What are your views on pedophilia/hebephilia?

[rubah]

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? *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

[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>:[]

[Shlup]

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.

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.

[oddler]

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?

[Agrias]

i cant believe this is still going....

[Shlup]

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!

[oddler]

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

It's all coming around now.

[Shlup]

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.

[Araciel]

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.

[fire_of_avalon]

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

[Araciel]

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

[Shlup]

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

[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.

[Shlup]

Yeah but that sucks.

[Agrias]

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

[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