Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[wierd]

You really dont see the connection?

OK--  Pedophilia is being argued, by Salon and its editors, as being another basic sexual identity. If we accept that view, then we have to treat it logically as if it were, say, homosexuality or bisexuality. People with these sexualities assert that they have always had these orientations. This means the pedophile must be treated in the same fashion, a person with a born sexuality. The statistic for the failure of abstinence only sex ed completely ignores sexual prefference-- Gay kids are just as likely to bang as straight kids. The corrollary is that pedo kids will likewise be just as likely to bang.  Since abstinence only does not work for straight, gay, or bisexual kids it wont work for pedo kids either.  Expecting the pedophile to abstain is a nonsequitor.

[Bauglir]

i think there's a difference between assigning moral culpability and constructing a social engineering program, is the problem

sex education has a lot of concerns, but i'm not sure that telling people underage sex is wrong is actually one of them? it might do that in service of achieving one of the goals it actually has, of course, but the point is to effect a change in behavior

while the discussion that's been going on about pedophiles is "are they horrible people worthy of hatred?", which depends on behavior for people saying "not if they're just experiencing urges they never act on", rather than the reverse (where hopefully behavior depends on sex education)

[wierd]

Take the thought you just had, and apply it with a worldview from 70 years ago, to homosexuality.

Are homosexuals bad people if they never "sin against nature?"

[Bauglir]

Presumably not, according to that worldview? I'm not sure what you're getting at.

[wierd]

"Gay bashing" as correlary for "Pedo hatred"



if you want my honest opinion, i would say that the pedos are partially right, and that thier attraction to prepubescent humans is the result of humans selectively breeding for juvenile traits in their mates appearances.  Neoteny is totally a thing in humans.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neoteny

f society does not like these consequences, then it needs to resolve such underlying sources. not demonize people that they are breeding for.

[Sheb]

Well, sometime, you should just learn to ignore people when they say stupid stuff. Wierd, no one is advocating legalizing having sex with children. So everything you're saying is either irrelevant, stupid, or both.

[Bauglir]

Okay? So basically that rests on the difference that I don't see homosexual acts as actually being wrong, while I do see pedophilic acts as actually being wrong. And the reasons why go into the difference in capability for consent and so on and so forth, but this all seems pretty tangential since the case is "Given a person who has committed no pedophilic acts, is that person a bad person?" as a counterpoint to the generalization "Pedophilia is evil".

What you're doing here almost seems to be a slippery slope - "Because we tolerate homosexual acts now, even though it used to be unacceptable, surely we have to tolerate pedophilic acts in order to be consistent!" Which isn't true, it's just that the reasons for condemning having sex with children must not be the same reasons as the ones once had for condemning homosexual acts.

that said, i haven't actually read the salon article, so i guess if the dude was arguing that fucking children should be socially acceptable, then sure, that's pretty fucked up?

[mainiac]

Child abuse has a victim, the child.  Gay sex does not have a victim.  As such they should be treated differently.

[wierd]

incorrect. the salon article does exactly that, as do the "pro contact" boards it mentions.

perhaps nobody HERE, but that topic IS being put forward.

[WealthyRadish]

Most of the people saying that the pedophile can exercise such control, claim that teenagers cannot. If abstainance only sex ed fails because the sexual impulse is just too strong, how can the same message apply to pedophiles who must always remain abstainant to stay legal?

This analogy hinges on pedophile impulse control being similar to teenage impulse control, and it isn't. Not only is there a completely different environment, with polar opposites in societal pressure (teenagers feel immense pressure to have sex, pedophiles feel immense pressure not to molest children), but there's a difference in decision making expectations and responsibility (adults are wholly responsible for their actions unless insane, minors are given leniency and judged differently).

Take the thought you just had, and apply it with a worldview from 70 years ago, to homosexuality.

Are homosexuals bad people if they never "sin against nature?"

I would edit this out before the shitstorm hits and this thread gets purged, there's too much wrong with it and too many people who would be at your throat over it.
Edit: nope too late

[wierd]

Child abuse has a victim, the child.  Gay sex does not have a victim.  As such they should be treated differently.

a product of a limited world view.

look up the historical position of ancient greece on both matters. be astounded.

word of the day: Eromenos

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pederasty_in_ancient_Greece#Terminology

[Bauglir]

Child abuse has a victim, the child.  Gay sex does not have a victim.

what about god's strategic tear reserve

every time someone has gay sex, god has to give an angel 40 lashes to make them cry enough to restock

EDIT: Okay, then, yes, Salon employs one shithead and publishes his views, presumably for the sake of clickbait. Our arguments merely apply to Loud Whispers' general condemnations, not to that particular criticism of the website. It's been one hell of a tangent, anyway, so sorry for helping with that.

MOAR EDIT: okay, but the problem with ancient greece was the pedophilia part, not the gay part, so what's your point?

[wierd]

that in ancient greece, anal sex between men was considered a victimized crime, where pedophilia was not, the exact inverse of mainiac's argument?

[mainiac]

Slavery wasn't considered a crime in Greece.  Killing prisoners of war if negotiation was refused was not considered a crime in Greece.  You are horribly, horribly misapplying moral relativism.

[Shadowlord]

Are homosexuals bad people if they never "sin against nature?"

From a western secular perspective:
There's nothing morally wrong with being homosexual, or with "buttsex" as long as it's consensual. No false god is going to smite you or your city for it.

Rape, on the other hand, is objectively bad because one party doesn't consent. I seem to recall it being claimed on biblical grounds that wives couldn't refuse consent (it's not rape because you became one when you were married!!1), and of course the Bible also has a whole set of rules for when it's OK to rape your slaves.

Child molestation is always considered rape and judged harshly largely because children lack the maturity and understanding necessary to consent, and won't understand what is happening to them (and even older teenagers may be manipulated into going along and still lack full emotional maturity).