Pedophilia

[Psychic]

Just going to once again add that for those who still don't get that pedophilia and statutory rape are completely different things, look up the laws regarding age of consent in your local state/province/country.

A sexual fetish is an act which takes place during sex, such as foot fetishism and BDSM, and therefore isn't about who is performing the act.

The term fetish is actually a little vague, since it is often used to describe sexual preferences, like an "Asian fetish" or "redhead fetish." In that case, pedophilia would be a fetish focused on attraction to children.

A pedophile can be heterosexual or homosexual or bisexual when it comes to attraction to people their own age, however this is rarely an indicator when it comes to attraction of children. So yes, you may be heterosexual and also a pedophile, but that does not make you a heterosexual pedophile. That's like trying to discern heterosexual and homosexual zoophiles - whether you prefer male or female animals does not make you a heterosexual or homosexual zoophile, it just makes you a plain old zoophile.

The only noticeable difference between a girl before and after puberty is change in breast size. I don't understand why one person would be attracted to a 14 year old girl, but not a 10 year old girl.

If that's what you think puberty is, you need to do some research. :/ You should know this by now even if you weren't taught it in school.



~Psychic

 

[Sadib]

JIf that's what you think puberty is, you need to do some research. :/ You should know this by now even if you weren't taught it in school.

~Psychic

I only learned about male puberty in fifth grade.

 

[Kaiserin]

I only learned about male puberty in fifth grade.

Most American kids only learn about puberty in their own gender, but if you're old enough to be using the internet and debating about pedophilia on it, that's not an excuse for not knowing how it works both ways.

But since you don't seem to know, I'll fill you in: the body shape of girls changes throughout puberty, much like proportions change in both genders as kids age. Their entire shape changes, for one thing -- hips widening is probably the biggest change aside from breasts.

There is usually a pretty noticeable difference between ten-year-olds and fourteen-year-olds, at least as far as girls go. When it comes to what aspects of that difference do or don't get pedophiles off, I wouldn't know since I'm not one. But like many other things, trying to claim that they should "logically" just be attracted to both doesn't work, because this isn't something that works off logic. Never mind the fact that, ten or fourteen, it's still extremely illegal for good reason.

 

[Ausgirl]

Just going to once again add that for those who still don't get that pedophilia and statutory rape are completely different things, look up the laws regarding age of consent in your local state/province/country.



The term fetish is actually a little vague, since it is often used to describe sexual preferences, like an "Asian fetish" or "redhead fetish." In that case, pedophilia would be a fetish focused on attraction to children.

A pedophile can be heterosexual or homosexual or bisexual when it comes to attraction to people their own age, however this is rarely an indicator when it comes to attraction of children. So yes, you may be heterosexual and also a pedophile, but that does not make you a heterosexual pedophile. That's like trying to discern heterosexual and homosexual zoophiles - whether you prefer male or female animals does not make you a heterosexual or homosexual zoophile, it just makes you a plain old zoophile.



If that's what you think puberty is, you need to do some research. :/ You should know this by now even if you weren't taught it in school.



~Psychic

Except that pedophilia is recognized as a mental disorder and not as a sexual orientation or a fetish... and the zoophile thing is a bad anology. A lot of people like animals yet pedophiles only represent a small proportion of the society. In other words there is no link between liking animals and being a pedophile.

 

[Iceberg]

Except that pedophilia is recognized as a mental disorder and not as a sexual orientation or a fetish... and the zoophile thing is a bad anology. A lot of people like animals yet pedophiles only represent a small proportion of the society. In other words there is no link between liking animals and being a pedophile.

By zoophile I would assume Psychic meant people who like to have sex with animals. I would assume this because a pedophile isn't someone who likes children, a pedophile is someone who likes to have sex with children. Lots of people like children. I would hope every parent does. But most people don't want to have sex with them.

Most American kids only learn about puberty in their own gender, but if you're old enough to be using the internet and debating about pedophilia on it, that's not an excuse for not knowing how it works both ways.

But since you don't seem to know, I'll fill you in: the body shape of girls changes throughout puberty, much like proportions change in both genders as kids age. Their entire shape changes, for one thing -- hips widening is probably the biggest change aside from breasts.

There is usually a pretty noticeable difference between ten-year-olds and fourteen-year-olds, at least as far as girls go. When it comes to what aspects of that difference do or don't get pedophiles off, I wouldn't know since I'm not one. But like many other things, trying to claim that they should "logically" just be attracted to both doesn't work, because this isn't something that works off logic. Never mind the fact that, ten or fourteen, it's still extremely illegal for good reason.

There is also an emotional change. 10 year old girls are innocent (for the most part) and don't know about sex. Most 10 year old girls don't even want anything to do with touching boys. Let alone having sex with them. 14 year old girls are less innocent (for the most part). Since they would have most likely hit puberty by this time, their parents/school would have probably talked to them about sex. Also, 14 year old girls have some form of a sex drive. They can have crushes on boys. I would contend this is a factor. If pedophiles only liked short, breast-less, curve-less women they could just date really skinny short women. The fact that they choose children over the aforesaid option would logically be the emotional state of a child.

 

[Kaiserin]

Except that pedophilia is recognized as a mental disorder and not as a sexual orientation or a fetish... and the zoophile thing is a bad anology. A lot of people like animals yet pedophiles only represent a small proportion of the society. In other words there is no link between liking animals and being a pedophile.

I love animals, but I wouldn't bone one if my life depended on it, if that clears up the comparison she made a bit.

There is also an emotional change. 10 year old girls are innocent (for the most part) and don't know about sex. Most 10 year old girls don't even want anything to do with touching boys. Let alone having sex with them. 14 year old girls are less innocent (for the most part). Since they would have most likely hit puberty by this time, their parents/school would have probably talked to them about sex. Also, 14 year old girls have some form of a sex drive. They can have crushes on boys. I would contend this is a factor. If pedophiles only liked short, breast-less, curve-less women they could just date really skinny short women. The fact that they choose children over the aforesaid option would logically be the emotional state of a child.

That's also true, come to think of it. It is more of a psychological thing than a physical attraction, I think, much like rapists get off to the feeling of power over someone else sexually. Although I definitely think it's possible for pre-pubescent children to have crushes, just not in the same way as those who have already started.

 

[Iceberg]

That's also true, come to think of it. It is more of a psychological thing than a physical attraction, I think, much like rapists get off to the feeling of power over someone else sexually. Although I definitely think it's possible for pre-pubescent children to have crushes, just not in the same way as those who have already started.

Yeah. Little kids can get crushes, but I don't think they have them in the same way. Nor do they understand the feelings they have. Someone made a good analogy to raw chicken earlier in this debate. Eating raw chicken is bad, but after it is cooked and ready eating chicken is OK. Sex is the same way. Having sex with a child is bad, but after they are ready it is OK.

 

[Kaiserin]

Eating raw chicken is bad, but after it is cooked and ready eating chicken is OK. Sex is the same way. Having sex with a child is bad, but after they are ready it is OK.

Well, to be perfectly fair, kids already have sex with one another below the legal age all the time. And they're always going to. The ones who get caught get in trouble, obviously, but they do it because that's when their hormones and sex drives start kicking in in full gear. By 18 is just when most teens are safely able to be considered fully developed... or enough to be safely past the most critical stages of puberty, anyway.

It also brings to mind when there are large age gaps between two people in a relationship -- one party might be 18 or 19, while one is 35. Not on par with pedophilia, but I think it touches on the same concept to a much lesser extent, that being that the older individual is taking advantage of the younger one in unfair and harmful ways,

 

[Manafi's Dream]

Technically you got your answer as to why a person can be attracted to a 14 year old and not a 10 year old: pheramones. After that you switched your question to asking why a person can't be attracted to a 10 year old in addition to a 14 year old. Obviously they can, because pedophilia exists. You're moving the goalposts.

The difference between being attracted to a child's appearance and being attracted to a teenager's pheramones is that their body is already playing a part of the sexual process by giving off pheramones, while the person that is attracted could find anything attractive, and neither the child nor the child's body is involved in the process.

Manafi's Dream's metaphor was unfortunate. Their point was that there are certain foods that are inedible before they are prepared - just like a person is not ready for sex until after puberty. A better food comparison would be that you don't eat raw chicken.

I'm currently in sugar-withdrawal; I haven't a had a cookie in ages, so I felt like talking about one. It didn't really help my argument, though (I knew I should have said chicken!).

Oh well, at least you understood my point. A 10-year old girl is not chemically sending out sexual signals, as opposed to pubescent teenage girl, who is sending those signals out whether she wants to or not. Therefore, it is not natural to be attracted to prepubescent youths, suggesting mental defects in the pedophile.

 

[Ausgirl]

Well, to be perfectly fair, kids already have sex with one another below the legal age all the time. And they're always going to. The ones who get caught get in trouble, obviously, but they do it because that's when their hormones and sex drives start kicking in in full gear. By 18 is just when most teens are safely able to be considered fully developed... or enough to be safely past the most critical stages of puberty, anyway.

It also brings to mind when there are large age gaps between two people in a relationship -- one party might be 18 or 19, while one is 35. Not on par with pedophilia, but I think it touches on the same concept to a much lesser extent, that being that the older individual is taking advantage of the younger one in unfair and harmful ways,

I don't see how having hormones makes any difference, they're still kids.

While I don't approve of teens dating much older men, there's no law regarding how old your partener should be once you're legally an adult, which is 18 in most countries. And truth be told I think that both the men and women in these type of relationships are taking advantage of eachother. Sure the older person in the relationship is usually a man, but he's often a billionaire so obviously there will always be gold diggers out there willing to cash in no matter what the age difference is. Hugh Hefner and his model girlfriends come to mind. What person would honestly want to have a relationship with someone who is old enough to be their grandfather? No-one, but money talks.

 

[SBaby]

Some people like any research just because they like researching. Pedophilia isn't exactly a particularly enjoyable branch of research, but I have a higher opinion of people who go into a conversation knowing what they are talking about.

Here's what I know. I know these people go after children. I know what they do to children. I know that my sister was the victim of one of these 'sick' individuals. So as you can see, I really could care less how people choose to rationalize it.

The fact is, they need to be put away, and trying to rationalize their actions is just disgusting.

 

[Charminions]

I know these people go after children. I know what they do to children. My sister was the victim of one of these 'sick' individuals. Why do I need to know if they have some made up disease? The fact is, they need to be removed from society, and trying to rationalize their actions is just disgusting.

Pedophilia has existed throughout history, it's not just something you 'remove'.

 

[SBaby]

Pedophilia has existed throughout history, it's not just something you 'remove'.

But authorities can stop putting them back on the streets. That's a start. Or maybe move them to a place where there are no kids. Just throwing out a couple ideas.

I'm not saying that you have to agree with my opinion. But when you tell me that I don't know what I'm talking about when my family has had first-hand experience with these people, I take that a little bit personally.

 

[Psychic]

Except that pedophilia is recognized as a mental disorder and not as a sexual orientation or a fetish... and the zoophile thing is a bad anology. A lot of people like animals yet pedophiles only represent a small proportion of the society. In other words there is no link between liking animals and being a pedophile.

As Iceberg said, I am talking about sexual attraction exclusively. There is no "link" between being attracted to animals vs children. They are similar because it is a one-sided attraction where one side can not provide informed consent, and the sexual act is often a portrayal of dominance or power.

I only brought up fetishes because orientation was somehow brought into the conversation, despite it being entirely nonsensical.

I love animals, but I wouldn't bone one if my life depended on it, if that clears up the comparison she made a bit.

Quite. Liking and enjoying things is not the same as being sexually attracted or stimulated by them.

Yeah. Little kids can get crushes, but I don't think they have them in the same way. Nor do they understand the feelings they have. Someone made a good analogy to raw chicken earlier in this debate. Eating raw chicken is bad, but after it is cooked and ready eating chicken is OK. Sex is the same way. Having sex with a child is bad, but after they are ready it is OK.

When a normal child has a crush, sexual desires rarely play a part in it. Certainly not conscious ones, anyway. Though it's less about being physically "ready" and more about being emotionally and psychologically mature and more able to make decisions.

Well, to be perfectly fair, kids already have sex with one another below the legal age all the time. And they're always going to. The ones who get caught get in trouble, obviously, but they do it because that's when their hormones and sex drives start kicking in in full gear. By 18 is just when most teens are safely able to be considered fully developed... or enough to be safely past the most critical stages of puberty, anyway.

It also brings to mind when there are large age gaps between two people in a relationship -- one party might be 18 or 19, while one is 35. Not on par with pedophilia, but I think it touches on the same concept to a much lesser extent, that being that the older individual is taking advantage of the younger one in unfair and harmful ways,

Sexual desires develop before the age of 18, and the law is generally considering of that. Again, this is why I keep telling people to look up their local age of consent laws; because it usually is legal for people of similar ages who are younger than 18 to engage in sexual activity! When they do get in trouble, either it's because the age gap was too wide or the environment didn't approve of the teens' conduct, such as parents/guardians, school staff and so on.

As for the age gap, again, Canada has been quite clear: "no relationship of trust, authority or dependency or other exploitation of the young person" should occur. This is also a great video about age discrepancies in relationships.

I know these people go after children. I know what they do to children. My sister was the victim of one of these 'sick' individuals. So as you can see, I really could care less how they choose to rationalize it.

The fact is, they need to be put away, and trying to rationalize their actions is just disgusting.

I'm sorry to hear this, but one needs to do research to participate in a debate, and that's why people are going out and doing the research. It's not an especially pleasant topic, but it's impossible to have an educated discussion if you don't actually know what you're talking about. This isn't about rationalizing pedophilia - has anyone in this thread been anything but against it? - it's about being equipped with the knowledge to tackle the subject.

Edit: Also, the better educated we are, the more able we will be to find the root of the problem, and hopefully prevent molestation from occurring in the first place. If our only solution is to throw away offenders, we won't actually be able to curb this horrible trend, and innocent children will still be hurt.


~Psychic

 

[SBaby]

Edit: Also, the better educated we are, the more able we will be to find the root of the problem, and hopefully prevent molestation from occurring in the first place. If our only solution is to throw away offenders, we won't actually be able to curb this horrible trend, and innocent children will still be hurt.
~Psychic

This may be, but calling it a disease is an opinion in and of itself. And I'm sorry to say this, but I know doctors who have called that a guess, at best.

And I have nothing against anyone that has differing opinions, personally. But the one thing that really sets me off is when people say I don't know what I'm talking about when my family has had personal experience in the matter. Especially when the 'me not knowing what I'm talking about' part is over such a guess.

Granted the incident happened when she was 10. But the one good thing that came out of it is that my sister got interested in the medical field as a result.

And in hindsight, this post is a little bit backwards.

 

[TheFightingPikachu]

I really hate to make a post that sounds so stereotypical-guy-who-just-wants-to-link-homosexuality-with-pedophilia, but some of your posts here have left me very much concerned over the state of he psychological/psychiatric field and its presentation in media and culture.

Not necessarily. They removed homosexuality because neither the desire nor act hurts anyone. But with pedophilia, psychologists are understandably concerned with making sure pedophiles don't act on their desires, so they urge them to get professional help with managing their desires. It would stand to reason that if homosexual acts were any more dangerous than something that could be taken care of with a simple health lesson, the APA would have justifiably kept homosexuality a disorder too so they could urge homosexuals to get assistance with managing their desires to prevent problems. And I would be totally okay with that. But they don't, so I'm not, because obviously homosexual acts don't carry any confirmed, solid consequences that are comparable to child molestation.

Get what I'm saying?

Several problems here: First, would you provide a source for that reason it was removed. I'd like to see a source precisely because the reason looks like it is based on a deficient classification of "things that cause others physical harm (even if they cause no internal psychological distress) are disorders." Surely you must recognize the absurdity of such a conclusion!
Second, and more importantly for this post, by saying that the desire (that is, homosexual desire) doesn't hurt anyone, you seem to be ignoring those who don't want their homosexuality--in other words homosexuality that is causing them psychological distress or interpersonal difficulty. I recall hearing that the DSM still lists that as a disorder. Your other post that I wish to talk about also seems to deny the possibility of such a thing:

I've said it over and over that pedophiles are urged to get help from psychologists to balance being themselves and stay within the law, not to somehow get rid of their pedophilia. In fact learning to live with it actually empowers them to manage their sexuality and their personal culture just like gay people. Wouldn't you want help if you had to lead a life of celibacy?



Not exactly, because with anti-homosexuality therapy, the point was to change their identity. With pedophilia, psychologists don't care about their identity or what their preferences are, just about helping them to cope with never having their sort of sex.

Please drop the random comparisons to homosexuality unless you've actually thought it out.

It sounds like you are saying that homosexuality has been shown to be part of people's identities, while psychologists just don't care whether pedophilia is part of anyone's identity. As far as homosexuality is concerned, that sounds like a claim that has been repeatedly assumed rather than tested (i.e., "gays can't change even if they want to). And on the side of pedophilia, how on earth is that a fair procedure to take? And if pedophilia is not part of anyone's identity, why on earth shouldn't treatment attempt to get rid of it?

 

[Iceberg]

Well, to be perfectly fair, kids already have sex with one another below the legal age all the time. And they're always going to. The ones who get caught get in trouble, obviously, but they do it because that's when their hormones and sex drives start kicking in in full gear. By 18 is just when most teens are safely able to be considered fully developed... or enough to be safely past the most critical stages of puberty, anyway.

It also brings to mind when there are large age gaps between two people in a relationship -- one party might be 18 or 19, while one is 35. Not on par with pedophilia, but I think it touches on the same concept to a much lesser extent, that being that the older individual is taking advantage of the younger one in unfair and harmful ways,

By kids I was talking pre-pubescent... since this argument is concerning pedophilia. Pedophilia being the act of having a sexual attraction to pre-pubescent children. Having sex with a teenager is statutory rape - if anything. Don't tell me 6 year old kids are having sex with each other. However with shows like "Jersey Shore" I might just believe it...

 

[Sadib]

Can someone rename this thread to: Child Molesters, because rape doesn't necessarily have to do with attraction.

 

[Manafi's Dream]

Can someone rename this thread to: Child Molesters, because rape doesn't necessarily have to do with attraction.

Yay, I love talking about child molesters, almost as much I enjoy hearing my loose friend talk about her weekly new boyfriend and the drama attached to him (which I don't. At ALL)!

To be perfectly clear for future reference:

Pedophiles are after children with NO sexual drive, usually under the age specified as the average starting point of puberty. These kids don't know what sex is; the closest they've come to it is whispering on the playground that they know a bad word spelled S-E-X. Molesters are not pedophiles if they rape pubescent teens (they range anywhere from around 14- 18), and the pedophile must be 16 or older and at least 5 years older than the child.

 

[Sadib]

Yay, I love talking about child molesters, almost as much I enjoy hearing my loose friend talk about her weekly new boyfriend and the drama attached to him (which I don't. At ALL)!

To be perfectly clear for future reference:

Pedophiles are after children with NO sexual drive, usually under the age specified as the average starting point of puberty. These kids don't know what sex is; the closest they've come to it is whispering on the playground that they know a bad word spelled S-E-X. Molesters are not pedophiles if they rape pubescent teens (they range anywhere from around 14- 18), and the pedophile must be 16 or older and at least 5 years older than the child.

That was exactly my point.