Pedophiles

[Coggeh]

Okay , I know some people are going to get really pissed with me on this one but I feel it needs to be addressed and apologies if this has already been done .

Anyway, recently I've been having many debates on pedophilia , but mainly on what should be done with pedophiles . And i cannot come to condone putting them in jail or even contemplate the death penalty for them ,even if their convicted.


Several researchers have reported correlations between pedophilia and certain psychological characteristics, such as low self-esteem[27] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pedophilia#cite_note-26)[28] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pedophilia#cite_note-27) and poor social skills.[29] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pedophilia#cite_note-28) Beginning in 2002, other researchers, most notably Canadian sexologists (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sexology) James Cantor and Ray Blanchard (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ray_Blanchard) and their colleagues, began reporting a series of findings linking pedophilia with brain structure and function: Pedophilic (and hebephilic (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hebephilia)) men have lower IQs,[30] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pedophilia#cite_note-Cantor2004-29)[31] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pedophilia#cite_note-Cantor2005-30)[3] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pedophilia#cite_note-Blanchard2007-2) poorer scores on memory tests,[30] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pedophilia#cite_note-Cantor2004-29) greater rates of non-right-handedness,[30] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pedophilia#cite_note-Cantor2004-29)[3] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pedophilia#cite_note-Blanchard2007-2)[32] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pedophilia#cite_note-31)[33] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pedophilia#cite_note-32) greater rates of school grade failure over and above the IQ differences,[34] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pedophilia#cite_note-33) lesser physical height,[35] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pedophilia#cite_note-34) greater probability of having suffered childhood head injuries resulting in unconsciousness,[36] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pedophilia#cite_note-Blanchard2002-35)[37] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pedophilia#cite_note-36) and several differences in MRI (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MRI)-detected brain structures.[38] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pedophilia#cite_note-Cantor2008-37)[39] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pedophilia#cite_note-38)[40] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pedophilia#cite_note-39) They report that their findings suggest that there are one or more neurological characteristics present at birth that cause or increase the likelihood of being pedophilic. Evidence of familial transmittability "suggests, but does not prove that genetic factors are responsible" for the development of pedophilia.[41] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pedophilia#cite_note-40)I believe they need help , they need conselling , supervision , interaction with other people as much as safely possible and not isolation , a jail cell or an electric chair. This solves nothing , we are reducing ourselves to emotional unrational solutions , we don't need public sex offenders lists where people become scapegoats and become targeted by angry mobs and pushed further into isolation.

Their may be some people who do feel a certain attraction to children but are afraid to seek help because of the fear of being cut off from their friends and family and being put in jail or stigmatised.

I don't know what else to say , so what do others think ? Please any contributions would be welcome.

[Dooga Aetrus Blackrazor]

The safety of children takes a higher priority than pedophiles. However, we do need to work under the notion that pedophiles can be "cured." If we need lists to protect us from released pedophiles, we shouldn't be releasing them in the first place.

If someone is attracted to children and is afraid to seek help, well, what are we supposed to do? Do all people with trait X necessarily compete pedophilia if given the opportunity? There is no evidence to suggest that. Should we criminalize people with a pedophile gene? Well, if 99% of people with the gene were harming children, could we let them all go for the liberty of the 1%?

Innocent until proven guilty is inherently biased towards negative liberties. If people in your community were being slaughtered at random, would you agree to security checks - even though you aren't committing crimes? You might.

Liberty isn't an all or nothing "never harm innocent people no matter what" scenario. Sometimes, we have to be practical. My therapist has to report to the authorities if he thinks I will harm myself or others. Is this requirement of therapists preventing violent people from getting help - for fear of punishment? Probably, to be honest.

If we stop telling authorities when people become threats, will there be significantly more harms committed. Yes.

I do agree that the list is ridiculous, though.

[h0m0revolutionary]

I think I agree with you.

But the term 'pedophile' covers a range of people, not just those who are attracted to children. I would argue that there is absolutly nothing wrong with being a pedophile and that your suggestion that they 'need help' is a little patronising.

If somebody has sexual attraction to minors then that's their business if they act upon that, then it becomes something of concern. So firstly lets differentiate between two sets of people

set 1) Are adult human beings atracted to minors
set 2) as above but they act upon that desire

now set 1 surely is perfectly fine, they don't have any illness, they aren't a danger to children or anyone else, they just have a sexual desire that they can and do keep to themselves.

set 2 act upon said desire and tis is where it becomes contentious. Personally I don't hold that existing society regulates children for the benefit of the child. I tinhk children are not as vunerable as is made out, that pedophilia isn't a huge social problem and that many children are perfectly capable of love, emotions and sexuality.

In that vein then I think as long as relationships as consentual, even if between children and those who are 'adult', then nobody has the right to infringe their ability to a fulfilling relationship (sexual or otherwise).

The only concern is if the child, (or indeed adult!) is being exploited in the relationship, being coerced or blackmailed. But this goes for any and all relationships.

[marxistcritic]

Your right.

[Il Medico]

I don't care how crazy some one is a 30-something anybody, getting on with a eight year old anybody is wrong. I am sure that a lot of people have thoughts about it every once in a while, however, if they act on it is wrong and we need to do something about it. Whether it is prison or a mental institution matters not to me.

[h0m0revolutionary]

I don't care how crazy some one is a 30-something anybody, getting on with a eight year old anybody is wrong. I am sure that a lot of people have thoughts about it every once in a while, however, if they act on it is wrong and we need to do something about it. Whether it is prison or a mental institution matters not to me.

Right or Wrong is a redundant dichotomy. What should be socially frowned upon is exploitative sex with people who haven't the ability to make their choice and aren't mentally capable of dealing with it, regardless of how old one party is.

[Tseka]

The most important rule to abide by when looking at this is that the safety of children is the biggest priority, the second, set up fair juries that look at these cases in objective, logical manner.

[Eva]

I think that our main obstacle in finding solutions to issues such a paedophilia is the social stigma associated with disability, and the overlapping of human behavior with cultural values and morality. In my opinion, social alienation and discrimination are precisely the cause of potentially hazardous behavior. Disability in itself is not responsible for violence and criminality.

[Agrippa]

The problem is that the vast majority of child molesters are not merely "attracted to children", but are getting off on the idea of dominating and controlling them.

Pedophiles are very difficult to "cure". Most of them are perfectly lucid and capable of feigning recovery to get out of the (capitalist or "communist") bureaucratic institution they've been placed in.

I say exile or shoot them. Bourgeois counter-revolution could also be a "mental illness" in need of "treatment", but our autonomy comes first. Same with child molesters.

[scarletghoul]

I got nothing against paedophiles, its just rapists I dont like. Rape is wrong, whatever the age of the victim. If someone rapes a child then they should be charged with rape. But if someone is just attracted to children but doesnt act on his urges then he's not done any harm, he just has a mental problem that needs treating.

[Sasha]

I think I agree with you.

But the term 'pedophile' covers a range of people, not just those who are attracted to children. I would argue that there is absolutly nothing wrong with being a pedophile and that your suggestion that they 'need help' is a little patronising.

If somebody has sexual attraction to minors then that's their business if they act upon that, then it becomes something of concern. So firstly lets differentiate between two sets of people

set 1) Are adult human beings atracted to minors
set 2) as above but they act upon that desire

now set 1 surely is perfectly fine, they don't have any illness, they aren't a danger to children or anyone else, they just have a sexual desire that they can and do keep to themselves.

set 2 act upon said desire and tis is where it becomes contentious.

i completly agree with you until this point.


Personally I don't hold that existing society regulates children for the benefit of the child. I tinhk children are not as vunerable as is made out, that pedophilia isn't a huge social problem and that many children are perfectly capable of love, emotions and sexuality.

In that vein then I think as long as relationships as consentual, even if between children and those who are 'adult', then nobody has the right to infringe their ability to a fulfilling relationship (sexual or otherwise).

The only concern is if the child, (or indeed adult!) is being exploited in the relationship, being coerced or blackmailed. But this goes for any and all relationships.here i think you go wrong until the last paragraph, because thats what it boils down to.

any sexual relationship should be around equality and consent.
(hence why I.M.O. there is nothing wrong with any preference or fetish but acting upon an desire towards childeren, animals, mentaly handicaped, comatose, the dead, ect. is strictly off limits)

and a relationship between an adult and a child can never be equal and consentiual.
childeren should explore their sexuality with other childeren, not with adults.

and adults who have pedophilic desires should limit acting upon them to roleplay with consenting adults. (ie having sex with an adult in a school girl uniform is fine, having sex with schoolgirls is not)

so towards the OP; no there is in principle nothing wrong with pedophilic desires (although i pitty their position) but there is sommething completly wrong with abuse, molestation, rape etc. and thats why i do think society (and more importantly childeren) should be protected against people who act upon those desires with childeren.

[Holden Caulfield]

any sexual relationship should be around equality and consent.
(hence why I.M.O. there is nothing wrong with any preference or fetish but acting upon an desire towards childeren, animals, mentaly handicaped, comatose, the dead, ect. is strictly off limits)

and a relationship between an adult and a child can never be equal and consentiual.
childeren should explore their sexuality with other childeren, not with adults.

and adults who have pedophilic desires should limit acting upon them to roleplay with consenting adults. (ie having sex with an adult in a school girl uniform is fine, having sex with schoolgirls is not)

so towards the OP; no there is in principle nothing wrong with pedophilic desires (although i pitty their position) but there is sommething completly wrong with abuse, molestation, rape etc. and thats why i do think society (and more importantly childeren) should be protected against people who act upon those desires with childeren.

What he said.
Sex with a child is rape, a child is not emotionally or physically developed enough to give informed consent.

[Agrippa]

and adults who have pedophilic desires should limit acting upon them to roleplay with consenting adults. (ie having sex with an adult in a school girl uniform is fine, having sex with schoolgirls is not)

Couldn't that easily just encourage them in their unhealthy sexuality and lead them into newer, higher states of sexual excitement that would lead more predisposed towards acting on their sexual desires?

Again, the point is being missed. No one wakes up and decides to rape little girls because they think schoolgirl outfits are sexy. It's an issue of people (mostly men) being raised to view others merely as a commodity, as an object to sexually stimulate them. And children are among the easiest people to manipulate and control. Child molestation is a "disease" in the same way egomania is a disease. It's one thing to treat the effected, it's another to enable their behavior....

[h0m0revolutionary]

What he said.
Sex with a child is rape, a child is not emotionally or physically developed enough to give informed consent.

Proof plz?

[Kamerat]

I agree with psycho and Holden Caulfield. A child is not able give consent.

However, we do need to work under the notion that pedophiles can be "cured."
This sounds like fundamentalist christians who want to "cure" gays

[h0m0revolutionary]

I agree with psycho and Holden Caulfield. A child is not able give consent.

You're speaking for yourself, not every child.

Maturity comes at very different stages of life, if it strikes early and a child is capable of a fulfilling relationship with somebody who happens to be defined as an adult, then that is their business.

All this talk of 'rape' and such is incredibly condescending. Surely we respect an individuals rationality and ability to decide when and with whom they enter into friendship/relationship whatever. Sure that comes into question at a young age, but to allege every child is incapable of making the decision as to whom they form connections with just isn't reality is it?

[jake williams]

I don't have a lot to contribute because I agree with the general direction of this thread (psycho especially), but I do want to highlight a statement Coggeh made about how the way our society presently treats pedophiles makes them utterly unwilling to seek any kind of help - not necessarily help with a "sickness", if that makes you uncomfortable, but help with a major sexual preference that isn't realizable within healthy, consenting relationships, something that's very sad. You need help to be able to live with that and not act on it (or act on it in ways that don't affect actual children), but it's difficult to get that sort of help in our society right now, and we need to change that both to "protect" children and to help pedophiles, who surely didn't choose to be pedophiles and who deserve our sincere sympathy.

[Sasha]

You're speaking for yourself, not every child.

Maturity comes at very different stages of life, if it strikes early and a child is capable of a fulfilling relationship with somebody who happens to be defined as an adult, then that is their business.

All this talk of 'rape' and such is incredibly condescending. Surely we respect an individuals rationality and ability to decide when and with whom they enter into friendship/relationship whatever. Sure that comes into question at a young age, but to allege every child is incapable of making the decision as to whom they form connections with just isn't reality is it?


i think one of the key definitions of what makes a "child" is the fact that they cant give informed desicsions, the moment they can they stop being a child.
i have both worked with abused childeren as had encouters with their sexual abusers (who most of the time give the same reasoning as you seem to do) and bassed on that experience i must say that its imposible to have an healthy sexual relationship with an child.
and even when i'm wrong and it does happen in some rare occasions the risk to the child is so great that any adult taking it is displaying an form of abuse anyway.

like i said in the age of sexual consent thread (http://www.revleft.com/vb/age-sexual-consent-t86397/index.html):

the fundamentel rule of any relation, sexual or not, should be consent and eqality.

So i see no more problem in two 8 year olds playing "doctors" or 14 teen year olds bonking each other than i have with the sex live of "adults". I do have big problem with (sexual)relationships with a big power imbalance, so like some other people here i'm extremly weary of people having relations with people half their age. (i myself slept with people both 7 years younger than me as with people 20 years older, but i always made sure the power balence was kosher, and stepped away a lot more than the oposite)

and keeping with the consent rule; animals, childeren, dead people, mentaly incapelbels, sleeping/passed out people, etc etc should be/stay off limit to everybody.

so while i dont believe in defining a legal age to when its OK to have sex i do think that working on the basis of that a sexual relationship is only OK when there is equality and consent is an excelent basis to deal with sexual relationship questions in a (ideal) society.




(NB. relating to sexual relationships with mentaly handicaped i must say that there is nothing wrong with profesional sex given by specialists. regonising and fulfilling the needs of handicapd people is not abuse but to the contrary an protection against it.)

[Kamerat]

You're speaking for yourself, not every child.

Maturity comes at very different stages of life, if it strikes early and a child is capable of a fulfilling relationship with somebody who happens to be defined as an adult, then that is their business.

All this talk of 'rape' and such is incredibly condescending. Surely we respect an individuals rationality and ability to decide when and with whom they enter into friendship/relationship whatever. Sure that comes into question at a young age, but to allege every child is incapable of making the decision as to whom they form connections with just isn't reality is it?
No im speaking for all children. A child is a humen being between the stages of birth and puberty. And as you say maturity comes at very different stages in life, which is when the human being is no longer a child. And are therefore able to give consent. I think we agree with each other its just some missunderstand of what age/stage one is considered to be a child.

[jake williams]

No one wakes up and decides to rape little girls because they think schoolgirl outfits are sexy. It's an issue of people (mostly men) being raised to view others merely as a commodity, as an object to sexually stimulate them.
I didn't have time earlier but I wanted to address this. I think at the broadest level it is a pretty complex topic and I get the impression (I vaguely remember hearing some research to this effect but I can't recall the specifics) that there is sort of a split, on one hand between people who are genuinely sexually attracted to children and on the other people who are just violent or psychotic and abuse children because of that. It's not necessarily either/or, and I'm sure there's border cases or crossovers or whatever, but I think those two basic categories are pretty far away from each other.

[Agrippa]

I don't claim to be an expert on the subject, but....

Let's take a gay person. A gay man's brain responds to the hormones of men in the same way a heterosexual woman does. Same with trans-gendered people, they have certain biological, hormonal differences that set them apart from the norm.

Is the same true of pedophiles? Are they born a certain way that makes their brains respond to children the same way we respond to other adults, to respond a certain way to certain signals, certain pharamones put out by children?

I don't think so. I would guess someone who is preoccupied with sexual thoughts of children is doing so to cope in some way with deep psychological trauma.

[Coggeh]

The fact is we don't actually know what causes pedophillia we have to rely on the common traits of pedophiles which are mentioned in the OP.

And just to point out , i don't by any means think its ok for an adult to have sex with a child . A child is in no position to consent with an adult . My position is that adults who may get an urge to have sex with children or attracted to them aren't monsters like you see on the front page of newspapers and on tv . A sexual attraction to children and raping a child are two completely different things .

[Dooga Aetrus Blackrazor]

I agree with psycho and Holden Caulfield. A child is not able give consent.

This sounds like fundamentalist christians who want to "cure" gays

We should try to cure gays if they want to be cured. Why should people be limited by their sexuality orientation if that's not the orientation they'd prefer to have? If sexual attraction is desirable, and there were no stigmas associated with it, wouldn't people want to be bisexual? After all, it increases your options. It's like half your house being ugly. If you could make yourself appreciate that half, too, wouldn't you be better off?

Having a sexual appreciation for children is self-defeating if you're not allowed to act on it. If someone is absolutely hideous and no women found them attractive, their attraction might be justified by pornography. However, pedophiles could still use pornography if they had "normal" sexual attractions. They'd also be able to have healthy relationships.

If a pedophile can't act on their sexuality, I'd suggest it is harmful to them. Not society. Some pedophiles would never harm children, I suspect. However, unrequited love is a terrible thing to force upon people. We should try to develop cures for things that are "contextual problems" simply because people have different interests. Being a man or women is not a problem, but some people want to be another sex. Should we disallow those procedures simply because they have a discriminatory preference?

As for the other debate, sex with children might be harmful as a result of our cultural context. We do tell children something bad happened. However, there are plenty of cases where they are abused. I don't have a degree in pedophilia studies. However, most pedophiles engage in sex with the purpose of exploitation. There is no consideration of their partners humanity when they perform their acts.

If there was consideration, I would say the argument is still complex. Someone who gives a child a back rub isn't necessarily harming them. When you suddenly associate more nerve endings with immorality, I think you're making a mistake. However, the cases of morally appropriate (if there is any) pedophilia are slim or nonexistent.

Sex is a high level physical experience. The child will associate sex with the adult as being pleasurable. If people have one experience that is significantly bad or good, it leaves an impression. Through psychological conditioning, a single pleasurable act can impress upon a child a certain idea about sex.

The child will grow up, then, and associate sexual pleasure with people matching the characteristics of their childhood partner. Before they have the sufficient intellectual means to develop their own personality, they will have a notion of what "good sex involves." If they see someone not meeting the criteria of their early experience, they will be less inclined to sex with them. Furthermore, the stability of relationships with adults will vary. If a kid had sex with a 50 year old man, they will end up looking for sex with 50 year old men. If these two get married, fine. However, you're drastically biasing their evolutionary pursuit of sex in favor of those of a much higher age, aren't you?

I'd suggest we let children follow their inclinations. We should only propose things we think are necessary for the child's well being. That way, when their intellect develops, their motivations will be primarily a reflection of their true nature as opposed to socially imprinted values. If you go through your whole life hating gays, and you're actually gay, it screws you up, doesn't it?

This is an argument I'm just fooling around with now. I don't really care that much. I would suggest, though, that as long as society will tell children pedophilia is wrong, it might be unethical to defend it. This is something I'm iffy about. It pushes for cultural context, but it could also suggest having a black child in a racist society is unethical (maybe it is, I'm not sure).

[jake williams]

I think part of the problem, of course, is that we know so little about sexual desires and activities involving adults and children - frequency, different forms, causes, or really almost anything that we might need to know to address the problems it causes - because it's such a taboo subject and it's very difficult to research at all, never mind properly and exhaustively.

[Kamerat]

@Dooga Aetrus Blackrazor: Sexual orientation cant be cured/changes through therapy (or prayer). As stated in this artical:
http://www.worldnetdaily.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=97940
Which was posted in this thread:
http://www.revleft.com/vb/american-psychological-association-t108953/index.html
Maybe we can help people who dont like their sexual orientation to learn to live with it. And in the case of pedophils, not act upon it.

[Dooga Aetrus Blackrazor]

What are you trying to point out? I believe that pedophilia is theoretically curable? Sure. I didn't say therapy was the cure, and I certainly didn't say prayer was. That's not even an argument. All you're doing is comparing me to someone else. I believe a similar conclusion - not the argument for that conclusion. There are religious people who believe murder is wrong because God says so. That's a stupid reason. Am I ridiculous for being against murder, then?

Why would we help them "not act" on their orientation. It's annoying to not act on your orientations. Would you rather be attracted to women and never be able to touch them? Maybe you would. I never said they should get a mandatory cure. If they want to manage it, work with that. I just suspect some people would want a cure. I like eating unhealthy foods and hate eating healthy foods. If I could change that, I'd prefer it much more than self-control.

Would you rather have to exercise 3 hours a day to stay health, even though you hate it, or love exercising? You deserve the option to choose either. That's all I'm saying.

[Kamerat]

What are you trying to point out? I believe that pedophilia is theoretically curable? Sure. I didn't say therapy was the cure, and I certainly didn't say prayer was. That's not even an argument. All you're doing is comparing me to someone else. I believe a similar conclusion - not the argument for that conclusion. There are religious people who believe murder is wrong because God says so. That's a stupid reason. Am I ridiculous for being against murder, then?So you belive that a unwanted sexual orientation can be cured but not through therapy or prayer. What then? Surgery? Drugs? Hypnosis? Magic?


Why would we help them "not act" on their orientation. We would want pedophils not to act on their sexual orietation because then they are exploiting children.


It's annoying to not act on your orientations.But its even more annoying to let pedophils exploit children.

[R_P_A_S]

oh for fuck sake. not the pedophile discussion again... Im not even going to read some of the replies. Because is fucking repulsive how some "comrades" try to justify it or "question the morals and logic" of sex with children bla bla bla bla bla. SICK SICK SICK. how's that for in depth theory?

[Stranger Than Paradise]

I agree with you on this Coggeh. People who engage in such acts have had serious problems in their lives which can't be cured by prison. They need special help and interaction. I know the victim needs to be considered also but I do also have sympathy with Paedophiles. I htink they need special attention and scapegoating them or putting them in a cell is not curing anything.

[Chambered Word]

In that vein then I think as long as relationships as consentual, even if between children and those who are 'adult', then nobody has the right to infringe their ability to a fulfilling relationship (sexual or otherwise).

The only concern is if the child, (or indeed adult!) is being exploited in the relationship, being coerced or blackmailed. But this goes for any and all relationships.

Give me a break. Most children don't understand the implications of sex and proper relationships, and are more vulnerable than adults. Go back to NAMBLA. Paedophiles are repulsive, and anyone who defends them is no comrade of mine.

Personally I think that paedophilia is a part of one's sexual orientation, and it might be absurd to claim that it is curable. Then again some paedophiles are heterosexual, homosexual, bisexual etc so it might be a part of their sexuality they could overcome with the right counselling.

I wouldn't agree with just giving them a bit of counselling and letting them out, however. I'd have them serve a decent prison sentence, with some help provided, but I certainly wouldn't throw them in with hardened criminals.

EDIT: I would also like to ask the community a question: I'd argue that most cases of paedophilia are rape, is it any different to rape an underage person than it is to rape a legally-aged person? Are the majority of children the most logical, educated and sensible of all human beings, who know what they're consenting to in the event that they genuinely do consent to a paedophilic relationship?

[Stranger Than Paradise]

Give me a break. Most children don't understand the implications of sex and proper relationships, and are more vulnerable than adults. Go back to NAMBLA. Paedophiles are repulsive, and anyone who defends them is no comrade of mine.

Personally I think that paedophilia is a part of one's sexual orientation, and it might be absurd to claim that it is curable. Then again some paedophiles are heterosexual, homosexual, bisexual etc so it might be a part of their sexuality they could overcome with the right counselling.

I wouldn't agree with just giving them a bit of counselling and letting them out, however. I'd have them serve a decent prison sentence, with some help provided, but I certainly wouldn't throw them in with hardened criminals.

How is that helping them?

[hugsandmarxism]

I think that coming to a better understanding of pedophilia and finding ways to both lift the stigma on that particular orientation and help pedophiles live and cope with having sexual urges that they cannot act upon is essential to the protection of children.

One thing that needs to be taken into consideration is that many pedophiles are victims themselves. The sexual exploitation of children not only harms the child, but has the potential of harming future children, and hence both the victims of pedophilia and the perpetrators need to be helped in such a way that they don't ultimately harm children in their sexual pursuits.

I don't know if pedophilia is something that can be "cured" (as christian fundis would love to do with homosexuality) but it must, for the sake of society, be controlled. Methods of dealing with this could well be psychological therapy, providing alternatives for pedophiles to fulfill their sexual desires without harming children (role-playing with adults, using sex dolls made specially for this purpose, etc.), group therapy, or whatever else that helps these people cope without hurting kids.

[Agrippa]

This is kind of silly.

Here are your two options

A) People who admit to being pedophiles, or are caught molesting children, would be quarentined from the greater society, placed in an institution where therapists would attempt to treat them. This has two problems. Problem #1 is that all the pedophiles are concentrated together and would probably serve to enable each others' anti-social behaviors and thought-processes. Problem #2 is that they would all just break out and return to the greater society, unless a state-of-the-art security facility was built to hold them, in which case, the facility could easily be co-opted or taken over by oppertunistic people and used to imprison other groups besides pedophiles.
B) People who admit to being pedophiles, or are caught molesting children, will continue to exist among the general society, but will be monitored and supervised at all times to make sure they are not acting out on their "orientation". In which case, no one would admit to being a pedophile because no one would want their life constantly monitored by friends, neighbors, and strangers even if they weren't sexually attracted to children, or even if they were sexually attracted to children and were never going to act on it.

I think, like most crimes of this nature, the decision should be left to the victim. If someone rapes a kid, and the kid, or the kid's parents, want this person dead, or banished from society, I'm not standing in their way.

As for someone who admits they are a pedophile and that being a pedophile is a problem, there's more hope for them. But concerns for the safety of the community's children should still be put leagues above concerns for the recovery and rehabilitation of pedophiles. Sexual abuse of children by adults is a matter of exploitation, just like the economic exploitation of workers by the bourgeoisie. Yes, pedophiles are "victims" in the same way the bourgeoisie are "victims" - the pedophile gets nothing out of his sexual conquests other than the gratification of base desires that will ultimately leave him dissatisfied, the same is true of the bourgeoisie. While both are "victims", they are also both perpetrators and exploiters and the exploitative relationship needs to be resolved, and the resolution is the empowerment of the exploited.

[Dooga Aetrus Blackrazor]

So you belive that a unwanted sexual orientation can be cured but not through therapy or prayer. What then? Surgery? Drugs? Hypnosis? Magic?

We would want pedophils not to act on their sexual orietation because then they are exploiting children.

But its even more annoying to let pedophils exploit children.

In theory, they'd probably try drugs or surgery. The point still stands. It's sometimes preferable to have no desire for something rather than an unachievable desire. If you were obsessed being able to split into two people, and the inability to do this made you miserable, wouldn't you consider the option of removing the desire altogether, or lessening it? Would it be better to struggle with drug addiction all your life or not desire drugs?

[MilitantAnarchist]

Nah fuck all that... there is nothing worse then a pedophile.
I cannot condone it, nor will i even pretend to, or try to 'fit in' here by agreeing with anything anyone has said.
I dont buy into the 'mental' illness in this case. Children are innocent, and it is nothing like peoples different 'sexuality'.
I can agree however, that people can have 'fantasies', and there is limits e.g depending on age or whatever, because it depends on what you saying a 'pedophile' is. A guy who sleeps with a 15 year old girl, with her consent i woldnt class as a pedophile. If a guy/woman sleeps/rapes a 8year old, (or any rape of any age for that matter) there is no excuses.
I dont care if people like that rot in jail, they fucking deserve it, the relinquish all rights they have the minute they ruin the life of a completely innocent child.

[Kamerat]

@ Dooga Aetrus Blackrazor: Well there are no cures for unwanted sexual orientations yet, and i dont think one will be able to find a cure either.

[Dooga Aetrus Blackrazor]

@ Dooga Aetrus Blackrazor: Well there are no cures for unwanted sexual orientations yet, and i dont think one will be able to find a cure either.

Sometimes you try for the sake of it. There's no cure for a lot of things. In theory, sexual orientation is chemical so it probably is alterable. In theory, almost every human characteristic is changeable.

It's not a priority for me either way. Keep pedophiles from harming children. Where pedophiles fall on the list of priorities, I don't know. In theory, anarchism lets people decide for themselves. The pedophile or pedophile sympathetic scientists can deal with it.

[JohnnyC]

Age is not important, the only thing that matters is whether someone understand what is sex and whether that person want to have it.In case of prepubescent kids its obvious that majority wont have desire for sex or the understanding of what it is, but minority, that have desire for sex, (society should evaluate does someone understand and want sexual intercourse) no matter what age, should be free to exploit their sexuality.Teenagers in puberty should ONLY be advised and educated about sex without anyone interfering in their private life, of course.

[Black Dagger]

Nah fuck all that... there is nothing worse then a pedophile.
I cannot condone it, nor will i even pretend to, or try to 'fit in' here by agreeing with anything anyone has said.
I dont buy into the 'mental' illness in this case. Children are innocent, and it is nothing like peoples different 'sexuality'.
I can agree however, that people can have 'fantasies', and there is limits e.g depending on age or whatever, because it depends on what you saying a 'pedophile' is. A guy who sleeps with a 15 year old girl, with her consent i woldnt class as a pedophile. If a guy/woman sleeps/rapes a 8year old, (or any rape of any age for that matter) there is no excuses.
I dont care if people like that rot in jail, they fucking deserve it, the[y] relinquish all rights they have the minute they ruin the life of a completely innocent child.

Spoken like a 'true' anarchist.

[Mujer Libre]

I'd just like to that that, Militant Anarchist, your "not buying into" the mental illness argument is neither here nor there.

As someone who has met psych patients with paedophilic thoughts, I'd say that, at least in the people I've spoken to, there's quite a strong element of obsessive compulsive disorder there. They have these continuous intrusive thoughts about being sexually attracted to kids- completely independently of whatever they want to think. And at least the people I've spoken to (admittedly only a couple) would much rather NOT have the thoughts- in fact, they are repulsed by them. Imagine living like that?

Still, that doesn't mean I'd leave my children, or any children with them- but I do think it indicates that the lynch mob mentality is completely useless and achieves nothing more than stirring up moral panics in the tabloid media.

[AnthArmo]

Perhaps the question should be better put like this...

If there is a child who is mature beyond their years and fully understands sex, and wishes to engage themselves in a sexual relationship with a pedophilic adult who is also consenting. is there anything wrong with that?

I think if you can answer that question, then you understand your position. But it's not quite that simple is it. We don't know how many such children there are, or their ratio to pedophiles.

But regardless of Age of Consent laws or such, if two such individuals DO find each other, they WILL get into a relationship, whether society likes it or not.

Laws regarding sex are completely futile for the sheer fact that you can't control sex.

[Leaf]

Perhaps the question should be better put like this...

If there is a child who is mature beyond their years and fully understands sex, and wishes to engage themselves in a sexual relationship with a pedophilic adult who is also consenting. is there anything wrong with that?

I think if you can answer that question, then you understand your position. But it's not quite that simple is it. We don't know how many such children there are, or their ratio to pedophiles.

But regardless of Age of Consent laws or such, if two such individuals DO find each other, they WILL get into a relationship, whether society likes it or not.

Laws regarding sex are completely futile for the sheer fact that you can't control sex.


That's stupid. Maturity isn't just intelligence, it's your experiences and physical maturity that should also mark your level of 'maturity'. A child that is ready for sex in the way you suggest does not nor will ever exist.

And if we must compare paedophiles to any other group, I suggest comparing them to those who desire to kill, rather than homosexuals. Since in my opinion, sex with a child cannot be harmless.

And I think the views expressed by h0m0revolutionary are rather disgusting, eg - 'as long as relationships as consentual, even if between children and those who are 'adult', then nobody has the right to infringe their ability to a fulfilling relationship.'

As everybody has already said, a child doesn't have the ability to give consent. I'm rather shocked that you don't understand this since you seem to see no difference between an adult relationship and a child-adult relationship

As far as I am concerned, as soon as an adult sexually abuses a child, they lose any sympathy or whatever and deserve to be treated like a rapist. Concern for an innocent child HAS to outweigh any sexual urge. In any case, it's often a power, exploitation, abuse issue.

[JohnnyC]

As everybody has already said, a child doesn't have the ability to give consent.
Father, is that you? ;)

I guess we just have different point of view.While some of us think that many young people can use their brain and choose for them, others conclude that kids are too mindless to make decisions and must be always guided by mature and intelligent parents.

If kids decide to disobey adults and have sex it's not because they have their own personality, opinions and desires, it's because they are stupid.Of course, that's supposed to magically change when they make their [insert number here] birthday...

[Kamerat]

If a child is mature enough to give consent, then it is no longer considered a child. As stated on the first page of this thread.

[AnthArmo]

As everybody has already said, a child doesn't have the ability to give consent. I'm rather shocked that you don't understand this since you seem to see no difference between an adult relationship and a child-adult relationship


If a child is mature enough to give consent, then it is no longer considered a child. As stated on the first page of this thread.

That's quite a flawed definition. My definition of a child is purely a biological one (Ages 0-18).

Mentally, people age at extremely different rates. There are 70 year old's who clearly are still very immature and aren't ready for sex, but they do so anyway.

It's pointless and futile to make overbearing generalizations for ALL children. If there are children who really understand sex, and want to do it with someone, regardless of age, then all the power to them.

[revolution inaction]

That's quite a flawed definition. My definition of a child is purely a biological one (Ages 0-18).


no this is a temporal definition, nothing special happens at someone's 18th birthday. A biological definition would be some thing like a person who hasn't yet reached puberty, which would make a lot more sense since we are discussing pedophiles, who are people that are attracted to prepubescent children.

[Leaf]

Father, is that you? ;)

I guess we just have different point of view.While some of us think that many young people can use their brain and choose for them, others conclude that kids are too mindless to make decisions and must be always guided by mature and intelligent parents.

If kids decide to disobey adults and have sex it's not because they have their own personality, opinions and desires, it's because they are stupid.Of course, that's supposed to magically change when they make their [insert number here] birthday...


I'm getting mixed ideas from you. Do you think they can 'use their brain and choose for themselves' or do you think they are stupid?

As that person^ reminded everyone, we are talking about pre-pubescent children here, not teens as implied by your phrase 'young people'. Paedopiles are attracted to prepubescent children not those who have not 'magically changed when they make their [insert number here] birthday... '.

It's not about kids being mindless, I mean, it's a scientific fact that children's brains are still developing (DUH!) and cannot weigh up decisions due to their lack of experience, intelligence, maturity etc blah blah.

Far out, if kids can 'use their brain to choose for themselves' then why would you restrict this to sex with adults? Why not just let kids decide: if they want education, when to cross the road, what to eat, if they want to drive cars and motorbikes as well? I half hope that you do hope to allow kids to do these things since it would be extremely disturbing if were just allowing them extra freedom to have sex with adults but nothing else.

[JohnnyC]

I'm getting mixed ideas from you. Do you think they can 'use their brain and choose for themselves' or do you think they are stupid?

As that person^ reminded everyone, we are talking about pre-pubescent children here, not teens as implied by your phrase 'young people'.

It's not about kids being mindless, I mean, it's a scientific fact that children's brains are still developing (DUH!) and cannot weigh up decisions due to their lack of experience, intelligence, maturity etc blah blah.

Far out, if kids can 'use their brain to choose for themselves' then why would you restrict this to sex with adults? Why not just let kids decide: if they want education, when to cross the road, what to eat, if they want to drive cars and motorbikes as well? I half hope that you do hope to allow kids to do these things since it would be extremely disturbing if were just allowing them extra freedom to have sex with adults but nothing else.
I was mostly ironic.If kids have the desire for sex they the right to have sex no matter what age they are or their partner.End of story.Kids also have right to choose their meals and type of education, but they can't drive motorbikes or cars unless they know how, and for that they are supposed to get driver license if they can.

If someone understand what is sex and have desire to practice it he is mature enough for it.For me it's as simple as that.When I was in elementary school I knew kids who started masturbating while they were around nine, and just recently there was story in British media about 12 year old father and 14 year old mother.

http://www.thesun.co.uk/sol/homepage/news/article2233878.ece

Not all kids are naive and without urges for sex.Those that are, good for them.But those that aren't, and those that decide to have sex shoudn't be stopped by anyone.Only job for "adults" in those cases is to give advice and support to those kids if they want to, anything more would be invading their privacy and NO kid will tolerate that.

[Agrippa]

We don't know how many such children there are, or their ratio to pedophiles.

Or if they exist at all except in the arguments of people who condone child molestation

[Leaf]

I was mostly ironic.If kids have the desire for sex they the right to have sex no matter what age they are or their partner.End of story.Kids also have right to choose their meals and type of education, but they can't drive motorbikes or cars unless they know how, and for that they are supposed to get driver license if they can.

If someone understand what is sex and have desire to practice it he is mature enough for it.For me it's as simple as that.When I was in elementary school I knew kids who started masturbating while they were around nine, and just recently there was story in British media about 12 year old father and 14 year old mother.
Not all kids are naive and without urges for sex.Those that are, good for them.But those that aren't, and those that decide to have sex shoudn't be stopped by anyone.Only job for "adults" in those cases is to give advice and support to those kids if they want to, anything more would be invading their privacy and NO kid will tolerate that.

Gee good source :rolleyes:. I thought we were talking about paedophiles here, my mistake.
So you give a source (which I've seen a billion times btw) that shows two disturbingly young children having a child themselves, you are yet to prove this is a good thing:confused:. Same as showing a article about a paedophile - hey they exist! Please let your next article be one where there is a paedophile in a relationship with a child with proof that the child was mature enough (physically, mentally etc) for such a relationship and that it caused them no harm.
With your source, you'd think you were on my side as it incidently shows how ill equipped they are for parenthood ie the disastarous potential consequences of children having sex. Besides, you keep arguing like you want to protect sex for teens but ignore the fact that the thread is titles PAEDOPHILES.
I see no difference between your laws for adults and your rules for children.
I'll give you a hint: there does not exist a healthy paedophilliac relationship. It's always exploitation.
Your last comment is indeed a strange one. You're wacky. Allowing kids to discipline themselves is an inherently flawed argument.
This is the worst logic I've experienced in a awhile. I see no point in arguing with you any more. Good bye.

[JohnnyC]

Gee good source :rolleyes:. I thought we were talking about paedophiles here, my mistake.
So you give a source (which I've seen a billion times btw) that shows two disturbingly young children having a child themselves, you are yet to prove this is a good thing:confused:. Same as showing a article about a paedophile - hey they exist! Please let your next article be one where there is a paedophile in a relationship with a child with proof that the child was mature enough (physically, mentally etc) for such a relationship and that it caused them no harm.
With your source, you'd think you were on my side as it incidently shows how ill equipped they are for parenthood ie the disastarous potential consequences of children having sex. Besides, you keep arguing like you want to protect sex for teens but ignore the fact that the thread is titles PAEDOPHILES.
I see no difference between your laws for adults and your rules for children.
I'll give you a hint: there does not exist a healthy paedophilliac relationship. It's always exploitation.
Your last comment is indeed a strange one. You're wacky. Allowing kids to discipline themselves is an inherently flawed argument.
This is the worst logic I've experienced in a awhile. I see no point in arguing with you any more. Good bye.
First of all, it doesn't matter what is my source, it only matters whether it's true, and it is.And second, I just posted that to show you that some kids, that are pre puberty or in puberty have sexual desires.My point is that if kid wants to have sex he will most likely find a way to have it, and also that even if we forbid them (which is never a good option when we talk about sex) they, if they want it, will fight for it.

And one more thing, when I talk in positive light about "pedophilia" I don't talk about persons who want to have sex with 5 year old kids (who are all, most likely, not ready for it), I only talk about relationships between adult persons, and those kids who have NEED for sex.That's what I mean when I say it's not about age, If some 12 kid has desire for sex he should, of course, be free to have it.Those adults who have sexual desires for babies and similar, should not be supported in it, but helped medically if that's possible or eliminated from society if necessary.

Also, sorry if I sounded a bit like a jerk today, it wasn't on purpose. :) I just saw my posts on this topic, and they are a bit more rude than I thought.If you don't want to talk any more on this subject it's okay, I think both of us already said what we have to say anyway.

[Cynical Observer]

Rape is criminal, so is sexual harassment. Other than that I see nothing wrong between a fully consensual relationship between two people of any age. Of course this raises the question as to what age someone can actually give consent, which i think can be cleared up on a case by case basis. Say in an ideal society if a child wants to have sex with an adult that child should be able to fully explain what sex entails, why they want it, and what the possible consequences are in order to ensure they are making an informed decision. As for trying to "cure" pedophilia, i think that's insane. I think there should be appropriate therapy offered to these people in order to help them come to terms with their desires and make them more manageable, but if they show no violent tendencies or a desire to force children into sex then i see nothing that needs to be cured. The media tends to demonize pedophiles much as they do many minority groups that spring up in order to protect their so called "moral majority". We must remember that morality is relative and take into account how much harm is being done to the child. If the culture and laws change enough to create a situation where a child can have sex with an adult without psychological harm, is there anything wrong with that? I think most damage done to the children comes from society telling them how they've been exploited and violated.

[Agrippa]

Rape is criminal, so is sexual harassment. Other than that I see nothing wrong between a fully consensual relationship between two people of any age.

Because at a certain age it is impossible for a sexual relationship to be "fully consensual". That's because at a certain age a child's brain is not yet capable of juggling the complex emotional nuances needed to maintain a mature and stable romantic relationship.


if a child wants to have sex with an adult that child should be able to fully explain what sex entails, why they want it, and what the possible consequences are in order to ensure they are making an informed decision.

So if Joe wants to fuck his five-year-old daughter, all he has to do is train her to parrot a bunch of PC sex-ed talking points about emotional responsibility and STDs and have her spout them to Anarchist Child-Adult Sex Evaluation Council? Just because a child can "explain" the mechanics of sex, certain consequences that can occur, reasons one would want to have sex, etc. doesn't mean the permitted relationship that would ensure under the social system you've promosed wouldn't result in long-term psychological damage.


As for trying to "cure" pedophilia, i think that's insane. I think there should be appropriate therapy offered to these people in order to help them come to terms with their desires and make them more manageable, but if they show no violent tendencies or a desire to force children into sex then i see nothing that needs to be cured.

What if they don't "show" these things because they've made a conscious effort to hide their nefarious doings?


The media tends to demonize pedophiles much as they do many minority groups

Serial killers are also a demonized minority group. Where do you draw the line?


We must remember that morality is relative
:closedeyes:


and take into account how much harm is being done to the child. If the culture and laws change enough to create a situation where a child can have sex with an adult without psychological harm

Maybe the psychological harm caused by child-adult sexual relations is not caused by the greater cultural and legal context but by the experience itself.


I think most damage done to the children comes from society telling them how they've been exploited and violated.

I think that's a lie.

[redflag32]

You're speaking for yourself, not every child.

Maturity comes at very different stages of life, if it strikes early and a child is capable of a fulfilling relationship with somebody who happens to be defined as an adult, then that is their business.

All this talk of 'rape' and such is incredibly condescending. Surely we respect an individuals rationality and ability to decide when and with whom they enter into friendship/relationship whatever. Sure that comes into question at a young age, but to allege every child is incapable of making the decision as to whom they form connections with just isn't reality is it?

Are you saying someone at the age of 8 could be mature enough to have a consenting sexual and emotional relationship with an adult of 30 or 40?

[Radical]

You have very similar feelings to me Coggeh.

Pedophilia is one of the most brutal acts against humanity that can be commited. But we must also recognize that a lot of Pedofiles were born like this from the second they were born.

Although many Pedofiles are born like this, many of them are also not. Not every Pedofile was born with this illness.

Although I believe that strict supervision and help must be given to people with this illness. I dont condone them being directly punnished. To pursue the death sentance or direct punnishment on somebody due to an illness they have, would be an abomination.

Pedophilia is sick and wrong. But it must not be ignored that in many cases it is an illness which the abuser has no control over.

[Describer]

Well, its a touchy topic to discuss, but let me remind you just a few known pedophiles or hebephiles - Charlie Chaplin, Lewis Carroll, Roman Polanski. I really doubt their IQ was as low as media propaganda tries to tell. I know one pedophile and two hebephiles personally, they neved "acted" though, only collecting related erotics and porn, but they are as soft and as smart as Jeremy Irons' character in Lolita, nowhere near that psychos from media statements.

[Sasha]

note: lewis caroll was in all likelyhood NOT an pedophile. (i made quite an studie on the subject)
the fact that in his memoirs there is no mention of feeling for or relationships with adult women was becuase he had an long time affair with an married women (the older sister of alice) sommething that was an mortal sin in his time, this is propily whats mentioned in the, by his heirs destroyed parts, of his diary's.
platonic friendships with childeren and photographing naked childeren on the other hand was something totaly socialy acceptable in victorian england. (and wich is why its mentioned openly in his memoirs and diary's)

[black magick hustla]

I don't think pedophilia is a sickness, I do think it is terrible though. I don't like labeling sexual preferences as disorders or not because they entirely depend on the feeble social order and the prejudices of men at that particular epoch. Just because I find it morally reprehensible due to my principles it does not mean it has a meaning beyond that.

[Agrippa]

I don't think pedophilia is a sickness, I do think it is terrible though. I don't like labeling sexual preferences as disorders or not because they entirely depend on the feeble social order and the prejudices of men at that particular epoch. Just because I find it morally reprehensible due to my principles it does not mean it has a meaning beyond that.

Don't be senseless. Does the experience of a child molested by an adult not have meaning? Maybe your reprehension isn't moral but biological. Maybe aversion to adult sex with children isn't "entirely dependent on the feeble social order and the prejudices of men at that particular epoch". Maybe it is a character possessed by healthy societies in every epoch.

As an aside, I also am in the "Lewis Carroll was not a pedophile" camp.

[Module]

Agrippa, how do you define a "healthy society"?

[black magick hustla]

Don't be senseless. Does the experience of a child molested by an adult not have meaning? Maybe your reprehension isn't moral but biological. Maybe aversion to adult sex with children isn't "entirely dependent on the feeble social order and the prejudices of men at that particular epoch". Maybe it is a character possessed by healthy societies in every epoch.

As an aside, I also am in the "Lewis Carroll was not a pedophile" camp.

:shrugs: greek philosopher fucked children in the ass when greek civilization was in its appex. I find it reprehensible, but who am I to call this "unhealthy". Whether a society is unhealthy or not comes with a moral judgement. Call pedophilia whatever the fuck you want, I don't think it is a sickness as in someone being sick from flu. I don't think rapists are sick either.

[Agrippa]

:shrugs: greek philosopher fucked children in the ass when greek civilization was in its appex.

And other Greek philosophers such as Plato and St. Paul denounced it with vitriol.

Besides, that was middle-aged men fucking 12, 13, 14, and 15 year-olds. As reprehensible as you may find that, it's totally different than an adult having sex with an 8-year-old.

And the fact that Greek philosophers fucked children is not an argument for fucking children. People who are brilliant philosophers can be assholes in many ways, in fact it's quite common.


I find it reprehensible, but who am I to call this "unhealthy".

Someone who can observe the world around you and draw conclusions based on what you've observed?


Whether a society is unhealthy or not comes with a moral judgement.

Perhaps. But sometimes these sorts of judgments are necessary. For example, if we didn't judge capitalist society as unhealthy in some way we wouldn't be anti-capitalist.


Call pedophilia whatever the fuck you want, I don't think it is a sickness as in someone being sick from flu. I don't think rapists are sick either.

It doesn't matter. The point is what they're doing is harmful.

[Cynical Observer]

Because at a certain age it is impossible for a sexual relationship to be "fully consensual". That's because at a certain age a child's brain is not yet capable of juggling the complex emotional nuances needed to maintain a mature and stable romantic relationship.



So if Joe wants to fuck his five-year-old daughter, all he has to do is train her to parrot a bunch of PC sex-ed talking points about emotional responsibility and STDs and have her spout them to Anarchist Child-Adult Sex Evaluation Council? Just because a child can "explain" the mechanics of sex, certain consequences that can occur, reasons one would want to have sex, etc. doesn't mean the permitted relationship that would ensure under the social system you've promosed wouldn't result in long-term psychological damage.



What if they don't "show" these things because they've made a conscious effort to hide their nefarious doings?



Serial killers are also a demonized minority group. Where do you draw the line?


:closedeyes:



Maybe the psychological harm caused by child-adult sexual relations is not caused by the greater cultural and legal context but by the experience itself.



I think that's a lie.
ok i don't know how to divide a quote so i've spaced my answers accordingly instead.

I think the age at which a person can interpret the world and a situation rationally varies depending on the person's environment and their rate of development, to me it is entirely conceivable that a child could in fact deal with a romantic relationship. There are adults who are married who have the emotional range of a brick, are you saying that they shouldn't be in a relationship? What makes someone ready for a relationship?

You're stating that an assumed threat is a reason to inhibit people's freedom. You believe that psychological damage could arise from children having sex with adults and so they should not be able to do so because "they aren't ready to make that decision" well what exactly is it about the sexual act with someone much older that will cause trauma? Enemas are inserted anally and don't cause psychological damage, children masturbate and aren't damaged, children grow to love adults and aren't damaged, and many children experiment sexually with other children and aren't damaged. Too much importance is placed on sex in today's society it is made out to be something more profound than it is, i maintain that if society didn't attach such stigmas to sex children wouldn't be damaged psychologically.

Are you proposing we consider everyone with these tendencies to be a possible rapist? That seems a dangerous generalization to me. Of course a violent person may try to hide his/her violent side, but we have mental institutions designed to uncover these feelings and address them if they exist, and that's the best we can do in good conscience otherwise we begin to oppress innocent people based on traits they may or may not have.

I draw the line when people intentionally harm others.

I am simply stating that you can't base your view of the world based on arbitrary moral codes.

Or, maybe it is, it seems more plausible to me.

No, it's my honest opinion.

[Mindtoaster]

I think instead of starting a thread on it, this could add a twist to the discussion already going on in here

A mans been arrested for possession of cartoons which police say depict minors in sexual acts.


On Wednesday, Christopher Handley pleaded guilty to one count each of Possession of Obscene Visual Representation of the Sexual Abuse of Children, and of Mailing Obscene Matter in the case related to his importation and possession of manga. The plea was part of an agreement Handley negotiated with the Department of Justice, and as such, three additional counts were dismissed.

As previously reported (http://www.newsarama.com/comics/100810-CBLDF-Manga-Case.html), the Comic Book Legal Defense Fund signed on to the case as a consultant to the defense.

Combined, the two charges carry a maximum term of 15 years in prison, $250,000 in fines, and a three years of supervised release. Thre is no minimum sentence for the charges, and accepting responsibility (pleading guilty) allows for a decrease in the level of offense. The negotiation did not include any guarantees of term reduction.

As part of the plea, Handley agreed to forfeit his computer and manga with the "obscene visual depictions" to the government. A sentencing status conference where Handley may learn the term of his sentnce is currentlys scheduled for August 18th.
The Department of Justice Press Release reads:

Christopher Handley, 39, of Glenwood, Iowa, pleaded guilty today in Des Moines, Iowa, to possessing obscene visual representations of the sexual abuse of children and mailing obscene material.
According to court documents, in May 2006, U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) intercepted a mail package coming into the United States from Japan that was addressed to Handley. Inside the package was obscene material, including books containing visual representations of the sexual abuse of children, specifically Japanese manga drawings of minor females being sexually abused by adult males and animals. Pursuant to a search warrant, the U.S. Postal Inspection Service (USPIS) searched and seized additional obscene drawings of the sexual abuse of children at Handley’s residence in Glenwood. Handley was indicted by a grand jury sitting in the Southern District of Iowa in May 2007.
Pursuant to his plea agreement, Handley today pleaded guilty to one count of possessing obscene visual representations of the sexual abuse of children in violation of Title 18, United States Code, Section 1466A(b)(1), which prohibits the possession of any type of visual depiction, including a drawing, cartoon, sculpture, or painting, that depicts a minor engaging in sexually explicit conduct that is obscene.
Handley also agreed to plead guilty to one count of mailing obscene material and to forfeit all seized property. Handley faces a maximum of 15 years in prison, a maximum fine of $250,000, and a three-year term of supervised release.
The case is being prosecuted by Assistant U.S. Attorney Craig Peyton Gaumer and Elizabeth M. Yusi of the Criminal Division’s Child Exploitation and Obscenity Section. The case is being investigated by USPIS, ICE and the Iowa Division of Criminal Investigation. In addition, the FBI’s Language Services Section has provided significant assistance in the prosecution.
The CBLDF Press Release Reads:

According to a press release issued by the Department of Justice, the Comic Book Legal Defense Fund has learned that Christopher Handley, the Iowa manga collector, has pleaded guilty “to possessing obscene visual representations of the sexual abuse of children and mailing obscene material.” CBLDF had served as a special consultant to Mr. Handley’s defense. The government’s press release states, “Handley faces a maximum of 15 years in prison, a maximum fine of $250,000, and a three-year term of supervised release.” Additionally, he forfeits all property seized in his prosecution.

The CBLDF became special consultant to Mr. Handley's defense team last October. In this limited role, the Fund facilitated access to First Amendment experts; recommended expert witnesses on manga; and funded expert research pursuant to an eventual jury trial. The CBLDF spent $2,400 on that research, and had allocated up to $15,000 for expert witness expenses.

“Naturally, we are very disappointed by this result, but understand that in a criminal case, every defendant must make the decision that they believe serves their best interest," CBLDF Executive Director Charles Brownstein said. “Because the set of facts specific to this case were so unique, we hope that its importance as precedent will be minimal. However, we must also continue to be prepared for the possibility that other cases could arise in the future as a result.”

Brownstein adds, “Mr. Handley now faces the loss of his freedom and his property, all for owning a handful of comic books. It’s chilling. The Fund remains unwavering in our commitment to be prepared to manage future threats of this nature wherever they arise. This is the unfortunate conclusion of Mr. Handley’s case, but it is not the end of this sort of prosecution. For that reason, the Fund stands steadfast in our commitment to defending the First Amendment rights of the comics art form.”



Undoubtedly gross. But should people actually be punished for possession of pornography that depicts (fake) children?

Shouldn't we start banning the bible if we're going to ban everything that includes children in sexual acts?

[Aeval]

There does seem be two types of paedophiles; the ones that happen to like pre-pubescent children but genuinely wants them to enjoy it too, and the others who enjoy the power relation and seem to actively enjoy or are willing to ignore the fact that the child may not enjoy it. The latter is always going to be more dangerous than the first, to lump everyone in together as the 'evil paedo' is just going to make those belonging to the first group try to hide and suppress their feelings. I mean that in the sense of not admitting it to themselves rather than not acting on it, suppressing their actions is fine, but it's got to be pretty horrendous knowing you belong to one of the most hated groups of people on earth for having thoughts you can't control.

I'm not really sure what people mean when they say 'mature enough' or 'ready for sex/a relationship', but unless a child is disabled they tend to hit their developmental stages around the same time, so for example, most children can understand transitive reasoning by the ages of 8/9. Before they reach that developmental stage they are simply not physically capable of comprehending the idea that if a is related to b, and b related to c, then a is also related to c.

So what's that got to do with sex? It means that a child mind is working on a whole different wavelength to an adult's; yes, a child is physically capable of enjoying a sex act, but it is not capable of understanding it in the same way that a adult does. It will understand it, but in its own way. Children before a certain developmental stage are also incredibly egotistic; they can only think in terms of themselves and will presume the entire world around them, and everything in it, animate or inanimate, thinks and feels the same way as them. In this sense, a child could love an adult, could even enjoy having sex with them, but would not be able to comprehend that the adult is enjoying it for a different reason than they are. That surely means a relationship between a child and an adult could never be equal. If two kids of the same developmental age want to do whatever with each other then the two are going to be understanding the relationship between things and people in a similar way, if one of them is a adult then that's not the case, and in the interest of caution, bearing in mind that the adult is the one who can put him/herself into someone else's shoes and be aware that a child's perception of things may be vastly different to their own, it's probably best to just avoid sexual relations with children full stop.

Another reason it should just be avoided is that it is a fetichism. Nothing wrong with fetishes in general, but if a child and an adult were to have a relationship, what would happen when the child grew up? If the adult only likes pre-pubescent children then that poses a problem. That's not a relationship, they don't like the child because they like them as a person, they like them because they're young and when they get too old they'll be cast aside, and that's going to be psychologically damaging to the child.



Undoubtedly gross. But should people actually be punished for possession of pornography that depicts (fake) children?

Shouldn't we start banning the bible if we're going to ban everything that includes children in sexual acts?

This is daft, especially with Manga, half the time you can barely tell what gender they're suppose to be never mind what age. Question: if the character looks like any other Manga character but whilst being tentacle raped is wearing a badge saying '18 today' would that be alright?

Oh, and hello everyone :)

[Kollentsky]

I'd like to add that I think talk of 'absolute right and wrong' is totally and utterly unpragmatic. Personally, I'm quite happy having a blanket rule of absolutely no sexual relations between adults and pre-pubescent children, for quite the reasons outlined by Aeval - but also regardless of the microscopic possibility of a child capable of reasoning in any kind of sophisticated matter on the topic. The point is, that in practice we need to generalise our laws and that in a society the interests of an individual will always, to a greater or lesser degree, be subjugated to social expection. Such a rule makes clear that such an area has such a high potential for damage that it can't be legitimately touched.

I'd also say that sexual relations between an adult (ie one past the age of purity) and a child or teenager 'going through' puberty, even in the latter stages, is very, very dodgy. I'd most likely be in favour of reducing the age of consent to 14 in practice but retain possible penalties for relations between an adult and child where the child was anywhere under 17, pending an individual inquiry into whichever incident.

[Dimentio]

Okay , I know some people are going to get really pissed with me on this one but I feel it needs to be addressed and apologies if this has already been done .

Anyway, recently I've been having many debates on pedophilia , but mainly on what should be done with pedophiles . And i cannot come to condone putting them in jail or even contemplate the death penalty for them ,even if their convicted.

I believe they need help , they need conselling , supervision , interaction with other people as much as safely possible and not isolation , a jail cell or an electric chair. This solves nothing , we are reducing ourselves to emotional unrational solutions , we don't need public sex offenders lists where people become scapegoats and become targeted by angry mobs and pushed further into isolation.

Their may be some people who do feel a certain attraction to children but are afraid to seek help because of the fear of being cut off from their friends and family and being put in jail or stigmatised.

I don't know what else to say , so what do others think ? Please any contributions would be welcome.

I am mostly interested in why "non-right-handed-ness" is a problem.

[Ultra_Cheese]

any sexual relationship should be around equality and consent.
(hence why I.M.O. there is nothing wrong with any preference or fetish but acting upon an desire towards childeren, animals, mentaly handicaped, comatose, the dead, ect. is strictly off limits)
Why do you condemn the necrophiliac and the zoophile? Who suffers in these situations? The dead cannot consent, but they also cannot care. The rights of animals are few; are their bodies somehow more violated when they are raped than when they are slaughtered?