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

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by ......?)
    I don't know if there is any evidence of there being no paedophilia in the animal kingdom, which we are part of and I'm not sure how society would increase paedophilia if it wasn't already something that happened naturally.
    Well, unless you are a nihilist/determinist, the notion of free will is quite a viable alternative. Not that I am suggesting that there is never a biological drive for certain things. Indeed, I would agree that homosexuality is biological by nature. After all, this is demonstrated in the animal kingdom, hence my earlier question.

    (Original post by ......?)
    I am not being tolerant of it, if someone commits child abuse they should be punished and analysed and rehabilitated. But I don't think you can punish people for a crime they haven't committed, no matter what that crime is.
    This is besides the point though. I am not talking about conviction, merely treatment.

    (Original post by ......?)
    I think that to solve the problem of paedophilia, which has been around for presumably millions of years, we need to approach it from a logical viewpoint, if we find out that certain policies work and others don't then we should use the ones that work. What I don't want us to do is be reactionary and emotional and as a result not do anything about the problem.

    I haven't said 'oh it's finnnneee, they aren't hurting anyone, leave them be!', I want to see it eradicated, but I don't see you offering any solutions, just the same answers they've used since paedophilia was outlawed, and as you can see, it still happens.
    What answers would those be? Are you insinuating that my belief of forced treatment concerning pedophiles is somehow unreasonable... 'reactionary and emotional'?
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Toaster Leavings)
    Good post.

    The demonising culture is far too overblown. It's thought-policing essentially and dangerous for this reason alone. There are a lot of pretty heinous harmful sexual perversions out there and a huge amount of illegal trafficking of young women. But in the minds of the public these violations seem to pale in comparison to some sorry old bloke sat in a park.

    Paedophiles should, theoretically at least, be allowed to watch child porn - as long as it could be guaranteed that no child was involved :L obviously not possible so computer simulated is probably the best option.

    It may make the rest of us feel sick but then think of the Ancient Greek pederasts in sexual relations with young boys - in fact I think it was Plato who was considered a bit odd for not engaging in such acts!

    It's not something which is going to go away and I think demonising people for it who have not acted on their desires (in the form of actual sexual abuse) is disgusting.

    EDIT:- To add to my post I can't see us allowing paedophiles to watch animated child porn even if I think it's theoretically the correct route. Obviously in this time and culture we consider it a mental illness and I think one of the definitions of insanity is a failure to understand or conform within reason to the current reality (something along those lines!) so by this definition they are mentally ill. If that's the stance we wish to take then demonising is still not the answer, if there wasn't this kneejerk bandwagon reaction I think rather more might be then encouraged to speak out and seek some sort of therapy to suppress their natural urges so they can lead a more normal life.

    Also, as someone mentioned earlier paedophilia is nothing new it's just gained notoriety in the media. The hysteria has done little more than make normal adult males paranoid around young children.
    What do you think hentai mostly is? A rather funny fact which has made a lot of it illegal in the UK as there was a law brought in last year making animated depictions of naked children illegal.

    Hentai likes to play on it though, by using schoolgirls who are numerally illegal but look well above the age limit. It's funny.
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Hylean)
    What do you think hentai mostly is? A rather funny fact which has made a lot of it illegal in the UK as there was a law brought in last year making animated depictions of naked children illegal.

    Hentai likes to play on it though, by using schoolgirls who are numerally illegal but look well above the age limit. It's funny.
    I did actually think of Hentai, and you're right, even if they're not school girls it seems to focus on loss of innocence themes and nearly all the girls seem to be submissive and crying out like in pain from what I've seen. I was referring more to realistic CGI but yeah it's a good point.
    Offline

    2
    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.
    Yes, even if.
    The rest of your post is irrelevant to me.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C802Z5IIKH4
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Meliae)
    Actually no, I wasn't trying to say anything along the lines of "stop condemning paedophiles". My objection was solely to your ignorance of the fact that some people (perhaps even most) do object to what you call "invisible paedophiles". Did you really read my posts or just assume that you knew what they said? The specific sentences I was disagreeing with from the post I initially quoted are below. The way you presumed to speak, incorrectly, for everyone pissed me off so I replied. For instance, note that the person you quoted (amyalisa) was actually disagreeing with your first post . You seem to have divided everyone into one of two arbitrary categories and then assigned people opinions they don't have or haven't expressed based on your own narrow views.
    If you're not saying "stop condemning paedophiles, so the ones who have yet to offend don't feel persecuted" then why are you foaming at the mouth and deeming me a bigot? You're no longer making sense. Also read AmyAlisa's post again as I don't think you understood it personally.

    I haven't assigned anybody an opinion. I've presented my own, which happens to defer greatly from most in this thread and this site in general. It's what happens in a debate.

    I read your posts, yes. Your point is people do persecute paedophiles who have yet to offend. Ignoring your referance, you've not actually backed up your claim at all, you've just resorted to tribal playground tactics of name calling and story twisting. Which is a response I'm happy with. Thank you

    (Original post by Hylean)
    There is nothing wrong with paedophilia, though. Sakura-Chan had no decent arguments, I just didn't respond cause she asked me not to. Her argument was that paedophiles have desires and thus are likely to act on them at some point by raping a child. The counter-argument to this is non-paedophiles have desires for adults, but no one treats them as potential rapists. It's crap logic. "Oh, he's a paedo, he must want to **** my kid! Get him away from my children!" You would never say: "oh, he fancies women, he must want to rape me! Get him away from me!"

    People like Sakura-Chan also ignore the fact that many child abuse cases are committed by people who fancy adults as well. There is even a significant proportion of cases committed by people who don't have a sexual attraction to women.

    Telling them there's nothing wrong with their feelings as long as they don't act on them isn't moddycoddling, it's just the truth.
    A common theme here. Story twisting to suit themselves and juvenile demonisation of people who have opinions other than their own. Yes she did say that, but you conveniently ignored her suggestion that removing the stigma may not only help repressed paedos get help but also make other repressed paedo get the tiny bit of justification they need to commit a crime.

    You're saying ALL paedos will seek help once we stop demonising paedophilia? That's very naive. Take a look at the link below;

    Paedophile support number and website

    That right, a website that SUPPORTS the very people you're defending. They can get help. I found that site within 2/3 minutes of typing Paedophile Helpline into Google. So there's no need to for them to be repressed and wait for the Prime Minister to say "PAEDOPHILIA IS A OK \O/" as this outlet ALREADY EXISTS.

    I put it to you that you are a rebel without a cause. You and many people in this thread are paedo freedom fighting because the Cool Kids on this site will see your thinking as "abstract", "forward", "individual" and "unique" and will see you as one of them. That's why you all pick and choose which sections of an argument you all choose to respond to rather than taking on all the points.

    Sexual attraction to a child is not ok. It's disgusting (note I am adressing the mental side, not the individual themselves so calm down) and immoral. I will NEVER accept it in the name of rectitude. But there is help for them if they want it. Also the average person on the street denouncing paedophilia is denouncing the act, not those who haven't committed a crime. It's just the truth.
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Dude Where's My Username)
    A common theme here. Story twisting to suit themselves and juvenile demonisation of people who have opinions other than their own. Yes she did say that, but you conveniently ignored her suggestion that removing the stigma may not only help repressed paedos get help but also make other repressed paedo get the tiny bit of justification they need to commit a crime.
    I ignored that because it is an idiotic point. Much like her argument that "cause they fancy children, they are likely to rape them", it shows her prejudice against paedos. Does the fact I fancy women justify me raping them? **** no. Does it justify me manipulating them to get sex? **** no. Change the "me/I" to "a paedo" and "women/them" to "children" and the answer will be the same. Removing the stigma will not justify them ******* children, it will just mean they can seek help without feeling they are being judged so badly for something they cannot help.

    If you really think removing the stigma will let people justify the rape and manipulation of children, then you're retarded.


    (Original post by Dude Where's My Username)
    You're saying ALL paedos will seek help once we stop demonising paedophilia? That's very naive. Take a look at the link below;

    Paedophile support number and website

    That right, a website that SUPPORTS the very people you're defending. They can get help. I found that site within 2/3 minutes of typing Paedophile Helpline into Google. So there's no need to for them to be repressed and wait for the Prime Minister to say "PAEDOPHILIA IS A OK \O/" as this outlet ALREADY EXISTS.
    An outlet already exists, but the website is hardly a welcoming one. "Stop it now"? Makes them sound rather bad. Again, there is nothing wrong with fancying children, just acting on it. You act like the existence of this website makes everything okay, that they can be better, etc. That website means nothing. Most paedos will not come forward because they are scared of reprisals and being judged, nor do they want to risk losing the lives they have by someone letting the cat out of the bag. Until paedophilia is recognised for what it is and we relax our stance on non-offending paedophiles, sites like that will remain a joke and barely used.


    (Original post by Dude Where's My Username)
    I put it to you that you are a rebel without a cause. You and many people in this thread are paedo freedom fighting because the Cool Kids on this site will see your thinking as "abstract", "forward", "individual" and "unique" and will see you as one of them. That's why you all pick and choose which sections of an argument you all choose to respond to rather than taking on all the points.

    Sexual attraction to a child is not ok. It's disgusting (note I am adressing the mental side, not the individual themselves so calm down) and immoral. I will NEVER accept it in the name of rectitude. But there is help for them if they want it. Also the average person on the street denouncing paedophilia is denouncing the act, not those who haven't committed a crime. It's just the truth.
    I don't really care what the Cool Kids on this website think. Good way of attacking an argument, though. Let's not really argue against it, but argue against the motivation behind it.

    You are deluded if you think most people can separate the person from the act. Look at Sakura-Chan again. She straight out refused to let any known paedophile live near her, even if the paedo had never once offended and never was going to. She was too scared that there was the possibility they might. She is just an example of the way most people think. They treat paedos completely differently to normal people and cannot see how blind they are. If a paedo admits to being so, they will face so much abuse and prejudice that it makes seeking help almost pointless, for they will just suffer more. There was an episode in Boston Legal which showed this very well. Someone who was convicted of child rape was eventually cleared of all charges. He moved town and was hounded out and eventually killed because he was a "paedophile" despite being found innocent by the court. People don't like paedophiles, they don't trust them. Until they are no longer demonised, they will not be able to comfortably seek the help they might want or need.
    Offline

    21
    ReputationRep:
    I think of 'Feltching' when I hear the word paedophile

    Search it if you don't know what it means.

    Trust me you'll all agree with me
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Dude Where's My Username)
    If you're not saying "stop condemning paedophiles, so the ones who have yet to offend don't feel persecuted" then why are you foaming at the mouth and deeming me a bigot? You're no longer making sense. Also read AmyAlisa's post again as I don't think you understood it personally.

    I haven't assigned anybody an opinion. I've presented my own, which happens to defer greatly from most in this thread and this site in general. It's what happens in a debate.

    I read your posts, yes. Your point is people do persecute paedophiles who have yet to offend. Ignoring your referance, you've not actually backed up your claim at all, you've just resorted to tribal playground tactics of name calling and story twisting. Which is a response I'm happy with. Thank you
    I'm not deeming you a bigot, just arrogant enough to presume to speak for everyone else, which is what annoyed me (for instance: "People who attack paedophilia are attacking the individuals who actually molest children and download images." ) There's one example of you assigning other people with an opinion. You also assigned me with the opinion that people should "stop condemming paedophiles so they stop feeling sad and get help".

    AmyAlisa said in her post that she isn't tolerant of paedophiles who have yet to offend and believes they should all be locked up for their own good. Why do you choose to ignore anyone who expresses that opinion and continue to believe that they don't exist? Also, you ask me for evidence but where is your own? You claim to know what everyone ("10 times out of 10" ) is referring to when they condemn paedophilia. All I'm saying is that people hold different opinions, as you ought to have seen. (Edit - just came across a new thread containing more people specifically against what you call invisible paedophiles and even someone adamant they deserve the death penalty. http://www.thestudentroom.co.uk/show....php?t=1161232)

    Where is the name calling and story twisting? (Ironically, that's exactly what you're doing here: "why are you foaming at the mouth and deeming me a bigot?" and "you've just resorted to tribal playground tactics of name calling and story twisting".)
 
 
 
Reply
Submit reply
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
  • 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.

  • Poll
    Would you rather give up salt or pepper?
    Useful resources
  • 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.

  • 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.