Pedophilia. Is it a problem, and is there a solution?

[Sasquatch]

Micheal Jackson is a paedophile and a child molester, it just hasn't (yet) been proven in court. Actually, the paedophile part prettymuch has, the molestation part hasn't yet.

lionx, I apologize if you don't see me as an "accepting" person when I refuse to "accept" that it's natural or normal for somebody to want to have sex with children. (Or, in the other case, animals.) It just ain't right.

Yes, young teens and children can be "seduced". It is possible to have sexual contact with a young (very young) person that they consent to. But why do they consent? Is it because they know what's going on and want to be involved? Most likely, no. It's because children are the most gullible people in the world. Most of them will believe anything an adult tells them, especially if it's an adult they know--as far as I know, most cases of child molestation happen with somebody that hasn't just met the child, but rather with somebody that's known the child for a while and has earned their trust. A teacher, a relative, a priest, a friend of the family. Look at John Geoghen (or Geoghan?)--he was a Catholic priest and a child molester that made an effort to look for and befriend specific kinds of families, families whose young children would be not only more gullible, but more likely to keep a secret. He would visit the family and the child routinely to gain trust, then use that trust to get what he wanted from the child, and not just once but many, many times, into the child's early teen years. When he was finally caught, I think they had 80 or more proven cases against him, and that's not including all the people who were to ashamed to step up. He lasted six months in prison, until he was killed. At least he got a small taste of what he deserved--and I don't mean jail time.

(EDIT: So we have one guy talking about how it's perfectly natural to want to have sex with anything and everything--from people of the same sex, to children, to animals--and his sidekick in the argument, who's sig translates into "little hampsters, big adventures", and who is an open supporter of Micheal Jackson, a known paedophile and child molester. Tell me people take this seriously.)

What was the point of quoting this? It's not my opinion, it's a logical interpretation of the evidence, as presented by those two members' posts. Your post had no point, other than to try to make me look hypocritical, which didn't work.

[MJN SEIFER]

Micheal Jackson is a paedophile and a child molester, it just hasn't (yet) been proven in court. Actually, the paedophile part prettymuch has, the molestation part hasn't yet.

I don't think he is. Most of how he behaves is because he's childish. When children are children they have sleepovers they even sleep in the same beds some times.

Michael is just doing what people should do. He's not a pedo because he spent a lot of times with many older women (Most of them at the same time :sweatdrop: ) The problem with socity nower days is that people misread every thing because they have dirty minds.

What Jacko does arne't really "Sleepovers" as they have both boys and girls and he is just sleeping with them - that's all!

I have done it - We all have! It's what kids do (I haven done it as an adult - because i'm not an adult yet.)

I have had many girls in my bed with me ever since I was 7. We never had sex we just slept there. Is that really any diffrent to what Michael does?

I really can't picture him as a molestor or pedophile - there's too much against him at the moment.

Even if I new he was one - If some one could show me some solid proof I was wrong and he IS a pedo/molester it would shock me obvioulsly

But it would change nothing. I would still like his songs, His moves, I would still watch Hamtaro/Ham-Ham and I will still support him. I have too I owe that to him.

[Destai]

What was the point of quoting this? It's not my opinion, it's a logical interpretation of the evidence, as presented by those two members' posts. Your post had no point, other than to try to make me look hypocritical, which didn't work.

I think your opinions all over that post. Suggesting they cant be taken seriously because of what Lionx thinks and because MJN supports Micheal Jackson. Pretty similar to claiming DMKA thinks people who disagree with him are bad people.

[Lionx]

Theres a BIG difference between accepting gravity isnt here and that we can accept different people...like how homosexuals arent readily accepted before..? And more people are accepting them now than back then? Something like that. I know you are passionately against pedos, but i disagree that they arent living beings.

What i meant was to help pedophillacs with their attraction to young kids and instead of just making them sleep with kids that might potentially harm them, to resist them better. Instead of shunning them by society looking down on them i feel we should help them with their fetish.

I think Micheal Jackson sleeps with kids, but not molests them. I really think the person did it for the money and nothing else.

The reason why i dont feel like you are an accepting person really is that, most of your posts seem to have a very sarcastic and opinionated way of talking to me when i dont feel i provoked anything but put things on the table to discuss. I certainetly understand where you and the people that have differing opinions about mine come from, somehow it never seems to be reciprocated these days by people. -_-;

If i am insane to you Usunda, so be it. I certainetly dont feel so but if i am, thats me and thats just...too bad. I just refuse to be cruel to people especially when they have different likings or helping them when they got differences that arent easily accepted by society. And you can think what you will about that.

[udsuna]

No, you said that if the relationship was consensual, then it was OK. I'm telling you that such a concept is pure insanity. The damage is inevitable, and often irrepairable. To believe anything but pain can come to the child is, in fact, insanity.


I think that yes, pedophiles should be treated in any way possible. Child molesters, they should be experimented upon to find said treatments... and a few other things in the meantime. I still think that castration is the best of all possible choices at our current level of medical science. Because, frankly, there is no "cure"... anymore than one could "cure" hetero or homo sexualities.

[Lionx]

If you think thats pure insanity thats fine, because i certainetly think that this relationship with the 14 and 18 year old people can work out despite the bumps it might face. If you think thats insanity so be it, but i certainetly think it can, and we can agree to disagree here if you want.

[udsuna]

I agree that the poor 14yr-old is being used... that he's being, for all intents, molested... DESPITE so-called "consent". What could mess them up enough to think their relationship is healthy, I'll never know. Same goes for you, and others like you. But any child molester goes within sight range of my younger relatives, and nothing but death will save them from me.

[Lionx]

I think its equally messed up to think that things wont work out and are in fact twisted just because they do not fit your style of thinking and realm of sanity.

I know them, and if i dont then i be damned, but i have absolute faith in them. The 14 year old has been raped not only once too, and the person accepts him for that, i think anything is possible especially when it does come to love..maybe you have less faith for humanity but even with some of the negativity i seen in that, i dont think this will foul up.

[Emerald Aeris]

Uh, an 18 year old who likes a 14 year old isn't being a pedophile. That's only 4 year difference. An unhealthy relationship, I'd say, but no pedophilism is involved. 20 and 12? I'll give you that.

[Lionx]

How is that unhealthy..?

What is considered pedophism then? I mean whats the age gap? Or is it not talked about its subjective?

[UltimaLimit]

This thread is floundering... I think everybody should keep in mind the following:

The purpose of sexual intercourse is to reproduce. That's it, plain and simple. No sex = no kids = (eventually) no more H. Sap.

Heterosexuality is natural--attraction between a man and a woman. This is what nature intended, because try as they might, two men or two women cannot get each other pregnant.

Homosexuality is a genetic error, because as mentioned, it takes a man and a woman to make a baby. (I am not trying to gay-bash, I'm simply pointing out the facts.)

Pedophilia is unnatural--attraction of an adult to a child. Since children (by which I mean pre-pubescents) are physically incapable of breeding, there is absolutely no reason for them to mate. This is similar to homosexuality in that regard.

Pedophilia itself is considered a large problem mainly because very few like the thought of it, but also because, as mentioned, children end up physcially and emotionally harmed by child molestation (the typical sexual outlet for pedophiles). Homosexuality is not considered a huge problem because it's between two consenting homosexuals. Heterosexuality is not considered a problem at all mainly because the majority of people are heterosexual, but also because male-female sexual relationships produce the next generation.

Obviously, some homosexuals and heterosexuals rape people--pedophiles are not alone there--but they are less likely to rape because their desires aren't as taboo and have more legal outlets. Also, they typically engage in sex with those who are old enough to have some understanding, as opposed to the innocent seven-year-old.

[Lionx]

Sexual intercourse although basically was to make babies, doesnt mean that way these days. I can easily have sex with a women to make them pregnant and then go back to liking men if i was homosexual. If its a genetic error i would think other species out there wont do that stuff too. Or maybe you are just going by reproduction in which i think sex has become more than that lately.

If its natural i would think that anyone out there that likes anything else be it homosexuality, pedo, scat, and any other fetish out there to be genetically dysfuctional then? If thats so, how many people out there are screwed up?

EDIT: I agree though that since alot of the times(alot not all becuase saying all in anything is too far) the child does get hurt from pedo.

[udsuna]

I find myself agreeing with Catboy, go figure... sex isn't about *just* reproduction... if it was, humans would be unable to feel love.

However, most "fetishes" are paraphelias... and THOSE are similar in nature to phobias (only in the oposite direction)... irational desires to perform some action for a sexual purpose. Some are appearantly just a "thing" that happens, and others are caused by abuse, exclusively. Very complex, too much so to explain here.

As far as anyone can tell, heterosexual, bisexual, homosexual, pedophelia and dendrophelia are NOT paraphelias. The don't behave the same way as paraphelias... in fact, they behave EXACTLY like each other.

And you can call any of them "defects" if you so desire, but they're certainly NOT genetic. Identical twins won't necessarily end up with the same sexual identities. Hence, something else... what, I cannot say, but not genes.

[Sasquatch]

MJNSEIFER -- Witnesses (as in, more than one) have testified to personally seeing Jackson with his hand down the pants of little boys, sleeping naked with naked little boys, and more. Children have testified (on top of confirming the others' testimonies) that Jackson had them take sleeping pills and drink wine. On top of all that, your sig translates to "little hampsters, big adventures", a quite obvious reference to the homosexual act of placing a hampster, gerbil, et cetera into one's rectum to feel it squirm around. If and when Michael Jackson is convicted, would THAT be enough proof for you? And just because he's an excellant performer (edit: which I do agree with, he's a great performer), does that mean you should give your money to such an immoral SOB? I guess the money he gets to keep his victims silent has to come from somewhere, right?

I would agree that sex isn't just for reproduction, but I don't see where it would be impossible to love if that were the case. I believe sex was meant to be carried out within the bonds of love, not just with everybody (or everything, in some cases apparently) we want to--we've all heard the whole thing before, yadda yadda yadda--but that it's pleasurable, so it's not a limit. It's not like an "obligation" to do with somebody you love, but neither is it something that shouldn't be taken seriously.

udsuna -- What's dendrophelia? Sorry, I'm not familiar with the term--I may know what you're talking about and can't relate it to the term, but "dendrophelia" doesn't ring a bell right off the bat.

lionx has touched on something I believe I've already pointed out... What is "accepted" now is more than what was accepted in the past, and no doubt less than what will be accepted in the future. Our society is moving more and more towards a place where we can't offend anybody, everybody is special and great like they are and we're just one big happy family. Now, some of our "acceptance" could be considered progress--for example, acceptance of other races, nationalities, cultures (to an extent), females, music, you name it--but some, in the opinions of some, are considered to be something that shouldn't happen--i.e. acceptance of homosexuality as "normal", acceptance of abortion, violent or degrading culture, foreign cars, wine coolers, and tofu. (Those last three were jokes, by the way.) In fact, some people see those "progressive" acceptances as something that shouldn't have happened...there are groups of people that still believe their race is superior to others', or that females don't belong anywhere but raising children, cooking, and cleaning. But the point is, when will it be "accepted" that it's "natural" to want to have sex with animals or children? Inter-racial relationships was a big hurdle for society, as was/is homosexual relationships, when will that hurdle become inter-age relationships, or inter-species? When will society coin terms like "paedophile-phobic", when people that disagree with it are looked down on more than those who participate in it?

EDIT:

If its a genetic error i would think other species out there wont do that stuff too.

I had a dog one time that would hump people's legs constantly. Does that make it alright for me to do, too?

I think your opinions all over that post. Suggesting they cant be taken seriously because of what Lionx thinks and because MJN supports Micheal Jackson. Pretty similar to claiming DMKA thinks people who disagree with him are bad people.

The guy said "use your imagination to finish that sentence negatively". That doesn't mean he's complimenting those that disagree with him, does it, slick? And the outrageous comments by the other two parties--such as saying that zoophilia and paedophilia are perfectly natural and should be accepted, or saying that Michael Jackson "is just doing what people should do"--lend a pretty good thought to the idea that they shouldn't be taken seriously. If you ran across a guy who said the earth is flat and the moon is made of cheese, would you take him seriously? Don't answer that, in fact there's no need for you to reply to me, just as there was no need for you to reply in the first place.

[Lionx]

Now you are just demonizing them. I wouldnt trust anything from the media about him really atm with all the drama. If anything even if he is convicted, it shows nothing. Scott Peterson was found guilty and it was based on circumstancial evidence, none of that mattered after the media demonized him. Theres tons of murders in Maedesto, why wasnt he targeted for the other murders?

Some people do casual sex and do not want a lasting relationship, and its up to that person and the person he or she slept with to decide if its right or not. I mean are you going to care if someone makes your life a drama? No...why should i care what you think about me and the other person? Hate the person all you like it doesnt matter, what matters is the persons involved.

Who knows when Sasquatch? It doesnt matter though what society has to think, its up to the individual i would say. If you dont like homosexuals be that way, just dont hurt them. I certainetly feel that there is no real right and wrong because that is up to us to decide. I hope soon however.

I had a dog one time that would hump people's legs constantly. Does that make it alright for me to do, too?

Sure if thats what you like to do. The other person might not like it but you can if you like, no one is stopping you.

The guy said "use your imagination to finish that sentence negatively". That doesn't mean he's complimenting those that disagree with him, does it, slick? And the outrageous comments by the other two parties--such as saying that zoophilia and paedophilia are perfectly natural and should be accepted, or saying that Michael Jackson "is just doing what people should do"--lend a pretty good thought to the idea that they shouldn't be taken seriously. If you ran across a guy who said the earth is flat and the moon is made of cheese, would you take him seriously? Don't answer that, in fact there's no need for you to reply to me, just as there was no need for you to reply in the first place.

I think you shouldnt be taken seriously either by the way you responded right here, not to mention the other posts you made in just about every forum here. I never really attacked you, so why attack others? This is a discussion board, i wasnt flaming anyone so i had every right to post what i feel. I think because of your conservative and religious ways you shouldnt be taken so seriously because its so heavily biased. I think its sad that you would attack people because they are different from you, i dont have to agree with you at all to be taken seriously by some people. Instead of accepting that there are people that are different and supporting them, we shun them and think they are innatural monsters out there.

What does Micheal Jackson have to do with this besides you trying to get people that believe Jacko commited the crime to agree with you? What does me accepting people out there that like zoophilla or pedophilla all of a sudden make you more valid than meu? If you dont like it fine, no need to try to degrade others. I find you pretty outrageous at times too although i dont say that much most of the time. Plus why are you so bothered about other people and what they think? You are just going to keep being bothered or are you going to accept there are different people out there and they are happy doing something you find wierd?

If you dont like them and want to kill them, fine, just dont be afraid if you get arrested out there. Its your opinion and belief, i have mine too. Maybe we should try to accept there are different opinions besides your own out there sometime? And please please dont reply to this, no one asked you to reply to this thread at all.