Hey there! Sign in to join this conversationNew here? Join for free
x Turn on thread page Beta
    Offline

    17
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by ......?)
    Violence is in our nature, society is why we have less violence and don't spend most of our time afraid of everyone else we see.

    How would you know that your own children are safe unless you psychologically study every person they come into contact with including their dad.

    It would be easier to stop child abuse if there was less stigma attached to having these urges, if they are told that they are evil people they will hide these urges and try to control them only with their own willpower. I'd feel much safer if people didn't hide these feelings and were made to feel that it isn't their own fault (unless they do act upon it).
    Paedophilia is not in the nature of everyone, which was my point.

    Honestly, I think you're wrong. If people are open about their urges, then they don't have to hide their ''urges and try to control them only with their own willpower'' then how else would they control them? It sounds like you have something else in mind? Counselling maybe? But if it's in their nature and they can't help it as you say, then why bother? You can't counsel a lesbian in the hope that she'll turn straight, so why bother trying the same with a paedo?

    If paedophilia had less of a stigma, what's not to say it'd become more common place in society, and make the people that just 'admired' children from afar feel like it was less of a vile thing to do, and push them into the 'people that act on it' category?

    Anyway, that's all I'm saying about this because I don't agree with anything you've said and don't want to keep talking about it tbh.
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Sakura-Chan)
    Even if you had young children? Doubt it. I know there's a difference between acting on it and not, and not being a total vigilante and attacking them in the street, but I find it hard to believe that any one with children would be comfortable with a paedophile living in the same area/being anywhere near their children. Just because a person claims not to act on their ''desires'' doesn't mean that they never will, which is bad enough.

    ALSO! I find it incredibly hard to believe that if you're aroused by children that you'd never dabble in a watching bit of child porn.
    Right, so does that mean you're going to go out and rape a man just because you happen to fancy males? Get real.

    Did you know that many paedophiles also happen to fancy adults as well?
    Offline

    17
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Hylean)
    Right, so does that mean you're going to go out and rape a man just because you happen to fancy males? Get real.
    No, that's not what I said at all, nor do I fantasise about rape.
    Offline

    4
    ReputationRep:
    I actually know an example of the first kind of paedophile (as in, I know a guy who is one), and that's what I think when I hear the word. I actually feel really sorry for them, cause they didn't want to be the way they are and it must be horrible to be attracted to a group of people you could never actually have a real relationship with. Add all the hatred from other people to that, and you get sadness.

    I don't think it's really worth debating. They're not doing anything to anyone, it's not their fault they are the way they are - they're just pitiful.

    Demonize child molesters, not paedophiles.
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Sakura-Chan)
    No, that's not what I said at all, nor do I fantasise about rape.
    You said "Just because a person claims not to act on their "desires" doesn't mean they never will". By that argument, we all should be treated as rapists cause we all have desires for men and/or women. Just because someone is attracted to children does not mean they will act on it or watch child porn. Much like how a person attracted to adults will not necessarily act on it or watch porn.
    Offline

    4
    ReputationRep:
    Also:
    (Original post by Sakura-Chan)
    Even if you had young children? Doubt it. I know there's a difference between acting on it and not, and not being a total vigilante and attacking them in the street, but I find it hard to believe that any one with children would be comfortable with a paedophile living in the same area/being anywhere near their children. Just because a person claims not to act on their ''desires'' doesn't mean that they never will, which is bad enough.
    "I find it hard to believe that anyone who was a female would be comfortable with a straight male living in the same area/being anywhere near them. Just because a person claims not to act on their "desires" doesn't mean that they never will."
    ^ Makes as much sense. Just because you're attracted to something doesn't mean you can't control yourself and have to have sex with it. Just because you have an unusual attraction doesn't make you an automatic rapist.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Sakura-Chan)
    Paedophilia is not in the nature of everyone, which was my point.

    Honestly, I think you're wrong. If people are open about their urges, then they don't have to hide their ''urges and try to control them only with their own willpower'' then how else would they control them? It sounds like you have something else in mind? Counselling maybe? But if it's in their nature and they can't help it as you say, then why bother? You can't counsel a lesbian in the hope that she'll turn straight, so why bother trying the same with a paedo?

    If paedophilia had less of a stigma, what's not to say it'd become more common place in society, and make the people that just 'admired' children from afar feel like it was less of a vile thing to do, and push them into the 'people that act on it' category?

    Anyway, that's all I'm saying about this because I don't agree with anything you've said and don't want to keep talking about it tbh.
    If there was less stigma then there wouldn't be an increase or decrease in the amount of people that felt that way because it isn't something that a person decides to be, it's not an incentive to become a paedophile.

    Just because it's in someone's nature doesn't mean we can do nothing about it, if one of us was born 10000 years ago we'd have a high chance of murdering another person, yet now it's nearly 0, yet it is still inside of us. We haven't achieved low murder rates through killing every murderer and saying that everyone who has the ability to kill is a killer.

    I want child abuse to be a thing of the past, and I don't see how your views will achieve that, it would just keep it the same if we ignore why people do the things they do and have a greater understanding, maybe one day we will find the genes that control our arousal.
    Offline

    17
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Hylean)
    You said "Just because a person claims not to act on their "desires" doesn't mean they never will". By that argument, we all should be treated as rapists cause we all have desires for men and/or women. Just because someone is attracted to children does not mean they will act on it or watch child porn. Much like how a person attracted to adults will not necessarily act on it or watch porn.
    Rape
    –noun
    1. the unlawful compelling of a woman through physical force or duress to have sexual intercourse.
    2. any act of sexual intercourse that is forced upon a person.

    We don't all have desires to take sex by force. I don't see why you've latched onto the idea of rape to back up what you're saying.

    Like I already said, I've had my say and don't want to post in this thread any more. So kindly stop quoting me.
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    B

    We dont have though police :P
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Bslforever)
    Well i guess it must be said, do these people exist? How do we know that there are so called "invisible paedos" out there?
    This is what the raging White Knights refuse to explain. They speak of more tolerance for people who can not help their feelings of lust for a newborn baby but do not act on it. But, how can we attack an entity that is not in our conscience?

    They want us to see and say out loud that thinking about newborn babies lustfully is acceptable so these individuals who have these feelings, don't feel persecuted. Thus magically they "get help" and no longer posess such feelings in the end. Because no paedophile who wants to offend will actually offend if they know their perversion is ok will they.

    Makes perfect sense doesn't it.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Hylean)
    You said "Just because a person claims not to act on their "desires" doesn't mean they never will". By that argument, we all should be treated as rapists cause we all have desires for men and/or women. Just because someone is attracted to children does not mean they will act on it or watch child porn. Much like how a person attracted to adults will not necessarily act on it or watch porn.
    May I ask why you believe people are persecuting Invisible Paedophiles when people speak against paedophilia?
    Offline

    12
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Hylean)
    Right, so does that mean you're going to go out and rape a man just because you happen to fancy males? Get real.

    Did you know that many paedophiles also happen to fancy adults as well?
    Paedophiles receive hostility partly because they have a much greater chance of getting away with it. You fancy a woman but you control your urges not to rape her through either moral reasons or to avoid near-definite punishment. With children it's more likely that the offenders will dodge punishment altogether.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Dude Where's My Username)
    This is what the raging White Knights refuse to explain. They speak of more tolerance for people who can not help their feelings of lust for a newborn baby but do not act on it. But, how can we attack an entity that is not in our conscience?

    They want us to see and say out loud that thinking about newborn babies lustfully is acceptable so these individuals who have these feelings, don't feel persecuted. Thus magically they "get help" and no longer posess such feelings in the end. Because no paedophile who wants to offend will actually offend if they know their perversion is ok will they.

    Makes perfect sense doesn't it.
    Pretty ridiculous indeed.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Dude Where's My Username)
    May I ask why you believe people are persecuting Invisible Paedophiles when people speak against paedophilia?
    Because most people don't discern between someone that has abused a child and someone that is attracted to children and in some cases a paediatrician, and they want to hang them all.

    I know that you're playing dumb if you don't think this is how a lot of people think about this even if you haven't said it yourself.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    as long as they don't act on it it isn't a problem.

    But there will always be people breaking the law.


    When it was illegal to be gay plenty of people nurtured the feelings but some acted on it.

    SO there will always be a few who will ignore the law regardless whether they think its just or not, but if they don't act on it what can you do?


    (disclaimer; i'm not anti gay i just used it as an example of something that used to be illegal and widely repressed but acted on by the minority... Don't flame me, i love the gay people )
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by silverbolt)
    ...
    sig :coma: <3

    Im tolerant of those who do not act upon. Acting upon it severely ruins peoples lives. Infact, Id go as far as to say I respect those who do not act upon it.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by ......?)
    Because most people don't discern between someone that has abused a child and someone that is attracted to children and in some cases a paediatrician, and they want to hang them all.

    I know that you're playing dumb if you don't think this is how a lot of people think about this even if you haven't said it yourself.
    Interesting. You're saying people are bullying and attacking (verbally and mentally) someone who 10 times out of 10, isn't even in their sub-conscience let alone their conscience. Your argument is the equivalent dividing by zero.

    People who attack paedophilia are attacking the individuals who actually molest children and download images. NOT the Invisible Paedophile which you and and the others are supporting and referring to. This is the point I'm trying to make. Paedophile and child molesters are terms bandied about by people trying to be smart arses. Let's just take this subject at face value.

    The stigma is paramount for the moral function of our society and the safety of our children. We have no problem with Invisible Paedophiles. They do not need defending as there nothing to defend them against
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Dude Where's My Username)


    • A) Has this type of paedophile ever crossed your mind?

      B) Do you have a problem with them?

      C) Should we be more tolerant of their feelings and stop demonising paedophiles as a whole?

      D) Would you attack or want to attack someone like this?

      E) Have you ever verbally or physically attacked someone who's had this natural attraction to children but has NEVER corresponded with a minor or acted on their perversion?

      F) Is this form of "invisible" paedo even worthy of debate?


    A) Yes

    B) No of course not - people can't help who they are attracted too.

    C) Absolutely - child abusers are the problem, not paedophiles.

    D) If they had never abused a child, what reason would I to?

    E) Well I've never met someone who admitted to having these feeling so no.

    F) Yes, there are probably many more than we think there are.
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Dude Where's My Username)
    Interesting. You're saying people are bullying and attacking (verbally and mentally) someone who 10 times out of 10, isn't even in their sub-conscience let alone their conscience. Your argument is the equivalent dividing by zero.

    People who attack paedophilia are attacking the individuals who actually molest children and download images. NOT the Invisible Paedophile which you and and the others are supporting and referring to. This is the point I'm trying to make. Paedophile and child molesters are terms bandied about by people trying to be smart arses. Let's just take this subject at face value.

    The stigma is paramount for the moral function of our society and the safety of our children. We have no problem with Invisible Paedophiles. They do not need defending as there nothing to defend them against
    Except, as brilliantly shown by Sakura_Chan, people treat what you call "Invisible Paedophiles" as child molestors, without giving them a chance. So the distinction has to be made and vocally so that people learn there is a big difference. Hell, many child molestors don't even have a sexual attraction to children, or so some studies have shown.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Dude Where's My Username)
    Interesting. You're saying people are bullying and attacking (verbally and mentally) someone who 10 times out of 10, isn't even in their sub-conscience let alone their conscience. Your argument is the equivalent dividing by zero.

    People who attack paedophilia are attacking the individuals who actually molest children and download images. NOT the Invisible Paedophile which you and and the others are supporting and referring to. This is the point I'm trying to make. Paedophile and child molesters are terms bandied about by people trying to be smart arses. Let's just take this subject at face value.

    The stigma is paramount for the moral function of our society and the safety of our children. We have no problem with Invisible Paedophiles. They do not need defending as there nothing to defend them against
    You realise that with that stigma in place there is child abuse happening, I'm not saying removing the stigma will get rid of it, just make it easier to help those people and in turn that will help our society. I obviously agree that child abuse is a bad thing, but I want it to go down rather than stay at the same levels.

    I think you know there are people that attack these "invisible paedophiles", there was even someone on this thread talking about it.

    If people knew where people who were attracted to children lived they would attack and abuse them.
 
 
 
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: January 23, 2010
Poll
Do you like carrot cake?
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.