Help ATS with a contribution via PayPal:
learn more

Is Paedophilia Just Another Sexual Preference?

page: 1
5
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join

posted on Sep, 15 2006 @ 07:56 AM
link   
OK first of all dont vilify me as a Paedophile because Im not this is just a thought that I had and I wondered what you guys thought of it.

Lets say there are three sexual preferences, hetero- homo- and bi-sexual, perhaps four if you include asexual.

Is it possible that there is another preference, Paedosexual? Where adults are attracted to children. Could it be right that what we currently see as criminals and monsters are just acting out their repressed sexual urges?

Going even further into it, society (at least western society since the dark ages) has punished homosexuals and seen tham as abnormal and monsters and at various stages tried to cure them and kill them. Society is now at a place where homosexuals in general are accepted and not stoned to death yet "paedosexuals" are punished and locked up. Just as I believe that a homosexual is born that way and cannot be "reverted" or "cured" of being such, I believe that Paedophiles cannot be rehabilitated no matter what, which draws parallels between the two.

Will we look back in a hundred years and apologise to Paedosexual rights groups for what was viewed as a terrible injustice?

In my opinion this is quite possible yet I also think Paedophilia/sexualism will always be vulnerable, just as there is heterosexual and homosexual rape; it is much easier to abuse a child as they dont know what they are doing.

Thoughts?




posted on Sep, 15 2006 @ 08:08 AM
link   
**DISCLAIMER** I am not a pedophile

Ok, with that said. Wasn't the act of having sex with young males a part of culture back in the days of Rome? If I recall, I remember seeing some sex doc on the Discover Channel about sex back in the day that showed paintings and stories about young males being apart of sexual acts.



posted on Sep, 15 2006 @ 08:14 AM
link   
it doesn't mean it was right then or now though? as far as i'm concerned there is an age below which you are too young to really decide for yourself what is right and wrong, i believe we have a reasonable age of consent within the UK and i don't think this should be changed, otherwise you'll end up with more cases like the recent one where children as young as babies are being raped



posted on Sep, 15 2006 @ 08:20 AM
link   

Originally posted by lardo5150
**DISCLAIMER** I am not a pedophile

Ok, with that said. Wasn't the act of having sex with young males a part of culture back in the days of Rome?



I think you mean ancient Greece. It's widely documented that young boys would have sexual relations with their teachers. I believe the Romans disapproved of this, and was one of the reasons used to justify the conquering of the Greeks.



[edit on 9/15/2006 by djohnsto77]



posted on Sep, 15 2006 @ 08:26 AM
link   
NO!
Pedophilia is a perversion. Period. It is no different than the perversion of sexual gratification by watching a snuff film (Snuff films are films of women actually being murdered.)
The BTK Killer is a prime example. He masturbated while watching a 9 year old child suffocate with a bag duct taped around his head.
Pedophiles in my opinion are vermin, and should be exterminated as such. Taking away the innocence of a child in my opinion should be a capital offence. There is no argument that will ever change my mind about that!



posted on Sep, 15 2006 @ 08:33 AM
link   
Not all sexual acts are sexual. Rape, for example, although an ostensibly sexual activity is not sexual in nature. It is about control, degradation and humiliation. I believe paedophilia falls into that same category. My wife was a victim at a young age. I live with the aftermath every day. It isn't about sexuality. It's about the adult having absolute control over the child for their own personal gratification. A one-way gratification that in and of itself defies the definition of sexuality. How about 'thrill killers'? People who get sexual thrills from murdering people? Is that 'just another sexual preference' as well? They're getting a sexual thrill. So what if their 'partner' has no informed consent.



posted on Sep, 15 2006 @ 08:35 AM
link   
Pedophilia is just another sexual preference but so is necrophilia. here's why pedophilia is inappropriate or wrong.

in theory, an adult has the knowledge and understanding of what the act of sex means. A child does not.

When you look at ancient cultures, you must remember that the average life span was short so women were married and producing children at younger ages but childhood ended earlier as well. Girls begin menstruating rather young which would imply, to the biologist, that they are, therefore, ready for sex. In ancient greece this might have been the case but in today's society, where children are allowed to be children, things are different.

Another aspect of this whole thing that should be looked at is when is a child capable of making the decision to have sex? Is it different for boys and girls? Boys look to get laid as soon as they start learning the various uses for the little fella below the belt. Girls, on the other hand, are told to hold out and wait until marriage etc. Double standard for sure but where in the middle is the "proper" age? There is no proper age. It's what is right for each individual. The problem is, there are people out there who will try and tell a child that they are ready and it is right and these predators are the ones you read about. The teachers having sex with their students etc.


ok, since you've all said it before me, I too am not a pedophile. the concept has always made me sick and I have always said there needs to be some signs of maturity, physically and mentally.

As a parent of a young boy and a young girl I can only say that I pity the poor bastards that will try and woo my daughter. If my son doesn't kill them first, I will.



posted on Sep, 15 2006 @ 08:36 AM
link   

Originally posted by solidshot
as far as i'm concerned there is an age below which you are too young to really decide for yourself what is right and wrong, i believe we have a reasonable age of consent within the UK and i don't think this should be changed


Originally posted by lombozo
Taking away the innocence of a child in my opinion should be a capital offence.

Im not talking about the physical act of having intercourse with a child, Im talking about the attraction of an adult for a child. Is it just a sexual orientation? There is a big difference between the attraction and the act. As I said, I dont obviously dont think sex with minors should be legalised because it is obviously so vulnerable to rape and abuse.

I dont see the link with snuff films though, murder is a clear and well defined crime, just like robbery or trespassing. I think you linking paedophilia to murder and murderers is a bit inflamatory.

and yes lardo, I think during ancient Greek times it was considered the norm for an older man to have regular sexual relations with a teenage or younger male.



posted on Sep, 15 2006 @ 08:48 AM
link   
I think human beings have the right to be attracted to whatever they want as long as they dont necessarily act on it. So in a way I can understand where you are coming from as a baby lover.
Jk

But in all honesty. Its all a matter of social conditioning. What is acceptable in Argentina or Amsterdam isnt acceptable in American culture for example.

Although I think someone who has an attraction to 6 year olds is obviously sick in the head I wouldnt care if someone was attracted to a 16 or a 17 year old girl. Like I said. Unless you act on it, and keep it to yourself it shouldnt even be a concern.

Its not a foul unless the referee calls it. Noone ever went to jail for having impure thoughts, only impure actions.



posted on Sep, 15 2006 @ 08:52 AM
link   

Originally posted by gfad

I dont see the link with snuff films though, murder is a clear and well defined crime, just like robbery or trespassing. I think you linking paedophilia to murder and murderers is a bit inflamatory.


Read it in the context in which I wrote it. Some people are "turned on" by pedophilia, and some people are "turned on" by snuff films. It's just a fact.
They are both wrong. And let me make it perfectly clear, and if you find this "inflamatory" I apoloogize in advance. While I do not link pedophiles and murderers, I hold them in the same disregard. I truly believe that murderers should be executed. I also believe that a pedophile who actually commits an act against a child should be executed as well. Pedophiles who have child porn, and the like, but have never committed an actual act, should be chemically castrated.
Just my 2 cents



posted on Sep, 15 2006 @ 08:56 AM
link   
Hold on a second gfad. How can you discount thrill killers as inflamatory? And I'm not talking about snuff films in particular. Whether the act was filmed or not there are countless cases of people that kill because they get a sexual thrill from it. In many cases that's the ONLY way they can get a sexual thrill. If they are sexually drawn to killing how is that any different than being sexually drawn to children or sexually drawn to animals of sexually drawn to corpses or sexually drawn to rudabagers? You are arbitrarily drawing boundaries around your own argument. Each of the cited attractions is characterized by a person's sexual fascination with a particular subject or act. How are they any different than being attracted to a child? I believe the minimum dividing line involves at least informed consent. And even that is a bare minimum.

How about people who actively seek someone to kill them during a sexual act? Like the NJ woman who used the internet to find a person who would kill her during the act? Or the German man who sought to be killed and eaten? Are these also 'just another sexual preference'? Clearly, in these and similar cases the issue of the 'informed' part of informed consent is called into question. Were these people emotionally/psychologically healthy enough to provide consent? Is there any issue about whether or not these people were of sound mind?



posted on Sep, 15 2006 @ 08:57 AM
link   

Originally posted by lombozo
I truly believe that murderers should be executed. I also believe that a pedophile who actually commits an act against a child should be executed as well. Pedophiles who have child porn, and the like, but have never committed an actual act, should be chemically castrated.
Just my 2 cents


Ok this brings me back to my original point, people used to have these opinions about homosexuals (some still do!). Some homosexuals were castrated. Do you think we may look back in the future on paedophiles as we now do on homosexuals? .... Ok you probably wont, but you see my point?



posted on Sep, 15 2006 @ 08:59 AM
link   
Paraphrased from the American Psychiatric Association - DSM-IV-TR

Pedophilia is a disorder. There are different types of Pedophilia. It is egosyntonic in nature. The disorder usually begins in adolescense although some pedophiles report not beginning until middle age. Pedophilic behavior often fluctuates with psychosocial stress.

My comments - It is NOT a sexual preference. It is a disorder. It is NOT loving. It is preditary; self serving; and VERY damaging to the victims.



posted on Sep, 15 2006 @ 09:00 AM
link   

Originally posted by jtma508
Hold on a second gfad. How can you discount thrill killers as inflamatory? And I'm not talking about snuff films in particular. Whether the act was filmed or not there are countless cases of people that kill because they get a sexual thrill from it. In many cases that's the ONLY way they can get a sexual thrill. If they are sexually drawn to killing how is that any different than being sexually drawn to children or sexually drawn to animals of sexually drawn to corpses or sexually drawn to rudabagers? You are arbitrarily drawing boundaries around your own argument. Each of the cited attractions is characterized by a person's sexual fascination with a particular subject or act. How are they any different than being attracted to a child? I believe the minimum dividing line involves at least informed consent. And even that is a bare minimum.

Im not discounting thrill killers as inflamatory, im discounting linking paedophiles and thrill killers into the same bag as inflamatory.

Sexual killings intrinsically involve a clear crime - murder. Whereas paedophilia could concievably be considered not a crime.



posted on Sep, 15 2006 @ 09:01 AM
link   

Originally posted by lombozo While I do not link pedophiles and murderers, I hold them in the same disregard. I truly believe that murderers should be executed. I also believe that a pedophile who actually commits an act against a child should be executed as well. Pedophiles who have child porn, and the like, but have never committed an actual act, should be chemically castrated.
Just my 2 cents



I think you might have raised the ire of murderers world wide. In prison, the most despised crime is pedophilia. That's why pedophiles are usually held in special protective custody, lest they have their throat cut but some angry prisoner.

I think they're both horrific acts but I tend to think that murder is sometimes an act of desperation or environment (not saying it is ok) whereas pedophilia is the murder of innocence. Taking a child's youth away, scarring them for life. That is why many convicts attack pedophiles in prison. Payback for something done to them that the convict feels put them in their criminal shoes.



posted on Sep, 15 2006 @ 09:04 AM
link   
This just isn't anything that requires any thougth. Whether it is a "preference" or a diagnosis in the DSM IV, the answer is "no". There is nothing "just another" about it. Could it be marginalized any further? There are groups such as NAMBLA that keep trying to chip away at the legal age requirements for sex. I don't think anyone will every be apologizing to child molesters in the future for past treatment. If anything, there needs to be apologies to current victims from the legal system that does not adiquately punish offenders. Thank you "restorative justice"!



posted on Sep, 15 2006 @ 09:05 AM
link   

Originally posted by Crakeur
I think you might have raised the ire of murderers world wide. In prison, the most despised crime is pedophilia. That's why pedophiles are usually held in special protective custody, lest they have their throat cut but some angry prisoner.

I think they're both horrific acts but I tend to think that murder is sometimes an act of desperation or environment (not saying it is ok) whereas pedophilia is the murder of innocence. Taking a child's youth away, scarring them for life. That is why many convicts attack pedophiles in prison. Payback for something done to them that the convict feels put them in their criminal shoes.


Firstly I dont think we can take the opinions of people who society deem to be too dangerous to live with normal people (inmates) as gospel!

And again Im not talking about raping children, Im talking about attraction to a child, there is a difference. Someone could be attracted to a child and even have a relationship without "taking a childs youth away".



posted on Sep, 15 2006 @ 09:11 AM
link   

Originally posted by gfad
Sexual killings intrinsically involve a clear crime - murder. Whereas paedophilia could concievably be considered not a crime.


How is this concievable? What steps do you see society making where this would become so? Is that why that attorney in CT stabbed a man to death for molesting his 2 year old daughter? Because it is so close to being acceptable?



posted on Sep, 15 2006 @ 09:11 AM
link   

Originally posted by gfad
Im not discounting thrill killers as inflamatory, im discounting linking paedophiles and thrill killers into the same bag as inflamatory.

Sexual killings intrinsically involve a clear crime - murder. Whereas paedophilia could concievably be considered not a crime.


Good try gfad. Again I repeat, 'Informed Consent'. FlyersFan made the case. A sexual preference requires informed consent. When a party or parties to the act can be characterized as a victim (as in the case of pedophilia) it cannot be reasonably considered a sexual preference.

Homosexuals have been persecuted at various times in history, yes. But that is/was a result of social discrimination. Homosexuality does involve informed consent. I'd also point out that unmarried heterosexual activity, anal sex, interrracial sex and oral sex have all been legislated against and banned at various points in history. The difference?

Say it with me everyone... 'Informed Consent'.



posted on Sep, 15 2006 @ 09:12 AM
link   
gfad, I was merely pointing out that even the dregs of society frown upon pedophilia.

Remember, often times the pedophile will not rape the child but, rather, convince them that it is ok and then have "consenusal" relations.


there was a murder recently where a mand climbed into his neighbor's house and stabbed a man repeatedly. Why? His wife had told him that their daughter said "he put it on my face and on my tummy when the stars are out" (or something like that).

the girl wasn't raped. there was no physical sign of sexual relations. Does that mean it was ok? Let me tell you this, if my daughter ever said to me "daddy, Howard (my neighbor) showed me his penis" I would go next door, cut his dick off and shove it down his throat. He didn't rape her. He didn't even touch her.

He sure as hell did something inappropriate.





new topics

top topics



 
5
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join