• Hi all. We have had reports of member's signatures being edited to include malicious content. You can rest assured this wasn't done by staff and we can find no indication that the forums themselves have been compromised.

    However, remember to keep your passwords secure. If you use similar logins on multiple sites, people and even bots may be able to access your account.

    We always recommend using unique passwords and enable two-factor authentication if possible. Make sure you are secure.
  • Be sure to join the discussion on our discord at: Discord.gg/serebii
  • If you're still waiting for the e-mail, be sure to check your junk/spam e-mail folders

If homosexuality is not a mental disorder...

Status
Not open for further replies.

Jb

Tsun in the streets
This all comes down to is that sexual feeling and prerfernce is ok untill you act on it, including incest, gay sex, rape, and all the like.


This is basically what you guys are saying.
 

chuboy

<- It was THIS big!
This all comes down to is that sexual feeling and prerfernce is ok untill you act on it, including incest, gay sex, rape, and all the like.


This is basically what you guys are saying.
That's what BigLutz is saying. We are arguing that the very act of wanting to engage in sexual activities with children is indicative of mental disorder.

For some reason, there is no distinction between wanting sex with adults of the same gender and wanting sex with children (who are naive and in many cases not even sexually developed).
 

CSolarstorm

New spicy version
This all comes down to is that sexual feeling and prerfernce is ok untill you act on it, including incest, gay sex, rape, and all the like.


This is basically what you guys are saying.

Nope.

Anal sex: Okay as long as you follow precautions and see a doctor regularly. Reason: There can be problems.
Incest: Okay as long as you use birth control. Reason: Inbreeding can cause handicaps in kids.
Rape: Okay to imagine, not okay to do. Reason: It's rape.
Pedophilia: Okay to imagine, not okay to do. Reason: Raping children isn't good.
 

chuboy

<- It was THIS big!
I'm still not 100% on incest being all good. There are biological mechanisms that are supposed to prevent sexual attraction within close family. If you don't feel repulsed by the thought of doing your brother/sister then there actually may be something not right in the cuckoo department.

Interestingly, there is a well-documented phenomenon whereby people on meeting cousins for the first time as adults may find themselves attracted to them. Something to do with innate attraction to people with similar features to you. The repulsion with brothers and sisters develops through early exposure as a child.
 

BigLutz

Banned
BigLutz, again you have gotten yourself caught in tiny details. Look at the big picture! There is something mentally wrong with paedophiles. Wanting to take advantage of the innocence of a child for your own sexual pleasure is not the process of a rational person. Abusing the trust between your position and that of the child's in order to take advantage of them is not rational behaviour. Feeding the child propaganda like 'if you tell anybody about this I will kill your brothers and sisters at night time' to keep it a secret is not rational behaviour.

You act as if all pedophiles actually go out and try to tempt children to go have sex with them. If a sexual orientation was only known for its crimes, are we to damn everyone in it?

You make the unfounded claim that most paedophiles do not act on their desires. I am at a loss to explain how you could possibly know this. Statistics indicate that there are many active paedophiles; the vast majority of paedophiles are never recognised because their victims, for whatever reason, do not bring it to light. Too often paedophiles were themselves molested as children and the behaviour is seen as an outlet - again this is typical of a mental disorder associated with repressed memories, shame, anger, low self-esteem and so on.

As stated earlier in this thread and I have told Sunny privately I do have a friend who confessed last year that she did have pedophile thoughts but would never act on them, and that she feels very ashamed to even have them because of societal pressures. To my knowledge she has never been abused or molested but that these are thoughts she has had since puberty.

Remember your argument that a person is that way sexually because of molestation, abuse, repressed memories, etc etc. Has always been a poor argument for people who do not understand sexuality or wish to place blame on some one's sexual decisions on choices, not how they were born.
 
Last edited:

GaZsTiC

Alternating
I'm still not 100% on incest being all good. There are biological mechanisms that are supposed to prevent sexual attraction within close family. If you don't feel repulsed by the thought of doing your brother/sister then there actually may be something not right in the cuckoo department.

However, if it is between two consenting adults, using birth control as they should not be allowed children, then it should be their right to do so.
 

Nyter

Island Challenger
So I have a "?", If a pedophile dude falls in love with a 13 year old girl and they spend the next 7 years together. Will the pedo dude still be attracted to the girl now that she is 20?

I think it is somewhat normal to feel KIND of attracted to a younger aged person (nowadays 15 year-olds are looking like some BoNk3rS 18 ear olds).
I might think, "Wow that 15-yr-old is smokin"... Does that make me a pedo?

I feel like the mental disorder should apply IF a pedo acts upon his/her desires.

And come to think of it, pedos must have it tough. Their desires are their curse.
At least homosexuals have a support sustem and no laws against them.
TENS TENS TENS across the board!


To sum it up, I do not agree to pedophilia relationship, but I somewhat sympathize to the pedos. To change their attraction is similar to telling a str8 guy to like another dude.
 

chuboy

<- It was THIS big!
You act as if all pedophiles actually go out and try to tempt children to go have sex with them. If a sexual orientation was only known for its crimes, are we to damn everyone in it?

As stated earlier in this thread and I have told Sunny privately I do have a friend who confessed last year that she did have pedophile thoughts but would never act on them, and that she feels very ashamed to even have them because of societal pressures. To my knowledge she has never been abused or molested but that these are thoughts she has had since puberty.
Distance yourself from the relationship you have with this girl when you argue for paedophilia then. Clearly you cannot see the harm in it because you are blinded by friendship. Even she knows to be ashamed.

It is all well and good that she doesn't act on it. In fact we expect nothing less. That doesn't make paedophilia any less a disorder. I am not privy to the thoughts that she had but frankly I don't need to be. I can imagine neither a thought nor action which would be considered both paedophilic and one that does not inherently exploit a child. Not being repulsed by the notion of paedophilic behaviour is indicative of irrational thought processes.

Remember your argument that a person is that way sexually because of molestation, abuse, repressed memories, etc etc. Has always been a poor argument for people who do not understand sexuality or wish to place blame on some one's sexual decisions on choices, not how they were born.
Perhaps. All I know is that a statistically significant number of people who are found to have sexually-abused children were themselves abused as children. Not necessarily by family members, ruling out a genetic basis for the behaviour.

I digress, once again. The fact is that paedophilic thoughts and actions inherently involve exploiting an otherwise innocent child. You cannot deny this. Homosexual thoughts do not [inherently involve exploiting people of the same sex].

EDIT: I suppose lolicon, when drawn without juvenile models, is a 'safe' outlet for paedophilic thoughts. And, just to remark in this debate, there is a language distinction between homosexual and paedophile. The word paedophile by-and-large is taken to mean a person who has engaged in sexual activity with a child. Technically if you are only talking about thoughts the distinction between wrong and acceptable is less clear-cut but I'm sure it doesn't take a full basket of commonsense to realise that thinking about abusing a child for sex is no less deranged than doing it in the first place. If I go to sleep every night taking comfort in thinking about slowly papercutting kittens to death I think you could still argue that I am mentally unsound, even if I haven't actually done it.

I suppose what I mean is that if you compare the sentences 'he is a homosexual' and 'he is a paedophile', one can fairly draw the conclusion that the latter is a few sandwiches short of a picnic.
 
Last edited:

BigLutz

Banned
It is all well and good that she doesn't act on it. In fact we expect nothing less. That doesn't make paedophilia any less a disorder. I am not privy to the thoughts that she had but frankly I don't need to be. I can imagine neither a thought nor action which would be considered both paedophilic and one that does not inherently exploit a child. Not being repulsed by the notion of paedophilic behaviour is indicative of irrational thought processes.

There are numerous things we could be "repulsed" about in life, especially when it comes to one's sexual preferences. However that does not make it any more or less a disorder.

I digress, once again. The fact is that paedophilic thoughts and actions inherently involve exploiting an otherwise innocent child. You cannot deny this. Homosexual thoughts do not [inherently involve exploiting people of the same sex].

Unless they act on it, how different is that from anyone walking down the street and fantasizing about having sex with the beautiful woman you see across from you? Obviously they would not have consenting sex with you, thus the only way would be rape. Just as pedophiles who may fantasize about the kids they walk by or see on TV would never have consenting sex with them. But again as I said that is fantasy, and fantasies are part of human sexual nature, if every human being were to go around acting on our sexual fantasies the world would be a hell of alot worse.
 

chuboy

<- It was THIS big!
There are numerous things we could be "repulsed" about in life, especially when it comes to one's sexual preferences. However that does not make it any more or less a disorder.
It can, actually. People should feel repulsed when the see someone vomit in front of them. People should feel repulsed if they see a plate of rotting meat covered in maggots. People should feel repulsed by the idea of a child being exploited for sex.

There are in fact some things that all mentally-sound people should feel disgusted by. How healthy a species would we be if we did not have a biological response to the idea of eating our own shit?

Unless they act on it, how different is that from anyone walking down the street and fantasizing about having sex with the beautiful woman you see across from you? Obviously they would not have consenting sex with you, thus the only way would be rape. Just as pedophiles who may fantasize about the kids they walk by or see on TV would never have consenting sex with them. But again as I said that is fantasy, and fantasies are part of human sexual nature, if every human being were to go around acting on our sexual fantasies the world would be a hell of alot worse.
The difference is that there are legitimate ways the woman in the fantasy could have come to consent to the fantasy sex. How can you get a child to consent to sex in such a way? Through coercion in the most vile sense. People who imagine children consenting to sex in their fantasies lack the ability to think rationally. It CANNOT HAPPEN. Women, believe it or not, can and do consent to sex with the most unlikely of people. It is not impossible. The idea of a women having consensual sex with a man, or even a homosexual act, is not an impossible one, even if it is a fantasy. It would not necessarily have to be rape.

A child cannot and will not consent to sex, not least with an adult. That is a key difference which worryingly you too are struggling to make.
 
Last edited:

BigLutz

Banned
It can, actually. People should feel repulsed when the see someone vomit in front of them. People should feel repulsed if they see a plate of rotting meat covered in maggots. People should feel repulsed by the idea of a child being exploited for sex.

There are in fact some things that all healthy people should feel disgusted by. How healthy a species would we be if we did not have a biological response to the idea of eating our own shit?

People could also be repulsed by bukkae, rape fantasies, S&M and numerous other things, again though some may find those sexually attractive.

The difference is that there are legitimate ways the woman in the fantasy could have come to consent to the fantasy sex. How can you get a child to consent to sex in such a way? Through coercion in the most vile sense. People who imagine children consenting to sex in their fantasies lack the ability to think rationally. It CANNOT HAPPEN. Women, believe it or not, may consent to sex with the most unlikely of people. It is not impossible. The idea of a women having consensual sex with a man, or even a homosexual act, is not an impossible one, even if it is a fantasy. It would not necessarily have to be rape.

A child cannot and will not consent to sex, not least with an adult. That is the difference which worryingly you too are struggling to make.

The thing is in both fantasies it is almost never going to happen with out coercion or force. But people do not think about it when they fantasize, they think of the person as a willing participant. If every person in the world began to break down their fantasies with reality, then they would cease to fantasize as the cold harsh waters of reality would wash it away.
 

chuboy

<- It was THIS big!
People could also be repulsed by bukkae, rape fantasies, S&M and numerous other things, again though some may find those sexually attractive.
As I said, there are some things that all mentally-sound people should find repulsive. Enjoying S&M is not necessarily insanity material. Washing yourself in the blood of a freshly sacrificed litter of puppies is.

The thing is in both fantasies it is almost never going to happen with out coercion or force. But people do not think about it when they fantasize, they think of the person as a willing participant. If every person in the world began to break down their fantasies with reality, then they would cease to fantasize as the cold harsh waters of reality would wash it away.
I notice you say 'almost never'. You might as well stop there.

You CAN get a woman to have sex with you. Contrary to popular belief, women do have sex with other men. Not every man can get every person to consent, but the act of imagining sex between two adults is not inherently irrational because it could happen. On the other hand, no child cannot consent to sex - to deny this, even in fantasy, is ludicrous and totally irrational.

tl;dr: just because you don't think any woman will consent to sex with you doesn't mean women never consent to having sex.
 
Last edited:

Mr. Reloaded

Cause a pirate is free
because this is something grown men can actually control but choose not to
 

chuboy

<- It was THIS big!
If I said I fap to loli now, would you hold it against me?

BTW, you can groom a child into 'consenting' into sexual activities, but the idea of it truly being consent is heavily debatable.

Also, can we actually talk about homosexuals?
The comparison to paedophiles has to be drawn because there are key differences between them.

But it basically boils down to the fact the homosexuals can have consenting partners and paedophiles cannot. But they try, anyway, which means they're a bit wacky.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top