gay not being a choice and the slippery slope.

Post Reply New Topic

We seem to be conflating different people here.

There is the person who has a sexual attraction to children and nothing more.
There is the person who has a sexual attraction to children and who writes or creates fictional visual images for personal use.
There is the person who distributes works that depict children engaged in sexual acts (whether real or creations of the imagination)
There is the person who actually engages in an act of a sexual nature with a child.

The first has done nothing wrong--and we have no reason to believe that this person will do anything wrong.
The second might, or might not have committed an offence depending upon the jurisdiction, but has done no harm to another person.
The third has committed an offence (in most jurisdictions), and an offence that will generally be tolerated as an appropriate restriction to free expression, even if the subject matter is entirely fictional.
The last has committed a crime, and should be justly punished for that crime, and subject to rehabilitative therapy to mitigate any potential for further offences.

But we talk of "a paedophile," we should be very clear what kind of paedophile we are talking about.

Getting off on killing or being killed is erotophonophilia. Getting off on dead people themselves is necrophilia. It's the act of killing or of dying that turns on the former. The corpse is what turns on the latter. Sometimes they cross over and include both but there are some who just like the killing part.

I'm not sure if they would come under suspicion because they avoid children. There are a lot of people who don't like kids who avoid them and nobody suspects they are pedophiles. People who don't have kids or work with kids usually aren't in situations where they are around kids, except if they are invited to a friends house who has kids. They can always just say that kids get on their nerves, because there are plenty of people that feel that way. Why do you think they would come under suspicion for that?

I thought you could do better than that in your little whataboutery class. Very poor. I can give you a much better and more recent example in Australian history, but you'll have to work that out for yourself.

But still, the Brits as a country are eeeeeeeeeeeeeeevil. Every last one of us. Especially for events committed hundreds of years ago, by the descendants of people we've never met, for things we can't undo even if we wanted to. We have no right to be proud of the good things in our country whilst remembering the bad and making sure that it doesn't happen again. We're all a bunch of Empire-loving racists. Blah blah blah. Irish Nationalist 101.

The Irish would have done exactly the same as the English if they had the muscle and were an independent nation, and they bloody well know it too. The Brit envy on behalf of some Irish people is startling.



Would anyone get a choice in this? Would they have to abandon everything that was theirs? Or would they simply be exiled there? What about people with families, friends, jobs, partners? People with lives? People who love their families and wouldn't hurt them, but also have an attraction to children that they could deal with?

Of course, the more these people are demonised and shipped out, the easier it would be for a politician back home to call for their genocide. They rape kids! They're not people. Put them in a nice little oven.

To be honest, I think it's far better to integrate them into society, provide acceptable outlets for them, perhaps even allow them to get help if they need it and where they can be kept an eye on. It has to be better than letting these people go underground and abuse children undetected.

I think first and second should be legal, with the third being contingent on it being fictional. The fourth is a disgusting creep and should be kicked into jail.

The problem is that most jurisdictions, in the developed world let alone anywhere else, have no 'rehabilitative therapy' and prison in all cases is used as a one size fits all solution.

Moreover rehabilition in this case, is mostly a fallacy. There is no reason or evidence to believe that a paedophile will or even can, get 'better'.

It reminds me of these 'courses' sold by fly by night therapeutic hypnotists with politically partisan agendas that claim to be able to 'cure' homosexuality.

Last edited by thomas81 on 21 Sep 2012, 3:24 pm, edited 1 time in total.

They can manage it though, given the right outlets. Especially the ones who have attraction to adults too.

what do you with the ones without adult attractions?

Surely there has to be a better and more human compromise than locking them in a concrete building where they will be subject to daily stairwell nonce-bashings.

As you said yourself, its not their fault they felt they inclinations they did.

That really depends if they actually did anything to children really, doesn't it?

Are you talking of locking paedophiles up pre-emptively?

Of course not.
The eye of the offender is not something one should take very seriously. Because he acts on his urges, and urges like this overcome moral and rationality, it may not makes sense what he thinks. Paedophilia is hurting children no matter what. It is very intrusive and unnatural for someone that age do experience sex, it is not socially accepted and abnormal, and I think it should be kept that way. They are too young to know what is going on, and they can be very damaged because of it. That is how the human brain works.

I think things like this need serious consideration and radical action. The society needs to be changed, we need to get a better understanding of the human being, and we need to learn to control our seuxual needs, not make it something that need to be "banned" or "locked up". That is so incredibly naive and stupid... We are better than that.


I have heard about a research paper stating otherwise. That porn does not cause people to act out, but rather the opposite. That you said there may be a brave initiative in a desperate and very difficult situation (if we want to abolish child abuse).

There are social issues. Because society can be fragile and delicate, and because society works in that way so that things like this is a problem. There is also general sexual and gender issues, because heterosexuality is something very different from homosexuality. At least heterosexuals (men) have a hard time dealing with something that contradict their nature of being and acting. Sexuality is serious. But problems like this can be overcome.

Im not talking about locking anyone up.

I'm talking about giving protective sanctuary to those that have, or are ever likely to abuse children. Whether that means shipping them offshore or other means.

(Protective to both parties, them and the community)

It is hard to qualify paedophilic activity on the same level as theft, violence or murder when the perpetrator had diminished responsibility for the act due to their natural make up. Moreover given the prison social culture, a convicted paedophile will endure a disproportionate level of punishment at the hands of his or her fellow inmates.

Last edited by thomas81 on 21 Sep 2012, 3:35 pm, edited 1 time in total.

I doubt most people will see it that way. Most people seem to resent the idea of paedophiles even existing and would murder them if they had the chance and could get away with it.

Seems we've reached a circular scenario then.

What sets the worse precedence, Homosexual equality, or summary mob execution of paedophiles?

I think even the right wing derp squad can answer this correctly.

What do you mean by this?

I have absolutely no problem with homosexual equality (though I'd probably remove marriage from the statute books altogether for everyone and put something civic in there which the church can then call what it likes, to be honest, although I'm not particularly bothered either way when it comes to gay marriage). I just think that genocidal actions towards any group is fundamentally despicable.

Humane society. Humane understanding. You don't adress this, because you don't understand it? Oppose it? I don't like this. A paedophile may be an evil crook, a devil and (insert noun for incredibly horrible person), but it may also be a person that is in torment. Which I would imagine. I pity them very much. You seem to have no empathy when you talk about this being a crime and something that should be acted on by law. I don't see any will for understanding, which is a better option. It's obviously something that still needs to be criminalized, but I don't see you nuancing this.

I never said you did have a problem, although it seems that you have some baggage when you stop short of advocating full and unconditional marriage equality.

It seems to me a bit hypocritcal to imply i am advocating 'genocide' towards paedophiles when in the same breath you would castigate them by allowing them to either remain in communities where they are fundamentally unwanted and potentially at risk of violence or even throwing them into a correctional facility again full of potential aggressors.

If you cannot do me the courtesy of reading my entire post, then at least do me the courtesy of quoting all of it, so that the rest of the people reading this thread can see what a total hatchet job you have done to what I said.