• Lucid Dreaming - Dream Views
    Page 7 of 12 FirstFirst ... 5 6 7 8 9 ... LastLast
    Results 151 to 175 of 292
    Like Tree172Likes

    Thread: Pedophilia as a sexual orientation

    1. #151
      King of Mud Maeni's Avatar
      Join Date
      Mar 2008
      LD Count
      5
      Gender
      Posts
      1,353
      Likes
      688
      DJ Entries
      16
      Quote Originally Posted by Phion View Post
      You're advocating sexual crime on a board about dreaming as far as I'm concerned.
      Absolutely not. I'm advocating a lot of things, and it's true that I even think that somewhere in the future, pedophillic acts may not be harmful, but that is another discussion.
      Point is, I am well aware that right now, sex with children is very, very undesirable. I think that stopping the hysteria, letting pedophiles be open, and not being so hateful, might actually help some of the more volatile pedophiles not turn into child molesters. In our little discussion I haven't been advocating anything other than "A mere attraction isn't disgusting".

      Debating about good analogies will get you no where, sexual crime may be encouraged in GTA, but it doesn't make it any more moral or right.
      That's not what I was trying to imply. You actually do think that GTA encourages sexual crime? I don't think so, but if you think that is true, shouldn't people who play GTA also be warranting "serious concern"? It shouldn't just be sexual crimes either, GTA is pretty violent, too.

      Homosexuality is on a different spectrum, and if you want to go back to the early 19th century where medicine was fighting for jurisdiction over religious teachings you'd be correct; however, embracing homosexuality does not have the same outcome as embracing pedophilia. I can't believe I have to spell this shit out to you.
      I didn't mention embracing it. I'm saying that back then, homosexuality was classified as a disorder. Obviously homosexuality wasn't different back then, people just viewed it as a harmful thing to be, and thus it was a disorder. Really the only difference between a paraphilia being a disorder or a sexual orientation is whether or not it causes distress. My point was that the DSM isn't the absolute truth, and that when it comes down to it it doesn't make any difference whether it is a disorder or an orientation.
      Pedophilia is simply a preference. An inconvenient and indeed distressing preference, but still a preference.
      Patrick likes this.

      1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Ɛ 10

    2. #152
      Earth Wanderer Achievements:
      Made Friends on DV 1 year registered
      Warheit's Avatar
      Join Date
      May 2012
      LD Count
      Zillions.
      Gender
      Location
      Earth
      Posts
      367
      Likes
      236
      DJ Entries
      1
      Quote Originally Posted by Maeni View Post
      I'm admitting that I am sexually attracted to little girls. I haven't committed any acts and all things considered neither do I want to.
      Then you need to seek help. Hebephilia is actually what you are suffering from if that is the case.

    3. #153
      King of Mud Maeni's Avatar
      Join Date
      Mar 2008
      LD Count
      5
      Gender
      Posts
      1,353
      Likes
      688
      DJ Entries
      16
      Quote Originally Posted by Warheit View Post
      Then you need to seek help. Hebephilia is actually what you are suffering from if that is the case.
      Not true. Hebephilia is when you are attracted to young adolescents. That is, 'tweens' in the ages 12-15-ish.
      I'm attracted to girls aged like, 5 to 12. That's prepubescent children. Pedophilia.

      And I have sought help. Psychiatrists have all their own ideas of what to do with this. Some thought I had OCD, some thought I could turn normal by boycotting fantasies, most agreed that it couldn't be helped, but had different ideas about what else should be done. Some of those thought I was depressed and suggested anti depressants. Another simply sought to try to let me understand myself more, and others. It's really not anything that I can seek help for. I can seek help for depression, stress, or on how to deal with these feelings, and I've certainly done so.

      1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Ɛ 10

    4. #154
      Member Achievements:
      Made Friends on DV 3 years registered 1000 Hall Points

      Join Date
      Jun 2010
      Gender
      Posts
      749
      Likes
      350
      Quote Originally Posted by Maeni View Post
      Absolutely not. I'm advocating a lot of things, and it's true that I even think that somewhere in the future, pedophillic acts may not be harmful, but that is another discussion.
      Now you're trying to further justify sexual crime.

      Quote Originally Posted by Maeni View Post
      Point is, I am well aware that right now, sex with children is very, very undesirable. I think that stopping the hysteria, letting pedophiles be open, and not being so hateful, might actually help some of the more volatile pedophiles not turn into child molesters. In our little discussion I haven't been advocating anything other than "A mere attraction isn't disgusting".
      Intensive impatient programs, look into them.

      Quote Originally Posted by Maeni View Post
      That's not what I was trying to imply. You actually do think that GTA encourages sexual crime? I don't think so, but if you think that is true, shouldn't people who play GTA also be warranting "serious concern"? It shouldn't just be sexual crimes either, GTA is pretty violent, too.
      Prostitution and rape are crimes.

      Quote Originally Posted by Maeni View Post
      I didn't mention embracing it.
      You're embracing it as we speak.

      Quote Originally Posted by Maeni View Post
      I'm saying that back then, homosexuality was classified as a disorder. Obviously homosexuality wasn't different back then, people just viewed it as a harmful thing to be, and thus it was a disorder. Really the only difference between a paraphilia being a disorder or a sexual orientation is whether or not it causes distress. My point was that the DSM isn't the absolute truth, and that when it comes down to it it doesn't make any difference whether it is a disorder or an orientation.
      Pedophilia is simply a preference. An inconvenient and indeed distressing preference, but still a preference.
      DSM is the closest thing the government has to classifying and dealing with mental illness and the associated behavior because it is predictable and reliably accurate over very, very long periods of time. This is precisely why homosexuality is actually alright, because it's been observed for a very long time without negative impact--the opposite in fact--where pedophilia, hebephilia, ephebophilia, etc., has not had that luxury. I beg you to look into the long term affect of victims and I urge you to work to change your outlook as soon as possible.

    5. #155
      King of Mud Maeni's Avatar
      Join Date
      Mar 2008
      LD Count
      5
      Gender
      Posts
      1,353
      Likes
      688
      DJ Entries
      16
      Quote Originally Posted by Phion View Post
      Now you're trying to further justify sexual crime.
      Like I said that is a totally different discussion, but it still stands that in our day and age + the forseeable future, pedophillic acts are highly undesirable and harmful to bloody damn everyone. I am not, and I will not try to justify committing any pedophillic acts for as long as it remains as extremely harmful as it is now. Please note that that "as long as" could be forever, it's just that I personally don't think it is. Maybe 20, 50 or 200 years in the future when we have a different view on sex. But the point is that sexual crimes are clearly very very harmful, and I'm not tring to justify any acts at all.

      Intensive impatient programs, look into them.
      Could you sum up what you mean by this, or explain how a treatment method relates to what I said?

      Prostitution and rape are crimes.
      I think we're totally misunderstanding each other here.
      What I was trying to get at is, if you think having fantasies about having sex with kids is crossing a line and warrants serious concern, then what about a person that just plays GTA? What about a person that fantasizes about murder?

      You're embracing it as we speak.
      Okay, yeah. I thought you were implying embracing as in what happened to homosexuality, where they've gone from being downtrodden to being totally allowed to do anything. Had that been the case then I would agree completely, that embracing homosexuality is totally cool, but embracing pedophilia is a different story. But I'm all for "embracing pedophilia" in the sense of letting people fantasize freely, and letting them speak openly without being completely shunned.

      I beg you to look into the long term affect of victims and I urge you to work to change your outlook as soon as possible.
      No no, that is again child molestation. Pedophilia is a disorder because it causes distress in the person suffering from pedophilia OR if it's acted on. We must have a distinction between child molesters and pedophiles, because with pedophiles, there are no victims of which you can look into the effects. I understand perfectly well how horrible a crime child molestation is.
      Either way, as I've already said, I don't think this particular "disorder vs orientation" discussion will get us anywhere. Pedophilia causes distress in pedophiles and definitely causes distress if acted upon, that is regardless of whether you call it a disorder or what you call it. But apart from those differences, it works much the same way as heterosexuality or homosexuality.

      I'll be leaving the thread for the night.

      1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Ɛ 10

    6. #156
      Member Achievements:
      Made Friends on DV 3 years registered 1000 Hall Points

      Join Date
      Jun 2010
      Gender
      Posts
      749
      Likes
      350
      Quote Originally Posted by Maeni View Post
      Like I said that is a totally different discussion, but it still stands that in our day and age + the forseeable future, pedophillic acts are highly undesirable and harmful to bloody damn everyone.
      So far so good, but I already know where you're going with this and I disagree entirely.

      Quote Originally Posted by Maeni View Post
      I am not, and I will not try to justify committing any pedophillic acts for as long as it remains as extremely harmful as it is now.
      You're about to...

      Quote Originally Posted by Maeni View Post
      Please note that that "as long as" could be forever, it's just that I personally don't think it is. Maybe 20, 50 or 200 years in the future when we have a different view on sex. But the point is that sexual crimes are clearly very very harmful, and I'm not tring to justify any acts at all.
      Right.

      Quote Originally Posted by Maeni View Post
      Could you sum up what you mean by this, or explain how a treatment method relates to what I said?
      Treatment to Reduce Pedophiliac Interest

      Quote Originally Posted by Maeni View Post
      I think we're totally misunderstanding each other here.
      We are in complete agreement here.

      Quote Originally Posted by Maeni View Post
      What I was trying to get at is, if you think having fantasies about having sex with kids is crossing a line and warrants serious concern, then what about a person that just plays GTA? What about a person that fantasizes about murder?
      What you're failing to understand is that the game itself reinforces real world consequences which actually occur after comitting these crimes. Most people just find these consequences endlessly fun because it's intense, and nothing really happens to affect their lives as human citizens. If you look at what the games are really trying to get across is a higher order of understanding, while having fun. People who fantasize about murder are almost equally as disturbing to me, but much more concerning.

      Quote Originally Posted by Maeni View Post
      I thought you were implying embracing as in what happened to homosexuality, where they've gone from being downtrodden to being totally allowed to do anything.
      No. Homosexuals are subject to the same societal rules and moral consequences as any other human being; homosexuals can also be pedophilaics, mind you.

      Quote Originally Posted by Maeni View Post
      Had that been the case then I would agree completely, that embracing homosexuality is totally cool, but embracing pedophilia is a different story.
      Yes, but...

      Quote Originally Posted by Maeni View Post
      But I'm all for "embracing pedophilia" in the sense of letting people fantasize freely, and letting them speak openly without being completely shunned.
      Like I said, it doesn't matter what you fantasize about, but as soon as you being to broadcast these desires and fantasies is when other peopl have the right to be concerned and have opinions about whether or not your suitable to be around. You're setting yourself up to be incriminated, and judged accordingly, regardless if you've acted upon these desires.

      Quote Originally Posted by Maeni View Post
      No no, that is again child molestation.
      You've opened up the acute potential that it's a possibility.

      Quote Originally Posted by Maeni View Post
      Pedophilia is a disorder because it causes distress in the person suffering from pedophilia OR if it's acted on.
      False. Pedophiliacs get off to molesting children, the children are who suffer on the business end of the deal.

      Quote Originally Posted by Maeni View Post
      We must have a distinction between child molesters and pedophiles, because with pedophiles, there are no victims of which you can look into the effects. I understand perfectly well how horrible a crime child molestation is.
      The affects are well documented, and no matter how innocent a picture you attempt to paint, those victims will never agree with you or share your opinion about allowing open pedophiliac tendencies, although encouraging pedophiliacs to become open about there ideas may actually help people get treatment, instead of being subjugated and sent to jail, and allowing them to be productive contributing members of society if they are cleared by professionals.

      Quote Originally Posted by Maeni View Post
      Either way, as I've already said, I don't think this particular "disorder vs orientation" discussion will get us anywhere.
      It doesn't seem to be convincing you at all, at least.

      Quote Originally Posted by Maeni View Post
      Pedophilia causes distress in pedophiles and definitely causes distress if acted upon, that is regardless of whether you call it a disorder or what you call it. But apart from those differences, it works much the same way as heterosexuality or homosexuality.
      Are you joking? Aside from outside pressures and prejudices, we're talking about different planes of enacted distresses. While open sexuality is a healthy alternative to suppressing natural behavior (as seen when raising children in a same sex marriage), treating pedophilia is as necessary as treating schizophrenia. Without which each outcome is sad, regardless who the actual victim is (the person with the affliction or the victims of the resulting behavior), there are always casualties when true disorders go undiagnosed and unhelped, pedophilia is no exception to the rule.

      Quote Originally Posted by Maeni View Post
      I'll be leaving the thread for the night.
      Adios.

    7. #157
      King of Mud Maeni's Avatar
      Join Date
      Mar 2008
      LD Count
      5
      Gender
      Posts
      1,353
      Likes
      688
      DJ Entries
      16
      Quote Originally Posted by Phion View Post
      So far so good, but I already know where you're going with this and I disagree entirely.
      You're about to...
      Right.
      What? The first quote is practically identical to the third. Both times I try to express the same point: Right now, any pedophillic acts are absolutely reprehensible and harmful. I just don't think it has to be so forever, but frankly that is quite irrelevant to this discussion because we live in right now, not the future (the rest of my post will ignore possible futures). I know perfectly well that you disagree with that, but the main gist of what I'm saying is that I would never try to justify these acts because they are harmful. You said that I'm trying to justify sexual crimes, but that is just not true.

      Right. That's interesting, but there's a number of reasons why I don't think this is a way to go about it. Firstly, I don't think you can actually change pedophilia. This is why I say that I think it doesn't matter whether you call it a disorder or a sexuality, I think it works like an orientation in the affected. That is to say, to change pedophilia is like trying to change hetero- or homosexuality.
      I've been in treatment, talked to 7 psychiatrists/psychologists/sexologists. All of them had completely different opinions on how to react to a person with this attraction. This tells me that anyone who claims to have the right treatment isn't as sure as he likes to think. Furthermore, the article describes people who have acted on their desires. It does not seem to be a treatment that tries to actually remove the attraction, but a treatment that helps child molesters with controlling themselves.

      Third, the patient reports how he has implemented the technique outside of the office setting as needed whenever he feels an urge to carry out a pedophiliac act.
      It's a treatment for people who have out right urges that they cannot fight. I'm totally for that stuff, as long as the treatment doesn't end up making the patients more dangerous.
      But treating a person who cannot control his urges is not the same as treating a pedophile.

      Lastly, I'm concerned about the effects of treatments like that. If given to people that aren't actually dangerous, like regular non-offending pedophiles, I fear that it could actually make those people more dangerous. I think that if you try to suppress sexual feelings, which seems to be the goal here, you'll end up worse off than before. I don't claim to know exactly what happens when you completely deny a part of yourself and start to believe that if you don't do so, you're a total monster, but I have a feeling such a person is more dangerous than one who feels at ease with his pedophilia.

      What you're failing to understand is that the game itself reinforces real world consequences which actually occur after comitting these crimes. Most people just find these consequences endlessly fun because it's intense, and nothing really happens to affect their lives as human citizens.
      But that's sort of how pedophillic fantasies work as well? I know what the consequences are, I just like the thoughts but like games it doesn't suddenly make me into a dangerous individual.

      If you look at what the games are really trying to get across is a higher order of understanding, while having fun. People who fantasize about murder are almost equally as disturbing to me, but much more concerning.
      Okay cool, if you feel the same about people who fantasize about murder. I think there's probably a lot of people who do that, but who also don't have any intentions on carrying it out because they know the consequences of doing so. It seems that you feel that when someone fantasizes about something, the jump from fantasy to reality isn't very far. I just disagree with that because I think no matter what abhorrent fantasy you entertain, you'll still have a brain capable of making sure you consider consequences and moral issues.
      And I call bullshit on games trying to give a higher order of understanding. I don't think games reinforce anything unless the developers put it there on purpose, but if you take a game like Grand Theft Auto, it really doesn't reinforce any real life consequences. Sure the police comes after you when you mow down a few pedestrians, but nothing else happens.

      No. Homosexuals are subject to the same societal rules and moral consequences as any other human being; homosexuals can also be pedophilaics, mind you.
      Of course, I didn't mean literally anything.


      Yes, but...

      Like I said, it doesn't matter what you fantasize about, but as soon as you being to broadcast these desires and fantasies is when other peopl have the right to be concerned and have opinions about whether or not your suitable to be around. You're setting yourself up to be incriminated, and judged accordingly, regardless if you've acted upon these desires.
      Sure, yes, of course. Discussions and open conversation is definitely important. But the hatred that exists today sometimes makes this very hard to accomplish. I may be a bit of a special case due to my proclivity for coming out, but generally this is very rare. Pedophiles have been driven into underground communities, which really limits any interaction like this, and fosters misconceptions about pedophiles.
      And you're still contradicting yourself when you say that it doesn't matter what you fantasize about. You've said that these fantasies warrant serious concern, so it obviously does matter to you.

      You've opened up the acute potential that it's a possibility.
      Elaborate please?
      I just don't like the way the DSM describes it. If pedophilia is a disorder because child molestation is harmful, then fine. It doesn't change the nature of pedophilia.

      False. Pedophiliacs get off to molesting children, the children are who suffer on the business end of the deal.
      Not necessarily. If the pedophile chooses to stick to imagination, which I believe many of them do due to the consequences in reality, then there is no victim. There is undoubtably something wrong with a person who actually does molest children. But I don't think you can put the blame on "pedophilia" as a whole, given that it is perfectly possible to be a pedophile without molesting children. It must be something else in them that makes them act in a disorderly way, like for example psychopathy or whatever else makes people not care about others.

      The affects are well documented, and no matter how innocent a picture you attempt to paint, those victims will never agree with you or share your opinion about allowing open pedophiliac tendencies, although encouraging pedophiliacs to become open about there ideas may actually help people get treatment, instead of being subjugated and sent to jail, and allowing them to be productive contributing members of society if they are cleared by professionals.
      That would be a step forward.
      And I know that the effects are true and very serious. Never have I said they weren't. I don't know what you mean by [i]"open pedophiliac tendencies"[i], but what I mean is that pedophiles shouldn't be totally condemned just for their fantasies. Being open about it encourages education and knowledge, which is good for everyone.
      And I don't know what you mean that I'm trying to paint an innocent picture. What I said is that while child molesters clearly do harm their victim by definition, pedophiles do not necessarily cause any harm.

      Most child molesters are pedophiles, but we do not know how many non-offending pedophiles are out there, mainly because they're afraid to show themselves.


      Are you joking? Aside from outside pressures and prejudices, we're talking about different planes of enacted distresses. While open sexuality is a healthy alternative to suppressing natural behavior (as seen when raising children in a same sex marriage), treating pedophilia is as necessary as treating schizophrenia. Without which each outcome is sad, regardless who the actual victim is (the person with the affliction or the victims of the resulting behavior), there are always casualties when true disorders go undiagnosed and unhelped, pedophilia is no exception to the rule.
      I don't think treating it like it's a disease to be removed is the way to go. But I agree that some type of treatment is good. But as I don't think pedophilia is something that can be treated in the sense that schizophrenia can, a treatment must focus on other things. Like for example dealing with resulting depressions or stress.

      1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Ɛ 10

    8. #158
      Previously Pensive Patrick's Avatar
      Join Date
      Sep 2005
      Gender
      Location
      Manchester, UK
      Posts
      1,783
      Likes
      826
      Phion, I've read through all this but I still don't entirely understand how you can argue away the idea that being sexually attracted to children is a crime? It is absolutely indisputable that sexual preference is (at the very least, mostly) uncontrollable. So you can still think that it's disgusting if you want, but you should have enormous respect for pedophiles who keep their desires at bay.

      People such as yourself who argue it is morally wrong to be a pedophile are just stuck in an archaic way of thinking, much like how people couldn't understand that homosexuality is not a choice.

      Sure, I understand you would be uncomfortable as a parent worried about someone oggling your kids; but this is just a common problem with every human being feeling uncomfortable about thoughts directed at them or their family... For example a teenage boy oggling your teenage daughter.

      You are standing in the way of an inevitable progression of society beyond immature closed-mindedness.

      And hopefully, as maeni says, one day in the future sexual freedom will be so absolute that pedophiles will be able to enjoy the realisation of their desires without harmful consequences to anyone. It is entirely, indisputably unfair that pedophiles can't enjoy their desires, and society needs to address this problem if we are to reach moral heights.
      Maeni and hermine_hesse like this.

    9. #159
      Earth Wanderer Achievements:
      Made Friends on DV 1 year registered
      Warheit's Avatar
      Join Date
      May 2012
      LD Count
      Zillions.
      Gender
      Location
      Earth
      Posts
      367
      Likes
      236
      DJ Entries
      1
      ^ And that was probably the biggest bunch of shit I have ever read in my life. Letting pedophiles explore their fantasies and act on them undoubtedly will cause trauma to the young children who becomes victims of it. Where is the mutual consent? Unfair my ass. If you think allowing a 50 year old having sexual relations with a 6 year old is reaching a new moral standard, you are fucked three ways from Sunday. Such a proposition brings about a slippery slope that extends to more things that are not natural.
      Last edited by Warheit; 05-20-2012 at 12:57 PM.

    10. #160
      Previously Pensive Patrick's Avatar
      Join Date
      Sep 2005
      Gender
      Location
      Manchester, UK
      Posts
      1,783
      Likes
      826
      Quote Originally Posted by Warheit View Post
      ^ And that was probably the biggest bunch of shit I have ever read in my life. Letting pedophiles explore their fantasies and act on them undoubtedly will cause trauma to the young children who becomes victims of it. Where is the mutual consent? Unfair my ass. If you think allowing a 50 year old having sexual relations with a 6 year old is reaching a new moral standard, you are fucked three ways from Sunday. Such a proposition brings about a slippery slope that extends to more things that are not natural.
      I think you are not considering the fact that I included the phrase "without harmful consequences to anyone". Since the future is of course so far away I have no idea how this will be acheived; obviously it seems impossible. But I hope they will find a way. (I am not actually a pedophile but I am all for fairness)

      And don't mention things 'not being natural', because in fact many disgustingly horrific things occur in 'nature'. Clarify what you mean by 'natural' before you use it willy-nilly in an argument.

      And please don't resort to personal insults, or I will cry all over my keyboard.
      Oceandrop likes this.

    11. #161
      Earth Wanderer Achievements:
      Made Friends on DV 1 year registered
      Warheit's Avatar
      Join Date
      May 2012
      LD Count
      Zillions.
      Gender
      Location
      Earth
      Posts
      367
      Likes
      236
      DJ Entries
      1
      Quote Originally Posted by Pensive Patrick View Post
      I think you are not considering that I included the phrase "without harmful consequences to anyone". Since the future is naturally so far away I have no idea how this will be acheived; obviously it seems impossible. But I hope they will find a way.
      Except there are going to be harmful consequences. Emotionally and physically. It is also a matter of anatomy. It is not SAFE for young children to be engaged in such activity.

      And don't mention things 'not being natural', because in fact many disgustingly horrific things occur in 'nature'. Clarify what you mean by 'natural' before you use it willy-nilly in an argument.
      Natural, as in observed in nature. Quit trying to be intellectually dishonest with trying to skew linguistics. You tried to equate pedophilia and homosexuality on a level playing field. Homosexuality occurs naturally among the animal kingdom. When has it ever been an accepted or commonly observed practice for old folks to bang down kids?

      And please don't resort to personal insults, or I will cry all over my keyboard.
      You are insulting yourself and others by being disingenuous and supporting reprehensible behavior. That you even think allowing pedophiles to act on their sick would sport moral equality is pretty pathetic. And you are a neuroscience student? I certainly hope that you do not ever end up giving clinical advice on a professional level to anyone in the near future.
      Last edited by Warheit; 05-20-2012 at 01:13 PM.

    12. #162
      Previously Pensive Patrick's Avatar
      Join Date
      Sep 2005
      Gender
      Location
      Manchester, UK
      Posts
      1,783
      Likes
      826
      Quote Originally Posted by Warheit View Post
      Except there are going to be harmful consequences. Emotionally and physically. It is also a matter of anatomy. It is not SAFE for young children to be engaged in such activity.
      Again, I think you're missing my point. Just open your imagination and pretend that in the verrrry distant future there will be some sort of way to allow pedophiles to interact with children in a way that will not be harmful. Yeah, I'm stretching rationality here, but maybe it's possible. I have no idea how though, as you say there would be enormous issues of anatomy and consent.



      Natural, as in observed in nature. Quit trying to be intellectually dishonest with trying to skew linguistics. You tried to equate pedophilia and homosexuality on a level playing field. Homosexuality occurs naturally among the animal kingdom. When has it ever been an accepted or commonly observed practice for old folks to bang down kids?
      Bonobos mate with not only members of the same sex but also of children too young to produce offspring. Male stoats even mate with newborn females when the mother is away. So you may say that pedophilic acts are disgusting or morally wrong, but they are certainly not 'unnatural'.



      You are insulting yourself and others by being disingenuous and supporting reprehensible behavior. That you even think allowing pedophiles to act on their sick would sport moral equality is pretty pathetic. And you are a neuroscience student? I certainly hope that you do not ever end up giving clinical advice on a professional level to anyone in the near future.
      As Maeni has said many many times, neither he nor I are supporting pedophilic acts. I am only expressing my hope that a fully moral society will include total sexual freedom where no-one experiences any harm or discomfort.

      And yes, I am a neuroscience student, I would like to think that studying a scientific subject for most of my life has allowed me to take a pragmatic and logical view of situations.

      But don't worry, I probably won't be involved in anything clinical.

    13. #163
      Earth Wanderer Achievements:
      Made Friends on DV 1 year registered
      Warheit's Avatar
      Join Date
      May 2012
      LD Count
      Zillions.
      Gender
      Location
      Earth
      Posts
      367
      Likes
      236
      DJ Entries
      1
      Quote Originally Posted by Pensive Patrick View Post
      Again, I think you're missing my point. Just open your imagination and pretend that in the verrrry distant future there will be some sort of way to allow pedophiles to interact with children in a way that will not be harmful. Yeah, I'm stretching rationality here, but maybe it's possible. I have no idea how though, as you say there would be enormous issues of anatomy and consent.
      I am not missing any point. Anatomy and consent issues will not go away, ever. Stop trying to play make believe to support your argument. Grasping at straws is all you are doing. Poor argumentation.


      Bonobos mate with not only members of the same sex but also of children too young to produce offspring. Male stoats even mate with newborn females when the mother is away. So you may say that pedophilic acts are disgusting or morally wrong, but they are certainly not 'unnatural'.
      Again, another error in logic. In simple terms of anatomy, this is allowed to happen, without harm, yet with no biological success in reproduction. Neither stoats or Bonobos have a developed social and moral code either.

      As Maeni has said many many times, neither he nor I are supporting pedophilic acts. I am only expressing my hope that a fully moral society will include total sexual freedom where no-one experiences any harm or discomfort.
      Yes you are supporting it, and harm and discomfort will always be there in the areas I outlined.

      And yes, I am a neuroscience student, I would like to think that studying a scientific subject for most of my life has allowed me to take a pragmatic and logical view of situations.
      Apparently it hasn't.

      But don't worry, I probably won't be involved in anything clinical.
      Thank God.
      Last edited by Warheit; 05-20-2012 at 01:48 PM.

    14. #164
      King of Mud Maeni's Avatar
      Join Date
      Mar 2008
      LD Count
      5
      Gender
      Posts
      1,353
      Likes
      688
      DJ Entries
      16
      Quote Originally Posted by Warheit View Post
      I am not missing any point. Anatomy and consent issues will not go away, ever. Stop trying to play make believe to support your argument. Grasping at straws is all you are doing. Poor argumentation.
      Sigh. I'm sorry Pensive Patrick for dragging you into this, this possible future thing, which I thought wasn't something anyone else really saw the way I do it.
      I can't believe I'm writing this again.

      Anatomical issues aren't really issues. If you're having sex with anyone of any age and harm is occuring due to something anatomical, then the sex isn't the problem, but rather, simply the fact that physical violence is going on is the problem. Anatomy is really not the problem when it comes to child-adult sex, and I'm sure most people will agree that the physical aspect is miniscule compared to the emotional issues.

      Now, the emotional issue. They don't understand sex, so they cannot consent. I say, sex is a really simple concept. The only reason children cannot consent or understand sex, is because we make sex out to be something it isn't. We associate sex with things that are naughty, dirty, and to some degree taboo. I think that if we reach a point where sex isn't seen as something "bad" (Society's view on sex isn't that simple, it's like a love-hate relationship) Then maybe sex won't be as harmful as it is today, maybe not at all. But this is again another discussion. In the world we live in right now, any sexual interaction with children is extremely harmful and thus I'm totally against it. What brought the whole thing up was that Phion claimed that I try to justify sexual crimes, but like I said, I do not support harmful acts and I realize that these acts are harmful.

      Again, another error in logic. In simple terms of anatomy, this is allowed to happen, without harm, yet with no biological success in reproduction. Neither stoats or Bonobos have a developed social and moral code either.
      Wait, what? You think sex with children is wrong because they cannot reproduce?
      EDIT: Gays can't reproduce either.
      Basically what you just said is that yes, bonobo monkeys can have sex with children without causing harm, but that's because they don't have social or moral codes. If a social and moral code is what makes it bad, when there's literally nothing else making it harmful, why have such a code at all? And saying that failure to reproduce makes something wrong should be obviously wrong, unless you're also against homosexuality.

      And also, ancient greeks did it too, and not just that, but basically anything far back in history. They didn't seem to feel that there was anything weird about it at all. Nature and history doesn't necessarily indicate whether it is right or wrong, though. In fact, I find the whole "it's unnatural" argument to be a bullshit argument anywhere it is used.
      Everything that happens is natural because it is part of reality. If something "unnatural" is defined as something only humans do, and everything unnatural is bad, then we should abandon all tools and start hunting like natural animals. And if tall buildings are unnatural, what about ants structures? There's really no such thing as an unnatural thing. There is harmful and there is harmless, natural is completely irrelevant.

      Yes you are supporting it, and harm and discomfort will always be there in the areas I outlined.
      Do you not see the difference between;

      1. Pedophillic acts are okay, they are harmless.
      and
      2. Pedophillic acts are harmful, but maybe sometime in the future they could be made harmless, in which case it could be okay when that time comes.

      If my assertion is true, that society's attitude towards sex is the cause of the harm, then changing the attitude would render sex harmless to kids. Of course this doesn't hold true if there are external sources of harm present, like physical violence, threats or coercion, in which case it is rape regardless of age. You'll of course say that coercion and manipulation will always be present in the case of child-adult sex, but again I don't think that has to be the case if we reach a point where sexual education is given freely without taboo, and where sex isn't seen as a naughty thing. It would be like any other thing that children can consent to.
      Last edited by Maeni; 05-20-2012 at 02:21 PM.

      1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Ɛ 10

    15. #165
      Previously Pensive Patrick's Avatar
      Join Date
      Sep 2005
      Gender
      Location
      Manchester, UK
      Posts
      1,783
      Likes
      826
      Quote Originally Posted by Warheit View Post
      I am not missing any point. Anatomy and consent issues will not go away, ever. Stop trying to play make believe to support your argument. Grasping at straws is all you are doing. Poor argumentation.
      Fair enough, but I wasn't aiming to argue, I was just pointing out my ideal future society.




      Again, another error in logic. In simple terms of anatomy, this is allowed to happen, without harm, yet with no biological success in reproduction. Neither stoats or Bonobos have a developed social and moral code either.
      Well this is just what I meant when I asked you to define 'natural', because obviously you didn't mean 'occuring in nature'. Now I understand that you mean 'morally correct' and 'reproductively viable'. Seriously I'm just searching for clarification, not trying to cause problems.



      Yes you are supporting it, and harm and discomfort will always be there in the areas I outlined.
      Again a fair enough point, and I guess we just have to leave this at imagination's doorstep. I believe it may be possible some day to eradicate the harm, you believe it will not be.

      Can we at least agree that pedophilia as an orientation, without physical action, is no less reprehensible than any other sexual orientation?



      EDIT

      Also I would like to agree with Maeni totally, you've made your point a lot better than I have... Thanks.
      Last edited by Patrick; 05-20-2012 at 02:20 PM.

    16. #166
      Earth Wanderer Achievements:
      Made Friends on DV 1 year registered
      Warheit's Avatar
      Join Date
      May 2012
      LD Count
      Zillions.
      Gender
      Location
      Earth
      Posts
      367
      Likes
      236
      DJ Entries
      1
      Quote Originally Posted by Maeni View Post
      If my assertion is true, that society's attitude towards sex is the cause of the harm, then changing the attitude would render sex harmless to kids.
      Your assertion is not true, because attitude does not take away from the nature of harm outlined in other areas. Your blame for societies attitude is your way of trying to justifying your urges, which are wrong, a disorder and likely a sign of much deeper issues with you as a person.

      Quote Originally Posted by Pensive Patrick
      Can we at least agree that pedophilia as an orientation, without physical action, is no less reprehensible than any other sexual orientation?
      No. Adults who have a desire to have sex with children are morally reprehensible. It does not jive with my values or belief system, nor most people's world-wide. I believe it is a form of mental disorder or disease, which right now there is no cure for -- nor have rehabilitation efforts actually worked. Then again, that is just my opinion.

    17. #167
      King of Mud Maeni's Avatar
      Join Date
      Mar 2008
      LD Count
      5
      Gender
      Posts
      1,353
      Likes
      688
      DJ Entries
      16
      Quote Originally Posted by Warheit View Post
      Your assertion is not true, because attitude does not take away from the nature of harm outlined in other areas. Your blame for societies attitude is your way of trying to justifying your urges, which are wrong, a disorder and likely a sign of much deeper issues with you as a person.
      So then what is the harm? What is it about sex that children don't/can't understand if it isn't all the external meanings we've given to it?
      I may be biased yes, but when I argue with people who are against me, it tends to turn into personal insults, fallacies and statements that amount to "you are wrong, I am right.", so it is kind of hard for me to simply step back and say that everything I'm saying is false. I don't think it is false, and what I am isn't really relevant to what I'm saying. You haven't countered my post at all, rather than telling me I am wrong because I have issues. How could I possibly see it from your side when you give me no reason to believe you are right?

      No. Adults who have a desire to have sex with children are morally reprehensible.
      Even if they never act on them? I've asked this before, but why? We don't choose what we're attracted to, and attractions are just thoughts. How can something we don't choose, something as private as your own thoughts, be morally wrong?

      It does not jive with my values or belief system, nor most people's world-wide. I believe it is a form of mental disorder or disease, which right now there is no cure for -- nor have rehabilitation efforts actually worked. Then again, that is just my opinion.
      Same thing with homosexuality a few years back. Don't get me wrong, I get that there are many differences between homosexuality and pedophilia, some very important differences; but this here is one similarity. You've got hatred against mere thoughts and fantasies for no other reason than "it is reprehensible and it doesn't jive with my belief system". Call it a mental disorder or a disease all you want, like you say there is no cure for it. It's just like heterosexuality and homosexuality, you grow up, find out what sexuality you have, then you live with that.

      Calling it a disease implies that it can be cured. But since it cannot be cured much in the same way that homosexuality can't be cured, it's simply an inconvenient sexual orientation.
      Patrick, fOrceez and melanieb like this.

      1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Ɛ 10

    18. #168
      Member Achievements:
      Made Friends on DV 3 years registered 1000 Hall Points

      Join Date
      Jun 2010
      Gender
      Posts
      749
      Likes
      350
      Quote Originally Posted by Maeni View Post
      I just don't think it has to be so forever, but frankly that is quite irrelevant to this discussion because we live in right now, not the future <i>(the rest of my post will ignore possible futures)</i>.
      What you're beginning to talk about now, whether you know it or not, is actively encouraging children to engage and experiment sexually, not just with people of their own age, but with much older people. Presumably teaching "sexual education" in a crude, harmful, and to coin my friend's terminology, extremely morally reprehensible way... it's borderline incest and rape advocacy.

      Quote Originally Posted by Maeni View Post
      I know perfectly well that you disagree with that, but the main gist of what I'm saying is that I would never try to justify these acts because they <i>are</i> harmful.
      Your living in an imaginary world that allows potential sex offenders the freedom to partake, in numerous ways, in unhealthy criminal acts against consenting children. What the fuck did I even just say? Apparently your ideal world consists of children growing up and being raised knowing that statutory rape, and clearly defined behavior disorders are good for humanity, and society in general. Yes, I have a serious problem with that.

      Quote Originally Posted by Maeni View Post
      You said that I'm trying to justify sexual crimes, but that is just not true.
      Okay, to be fair, you're trying to justify your own desires, and some idealized sexual utopia that will never exist in any pre-apochryphal, civilized world.

      Quote Originally Posted by Maeni View Post
      Right. That's interesting, but there's a number of reasons why I don't think this is a way to go about it.
      Do no pass go, do no collect $200.00, go directly to jail.

      Quote Originally Posted by Maeni View Post
      Firstly, I don't think you can actually change pedophilia.
      Do you have any information to indicate otherwise?

      This is why I say that I think it doesn't matter whether you call it a disorder or a sexuality, I think it <i>works like</i> an orientation in the affected. That is to say, to change pedophilia is like trying to change hetero- or homosexuality.
      Perhaps, but what you're failing to understand is that there is no historical president that urges homosexuality to be changed or controlled. This cannot be said for pedophilia.

      Quote Originally Posted by Maeni View Post
      I've been in treatment, talked to 7 psychiatrists/psychologists/sexologists. All of them had completely different opinions on how to react to a person with this attraction. This tells me that anyone who claims to have the right treatment isn't as sure as he likes to think. Furthermore, the article describes people who have acted on their desires. It does not seem to be a treatment that tries to actually remove the attraction, but a treatment that helps child molesters with controlling themselves.
      This is a typically saddening reality of the professional medical world today; somewhat underdeveloped fields, ill-trained, and outright unqualified persons delivering treatment is kind of common today. I'm not trying to change your behavior, that's impossible, but you have a highly pathological reasoning behind your convictions that clearly shows itself when you talk about ideal futures.

      Quote Originally Posted by Maeni View Post
      It's a treatment for people who have out right urges that they cannot fight. I'm totally for that stuff, as long as the treatment doesn't end up making the patients more dangerous.
      The treatment, as I understand it would require some type of psychological transference, whereby alleviating the patient of suppressed desires, and placing the burden of the mentally ill upon the doctor.

      Quote Originally Posted by Maeni View Post
      But treating a person who cannot control his urges is not the same as treating a pedophile.
      It depends on what those urges are, ie sexual attraction to young people and the potential to enact those urges, then we're still talking about one and the same holistic treatment.

      Quote Originally Posted by Maeni View Post
      Lastly, I'm concerned about the effects of treatments like that. If given to people that aren't actually dangerous, like regular non-offending pedophiles, I fear that it could actually make those people more dangerous. I think that if you try to suppress sexual feelings, which seems to be the goal here, you'll end up worse off than before. I don't claim to know exactly what happens when you completely deny a part of yourself and start to believe that if you don't do so, you're a total monster, but I have a feeling such a person is more dangerous than one who feels at ease with his pedophilia.
      I wouldn't know.

      Quote Originally Posted by Maeni View Post
      But that's sort of how pedophillic fantasies work as well? I know what the consequences are, I just like the thoughts but like games it doesn't suddenly make me into a dangerous individual.
      By your nature, no, being a pedophilaic does not make you a bad person, I can see through enough layers to admit this, but by having this awareness about yourself you voluntarily confine yourself in a cautionary way because through your admission there is the potential that you will exhibit those clearly defined behaviors. This is not alright in our society today, and never will be alright.

      Quote Originally Posted by Maeni View Post
      Okay cool, if you feel the same about people who fantasize about murder. I think there's probably a lot of people who do that, but who also don't have any intentions on carrying it out because they know the consequences of doing so. It seems that you feel that when someone fantasizes about something, the jump from fantasy to reality isn't very far. I just disagree with that because I think no matter what abhorrent fantasy you entertain, you'll still have a brain capable of making sure you consider consequences and moral issues
      I tend to have the same general faith in the goodness of humanity as well, but this does not always make it so; the universe is not benevolent.

      Quote Originally Posted by Maeni View Post
      And I call bullshit on games trying to give a higher order of understanding. I don't think games reinforce anything unless the developers put it there on purpose, but if you take a game like Grand Theft Auto, it really doesn't reinforce any real life consequences. Sure the police comes after you when you mow down a few pedestrians, but nothing else happens.
      You're entitled to your opinion, I don't play games.

      Quote Originally Posted by Maeni View Post
      Sure, yes, of course. Discussions and open conversation is definitely important. But the hatred that exists today sometimes makes this very hard to accomplish. I may be a bit of a special case due to my proclivity for coming out, but generally this is very rare. Pedophiles have been driven into underground communities, which really limits any interaction like this, and fosters misconceptions about pedophiles.
      They have been driven underground for a very good reason.

      Quote Originally Posted by Maeni View Post
      And you're still contradicting yourself when you say that it doesn't matter what you fantasize about. You've said that these fantasies warrant serious concern, so it obviously does matter to you.
      When I make a judgement about someone in my mind, the first reason I give myself is usually the most accurate and reliable, hence instinct. When I say, "Hey, I think today I'm going to babysit Jerry, and maybe I'll get some action," I think to myself, "That is a really absurd statement." Of course, I would never think something like this, because the desire never occurs within me to begin with, so our differentiating trait would seem such that my rational, instinctual judgement of my own internal dialog served me well in this regard, where as yours might not.

      Quote Originally Posted by Maeni View Post
      Elaborate please?
      Sure.

      Quote Originally Posted by Maeni View Post
      I just don't like the way the DSM describes it. If pedophilia is a disorder because child molestation is harmful, then fine. It doesn't change the nature of pedophilia.
      No, it doesn't, but it classifies pedophilia accurately, and that all that's required to make a proper diagnosis.

      Quote Originally Posted by Maeni View Post
      Not necessarily. If the pedophile chooses to stick to imagination, which I believe many of them do due to the consequences in reality, then there is no victim. There is undoubtably something wrong with a person who actually does molest children. But I don't think you can put the blame on <i>&amp;quot;pedophilia&amp;quot;</i> as a whole, given that it is perfectly possible to be a pedophile without molesting children. It must be something else in them that makes them act in a disorderly way, like for example psychopathy or whatever else makes people not care about others.
      For a pdeophiliac you're a little ignorant, the extreme emotional state toward children is coupled to that sexual desire or fantasy as they perceive it empathetically, granted I'm sure there are apathetic molesters in the world. Repression of sexual desire is harmful in it own way, and shouldn't be confused with the morality of sexual acts, but its when those sexual acts come to manifest out of the repression, often in a surge, do the consequences become real.

      Quote Originally Posted by Maeni View Post
      And I know that the effects are true and very serious. Never have I said they weren't. I don't know what you mean by [i]&amp;quot;open pedophiliac tendencies&amp;quot;[i], but what I mean is that pedophiles shouldn't be totally condemned just for their fantasies. Being open about it encourages education and knowledge, which is good for everyone.
      Education and awareness would be even better for children.

      Quote Originally Posted by Maeni View Post
      And I don't know what you mean that I'm trying to paint an innocent picture. What I said is that while child molesters clearly do harm their victim by definition, pedophiles do not necessarily cause any harm.
      You're candy coating pedophiliac behavior in a guise of some perverted happy Mickey Mouse land, and I'm not even sure you like kids. You're coninually side stepping the issue, you know imagination isn't a crime, but you refuse to concede that enacting on them is a serious concern, stop being thick.

      Quote Originally Posted by Maeni View Post
      Most child molesters are pedophiles, but we do not know how many non-offending pedophiles are out there, mainly because they're afraid to show themselves.
      I bet I know why.

      Quote Originally Posted by Maeni View Post
      I don't think treating it like it's a disease to be removed is the way to go. But I agree that some type of treatment is good. But as I don't think pedophilia is something that can be treated in the sense that schizophrenia can, a treatment must focus on other things. Like for example dealing with resulting depressions or stress.
      Yes, that's would be a kind thing to do for a pedophile.

      Quote Originally Posted by Maeni View Post
      And I know that the effects are true and very serious. Never have I said they weren't. I don't know what you mean by [i]&amp;quot;open pedophiliac tendencies&amp;quot;[i], but what I mean is that pedophiles shouldn't be totally condemned just for their fantasies. Being open about it encourages education and knowledge, which is good for everyone.
      Yes, I agree, but probably for different reasons.

      Quote Originally Posted by Maeni View Post
      And I don't know what you mean that I'm trying to paint an innocent picture. What I said is that while child molesters clearly do harm their victim by definition, pedophiles do not necessarily cause any harm.
      Serial murders don't necessarily cause harm, it's usually very thought out, and precisely exacted upon the victims with some purpose, unless they're utterly psychopathic. Where we differ is in our concept of in potentia, you seem to think that just because you can and have been able to resist pedophiliac urges, that you can keep doing so indefinitely; I disagree.

      Quote Originally Posted by Maeni View Post
      Most child molesters are pedophiles, but we do not know how many non-offending pedophiles are out there, mainly because they're afraid to show themselves.
      Again, for a good reason.

      Quote Originally Posted by Maeni View Post
      I don't think treating it like it's a disease to be removed is the way to go. But I agree that some type of treatment is good. But as I don't think pedophilia is something that can be treated in the sense that schizophrenia can, a treatment must focus on other things. Like for example dealing with resulting depressions or stress.
      CBT, DBT, et al.
      Last edited by Phion; 05-20-2012 at 04:10 PM.

    19. #169
      Dreamer Achievements:
      1 year registered Created Dream Journal Tagger Second Class 1000 Hall Points Veteran Second Class Made lots of Friends on DV
      hermine_hesse's Avatar
      Join Date
      Jul 2008
      LD Count
      60+
      Gender
      Location
      Austin
      Posts
      357
      Likes
      305
      DJ Entries
      32
      If you don't see how it could be possible in the future for a pedophile to act out his/her desires without causing harm, then you have very little imagination. Maybe in the future we have holodecks (like on Star Trek), where they could act out their desires with holographic children. Or, maybe there are robots who are like humans in every anatomically, but programmed only to satisfy someone's sexual fantasies. In both of these instances, a pedophile could act out on desires without creating a victim.

      What Maeni is saying really isn't that hard to understand. Being attracted to children is a type of sexuality you are born with and cannot be changed. The world may benefit by being a little more open minded and allowing real discussion around this, rather than condemning someone based on their fantasies alone. Acting on those desires is definitely not ok, and no one here is advocating that.

      I think Maeni is incredibly brave for being open and honest about this. Just coming out to my friends and family to tell them I'm gay was hard enough - I can't imagine the courage it takes to be open about being a pedophile.
      Patrick, Maeni, fOrceez and 2 others like this.

    20. #170
      Member Achievements:
      Made Friends on DV 3 years registered 1000 Hall Points

      Join Date
      Jun 2010
      Gender
      Posts
      749
      Likes
      350
      I'm trying not to be overly judgmental, but there are people in my family and a friend or two that have been victims, it strikes a chord.

    21. #171
      Member Achievements:
      Made Friends on DV 3 years registered 1000 Hall Points

      Join Date
      Jun 2010
      Gender
      Posts
      749
      Likes
      350
      Quote Originally Posted by hermine_hesse View Post
      If you don't see how it could be possible in the future for a pedophile to act out his/her desires without causing harm, then you have very little imagination.
      Imagination isn't the issue; when I think about eating meat, I think of a big fat juicy steak, not tofu or all-natural vegan sandwiches.

    22. #172
      Previously Pensive Patrick's Avatar
      Join Date
      Sep 2005
      Gender
      Location
      Manchester, UK
      Posts
      1,783
      Likes
      826
      I am just absolutely astounded that there are still people around like you, Phion and Warheit.

      If people a hundred years from now were to read this, they would think you two the most incredibly closed-minded and judgemental people they'd ever heard! You will sound to them exactly how homosexual bashers sound to us now.

      I just can't understand how you can justify that pedophilia is morally wrong... If it doesn't hurt anyone, these people are just normal people born with a certain preference which we have no right to take away from them.

      If you suggest 'curing' pedophiles, you are now talking about eugenics. And I'm fairly sure we don't want to go down that road, right?
      Maeni likes this.

    23. #173
      Member Achievements:
      Made Friends on DV 3 years registered 1000 Hall Points

      Join Date
      Jun 2010
      Gender
      Posts
      749
      Likes
      350
      Quote Originally Posted by Pensive Patrick View Post
      I am just absolutely astounded that there are still people around like you
      I am what I am.

    24. #174
      Previously Pensive Patrick's Avatar
      Join Date
      Sep 2005
      Gender
      Location
      Manchester, UK
      Posts
      1,783
      Likes
      826
      Quote Originally Posted by Phion View Post
      I am what I am.
      Can you please stop posting for the sake of posting, I'm sure I'm not the only one who's been a little annoyed by it in the past few days.
      Maeni and fOrceez like this.

    25. #175
      King of Mud Maeni's Avatar
      Join Date
      Mar 2008
      LD Count
      5
      Gender
      Posts
      1,353
      Likes
      688
      DJ Entries
      16
      This is getting ridiculous.

      What you're beginning to talk about now, whether you know it or not, is actively encouraging children to engage and experiment sexually, not just with people of their own age, but with much older people. Presumably teaching "sexual education" in a crude, harmful, and to coin my friend's terminology, extremely morally reprehensible way... it's borderline incest and rape advocacy.
      Stop telling me that I am advocating this and that, when I've explained numerous times that those things only apply in the future, if those things are not harmful in the future. You've baselessly assured me that the future will not be like that, and if that is the truth, then this doesn't matter at all.

      If what I say is true, then I will (future tense) advocate free sexuality even for children, as long as it isn't harmful. I am (present tense) not advocating any actions because they are indeed harmful.
      And about the ways in which you think I would teach sexual education, don't assume things. What I'm talking about is that children should be told everything truthfully about sex, and what they then do should only be if they're interested and consenting. And this is still in future tense, these things do not apply to our day and age, where it is still harmful regardless of interest and consent.

      Your living in an imaginary world that allows potential sex offenders the freedom to partake, in numerous ways, in unhealthy criminal acts against consenting children. What the fuck did I even just say? Apparently your ideal world consists of children growing up and being raised knowing that statutory rape, and clearly defined behavior disorders are good for humanity, and society in general. Yes, I have a serious problem with that.
      The quote you are responding to here has nothing to do with this. As the quote you're responding to says, I clearly say that I would never try to justify these acts because they are harmful. Verbatim.
      Like I said, I would only advocate "unhealthy criminal acts" if they stopped being unhealthy and criminal. I obviously do not support harmful acts, but I believe some acts can be harmless in the future. In the future.
      So I do not advocate those acts because they are harmful now.

      Okay, to be fair, you're trying to justify your own desires, and some idealized sexual utopia that will never exist in any pre-apochryphal, civilized world.
      Just like Warheit, your refutation against my idea of a possible future is "It is impossible."
      I have argued about what makes sex harmful. If those arguments are right, and sex isn't inherently harmful by nature, then that means the harm can be undone. If it can be undone, then the future can be one in which sex isn't harmful to kids. But if you are right and this never happens, then nothing will change. I'm advocating open discussion with pedophiles and less hate, which I will advocate regardless of what the future is like.

      Do you have any information to indicate otherwise?
      Actually no, I'm just judging by the fact that heterosexuality cannot be cured, and that back in the 1960's people were trying to cure gays with no success. I get that pedophilia is harmful whereas homosexuality is not, but I think the way they occur in the brain is much the same, and thus pedophilia should be just as hard to get rid of as homosexuality.
      But hey, I think all things sexuality are in dire need of more studies. There's still a lot of unknowns even just regarding homosexuality.

      Perhaps, but what you're failing to understand is that there is no historical president that urges homosexuality to be changed or controlled. This cannot be said for pedophilia.
      But they did have the same attitude towards homosexuality. It was viewed as a mental disorder, and that gays had a proclivity towards child molestation, and that it could be cured through treatments. Turns out it didn't work that way.

      This is a typically saddening reality of the professional medical world today; somewhat underdeveloped fields, ill-trained, and outright unqualified persons delivering treatment is kind of common today. I'm not trying to change your behavior, that's impossible, but you have a highly pathological reasoning behind your convictions that clearly shows itself when you talk about ideal futures.
      So how do you decide which professionals are qualified and which are unqualified?
      By now, your argumentation consists of putting words in my mouth, saying that I am wrong and stating that my reasoning is bad. Cool.

      It depends on what those urges are, ie sexual attraction to young people and the potential to enact those urges, then we're still talking about one and the same holistic treatment.
      What I mean is, there's a difference between treating someone who has trouble controlling his urges, and treating someone who just has urges. You apperantly think they are one and the same, but there are plenty of pedophiles out there, controlling their urges, proving you wrong.

      By your nature, no, being a pedophilaic does not make you a bad person, I can see through enough layers to admit this, but by having this awareness about yourself you voluntarily confine yourself in a cautionary way because through your admission there is the potential that you will exhibit those clearly defined behaviors.
      So, I'm not a bad person, except I may become one because I am aware of my sexuality? Is that what you're saying? Don't you think it is unfair to judge me as a child molester, just because you think there's a potential in me to be one? You can make up such accusations for anyone. Someone is aggressive? He's got potential to become a murderer.

      I tend to have the same general faith in the goodness of humanity as well, but this does not always make it so; the universe is not benevolent.
      Sure there are some people who go mad and follow their abhorrent fantasies, but you seem to imply that any and all with such fantasies will be very likely to do so. I don't think so. There are horrible people of every kind. There are rapist heterosexuals and there are rapist pedophiles. The sexual fantasy isn't the core of it, but their lack of judgement is.

      They have been driven underground for a very good reason.
      Driving a group of people underground helps no-one. Many pedophiles do not break the law, and so there's no reason for them to be ostracized. Driving them underground does nothing but make them feel like outsiders and in some cases perhaps turn them into dangerous individuals. Everyone would benefit from a more open and less hateful environment.

      When I make a judgement about someone in my mind, the first reason I give myself is usually the most accurate and reliable, hence instinct. When I say, "Hey, I think today I'm going to babysit Jerry, and maybe I'll get some action," I think to myself, "That is a really absurd statement." Of course, I would never think something like this, because the desire never occurs within me to begin with, so our differentiating trait would seem such that my rational, instinctual judgement of my own internal dialog served me well in this regard, where as yours might not.
      What the fuck? That has nothing to do with the quote. I'll play along;
      You would obviously never think that thought, because it does not appeal to you.
      In my case, if that phrase appeared to me, I'd think "yeah, brain, I can see why you'd like that, but no, that is a really absurd statement."
      See, I have the desire AND the judgement in order to both be a pedophile and to dismiss the thought because of its' absurdity. I'm sure you must have had inappropriate desires before, not relating to sexuality. Ever wanted to punch someone but stopped yourself because it would be a bad idea? Or ever wanted to something crazy like throwing a ball through the library? Most likely you've felt something like that before, and decided against it despite having the desire to do so. Id vs. super-ego, y'know?

      For a pdeophiliac you're a little ignorant, the extreme emotional state toward children is coupled to that sexual desire or fantasy as they perceive it empathetically, granted I'm sure there are apathetic molesters in the world. Repression of sexual desire is harmful in it own way, and shouldn't be confused with the morality of sexual acts, but its when those sexual acts come to manifest out of the repression, often in a surge, do the consequences become real.
      What? I honestly don't understand what you're saying here, I'm sorry.
      Are you trying to say something about child molesters who justify their actions versus child molesters who just don't care? I don't know how this relates to what I said, but not all pedophiles molest children, so there are no victims, which is what I think this branch of the discussion was about anyways.

      Education and awareness would be even better for children.
      I wasn't necessarily speaking about, for children, but sure, that too. Education, awareness, knowledge all the things. All of it is better than shoving it as far underground as possible.

      You're candy coating pedophiliac behavior in a guise of some perverted happy Mickey Mouse land, and I'm not even sure you like kids. You're coninually side stepping the issue, you know imagination isn't a crime, but you refuse to concede that enacting on them is a serious concern, stop being thick.
      Okay, clarify please, what do you think is the issue here, that I am side stepping?
      What do you mean I "refuse to concede that enacting on them is a serious concern", conceding that enacting on them is harmful is exactly what I do in the quote you are responding to.

      Quote Originally Posted by Myself
      What I said is that while child molesters clearly do harm their victim by definition, pedophiles do not necessarily cause any harm.
      I'm saying it right here. A child molester (i.e. pedo who enacts the urges) clearly harm their victims. Pedophiles who don't enact their urges do not.
      How can you tell me that I refuse to admit this, when you're responding to me saying exactly that?

      Yes, that's would be a kind thing to do for a pedophile.
      Do we agree or was that sarcasm? Some of the symptoms of depression and stress are poor judgement and apathy. Treating a pedophiles depression isn't just nice for them, but it helps them not turn into criminals.
      This is basically like with any other group of people, I think. If you neglect them and treat them badly, a lot of them will turn into dangerous people.

      Serial murders don't necessarily cause harm, it's usually very thought out, and precisely exacted upon the victims with some purpose, unless they're utterly psychopathic.
      What? Murder is harm by definition. Unless you disagree that death is harmful?

      Where we differ is in our concept of in potentia, you seem to think that just because you can and have been able to resist pedophiliac urges, that you can keep doing so indefinitely; I disagree.
      Okay cool. Watch me descend into madness as this demon slowly takes over my mind and makes me do abhorrent things even though I've told you many times that I wouldn't.
      Last edited by Maeni; 05-20-2012 at 07:03 PM.
      Patrick likes this.

      1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Ɛ 10

    Page 7 of 12 FirstFirst ... 5 6 7 8 9 ... LastLast

    Similar Threads

    1. What Is Your Sexual Orientation?
      By Xox in forum The Lounge
      Replies: 146
      Last Post: 02-09-2010, 09:47 PM
    2. Pedophilia - How wide spread is it?
      By Sandform in forum Extended Discussion
      Replies: 39
      Last Post: 10-25-2008, 09:41 PM
    3. which is your sexual orientation?
      By Kromoh in forum The Lounge
      Replies: 238
      Last Post: 02-27-2008, 09:27 PM
    4. Human Sexuality & Sexual Orientation
      By ChrissyMaria in forum The Lounge
      Replies: 7
      Last Post: 02-27-2008, 07:34 PM

    Tags for this Thread

    Bookmarks

    Posting Permissions

    • You may not post new threads
    • You may not post replies
    • You may not post attachments
    • You may not edit your posts
    •