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

Why is homosexuality accepted, but not peadophilia? Watch

    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    6
    ReputationRep:
    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? Do you think in 50 years' time we'll be seeing peadophilic pride matches, for instance?

    I do know and understand that a) most paedophilic relations tend to be forced (i.e. one of the people involved has given no consent or been bribed/blackmailed) and that b) legally, there is no maximum age difference requirement for brides and grooms (?), so obviously the two differ in those respects, but honestly, I haven't been able to get this out of my mind.

    Literally, the only arguments I've ever heard being used against paedophilia are "it's not right" and "it's disgusting" – so, basically, exactly the same as the arguments most commonly used against homosexuality.

    Can someone help me out here? What do you think?

    EDIT: Guys, come on. Why the thumbs-down? Is it not blatantly obvious that I'm playing devil's advocate?

    EDIT 2:
    Okay, so apparently I need to make this even clearer. ASIDE FROM THE CONSENT ISSUE, WHAT ELSE IS THERE THAT MAKES US ACCEPT ONE "NON-TRADITIONAL" SEXUAL PREFERENCE, BUT NOT THE OTHER? Apart from the "ew, it's gross" reaction?

    No, I'm not a peadophile. Calling me one won't make your arguments any more valid. I was just looking to have an interesting discussion. That's all.
    • Welcome Squad
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    What? The difference is obvious - one involves someone who does not understand the nature or consequences of a sex act, and therefore cannot legally consent to it, and the other is two consenting adults having sex. There's a massive difference.

    That's really the end of this thread.

    EDIT: ChiefWiggum pointed out that paedophilia is just attraction to children, not necessarily doing anything with them. It's generally accepted that this is beyond the control of the paedophile in question, but I'd just like to clear that up - I do know the actual meaning of the word.

    But hey, just because you're attracted to someone does not make it in any way acceptable to rape them.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    Are you ****in kidding me.
    This must be a troll. Cos it's sick to think that you think it's right or okay for an adult person to be in a relationship with a CHILD.
    You sick ****.
    Omg
    i cant believe you made a thread about this.




    ***Really don't give a **** if i got negged. This thread is disgusting and nothing can justify this. IF i come across 'immature' ....i don't care.....
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by ChocoCoatedLemons)
    What? The difference is obvious - one involves someone who does not understand the nature or consequences of a sex act, and therefore cannot legally consent to it, and the other is two consenting adults having sex. There's a massive difference.

    That's really the end of this thread.
    Is paedophilia not just attraction to children? Someone cannot help what they're attracted to, surely.

    Obviously acting on such attraction would be unacceptable though.
    Offline

    9
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by ChocoCoatedLemons)
    What? The difference is obvious - one involves someone who does not understand the nature or consequences of a sex act, and therefore cannot legally consent to it, and the other is two consenting adults having sex. There's a massive difference.

    That's really the end of this thread.
    +5
    • Welcome Squad
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Chief Wiggum)
    Is paedophilia not just attraction to children? Someone cannot help what they're attracted to, surely.

    Obviously acting on such attraction would be unacceptable though.
    Good point. I'll actually edit my comment, I did of course know that but I really hadn't taken it into account in my rush to be righteous Good catch.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    6
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Amelia-Babe)
    Are you ****in kidding me.
    This must be a troll. Cos it's sick to think that you think it's right or okay for an adult person to be in a relationship with a CHILD.
    You sick ****.
    Omg
    i cant believe you made a thread about this.
    It's funny because a hundred years ago you would have been whistling the same tune about gays.

    "it's sick to think that you think it's right or okay for a man to be in a relationship with ANOTHER MAN.
    You sick ****.
    Omg"
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Chief Wiggum)
    Is paedophilia not just attraction to children? Someone cannot help what they're attracted to, surely.

    Obviously acting on such attraction would be unacceptable though.
    Right but then again, homosexuality is also just an attraction to the same sex. Why is it OK to act upon that attraction but not attraction to children?
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    6
    ReputationRep:
    I'm quite entertained, actually. I thought I'd get a wave of thumb-downs from people a) who wouldn't even read the full post with a minutely open mind and b) don't like to participate in discussions about touchy topics.

    I'm not promoting peadophilia. Can you even read?

    I merely asked a question. Jesus.

    And no, I'm not a troll. You can just look at the other threads I've posted in to know that.

    "Troll" isn't a magic word to dismiss anyone who posts an unconventional opinion, or an opinion that you disagree with.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by BarackObama)
    It's funny because a hundred years ago you would have been whistling the same tune about gays.

    "it's sick to think that you think it's right or okay for a man to be in a relationship with ANOTHER MAN.
    You sick ****.
    Omg"
    whatever. you know im not talking about being gay or not. people who gay are above 16/adults and know what they're doing & what sex is.
    do children? innocent children who don't know how babies are born?

    it's the fact you think having a relationship with a child could be okay, or could be justified. please go and sit in a corner and think things through you dumb ****.
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by tif49)
    Right but then again, homosexuality is also just an attraction to the same sex. Why is it OK to act upon that attraction but not attraction to children?
    Because children are not fully physically and mentally mature, so can't properly consent. (Though this is obviously slightly arbitrary to some extent, given that different countries have different ages of consent.)

    If OP is saying that adults should be able to actually have relationships with children, rather than simply being attracted to them, then I would completely disagree with that.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by tif49)
    Right but then again, homosexuality is also just an attraction to the same sex. Why is it OK to act upon that attraction but not attraction to children?
    Because a child cannot consent. An adult homosexual can


    Posted from TSR Mobile
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    6
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by tif49)
    Right but then again, homosexuality is also just an attraction to the same sex. Why is it OK to act upon that attraction but not attraction to children?
    THANK YOU! That's exactly what I was wondering about.

    One of you up there mentioned "children can't make conscious decisions about this" and yes, that's a valid point, thank you. I didn't think of that. What about a hypothetical relationship between an 18-year-old and an 80-year-old, then? How come that technically isn't classed as peadophilia, but a relationship between a 15-year-old and a 20-year-old is inherently "wrong"?

    Or is it only peadophilia if the kid is under 12?

    Once again: genuinely curious. Not a troll. Breathe, guys. It's just a controversial topic.
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by BarackObama)
    THANK YOU! That's exactly what I was wondering about.

    One of you up there mentioned "children can't make conscious decisions about this" and yes, that's a valid point, thank you. I didn't think of that. What about a hypothetical relationship between an 18-year-old and an 80-year-old, then? How come that technically isn't classed as peadophilia, but a relationship between a 15-year-old and a 20-year-old is inherently "wrong"?

    Or is it only peadophilia if the kid is under 12?

    Once again: genuinely curious. Not a troll. Breathe, guys. It's just a controversial topic.
    Where do people normally draw the line for "paedophilia"?

    Is it just "under 18", or is it "under the age of consent"?

    (That's addressed to anyone who knows, not just OP.)
    • TSR Support Team
    • Very Important Poster
    • Reporter Team
    • Welcome Squad
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Chief Wiggum)
    Where do people normally draw the line for "paedophilia"?

    Is it just "under 18", or is it "under the age of consent"?

    (That's addressed to anyone who knows, not just OP.)
    Paedophilia refers to attraction to prepubescent kids, i.e 11 and under.
    Edit: incase anyone's curious, hebephilia is attraction to pubescant ppl and ephebophillia is attraction to mid to late teens!
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by michellehall)
    Because a child cannot consent. An adult homosexual can


    Posted from TSR Mobile
    playing devils advocate here but, says who? because some arbitrary line in the sand has been drawn at the sweet old age of 16?
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by BarackObama)
    THANK YOU! That's exactly what I was wondering about.

    One of you up there mentioned "children can't make conscious decisions about this" and yes, that's a valid point, thank you. I didn't think of that. What about a hypothetical relationship between an 18-year-old and an 80-year-old, then? How come that technically isn't classed as peadophilia, but a relationship between a 15-year-old and a 20-year-old is inherently "wrong"?

    Or is it only peadophilia if the kid is under 12?

    Once again: genuinely curious. Not a troll. Breathe, guys. It's just a controversial topic.
    I think it's because the age of consent is generally set at an age that children of that culture have matured enough to be able to handle a sexual relationship. The age gap makes no difference. The difference is that the person will be of emotional maturity. Of course there are differences between countries and cultures but again you could argue the nature/nurture debate and say that children in certain cultures will mature before/after a child of another culture


    Posted from TSR Mobile
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    6
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Chief Wiggum)
    If OP is saying that adults should be able to actually have relationships with children, rather than simply being attracted to them, then I would completely disagree with that.
    Ooh, that's a good one. The idea of an adult having a relationship with a child revolts me, and it is universally morally wrong*, but let's just look at this from an "attraction" perspective. More and more people are now coming out and saying that sexuality is not a choice, and that it's basically just down to genes and such. Why do most of us accept that, but not that attraction to children can be natural, too?

    * = I'm hesitant to just say "it is morally wrong", because arguably, nothing is EVER 100% right or wrong, but... :erm:

    But seriously, guys. I'm a bored seventeen year old girl. I'm not some fifty year old man trying to justify hitting on eleven year olds.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by cl_steele)
    playing devils advocate here but, says who? because some arbitrary line in the sand has been drawn at the sweet old age of 16?
    I see your point. Personally I don't think 16 year olds are mature enough either


    Posted from TSR Mobile
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by keromedic)
    Paedophilia refers to attraction to prepubescent kids, i.e 11 and under.
    I see.

    In that case, I don't see how anyone could possibly justify an adult being in a relationship with a child of such a young age. It is clear they are both mentally and physically immature, and would be completely incapable of properly consenting.
 
 
 
  • 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
    What newspaper do you read/prefer?
    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

    Quick reply
    Reputation gems: You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.