd see that I wrote:
    To be attracted to children is no criminal offence.
    But IF, the paedophile does something like flirt/touch whatever, maybe even unconsciously, this would be more distressing for a child, than it would be for a woman to be flirted with by a man. I am simply saying that I don't agree with your comparison. The two cases are not alike.

    In the interest of the child who is the one that we supposedly should protect from distress or even criminal offence (I'm NOT saying every paedophile would ever do something like that, but there IS a chance, just like there's a chance a man could rape a woman! A small one, but still there!) I would be more worried, for the childs sake, if it lived/hanged around with a paedophile, than if me myself lived with/hanged around with a man.

    Just like women should (I'm not saying that they don't have the right to not, but they should nevertheless) take necessary actions to prevent danger to themselves, such as avoid walking around alone, drunk in big cities, I would be careful with having a paedophile as my future sons gymnastic teacher!

    A paedophile has done normally not done anything wrong. A man has done nothing wrong to a woman. But in both cases, I would consider an intelligent person to avoid any future conflicts, though I would be more careful in the case of the paedophile. This is not because I think every paedophile is going to assault every child they see, but because we are talking about CHILDREN.

    Peace out.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Indestructible)
    Paedophiles are creepy sickos who are sexually attracted to children, and then use the internet to lure them, they do bad things to little kids, not because they are driven to it (like most murderers; m nt defending murderers merely illustrating the difference)..they do these twisted things because they WANT TO ACHEIVE SEXUAL GRATIFICATION BY f$%^& UP LITTLE KIDS...:mad: :mad: :mad:

    There isn't enough torture in the world to justify destroying a child's innocence.:mad:
    Incorrect definition of 'paedophiles', you lose 100 points, and you fail at life.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    Wait internet access is now a human right o.O ?
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Ajes)
    :lolwut:


    ....what?
    "Watersports" is a euphemism for a liking for being pissed on - golden shower.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    I reckon both murderers and Paedo's should be treated more harshly, they are really the scum of the earth.
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    If anything they should be treated harsher.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by punkyrocker)
    I believe that for you and for me (heterosexual), the age factor is due to society, not due to an inherent factor of the sexuality itself. If you saw a girl, found her attractive and then realised she was in fact 16, you would only be imposing these age restrictions on yourself due to society, whether you consciously admit it or not.

    Paedophilia is the opposite - while it may be unacceptable by society to actually act on their feelings, their preference itself is age-based. I'm not actually saying there's no gender factor in there, but it is to do mainly with the age of their preferred sexual partners.
    If I am understanding you correct here (correct me if I'm wrong) you're saying that it is the society that makes these age restrictions, and that it has nothing to do with your sexual attraction..
    Wouldn't it be so, then, that if society allowed it, people be attracted to 3-4 year old's? 7 year old's? 10 year old's? But it is society that stops this sexual attraction? (consciously or not, as you say.)
    If this is what you mean, I must say I highly disagree.

    Animals do not have this social acceptance from any society, yet you hardly ever see animals having sex with younger animals who are not sexually ready yet (apart from when it comes to leadership and status in the pack, but still, I've never heard of animals who has sex with as young animals as the comparison would be as with human paedophiles being sexually attracted to >15 year old's.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Howard)
    "Watersports" is a euphemism for a liking for being pissed on - golden shower.

    I figured that out after i posted :o:
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Phugoid)
    You could introduce the death penalty all you liked, but it wouldn't make one bit of difference to paedophilia because paedophiles IS NOT A CRIME.

    It's not even punishable by law as it is, let alone worthy of the death penalty.
    I'm sure it's a crime to rape an underage child! :eek3:
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Ramanda)
    If I am understanding you correct here (correct me if I'm wrong) you're saying that it is the society that makes these age restrictions, and that it has nothing to do with your sexual attraction..
    Wouldn't it be so, then, that if society allowed it, people be attracted to 3-4 year old's? 7 year old's? 10 year old's? But it is society that stops this sexual attraction? (consciously or not, as you say.)
    If this is what you mean, I must say I highly disagree.

    Animals do not have this social acceptance from any society, yet you hardly ever see animals having sex with younger animals who are not sexually ready yet (apart from when it comes to leadership and status in the pack, but still, I've never heard of animals who has sex with as young animals as the comparison would be as with human paedophiles being sexually attracted to >15 year old's.
    I completely understand where you got that from, I worded my post very badly. Thanks for picking up on it!

    What I was trying to get at was that with Paedophilia, the sexual preference is not PRIMARILY for a gender, but an age, which is a very strange kind of sexual preference. It is restricted by society in that acting on their feelings would be incredibly frowned upon, and isn't allowed - hence the hatred for paedophiles.

    With heterosexuality, the PRIMARY preference is for a gender, not an age. We're also genetically such that we are attracted to people who look as if they are of child-bearing age, i.e. not children. However, it's dependent on when you develop your sexual side - I also think humans are more likely to be naturally attracted to someone their own age. If as we grow up, we are attracted to people of our own age or similar to our own age, then yes - as children, if we have any particularly strong sexual preference at all (I don't think we do), we are attracted to other children. However, you wouldn't class this as paedophilia, as it is not solely a preference just for children, which is shown as we grow up. It is a preference for a certain gender.

    I was replying to what Phugoid was saying, in that he's 20 years old and wouldn't date below 17 or above 25. Setting such rigid age barriers is due to society, not his sexual preference. However it can of course be argued that it's likely that he wouldn't be attracted to anyone younger than 17 or older than 25, but I don't want to get into that.

    That's what I meant, anyway - that with heterosexuality, the primary attraction is gender, with an age factor, and with paedophilia the primary attraction is age, with a gender factor.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    Paedophiles can never be treated harshly enough.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Shawshank)
    I'm sure it's a crime to rape an underage child! :eek3:
    Being paedophile is not the same as raping a child..
    Just as heterosexuality is not the same as raping someone of the opposite sex.. Getme?
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Shawshank)
    I'm sure it's a crime to rape an underage child! :eek3:
    It is, but paedophilia is NOT the rape of an underage child, you moron.

    Read the last 3 pages of comments, then come back and talk sense.

    You should be glad that idiocy is not a crime.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by infernalcradle)
    paedos should get castrated like in eastern europe...it actually works
    murderers and rapists should just get killed...a life for a life
    sorry, explain exactly WHERE in eastern europe peadophiles are castrated because i think that is not at all true.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    Anyway, was the original comment not 'Paedos are treated too harshly. Agree?'. Any actual answers to that yet? The thing that puzzles me is given the distinction between paedophiles and child molesters, which has been made abundantly clear to me several times over, paedos aren't really getting that hard a time are they? The child molesters are the ones in the paper, and having their front doors petrol bombed. The paedophiles, who as someone has said quite rightly, generally don't make their sexual preferences obvious and keep it to themselves, so why would they be having a hard time of it?
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    I will be reporting this thread to the police as clearly the OP is in fact a paedophile. Ogloom you sicken me and in fact have proven with your post that as well as being one of the sickest paedophiles ever to have slithered across the face of gods earth you are also a moron, having access to the internet is not by any means a human right. It is a privilidge and one which no doubt after your computer is confiscated and found to contain an extensive cache of hard core child pornography you will no longer be granted.
    At least an adult is capable of intelligently defending themselves against a murderer, children are incredibly vulnerable to predators such as yourself.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    there is a clear difference between paedophiles and child abusers
    paedophiles cannot help it whereas the latter can
    and even so, in terms of the age of consent i think it's a difficult question
    for example if a 30 year old man sh*gs a 14 year old who was up for it then they'd be considered a paedo
    but really the 14 year old said yeah and she knew what she was committing to whether the law says so or not
    there's a difference between de jure and de facto

    also, somewhat weirdly, in ancient greece pederastry was practiced really often and it was considered beneficial to the emotional growth of the child as the older partner would be like a mentor and carry them through sexual development

    i don't think that child abusers should become more acceptable in society but i certainly think that people should not make obeisance to murderers etc when they are just as bad if not worse
    there are lots of crimes that ruin people's lives like drug dealing and human traffic operators but they have a lot less stigma
    thing is, the general population don't have the intelligence needed to see through the uneducated whinings of the sun or the ridiculously right wing posings of the daily mail
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    Incidentally I think that paedophiles should be sucject to capitol punishment by means of a 'rape and kill bot' that would look much like a giant terminator that rapes and then kills the paedophiles. THUS is justice done.
 
 
 
Reply
Submit reply
Turn on thread page Beta
TSR Support Team

We have a brilliant team of more than 60 Support Team members looking after discussions on The Student Room, helping to make it a fun, safe and useful place to hang out.

Updated: February 2, 2010
The home of Results and Clearing

2,530

people online now

1,567,000

students helped last year
Poll
A-level students - how do you feel about your results?
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.