Paedophilia

[digitalalba]

Interesting article in the Guardian.

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

I found this bit particulary thought provoking:

Shocking!

And so is this http://www.belfasttelegraph.co.uk/news/world-news/popersquos-child-porn-normal-claim-sparks-outrage-among-victims-15035449.html

[Bayfox]

That was his other point.

You didn't say "because I don't". You state your brain/consciousness/morals tell you it's wrong.

And. Why doesnt yours???

[Phube]

And. Why doesnt yours???

Of course it does!

The point the bloke made was most men don't fancy 'post-pubescent' under 16s because they find them unattractive. It's because our morals tell us it's wrong. Similar to not fancying your relatives!

Which makes paedophilia easier to understand, if they don't have that moral inbuilt then they will not have anyway to tell them it's wrong!

[Bayfox]

Of course it does!

The point the bloke made was most men don't fancy 'post-pubescent' under 16s because they find them unattractive. It's because our morals tell us it's wrong. Similar to not fancying your relatives!

Which makes paedophilia easier to understand, if they don't have that moral inbuilt then they will not have anyway to tell them it's wrong!

I guess that depends if you're willing to put something such as peadophilia down to being a mental illness or something you may be born with?

Cant say i am, i believe your up bringing ie your parents and surroundings make you who you are and instill morals and values. So unless your parents expose you to such things. It must be a concious choice.

[Dr The Singh]

Shocking:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-south-asia-11217772

[acooling08]

Paedophiles are sexually attracted to children.

There is no middle ground here.

If a person (of any age - let's fall into the trap that these scum are old) acknowledges this yet in trying not to act upon this looks at child porn, is that ok? No, it's not because they will be watching images of an unknown chikd being abused.

What if it all gets too much and they do act on their urges?

Unacceptable isn't hard enough for these scum. They should be killed.

A stout liberal promoting the death penalty?

[The Doctor]

I guess you're talking about Mohammad?

I'm pretty sure I've mentioned before that the age of Aisha was 19. And she would have been an actual grown up woman by that age in those times. Probably more grown up than alot of 30 year olds nowadays.

The people who don't know about the age of Aisha (including the many Muslims who don't know) are not scholars like myself and should be ashamed of such slander! Somebody has done a good job of twisting history, and we can be sure that they had an agenda.

And the pope - the one guy on earth who can allow his mates to sexually abuse young kids, cover it up, then when it leaks out just shift them around rather than actually doing anything, and yet still be respected...

However, with the whole mohammed being a kiddy-fiddler, I'm fairly certain a few of the hadiths say married at 6 and he did the deed when she was 9.

[ADK]

150 years ago the age of consent here was 12 i believe.

[FoxyPV]

So if someone accepts they're a paedophile, never acts upon it (porn or worse) and seeks help then they deserve death? Or do you mean if they do act upon it?

By watching child porn, they are acting on their urges, therefore are complicit in child rape. To be perfectly honest I'd kill them all just for being paedophiles.

A stout liberal promoting the death penalty?

In this case, most definitely.

[BoneDog]

And the pope - the one guy on earth who can allow his mates to sexually abuse young kids, cover it up, then when it leaks out just shift them around rather than actually doing anything, and yet still be respected...

However, with the whole mohammed being a kiddy-fiddler, I'm fairly certain a few of the hadiths say married at 6 and he did the deed when she was 9.

This thread has nothing to do with religion really, but I have to respond.

I'm with you on the Pope and other Catholic leaders, but they are nothing to do with Jesus. They are just another bunch of men who have jumped in to hijack religion in order to have control. Happens all the time.

The hadiths prove that Aisha was 19 or 20. The ones that mention 6 and 9 were dodgy as hell and came out of Iraq. Rejected by top dudes at the time, and top scholars (meaning anyone who knows what they are talking about) today. Obviously invented by some narsty small, but powerful, group of Iraqis and foreigners.

Probably people like Dawkins et al who keep bringing this up, even though they know they are wrong. The Muslim hadiths have been tampered with just as Christian texts were tampered with. Happened as soon as both prophets died, and is not even in doubt, so I have no idea why people still bang on about it.

Shocking:

http://www.bbc.co.uk...h-asia-11217772

What has that got to do with the price of bacon? Any point behind it?

Makes about as much sense as me posting this http://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/news/scottish-news/sikh-priests-raped-prostitute-after-1402402

Absolutely irrelevant.

[digitalalba]

They're going to legalise it, no wouldn't do that surely? Well there are peadophillic friends in the media who're promoting us to believe that being a disgusting perverted freak isn't as bad as we imagined.

"But not all paedophiles are child molesters, and vice versa"

Aren't they??

"...and many people who sexually abuse children are not exclusively or primarily sexually attracted to them. In fact, "true" paedophiles are estimated by some experts to account for only 20% of sexual abusers.

Thats not too bad then !!!!!!!!!!

"Nor are paedophiles necessarily violent"

Really?? Try telling that to a victim!!

"one in five of all adult men are, to some degree, capable of being sexually aroused by children"

Are you getting hooked on the idea of legalising evil.

"This is radical stuff. 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"."

To be made legal then.

I can't read anymore. This is a very sad and desperate piece of 'journalism', is it any wonder that sales of the Gaurdian have dropped in the last few years. Do these people believe the general public are thick?

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

[Rincewind]

Is it the Guadian's editorial view or are they just reporting news?

I would say be wary of the ones making those statements. They are supposed experts so will publish what suits them, Some people will say as they are experts they must know. I don't think this is the case regarding this.

[Captain...]

They're going to legalise it, no wouldn't do that surely? Well there are peadophillic friends in the media who're promoting us to believe that being a disgusting perverted freak isn't as bad as we imagined.

"But not all paedophiles are child molesters, and vice versa"

Aren't they??

"...and many people who sexually abuse children are not exclusively or primarily sexually attracted to them. In fact, "true" paedophiles are estimated by some experts to account for only 20% of sexual abusers.

Thats not too bad then !!!!!!!!!!

"Nor are paedophiles necessarily violent"

Really?? Try telling that to a victim!!

"one in five of all adult men are, to some degree, capable of being sexually aroused by children"

Are you getting hooked on the idea of legalising evil.

"This is radical stuff. 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"."

To be made legal then.

I can't read anymore. This is a very sad and desperate piece of 'journalism', is it any wonder that sales of the Gaurdian have dropped in the last few years. Do these people believe the general public are thick?

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

I think you are missing the point, nobody is saying that it should be legal for people to fvck vulnerable children. What it is saying is that some are born, through no fault of their own, sexually attracted to children. They can't control it and in some ways by suppressing it they are more likely to act on it than if it was a recognised medical affliction and they could talk freely and openly about and get help.

A lot of people are born with tendencies that they need to learn to control, whether it is of a sexual nature or an aggressive nature or something else. By recognising it as a genetic problem it gives a legitimacy to what they are feeling and allows them to seek help and get support. Like with anything though, you break the law you get punished, regardless of genetics.

Finally, no the guardian doesn't think the public are stupid, it thinks they are intelligent enough to handle this extremely sensitive topic and discuss it openly and rationally.

[Dr The Singh]

This thread has nothing to do with religion really, but I have to respond.

I'm with you on the Pope and other Catholic leaders, but they are nothing to do with Jesus. They are just another bunch of men who have jumped in to hijack religion in order to have control. Happens all the time.

The hadiths prove that Aisha was 19 or 20. The ones that mention 6 and 9 were dodgy as hell and came out of Iraq. Rejected by top dudes at the time, and top scholars (meaning anyone who knows what they are talking about) today. Obviously invented by some narsty small, but powerful, group of Iraqis and foreigners.

Probably people like Dawkins et al who keep bringing this up, even though they know they are wrong. The Muslim hadiths have been tampered with just as Christian texts were tampered with. Happened as soon as both prophets died, and is not even in doubt, so I have no idea why people still bang on about it.

What has that got to do with the price of bacon? Any point behind it?

Makes about as much sense as me posting this http://www.dailyreco...e-after-1402402

Absolutely irrelevant.

Disagree, The thread is about Paedophilia and a debate has occured about genetics/medical condition, this shows social factors an oppression leading to it, it doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure that one, but you obviously took it to anther level either way, it's relevance is all to see.............