Why are there laws against paedophilia?

Post Reply New Topic

sorry about that, thought it had been raised at the same time as the alcohol age was raised.

thanks for the correction.

Why would anyone want to support pedophiles anyway? *shudders*

In certain circumstances - i.e. people might want to support their ability to relieve themselves and seek help as long as no children are harmed.

In the UK, a Tory MP has introduced a Private Member's Bill that would, if enacted, make it illegal to read erotic stories involving children. How any children are involved or affected by those, I have no idea.

Scarily, there are some on the left that do, Newsbusters actually had an article on it, about an article from the gawker.

Can you cite your sources for this article? I'd like to see it.


I honestly do not know of anyone on the left who open supports pedophiles. Unfortunately though, there are some sleazy, second rate civil libertarian attorneys in the ACLU who have defended NAMbLA's 1st amendment right to publish material promoting pedophilia.

And little ol' socialist me has had many an argument with libertarians - who in no way were left wing - who were very much supportive of sexual activity with children - they opined that if the child consents, it's fine.

It depends what is meant by supporting pedophiles. Now most of people makes no difference between pedophiles and child molesters. Pedophiles can't say they are pedophiles and if they have problems with they pedophilia, they are afraid to seek help. People are also trying to take them away possibilities how to relieve their sexual tension. This actually increases risk of child sexual abuse.

I agree with Tequila, I have no idea how are children affected by fictional stories about fictional children or by drawings of fictional children etc. Evidence doesn't seem to support a hypothesis, that availability of such material increases child sexual abuse.

Also methods of treatment of pedophiles changed from suppressing their sexuality to learning them to realize their sexuality in a way, that cause no harm to others, learning to recognize dangerous situations and explaining the consequences of having sex with children.

So for me it's not supporting pedophiles for their pedophilia, it's helping people in troubles and defending people from irrational hatred.

http://newsbusters.org/blogs/noel-shepp ... erving-pub

Newsbusters' article has the link to the original article.

Scarily? You know what is scary? The reactions of people under the article. People, who will hate pedophiles no matter what they'll get to know about them. Close-minded people. I don't say that I agree with everything in the article on gawker, but let's check something from it:



A lot of sexologist here say the same. Therefore the therapy changed from trying to change their orientation to prevent child abuse and learn them, how to realize their sexuality in non-harmful way.



What's wrong with that?



That is true. Note, that it doesn't mean that someone, who abuse a child, shouldn't be punished for that.



It's a shame that someone has to hide his sexual orientation. Note that it's not about having sex with children, it's about being attracted to them. I don't think it's good for pedophile to admit his feelings to certain child, but I don't see, why admitting the fact, that someone is attracted to children, in general should be wrong.

I think it's a shame that, things being what they are, paedophiles are generally only ever known about when they do wrong. That is, the climate is such that we can't get a sense of the number of paedophiles who feel what they do but never harm a child.

I do think it's an attraction, and I don't think it can be 'cured'. If we had a better idea of what the non-molesting paedophiles do to go about living their lives, it might help to point the way forward. But I'm perfectly happy with sticking the ones who do attack children in prison for a long, long time.

I would suggest rounding the non-molesting ones up, carting them off somewhere fairly pleasant, and leaving them to it. Maybe some CGI stuff so they can make their own porn.

Yeah, I think experiencing something so bad, like on the level of what Josef Fritzl did to his daughter, might f*ck up a person so bad, they'd be better off dead. My stepbrothers were actually abused very badly by their father, sexually and probably physically as well, and they're definitely very messed up individuals, at least the older two, the youngest one is kinda normal. I think when your parents hurt you like that it damages your psyche more than if a stranger or more distant relative did it as well, since you would also feel guilt and self-hate because you would share their genes and a part of you would probably still love and care about them (maybe).

But then again, I do believe, perhaps naively, that as long as you're alive there's always hope to get better.

OK, that f**king does it.

Let's round up people who haven't done anything criminal at all and deport them out of our sight. Are you serious?

Sorry for being blunt, but such views scare me a hell of a lot more than paedophilia does. This also applies to the sadistic musings of several posters in this thread...

Let's have a look:






As always, I might have something actually *scientific* to add to this thread, both concerning the personality types of child molesters and the psychological impact on those subjected to child sexual abuse.

But why bother preaching science in the presence of barbarians? (Yes, Hopper, MasterJedi, AspieRogue and AspieOtaku, I *am* referring to you!).

I just think it's kind of disturbing how much normal people can hate another human being. Even if it's a pedophile. I don't think the fact a person is a pedophile justifies sadism towards that person. Yes I feel very bad for abused children, children or adults abused in any way is very sad, but one ill turn doesn't deserve another. Pedophiles should be treated or detained but I don't think sadistic behaviour towards them is justifiable in any way. And I certainly don't think a murderer has any right to feel like they're a better person than a pedophile.

Maybe I'm just cynical because the same kind of people that are always harping about how we should just lynch and hang all the pedophiles are the same people who complain that since we don't beat our children anymore, this generation has become unruly, bratty and immoral.

one of the best and most balanced posts in this entire thread.

And what do you think will happen (I've discussed this with Hopper before) when the "host community" decides they have so much hatred for paedophiles (as will inevitably happen when they're considered to be such a disease on society) that they wished they hate the idea of paedophiles even existing anywhere in the world?

From ghettoising paedophiles on a tiny island, it's really not that much of a step to have 'em executed Out of sight, out of mind as it were.

I am still bemused and confounded by this mix of 'throw out all the Muslims!' and 'won't somebody please think of the paedos!'.

Tequila and GGPViper - I am sort of serious. I think there is a question of what to do with those whose inclinations may harm others. From my life, I have long believed restorative justice is impossible - one cannot undo a harm. So the idea would be to have a society where the potential or need for harm is a minimum. However, if we accept some people are biologically oriented to find children sexually attractive (or perhaps simply to harm others), what is to be done? How is harm prevented?

My idea here involves a secure, pleasant community within each country.

Also, GGPViper, I cannot but problematise this idea of bringing 'science' into everything - to assume one can usefully do so involves and invokes a whole lot of other assumptions which may not be founded. However, I am not a barbarian (but I am both a little chagrined and heartened at being considered one by yourself), and would listen to any such 'science' you may present.