Is Pedophilia Really Wrong?

[Frenzy]

Gonna play devil's advocate here...

Pedophiles cannot help but be attracted to children. Is the argument against pedophilia not much the same as our previous (and in some places, current) condemnation of gays?

Now of course, when they kidnap or rape, or both, these children, it is obviously wrong. But I'm talking about cases of consent. So we picked an arbitrary age when people are supposedly able to magically decide whether they want to have sex or not. I know fourteen year olds who are mature than some thirty year olds. You're telling me those "kids" (quotation marks emphasized) don't have the capacity to decide whether sex is right for them, but supposedly those "adults" do? Is it not moreso pedophilia to take advantage of someone who does not know what they are consenting to but is above the legal age limit, thus providing an escape plan for your actions should questions arise, than someone under the 'age limit' who is perfectly sentient and aware of their decisions?

(Obviously, babies and young children are off limits, because they have no capacity to choose yet.)

[Cordyceps]

At 2/22/14 03:52 PM, Frenzy wrote: I know fourteen year olds who are mature than some thirty year olds.

Unless these 30 year olds are down syndromed I would wager that th 14 year old is less mature. By your arbitrary definition of "mature".

Funny how putting things in quotation marks somehow makes you think it supports your argument.

[nonono1]

Shit has been around for centuries, just read thisarticle. I think it's nasty to fuck children even with consent because its something they never forget their entire lives.

[Frenzy]

At 2/22/14 03:55 PM, Cordyceps wrote: Unless these 30 year olds are down syndromed I would wager that th 14 year old is less mature. By your arbitrary definition of "mature".
Funny how putting things in quotation marks somehow makes you think it supports your argument.

You just put the word mature in quotation marks to support your argument.

And the purpose of the quotation marks is to demonstrate the inherent vagueness and arbitrary aaplication of the term.

And it doesn't matter what you 'wager.' The fact is that such differences in maturity level and age exist, down-skydromed or not.

[SolXeroEraser]

At 2/22/14 03:52 PM, Frenzy wrote:
(Obviously, babies and young children are off limits, because they have no capacity to choose yet.)

Its the responsibility of the consequence of their actions,
that diqualify them from being able to make such desicions, not the actions or feelings involved .
Also, no, not really, considering in other countries its ok to get married to 12 year olds.
But, in that circumstance, the parents "sell" them off,
to give them better opportunities/chances, at a somewhat "successful" future.

[Lemonardo]

uh oh

I knew this would happen.

People called me eccentric for believing there was a slippery slope. Liberals, convinced they are right, keep pushing, keep trying to break down Western culture into elementary parts. First they break the gender barrier, then the race barrier, then the sexuality barrier, and now they're going for the age barrier.

Cultural Marxism is the idea that in order to achieve social equality you must first destroy Western culture. You are told in school that everyone is equal and you must unconditionally share love with everyone. You are told in university that all nationalist or otherwise non-leftist ideologies lead to suffering which in all forms is supposedly bad. You can joke about certain people any more because it might hurt their feelings. Teachers and now even parents can't discipline children because it might hurt their feelings. Every single thing that creates a difference between one group of people to another, even if that separation was important to staying true to nature, is destroyed, for what? For the good of mankind? This will do no good for anyone other than those in charge. Once equality is achieved, you will be worked like slaves to serve the state. All of you will be paid the same wage, because anything else would create classes and that is supposedly bad for equality. You cannot joke or have feelings of your own, as that may harm the feelings of others, which may affect their working performance. You will be bred to work and nothing more.

You liberals, you leftists, are all working towards creating a new Communist state.

Do not say you didn't expect it.

[Sensationalism]

At 2/22/14 03:52 PM, Frenzy wrote: Gonna play devil's advocate here...

Pedophiles cannot help but be attracted to children. Is the argument against pedophilia not much the same as our previous (and in some places, current) condemnation of gays?

Now of course, when they kidnap or rape, or both, these children, it is obviously wrong. But I'm talking about cases of consent. So we picked an arbitrary age when people are supposedly able to magically decide whether they want to have sex or not.

I know fourteen year olds who are mature than some thirty year olds.

Could not be less true.

Perhaps I'm biased because I am a caretaker. But 18 year olds don't even have fully developed brains and you're making the argument that 14 year olds do? I wasn't even done with puberty at that age. And being physically ready doesn't mean you're emotionally ready.

Hahaha consent. There are cases of consent hahaha. Yeah that baby totally didn't say no when I fucked it.

If your argument was that they can fantasize all they want without acting upon it and thus hurting no one I'd agree. Especially if they are born that way, shit would suck. I'm sure the sick fucks you're condoning the behaviors of are the ones that make pedophiles look bad. I'm sure there's at least one or two decent ones who struggle with their attraction and intend no harm.

But it's hard for me to sympathize. I tried to read that Lolita book to be edgy and cool but couldn't even finish it because I was so disgusted.

[Cordyceps]

At 2/22/14 03:57 PM, Frenzy wrote: You just put the word mature in quotation marks to support your argument.

No, I did it to demonstrate how you look like a retard.

And the purpose of the quotation marks is to demonstrate the inherent vagueness and arbitrary aaplication of the term.

Good thing you used them on every other word or else I might have had some idea of what your point is.

And it doesn't matter what you 'wager.' The fact is that such differences in maturity level and age exist, down-skydromed or not.

Interesting how you figure someone twice the age of another could be less mature. I'd like to see your metric for determining maturity, unless its arbitrary, which is counter-intuitive to your argument.

[Spedmallet]

shitstorm'a'brewin'

[kanef]

At 2/22/14 04:07 PM, Lemonardo wrote: Liberals, convinced they are right, keep pushing, keep trying to break down Western culture into elementary parts. First they break the gender barrier, then the race barrier, then the sexuality barrier, and now they're going for the age barrier.

except the age barrier was created by libtards

[CiviLies]

Whoa, watch out Edgy McEdgerson, your edgily edging is too edgy for this place to handle your edginess.

[Frenzy]

I want to say, as I did in my original post, that I am playing devil's advocate here and don't necessarily agree with this.

Come on, no need to get all worked up. It's a question(s) I posed.

At 2/22/14 04:12 PM, Cordyceps wrote: No, I did it to demonstrate how you look like a retard.

And you made yourself look like one in the process. I'd congratulate you, but it's not exactly hard to do and so doesn't warrant it.

Good thing you used them on every other word or else I might have had some idea of what your point is.

Exaggeration is a sign of a shitty argument.

Interesting how you figure someone twice the age of another could be less mature. I'd like to see your metric for determining maturity, unless its arbitrary, which is counter-intuitive to your argument.

There is no metric, that's the point. It's a situation entirely dependent on the individual.

At 2/22/14 04:11 PM, Sensationalism wrote: Could not be less true.

Yes it could. Why not?

Hahaha consent. There are cases of consent hahaha. Yeah that baby totally didn't say no when I fucked it.

You clearly didn't read my whole post.

If your argument was that they can fantasize all they want without acting upon it and thus hurting no one I'd agree. Especially if they are born that way, shit would suck. I'm sure the sick fucks you're condoning the behaviors of are the ones that make pedophiles look bad. I'm sure there's at least one or two decent ones who struggle with their attraction and intend no harm.

I'm saying that acting upon it doesn't inherently hurt someone, depending on the individual in question. Right? Why has the practise developed such a stigma?

But it's hard for me to sympathize. I tried to read that Lolita book to be edgy and cool but couldn't even finish it because I was so disgusted.

I dunno what that is.

[Lemonardo]

At 2/22/14 04:23 PM, kanef wrote:

At 2/22/14 04:07 PM, Lemonardo wrote: Liberals, convinced they are right, keep pushing, keep trying to break down Western culture into elementary parts. First they break the gender barrier, then the race barrier, then the sexuality barrier, and now they're going for the age barrier.

except the age barrier was created by libtards

I think cultural barriers preventing sex between adults and children stretches far further back than modern liberalism.

[Sensationalism]

Your argument is that fucking a child doesn't hurt the child?

You know that they get ripped the fuck up, right?

[Jester]

Pedophiles certainly don't choose to be pedophiles, so they can daydream about shagging 9-year-olds all they want. It's when they actually shag 9-year-olds in or out of a "consenting" context that they get into hot water.

[HeavenDuff]

At 2/22/14 03:52 PM, Frenzy wrote: Gonna play devil's advocate here...

Pedophiles cannot help but be attracted to children. Is the argument against pedophilia not much the same as our previous (and in some places, current) condemnation of gays?

Well, I'm not a psychology specialist, but from what I know there is a difference between being gay and between being attracted to children (I'm not talking about the subject of the sexual desire here). Pedophiles are apparently not "born this way", meaning that this attraction might be linked to traumatic events, or personality issues, or whatever, as for homosexuality. In this sense, pedophilia would be more like schizophrenia for example. I think they call it a psychological disorder.

But I'm not too sure of that explanation. I feel that the scientific discourse is tinted by a strong disapproval of pedophilia and political correctness. I'm pretty sure it would be hard to come up with a theory that would suggest that pedophilia is totally natural.

Now of course, when they kidnap or rape, or both, these children, it is obviously wrong. But I'm talking about cases of consent. So we picked an arbitrary age when people are supposedly able to magically decide whether they want to have sex or not. I know fourteen year olds who are mature than some thirty year olds. You're telling me those "kids" (quotation marks emphasized) don't have the capacity to decide whether sex is right for them, but supposedly those "adults" do? Is it not moreso pedophilia to take advantage of someone who does not know what they are consenting to but is above the legal age limit, thus providing an escape plan for your actions should questions arise, than someone under the 'age limit' who is perfectly sentient and aware of their decisions?

The big issue, at lest in my opinion, is that it's pretty difficult to determine if kids can actually consent. Not that all adults are responsible, rational and in total control over themselves, of course. But when it comes to kids, they are very easy to manipulate, and this is generally why pedophilia is "wrong". The actual attraction, if it isn't caused by mental disorders of course, isn't actually wrong.

But in your post you are talking about kids, but using cases of teenagers being engaged in sexual inter-courses. What you are referring to isn't pedophilia, it is hebephilia. Which is the specific sexual preference of adults for pubescent individuals, generally between 11 and 14 years old.

But what you're saying is right, though. There is an arbitrary age that was selected for judiciary purposes and to simplify things. Since it's pretty hard for judiciary courts or politicians to invade people's bedrooms and determine the capacity of every individual to "consent" and at which age, there was just a line drawn across the board to standardize things up.

(Obviously, babies and young children are off limits, because they have no capacity to choose yet.)

I remember this case, that was discussed in Montreal medias, in which a 12 years old girl had signed up to a dating website to meet adults, and she started dating this 40 years old guy or so and they were eventually caught. I remember thinking that it wasn't such a big issue, considering that the girl signed up on the website by herself. Now of course, you still have to wonder why a 12 years old girl would do something like that and if she was actually in a good psychological situation to take such decisions.

Maybe specialists in children and teenagers psychology could possibly give us more informed opinions on the matter, here.

[Frenzy]

At 2/22/14 04:38 PM, Sensationalism wrote: Your argument is that fucking a child doesn't hurt the child?

You know that they get ripped the fuck up, right?

First of all, many people do the first time they have sex. Second of all, I'm not talking about young kids. What I'm saying is that why is 18 (or 16, whatever) considered suddenly a time when it's okay to make your own sexual decisions? Are there not exceptions to the rule, such as sufficiently mature 14 and 15 year olds, which render such an arbitrary line useless and result in the incarceration of ostensibly innocent people which burden the prisons and thereby the taxpayers?

[Cordyceps]

At 2/22/14 04:28 PM, Frenzy wrote:

Interesting how you figure someone twice the age of another could be less mature. I'd like to see your metric for determining maturity, unless its arbitrary, which is counter-intuitive to your argument.

There is no metric, that's the point. It's a situation entirely dependent on the individual.

So how is an age restriction so outlandish? If you draw the line at 18 years old, then you've placed it where people are generally considered capable of being a functioning individual, and so is expected to be able to do things like think rationally and consent. Otherwise, its a case-by-case basis of whether or not someone should be able to consent to sex which isn't exactly practical.

[Frenzy]

At 2/22/14 04:39 PM, Jester wrote: Pedophiles certainly don't choose to be pedophiles, so they can daydream about shagging 9-year-olds all they want. It's when they actually shag 9-year-olds in or out of a "consenting" context that they get into hot water.

Yeah, I'm not defending having sex with nine year olds. I'm speaking more about later in life (I should have stated that more clearly in my original post).

At 2/22/14 04:39 PM, HeavenDuff wrote: Well, I'm not a psychology specialist, but from what I know there is a difference between being gay and between being attracted to children (I'm not talking about the subject of the sexual desire here). Pedophiles are apparently not "born this way", meaning that this attraction might be linked to traumatic events, or personality issues, or whatever, as for homosexuality. In this sense, pedophilia would be more like schizophrenia for example. I think they call it a psychological disorder.

Interesting. I didn't know that. If that is true, however, it is still out of the pedophiles control- their attraction to children- in the same manner as a gay person is attracted to a member of the same sex, regardless of whether we classify it as a 'disorder' or not.

But I'm not too sure of that explanation. I feel that the scientific discourse is tinted by a strong disapproval of pedophilia and political correctness. I'm pretty sure it would be hard to come up with a theory that would suggest that pedophilia is totally natural.

A fair comment, definitely.

The big issue, at lest in my opinion, is that it's pretty difficult to determine if kids can actually consent. Not that all adults are responsible, rational and in total control over themselves, of course. But when it comes to kids, they are very easy to manipulate, and this is generally why pedophilia is "wrong". The actual attraction, if it isn't caused by mental disorders of course, isn't actually wrong.

Agreed completely.

But in your post you are talking about kids, but using cases of teenagers being engaged in sexual inter-courses. What you are referring to isn't pedophilia, it is hebephilia. Which is the specific sexual preference of adults for pubescent individuals, generally between 11 and 14 years old.

Oh, thanks for that. Didn't know that!

But what you're saying is right, though. There is an arbitrary age that was selected for judiciary purposes and to simplify things. Since it's pretty hard for judiciary courts or politicians to invade people's bedrooms and determine the capacity of every individual to "consent" and at which age, there was just a line drawn across the board to standardize things up.

Yup, agreed. Standardization is an integral part of law; however, it's unfortunate that this standardization is adopted at the expense of true justice. It goes against the spirit of the law, at least to my mind.

I remember this case, that was discussed in Montreal medias, in which a 12 years old girl had signed up to a dating website to meet adults, and she started dating this 40 years old guy or so and they were eventually caught. I remember thinking that it wasn't such a big issue, considering that the girl signed up on the website by herself. Now of course, you still have to wonder why a 12 years old girl would do something like that and if she was actually in a good psychological situation to take such decisions.

Maybe specialists in children and teenagers psychology could possibly give us more informed opinions on the matter, here.

Again, that's interesting. I suppose it would need to be ascertained whether or not the girl had any mental deficiencies that the 40 year old was taking advantage of... or perhaps the other way around? Was she using this 40 year old?

[Sensationalism]

At 2/22/14 04:42 PM, Frenzy wrote:

At 2/22/14 04:38 PM, Sensationalism wrote: Your argument is that fucking a child doesn't hurt the child?

You know that they get ripped the fuck up, right?

First of all, many people do the first time they have sex. Second of all, I'm not talking about young kids. What I'm saying is that why is 18 (or 16, whatever) considered suddenly a time when it's okay to make your own sexual decisions? Are there not exceptions to the rule, such as sufficiently mature 14 and 15 year olds, which render such an arbitrary line useless and result in the incarceration of ostensibly innocent people which burden the prisons and thereby the taxpayers?

Not to as great an extent.
And well then you're not even talking about pedophilia and I am. Stop mislabeling your threads.

As far as hebephilia and age of consent, the laws are there to protect children. You're going to argue with that just because a child thinks they want to have sex? If they want it so bad and love the person so much they can certainly wait.

[Maltos]

At 2/22/14 03:52 PM, Frenzy wrote: Gonna play devil's advocate here...

Pedophiles cannot help but be attracted to children.

Pedophiles are sick and should all go away

[KatMaestro]

At 2/22/14 04:56 PM, Maltos wrote:

At 2/22/14 03:52 PM, Frenzy wrote: Gonna play devil's advocate here...

Pedophiles cannot help but be attracted to children.

Pedophiles are sick and should all go away

I avocate Pedobears. Come at me, retard.

[CiviLies]

At 2/22/14 04:42 PM, Frenzy wrote:

At 2/22/14 04:38 PM, Sensationalism wrote: Your argument is that fucking a child doesn't hurt the child?

You know that they get ripped the fuck up, right?

First of all, many people do the first time they have sex. Second of all, I'm not talking about young kids. What I'm saying is that why is 18 (or 16, whatever) considered suddenly a time when it's okay to make your own sexual decisions? Are there not exceptions to the rule, such as sufficiently mature 14 and 15 year olds, which render such an arbitrary line useless and result in the incarceration of ostensibly innocent people which burden the prisons and thereby the taxpayers?

If I were to have it my way, I'd make it so that nobody can do anything until around the age of 23-25, because that's when the brain is fully developed.

Most people 21 and under (including myself, family, and friends, this BBS, website, the internet, the world) are unwise, naive, or just generally immature in some way or another, putting action before thought and not thinking about the consequences of their actions.

In short: They're dumb as hell. Obviously this is a pretty blanket statement about such a large group of people, and there are exceptions, I'd say this applies to most people. Too many teenagers out there 16-21 can barely handle driving a fucking car properly, and too many people 18-21 can barely drink alcohol responsibly.

What if we just lower drinking, driving, and voting ages as well to follow up on your proposed idea? May as well.

[TheKlown]

What is god was one of us.

[Jester]

At 2/22/14 04:42 PM, Frenzy wrote:

Second of all, I'm not talking about young kids. What I'm saying is that why is 18 (or 16, whatever) considered suddenly a time when it's okay to make your own sexual decisions? Are there not exceptions to the rule, such as sufficiently mature 14 and 15 year olds, which render such an arbitrary line useless and result in the incarceration of ostensibly innocent people which burden the prisons and thereby the taxpayers?

The argument that some people mentally mature faster than others will become valid when we get some kind of reliable mental competency test. Until then, we're gonna have to save our teenager fuckin' for another time and another place.

In related news, just the other day a buddy of mine's 14-year-old cousin ran off with a young adult in the Navy who got her drunk and gang raped her with his pals. Basically everyone in that equation made a lot of poor decisions in a row, but the point is that young minds are often particularly susceptible to manipulation.

[Maltos]

At 2/22/14 04:57 PM, Elitistinen wrote:

At 2/22/14 04:56 PM, Maltos wrote:

At 2/22/14 03:52 PM, Frenzy wrote: Gonna play devil's advocate here...

Pedophiles cannot help but be attracted to children.

Pedophiles are sick and should all go away

I avocate Pedobears. Come at me, retard.

retard? Me? At least I can spell Advocate
And second of all pedophiles are the sickest people
those who can abuse children are the worst kind of human being.

[Insanctuary]

Honestly, I have no idea how anyone can choose their genitals over a whole world so easily. It astounds me how much self-control people do not have. It has always been verily true that all fetishes, whether we perceive it normal or abnormal, are only signs of psychical repercussion -- that sex was never a case of the satiated; for all that is consumed will always be consumed some more. It's a voracious cry, sex is, where in people are driven to fuck not out of primitive reasons, but out of personal reasons that are majorly associated to the person's insecurities, which is why everyone's fetishes are on the opposite side of the spectrum of their normal morals and practices.

[Spedmallet]

At 2/22/14 04:39 PM, HeavenDuff wrote: Pedophiles are apparently not "born this way", meaning that this attraction might be linked to traumatic events, or personality issues, or whatever, as for homosexuality. In this sense, pedophilia would be more like schizophrenia for example. I think they call it a psychological disorder.

You choose to be homosexual and/or a pedophile but you don't choose schizophrenia you pseudo-intellect

[Maltos]

At 2/22/14 05:32 PM, Spedmallet wrote:

You choose to be homosexual and/or a pedophile but you don't choose schizophrenia you pseudo-intellect

Homosexuality is NOT a choice just like being straight is not a choice

[ManDeep]

At 2/22/14 04:25 PM, CiviLies wrote: Whoa, watch out Edgy McEdgerson, your edgily edging is too edgy for this place to handle your edginess.

Stop.