• 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

Pedophilia

Status
Not open for further replies.
Let's lower the voting age to twelve while we're at it SunnyC.
 

ALordZynix

Lord of the Wings
I don't think you're taking into account the social stigmas that have been in place (and still are) that keep the homosexual/heterosexual ratio so disproportionate. Homosexuality doesn't render your reproductive organs obsolete, up until maybe this recent period in time, 1960's and onward, I'd venture to say that most homosexuals did in fact have children because of the sheer force of social pressure. I would also disagree that love is a chemical reaction, though infatuation could be construed as such. Though, my disagreement here most likely comes from the fact that we likely have very different definitions of "love"
Of course because of the social stigmas we do not know the true number of homosexual people alive today and defiantly alive in the past. But even we where without the social stigmas there would not be more homosexuals, we would just know the true ration. And they would still be a small part of the entire population. And a homosexual who had children because he was being pressured to marry and have children, because he suppressed his homosexuality isn't disproving my statement. To produce a child he had to perform a heterosexual act. Our body, our hormones, have not kept up with our understanding of our self as an animal. Sex feels good so we want to have it, cause the more we have it the higher the chance we produce offspring. And we are attracted to the other gender because to produce offspring it has to be heterosexual sex. Other animal special to not have the understanding that offspring requires 1 man 1 woman (not including the species for which it doesn't) so there brains have evolved to stimulate heterosexual behavior. This makes homosexuality bluntly put faulty "programming" (and I know that saying that makes me look very wrong but I'm certain you can read behind what seems like a discriminating remark to get my scientific argument). With our increasing intelligence have outgrown the need for the "program" but evolution doesn't go nearly as quick as scientific progress. Which brings me to my next point.

I was speaking to our current situation as evolutionary history is just history at this point. While it is true surrogacy and IVF are modern innovations that have assisted any and all couples with giving birth to their own children, it is also true that this is now a part of our society and will not go away.
It may very well be history but when it comes to analyzing how our subconscious brain works, how our body works as an animal specie we must ignore the brilliant ways our intellect can manipulate it.

As for the rest of your argument dewey911p, your orientation has nothing to do with the possible success of the relationship. A real relationship with between an adult and a child (same definition as you used) is of course not possible. But that doesn't make the feelings of the pedophile, whose brain does not draw the line between a ripe body and a unripe body correctly, less true. For someone to be heterosexual he or she does not need to be or have been in a relationship, he or she just needs to feel an attraction to the opposite gender. Also, a pedophile can be a parent without being in a relation with a child. I feel like I did not bring across correctly that I meant a single parent pedophile instead of one in a relation with a child. A pedophile as a person can still produce a child in the same ways you mentioned a homosexual couple can.
 
Of course because of the social stigmas we do not know the true number of homosexual people alive today and defiantly alive in the past. But even we where without the social stigmas there would not be more homosexuals, we would just know the true ration. And they would still be a small part of the entire population. And a homosexual who had children because he was being pressured to marry and have children, because he suppressed his homosexuality isn't disproving my statement. To produce a child he had to perform a heterosexual act. Our body, our hormones, have not kept up with our understanding of our self as an animal. Sex feels good so we want to have it, cause the more we have it the higher the chance we produce offspring. And we are attracted to the other gender because to produce offspring it has to be heterosexual sex. Other animal special to not have the understanding that offspring requires 1 man 1 woman (not including the species for which it doesn't) so there brains have evolved to stimulate heterosexual behavior. This makes homosexuality bluntly put faulty "programming" (and I know that saying that makes me look very wrong but I'm certain you can read behind what seems like a discriminating remark to get my scientific argument). With our increasing intelligence have outgrown the need for the "program" but evolution doesn't go nearly as quick as scientific progress. Which brings me to my next point.

While true, I don't think this biological pressure you're speaking has been active in the human population for at least several thousand years. As soon as mankind transitioned from nomadic societies to permanent agricultural settlements, the biological pressure essentially ceased to exist with the development of more complex cultures and the presence of patriarchy. Even before the Abrahamic religions came on the scene, powerful social pressure on homosexuals has been in place since recorded history. Even in the absence of discriminatory religions, the desire to foster children by your own seed and forge your own special lineage and legacy was in every known culture. Natural selection is only the driving force behind evolution if and when there is biological pressure to drive certain mutations in a specific direction. You might concur that point is neither here nor there considering a few thousand years is but a blink of an eye biologically speaking, but evidence shows when your body is no longer pressured to have a certain trait, you lose it much more quickly than it takes to develop.

For example, the curious case of the pinky toe.

http://www.naturalhistorymag.com/picks-from-the-past/151691/man-500000-years-from-now?page=5

Now consider that in todays age where homosexuals can not only reproduce, they can maneuver around their inhibitions with surrogate mothers. In fact, technology is developing to where one day it will be possible for homosexuals to even have children by their own seed. Stem cell research is awesome. :p

http://www.chromosomechronicles.com/2009/07/29/sexual-reproduction-for-same-sex-couples/

While you might be accurate in the fact there wouldn't be more homosexuals than heterosexuals, I highly question whether the biological pressure is really as prevalent as you're making it out to be. Given enough time, it will be completely nonexistent.

Okay, gotta focus. On to the point lol. Pedophilia on the other hand, there has never been that kind of social pressure up until relatively recently. I'm not entirely sure the logic you're using to compare the two is entirely accurate, especially considering early humans matured much, much quicker because they died much, much earlier. I wager even early, more primitive humans still had the intellectual capacity to place value on a female despite its age.

As for the rest of your argument dewey911p, your orientation has nothing to do with the possible success of the relationship. A real relationship with between an adult and a child (same definition as you used) is of course not possible. But that doesn't make the feelings of the pedophile, whose brain does not draw the line between a ripe body and a unripe body correctly, less true. For someone to be heterosexual he or she does not need to be or have been in a relationship, he or she just needs to feel an attraction to the opposite gender. Also, a pedophile can be a parent without being in a relation with a child. I feel like I did not bring across correctly that I meant a single parent pedophile instead of one in a relation with a child. A pedophile as a person can still produce a child in the same ways you mentioned a homosexual couple can.

If we go by this, seemingly any possible sexual attraction under the sun could be construed as an "orientation"
 

ALordZynix

Lord of the Wings
The loss of a toe in a specie is not comparable to lose the grindstone of evolution. That is something we might never lose and if we do it will also be the lose of the feeling of love. But I agree we lost focus so I will safe that argumentation for a different debate.

The logic is that that it is nothing more then a deviation from the "normal" formula of love in which the limitations put on the age of the object of your love are messed up. I know that there is a similar thing to pedophilia where instead of loving children you fall in love with old people who are way passed the age of reproduction.

And I guess that orientation sounds like a big word but what word would you use then for something where a real significant limitation is put on the object of your love, a limitation with which you are born and which isn't your fault? That maybe the best way to put it, it is similar to homosexuality because it is a deviation of the "normal" love formula your brain uses which isn't your fault.

A child rapist should never be excused, but I don't think all child rapists are truly pedophiles. Dewey911p described pedophilia as:
An act of dominance, control, and manipulation. It is taking advantage of a younger individual for personal satisfaction and no other reason.
And I believe that some if not most child rapists are like that, but I also believe some are pedophiles. In their brain the rape is only as bad as a "normal" rape (which is also inexcusable, it's just the easiest way to describe the difference) And more importantly what I believe, no what I know, is that there are pedophiles who can control this sad attraction to children, who have accepted that they are doomed never to be able to feel true love or gain a real relation. I know this because I have seen a brave soul on television who came onto a television debate about pedophilia in which he stated he was a pedophile but would never rape or have a relationship with a child. He knew that the love he felt was an impossible one and that any display of it would most likely hurt the child but he just couldn't help it, he just fell in love with children.
If there is one who is willing to admit he is a pedophile, in this day and age in which everyone can be found with google instantly, where a child raper is not even same from his fellow prisoners, there just have to be more "good" pedophiles who stay silent.
 

Sadib

Time Lord Victorious
There's no difference between children and adults. The only real observable difference is size. Anyone who says that children aren't every bit as smart, emotionally complex, and sexually competant as adults is just a child hater who thinks that children are stupid. In fact, we should just stop calling them children, and just call them all people. Everyone knows that the label 'child' is just a method of controlling regular, capable people who just happen to be young, and will be young forever, just like those people who have brain damage. It's a shame children have to put up with all this bigotry.

I don't know if you're serious or if you're parodying mattj's "everyone is a fetus" logic.
 

Malanu

Est sularus oth mith
Who says that a child can't fully understand a romantic relationship? Because they're stupid kids? That's like saying that retarded people will have to be forever alone, because their intelligence is too low. I say that children should be able to choose for themselves if they want to date or not. The age of consent is a bunch of rubbish, because it's not preventing minors from having sex.
I will disagree with you Mario. I feel that people under 16 do not fully understand what is required to be part of a romantic relationship. It why just about all childhood romances end. Those involved aren't stupid, but they are immature and growing up changes the values we are looking for in a partner.

Age of Consent may not be working... but the failure is a good indicator that guidance is in fact needed. For instance my Niece (age 17), became a mother last Christmas, She wanted to be a mom. So she CHOSE to have sex to get pregnant. She has a absolutely beautiful daughter, and now she is regretting her choice/actions. She has a child and she isn't even done being a child yet. Her childhood is over thanks to her making an irrational choice she was not ready to make.

As to your reference to mentally challenged individuals, the comparison is nothing similar.
 

CSolarstorm

New spicy version
Let's lower the voting age to twelve while we're at it SunnyC.

Actually let's do that. That way by the time people are at the voting age we have now, they might actually care and be prepared to make decisions for their nation.

I don't know if you're serious or if you're parodying mattj's "everyone is a fetus" logic.

Not serious. You actually didn't know?
 
Last edited:

Kaiserin

please wake up...
I will disagree with you Mario. I feel that people under 16 do not fully understand what is required to be part of a romantic relationship. It why just about all childhood romances end. Those involved aren't stupid, but they are immature and growing up changes the values we are looking for in a partner.

They can understand it in an indirect, uninvolved way. They understand people get in them, and maybe a very rough idea of how to conduct one, but they don't have the emotional or mental backing for it yet. Little kids can tell you people fall in love, but if you ask them why or how, they'll just shrug and go back to what they were doing before.

Part of the idea of having an age of consent is to protect kids, teens in particular, from their own stupidity. Teens are gonna have sex regardless, but even though it's not necessarily the best method of keeping them from doing stupid things to themselves or others in regard to sex (on its own, anyway, especially without proper sex education to go with it), it's a hell of a lot better than abolishing it.
 

Malanu

Est sularus oth mith
Yeah... I know. I was one of those stupid teens having unprotected sex. I was lucky that I didn't get my girlfriend pregnant. Even after We got married. It made the divorce very clean and easy.
...
... I still wanted her to have the furniture though. *Shudder* Ugly stuff!
 

Sadib

Time Lord Victorious
Age of Consent may not be working... but the failure is a good indicator that guidance is in fact needed. For instance my Niece (age 17), became a mother last Christmas, She wanted to be a mom. So she CHOSE to have sex to get pregnant. She has a absolutely beautiful daughter, and now she is regretting her choice/actions. She has a child and she isn't even done being a child yet. Her childhood is over thanks to her making an irrational choice she was not ready to make.

Just because she made a bad decision doesn't mean it was her young mind's fault. Adults also do things that they later regret.

If you think her daughter is beautiful, you could adopt her to save your niece a lot time, money, and energy.
 

CSolarstorm

New spicy version
Just because she made a bad decision doesn't mean it was her young mind's fault. Adults also do things that they later regret.

Yes, adults do, but to a lesser extent. You're using mattj's "everyone is a fetus" logic. Everyone does things they later regret, but that doesn't mean everyone is equally suited for decision making. Five or so years of experiencing independant responsibilities, maybe a gradual progression from managing a living space, to a spouse, to maybe a pet, does help to conclude someone's childhood and help them to better make the decision of whether or not they want a child.
 

DarkMoonGhost

New Member
I don't see anything wrong with a 14 year old dating or having sex with a 20 year old. What's that like a six year difference? No harm really.
 

Sadib

Time Lord Victorious
I don't see anything wrong with a 14 year old dating or having sex with a 20 year old. What's that like a six year difference? No harm really.

Did you even read anything in this thread? An accurate comparison would be an 9 year old having sex with a 15 year old. It's only a six year difference.
 

CSolarstorm

New spicy version
I don't see anything wrong with a 14 year old dating or having sex with a 20 year old. What's that like a six year difference? No harm really.

That's not pedophilia. You're talking about ebebephilia (sp?) which is an adult being attracted to a young teenager. Pedophiles are attracted to prepubescent kids, such as 9 year olds like marioguy said. 14 is far too old already.
 

DarkGengar

Ghost Reaper
That's not pedophilia. You're talking about ebebephilia (sp?) which is an adult being attracted to a young teenager. Pedophiles are attracted to prepubescent kids, such as 9 year olds like marioguy said. 14 is far too old already.

The correct term would be "hebephilia". :)
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top