What are your views on pedophilia/hebephilia?

This sexuality has received a somewhat infamous label through the years, and while I do understand the reason, I still don't think the sexuality in itself necessarily is anything *bad*.
Granted, I don't think an underage kiddo should have sexual relationships either, at least not if they are uncomfortable about it.
BUT, I still maintain that the sexuality should be respected, because pedophiles can't help that they are sexually attracted to an "improper" type of people.
I actually feel sorry for them; being sexually attracted to someone you "shouldn't" or "can't" have a relationship with sounds terrible.

To be perfectly honest, I'm a bit of a hebephile myself, because I usually find 14-year-old girld very attractive, and I'm sure lots of other guys my age do it as well.
I see nothing wrong about this, so long as I treat them respectfully and don't go overboard in any way.
The fault about this sexuality is the fact that SOME pedophiles go overboard a lot, and using a child is, of course, totally unacceptable, whatever the reasons.
But we must keep in mind this only concerns a PART of the pedophiles in general; being sexually attracted to children doesn't automatically make you a pervert, it just means you're attracted to children, and some pedophiles might even dislike it themselves.
They dare not confess to their families, because although they would (hopefully) accept it, they're terrified as to what consequences it might result in.

I think pedophilia and hebephilia has earned a deeper understanding; the sexualities are, indeed, very tricky, but they should still be respected as much as possible.

Pedophiles FTW!

(SPOILER)Just don't touch or try to start anything, then I couldn't care less.

REAL LOVE OVERCOME THE AGE BARRIER

Don't touch them. >_>

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Peter_20

But we must keep in mind this only concerns a PART of the pedophiles in general; being sexually attracted to children doesn't automatically make you a pervert, it just means you're attracted to children, and some pedophiles might even dislike it themselves.

---

Many do; self-harm, and/or trying to project it elsewhere (e.g. onto dolls and the like), and other things of a similar nature are common among pedophiles.

Hebephilia is so commonplace I doubt most even see it as a paraphilia.

Pedophiles should be respected insofar as their natural state is such, in the same way as anyone else's orientation is. However, there are good reasons for not acting on these feelings. It really does suck to be them, but that's life; hopefully one day we'll figure out how to come to a good solution to the issue.

What's hebephilia? :3

Seeing as illness is defined by the degree which a biological/psychological variation negatively affects a person's life, I see these "sexualities" as illnesses that should be treated. Though there is currently no effective treatment for them. Sux.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Jojee

What's hebephilia? :3

---

Welcome to internets, Joyee.

hebephilia

1. sexual attraction felt by an adult to young people; ephebophilia

ephebophilia

1. a sexual orientation or preference in which an adult's primary sexual attraction is towards pubescent or postpubescent adolescents

I think society has a pretty skewed idea of what natural attraction is. For example, it's often considered pedophilia for a 40-year old man to find a 16-year old girl attractive. Why wouldn't he? He probably found such girls attractive when he was that age, so it's not like his attention to that sort of detail is going to up and change later on in life. Of course, acting on it is another story... and another issue aside.

However, there is a very big difference when it comes to much younger people. I don't really understand how an 8-year old could be considered attractive by any means. They're just... not physically developed. But if a person does indeed feel attraction to 8-year olds, then I think it would be more for psychological reasons, and not necessarily something related to biological orientation. I really have no clue, though. A lot of people suggest that pedophilia must be a hard-wired trait, given that it's so difficult to "treat." But as far as my opinion is concerned, I think most of the difficulty in dealing with pedophilia is that too many people have strong feelings toward the issue, and it would be difficult to set that aside for the sake of making a scientific effort to understand it. i.e., it's easier to say that pedophiles are simply sick rather than actually studying the psychology of it.

OK having feelings like that towards a child may be beyond someones control but acting on those feelings is not. I do find that saying one day its illegal and the next is fine because its their birthday is ludicrous but like drinking, smoking etc there has to be an age limit and it will by definition be a bit daft.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Youjirou

I think society has a pretty skewed idea of what natural attraction is. For example, it's often considered pedophilia for a 40-year old man to find a 16-year old girl attractive. Why wouldn't he? He probably found such girls attractive when he was that age, so it's not like his attention to that sort of detail is going to up and change later on in life. Of course, acting on it is another story... and another issue aside.

---

This is what we call "brain development" and/or "maturity." A middle-aged man should not be just as attracted to sixteen-year-old girls as he was when he was sixteen. Tempted by their supple young flesh, maybe, but the level of attraction, if there at all, should be limited so superficial oogling.

>>> At some point of our history society will accept every kind of sexual deviation (we are not civilized enough for this yet), it may take hundred or even thousands of years.. But Im sure society will learn to accept everyone at some point..

Define "accept."

I really feel sorry for people who like children, I mean sure, the ones who kidnap and rape and kill and such, is incredibly wrong and awful. But... Those who can't help the attraction, I guess as long as they don't act upon it then it's fine.

Are pedophiles only attracted to children? If yes, then I feel even more sorry for them. (the nice ones)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ShlupQuack

Define "accept."

---

>>> Accept, consent, allow, approbate, approve, authorize, endorse, let, permit, sanction... or something like that.

So we should allow, approve of, and endorse people who like to have sex with babies and/or very young children?

There's nothing even remotely "civilized" about allowing people to rape babies.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ShlupQuack

This is what we call "brain development" and/or "maturity." A middle-aged man should not be just as attracted to sixteen-year-old girls as he was when he was sixteen. Tempted by their supple young flesh, maybe, but the level of attraction, if there at all, should be limited so superficial oogling.

---

That's not a very sensible assertion. The image of sexuality is associated with whatever is fit / healthy / young and able to produce the best genes. The whole purpose of having a sex drive is merely to reproduce, so of course our minds will target whatever they see most fit for this purpose. So, I think people have a natural tendency to be attracted to young persons who are in the prime of their sexual development. (i.e., teenagers) The other group of people -- those who are attracted to specific groups, certain fetishism, etc. -- are just acting on psychological desires.

That's my theory.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by black orb

>>> At some point of our history society will accept every kind of sexual deviation (we are not civilized enough for this yet), it may take hundred or even thousands of years.. But Im sure society will learn to accept everyone at some point..

---

That is a horrific idea. Every kind of sexual deviation? You do realize that this would include things like necrophilia and rape, right? What the HELL is civilized about accepting those kinds of sexual deviance?

Apparently, true civilization comes from the most barbaric values.

I get the feeling that politics are about to become involved in this discussion...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Youjirou

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ShlupQuack

This is what we call "brain development" and/or "maturity." A middle-aged man should not be just as attracted to sixteen-year-old girls as he was when he was sixteen. Tempted by their supple young flesh, maybe, but the level of attraction, if there at all, should be limited so superficial oogling.

---

That's not a very sensible assertion. The image of sexuality is associated with whatever is fit / healthy / young and able to produce the best genes. The whole purpose of having a sex drive is merely to reproduce, so of course our minds will target whatever they see most fit for this purpose. So, I think people have a natural tendency to be attracted to young persons who are in the prime of their sexual development. (i.e., teenagers) The other group of people -- those who are attracted to specific groups, certain fetishism, etc. -- are just acting on psychological desires.

That's my theory.

---

A human's prime reproductive years are not their teen years, so that theory fails right there.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Youjirou

I get the feeling that politics are about to become involved in this discussion...

---

If it were EoEO, you would also fear the slough of religious arguments and the like. Luckily, this is General Chat, so it gains a 75% resistance to such things - usually.

Quote:

---

So we should allow, approve of, and endorse people who like to have sex with babies and/or very young children?

---

Quote:

---

That is a horrific idea. Every kind of sexual deviation? You do realize that this would include things like necrophilia and rape, right? What the HELL is civilized about accepting those kinds of sexual deviance?

---

>>> Its just my vision of the future. Im not saying its ok to do all that stuff, even I dont approve those sexual behaviour, thats why I said we are not ready to accept that kind of stuff right know..
Society always evolve in something completely different If you look at the past of our history many civilizations condemned and committed atrocities and they were ok with it because they thought it was the right thing to do. We are no different from that..

Yeah, but see, society gets more civilized as time goes by, not less... >_>

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Roto13

Yeah, but see, society gets more civilized as time goes by, not less... >_>

---

One would hope, anyways...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Roto13

Yeah, but see, society gets more civilized as time goes by, not less... >_>

---

>>> I feel like our current concept of "more civilized" will radically change in the future generations..

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by black orb

>>> Its just my vision of the future. Im not saying its ok to do all that stuff, even I dont approve those sexual behaviour, thats why I said we are not ready to accept that kind of stuff right know..
Society always evolve in something completely different If you look at the past of our history many civilizations condemned and committed atrocities and they were ok with it because they thought it was the right thing to do. We are no different from that..

---

So... your argument is that though we don't accept things like raping babies now, if we were more "civilized" we would (and if I'm understanding you correctly, we should)?

That's disgusting. Thankfully no remotely reasonable person would ever condone such actions.

I somehow doubt the definition of "civilized" will change to include violating the rights of other humans. Hopefully society will continue to move away from accepting such things.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ShlupQuack

A human's prime reproductive years are not their teen years, so that theory fails right there.

---

Yes, they are. Teenagers having raging hormones for a reason.

I heard somewhere that a male is at his sexual peak at 18 a female at 40. Dont know if thats true but heard it often.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Raistlin

So... your argument is that though we don't accept things like raping babies now, if we were more "civilized" we would (and if I'm understanding you correctly, we should)?

---

>>> Yep, thats exactly my argument, of course I never said we should..

>>> We dont hold the absolute truth about everything, probably the people in the future will think different from us..

anyways, I know you wont understand me but whatever..

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Youjirou

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ShlupQuack

A human's prime reproductive years are not their teen years, so that theory fails right there.

---

Yes, they are. Teenagers having raging hormones for a reason.

---

A human's reproductive peak is late teens to early twenties, not mid-teens. Read a book. Or get a bachelors degree in human development like I did. Either way, sixteen-year-olds are not developed enough to have children as successfully as someone just a couple of years older.

Also, blim, that's close to true, but sexual peak is not the same as reproductive peak. A woman's sexual peak is significantly later than her reproductive peak (mid to late thirties).

And, black orb, we understand you, we just all think you're completely disturbed. The people in the future will not find pedophilia/necrophilia/rape acceptable forms of sexuality. Society has been moving away from those things, not towards.

although i do not like children...in fact i despise them...but that doesnt excuse the fact that sick men are doign sick things to little kids and abusing them on many more levels than we can imagine. The brain of a child is still growing at the age many of them are raped, or molested. As the molestation continues, the childs brain morphs from a happy state to one of despair and disdain for the world. Children who have been molested at an early age have been known to become homicidle even at the early age of 4. Which is why, i believe all pedophiles should be hanged like that important political figure that i cant remember his name right now.....:cool:

On a side note, would someone mind posting a link to a reference or source that talks of the human reproductive peak?

I ask only because my Googling hasn't really been fruitful, nor has Wikipedia.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ShlupQuack

A human's reproductive peak is late teens to early twenties, not mid-teens.

---

I never specified mid-teens.

Quote:

---

Read a book. Or get a bachelors degree in human development like I did.

---

Assertion from Fallacy: Argumentum Ad Hominem

Quote:

---

Either way, sixteen-year-olds are not developed enough to have children as successfully as someone just a couple of years older.

---

16-year old females are perfectly capable of both pregancy and carrying to term.

On a side note, I won't further discuss this with you if you feel it necessary to go the route of ridicule to support your assertions. I have said nothing disrespectful to you that would merit this.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Youjirou

I never specified mid-teens.

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Youjirou

For example, it's often considered pedophilia for a 40-year old man to find a 16-year old girl attractive.

---

Quote:

---

Assertion from Fallacy: Argumentum Ad Hominem

---

I didn't attack you; I implied that I have no reason to believe you know what you're talking about, while this is my specific area of study. So it would technically be an Appeal to Authority fallacy, if you wanted to go there. But at least I know I'm educated on this topic, while all I know about the validity of your claims is that they go against everything I've studied.

Quote:

---

16-year old females are perfectly capable of both pregancy and carrying to term.

---

I didn't say they weren't capable; I said they weren't at their reproductive peak, which was the argument for why it would be perfectly natural for a middle-aged man to find them attractive.

Homosexuality used to be considered an illness, did it not?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by rubah

Homosexuality used to be considered an illness, did it not?

---

What are you implying?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by rubah

Homosexuality used to be considered an illness, did it not?

---

Most still do. We are still clinging to archaic, discriminatory values.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ShlupQuack

And, black orb, we understand you, we just all think you're completely disturbed.

---

>>> Ok..

Quote:

---

The people in the future will not find pedophilia/necrophilia/rape acceptable forms of sexuality. Society has been moving away from those things, not towards.

---

>>> Only the time will tell, and since we are going to be dead by that time we wont know who was right or wrong..

when you think about it, there are still young girls being given in marriage to men who are much more advanced in years. Arranged marriages still exist. I have an arranged marriage that was supposed to go into effect when i was 16, but because the times have changed, its more of a personal choice.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ShlupQuack

I didn't attack you; I implied that I have no reason to believe you know what you're talking about, while this is my specific area of study.

---

"Go read a book" gives the impression that you want to belittle my knowledge of the subject. What I have studied is of no relevance to this discussion, as it is a personal detail about me. Hence, ad hominem -- an appeal to the person, and not the point of the discussion.

Quote:

---

I didn't say they weren't capable; I said they weren't at their reproductive peak, which was the argument for why it would be perfectly natural for a middle-aged man to find them attractive.

---

What do you mean by "reproductive peak"? Maybe I misunderstood you.

Setting that aside for a moment, let's consider something -- images of young girls are plastered all over the place. Whether they are selling common products / services, or blatant pornography, they have become a popular method of advertisement. Since advertisement naturally extends to consumer interest, what does this say about the general population? Either several men are naturally attracted to young girls, or there is an overwhelming instance of pedophilia.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by black orb

>>> Only the time will tell, and since we are going to be dead by that time we wont know who was right or wrong..

---

Raped used to be acceptable, hundreds of years ago. I thought civilization was supposed to move forward, not backward. Also, rape is an action, not a sexual orientation.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Youjirou

"Go read a book" gives the impression that you want to belittle my knowledge of the subject. What I have studied is of no relevance to this discussion, as it is a personal detail about me. Hence, ad hominem -- an appeal to the person, and not the point of the discussion.

---

This isn't EoEO, so I haven't been taking this thread seriously enough to question you knowledge of the subject in a polite way. What you have studies is relevant to the discussion--if you're making claims you should know something about the subject, shouldn't you?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Youjirou

What do you mean by "reproductive peak"? Maybe I misunderstood you.

---

The time at which the human body is best able to produce an offspring. A woman's body is most able to support an offspring after it has fully developed (late teens, at the earliest), and at this point the most desirable genetic material is available. After a woman's reproductive peak birth defects increase either due to damage to her remaining eggs, or just that the more desirable eggs were released before the less desirable ones.

I don't mean sexual peak; I mean reproductive peak. A woman's sexual peak is in her mid-thirties. The function of hormones in the teenage years is to facilitate physical development.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Youjirou

Setting that aside for a moment, let's consider something -- images of young girls are plastered all over the place. Whether they are selling common products / services, or blatant pornography, they have become a popular method of advertisement. Since advertisement naturally extends to consumer interest, what does this say about the general population? Either several men are naturally attracted to young girls, or there is an overwhelming instance of pedophilia.

---

Women in advertisements and pronography are usually in their late teens to early twenties--their reproductive peak. I'm critisizing your notion that it's acceptable for men to be attracted to girls in their mid-teens (sixteen, in your earlier example).

As long as both parties consent honestly, it's whatever. :rolleyes2

A child can't consent to whatever they want. That's why children have parents.

I love EoEO threads in General Chat because I can spam lightly.

And if the child can't consent, then it's rape. I never said rape was cool.

As long as we're clear.

Crystal.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Raistlin

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by black orb

>>> Only the time will tell, and since we are going to be dead by that time we wont know who was right or wrong..

---

Raped used to be acceptable, hundreds of years ago. I thought civilization was supposed to move forward, not backward. Also, rape is an action, not a sexual orientation.

---

>>> Did I mention rape in any of my previous posts?

Anyways, civilizations move forward until they decay (every civilization decay at some point of history) and a new order with totally different beliefs take the control and create a new society..

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ShlupQuack

This isn't EoEO, so I haven't been taking this thread seriously enough to question you knowledge of the subject in a polite way.

---

Thanks. I'll be sure to return the hospitality. :)

Quote:

---

What you have studies is relevant to the discussion--if you're making claims you should know something about the subject, shouldn't you?

---

It is relevant to knowledge, but disclosing it in the discussion is pointless. If you can't make an assertion and argue it without saying, "I know more than you" then either your point is weak, or you're being too pre-emptive.

But going by your reason for a moment, if a psychologist asserted that homosexuality is a mental illness, should I not feel entitled to disagree simply because I've never studied psychology?

Quote:

---

The time at which the human body is best able to produce an offspring. A woman's body is most able to support an offspring after it has fully developed (late teens, at the earliest), and at this point the most desirable genetic material is available. After a woman's reproductive peak birth defects increase either due to damage to her remaining eggs, or just that the more desirable eggs were released before the less desirable ones.

I don't mean sexual peak; I mean reproductive peak. A woman's sexual peak is in her mid-thirties. The function of hormones in the teenage years is to facilitate physical development.

---

Source? I want to verify the last statement particularly.

Aside from verifying this, I want to add some food for thought: the technical age of a person doesn't quite matter, so much as the traits reflected in their physical appearance. If a young woman looks healthy, then this tells the onlooker that she is healthy and likely a good candidate for reproduction. This then translates into attraction. Since there is generally no difference in appearance between a 16 and 18-year old female, there can be quite a gap of attraction right after puberty.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by black orb

>>> Did I mention rape in any of my previous posts?

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by black orb

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by black orb

>>> At some point of our history society will accept every kind of sexual deviation (we are not civilized enough for this yet), it may take hundred or even thousands of years.. But Im sure society will learn to accept everyone at some point..

---

Quote:

---

So we should allow, approve of, and endorse people who like to have sex with babies and/or very young children?

---

Quote:

---

That is a horrific idea. Every kind of sexual deviation? You do realize that this would include things like necrophilia and rape, right? What the HELL is civilized about accepting those kinds of sexual deviance?

---

>>> Its just my vision of the future. Im not saying its ok to do all that stuff, even I dont approve those sexual behaviour, thats why I said we are not ready to accept that kind of stuff right know..
Society always evolve in something completely different If you look at the past of our history many civilizations condemned and committed atrocities and they were ok with it because they thought it was the right thing to do. We are no different from that..

---

Either pay more attention to what you're saying, or be more clear.

EDIT:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Youjirou

What you have studies is relevant to the discussion--if you're making claims you should know something about the subject, shouldn't you?

---

It is relevant to knowledge, but disclosing it in the discussion is pointless. If you can't make an assertion and argue it without saying, "I know more than you" then either your point is weak, or you're being too pre-emptive.

But going by your reason for a moment, if a psychologist asserted that homosexuality is a mental illness, should I not feel entitled to disagree simply because I've never studied psychology?[/QUOTE]
I didn't say I know more than you, or that you have to have formally studied the topic to know anything. I said I know what I know, and I know what you're saying goes against everything I've studied.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Youjirou

Source? I want to verify the last statement particularly.

---

I sold back most of my text books. At this point it's not some fact I look up; it's something I know because I've studied it. It's like asking me to give you a source on how to make a peanut butter and jelly sandwich.

Not saying you shouldn't ask; just saying I don't have a ready source.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Youjirou

Aside from verifying this, I want to add some food for thought: the technical age of a person doesn't quite matter, so much as the traits reflected in their physical appearance. If a young woman looks healthy, then this tells the onlooker that she is healthy and likely a good candidate for reproduction. This then translates into attraction. Since there is generally no difference in appearance between a 16 and 18-year old female, there can be quite a gap of attraction right after puberty.

---

And, since a main point of this thread is what's "civilized," we should recognize that a girl looking healthy and supple does not mean we should want to bone her. The human brain doesn't even fully develop until the early 20's, and the last part to develop is the one concerning logic and predicting consequences.

Therefore, the most do-able chicks are those in their early 20's. If a male consistantly wants to have sex with women younger than that they do not have some kind of biological excuse, and so are defunct.

I'm not implying anything. I just see a lot of the same phrases and ideas tossed around in this thread that I've seen used in discussing homosexuality.

And? Do you not see the differences between homosexuality and pedophilia? The two aren't comparable so why even bring it up?

Are you trying to get on my nerves, rubah? :aimmad: *kick*

I'm with rubah on this one.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ShlupQuack

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by black orb

>>> Did I mention rape in any of my previous posts?

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by black orb

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by black orb

>>> At some point of our history society will accept every kind of sexual deviation (we are not civilized enough for this yet), it may take hundred or even thousands of years.. But Im sure society will learn to accept everyone at some point..

---

Quote:

---

So we should allow, approve of, and endorse people who like to have sex with babies and/or very young children?

---

Quote:

---

That is a horrific idea. Every kind of sexual deviation? You do realize that this would include things like necrophilia and rape, right? What the HELL is civilized about accepting those kinds of sexual deviance?

---

>>> Its just my vision of the future. Im not saying its ok to do all that stuff, even I dont approve those sexual behaviour, thats why I said we are not ready to accept that kind of stuff right know..
Society always evolve in something completely different If you look at the past of our history many civilizations condemned and committed atrocities and they were ok with it because they thought it was the right thing to do. We are no different from that..

---

Either pay more attention to what you're saying, or be more clear.

---

>>> Well, Im just talking about sexual deviation, and that does not involve rape (i hope im clear enough). Raistlin already explained: "rape is an action, not a sexual orientation."
Its not my fault that everyone here is posting the word rape, rape, rape, rape, rape, rape, rape!! all friggin time.. I just had to quote those posts with the word "rape" to make my reply..

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Odd Eye

I'm with rubah on this one.

---

I already addressed it (briefly) by my definition of illness in my first post. So blah.

tl;dr too serious for gen chat.

Pedophilia is sick and disturbing.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ShlupQuack

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Odd Eye

I'm with rubah on this one.

---

I already addressed it (briefly) by my definition of illness in my first post. So blah.

---

By your definition, if someone is homosexual and at the same time they feel that it's taking a negative effect on their life, then they are ill, correct?

What's the difference, Shlup?

Edit: Gotta go work now. :tongue:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ShlupQuack

And? Do you not see the differences between homosexuality and pedophilia? The two aren't comparable so why even bring it up?

Are you trying to get on my nerves, rubah? :aimmad: *kick*

---

Don't you be kicking me! I'm just remarking on what other people have said! It seems that black orb would be right, on a superficial view, with his assumption that more and more sexual deviancies (wtp can't spell that >:{) will become acceptable. Sweden did have the pedophile party, didn't it?

I don't think we should practice either, if that's what you're trying to get at, but that's just me and irrelevant of being illnesses or not:p

[edit- and of course some people don't think that homosexuality is a sexual that word I failed at spelling, but I'm talking in general societal definitions, if nothing else, also OMP EOEO>:[]

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Odd Eye

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ShlupQuack

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Odd Eye

I'm with rubah on this one.

---

I already addressed it (briefly) by my definition of illness in my first post. So blah.

---

By your definition, if someone is homosexual and at the same time they feel that it's taking a negative effect on their life, then they are ill, correct?

What's the difference, Shlup?

Edit: Gotta go work now. :tongue:

---

I meant on a more general scale--not how an individual feels it's affecting just their life. If it were that way then a person's ability to claim themselves ill would be endless.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ShlupQuack

I meant on a more general scale--not how an individual feels it's affecting just their life. If it were that way then a person's ability to claim themselves ill would be endless.

---

Good point.

With that said, however, the only way for someone to be ill is to be told that they are by someone else. How is someone else supposed to know what the subject's idea of a negative effect is?

i cant believe this is still going....

You're still thinking too specifically. I'm talking about the standards of society.

Homosexuality is not an illness because it has no negative affect on society.

Pedophilia does have negative affects on society. Engaging children in sexual relationships is damaging to them, and, therefore, damaging to society. I BELIEVE THE CHILDREN ARE OUR FUTURE! TEACH THEM WELL AND LET THEM LEAD THE WAY! SHOW THEM ALL THE BEAUTY THEY POSSESS INSIIIIIIIIIIIIDE!

Why would it be damaging to them as long as they consented?

It's all coming around now.

You mean it's all coming around to what I said about brain development.

A child's brain cannot fully comprehend the consequences of consenting to such things. That portion of the brain isn't even fully developed until a person's early twenties. This is why children have parents; if a child had the mental capacity to make adult decisions, we could just let them raise themselves.

This is why having sex with a child is illegal.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ShlupQuack

You're still thinking too specifically. I'm talking about the standards of society.

Homosexuality is not an illness because it has no negative affect on society.

Pedophilia does have negative affects on society. Engaging children in sexual relationships is damaging to them, and, therefore, damaging to society. I BELIEVE THE CHILDREN ARE OUR FUTURE! TEACH THEM WELL AND LET THEM LEAD THE WAY! SHOW THEM ALL THE BEAUTY THEY POSSESS INSIIIIIIIIIIIIDE!

---

not to mention the fact that abduction usually goes hand in hand with, at the very least, society's perception of pedofilia.

Because children don't know any better. You can't consent to what you don't understand.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by fire_of_avalon

Because children don't know any better. You can't consent to what you don't understand.

---

well it could be said that many people of age of consent don't know any better either, but sexual maturity stands in as a substitute for them

Gotta draw the line somewhere. It's not like having tests and passing out lisences to have sex is a viable option.

well actually...there was thought of giving birthing licenses, and i believe this is practiced in some countries in one form or another...which would be one way of placing restrictions on sexual activity.

Yeah but that sucks.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Araciel

well actually...there was thought of giving birthing licenses, and i believe this is practiced in some countries in one form or another...which would be one way of placing restrictions on sexual activity.

---

what sort of restrictions??....sex only on saturdays...DAMNIT! :(
i work on saturdays :(

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Agrias

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Araciel

well actually...there was thought of giving birthing licenses, and i believe this is practiced in some countries in one form or another...which would be one way of placing restrictions on sexual activity.

---

what sort of restrictions??....sex only on saturdays...DAMNIT! :(
i work on saturdays :(

---

then you're S O L lil' lady!

back on topic...

i think that this issue too often generates a knee-jerk reaction and i just want to say how impressed i am that here it hasn't

I still need you to explain how it is damaging to the child, though, Shlup. I'll get to the brain development thing in a second, too. I think. :p

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ShlupQuack

This is what we call "brain development" and/or "maturity." A middle-aged man should not be just as attracted to sixteen-year-old girls as he was when he was sixteen. Tempted by their supple young flesh, maybe, but the level of attraction, if there at all, should be limited so superficial oogling.

---

That's kinda implying that back when he was 16, there was anything other than being tempted by their supple young flesh. And whatever the reproductive peak might be, teenagers are still, generally speaking, excellent choices for mating with in biological terms. So attraction can't be helped. Acting on it can.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Miriel

That is a horrific idea. Every kind of sexual deviation? You do realize that this would include things like necrophilia and rape, right? What the HELL is civilized about accepting those kinds of sexual deviance?

---

... What's wrong with necrophilia again? Other than it being squicky? You can't hurt an inanimate object.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ShlupQuack

Pedophilia does have negative affects on society. Engaging children in sexual relationships is damaging to them, and, therefore, damaging to society. I BELIEVE THE CHILDREN ARE OUR FUTURE! TEACH THEM WELL AND LET THEM LEAD THE WAY! SHOW THEM ALL THE BEAUTY THEY POSSESS INSIIIIIIIIIIIIDE!

---

That's why pedophiles do their thing :monster: to show children that they are beautiful and loved!

-

If I seem glib, it's because I can't bring myself to care too much about people who've been sexually abused. I was, I'm still alive, it doesn't impact my day-to-day life, except insofar as a determination not to be so infringed upon again. *shrugs* I have no time for excessive QQing about it.

If you want to get Shlup in a serious mood just talk about kids in relation to the adult world.

Or if your goal is to get me to beat you over the head with a metal rod. Either way.

I give up. If you can't think of why it's not appropriate for children to be engaged in sexual activity with adults or otherwise, please feel free to PM me with your address so I can send you something toxic through FedEx.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Araciel

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by fire_of_avalon

Because children don't know any better. You can't consent to what you don't understand.

---

well it could be said that many people of age of consent don't know any better either, but sexual maturity stands in as a substitute for them

---

Sexual maturity can't stand as a substitute, though, especially when more and more girls are reaching sexual maturity at younger and younger ages. I was capable of having babies when I was ten years old. I didn't even know what sex was until a year or so later. I was still convinced that you could get pregnant through kissing.

This reminds me of that thing about the youngest mother ever was something like five years old. I don't feel like looking it up, but can you seriously argue that a 5-year-old gave consent to whomever did that to her? She was sexually mature, obviously.

I think she was six. It's on Snopes.

I'm on your side, you nitpicker! xD [img]http://home.eyesonff.com/images/smilies/heart.gif[/img]

But then it made me curious so I found it. Ta-da

that's the point i was trying to bring up..there's no real way of knowing when we, as a whole society, are ready for the act of sex, let alone the implications of parenthood which can be coupled with it, and since the trend now shows that sexual maturity is somehow coming at younger ages for women, this is even more of an issue. age of consent being higher than ten or so doesn't necessarily mean that it's high enough.

So what you're saying is that just because someone is considered to be old enough and physically mature enough to consent doesn't mean they're necessarily mentally/psychologically mature enough to consent.

yes.

and how this relates to the topic is beyond me at this point i am the confused

;p

Quote:

---

And? Do you not see the differences between homosexuality and pedophilia? The two aren't comparable so why even bring it up?

---

How are they not comparable? Pedophilia is like homosexuality in that it can't be controlled and it isn't a 'choice'. The difference is that one is okay to act on and one isn't. But they're certainly comparable. Equal, even. (Maybe)

Quote:

---

... What's wrong with necrophilia again? Other than it being squicky? You can't hurt an inanimate object.

---

If I were dead I'd want to be treated with more respect than that.

but homosexuality used to be viewed, at least in western society, as horrible, immoral, illegal...

does that mean that pedofilia may one day be the same?? i don't think so.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by nik0tine

Quote:

---

And? Do you not see the differences between homosexuality and pedophilia? The two aren't comparable so why even bring it up?

---

How are they not comparable? Pedophilia is like homosexuality in that it can't be controlled and it isn't a 'choice'. The difference is that one is okay to act on and one isn't. But they're certainly comparable. Equal, even. (Maybe)

---

If you can't decifer what I meant then too damn bad!

And that's why I like having this thread here instead of EoEO.

The only reason that "one is okay to act on and one isn't" is the current state of society. Society says this. Society says that. If Society told you to jump off a cliff, would you do it? Society sees children as immature because that is how it treats them. Children do not have the ability to consent to much because Society will not give it to them.

Children are our future. That is very true. Until we start giving them options, however, we'll never empower them.

Blah.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Jowy

tl;dr too serious for gen chat.

Pedophilia is sick and disturbing.

---

I agree, but since this IS General Chat, I can't leave here without something spamworthy.

I'm surprised there haven't been any Pedobear jokes yet.

Congrats, MILF, you were sexually abused. If you were a decent human being, you'd be able to sympathize with sexual abuse victims. Instead, you're dead inside. Yay for you!

Normal people are devastated by it. Don't EVER downplay that.

roto, you can't really claim to know anything about how MILF has, is, or will deal with his past. You also can't make claims as to how "normal people" handle sexual abuse, unless you have way more experience than I currently believe you do. If you do, I apologize.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Odd Eye

The only reason that "one is okay to act on and one isn't" is the current state of society. Society says this. Society says that. If Society told you to jump off a cliff, would you do it? Society sees children as immature because that is how it treats them. Children do not have the ability to consent to much because Society will not give it to them.

Children are our future. That is very true. Until we start giving them options, however, we'll never empower them.

Blah.

---

No. Society isn't prohibiting children in making decisions they're prepared for. Society is protecting children from having to make decisions concerning things their brains are not physically developed enough to understand.

What foa said. *eats ice cream*

What would happen if children were given the option? Would they grow to understand seemingly uncomprehendable consequences at earlier ages?

Edit: Put it down, Shlup. You never know when Raistlin'll come in and start calling you a fatty. :D

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ShlupQuack

What foa said. *eats ice cream*

---

hahahah

HAHAHA

i don't know why but that's hilarious to me

anyway...i think given the choice, most kids would say 'no' to sex...just a guess though

the choice is in the hands (ew) of adults, and if these adults are 'deviant' enough to want to sex up little kids, that means kids are doing something they don't want to do in most cases. again, i don't know for sure, but i never wanted to participate in actual sex acts of any nature when i was a kid

No and no.

EDIT: That was too Odd Eye.

Given the choice whether or not to have sex with an adult, most children would do what the adult says. Childen are "consentually" sexually assaulted all the time. Children are sexually assaulted without understanding they're being sexually assaulted all the time. More often then not, children don't really know what's being done to them, let alone understand it.

How can you be certain?

*goes to find Raistlin

Edit: Argh. This is getting confusing now. How can you be certain that children would not grow to understand earlier in life?

ah that's true...they more often than not, don't know any better, and agree...it's only through so much teaching of stranger danger do kids learn to scream/run/hoof in the nuts

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by fire_of_avalon

roto, you can't really claim to know anything about how MILF has, is, or will deal with his past. You also can't make claims as to how "normal people" handle sexual abuse, unless you have way more experience than I currently believe you do. If you do, I apologize.

---

It doesn't take a lifetime of being a sex slave to know that sexual abuse can completely smurf someone up, thanks.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Odd Eye

How can you be certain?

*goes to find Raistlin

Edit: Argh. This is getting confusing now. How can you be certain that children would not grow to understand earlier in life?

---

wait, what? Why did you mention me? I don't agree with you. :p

Childrens' understanding is limited by brain development. There are literally physically limitations as to how fast the brain develops and grows, and your ability to use logic and understand the world around you grows with it. Young children cannot be remotely expected to be able to consent to something they have no conceptual understanding of.

but how do you gain conceptual understanding?? kids get sex ed in 5th grade, is that enough knowledge? or do all virgins not have the ability to understand sex and therefore should not have consentual sex?

Well, dag. 178 to 1. I guess I'll stop trying now.

I still say that as long as consent (paired with understanding) from both parties is present that it's fine.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Araciel

but how do you gain conceptual understanding?? kids get sex ed in 5th grade, is that enough knowledge? or do all virgins not have the ability to understand sex and therefore should not have consentual sex?

---

It'd be tough to reproduce if all virgins should never have sex.

But you're able to understand something when your brain is developed enough for you to be able to appreciate and consider the nature of and consequence of such an action. 10-year-olds can't be expected to understand that. 20-year-olds obviously can. Where you draw the line between those is ultimately arbitrary. Modern socieities have typically made that line between 16-18, which is fine with me.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Roto13

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by fire_of_avalon

roto, you can't really claim to know anything about how MILF has, is, or will deal with his past. You also can't make claims as to how "normal people" handle sexual abuse, unless you have way more experience than I currently believe you do. If you do, I apologize.

---

It doesn't take a lifetime of being a sex slave to know that sexual abuse can completely smurf someone up, thanks.

---

At first I didn't understand this, but then I did. The point I was trying to make is everyone deals with abuse differently. While I don't think it's fair for MILF to judge other victims of sexually abuse the way he apparently does, it also doesn't give anyone any right to say mean things about him. What I meant by my second comment was that there's no such thing as normal when you've been through something like that. I understand that isn't apparent, and I apologize for making it seem like I was attacking your knowledge and experience.

yeah works for me raistlin, as usual, you've helped me see.

I would expect a 10-year-old to know that. >.>

imma late bloomer

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Odd Eye

I would expect a 10-year-old to know that. >.>

---

I didn't know the mechanics of sex when I was ten, thank you. And frankly I think I'm better off that having been that way. I only began to understand babies when my sister had one four, and from lack of experience, I still don't understand them fully.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Roto13

Congrats, MILF, you were sexually abused. If you were a decent human being, you'd be able to sympathize with sexual abuse victims. Instead, you're dead inside. Yay for you!

Normal people are devastated by it. Don't EVER downplay that.

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Roto13

It doesn't take a lifetime of being a sex slave to know that sexual abuse can completely smurf someone up, thanks.

---

I could go into detail, but I'm gonna go ahead and tell you to read what you've said in those two posts and think verrrrryyyyy carefully about it.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by I'm my own MILF

If I seem glib, it's because I can't bring myself to care too much about people who've been sexually abused. I was, I'm still alive, it doesn't impact my day-to-day life, except insofar as a determination not to be so infringed upon again. *shrugs* I have no time for excessive QQing about it.

---

I don't understand that logic. If your reason for not caring is because it hasn't affected you to a great extent, surely a reason for caring would be that it does affect others to a great extent?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by fire_of_avalon

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Roto13

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by fire_of_avalon

roto, you can't really claim to know anything about how MILF has, is, or will deal with his past. You also can't make claims as to how "normal people" handle sexual abuse, unless you have way more experience than I currently believe you do. If you do, I apologize.

---

It doesn't take a lifetime of being a sex slave to know that sexual abuse can completely smurf someone up, thanks.

---

At first I didn't understand this, but then I did. The point I was trying to make is everyone deals with abuse differently. While I don't think it's fair for MILF to judge other victims of sexually abuse the way he apparently does, it also doesn't give anyone any right to say mean things about him. What I meant by my second comment was that there's no such thing as normal when you've been through something like that. I understand that isn't apparent, and I apologize for making it seem like I was attacking your knowledge and experience.

---

I really don't care about whether MILF thinks he turned out ok or not. It's the complete callousness to other people who have been through it that really pisses me off. I mean, how cold does someone have to be to say something like that? "Sexually abused as a child? Get over it." It absolutely turns my stomach.

Still doesn't give you the right to question his decency as a human being.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by fire_of_avalon

Still doesn't give you the right to question his decency as a human being.

---

And why the hell not? I can't think of anything that would offend me more than that. That's a horrible thing to say by most standards.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Roto13

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by fire_of_avalon

Still doesn't give you the right to question his decency as a human being.

---

And why the hell not? I can't think of anything that would offend me more than that. That's a horrible thing to say by most standards.

---

Yep im with Roto on this one, Milfs original comment deserve to be treated with contempt although i will extend my sympathies for whatever he went through.

Because your own callousness towards his experience is kind of hypocritical, don't you think? I agree with you in principle - just because you (general "you") live through a bad experience doesn't negate the bad experiences of other people, nor should that stop you from recognizing such an experience as bad. But you are being a jerk about it.

EDIT: to roto

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Roto13

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by fire_of_avalon

Still doesn't give you the right to question his decency as a human being.

---

And why the hell not? I can't think of anything that would offend me more than that. That's a horrible thing to say by most standards.

---

Mostly because we have rules against it. It doesn't matter a bit to me what you think of MILF, but as long as you're using this forum as a conduit of expression, I'm going to yell at you when you break our rules. MILF didn't disrespect a member no matter how icky his viewpoint is perceived. You are disrespecting MILF. You don't have the right to do that on these forums.

If anyone wants to discuss it further, please PM me.

Can't imagine this thread isn't closed.

I think it’s an attachment disorder encouraged by the media.