Snorunt conservationist
Banned
It involves ****ing children. How's that for a citation?
SugarFreeJazz makes a good point. Many paedophiles have my sympathy. I doubt many of them want to have their urges, and many probably do their best to stop them.
-
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
Pedophilia
- Thread starter Iceberg
- Start date
- Status
It involves ****ing children. How's that for a citation?
SugarFreeJazz makes a good point. Many paedophiles have my sympathy. I doubt many of them want to have their urges, and many probably do their best to stop them.
Sadib
Time Lord Victorious
No it doesn't. It's about being attracted to children.
Snorunt conservationist
Banned
So no paedophile has ever ****ed a child?
Oh I completely agree, if it was we would go around raping people. I was just pointing out how biologically the two are linked.
That being said, I don't see Pedophilia becoming legalized no matter how far Homosexual rights go. The only way I see it happening is if we had a massive event that wiped out the vast majority of humanity and we needed to repopulate as fast as we could, which ironically we would have to ban homosexual activity then to keep the gene pool strong.
But honestly outside of a massive zombie invasion, or a meteor wiping out most of the population, it isn't going to happen outside maybe one or two radical judges. That being said, I would say that Pedophilia in terms of art will probably become legalized in some form or fashion from drawn art to old movies with nude children to allow that portion of the population some kind of sexual release.
Last edited:
This. 100% this. You took the words right out of my mouth.
And despite the fact that in the past it was normal to see 16 and 14 year old girls marrying 25 year old men in today's society that is not the norm and can harm the kid, who has not matured as much as the adult in the relationship.
I didn't mean that being a Muslim physically causes you to like children, which is what I think you understood me to say. My point was that given two societies, let's say society A and society B, both societies have the same amount of pedophiles. Society A discourages pedophilia. Society B idealizes a pedophile, and child marriage is a common and excepted thing. The instances of pedophilia would be a metric ton more frequent in the society that is OK with pedophilia. That was my point. In the Islamic world, child marriage (forced usually) is a frequent occurance. Such as this instance. On top of that, the prophet Mohammed was a pedophile. So in an Islamic society, a pedophile would be able to engage in sexual acts with a child without as much traction.
I don't know why I even responded to your post, since you resorted to petty insults.
Eterna
Well-Known Member
He never said that or implied that. He simply said it was more complicated than just having sexual intercourse with a child.
Last edited:
Estellise
peachy
That's almost normal.
CSolarstorm
New spicy version
This is not logical. Someone talks about x, tells you they think about x, watches shows about x, has posters in their house depicting x, what would you conclude?
"Just because they like x, doesn't mean they might do x."
Yeah eventually they're going to act on their urges. As any serial killer will tell you, you can only fantasize for so long.
Uhh.....you realize that homosexuals can't reproduce, yes? So whether or not homosexuals chose to have sex in a "repopulate the Earth" scenario would have no effect on the gene pool...
That was my point, if you are going to have a diverse gene pool you are going to need everyone to contribute to it, thus you would need to pretty much force Homosexuals to have sex with the opposite sex or contribute a significant amount of sperm ( That is if we have refrigeration still in this absurd scenario ), to produce more babies and to have more diversity.
Sadib
Time Lord Victorious
Answering that question would be completely pointless. It would be like asking if in history has a gay man raped another man before.
That's a rather grim way to look at things. Imagine that there's a guy who has a crush on you, but you don't like him in return. According to your logic, the guy will eventually rape you and it's only a matter of time.
CSolarstorm
New spicy version
Only if in you're comparing a pedophile who doesn't have sex to a gay man who does. What kind of comparison involving sexuality only puts sex on one half of the equation?!
That's just the problem: the only way a pedophile has their own form of sex is rape, but the way a homosexual has their own form of sex IS NOT always rape.
But just go ahead and only talk about dormant pedophiles and ignore the others, so that you can keep saying pedophilia and homosexuality are totally comparable. It's not doing a service for gay people OR pedophiles, because if the psychology establishment really does remove pedophilia as a disorder, all hell will break loose and social conservatives will bump standards of sex and gender back to the 50's.
Last edited:
To be fair, the same thing happened when Gays were delisted as a disorder, and I don't think we are back in the 50s atleast. However what backwards idiots do or do not do shouldn't keep it from being properly scientifically defined. Sadly though it seems like politics has and will always be part of the process.
I don't even think it's comparable. There needs no explanation for why pedophilia is wrong. The fact that homosexuality is being compared to pedophilia makes me sick to my stomach. Sick.
Mind you I am only comparing it because I am detaching our emotion revoltion of a person having sex with a child. Take that away and what do you have? Some one who is physically attracted to a certain set of characteristics that make them unable to breed. How is that honestly different than Homosexuality? Or Bestiality? Or anything else outside of Heterosexual sex?
CSolarstorm
New spicy version
Imagine all the rhetoric about the establishment going after the children. If I understand it properly, that kind of 'think of the children' refrain was prevalent when homosexuality was delisted because they considered homosexuality synonymous with pedophilia but with this situation, it's a little more direct because it is pedophila, so it gives people more fuel, and justified at that.
Also that event was organized by B4UAct in order to let pedophiles who are active in managing their own help 'have a voice' in the APA process. I can understand that logic and how it happened, and the justification for decriminalization, but still, even people at that conference weren't happy with all the sympathy for pedophiles without any for the children they might be affecting. It did not go well.
And I do understand the "Think of the Children" rhetoric, but wouldn't it be fair to separate the rapist from those that live normal lives? I mean would it be right if we grouped rapist in with any other sect? It would be like grouping those that like Furries into the same with those that actually have sex with zoo animals.
Like I said, it's not comparable. You need a fresh set of morals. Now, explain to me why killing is bad. Oh, what's that? You have a very poor explanation? That's what I thought. Simply put, there are certain things called "morals."
- Status