Paedophilia

[acooling08]

Interesting article in the Guardian.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/society/2013/jan/03/paedophilia-bringing-dark-desires-light

I found this bit particulary thought provoking:

But there is a growing conviction, notably in Canada, that paedophilia should probably be classified as a distinct sexual orientation, like heterosexuality or homosexuality. Two eminent researchers testified to that effect to a Canadian parliamentary commission last year, and the Harvard Mental Health Letter of July 2010 stated baldly that paedophilia "is a sexual orientation" and therefore "unlikely to change".

[Danizen]

The age of consent seems a bit arbitrary, to me. I've always thought it should go on the age difference since the bigger the age difference, the more chance that the younger partner is being exploited/manipulated and the more chance of them being psychologically damaged by it. A switch doesn't flick in a person's mind when they turn 16 that makes them ready for sex and everything that comes as a result of that.

I kind of agree on one point, though (don't kill me). There is a HUGE difference between being sexually attracted to a young, nubile girl who is almost a woman and lusting after a prepubescent child. The term 'paedophile' shouldn't apply to the former.

[Lamby]

[Danizen]

m

[StanSP]

m

It was a pedobear.

[Guest Bilo]

The age of consent seems a bit arbitrary, to me. I've always thought it should go on the age difference since the bigger the age difference, the more chance that the younger partner is being exploited/manipulated and the more chance of them being psychologically damaged by it. A switch doesn't flick in a person's mind when they turn 16 that makes them ready for sex and everything that comes as a result of that.

I kind of agree on one point, though (don't kill me). There is a HUGE difference between being sexually attracted to a young, nubile girl who is almost a woman and lusting after a prepubescent child. The term 'paedophile' shouldn't apply to the former.

Technically it doesn't.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ephebophilia

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hebephilia

Paedophilia exclusively describes a sexual interest in prepubescents whereas hebephilia and ephebophilia refer to a sexual interest in those at varying degrees of adolescence. Being controversial about it, I would argue that ephebophilia is actually very common given it ties in with the current age of consent and sexual maturity that comes close to adulthood.

[Guest Bilo]

Interesting article in the Guardian.

http://www.guardian....k-desires-light

I found this bit particulary thought provoking:

I would argue that this is a double-edged sword.

Research shows it is extremely difficult to 'cure' someone of paedophilia. This would tie in with early 20th century attempts to 'cure' homosexuality, attempts we now realise to have been extremely naive and morally wrong.

My problem is that labelling paedophilia a sexual preference along the same lines of heterosexuality and homosexuality gives it a legitimacy it doesn't deserve. Heterosexuality and homosexuality usually involves two willing partners, whereas paedophilia involving a prepubescent child does not have that aspect. A prepubescent child doesn't have the cognitive maturity or appropriate physical sexual development to partake in intercourse, which is why it is and always will be illegal.

[Danizen]

Technically it doesn't.

http://en.wikipedia....ki/Ephebophilia

http://en.wikipedia....wiki/Hebephilia

Paedophilia exclusively describes a sexual interest in prepubescents whereas hebephilia and ephebophilia refer to a sexual interest in those at varying degrees of adolescence. Being controversial about it, I would argue that ephebophilia is actually very common given it ties in with the current age of consent and sexual maturity that comes close to adulthood.

I know that but to the media and to 90% of the population, Paedophile is a catch-all term.

[Guest Bilo]

I know that but to the media and to 90% of the population, Paedophile is a catch-all term.

It is indeed, which is part of the problem.

Can you really class a 21 year old man having sex with a 15 year old in the same category as a 40 year old having sex with a 13 year old though?

Legally these factors would likely be taken into account, the latter would definitely get the tougher sentence, but the media and public would lump them all together.

Stick with the old 'half your age plus seven' rule and you won't go far wrong.

[The Doctor]

I would argue that this is a double-edged sword.

Research shows it is extremely difficult to 'cure' someone of paedophilia. This would tie in with early 20th century attempts to 'cure' homosexuality, attempts we now realise to have been extremely naive and morally wrong.

My problem is that labelling paedophilia a sexual preference along the same lines of heterosexuality and homosexuality gives it a legitimacy it doesn't deserve. Heterosexuality and homosexuality usually involves two willing partners, whereas paedophilia involving a prepubescent child does not have that aspect. A prepubescent child doesn't have the cognitive maturity or appropriate physical sexual development to partake in intercourse, which is why it is and always will be illegal.

While I agree, the idea of labelling it a sexual preference giving it a legitimacy it doesn't deserve has been said about homosexuality, likewise the illegality.

Anyway, that aside, since this pretty much covers what I think, I'll post some Brass Eye instead:

[acooling08]

I would argue that this is a double-edged sword.

Research shows it is extremely difficult to 'cure' someone of paedophilia. This would tie in with early 20th century attempts to 'cure' homosexuality, attempts we now realise to have been extremely naive and morally wrong.

My problem is that labelling paedophilia a sexual preference along the same lines of heterosexuality and homosexuality gives it a legitimacy it doesn't deserve. Heterosexuality and homosexuality usually involves two willing partners, whereas paedophilia involving a prepubescent child does not have that aspect. A prepubescent child doesn't have the cognitive maturity or appropriate physical sexual development to partake in intercourse, which is why it is and always will be illegal.

I think the 'two willing partners' is irrelevant when deciding if paedophilia is a genuine sexual preference. Of course because children cannot give consent, it should remain a criminal offence akin to rape, but that doesn't make it any less an innate sexual preference, if indeed it is one.

What about paedophiles who do not engage in their desires? Those who are attracted to children but do not act on it. Should they be viewed as disgusting or evil, or should be viewed as having an unfortunate sexual preference?

[Guest Bilo]

I knew somebody would post a clip from Brass Eye or Monkey Dust and you were always one of the front-runners.

[The Doctor]

Am I that predictable?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uyNHmskN-vo

I love his reaction to being told that he doesn't find his son attractive

[I am Rod Hull]

There is nothing wrong with putting your fist up a 6 year old birds arse.

[Carl the Llama]

Frankly I agree that Paedophiles are genetically pre-disposed in the same way as any other sexual disposition. The problem is that their fetishes are so blatantly morally wrong which raises the question of how best to address the issue. Obviously letting them actually have sex with kids is out the window, as is allowing them access to child porn, but what about things like child-sized sex dolls, or hentai-style porn with kids in? I don't know about the former, but the latter is an actual thing, genre even*, that already exists anyway and I see no problem in paedos wanking to it if it addresses their urges.

*link to a wikipedia page fyi, not porn - even so it's probably best if you don't let anyone catch you reading it at work to avoid awkward workplace relations.

[Guest MattP]

I've actually said this for years, hence why no rehabiliation etc will ever work with them, you can't change anything you are sexually attracted to. I honestly have no idea what to do with them.

but what about things like child-sized sex dolls, or hentai-style porn with kids in?

I know i'm seen as old-fashioned and 'right-wing' on here but I really hope we don't ever get to the day where the taxpayer is funding child sex rolls for peadophiles to shag senseless.

[21st Century Fox]

I've actually said this for years, hence why no rehabiliation etc will ever work with them, you can't change anything you are sexually attracted to. I honestly have no idea what to do with them.

I know i'm seen as old-fashioned and 'right-wing' on here but I really hope we don't ever get to the day where the taxpayer is funding child sex rolls for peadophiles to shag senseless.

With a bit of lube I guess you could **** it...

[Vacamion]

My problem is that labelling paedophilia a sexual preference along the same lines of heterosexuality and homosexuality gives it a legitimacy it doesn't deserve.

I'm also not sure that many towns would be happy to have a Paedo "Pride" march situated there, either.

Well, maybe MIddlesbrough.

[1964FOX]

I agree they can't be cured and arguably they do have an unfortunate sexual liking. However, as with a lot of sex crime it about power and deception, consent has no part in it and they get off on a power trip. There are some truly evil child molesters out there and unfortunately I have met and spoke to several who are very arrogant in the defence of this sexual preference and their desires are in no way a loving sexual act.

It will always be a criminal act and sentences should be long, I have work mates who have been traumatised by working in child protection from the stories they have to hear from offenders who get off on recounting their experiences in great detail.

[MooseBreath]

Technically it doesn't.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ephebophilia

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hebephilia

Paedophilia exclusively describes a sexual interest in prepubescents whereas hebephilia and ephebophilia refer to a sexual interest in those at varying degrees of adolescence. Being controversial about it, I would argue that ephebophilia is actually very common given it ties in with the current age of consent and sexual maturity that comes close to adulthood.

Very common and also perfectly natural given the males desire to find the best mate. These days I would argue that it is natural to find girls as young as 13 sexually attractive given that they have often gone through puberty at that age and are thus ripe for reproduction. Society has determined that this is immoral because society believes the girls 'aren't ready' or some such, which to be fair in a lot of cases is probably true and generally speaking I agree with the age of consent, but it is extremely harsh to label some 19yo who has sex with a 15yo a paedophile and the media shouldn't be doing it. Neither should they be calling people like jimmy saville a paedophile because while he may have been a bit of a wrongun, there is no evidence that he was actually a paedophile.

[Finnegan]

Interesting article in the Guardian.

lol !!! ??? !!! ?!?!?!!

[Bayfox]

An intersting article maybe. And i can see certain merits in the arguements. I was 18 when i met my now wife. She was still 15 for the 1st few times we met. We met in a club and although i knew she was not 18 she told me she was 16. Now i didnt take her home that night but had i and we had sex.

Not sure a pedophile that makes me. However had i been 35 and taking a 15 year old girl home i think it would certainly raise eyebrows. However again does that really make someone a pedo? I can see how people may see it as using power and influence and may look wrong. But it doesn't mean they spend every spare minute wanting sex with a 8-13 y/o.

I find someone who i suppose would be discribed as a sexual preditor, much more alarming. Someone who may spend hours looking at kids on the net. Who are most likely to have been exploted a lot more alarming and yes that maybe enough for most. They may never carry out an actual sexual act on a minor. But the fact that the brain in a person can work like that worries me a lot more.

A person having a one of sexual encounter with a minor. Or someone actually willing to say yes i'm 16 myself and sleeping with my 15 y/o girlfriend is less likely to cause harm.

Yes in law it may make them a criminal. But i think you have to judge each case on merit.

What if a guy of 17/18 has a 14/15 y/o girlfriend who he has been seeing for months they decide to have sex a few times then break up. She reports him to the police. Is he instantly a pedo? He may have been fcuking ever 14 y/o in the village. But it's highly unlikely i guess.

[THEBIGJOHNSTEADER;]

Paedo's are all gay yeah, and all gays have the tendency to become a paedo. So if we cure the paedo's could I turn gay?

[Haydos]

I don't know about other but I've always viewed statutory rape and paedophilia as two fairly different things. I don't think I'd refer to a twenty-something who has sex with a 14/15 year old as a paedophile, just someone who knows the law and despite there being thousands of partners out there of a more appropriate age, has committed a serious crime anyway.

I don't know what I'd judge the cut off point to be when classing a paedophile but I've always associated the word with attraction to 'children', not simply someone who is under the age of consent. I suppose an appropriate classification may be pre-pubescent but that differs from person to person.

TL;DR - Paedophilia and statutory rape are different in my opinion.

[LJS]

I've always considered paedophilia to be a distinct sexual orientation and I was under the impression that it was considered as such by the experts anyway. There is this notion that all paedophiles are 'evil' and while some paedophiles are responsible for some despicable acts I would imagine that there are plenty who fancy kids who don't act upon it.

The moral issue isn't that some people are attracted to children at all, but one of informed consent. A child cannot give informed consent and so any sexual act committed with a child should be considered criminal. A person who is attracted to children should not be considered criminal or deviant if they have not committed any crime. And they aren't, generally, because you don't get many people coming out and telling the world "Hey! I fancy kids but don't worry, I'm not going to **** any!".