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

[udsuna]

Now you are just demonizing them.

Dude, of COURSE he's demonizing them. THEY RAPE LITTLE KIDS!!!!! There is NO GREATER CRIME that a single human being can commit against another. They devestate a child's world, probably ruining them for life. And by probably, I mean that most never recover at all, ending in suicide or drug overdose or unnecessary violence. Then there's the ones who go out and repeat the crime... becoming the very monsters that created them... yes, I think the word "demon" applies well.

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.

Yeah, well, if someone wanted casual sex with me, then RAPED me, yes, it's wrong as hell. A child can't make that decision because a child does not know that distinction. Same as raping a mentally retarded adult. Pedophelia is a disturbing condition, but in and of itself, it is only a *desire*... the act of carrying it out, that's different.

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 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.

Wrong, just plain wrong. It is the first responsibility of a people to protect their society. And the first responsibility of a society to protect it's people. A society that fails to protect it's members, especially those that cannot protect themselves, has failed in the only thing it's truly meant for.

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.

Actually, he was just fine in his opinions. I take everything but his sarcasm seriously. And even it is well and cleverly placed. I disagree with him in areas (myself being bisexual)... but, the issue of protecting children is more important than my and his petty difference about sexuality between adults. I think if he, I, and a child molester were all in the same room, we could co-operate long enough to beat the "demon" to death... thus doing our job to protect our society.

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?

This, however, I have to give to you. Regardless of "evidence" and "opinion"... innocent until proven guilty. Wacco Jacko is probably guilty as sin, but, I don't know the whole story... no one here does.

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 i dont say that much.

Actually, the fact that you refuse to even accept the evidence that you're wrong. Child molesters (and all child-adult sexual activity is molestation) DESTROY lives. As thoroughly as if they shot them.... more thoroughly, actually... the survival rates (lifespan) for gunshot victims are actually MUCH higher than that of child molestation victims. Bullets either kill or wound, wounds that heal. Molestation creates injuries that are less obvious, but just as horrific, and infinitely harder to treat.

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.

Actually, wrong again. I do believe that the person who started this thread asked for opinions and responces. General call, meaning, he has as much right as you do. Really, moreso, because he's being far more civil. And, for that matter, sane. Oh, and he doesn't have to reply to you, I think I did a good job. He's right-wing, and I'm about as far "left" as they go (or, does "Goddess-worshipping, bisexual, happily promiscuous intellectual" not go far enough to qualify me)... and, somehow, we are both unified in our belief that the wellbeing of the children is more important that some weak-willed scumbag's need to get laid.

[Sasquatch]

First off, I reply to this thread because I can, and I don't make posts that are specifically designed only to insult, offend, or degrade one person, with no other purpose. I can't speak for everybody when I say that though. If Destai wanted to say something to me, he or she should have done it through a PM, but instead did it publicly. You were not involved in the conversation between Destai and myself, nor is there any reason for you to be, because I'm not saying anything specifically to him or her that isn't in plain sight for you to see. Further, this thread wasn't started by you, and when I first replied, you hadn't even made your way in here yet. I was directing those comments to somebody who for some reason comes off to me as a high school freshman, and has made no posts contributing to this thread at all, only expressing his or her confusion or contempt, and not explaining such. I have no problem with somebody having a reasonable disagreement, but when one's objective is simply to degrade another person, and nothing else, that I have a problem with. If it was used as a means to an end, I would understand, otherwise, it's childish, and there's no place for it.

When did I "attack" anybody? I've said that homosexuality, paedophilia, and beastiality are not normal or natural, are you taking that to be an "attack"?

Scott Peterson was found guilty because he was guilty. There was MUCH more than just circumstantial evidence to convict him, and the media only presented him as the main suspect and the evidence--the police were accusing him of the crime, not his victims, unlike Jackson. Only a fraction of the Jackson trial is being released anyway, and jurors aren't allowed to be involved in anything outside the courtroom that might influence their decision. During selection, lawyers try to find jurors who are unexposed to the case already, so everything they hear in the trial is something new, and their mind isn't made up before they go in there. Scott Peterson wasn't targeted for any other murders because there wasn't overwhelming evidence to link him in any other murders, as there was in the murder of his wife and child.

If you're the type of person to say "oh, whatever somebody wants to do, it's their decision", then you go ahead and keep thinking that, but it's that same type of thinking that has and will further cause the downfall of our society, and we'll end up just like Soddom and Ghomorrah.

My point with the dog was to say that if you think it's natural and normal for people to want sex with anything simply because animals do it too, then it would mean that it's "normal" for people to hump the side of the couch, or their cat.

What does Michael Jackson have to do with a thread about paedophilia? Do I really need to explain this to you, or were you simply momentarily confused?

If you disagree with me, concerning this topic or any other, then say so--hell, I invite it. If you find me "pretty outrageous at times", then go ahead and say something, that's what this entire section of the forum is for.

EDIT:

Actually, he was just fine in his opinions. I take everything but his sarcasm seriously. And even it is well and cleverly placed. I disagree with him in areas (myself being bisexual)... but, the issue of protecting children is more important than my and his petty difference about sexuality between adults. I think if he, I, and a child molester were all in the same room, we could co-operate long enough to beat the "demon" to death... thus doing our job to protect our society.

Yes, even if you just shot my dog, I'm sure we would be able to cooperate to beat the hell out of a child molester. After that, though, you better watch out, I love my dog. But not in that way, you know.

I guess Christian, gun-owning, pickup-driving, military man would go about far enough in describing my spot on the political spectrum, and quite often, I do agree with udsuna. There are things we disagree on--even with homosexuality, as I've said before, I disagree with it, but I don't resent decent homosexuals (or bisexuals) because of my stance on the morality homosexuality. Paedophiles, however, are another matter entirely.

[Rostum]

Why does everything have to be about sex?

Yes, if someone was using another for sex, it's wrong. Expecialy when it's rape. An 18 year old can actualy have a relationship with a 14 year old, without sex. I'm absolutely possitive they can. Not everything is about sex. But I agree that rape (in any cirtcumstances) and using / molesting a child is wrong.

Hell, it's just a 4 year gap, nothing out of the ordinary, really.

Edit:
"If you're the type of person to say "oh, whatever somebody wants to do, it's their decision", then you go ahead and keep thinking that, but it's that same type of thinking that has and will further cause the downfall of our society, and we'll end up just like Soddom and Ghomorrah."

People can do whatever they want, that's not to say there aren't consiquences to it...

[Lionx]

You do know that pedophilla and actually raping someone is different right? If its someone molesting another and raping them i would report them to the authorities as well. I meant demonizing Jacko however and i think you mistook me on that, maybe i wasnt clear enough.

What i meant on casual sex was that no one has to go by what Sasquatch said about his definition of a relationship and love and sex and whatever he said on the second paragraph. I dont agree with rape and i dont think i said i do anywhere.

Wrong, just plain wrong. It is the first responsibility of a people to protect their society. And the first responsibility of a society to protect it's people. A society that fails to protect it's members, especially those that cannot protect themselves, has failed in the only thing it's truly meant for.

Uhhh....i dont see how that relates to what you quoted. I do not feel i have any responsibility to protect society necessarily you know? Just like the other guy seeing you being beaten up, he doesnt have to help you. It would be nice if he did but if he doesnt then he doesnt. Society doesnt protect its members too, in some cases it hurts some of those that cant defend themselves. Maybe its first responsibility for you but not for everyone out there.

I think its fine for him to have an opinion too, just he came off as especially offensive and rude many times and i just havent said much about it. Again i am talking about a pedophile, not a child molestor, and i think thats where we got misunderstood. Most people think of pedophiles as child molestors and rapists right off the bat, while i do not and just think of them as people that have a fetish for children.

Actually, the fact that you refuse to even accept the evidence that you're wrong. Child molesters (and all child-adult sexual activity is molestation) DESTROY lives. As thoroughly as if they shot them.... more thoroughly, actually... the survival rates (lifespan) for gunshot victims are actually MUCH higher than that of child molestation victims. Bullets either kill or wound, wounds that heal. Molestation creates injuries that are less obvious, but just as horrific, and infinitely harder to treat.

Again i agree with you about child molestors and rapists. What i am saying is a pedophile, NOT a molestor or rapist. A pedophile does not immediate mean they are one of those.

Just curious can i see some information about rape vs gunshot wounds? I am just curious :3

Actually, wrong again. I do believe that the person who started this thread asked for opinions and responces. General call, meaning, he has as much right as you do. Really, moreso, because he's being far more civil. And, for that matter, sane. Oh, and he doesn't have to reply to you, I think I did a good job. He's right-wing, and I'm about as far "left" as they go (or, does "Goddess-worshipping, bisexual, happily promiscuous intellectual" not go far enough to qualify me)... and, somehow, we are both unified in our belief that the wellbeing of the children is more important that some weak-willed scumbag's need to get laid.

Actually he was the one that put the "dont post here you dont even have to reply" bit.

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 fail to see how that is civil, and the only reason i said that was to let him know, is that really a civil way of talking?

I also agree with you that protecting children is good, maybe it got lost somewhere but i agree with that. Its just you guys put every single pedophile under the assumption they are molestors and rapists. That is untrue and that we should accept that there are people like that but arent molestors and rapists. Maybe i was being unclear and i apologize for that but thats the point i was trying to make.

Think i am insane all you want :P I am pretty liberal too.

EDIT!:

If you're the type of person to say "oh, whatever somebody wants to do, it's their decision", then you go ahead and keep thinking that, but it's that same type of thinking that has and will further cause the downfall of our society, and we'll end up just like Soddom and Ghomorrah.

My point with the dog was to say that if you think it's natural and normal for people to want sex with anything simply because animals do it too, then it would mean that it's "normal" for people to hump the side of the couch, or their cat.

I will keep thinking that way, the guy next to you has every right to shoot you if he wants to, he just has to face the consequences. If you think it will cause the downfall of society, go ahead. I dont care, i think its a perfectly fine way to think, everyone has every right to do something, but they just have to face the consequences.

Normal is also subjective, its normal for us to use cars, but in another society its not. So what is normal to you isnt normal to everyone else. If something is done that is not normal to you does that mean that it isnt done? Is it any less valid? Normal is just not justifyable to me, the act is just is, its up to us to decide if its normal or not.

In any case i aint going to flame as subtlely as you like in some of your paragraphs, because you really are flaming a few people. I wont go to deep into it and i will ignore that from now on because i just see it too often in your posts.

[Sasquatch]

Hell, it's just a 4 year gap, nothing out of the ordinary, really.

Yes and no... When we get to be older, it would be perfectly fine--a 30-year-old being in a relationship with a 35- or a 25-year-old wouldn't be bad. But when it comes to an eight year old, it doesn't matter if the other person is 16 or 60, it ain't right. An 18-year-old having a sexual ("consensual") relationship with a 14-year-old is definitely not right, in my opinion, but, granted, not as bad as anybody in a sexual relationship with a younger child. There are 14-year-olds that know what sex is and think they're ready for it--they're wrong--and unfortunately there are plenty of older sickos that would help those young teenagers fulfill their sexual fantasies, but there's a difference in those young teens and even younger children.

[udsuna]

Yeah, well, we established that distinction. Pedophile: sexually desires children. Child molester: carries out that desire and (in some form) initiates sexual contact with a child. Pedophile: sick, need to be treated and (if not cured) at least controlled. Child molester: moster, should die at the hands of the victem and/or his/her family.

Pretty fair distinction.

[Rostum]

Hell, it's just a 4 year gap, nothing out of the ordinary, really.

Yes and no... When we get to be older, it would be perfectly fine--a 30-year-old being in a relationship with a 35- or a 25-year-old wouldn't be bad. But when it comes to an eight year old, it doesn't matter if the other person is 16 or 60, it ain't right. An 18-year-old having a sexual ("consensual") relationship with a 14-year-old is definitely not right, in my opinion, but, granted, not as bad as anybody in a sexual relationship with a younger child. There are 14-year-olds that know what sex is and think they're ready for it--they're wrong--and unfortunately there are plenty of older sickos that would help those young teenagers fulfill their sexual fantasies, but there's a difference in those young teens and even younger children.

Firstly, I didn't say anything about an 8 year old. I do point out there is a difference in teenagers and children too. A 14 year old will know what it means to have 'some' kind of relationship, just as an 18 year old would. The 18 year old might have an easier time seducing and manipulating the 14 year old though. But there are cases where the 18 year old goes out with the 14 year old not for sex, just for a relationship. >.>; As I said, not everything is about sex.

I'm not saying I would ever go out with someone so young (I'm 18 myself, with a girlfriend who is 6 months older than me). I wouldn't even jump out of the 2 year gap. But that doesn't mean I can't accept another 'real' relationship like I've mentioned up above.

(note: I'm not talking abotu children (who I classify to be younger than 13) and Im just talking about 14-15 year olds and up right now)

[Lionx]

I dont feel pedophiles are necessarily sick is all. I think somehow somewhere you got the impression that i was talking about a molestor or rapist and i think its fine kinda idea. Which is wrong because i do not support them, they can do that but i sure as hell wouldnt like it...

Just want to clear that up, i think we got misconception here.

I dont think its as clear cut as an age cut and all of a sudden that person is not understanding of things, some people know more at a different age. I think age shouldnt matter if handled properly (especially the younger they are).

[udsuna]

I think age shouldnt matter if handled properly (especially the younger they are).

Yeah, well, at 13 or below, "handled properly" is synonymous with "doesn't happen in the first place".

Also, just to note, sexual relationships between two children within the 11-14 range have a tendancy to cause emotional trauma. Arguably blameless, but still very real, damage. It gets progressively worse as the other participant gets older (at least until adulthood).

[Lionx]

Yeah, well, at 13 or below, "handled properly" is synonymous with "doesn't happen in the first place".

I would just say less likely to happen than to put forth a definitive statement...thats all the difference in opinion is however.

Yeah tendency maybe, but not when the person does not want the 14 yr old to be hurt, and actually cares for him. The person is not out just for sex, and relationships should not be focused on sex anyway.

[MJN SEIFER]

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.

Where the smeg did that come from?! my sig refers to an Anime I watch (And have done Since I was 5) where one of the character's personalty was modled on Michael Jackson. (Hense why he's on the picture and "Jacko" has been writen in place of the Character's name - "Hamtaro")

[Sasquatch]

The simple fact is, a 14-year-old is still a child, and not fully matured in any sense. They don't know what they should and shouldn't be getting into, and they're easy to influence. We're all been fourteen years old before...some of us still are, it seems. A child of fourteen is not ready for a sexual relationship, period. And a non-sexual relationship between an older person and a 14-year-old wouldn't be considered paedophilia, would it?

And dude, "peqeños hamsters, grandes aventuras" translates to "small hampsters, big adventures". Included with a picture and reference to Michael Jackson, if that ain't a reference to felching, I don't know what is.

[Kawaii Ryûkishi]

And a non-sexual relationship between an older person and a 14-year-old wouldn't be considered paedophilia, would it?

Pedophilia doesn't require sex. Not even sexualities require sex, really.

And when did you start using the British spelling?

[Sasquatch]

And a non-sexual relationship between an older person and a 14-year-old wouldn't be considered paedophilia, would it?

Pedophilia doesn't require sex. Not even sexualities require sex, really.

And when did you start using the British spelling?

That was my point.

And...I...don't know. I really have no idea. That's a good question. I looked back to my first post in this thread, and I have it spelled like that there, too...hellifino, I'm just weird.

[Destai]

What about when you take into account that many 14 year olds look more adult like than child like. Plenty of 14 year old girls can and do get into over 18 bars.