Philosophy Forums
Forums Links Articles Gallery Chat
Style:

Powered by WSN Forum




Register | Forgot Password
MembersCalendarNew Posts Help
Philosophy Forums » Ethics » Why is Pedophillia wrong? » Why is Pedophillia wrong?

Why is Pedophillia wrong?
Disclaimer: I am NOT a pedophile.

printPrint


Page: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

Why is Pedophillia wrong?
Zhuangzi
Assistant Professor
Avatar

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Nov 08, 2006
Location: Inside the MotherShip
Total Topics: 9
Total Posts: 284
Posted 05/08/08 - 01:29 AM:
quote post
#101
HalcyonGlaze wrote:
FACT 5 - I've already explained my reasoning. If you'd like to argue it, make arguments against me specifically. I will not repeat myself just because you appear to not want to objectively look at anything and read what I have to say. Go back and read it, quote me, and offer your critisizm in a logical manner, keeping in mind the previous facts.
My use of the word paedophile is correct & is taken as the correct meaning for that word
Paedophile" also describes those accused or convicted of child sexual abuse under sociolegal definitions of "child" (inclusive of both prepubescent children and adolescents younger than the local age of consent), rather than the medical diagnosis that describes adult sexual attraction specifically to biological children.
From a medical site -
Definition of Pedophilia Pedophilia: People with pedophilia have fantasies, urges or behaviors that involve illegal sexual activity with a prepubescent child or children (generally age 13 years or younger). Pedophilic behavior includes undressing the child, encouraging the child to watch the abuser masturbate, touching or fondling the child's genitals and forcefully performing sexual acts on the child. Some pedophiles are sexually attracted to children only (exclusive pedophiles) and are not attracted to adults at all. Some pedophiles limit their activity to their own children or close relatives (incest), while others victimize other children. Predatory pedophiles may use force or threaten their victims if they disclose the abuse. Health care providers are legally bound to report such abuse of minors. This activity constitutes rape and is a felony offense punishable by imprisonment.
& here is the info on the DSM -
Diagnostic Criteria for Pedophilia Pedophilia, included in the American Psychiatric Association Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM) since 1968, continues to be classified as a mental disorder. The DSM is the standard classification of mental disorders used by mental health professionals and provides clear, objective descriptions of mental illnesses, based upon scientific research. Pedophilia is categorized in the DSM-IV-TR as one of several paraphilic mental disorders. The essential features of a Paraphilia are recurrent, intense sexually arousing fantasies, sexual urges, or behaviors that generally involve nonhuman subjects, children, or other non-consenting adults, or the suffering or humiliation of oneself or one’s partner. An adult who engages in sexual activity with a child is performing a criminal and immoral act and this is never considered normal or socially acceptable behavior. Darrel A. Regier, M.D.,M.P.H., Director, American Psychiatric Association’s Division of Research states, “there are no plans or processes set up that would lead to the removal of the Paraphilias from their consideration as legitimate mental disorders.”
Paedophile = Child Molester It does seem that you are the one who is totally incapable of looking at FACTS. I am calm, but I am not deluded enough to think that paedophilia doesn't involve the sexual abuse of children, or be impartial to a behaviour which causes so much harm to children. Based on the FACT that paedophilia causes such allot of harm to children I judge paedophilia as being deeply wrong.
HalcyonGlaze wrote:
I AM a paedophile.
Despite your straw man response to my rational arguments, there is no reasoning in your arguments. I am informed on this subject. I am well aware of the arguments used by paedophiles to justify their sick behaviour. I hope you are on the sex offenders register. If your not, I hope you are put on it soon, & that children haven't already been harmed by you. Get some help.
Precisely the least, the softest, lightest, a lizard's rustling, a breath, a flash, a moment - a little makes the way of the best happiness.
-Friedrich Nietzsche
"There is a theory which states that if ever anybody discovers exactly what the Universe is for and why it is here, it will instantly disappear and be replaced by something even more bizarre and inexplicable. There is another theory which states that this has already happened."
- Douglas Adams
Benkei
Self-hating Dutchman
Avatar

Usergroup: Moderators
Joined: Feb 06, 2004
Location: Netherlands
Total Topics: 44
Total Posts: 1775
Posted 05/08/08 - 02:00 AM:
quote post
#102
The definition in both cases speaks of fantasies, urges OR behaviours. The fantasies and urges are not harmful to anyone, so a paedophile that is able to restrict himself to this, is not a child molester in the common sense of the definition.

Even behaviour need not necessarily harm a child. Masturbating while having a fantasy is sexual behaviour but is still not harming anyone. The conclusion is therefore that all child molesters are (most likely) paedophiles but not all paedophiles are child molesters.

The fact that it is defined as a mental illness is not very interesting. It's the same group of doctors that defined homosexuality as a mental illness for years and that was not a result of science but of societal norms. A mental "illness" that does not harm the person who has it or the people around him or her can remain untreated if the person who has it so chooses.
- How are you doing?
- I'm doing good.
_ No, Superman is doing Good, you're doing well. You need to brush up on your grammar.
Zhuangzi
Assistant Professor
Avatar

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Nov 08, 2006
Location: Inside the MotherShip
Total Topics: 9
Total Posts: 284
Posted 05/08/08 - 02:01 AM:
quote post
#103
HalcyonGlaze wrote:
Then it is an absolutely obvious thing that you're not reading anything at all, and shouldn't even be here. I mean really, I have to wonder why you're on a philosophy forum if you're not even going to objectively and calmly look at facts.


PS - Have you even read through this thread? Or is your posting just some kee jerk reaction to the OP? Have you read anything of what I have previously posted? I don't think you have. Respond intelligently to what has allready been discussed. In the absense of any intelligent response - I will not respond to arguments rationalising & justifing child abuse, based on wishful thinking.
Precisely the least, the softest, lightest, a lizard's rustling, a breath, a flash, a moment - a little makes the way of the best happiness.
-Friedrich Nietzsche
"There is a theory which states that if ever anybody discovers exactly what the Universe is for and why it is here, it will instantly disappear and be replaced by something even more bizarre and inexplicable. There is another theory which states that this has already happened."
- Douglas Adams
Zhuangzi
Assistant Professor
Avatar

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Nov 08, 2006
Location: Inside the MotherShip
Total Topics: 9
Total Posts: 284
Posted 05/08/08 - 02:24 AM:
quote post
#104
Benkei wrote:
The definition in both cases speaks of fantasies, urges OR behaviours. The fantasies and urges are not harmful to anyone, so a paedophile that is able to restrict himself to this, is not a child molester in the common sense of the definition.

Even behaviour need not necessarily harm a child. Masturbating while having a fantasy is sexual behaviour but is still not harming anyone. The conclusion is therefore that all child molesters are (most likely) paedophiles but not all paedophiles are child molesters.


Thankyou for your rational input Benkie. However as you state, & as I have, the term is not exclusive or limited to refer to those who "restrict themselves". In the context of the thread pedophilia is refering just as much to sexual acts with children. My replys using the term "pedophilia" are especially in reference to what what people have been discussing in this thread - namely using the term to incorporate sexual acts with children.
Given what HalcyonGlaze has allready posted -


At this point, since I accept that consensual sex is okay, and it seems that a child is able to consent, then I must conclude that it's completely possible to have sex with a child and not be on the Wrong side of morality.
Precisely the least, the softest, lightest, a lizard's rustling, a breath, a flash, a moment - a little makes the way of the best happiness.
-Friedrich Nietzsche
"There is a theory which states that if ever anybody discovers exactly what the Universe is for and why it is here, it will instantly disappear and be replaced by something even more bizarre and inexplicable. There is another theory which states that this has already happened."
- Douglas Adams
DoctorInWaiting
banned

Usergroup: Members
Joined: May 01, 2008
Total Topics: 3
Total Posts: 36
Posted 05/08/08 - 05:09 AM:
quote post
#105
HalcyonGlaze wrote:




Well, it's certainly a good thing then, if your post was meant to be stupid. Except that your reasoning is flawed, namely, there was *more* than just a rehash of everything you'd heard before. Namely, what I said.

And you don't think it's rational that Paedophilia could be anything other than "the sexual abuse of children"? Well, that's funny, because last time I checked it was actually a medical diagonosis refering to a very specific attraction, and not an action at all! Funny, that.

And, if you would like to tell me exactly why a child can't give consent, I'd love to hear it. That would, you know, mean something.




I severely doubt you actually talked to a paedophile. But hey, maybe he was...somehow.

Yeah yeah, "helpless children", power exertion...like my helpless automobile-purchasing and the terrible immoral power exertion the dealer must be exerting over me and my niavety...oh wait. I can still freaking buy a car! I'm sorry, but it's kind of annoying to hear the argument asserted over and over without any solid reasoning. I'd like some REASONS for why these children are helpless in the decision making process, and why it even matters if they were.





Great! I love hearing the same unfounded assertions over and over! It makes my heart happy.

Oh wait. No I don't. I'd like some explanations on why it even *matters* if a child knows what they're talking about. Since when do I have to know what I'm talking about to give consent? I already pointed out that little flaw in my first post here.

After that, it gets kind of stupid. For one, paedophilia is not "sex with children". So it should inherently do nothing to children's bodies. After that, there's more to sex than intercourse, and most actual paedophiles wouldn't want intercourse because it would indeed hurt the child., and because as I've seen, it's just not an important thing for them. Third, what the hell does it matter, if indeed, there was a "really askew power dynamic"? Heck, what do you even mean by that?


Halcyon Glaze I actually work as a shadowing prison psychologist for work experience so yes mate to answer you I have and still do talk to Paedophiles, they get put in prison like all others. Children are helpless in the first place as they are not as genetically powerful, they are physically dominated by most. They are mentally dominated as paedophiles (who ive talked to at least) are very persuasive people, and it is in psychological instinct that by conformity (and role models) that children conform to the paedophiles actual desire of sex.
Its very easy to point the finger and be a nuisance but at least put some thought and be open to thoughts yourself, otherwise you will have a HPA overload and end up mental yourself.
HalcyonGlaze
Student

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Apr 30, 2008
Total Topics: 0
Total Posts: 51
Posted 05/08/08 - 12:06 PM:
quote post
#106
From a medical site -


I don't care about your medical site. I also don't care about your sociological definitions. Those are simply wrong.



The DSM is cool though (another cool definition would have been the definition the guy who coined the word used), and it proves me right, thank you. After-all, the DSM has the following as criterea for diagnosis:
  • A. Over a period of at least 6 months, recurrent, intense sexually arousing fantasies, sexual urges, or behaviors involving sexual activity with a prepubescent child or children (generally age 13 years or younger);
  • B. The person has acted on these sexual urges, or the sexual urges or fantasies cause marked distress or interpersonal difficulty;
  • C. The person is at least age 16 years and at least 5 years older than the child or children in Criterion A.




So thank you. Since that proves that you can be a paedophile without being a child molester, thus, they are not the same thing.

Despite your straw man response to my rational arguments, there is no reasoning in your arguments. I am informed on this subject. I am well aware of the arguments used by paedophiles to justify their sick behaviour. I hope you are on the sex offenders register. If your not, I hope you are put on it soon, & that children haven't already been harmed by you. Get some help.


Pfft. You're laughable. You can tell me "there is no reasoning" all you want, but you're not actually DOING anything to prove that. You're just stating it. And I don't care how much you SAY you know on the subject (frankly, you know nothing as has been shown already).

The conclusion is therefore that all child molesters are (most likely) paedophiles but not all paedophiles are child molesters.



Yeah...that doesn't follow. In times of stress and the lack of availability of an adult, or perhaps the seemingly easier target that a child makes, it's perfectly reasonable to state a non-paedophile would harm a child. After all, in prison, straight males rape other males. Further, it's usually stated that in several cases, rape is a matter of dominance over, not inately sexual, and children are easier to physically dominate. It seems most likely that a child molester might only have a slightly higher chance of being a paedophile in relation to the general populous. Which would put it slightly above "very unlikely".


The fact that it is defined as a mental illness is not very interesting. It's the same group of doctors that defined homosexuality as a mental illness for years and that was not a result of science but of societal norms. A mental "illness" that does not harm the person who has it or the people around him or her can remain untreated if the person who has it so chooses.


Meh. I feel they can define it how they want. That doesn't mean I have to believe them. At the same time, it's an unfortunate thing that they basically control the meaning of the word, so there it is.

PS - Have you even read through this thread? Or is your posting just some kee jerk reaction to the OP? Have you read anything of what I have previously posted? I don't think you have. Respond intelligently to what has allready been discussed. In the absense of any intelligent response - I will not respond to arguments rationalising & justifing child abuse, based on wishful thinking.


PS - Have you even read my first post? If you did, you'd know the answer to this question. And stop trying to justify your lack of response to me. If you don't want to respond rationally, shut up. I don't want to hear it at that point. If you feel I have to respond to you first, I won't. I came in late, I don't feel I have to respond to everything before me before I can make my claims. And so I will not. If you have a problem with that, too bad. Stop replying to my posts then. I also will not go and read through all your silly little posts to determine what has relevance to what I've said, since from what I saw, most of it doesn't. And I'm not about to waste my time going through it again in more detail just for you. Maybe if you had been nicer and more logical from the get-go, but not now.

Halcyon Glaze I actually work as a shadowing prison psychologist for work experience so yes mate to answer you I have and still do talk to Paedophiles, they get put in prison like all others.


Based on this, I still don't quite believe you. Has he been diagnosed as a paedophile, or is he simply a child molester? It is possible that he *is* one, based on what you said about what he said, but I'd still like to know if he was diagnosed.

Children are helpless in the first place...


In what way, specifically? Do you mean physically helpless? And in what way physically? For a child is obviously not completely physically helpless, for a child can live without the help of others (Assume a child past toddler age). So what exactly do you mean, and why is it important?

...as they are not as genetically powerful, they are physically dominated by most.


I seperated this from that, because this doesn't make any sense. What in the world does it mean to be "genetically powerful"? I mean...really, what in the world is that? I've never heard of it. The words don't seem to go together at all. So what does this mean?

They are mentally dominated as paedophiles (who ive talked to at least) are very persuasive people, and it is in psychological instinct that byconformity (and role models) that children conform to the paedophiles actual desire of sex.


Now I have to say, why do I care? Car dealers are very pursuasive people, and not because "the ones I've talked to are" but because that's their job to be, and non-pursuasive people tend to not be made into car dealers. It is a psychological instinct that I buy crappy cars, based on the friendly guy's words, and what my friends are doing. Am I mentally dominated now? And if I am, what does it matter? Because AGAIN, I'm not suddenly incapable of consent just because I don't know anything and might have been pursuaded into something not in my best interest.


Its very easy to point the finger and be a nuisance but at least put some thought and be open to thoughts yourself...


Oh, I am very open to new thoughts, or even old ones that are well thought out. I'm not open to the same rehash over and over again that I already have evidence to show is nonsensical. Thus, I'll get frustrated if I have to hear it over and over again. I don't much care how many times it's repeated, it's not about to be made true by virtue of that repitition.

Yes, I GET IT. Many think children are helpless in a mental sense, and are unable to make informed consent. Okay. I got that. Now, WHY? What inportance is mental strength in informed consent? Why is informed consent needed over regular consent? And if it is indeed true I need informed consent, why can I buy something crappy on a whim, without knowing anything about it, and not get in trouble the same way I would if I was a child consenting to some sexual act? I want to hear your REASONINGS. All of them. Completely. I don't want the vuage "they're children, they're not old enough, they haven't had the experience" blah blah blah. Why? Because that doesn't tell me why age and experience MATTER in consent, nor does it tell me why children seem to have some sort of lack of basic human rights. So get with it. What are your reasons. I understand your claim. I want to know why it's correct.
Zhuangzi
Assistant Professor
Avatar

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Nov 08, 2006
Location: Inside the MotherShip
Total Topics: 9
Total Posts: 284
Posted 05/08/08 - 03:34 PM:
quote post
#107
So thank you. Since that proves that you can be a pedophile without being a child molester, thus, they are not the same thing.


Common language & usage denotes the meaning of the word pedophile as being a child molester & child rapist. In the eyes of the law & society - in it's general meaning. What you have quoted from the DSM actually states this. How you arrive at the above conclusion is utterly beyond me - you don't make sense. One lesser known & used component of the word pedophile is a sexual "attraction to children"; sexual relations with children is not seen in the light you see such things - as a loving act I suppose!?

Am I mentally dominated now? And if I am, what does it matter? Because AGAIN, I'm not suddenly incapable of consent just because I don't know anything and might have been persuaded into something not in my best interest.


Tell it to the Judge.


Edited by Zhuangzi on 05/08/08 - 03:40 PM
Precisely the least, the softest, lightest, a lizard's rustling, a breath, a flash, a moment - a little makes the way of the best happiness.
-Friedrich Nietzsche
"There is a theory which states that if ever anybody discovers exactly what the Universe is for and why it is here, it will instantly disappear and be replaced by something even more bizarre and inexplicable. There is another theory which states that this has already happened."
- Douglas Adams
HalcyonGlaze
Student

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Apr 30, 2008
Total Topics: 0
Total Posts: 51
Posted 05/08/08 - 04:26 PM:
quote post
#108
Common language & usage denotes the meaning of the word pedophile as being a child molester & child rapist.


Common usage is just common usage. People commonly use the word "bemused" as if it means "amused". Doesn't make them right.

One lesser known & used component of the word pedophile is a sexual "attraction to children"; sexual relations with children is not seen in the light you see such things - as a loving act I suppose!?


Sexual relations with children is seen by me the same way every other sexual relation is seen by me.


Tell it to the Judge


So "the Judge" is the final arbiter on what is and is not morally correct then? That's nice, good to know I have a Moral God here. Hey, I have an idea. I could become a county judge. Then I'm right and you're wrong. Thanks for the tip.



You're boring and nonsensical. Goodbye.


Zhuangzi
Assistant Professor
Avatar

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Nov 08, 2006
Location: Inside the MotherShip
Total Topics: 9
Total Posts: 284
Posted 05/08/08 - 11:53 PM:
quote post
#109
HalcyonGlaze wrote:
Common usage is just common usage. People commonly use the word "bemused" as if it means "amused". Doesn't make them right.

Not heard that one before. But let’s put common usage aside – the actual meaning of the word; denotes & is used to refer to a child molester & rapist.
Sexual relations with children is seen by me the same way every other sexual relation is seen by me.

Is that in the same way as sex with babies, sex with dead people, sex with the mentally retarded, & sex with animals? How open minded of you.
So "the Judge" is the final arbiter on what is and is not morally correct then? That's nice, good to know I have a Moral God here. Hey, I have an idea. I could become a county judge. Then I'm right and you're wrong. Thanks for the tip.

Ironically the law does attract such people – whether it is within the power structures of religion or the legal & care system. Pedophiles are attracted to any position which puts them in a place of increased dominance over those weaker than themselves; where they can more easily sexually abuse others. But what I was pointing out is that from a moral perspective denoted by society – your arguments would not hold any water. I have yet to hear a moral argument from you which extols your position or explains it in the context of it being morally “right” – as you state it is. Stating it or giving it validity, because you say it is so, doesn’t make it so. Your arguments are non sensical.
Precisely the least, the softest, lightest, a lizard's rustling, a breath, a flash, a moment - a little makes the way of the best happiness.
-Friedrich Nietzsche
"There is a theory which states that if ever anybody discovers exactly what the Universe is for and why it is here, it will instantly disappear and be replaced by something even more bizarre and inexplicable. There is another theory which states that this has already happened."
- Douglas Adams
DoctorInWaiting
banned

Usergroup: Members
Joined: May 01, 2008
Total Topics: 3
Total Posts: 36
Posted 05/09/08 - 02:47 AM:
quote post
#110
Halcyon, the reason for informed consent is that they need to be knowing what the circumstances that sexual intercourse entails. Most children do not, although it can be argued that aside the legal matters, children are engaging more and more in sexual behaviours from an earlier age. How can you be open to thought if you just rant? As I said it's not constructive to just say "yeah mate you're wrong" if you were that enthralled by a subject, get off your behind and do some research, read some books and what not.

By the way the paedophiles I talk to are real live people who describe it as a fetish, that they simply can't get enough and it is a taboo that they find enthralling. May as well just post my work number and extension so you can call me in the office! As I said I cant speak for all of them, only a few I've worked with. Postmodernistic society entails that everyone is different so there is no 100% explanation.

Edited by Paul on 05/09/08 - 06:11 PM. Reason: illiteracy
Bronze
Sexiest Nihilist Alive
Avatar

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Mar 25, 2008
Location: Watertown, NY
Total Topics: 7
Total Posts: 101
Posted 05/09/08 - 10:57 AM:
quote post
#111
Zhuangzi wrote:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/465986.stm


We arent talking about rape.
Why is the word 'dictionary' in the dictionary? If you need to know how to spell it, the word is right on the cover, if you need to know what the definition of 'dictionary' is, you wouldn't exactly know to look in a dictionary would you?
Bronze
Sexiest Nihilist Alive
Avatar

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Mar 25, 2008
Location: Watertown, NY
Total Topics: 7
Total Posts: 101
Posted 05/09/08 - 11:07 AM:
quote post
#112
DoctorInWaiting wrote:

Children are helpless in the first place as they are not as genetically powerful, they are physically dominated by most. They are mentally dominated as paedophiles (who ive talked to at least) are very persuasive people, and it is in psychological instinct that by conformity (and role models) that children conform to the paedophiles actual desire of sex.


As I've said before, this is not a trait exclusive to children and it's not a trait all children have. If your saying it's illegal to convince a child to have sex with you just because it's possible you simply 'dominated' them psychologicaly, then should it also be illegal to have sex with a timid person, a foolish person, a drunk person, or anyone who is phychologically naive, regardless of thier age?
Why is the word 'dictionary' in the dictionary? If you need to know how to spell it, the word is right on the cover, if you need to know what the definition of 'dictionary' is, you wouldn't exactly know to look in a dictionary would you?
HalcyonGlaze
Student

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Apr 30, 2008
Total Topics: 0
Total Posts: 51
Posted 05/09/08 - 11:55 AM:
quote post
#113
Halcyon, the reason for informed consent is that they need to be knowing what the circumstances that sexual intercourse entails.


Nice circular argument you got there. It totally convinces me. Oh, no it doesn't. You basically just said "They need to know because they need to know." That just doesn't cut it, I'm sorry.

Most children do not, although it can be argued that aside the legal matters, that children are engaging more and more in sexual behaviours from an earlier age. How can you be open to thought if you just rant? As i said its not constructive to just say "yeah mate your wrong" if you were that enthralled by a subject, get off your behind and do some research, read some books and what not.


How can I be interested if I just rant? Well, I'm ranting because nobody is saying anything interesting. You're saying exactly what most everybody in western culture always says, and what everybody always says on this matter is not exactly logical.

By the way the paedophiles I talk to are real live people who describe it as a fetish, that they simply cant get enough and it is a taboo that they find enthralling. May as well just post my works number and extension so you can call me in the office! As i said i cant speak for all of them, only a few Ive worked with. Postmodernistic society entails that everyone is different so there is no 100% explanation.


Well that certainly doesn't sound like paedophilic thought to me. It sounds like in general deviant thought, that latched onto children because children are the most taboo. A paedophile wouldn't think of children as purely sexual objects like that, unless he was messed up in more ways than just being a paedophile.


Simple Occam
Professor

Usergroup: Members
Joined: May 14, 2007
Total Topics: 6
Total Posts: 508
Posted 05/09/08 - 01:37 PM:
quote post
#114
Is pedophelia wrong because we hate it or do we hate it because it's wrong? No doubt it's a detestable thing and it hurts children (whether they think so or not). But child labor laws are only a fairly recent phenomenon in some developed countries and they are non-existent elsewhere. The laws were enacted because the oppressive labor practices hurt children by, if nothing else, depriving them of the chance to go to school. One might argue that the millions of children working in sweatshops around the world suffer too, but we don;t feel quite the same moral outrage about this as we do about pedophelia. So, it's not just the suffering but also the inability to understand how someone could do that to a child that accounts for our outrage. But it's not just how we feel about it or the negative consequences it entails. There must be some objective reason that pedophilia is wrong, if anything is.
HalcyonGlaze
Student

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Apr 30, 2008
Total Topics: 0
Total Posts: 51
Posted 05/09/08 - 03:32 PM:
quote post
#115
Simple Occam wrote:
Is pedophelia wrong because we hate it or do we hate it because it's wrong? No doubt it's a detestable thing and it hurts children (whether they think so or not). But child labor laws are only a fairly recent phenomenon in some developed countries and they are non-existent elsewhere. The laws were enacted because the oppressive labor practices hurt children by, if nothing else, depriving them of the chance to go to school. One might argue that the millions of children working in sweatshops around the world suffer too, but we don;t feel quite the same moral outrage about this as we do about pedophelia. So, it's not just the suffering but also the inability to understand how someone could do that to a child that accounts for our outrage. But it's not just how we feel about it or the negative consequences it entails. There must be some objective reason that pedophilia is wrong, if anything is.


Really? There *must* be? Seems like you're already assuming something and then trying to prove yourself right. I don't quite think that's the way you're supposed to go about things.

Maybe it hasn't occured to you yet. But you know, you could just be, I don't know, wrong?




gts
Aspirant

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Aug 04, 2007
Total Topics: 4
Total Posts: 34
Posted 05/09/08 - 04:00 PM:
quote post
#116
stephendonnelly wrote:
...
Please note that I am highly against any form of sexuality other than adult heterosexuality. I am not trying to defend pedophilia, but merely trying to compare it's absurdity to homosexuality. The basis for my views is in the teachings of my religion (reformed Christianity). But, I know that many members here do not view themselves as being religious.

So, upon what basis do non-religious people view pedophillia as being inappropriate?

Thanks,

~ Stephen K. Donnelly




Maybe the 1st ? is why is pedophillia at this current time and in our culture considered inappropriate?



The following examples suggest that our close animal relatives do it, other cultures have done it and we in the past have done it ourselves.



Cross-Cultural Examples

Ford and Beach (1951) described cross-cultural examples of child–adult sex from the Human Relation Area files at Yale University. Among the Siwans (Siwa Valley, North Africa), “All men and boys engage in anal intercourse. Males are singled out as peculiar if they did not do so. Prominent Siwan men lend their sons to each other for this purpose” (pp. 131–132). Among the Aranda aborigines (Central Australia), “Pederasty is a recognized custom: : : . Commonly a man, who is fully initiated but not yet married, takes a boy ten or twelve years old, who lives with him as his wife for several years, until the older man marries” (p. 132). Diamond (1990) reviewed child–adult sex in Hawaiian history and Polynesia. In the eighteenth century, Cook (1773) reported copulation in public in Hawaii between an adult male and a female estimated to be 11 or 12 “without the least sense of it being indecent or improper” (cited in Diamond, 1990). Sexual interactions between adult and child were seen as benefitting the child, rather than as gratifying the adult. The sexual desire by an adult for a nonadult, heterosexual or homosexual, was accepted (Pukui, Haertig, & Lee, 1972, cited in Diamond, 1990). Suggs (1966), studying Marquesan society, reported considerable childhood sexual behavior with adults (cited in Diamond, 1990). He reported many examples of heterosexual intercourse in public between adults and prepubertal children in Polynesia. The crews of visiting ships were typically involved and assisted by adult natives. Occasions were recorded of elders assisting youngsters in having sex with other elders. In many cultures of Oceania, prepubertal females were publicly sexually active with adults (Oliver, 1974). In Tahiti, in 1832, the missionary Orsmond observed that “in all Tahitians as well as officers who come in ships there is a cry for little girls” (Oliver, 1974, pp. 458–459, cited in Diamond, 1990). Among the Etoro of New Guinea, from about age 10 years, boys would have regular oral sex with older men, swallowing their semen to facilitate growth (Bauserman, 1997). Amongthe neighboring Kaluli, when a boy reached age 10 or 11, his father would select a man to inseminate him for a period of months to years. In addition, ceremonial hunting lodges would be organized where boys could voluntarily form relationships with men who would have sexual relations with them (Bauserman, 1997). These cross-cultural examples are not cited to argue for similar practices in Los Angeles or London. But are we to conclude that all the adults engaged in these practices were mentally ill? If arguably they were not pedophiles, but following cultural or religious tradition, why is frequent sex with a child not a mental illness under those circumstances? For skeptics of the relevance of these cited exotic examples, for three centuries the age of sexual consent in England was 10. This was not in some loin cloth clad tribe living on the side of a volcano, but the nation that for six centurieswas already graduating students from Oxford and Cambridge. Further, the time when age of consent was 10 was not in a period contemporaneous with Cromagnon Man, but continued to within 38 years of World War I. The impetus to raise the age of sexual consent in England from 10 years was fueled not by an outrage over pedophilia per se but concerns over child prostitution. Changes in employment law during the nineteenth century were protecting children from long hours of factory labor, leaving them more accessible for sexual service as the only means of support. Child prostitution was rampant (Bullough, 1990). Were all customers pedophiles? Were they all mentally ill?

Nonhumans

I will make one obligatory reference to nonhuman primates. Observations concern a near relative of Man, the bonobo, where these “pigmy chimps” are allowed free access to any other bonobo for sexual contact at the San Diego Zoo. Nonfertile combinations (same-sex or juvenile–adult combinations) were as frequent as potentially fertile, adult male–female combinations. Further, one third of sociosexual contacts by an adult with an infant were initiated by the infant (De Waal, 1990).
http://www2.hu-berlin.de/sexology/BIB/pedophilia....



The levels of hidden and revealed child sex 'abuse' are such that one might conclude that a significant proportion of 'our' population does not in fact consider it 'wrong'



The statistics are shocking
  • 1 in 4 girls is sexually abused before the age of 18.
  • 1 in 6 boys is sexually abused before the age of 18.
  • 1 in 5 children are solicited sexually while on the internet. (30, 87)
  • Nearly 70% of all reported sexual assaults (including assaults on adults) occur to children ages 17 and under. (76)
  • An estimated 39 million survivors of childhood sexual abuse exist in America today. (1)

Even within the walls of their own homes, children are at risk for sexual abuse
  • 30-40% of victims are abused by a family member. (2, 44, 76)
  • Another 50% are abused by someone outside of the family whom they know and trust.
  • Approximately 40% are abused by older or larger children whom they know. (1, 44)
  • Therefore, only 10% are abused by strangers.

Sexual abuse can occur at all ages, probably younger than you think
  • The median age for reported abuse is 9 years old. (64)
  • More than 20% of children are sexually abused before the age of 8. (76)
  • Nearly 50% of all victims of forcible sodomy, sexual assault with an object, and forcible fondling are children under 12. (74, 76)

Most children don't tell even if they have been asked
  • Evidence that a child has been sexually abused is not always obvious, and many children do not report that they have been abused.
  • Over 30% of victims never disclose the experience to ANYONE.
  • Young victims may not recognize their victimization as sexual abuse.
  • Almost 80% initially deny abuse or are tentative in disclosing. Of those who do disclose, approximately 75% disclose accidentally. Additionally, of those who do disclose, more than 20% eventually recant even though the abuse occurred.
  • Fabricated sexual abuse reports constitute only 1% to 4% of all reported cases. Of these reports, 75% are falsely reported by adults and 25% are reported by children. Children only fabricate ½% of the time.






So why is it absolutly without question in time and space wrong or if thats not the case why is it wrong here and now?
More questions than answers, always.
gts
Aspirant

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Aug 04, 2007
Total Topics: 4
Total Posts: 34
Posted 05/09/08 - 04:25 PM:
quote post
#117
teleplasm wrote:


The fact that teens may believe themselves capable does not imply that they are.

I...




How does one measure/(decide that one has) the capacity to consent?










More questions than answers, always.
gts
Aspirant

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Aug 04, 2007
Total Topics: 4
Total Posts: 34
Posted 05/09/08 - 04:43 PM:
quote post
#118
stephendonnelly wrote:
There is evidence that gives us certain information on how the Big Bang may have played-out, and how intelligent life evolved from it. However, none of this information can conclusively prove anything. It is purely suggestive, at best.

...
Thanks. smiling face

~ Stephen K. Donnelly




Science does not claim 'conclusive proof', Popper considered that the mark of science was falsifiability.

So how suggestive does the evidence have to be before you fall for it?






More questions than answers, always.
gts
Aspirant

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Aug 04, 2007
Total Topics: 4
Total Posts: 34
Posted 05/09/08 - 06:37 PM:
quote post
#119
mrousseau wrote:
Children are not capable of understanding the consequences of sexual relations.

...


A statement of 'fact' for which you no doubt have compelling evidence in light of the uncompromising manner in which you state this 'fact'

mrousseau wrote:
... Further, these relations can have severe traumatic consequences on the child.
...


Or possibly http://www.ipce.info/ipceweb/Library/rbt_files.ht... to get an idea of the venom one meets if you even present research which doesn’t meet the party line


mrousseau wrote:
... In light of the harm that can be caused as well as the fact that children are not mature enough to make the decision on whether to have sex with someone, it should be illegal and punished severely. Another reason it must be punished severely is the response by the family members and the rest of society and their reaction to the event....
...


The point about maturity is interesting in light of the current trends in the US to charge and treat juveniles as adults, but then consistency never was a human strong point.


As for the reactions being the measure of the response, sometimes there is little or no reaction to atrocities ( say IRAQ war for example) and excessive reactions to little issues ( say personal drug taking habits of football stars etc).


What about punisment proportional to actual physical and mental harm to the victim, would that work?
More questions than answers, always.
gts
Aspirant

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Aug 04, 2007
Total Topics: 4
Total Posts: 34
Posted 05/09/08 - 07:41 PM:
quote post
#120
William Burnett wrote:
Silverbackman,
...
I merely wanted to point out that ethical questions do not only consider etiology, but also consequences.

Perhaps there is nothing intrinsically wrong with having sex with someone who is not an adult and the taboo against doing so was culturally-induced. My point is the taboo exists, regardless of its origins. Because there is such a taboo, the natural personal boundries of the minor in question would have to be crossed or broken down in order to act out on an inclination for sex with the minor. ...



Does this go for child initiated encounters as well ?




Nonhumans

I will make one obligatory reference to nonhuman primates. Observations concern a near relative of Man, the bonobo, where these “pigmy chimps” are allowed free access to any other bonobo for sexual contact at the San Diego Zoo. Nonfertile combinations (same-sex or juvenile–adult combinations) were as frequent as potentially fertile, adult male–female combinations. Further, one third of sociosexual contacts by an adult with an infant were initiated by the infant (De Waal, 1990).
http://www2.hu-berlin.de/sexology/BIB/pedophilia....

More questions than answers, always.
gts
Aspirant

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Aug 04, 2007
Total Topics: 4
Total Posts: 34
Posted 05/09/08 - 08:49 PM:
quote post
#121
Verbum Sapienti wrote:


.... No matter whether a behaviour is innate or not, if that behaviour is unacceptable to the rest of society then it cannot be either condoned or tolerated.
…




So, if the rest of society thinks my going to a synagogue (or substitute any other minority practice, trait, food type or characteristic that the rest of society does not accept) is unacceptable.

Then, my behaviour will not be condoned or tolerated.(sounds logical with the consequence that the
mob rules and the mob is a hungry mob with which you will run one day and be trampled by the next)

So, is this just a brute fact I must accept or is there more?


Verbum Sapienti wrote:


…
Society has a moral obligation to protect (from exploitation) the weak, impressionable, or easily influenced members of that society. Any activity which opens up the possibility of the exploitation of such members in ways which may not necessarily be beneficial to those members could be viewed as morally wrong - and this has nothing to do with religion.

…

Could this be the more.

Not quite, but by a small extension of the principle of protection of the weak (from exploitation) to the protection of the weak generally we might get.

Blessed are the synagogue attendees for they are weak, before the might of the mob, therefore society has a moral obligation to protect them therefore their actions are condoned and tolerated

If so, will society protect the paedophile whose DNA (substitute for innate) means he spends a lifetime trying to resist the siren song of his genes but finally goes with what nature gave him (not what he chose), thereby exposing his weakness and eligibility for condonation and toleration of his actions or will he become one whose behaviour is unacceptable and cannot be either condoned or tolerated?

Is there any substance to these musings?


More questions than answers, always.
gts
Aspirant

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Aug 04, 2007
Total Topics: 4
Total Posts: 34
Posted 05/09/08 - 09:52 PM:
quote post
#122
JagerJagger wrote:
…

…
However, sexual appetites for certain ages haven't completely matched the changes in society and some are unable to resist their urges.

But because sex with children is so prohibited in our society, those who engage in such acts really are deviant. They're sick and disgusting human beings who should likely be killed, as there is much evidence to suggest that their behaviour can't be corrected. And why risk it anyways?




If I get your drift, the problem is that these deviants are so because their programming (for which they may have little or no responsibility) has not changed (something which they/(or even our science) may have little or no prospect of doing at present) to accommodate social change (something which due to their programming they would/could not agree to) thereby bringing their programmed urges into conflict with current social mores and for this they should be killed.

Is that (leaving out my italicised comments for now) what you are in essence saying?

If so,
  1. How do you arrive at the conclusion that non-lethal sexual interference by an adult on a child warrants a death penalty?
  2. Is it all types of non-lethal sexual interference by an adult on a child that warrants a death penalty or just some?
  3. Do you consider the penalty you propose (death) is proportional to the harm done or which could be done in the future (your risk factor) by sexual acts between a child and an adult and if so how do you arrive at your proportionality?
  4. Do you consider that the offender is the programmed rather than the programmer of their sexual appetites?
More questions than answers, always.
Zhuangzi
Assistant Professor
Avatar

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Nov 08, 2006
Location: Inside the MotherShip
Total Topics: 9
Total Posts: 284
Posted 05/10/08 - 01:06 AM:
quote post
#123
Zhuangzi wrote:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/465986.stm

Bronze wrote:
We aren’t talking about rape.


I am talking about rape & so are others. I have yet to hear how pedophilic acts aren't rape. However much others want to promote pedophilia as being morally right - without any meat to back up their argument; you cannot escape the facts that people such as Sydney Cooke operate within society. They are pedophiles; they are child rapists & murderers (which comes under the umbrella of the term pedophile). I have noted that every person who has posted in favor of pedophilia has flatly ignored the facts & evidence concerning people such as this.
Precisely the least, the softest, lightest, a lizard's rustling, a breath, a flash, a moment - a little makes the way of the best happiness.
-Friedrich Nietzsche
"There is a theory which states that if ever anybody discovers exactly what the Universe is for and why it is here, it will instantly disappear and be replaced by something even more bizarre and inexplicable. There is another theory which states that this has already happened."
- Douglas Adams
gts
Aspirant

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Aug 04, 2007
Total Topics: 4
Total Posts: 34
Posted 05/10/08 - 01:16 AM:
quote post
#124
Zhuangzi wrote:
A look at the life & crimes of someone like Sydney Cooke will tell you all you need to know about the devastation caused by a paedophile….


Do you, consider Sydney Coke represents the typical paedophile rather than the atypical paedophile and typical serial killer?

Why do you consider Sydney Cooke’s rampages give us a good view of the devastation caused by a typical paedophile, are they all like him?


Zhuangzi wrote:

As has been stated, an adult knows what they are doing. A child is easy to manipulate or coerce into doing things, they are unaware of the implications or consequences of sexual activity. OK if it’s consenting sex between a 14 & 15 year old who are experimenting…



What, “implications or consequences of sexual activity” is a child generally unaware of ?

What about between say a 12 yr old and 7 yr old or 16 & 7 or 17 &7 etc what if any cut off is there for children who are experimenting and why is there a cut off for children?




Zhuangzi wrote:
… But a man (or woman) satisfying their sexual gratification with a child is sick. I am of the opinion that paedophilia is the worst crime. Special highly secure units should be built in which all paedophiles are locked up & never allowed out, or they should all just be shot. Paedophiles are so hated by the prison population because they cause the most harm to people who are innocent.


Worst crime, really, even before mass murder, genocide, rendering someone a bodily cripple by motor car, rendering someone a bodily cripple by beating them, flying planes into the WTC?

Never allowed out or shot, what for , all touching of children or only some specific things?

“they cause the most harm to people who are innocent”, what, even more than is sustained by the guy who is walking down the street who is beaten into a physical and mental cripple who is for the rest of his life aware of what he was but can no longer be, more harm than that?

Do you have any sources to give some substance to, “they cause the most harm to people who are innocent”?
More questions than answers, always.
Zhuangzi
Assistant Professor
Avatar

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Nov 08, 2006
Location: Inside the MotherShip
Total Topics: 9
Total Posts: 284
Posted 05/10/08 - 01:55 AM:
quote post
#125
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K1eNDIioyx8&fe...

Do you, consider Sydney Coke represents the typical paedophile rather than the atypical paedophile and typical serial killer?


Yes, he represents the typical pedophile with a free reign - His primary motivation & crimes were pedophilic acts with children, he was the classic pedophile. What you are asking is like saying was ted Bundy’s acts of rape not the primary motivation for his sex crimes & is he not representative of a rapist; was he a typical rapist, albeit at the extreme end of the scale; or an atypical one? & if it is the man raping a drunk woman he found at the pub - is that OK & not as bad?

Can you give any substance to why you would think any different to what I have posted? Why are sex acts with children OK? How does it not cause harm? Why is any age to Fuck/rape, sexually abuse a child OK? Can anyone who has posted pro pedophilia views give any substance to what they say beyond saying it is OK because it is? Or give any reason against the argument that it is wrong; beyond saying it can’t be shown to be wrong, without any contrary argument – when multiple reasons & arguments have been put forward as to why it is wrong – in any common sense use of the word “wrong”?
Precisely the least, the softest, lightest, a lizard's rustling, a breath, a flash, a moment - a little makes the way of the best happiness.
-Friedrich Nietzsche
"There is a theory which states that if ever anybody discovers exactly what the Universe is for and why it is here, it will instantly disappear and be replaced by something even more bizarre and inexplicable. There is another theory which states that this has already happened."
- Douglas Adams
Download thread as

Page: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9



You don't have permission to post.

Please login or register.

© 2008

41 total queries
This page was created in 4.39 seconds
Memory used: 8725304 bytes
Server Status: time since last reboot is 142 days, 13:15, load average: 0.72, 0.84, 0.75