Noc wrote:Which leads to conclusions like we have here: "Pedophilia is different from homosexuality because relationships built on pedophilia will not last for more than a decade."
As I said before; I am not, and no one here is, saying that pedophilism is not harmful. But . . . seriously. What kind of logic is it that says "It is wrong and unnatural to seek out relationships of this type because they won't be viable in a decade?" You might as well say that people who are looking for short-term relationships are in a class by themselves.
Lets say you go out, and seek out large breasted woman, because you have a breast fetish; you go have find such a woman and end up having a multi-year relationship, and you talk to your friends about how you 'love' this person and such not, until, one day, this Woman is in a car crash and has to have her breasts amputated (or, I guess, breast cancer). You show up the next day after the surgery, and realize you're not attracted to this person any more, perhaps, says I, you shouldn't have based your relationship on her looks.
The same goes for Pedophiles; they don't really love the child like they may trick themselves and others into thinking they do, the whole relationship is based on the age of the child, and once the child grows up, the pedophile won't be attracted to them any more.
On the other hand, for the adult we're talking about, it's not any different on the psychological level. Yes, it's a "psychological disorder," but until recently, so was homosexuality.
See, this is what I really hate, pedophiles attempting to paint themselves as the 'new gays' or some nonsense. I realize you're not pro-pedophile, but the people who are uses this argument all the time.
Honestly, I feel like starting to campaigning for the right to marry a nice rack.
He's realizing he has an illogical and wrong gut feeling, and specifically does not act on it.
Good for him, what's going to stop him from suddenly having a moment of weakness?
So says the word. Look up fetish.
I have no reason to believe that this man is a threat to children anymore than I am a threat to unconsenting women. I have self control, I'm not compelled to have sex with every woman I find attractive. I don't see any reason to believe that this person is any different, he hasn't shown any indication of a lack of self control.
He (appearently) draws pictures of young females, god knows what he's drawn and not posted on dA.
Just so it isn't at all ambiguous, I think sex with children is absolutely terrible. But I don't think we should be locking up a person of sound mind just because unusual things make him sexually excited.
If they are of a truly sound mind they'd want to be locked up for the safety of the children.
You seem to be assuming that pedophiles *just* have sex. If so, I point you to the actual topic of the confession. This person has never had sex with children, and claims he never will. So he didn't even have sex. At least read the stuff before you post.
Yes Yes, see moment of weakness and such not. I mean, I claim I'll never have sex with another man, and I won't, run up until I do.
This is not necessarily true. You don't know because he never said. Some pedophiles are attracted to specific children, while others are attracted to children in general. Just like some non-pedophiles are attracted to people based on personality, and others based on things like looks. Don't go assuming you know a person based on things he never said.
I'm not talking about just this one pedophile, but in general, but, I suspect he's probably attracted to young girls.
Why don't we start locking up everyone who might have impulses that are potentially dangerous? Perhaps because then we'd have locked up half the population.
Why not indeed hmm? Perhaps school shooting would be prevented if the warning signs were paid more attention.
Justice is not preemptory either; if I know a baby will kill someone in 20 years, is it right to kill that baby? No, because that makes me worse than the person who I was targeting. Likewise, if anyone locks someone like this up to 'protect kids', they are probably more destructive to society.
How does that make you 'worse then the person you're targeting'? That's bull and you know it. If we could properly create people psychological profiles from afar we'd use it to prevent crimes before they happen.
If a person has rapist or murderer impulses, I don't see any problem so long as they control them.
Yes, and they always control these impulses until they act on them, that's the point.
See your logic is thus.
Person A has murderious impulses, but that's okay because they don't act on them.
However, I, and others, are saying:
Person A goes out one day and doesn't have the mental resolve to prevent themselves from acting on the impulse to kill, and they go and do it.
Your argument is fine, if we could, as humans, really resist vices, but we very, very often can't, even when we know what we're doing is wrong. The same applies here, this person, and other pedophiles, may not act, and may not want to act, on their impulses, but all it would take is for them to be a little weak one day, and the next thing you know you have some raped 5-year old.
I don't know how you define an urge or an impulse, but by my definition pretty much everyone except asexual people have impulses to have sex. It's a biological necessity. You can go defining impulses and urges however you want, but then you're playing a semantics game.
Impulses to have sex =/= sexual orientation.
Freud would say that we'd have to commit everyone in the world because, on some level, everyone has such desires.
Freud is also a discredited researcher from nearly a century ago; I'm not saying that he didn't contribute a great deal to psychology, but so did Aristotle (or was it that other guy) to science, and they are still mostly wrong on the science part.