Pedophilia now considered a "sexual orientation".

originally posted by: Tjoran
a reply to: CthulhuMythos

Being a pedo isn't illegal, diddling kids and having CP is illegal. And i just want to point out that the general idea of "OMG HES A PEDO LYNCH HIM" Is the attitude that prevents people from coming foreword and getting help.

That isn't to say it's not disgusting, But so is getting # on by a Japanese nurse.

Yes that was what I meant, acting upon the desire. Kind of thought that was obvious, but I see some clarification is necessary. Dunno why you appear to think I am of the lynch mob crowd, or have I picked you up incorrectly? Having said that, I would still not trust a pedo to be near my kids no matter how much help or therapy they were getting.

Humans partake in many gross and disgusting practices, however, they are between consenting adults and so I have no problem with them. However, if the idea of being a pedo is going to be classed as a preference and so must become acceptable in society, how long before it's practice is decriminalised and laws changed under the guise of human rights for pedos? And what about the serial killer? Are they too to be accepted in society because killing is what they are attracted to?

a reply to: nwtrucker

All they did is further clarify it. The didn't replace the meaning of the term "pedophilia disorder". That's still the same. Basically, all people who have pedophilia disorder are pedophiles but not all pedophiles have pedophilia disorder.

To me, it's like acknowledging that violence in sex is a sexual preference (which it is for many). However, acting on that preference (as in rape or other abuses) is obviously wrong.

Pedophilia will always be in its own category because the object of their attraction cannot legally consent to sex. Calling it an orientation does not make it ok. It's not like "orientation" is a compliment. It's a neutral word that has a meaning.

Again, this didn't replace any words or terms. A pedophile is still a pedophile and if that person acted on their sexual interests, they should be imprisoned.

I clicked the link, it has this as a source:
red flag news

Which has this as a source:
sharia unveiled

Which has this as a source:
liberty firewall

and the trail ends there for me as the final link, the one for "liberty firewall", doesnt seem to work for me... it almost seems like the domain expired and an ad company bought the website... I just checked and the sharia unveiled blog was dated 2013, so its certainly possible.


The sources all mention, and link to, a DSM5, here, but I couldn't find any information confirming the claims made. There is a search bar, too, but searches for "pedophile", "pedophilia", and "sexual", materialized zero results. I typed in "mental", just trying to see if I could get SOMEthing to produce a display of ANY results, and that gave me one result.

Based on my brief cursory use of the webpage, I'm beginning to be convinced that the actual DSM document is not here, but that this is merely a webpage ABOUT the document, probably mainly about the changes from volume 4 to this newer version, volume 5.

I reserve the right to be wrong

originally posted by: Abysha
a reply to: nwtrucker

All they did is further clarify it. The didn't replace the meaning of the term "pedophilia disorder". That's still the same. Basically, all people who have pedophilia disorder are pedophiles but not all pedophiles have pedophilia disorder.

To me, it's like acknowledging that violence in sex is a sexual preference (which it is for many). However, acting on that preference (as in rape or other abuses) is obviously wrong.

Pedophilia will always be in its own category because the object of their attraction cannot legally consent to sex. Calling it an orientation does not make it ok. It's not like "orientation" is a compliment. It's a neutral word that has a meaning.

Again, this didn't replace any words or terms. A pedophile is still a pedophile and if that person acted on their sexual interests, they should be imprisoned.

A nice and concise clarification.

Where I part ways with your explanation is the neutral label comment. 'Neutral' as a positioning is an upgrade for that 'condition'. It certainly isn't a neutral act or condition. Yes, acting on it is far worse.

The next point I'd make is the virtual certainty that some will use this 'positioning' to attempt legitimizing, or at the least, introduce similar arguments as the earlier 'orientations' enjoyed.

Anything that mitigates the societal consequence, even potentially, of that condition/act is of a great disservice.

originally posted by: nwtrucker
www.redflagnews.com...

Time for the mellow liberals who feels that if "it doesn't 'harm' anyone, who cares", to take a second look at their logic.

What started as "the gov't has no business in the bedrooms of America, has gotten us to this point of outright insanity. Impulses are to be indulged. Jesus says love everyone, so be cool....yeah right...

Jesus said love everyone, not bed everyone.

Those in the original indulged groups, Gays and Lesbians, will distance themselves from this new and latest dramatization....as they did from man-boy sex groups...it won't work, however.

Wake up libs. Draw your lines. Don't let them be crossed....else there will be NO lines at all. It will be heterosexuals that 'require treatment'...

No, not fear mongering...pointing out insanity, is more accurate.

Normally I'd end with a request for thoughts. Not this time, it's the rant forum and I couldn't care less what the counter thoughts are...

That was an error in the DSM 5 in 2013. It was corrected.

a reply to: 3n19m470

While the source of this may be in question, the concept is now open to debate.

From that view, I stand with my OP on the subject.

...no it isn't...it's a mental disorder.

so, I don't care what they say. the DSM-V says otherwise and so do I.
kudos to the pedos who don't act on their sick and demented urges. people who feel that way need help. and people who have acted on those urges deserve to get their d!(% chopped off. js.

originally posted by: Metallicus
Don't you know that if you attack liberals you have to be a right wing, Christian? They can't fathom non-religious opposition to their immorality and stupidity.

I used to get a kick out of that before I caught the Jesus

originally posted by: CthulhuMythos



Totally sickening, though no matter how it is addressed and redefined it is at least for now still illegal. Let's hope that does not change.

The source even states its a mental health classification, now they will label people as inactive/active, basically. There are groups that want to reduce the stigma, while they might have their own motives [god knows, or wants to know what those motives are] the issue being more open and available to mental health workers is a good thing.

This is a problem that mankind has faced for thousands of years, its not going away tomorrow. So if mental health workers want to classify these people differently, by all means, let them. As long as it remains illegal and people are getting treatment for it, or jailed if they carry out actions, there's not much more society can do.

a reply to: dukeofjive696969

Nope, just saying that liberal arguments in favor of other orientations opened the door to this just like liberal arguments to change the definition of marriage have opened to the door to pretty much any pairing, throupling, or whatever that cares to form.

It's all about "love" where love means where I want to stick it.

Paedophilia disgusts me. But being a gay man that is ONLY attracted to other men over 50, does give me some very unwanted understanding about them.

We are all born and have predetermined preferences to what we like. Most are born to grow up preferring blondes or brunettes, skinny or fat women, older or (leally) younger women.
I know that a lot of paedophiles just like to look and never act, as it is SO WRONG, but unfortunately a lot of them do act. Some act to seek affection, and others act to manipulate and hurt. What I'm saying is, I'm really REALLY lucky only to be attracted to older men, and women. But the peedo's have no choice, they are (for whatever reason) attracted to kids. I think the ones who just look and never act deserve a break. But the ones that do act, and harm need to be brought down, and used for animal testing. There is, and never will be an acceptable excuse for hurting a child. So these f###rs need to be locked away for scientific purposes. Give some monkeys and bunnies a break.
I guess my view sounds mixed, but ANYONE who abuses a child deserves to be experimented on, in a cage where they belong.
I gotta stop here, I'm so *kng mad!

And just to think the are 1000's of kid being trafficked per day from their country, only to be ruled nu a pimp that gets them into debt and drugs.... These fkrs need to be culled. No trial, no rights, just ullef

a reply to: ketsuko

Yes because homosexuality and pedophilia have nothing to do hit each other, so more fake outrage as usual.

originally posted by: dukeofjive696969
a reply to: ketsuko

Yes because homosexuality and pedophilia have nothing to do hit each other, so more fake outrage as usual.

Technically speaking they are both deviant sexual behaviors by definition.

originally posted by: ketsuko
a reply to: dukeofjive696969

Nope, just saying that liberal arguments in favor of other orientations opened the door to this just like liberal arguments to change the definition of marriage have opened to the door to pretty much any pairing, throupling, or whatever that cares to form.

It's all about "love" where love means where I want to stick it.

Ok... let's say that all sexuality was brand new to us and we had never heard of homosexuality or heterosexuality before today. Neither of those have to do with age.

So why would homosexuality be more a step in that direction than heterosexuality? By your rationale, if homosexuality were the norm and heterosexual marriages were finally legalized, heterosexual marriage would be blamed for pedophelia.

In other words, you are somehow making the argument that there is some sort of sliding scale and at one end is pedophilia and the other heterosexuality. Everything in between is somehow a step in that direction to you? I don't get it.

How does that make sense?

a reply to: nwtrucker
From your source:

the American Psychological Association (APA) drew a very distinct line between pedophilia and pedophilic disorder. Pedophilia refers to a sexual orientation or profession of sexual preference devoid of consummation, whereas pedophilic disorder is defined as a compulsion and is used in reference to individuals who act on their sexuality.

If they act on it, this obviously is harming a child, and becomes pedophilic disorder. The laws are not becoming more lax on this issue, and neither is APA. They are simply making a distinction between those that never act on their attraction.

Draw your lines. Don't let them be crossed

Acknowledging pedophilia is an orientation doesn't imply someone condones pedophilic disorder.

Lines have been drawn, and this isn't cause for wanting them to be crossed. The line is drawn at consenting human adults.

Hay OP I could be considered "Liberal" but I tend to go for what benefits those who work the most.
I will personally cull, as to remove, any one who touches a child.
It is the most atrocious act.

a reply to: WalkInSilence

Hey, I'm sure there's more than a few.

I also suspect you know the ones that I refer to. Either way, my respect...

a reply to: Metallicus

Cause people say homosexuality is wrong does not make it so.

originally posted by: Abysha

originally posted by: ketsuko
a reply to: dukeofjive696969

Nope, just saying that liberal arguments in favor of other orientations opened the door to this just like liberal arguments to change the definition of marriage have opened to the door to pretty much any pairing, throupling, or whatever that cares to form.

It's all about "love" where love means where I want to stick it.

Ok... let's say that all sexuality was brand new to us and we had never heard of homosexuality or heterosexuality before today. Neither of those have to do with age.

So why would homosexuality be more a step in that direction than heterosexuality? By your rationale, if homosexuality were the norm and heterosexual marriages were finally legalized, heterosexual marriage would be blamed for pedophelia.

In other words, you are somehow making the argument that there is some sort of sliding scale and at one end is pedophilia and the other heterosexuality. Everything in between is somehow a step in that direction to you? I don't get it.

How does that make sense?

Your premise doesn't make any sense. Sexuality isn't 'new to us' and therefore is spin, from what I can see. We seem to forget hetero acts continue the race.

If you don 't see the sense of it, you either have no wish to or refuse to.

originally posted by: dukeofjive696969
a reply to: Metallicus

Cause people say homosexuality is wrong does not make it so.

Of course it does....