|
Post by wackadoodle on Apr 11, 2009 12:50:59 GMT -5
Maybe he just means thinking about kids, I doubt anyone on this site is crazy enough to argue 8 year olds are A-okay with doing it.
|
|
|
Post by peanutfan on Apr 11, 2009 13:23:15 GMT -5
For God's sake, stop thinking of the children!
|
|
|
Post by Sigmaleph on Apr 11, 2009 15:31:44 GMT -5
Comparisons to pedophilia are ridiculous, anyway. It's closer to being a lefty--It's neither inherrently negative nor harmful to others. How is that different from being a pedophile? Acting on paedophilia is harmful to others, acting on homosexuality isn't, necessarily.
|
|
|
Post by schizophonic on Apr 11, 2009 16:36:44 GMT -5
Maybe he just means thinking about kids, I doubt anyone on this site is crazy enough to argue 8 year olds are A-okay with doing it. Even then, I'm not sure that a serious argument to that end will hold up to scrutiny. The end result is rather dangerous, and I'm not sure people want to argue that, even if they're not arguing tha boy love is okay.
|
|
|
Post by ltfred on Apr 11, 2009 20:35:34 GMT -5
How is that different from being a pedophile? Acting on paedophilia is harmful to others, acting on homosexuality isn't, necessarily. It's also usually consensual, which pedophilia is not.
|
|
|
Post by perv on Apr 12, 2009 3:14:25 GMT -5
How is that different from being a pedophile? seriously? Seriously. In case you hadn't noticed, defending sexual minorities is kind of what I do. Maybe he just means thinking about kids, I doubt anyone on this site is crazy enough to argue 8 year olds are A-okay with doing it. Yes, that's what I meant... but on the other hand I might be crazier than you think. Acting on paedophilia is harmful to others, acting on homosexuality isn't, necessarily. Well that would depend on how you acted on them, wouldn't it? Even then, I'm not sure that a serious argument to that end will hold up to scrutiny. The end result is rather dangerous, and I'm not sure people want to argue that, even if they're not arguing tha boy love is okay. I'm curious to hear your analysis. What is the end result, and why is it dangerous? I find a lot of people sexually attractive (mostly women, just in case you wondered) and so far I haven't tried to rape a single one. Is that the kind of danger you're talking about? It's also usually consensual, which pedophilia is not. Could you explain this point in more detail? I'm not sure which rebuttal to use, or if I can just let it pass with a snarky comment.
|
|
|
Post by ltfred on Apr 12, 2009 4:02:34 GMT -5
Could you explain this point in more detail? I'm not sure which rebuttal to use, or if I can just let it pass with a snarky comment. Legally speaking, children cannot make decisions. In Australia, you cannot consent in any way (such as a contract, or to sex, ect) until you are 16, 16 being the 'age of consent'. I believe that the age of consent is 18 in the United States. Therefore, any sex with a minor is automatically unconsentual. A child cannot legally say 'yes', they automatically say no regardless of what they tell you. On the other hand, it is possible to consent to homosexual sex. This is, I stress, entirely in legal, not moral, terms.
|
|
|
Post by Rat Of Steel on Apr 12, 2009 5:58:47 GMT -5
Could you explain this point in more detail? I'm not sure which rebuttal to use, or if I can just let it pass with a snarky comment. Legally speaking, children cannot make decisions. In Australia, you cannot consent in any way (such as a contract, or to sex, ect) until you are 16, 16 being the 'age of consent'. I believe that the age of consent is 18 in the United States. Therefore, any sex with a minor is automatically unconsentual. A child cannot legally say 'yes', they automatically say no regardless of what they tell you. On the other hand, it is possible to consent to homosexual sex. Actually, it varies from state to state. In many states, the AoC is 16. In some states, it's as high as 18, while in a few others, it's as low as 14 (I don't recall any state setting it lower than that, though). *smiles* Thank you. Having never lived there, I'm not sure how society is in Australia about these things, but so many in this so-called "land of the free" can't manage to distinguish between the two, as you have. Now, please excuse me, while I claim a ringside seat for this interesting--and more than a little controversial, yet not inherently ban-worthy--conversation. *sits down nearby, then turns to perv*Care for some of my popcorn before the other combatants take the field?
|
|
|
Post by schizophonic on Apr 12, 2009 10:59:26 GMT -5
Perv, I'm going to assume you're taking the piss here. However, I actually am going to reply. I just wanted to clarify that before I started.
And this is why I think you're taking the piss. You see, unless you're attracted to kids or livestock, you can act on your sexual attractions. Doesn't mean you can screw anyone you want, but jumping to rape in the case of adult attractions is a pretty disingenuous one.
Pedophilia is specficially an issue of prepubescent children, so even if there was an age of consent in the US where 14 was acceptable (No state has an AoC below 16 currently as a default; there are a few which make exceptions, but the actual laws are sixteen or HIGHER), the prepubescent part kind of digs at that.
Children can't consent. Adults of either sex can. Pedophilia is a psychological disorder, usually involving deep and intense desires to act on a matter, and tends to be a progressive issue (That is, even people who "merely" fantasise about screwing kids tend to build up to the act), whereas this would describe only sexually obsessed adults, whether homosexual or heterosexual. Hell, in most cases, such sexual obsession still lends itself to a consenting partner. We have to judge one by an extreme to balance it with the other's standard "setting." That alone should be a red flag.
|
|
|
Post by Vene on Apr 12, 2009 11:13:04 GMT -5
Amaranth, I think perv is talking about the attraction, not the actual act. And this is going to be my only contribution to the discussion.
|
|
|
Post by Sigmaleph on Apr 12, 2009 16:06:53 GMT -5
Well that would depend on how you acted on them, wouldn't it? You have a point there, I suppose. Masturbating to child porn is not directly harmful. Having sex with a child is rape, as a child cannot consent. I suppose a better way of phrasing it is that, of all the ways of acting on a certain sexual attraction, a greater amount of them is harmful in the case of paedophilia compared to homosexuality.
|
|
|
Post by John E on Apr 12, 2009 16:18:01 GMT -5
Pedophilia is a psychological disorder, usually involving deep and intense desires to act on a matter, and tends to be a progressive issue (That is, even people who "merely" fantasise about screwing kids tend to build up to the act), whereas this would describe only sexually obsessed adults, whether homosexual or heterosexual. I'm wondering how you know that to be true. Isn't it possible or even likely that there are a lot of people who have pedephilic desires who never escalate to actually acting upon them? And in such a case, wouldn't it be likely that these people would never confess to those desires (for fear of being ostracized), thus skewing any statistics? EDIT: In other words, maybe the only pedophiles who show up in statistics are the "sexually obsessed" ones, and there are others out there with a non-obsessive inclination who never admit it.
|
|
|
Post by perv on Apr 12, 2009 20:27:48 GMT -5
Legally speaking, children cannot make decisions. In Australia, you cannot consent in any way (such as a contract, or to sex, ect) until you are 16, 16 being the 'age of consent'. I believe that the age of consent is 18 in the United States. Therefore, any sex with a minor is automatically unconsentual. A child cannot legally say 'yes', they automatically say no regardless of what they tell you. On the other hand, it is possible to consent to homosexual sex. Right, but being a pedophile doesn't imply having sexual contact with children. It's the orientation that we were talking about. At least I thought so. When the subject says "It's Not a Choice", that refers to being gay, not having gay sex, right? Right again, so does it really have any bearing on whether it's "inherently negative nor harmful to others" then? Care for some of my popcorn before the other combatants take the field? Thanks. And this is why I think you're taking the piss. You see, unless you're attracted to kids or livestock, you can act on your sexual attractions. Doesn't mean you can screw anyone you want, but jumping to rape in the case of adult attractions is a pretty disingenuous one. Why? Is it the word rape you disagree with? Would you prefer I said "I find a lot of people sexually attractive but I have not attempted to touch any of them sexually without consent"? That depends on what your definition of "is" is. Are you defining what you mean be pedophilia or assigning attributes to it? If the former, then we are talking about two different things. What you're talking about is similar to the DSM definition of pedophilia. <Insert obligatory mention that homosexuality used to be on that list too.> But the DSM only deals disorders, so by its definition, you could want to have sex with kids, and you could fantasize about it day and night, but if you don't actually do it, and if it doesn't bother you, then you're not a pedophile. This is a useful definition if you're a shrink, because if something doesn't cause problems you don't need to treat it; but not so good for a discussion like this. If they latter then... [citation needed]. Well that would depend on how you acted on them, wouldn't it? You have a point there, I suppose. Masturbating to child porn is not directly harmful. Having sex with a child is rape, as a child cannot consent. I suppose a better way of phrasing it is that, of all the ways of acting on a certain sexual attraction, a greater amount of them is harmful in the case of paedophilia compared to homosexuality. Ignoring that tangle of law and morality for the moment, yes, that's probably a fair assessment.
|
|
|
Post by kiwimac on Apr 13, 2009 14:07:31 GMT -5
Lefties used to be shunned and mistreated too, you know. SOLIDARITY, BROTHERS (AND SISTERS)! Yeah, and used to be forced to write right handed even. I got a dose of that, and that was in the eighties FFS. Always religious types, too. Heaven must be boring with all them assembly line twits. When I was young and in Primary school (Elementary for you 'Merkans.) I was strapped (corporally punished) for being left-handed.
|
|
|
Post by wmdkitty on Apr 14, 2009 1:32:32 GMT -5
Well that would depend on how you acted on them, wouldn't it? You have a point there, I suppose. Masturbating to child porn is not directly harmful. Having sex with a child is rape, as a child cannot consent. I suppose a better way of phrasing it is that, of all the ways of acting on a certain sexual attraction, a greater amount of them is harmful in the case of paedophilia compared to homosexuality. You're wrong. Child porn kinda requires that children be, you know, *exploited* sexually... that's quite directly harmful. And the consumers of this shit ENCOURAGE that exploitation.
|
|