Is unacted upon paedophilia just another sexual orientation and therefore not "evil"?

I think most people have a justified sense of revulsion.

No, it doesn't depend on how they look. Its about maturity of the mind, not the body.

That's as maybe; however I think it has already been established beyond reasonable doubt that preventing Jade Goody from having sex would solve most of the world's problems.

Ah, she may be thick as ****, but she can still legally ****. i'm merely talking about a scenario where the age of consent is being considered for a remodel...metal maturity should play a far higher role than whether the person has tits or not.

To be frank, I think that matters are already somewhat beyond the pale where the law is being cited as a justification for morality.

Well, either that or support for thick people having their penises cut off, or their vaginas stitched up? Morality,ey?

I'm sure Jade Goody can somehow be rendered subject to emergency 'anti-terror' legislation.

Inherently abusive? Only insofar as our concept of 'abuse' inheres within the strict, legislative parameters of black-letter 'consent'. Indeed, it is trite that most such victims of abuse (albeit which consists purely in intercourse, as opposed to anything necessarily vindictive) only manifest 'trauma' once their perception of the world has been adequately coloured [tainted] by moral consensus, hence the ensuing (and oddly subsequent) 'harm' removed to so preposterous a degree causatively from its appertaining act. Transposed to an 'Adam and Eve' scenario, where nobody exists to impute to them the (essentially, quite arbitrary) notion that sex is not a legitimate expression of a parent's affection for their child (particularly where said 'child' is approaching the putative threshhold of adolescence, such that physical disfigurement is no longer inevitable): whither harm? In fact, it seems to me that the 'harm' occurs when society presumes to undermine an individual's self-determination and inform then that they have, notwithstanding any prior sentiment to the contrary, been 'victimised'.

What you are advocating is, basically, moral dogma; albeit one whose net benefit to our society (and our children) vindicates the fallacy of a moral continuum that it is predicated upon.

In my opinion, the fundamental issue in regards to sexual relations is consent, and the ability to give an informed consent. People of certain age and a sound mind, aware of the sexual nature of the act should be able to do whatever they wish.

See, that's what I said right back at the beginning - most people feel like that - the line is consenting adults (in this case, I suppose, 16 year olds as adults).

All other factors are largely irrelevant.

Any hole's a goal, right?

Oh. Not really where my mind went first...

I think sexual orientiation perfectly describes paedophilia- yes paedophilia has negative consequences when acted upon (which is doesn't have to be), but that doesn't deny the fact that its a relatively widespread, conscious desire, even love that cannot be altered and is not a choice.

Whats the difference between finding young people attractive or finding men/women attractive? A rape fetish is more of a choice, and can be changed. Also its not directed at a group of people, the definition of orientation, but just is one sexual practice which someone happens to enjoy. Its completely different..

Therefore, I think paedophilia should have more legitimacy.. As has been said by cottonmouth and others the demonisation of paedophilia probably causes more harm than good. Its probably one reason while some paedophiles end up raping and abusing children rather than sitting in their rooms looking longingly at children. Paedophiles at the moment have no support from anyone- they are just immediately regarded as evil people, and I think that attitude is very wrong. The paedophiles out there who recognise that they can never touch a child are good people not evil people- and they should be helped by the law rather than forced to withdraw from society. Imagine in today's world being an "out celibate paedophile" and informing people of this. Imagine their reaction. That reaction is whats wrong with peoples attitudes to paedophilia at the moment.

I think sexual orientiation perfectly describes paedophilia- yes paedophilia has negative consequences when acted upon (which is doesn't have to be), but that doesn't deny the fact that its a relatively widespread, conscious desire, even love that cannot be altered and is not a choice. Whats the difference between finding young people attractive or finding men/women attractive? A rape fetish is more of a choice, and can be changed. Also its not directed at a group of people, the definition of orientation, but just is one sexual practice which someone happens to enjoy. Its completely different.

Therefore, I think paedophilia should have more legitimacy.. As has been said by cottonmouth and others the demonisation of paedophilia probably causes more harm than good. Its probably one reason while some paedophiles end up raping and abusing children rather than sitting in their rooms looking longingly at children. Paedophiles at the moment have no support from anyone- they are just immediately regarded as evil people, and I think that attitude is very wrong. The paedophiles out there who recognise that they can never touch a child are good people not evil people- and they should be helped by the law rather than forced to withdraw from society. Imagine in today's world being an "out celibate paedophile" and informing people of this. Imagine their reaction. That reaction is whats wrong with peoples attitudes to paedophilia at the moment.