A thought occurred to me earlier, and I wonder how th erest of you feel about it.
Paedophilia is a sexual preference that society deems unacceptable based (at least partly) on the lack of informed consent on both sides. However, at its base level, it is no more than a sexual preference, just like...redheads, or large chests, or even homosexuality.
Now, at this point I can hear the sucking of teeth and the sharpening of knives so I should say that the militant wing (child abuse) is a horrendous thing which should be stamped out, as should its grown up cousin (rape).
I'm just curious as to why (especially with the age of consent varying throughout the world) we deem being attracted to the young as irrevocably evil, when other preferences are tolerated?
Discuss...
Thread
Posts in chronological order
Well, you don't give a baby a nice fat juicy steak for their first meal.
I'd say, metaphorically, there you have it.
This isn't about your "thing" for the Olsen twins again, is it? They're legal, they just don't eat, P_G!
I'd say, metaphorically, there you have it.
This isn't about your "thing" for the Olsen twins again, is it? They're legal, they just don't eat, P_G!
[QUOTE][QUOTENAME]Micrówave wrote: [/QUOTENAME]This isn't about your "thing" for the Olsen twins again, is it? They're legal, they just don't eat, P_G!
[/QUOTE]
Isn't Lance Armstrong boinking one of them?
[/QUOTE]
Isn't Lance Armstrong boinking one of them?
Pedophilia is taboo because in order for one to satisfy his pedophilia, he must inevitably take advantage of a person who is incapable of making an informed decision.
Also, a child's body is not fit for sexual activities. It's about sheer physical abuse, too. I don't think it's a taboo, it's simply illegal for very good reasons.
and in most sick cases of it, its not like a 18-25 year old liking some one 10 years younger tha them, its 45-60 year old men who go for 8-14 year old girls that really gets dark.
[QUOTE][QUOTENAME]YourValentine wrote: [/QUOTENAME]Also, a child's body is not fit for sexual activities.
[/QUOTE]
The only one who can abuse a child's body is the child himself.
[/QUOTE]
The only one who can abuse a child's body is the child himself.
Have to agree with Barb on this one. Children's bodies (especially girls) are not mature enough for sexual activity. If a young girl is a victim of pedophilia, it causes serious and potentially permanent damage to her body with of course all of the life long consequences that come with it. Young boys is a bit of a different story (as always) but that probably has more to do with the emotional linkages that are made between young children and adults in any relationship.
However, I think another important aspect for this the ancient societal aspect of protection. From the time of cavemen on, children have been seen as vulnerable, and needing to be protected from all harm so that they can grow up and become adults and fully functioning members of society (that's the theory anyway). The idea of a child being subjected to something they don't fully comprehend or understand that could cause them serious mental and physical harm is enough to make any normal adult recoil and want to protect the child from whatever the potential harm is.
Maybe another aspect is the place of sex within modern society? Most people today are active with at least two people in the course of their lifetime, and especially for women who form emotional attachments with their partners, when it all comes crashing down it can be very painful. Therefore, sex is viewed as a risky behavior that often leads to pain or increases the pain when a relationship ends. So the protection of children aspect could relate to protecting them from that kind of emotional pain? I don't know...that was kinda random, but it's nine AM and I just woke up!
However, I think another important aspect for this the ancient societal aspect of protection. From the time of cavemen on, children have been seen as vulnerable, and needing to be protected from all harm so that they can grow up and become adults and fully functioning members of society (that's the theory anyway). The idea of a child being subjected to something they don't fully comprehend or understand that could cause them serious mental and physical harm is enough to make any normal adult recoil and want to protect the child from whatever the potential harm is.
Maybe another aspect is the place of sex within modern society? Most people today are active with at least two people in the course of their lifetime, and especially for women who form emotional attachments with their partners, when it all comes crashing down it can be very painful. Therefore, sex is viewed as a risky behavior that often leads to pain or increases the pain when a relationship ends. So the protection of children aspect could relate to protecting them from that kind of emotional pain? I don't know...that was kinda random, but it's nine AM and I just woke up!
I'd say also that the majority of adults attracted to children are not attracted to them in a romantic way. Instead it's a matter of control. Just as rape is not about the sex, but about humbling or overpowering the victim. It's extremely easy to overpower and control the body and mind of a child.
Besides what YourValentine and HistoryGirl said about the anatomy of a child, HistoryGirl is also correct, IMO, about the emotional toil a sexual relationship would cause a child. They're still trusting and learning, so to 'love' them and take all they have only to soon end the relationship could be/would be devastating. We all know how painful first love is and that usually happens between teens - 'children' close in age. Imagine a younger child not just loving but IN love with an adult - someone they've been taught to trust and obey - who seems to suddenly abandon them. It's emotional abuse no matter how you look at it because the adult is not seeing or treating that child AS a child in any way.
Besides what YourValentine and HistoryGirl said about the anatomy of a child, HistoryGirl is also correct, IMO, about the emotional toil a sexual relationship would cause a child. They're still trusting and learning, so to 'love' them and take all they have only to soon end the relationship could be/would be devastating. We all know how painful first love is and that usually happens between teens - 'children' close in age. Imagine a younger child not just loving but IN love with an adult - someone they've been taught to trust and obey - who seems to suddenly abandon them. It's emotional abuse no matter how you look at it because the adult is not seeing or treating that child AS a child in any way.
Good question; nice and confronting.
I spose it's frowned upon because most other sexual preferences involve people on a mostly even ground making a consensual agreement on what floats their boat. I've never met anyone under the age of consent who was really smart enough to offer their body to an adult, to be honest. Even those early bloomers who 'think' they're ready... they're just idiots, really. There's no getting around it - and idiot is not a dirty word, so I don't want any angry e-mails from 14 year olds here. Young people are just stupid. Their brains are still changing shape (literally). Hell, I'm not sure mine has stopped yet, I'm only 21.. You guys just aren't 'there' enough to be making decisions about taking big sausages in your cornholes.
Basically, sexual preferences aren't held up to scrutiny unless they tread on thing ground concerning hygiene or the ability of either party not really being mature enough to agree to the act.
I like what my friend said about it once : "Ugh, go and get a normal fetish, like boots or something". He's a funny guy, really.
I spose it's frowned upon because most other sexual preferences involve people on a mostly even ground making a consensual agreement on what floats their boat. I've never met anyone under the age of consent who was really smart enough to offer their body to an adult, to be honest. Even those early bloomers who 'think' they're ready... they're just idiots, really. There's no getting around it - and idiot is not a dirty word, so I don't want any angry e-mails from 14 year olds here. Young people are just stupid. Their brains are still changing shape (literally). Hell, I'm not sure mine has stopped yet, I'm only 21.. You guys just aren't 'there' enough to be making decisions about taking big sausages in your cornholes.
Basically, sexual preferences aren't held up to scrutiny unless they tread on thing ground concerning hygiene or the ability of either party not really being mature enough to agree to the act.
I like what my friend said about it once : "Ugh, go and get a normal fetish, like boots or something". He's a funny guy, really.
While we are being open about this, what I do not understand (it's OK I've never seen it myself - and I have no desire to either - but as a purely academic question) why is just LOOKING at an image illegal? (I am not talking about exploitation or fuelling a need - so let's imagine all concearned died many years ago).
I mean, if I take this to a logical conclusion am I not guilty of slavery because I have seen pictures of black slaves in the 'National Geographic' or guilty of murder because I have seen pictures of dead soldiers in history text books?
Also, I read that some users of a fantasy web site 'Myalternativelifestyle.com' (or something like that) have been reported to the police for inventing paedophilia like activities. But hello, it's fantasy. I know it's sick fantasy, but it is still not real.
Other users of this 'Sims' like 'game' can torture, maim or hack virtual 'people' to death and still have this is accepted as harmless 'fun' - but even fantasy paedophilia (at least in legal terms) is seen as a thought crime too far.
Why?
I mean, if I take this to a logical conclusion am I not guilty of slavery because I have seen pictures of black slaves in the 'National Geographic' or guilty of murder because I have seen pictures of dead soldiers in history text books?
Also, I read that some users of a fantasy web site 'Myalternativelifestyle.com' (or something like that) have been reported to the police for inventing paedophilia like activities. But hello, it's fantasy. I know it's sick fantasy, but it is still not real.
Other users of this 'Sims' like 'game' can torture, maim or hack virtual 'people' to death and still have this is accepted as harmless 'fun' - but even fantasy paedophilia (at least in legal terms) is seen as a thought crime too far.
Why?
[QUOTE][QUOTENAME]John S Stuart wrote: [/QUOTENAME]While we are being open about this, what I do not understand (it's OK I've never seen it myself - and I have no desire to either - but as a purely academic question) why is just LOOKING at an image illegal? (I am not talking about exploitation or fuelling a need - so let's imagine all concearned died many years ago).
[/QUOTE]
I'd like to take a stab at this one...
There's the thought among psychologists that pedophilia is 'not curable'. Looking at photos of children - even if those children have grown up and are long gone - implies a need to see or a lust for naked children. It's considered a precursor to child abuse/rape since behavior and need tend to escalate. Therefore, making it illegal to even look can hopefully stop a potential predator at phase one.
???
[/QUOTE]
I'd like to take a stab at this one...
There's the thought among psychologists that pedophilia is 'not curable'. Looking at photos of children - even if those children have grown up and are long gone - implies a need to see or a lust for naked children. It's considered a precursor to child abuse/rape since behavior and need tend to escalate. Therefore, making it illegal to even look can hopefully stop a potential predator at phase one.
???
"I mean, if I take this to a logical conclusion am I not guilty of slavery because I have seen pictures of black slaves in the 'National Geographic' or guilty of murder because I have seen pictures of dead soldiers in history text books?"
John, the slaves were not made slaves and the soldiers were not killed in order to take pictures for some sickos to enjoy while child porn pictures are exclusively taken for the pleasure of paedophiles. The children are used as models in a sexually arousing manner which is a crime.
The virtual "child porn" is not illegal in all countries, it's illegal in Germany but not in the USA as far as I know. I am not sure why it's illegal, it's virtual, no children are harmed.
John, the slaves were not made slaves and the soldiers were not killed in order to take pictures for some sickos to enjoy while child porn pictures are exclusively taken for the pleasure of paedophiles. The children are used as models in a sexually arousing manner which is a crime.
The virtual "child porn" is not illegal in all countries, it's illegal in Germany but not in the USA as far as I know. I am not sure why it's illegal, it's virtual, no children are harmed.
[QUOTE][QUOTENAME]magicalfreddiemercury wrote: [/QUOTENAME][QUOTE][QUOTENAME]John S Stuart wrote: [/QUOTENAME]While we are being open about this, what I do not understand (it's OK I've never seen it myself - and I have no desire to either - but as a purely academic question) why is just LOOKING at an image illegal? (I am not talking about exploitation or fuelling a need - so let's imagine all concearned died many years ago).
[/QUOTE]
I'd like to take a stab at this one...
There's the thought among psychologists that pedophilia is 'not curable'. Looking at photos of children - even if those children have grown up and are long gone - implies a need to see or a lust for naked children. It's considered a precursor to child abuse/rape since behavior and need tend to escalate. Therefore, making it illegal to even look can hopefully stop a potential predator at phase one.
???
[/QUOTE]
Good answer - so why aren't gun magazines or pornography itself not illegal? Surely, using your argument, from these little acorns further crimes can grow too?
As for social mores - do violent movies breed further violence - or are they cathartic and keep violence at bay? For the record, I do not actually know - but I do find the debate interesting!
[/QUOTE]
I'd like to take a stab at this one...
There's the thought among psychologists that pedophilia is 'not curable'. Looking at photos of children - even if those children have grown up and are long gone - implies a need to see or a lust for naked children. It's considered a precursor to child abuse/rape since behavior and need tend to escalate. Therefore, making it illegal to even look can hopefully stop a potential predator at phase one.
???
[/QUOTE]
Good answer - so why aren't gun magazines or pornography itself not illegal? Surely, using your argument, from these little acorns further crimes can grow too?
As for social mores - do violent movies breed further violence - or are they cathartic and keep violence at bay? For the record, I do not actually know - but I do find the debate interesting!
[QUOTE][QUOTENAME]YourValentine wrote: [/QUOTENAME]...the slaves were not made slaves and the soldiers were not killed in order to take pictures for some sickos to enjoy while child porn pictures are exclusively taken for the pleasure of paedophiles...[/QUOTE]
Are you sure this this so in all cases?
If you are saying that children 'model' for proxy-gratification, I agree with your logic and you are obviously so correct.
However, what about 'observed' or action photography? (By that I do not mean staged - but a photographic witness of a real life event - just like the war photography I alluded to above).
(In general) No-one is 'shot' for the camera - rather the camera captures the event - so what if that event was paedophilic - would it still be illegal to view, even if it was (as Pete Townsend claimed) for academic research (such as anti-child war-crimes)?
Again, I do not know the answer, but as a pacifist, I find it abhorent that websites like rotten.com can legally exist (and in most cases show images WORSE than paedophilia), but, as long as they do not stray into an anti-child area, these images are accepted by most internet service providers.
I just do not understand the double-standards involved in how the act of VIEWING an image can be criminalised in some cases - and not in others.
Are you sure this this so in all cases?
If you are saying that children 'model' for proxy-gratification, I agree with your logic and you are obviously so correct.
However, what about 'observed' or action photography? (By that I do not mean staged - but a photographic witness of a real life event - just like the war photography I alluded to above).
(In general) No-one is 'shot' for the camera - rather the camera captures the event - so what if that event was paedophilic - would it still be illegal to view, even if it was (as Pete Townsend claimed) for academic research (such as anti-child war-crimes)?
Again, I do not know the answer, but as a pacifist, I find it abhorent that websites like rotten.com can legally exist (and in most cases show images WORSE than paedophilia), but, as long as they do not stray into an anti-child area, these images are accepted by most internet service providers.
I just do not understand the double-standards involved in how the act of VIEWING an image can be criminalised in some cases - and not in others.