Pedophilia now considered a "sexual orientation".

originally posted by: mOjOm

originally posted by: Tjoran
a reply to: MagesticEsoteric

As far as i know, People are born with it, so unless it turns out to be an actual disorder (I don't think it is) it's not going to be curable. But yes, It can be curtailed, At least according to the leading authority that is studying the behavior, and the positive results in countries that would prefer to help rather then shun.

I don't see it any differently then being born homosexual. It's the same thing, except it's undeniably wrong, where homosexuality isn't.

Are you born with it??? I thought it came from some kind of trauma or something??? Maybe that is just one cause of it. I've never heard of it happening naturally though.

Sure, Trauma is one way to develop anything. But from what we understand scientifically (admittedly isn't that much right now) Many are just born with it.

originally posted by: Metallicus

originally posted by: Klassified
a reply to: Metallicus

This is what happens when the country and the world decide to set aside morality in pursuit of hedonistic, sexually perverse, behaviors. I am not surprised.

Could you define "hedonistic, sexually perverse, behaviors"? (plural)

It has nothing to do with society setting aside morality. Where on planet earth is pedophilia legal? No where that I know of. Defining it is not approving it.

Pedophilia is commonly practiced (and often legal) among Muslims and Muslim nations as well as common behavior among politicians in the UK and elite. I consider homosexual behavior to be perverse (not illegal) and sexually promiscuous behavior is not only condoned, but encouraged in modern society.

I remember watching a video on the issue among the Muslim community. It was truly disgusting!

The one quote I remember hearing from the video was a guy saying something along the lines of "Women are for making babies and boys are for fun"

Vomit inducing!

originally posted by: MagesticEsoteric

originally posted by: mOjOm
a reply to: MagesticEsoteric

Well, if it truly is a disorder then I would assume it can be fixed. Although I'm not sure about that. But if it's natural then I would assume there is no fixing it.

Yeah, that's confusing by calling it a disorder because there is an assumption that it can be cured.

Personally, I don't think it can be fixed.

By far the great majority as in all cases I know of, the pedophile was a victim themselves as a child. This fact was also relayed to me by that NZ researcher I was talking about (Felix Donnelly)

It's a self feeding loop basically. If we were able to protect and entire generation from sexual predators until they had all died off, the problem might virtually disappear.

Anyone up for opening a pedo penal colony on an inaccessible island surrounded with sharks?

originally posted by: nwtrucker

The problem is the 'positioning' as an orientation.

It implies no choice in the act of indulging the impulse.

Nothing in orientation says 'disorder' any more than gays or Lesbians. Try saying it's a 'disorder' to that crowd and the cacophony is ear-splitting.

The positioning is obvious. Of course, it's a disorder. So are the rest of the 'orientations'.

Separating the 'orientations' into groups without applying the same standards to all is disingenuous.

I don't think it implies that there is no choice. There is always the choice to act or not. Be it hetero or homo or whatever. No sexual orientation forces us into doing something beyond our will.

Just because it's an orientation doesn't mean anything or imply anything other than it being defined as a sexual type of configuration for someone. Nothing implies that it should be accepted or promoted or anything. You're just classifying it.

In fact, not classifying it as such seems to just leave it in limbo and make it harder to address IMO.

There was a program a while back on British TV that had a guy who openly admitted he had feelings for kids but he didn't want those feeling and due to UK law you can't get help for that until you've been caught and convicted so he had to go to the Netherlands I think for help. He hated himself for having those thoughts and had enough will power not to do anything harmful but wheres the help for such people who just want those ideas gone from their heads?

Perhaps what we need is secure areas so no one under 18 allowed in but perhaps those people can work/rest and play like normal people such as having a beer and watching a game and pretty much enjoy life just they can't leave the enclosure except for chaperoned visits such as funerals etc.

a reply to: Klassified

India, Ethiopia, Nepal, Iraq?

originally posted by: nwtrucker
a reply to: Metallicus

The problem is the 'positioning' as an orientation.

It implies no choice in the act of indulging the impulse.

Nothing in orientation says 'disorder' any more than gays or Lesbians. Try saying it's a 'disorder' to that crowd and the cacophony is ear-splitting.

The positioning is obvious. Of course, it's a disorder. So are the rest of the 'orientations'.

Separating the 'orientations' into groups without applying the same standards to all is disingenuous.

I completely agree with you, although, I would argue that most people are perfectly capable of exercising self-control in who, where and what they engage in sexual activity with regardless of 'orientation'.

originally posted by: Tjoran

originally posted by: mOjOm

originally posted by: Tjoran
a reply to: MagesticEsoteric

As far as i know, People are born with it, so unless it turns out to be an actual disorder (I don't think it is) it's not going to be curable. But yes, It can be curtailed, At least according to the leading authority that is studying the behavior, and the positive results in countries that would prefer to help rather then shun.

I don't see it any differently then being born homosexual. It's the same thing, except it's undeniably wrong, where homosexuality isn't.

Are you born with it??? I thought it came from some kind of trauma or something??? Maybe that is just one cause of it. I've never heard of it happening naturally though.

Sure, Trauma is one way to develop anything. But from what we understand scientifically (admittedly isn't that much right now) Many are just born with it.

I always thought it was trauma based as well.

You say "we understand scientifically". Is this an issue that you study as a profession?

Some facts for everyone about pedophilia;

The orientation that the OP speaks of is treatable

Abusers who molest because of an ongoing sex drive directed toward children. Abusers who fall under this category and who are 16-years-old or older are considered to have the disorder pedophilia. Abusing teenagers and children who fall under this category and who are younger than 16 cannot be considered pedophiles because they do not meet the diagnostic criterion of being at least 16-years-old. An ongoing sex drive directed toward children or younger children can be identified early by a sex-specific physician or therapist, and then successfully controlled with sex-specific therapies and medication, when appropriate. Treatment from this type of specialist is 87 percent effective.

The four causes of pedophilia

1 They are children or teenagers who are sexually curious or experimenting.
2 They have a medical or mental problem that needs treatment.
3 They are opportunists, who lack feelings for others and who have an antisocial personality disorder.
4 They have an ongoing sex drive directed toward children.

Source

Number one is really only pedophilia if the child is pre-puberty. The laws around the world define different legal ages for sexual activity, so this is a grey area.

Number two are people who need to be kept under strict supervision and are likely to be quite crazy, for want of a better word.

Number three is like the above, but more dangerous and prone to be violent i.e. could also become a mass shooter

Number four is the most common by far and it is treatable if recognised.

originally posted by: mOjOm

originally posted by: nwtrucker

The problem is the 'positioning' as an orientation.

It implies no choice in the act of indulging the impulse.

Nothing in orientation says 'disorder' any more than gays or Lesbians. Try saying it's a 'disorder' to that crowd and the cacophony is ear-splitting.

The positioning is obvious. Of course, it's a disorder. So are the rest of the 'orientations'.

Separating the 'orientations' into groups without applying the same standards to all is disingenuous.

I don't think it implies that there is no choice. There is always the choice to act or not. Be it hetero or homo or whatever. No sexual orientation forces us into doing something beyond our will.

Just because it's an orientation doesn't mean anything or imply anything other than it being defined as a sexual type of configuration for someone. Nothing implies that it should be accepted or promoted or anything. You're just classifying it.

In fact, not classifying it as such seems to just leave it in limbo and make it harder to address IMO.

Where we part ways on this is it has been labeled/defined for centuries. Calling it an orientation-another disingenuous label as it adds hetero into it's label for no other purpose than legitimizing the others- and therefore isn't 'required'.

Following the development of Gay/Lesbian, then transsexuals, labelling them orientations is the first step to legitimizing them, No difference here that I can see....except it may have pushed the envelope past the breaking point. It has for me...

a reply to: nwtrucker

To make another point:

The high up pedos in the UK are from all different poltical backgrounds. Some are very right wing conservatives (republicans). Some are aristocrats. Some are liberal and some working class.

This is a problem of people's control of themselves. They are no better than those who physically assault, rape or murder. They don't control their behaviour even though it causes extreme psychological damage to their victims. I control my behaviour. I would not sleep with anyone under the age of consent because I am not selfish. I don't put my needs before the wellbeing of another. I control myself. Man, I would not even sleep with someone under the age of thirty these days. I would have nothing in common because of the discrepancy in maturity, etc. I would not want to impose the heaviness of my being after being on this earth longer than they have with all the accompanying scars.

It is not a liberal thing. There is an age which roughly reflects nature in terms of psychological sexual maturity that we have imposed upon ourselves mutually because we know that when a person is not developed enough physically or emotionally they ARE being abused; there are symptoms that are so obvious, detrimental and debilitating to the victim, that DESTROY lives utterly.

If you mess with that you are abusing humanity and the law and your own karma will come to bite you very hard indeed.

Luke 17:2; "It would be better for them to be thrown into the sea with a millstone tied around their neck than to cause one of these little ones to stumble."

a reply to: Metallicus

I hold the view, as a non-Christian, that the commandments largely follow sound, practical principals for co-operation in a functioning civilization. From a moral code frame of reference, that is. It has workability.

In this arena, the subject debaters deliberately brings in religion as a deflection from the subject to hand. This crosses religious views, in my opinion as all the so-called orientations do.

a reply to: Revolution9

Well said, sir.

My point in the OP is the 'reasonable' attitude that dominates liberal thinking has accelerated the process. More and more have left the liberal camp-as I have-and have stiffened their positions despite the stress that engenders.

I would have even more liberal see the direction things are progressing and join, at least in this issue, with the right.

a reply to: nwtrucker

So you're saying labeling it as a "sexual orientation" is somehow going to make it legal. I think you're paranoid but whatever.

Although I think it's considered a "Sexual Orientation" by some researchers as well. It all just depends on who you're talking to and how loose they are with the words they use.

I think it's silly to think that just by classifying something as what it is is going to make it more or less acceptable. I mean it even fits the definition so I don't see the problem. If all "sexual orientations" were simply listed for what they are then they'd all be in that overall listing and it wouldn't make any difference.

Pedophilia like Bestiality won't be allowed or made legal simply because there are not two consenting parties involved which then makes one party a victim. So while I understand where you're going with your thought process, I think it's really just a knee jerk reaction made emotionally that is easily removed once you look at it logically.

originally posted by: Metallicus

originally posted by: Klassified
a reply to: Metallicus

This is what happens when the country and the world decide to set aside morality in pursuit of hedonistic, sexually perverse, behaviors. I am not surprised.

Could you define "hedonistic, sexually perverse, behaviors"? (plural)

It has nothing to do with society setting aside morality. Where on planet earth is pedophilia legal? No where that I know of. Defining it is not approving it.

Pedophilia is commonly practiced (and often legal) among Muslims and Muslim nations as well as common behavior among politicians in the UK and elite. I consider homosexual behavior to be perverse (not illegal) and sexually promiscuous behavior is not only condoned, but encouraged in modern society.

Thanks. Just wanted to make sure I understood you, before I commented further. We can certainly agree on the pedophilia among (some)Muslims and politicians being disgusting and abhorrent. The rest I'll leave for another time and thread.

a reply to: mOjOm

Pedophilia is not a sexual orientation. It is the power to destroy and watch innocence die that gets them off. Like rapists pick victims that are vulnerable. You don't see too many 200 pound women as rape victims.

a reply to: mOjOm

Call it paranoia as you like. I see your view on this as either deliberately disingenuous or completely immune to analytical thought. That would include the recent history of the legitimization of the 'orientations'. The initial steps they took, without exception, that I can see.

I, for one, do not hang onto the 'expert's' labels, be they academic or religious.

These orientations are nothing more than indulgences. Nothing more, nothing less.

I accept zero legitimizing or new labels as the long used labels suffice for the majority.

I would stop this in it's tracks, now, without any qualifications whatsoever.

If that makes you an adversary, then so be it.

originally posted by: nwtrucker
I, for one, do not hang onto the 'expert's' labels, be they academic or religious.

These orientations are nothing more than indulgences. Nothing more, nothing less.

I accept zero legitimizing or new labels as the long used labels suffice for the majority.

I would stop this in it's tracks, now, without any qualifications whatsoever.

If that makes you an adversary, then so be it.

Whatever. You still seem to be letting your emotions drive your thinking here. A label doesn't make something legit simply by putting a label on it. It just gives it some definition that's all.

I don't know what you mean by saying they are indulgences exactly. I suppose all sex is an indulgence for that matter whether you're having it with the opposite sex or the tree out back.

These aren't new labels either. It's the same labels that have been around forever.

Why would discussing any topic logically and reasonably make us adversaries??? That is not healthy thinking right there. We're having a discussion of a topic which you brought up so I don't see how anything I've said should make enemies out anyone.

originally posted by: MOMof3

Pedophilia is not a sexual orientation. It is the power to destroy and watch innocence die that gets them off. Like rapists pick victims that are vulnerable. You don't see too many 200 pound women as rape victims.

I know it's not technically considered one but I don't see why. It fits the definition of "sexual orientation" like any other.

According to trucker some think simply calling it that then implies that it should be legal. I don't understand why that would be however since simply labeling something doesn't imply that it should be legal or not or good or bad. It just is what it is. If you like the opposite sex you're Hetero. Same sex Homo. Animals and it's bestiality. Pre pubescent children and it's pedophile. They are all just labels to identify what you're talking about.

originally posted by: mOjOm

originally posted by: nwtrucker
I, for one, do not hang onto the 'expert's' labels, be they academic or religious.

These orientations are nothing more than indulgences. Nothing more, nothing less.

I accept zero legitimizing or new labels as the long used labels suffice for the majority.

I would stop this in it's tracks, now, without any qualifications whatsoever.

If that makes you an adversary, then so be it.

Whatever. You still seem to be letting your emotions drive your thinking here. A label doesn't make something legit simply by putting a label on it. It just gives it some definition that's all.

I don't know what you mean by saying they are indulgences exactly. I suppose all sex is an indulgence for that matter whether you're having it with the opposite sex or the tree out back.

These aren't new labels either. It's the same labels that have been around forever.

Why would discussing any topic logically and reasonably make us adversaries??? That is not healthy thinking right there. We're having a discussion of a topic which you brought up so I don't see how anything I've said should make enemies out anyone.

Of course, you don't see it. You think you view is logical. I see it as ,again, spin on your part, if not outright denial. I don't expect nor require your version of logic to agree.

You merely see a label and debate it as such. I see a trend of acts/definitions that cover a whole area of our society. The acceptance of and apparently unceasing increase of redefining our culture sexually. One that, in this case, potentially increases the threat to our children.

You ignore in your posts, these points I raise. It is you who cannot rationally debate this issue as you see no consequence, potential or otherwise.