• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Would you call pedephelia a disorder?

Do you believe pedophilia is a disorder?

  • Yes

    Votes: 27 58.7%
  • No

    Votes: 3 6.5%
  • It can be in some cases

    Votes: 3 6.5%
  • No, it's criminal even if it is a disorder

    Votes: 13 28.3%

  • Total voters
    46
Wait, what? I must be readings this wrong bc it sounds like you're saying the woman is willing and isn't a victim?



In a 1985 article published in Psychological Reports, Cameron purported to review published data to answer the question, "Do those who commit homosexual acts disproportionately incorporate children into their sexual practices?" (p. 1227). He concluded that "at least one-third of the sexual attacks upon youth are homosexual" (p. 1228) and that "those who are bi- to homosexual are proportionately much more apt to molest youth" than are heterosexuals (p. 1231).

Facts About Homosexuality and Child Molestation

The point was that the few women involved with raping children, were usually not sexually molesting the children themselves, but were accomplices, or allowed the abuse to happen by other men.

Many people assume that only males are pedophiles. However, case studies on pedophilia have demonstrated that female pedophilia does exist (Chow, 2002). Although this is a rare phenomenon, females who meet the DSM-IV criteria for pedophiles display similar cognitive distortions to that of males, such as irrational thoughts. Some differences, however, do exist among males and females. Females who exhibit pedophilia tend to suffer from psychiatric disorders or substance abuse problems. Also, there is a higher correlation between sexual abuses as a child with females compared to males.

Inside the Mind of a Pedophile | Neuroanthropology
 
Here it is again:

Homosexual:
: of, relating to, or characterized by a tendency to direct sexual desire toward another of the same sex
So a male man who has sex with a male boy has done a homosexual act and by the very meaning of the word itself---makes the man a homosexual.

We've been thru it - there are different words for different things. Your sexual orientation towards consenting adults of the opposite sex isn't anything like a man who rapes a female child, so we call you a heterosexual male (I assume male...) and the latter a pedophile.

B4U-Act calls pedophiles "minor-attracted people." The organization's website states its purpose is to, "help mental health professionals learn more about attraction to minors and to consider the effects of stereotyping, stigma and fear."

In 1998 The APA issued a report claiming "that the 'negative potential' of adult sex with children was 'overstated' and that 'the vast majority of both men and women reported no negative sexual effects from childhood sexual abuse experiences."

https://www.lifesitenews.com/news/p...truth-and-dignity-want-same-rights-as-homosex

Isn't that special! It's really not that bad for a child to be raped by an adult. Don't you agree?

Sexual orientation, as I've said earlier is just a buzz word---an attempt to wipe away any moral stigma related to any devient sexual act.

Don't you agree with MABLA and B4UAct and the APA radicals that pedophilia is just a "sexual orientation" and that all sexual orientations are good?

First of all, no one is defending pedophiles, so I'm not really sure what the purpose of all that was.

Second, B4U-Act has a clue in the name - before you act? The "act" there is raping a child. I've read about the group, they ARE controversial, but I can't see that their purpose is harmful. The idea behind it is a pedophile who doesn't rape children has difficulty finding treatment for his condition/disorder that will help him deal with the pedophilia without raping children, so the group tries to offer a non-judgmental treatment option for them. They have to report illegal activity (sex with minors) and if their patients report that they plan on assaulting a minor, so no one is approving child rape.

It's a distasteful thing I'm sure to treat pedophiles, but would you rather have them treated, or left to their own devices such that, presumably, they're MORE likely to rape a child?
 
We've been thru it - there are different words for different things. Your sexual orientation towards consenting adults of the opposite sex isn't anything like a man who rapes a female child, so we call you a heterosexual male (I assume male...) and the latter a pedophile.



First of all, no one is defending pedophiles, so I'm not really sure what the purpose of all that was.

Second, B4U-Act has a clue in the name - before you act? The "act" there is raping a child. I've read about the group, they ARE controversial, but I can't see that their purpose is harmful. The idea behind it is a pedophile who doesn't rape children has difficulty finding treatment for his condition/disorder that will help him deal with the pedophilia without raping children, so the group tries to offer a non-judgmental treatment option for them. They have to report illegal activity (sex with minors) and if their patients report that they plan on assaulting a minor, so no one is approving child rape.

It's a distasteful thing I'm sure to treat pedophiles, but would you rather have them treated, or left to their own devices such that, presumably, they're MORE likely to rape a child?

As I've repeated my position on these matters before---of course a person with pedophillic desires and attractions should get help first, therapy, spritual guidance and so on from others. An honest person will seek help first.

But to understand how I view ACTS of pedophillia---look at a capital murderer.

Most people can contain their rage and anger, but some can't. So the person who just stabbed his ex-wife and her boyfriend to death, with their DNA soaked onto his knife says, "Hey, I'm not a murderer, I've never killed anyone before, even though I've thought about it."

Commit just one act of raping a child and give them the rope. That is the best cure for preventing more pedophillic acts. I support the same treatment for all repeat violent offenders---at least for those who have had at least two trips through the prison system for prior violent convictions.
 
What research? I don't see anything.

What percent of pedophiles rape boys?

Know that all men who rape boys are commiting homosexual acts---and are therefore homosexuals and/or bisexuals.

No, they are committing paedophilic acts ...
 
I dont want to open that at work. Sorry. But how can a person molest children and not be a pedophiles?

The short answer is the typical child molester is a dirtbag father who molests his children. He's unlikely to have any kind of specific attraction to children, just likes to abuse and control and dominate his kids, and will do so at any age. Pedophiles lose interest after a certain age because their attraction is to children of a very narrow band of ages. Etc.

There is this quote:

True Pedophiles are responsible for only a small percentage of child sexual molestations. Half of child sexual abusers are the parents of the victims; other relatives commit an additional 18% of the offenses.

I'm not agreeing or disagreeing (don't know which is true) - but that's the claim.
 
I dont want to open that at work. Sorry. But how can a person molest children and not be a pedophiles?

I probably shouldn't have either... damn.

Oh well, look it up after work. :)
 
No, they are committing paedophilic acts ...

Same-sex child rapes have the added moral penalty for homosexual acts.

One pedophillic act is enough. One too many. For the sake of justice, and public safety, hang the pedophiles.
 
As I've repeated my position on these matters before---of course a person with pedophillic desires and attractions should get help first, therapy, spritual guidance and so on from others. An honest person will seek help first.

Right, you've said that, and B4U-Act is a group dedicated to helping them. The claim is, and I don't know if it's true, that pedophiles are often unwilling to seek help because most mental health professionals will not, or do not know how, to provide help.

As to the rest, for lots of reasons I oppose the death penalty. Another topic. I do support very harsh penalties for child abusers of any kind, sexual or otherwise. They get no sympathy from me, and I don't really care WHY they do it. Just that when they do, they ruin lives before the children have a chance to grow up.
 
Same-sex child rapes have the added moral penalty for homosexual acts.

I don't agree at all - a man abusing a little girl isn't the least bit morally 'better' than one who abuses little boys. The moral repugnance of the acts are for all purposes identical in my view.
 
One pedophillic act is enough. One too many. For the sake of justice, and public safety, hang the pedophiles.

Once found guilty... sure.

Same-sex child rapes have the added moral penalty for homosexual acts.

Incorrect.
 
I don't agree at all - a man abusing a little girl isn't the least bit morally 'better' than one who abuses little boys. The moral repugnance of the acts are for all purposes identical in my view.

Agreed...
 
Right, you've said that, and B4U-Act is a group dedicated to helping them. The claim is, and I don't know if it's true, that pedophiles are often unwilling to seek help because most mental health professionals will not, or do not know how, to provide help.

As to the rest, for lots of reasons I oppose the death penalty. Another topic. I do support very harsh penalties for child abusers of any kind, sexual or otherwise. They get no sympathy from me, and I don't really care WHY they do it. Just that when they do, they ruin lives before the children have a chance to grow up.

I'll have to do more research on the B4 group.

I don't support warehousing prisoners and long prison sentances. Aside from captial acts like pedophillia, captial murder, captial rape, carjackings, home invasions and so on, I support a four-step program for violent felons: Deterrance through tough sentancing laws, rehabilitation, hard time doing hard labor for no more than 10 years, execution.
 
I don't agree at all - a man abusing a little girl isn't the least bit morally 'better' than one who abuses little boys. The moral repugnance of the acts are for all purposes identical in my view.

I believe there are billions of people who think otherwise on religious and other moral grounds.

However, I happen to be more replused at the idea of a man raping a boy, aside from the rare cases of a woman raping someone of either sex. But that's just me.
 
I've heard of this, the etoro right? How can it possibly be consensual though? A belief system like that by itself can be coercive. I mean, what are you arguing, that most young boys in that tribe *want* to be inseminated, completely independent of any influence by the adults? I highly doubt that

I would not rule out that the young boys may want to be inseminated. I don't know enough to provide more details. I do know that many people enjoy performing oral sex. The context is the important factor, including the cultural influences. The point is that individuals and cultures can interpret the same activities quite differently depending on how they frame it. For example, some people hate being spanked or being penetrated anally and consider it painful while others love it and do not consider those activities painful at all. It is a mistake to assume that everyone feels the same about the things they experience that you, or most other people, do.
 
I dont want to open that at work. Sorry. But how can a person molest children and not be a pedophiles?

Under legal definitions of course they are. Legality does not look at the underlying motive. Medically, they may not be a pedophile if there is no sexual attraction. I made the example before but I'll repeat it here. Let's say that a man has a mental instability and an uber Christian upbringing. Women must be clothed a certain way or else they are wonton sluts. In his unstable mind he decided that he is going to teach such females a subject lesson. If they are going to dress that way then they are going to suffer the consequences (as he sees them). Because of his instability, he isn't really accounting for age. Any female he sees, from 8 to 80, who is wearing, say a short skirt and a halter top, or maybe a bikini, needs to learn their lesson and so he sexually assaults them and rapes them. He's not sexually attracted to the girls so therefore, medically speaking he is not a pedophile. This is one of the reason we have to note the difference between the medical and the legal definitions of things. They don't always match.
 
It doesn't have to be traumatic to not be consensual. Would you say when you were spanked as a kid it was consensual? You didn't enjoy it, but it had a purpose of instilling discipline and respect for rules. With this tribe, their age and cultural indoctrination makes consent quite problematic and for what purpose? Is there any evidence that this practice is beneficial? If not then i have to say, it's really hard to justify treating kids that way.

Is there any evidence that this practice is harmful? Both the benefit and the harm are going to be rather subjective. Looking back at spanking there are those who would claim that the harm outweighs the benefit while others will claim the opposite. Some will even claim that there is no benefit or no harm. Simply because we see it as harmful, is it really? What long term detriment can you show that is directly linked to this practice? Part of the issue of consent (which is what started this small tangent) is whether or not the "child" is mature enough to actually give that consent. In ages past, humans were considered adults at a much younger age. Because of their environment they had to mature a lot faster than we did. (there is also a theory out there somewhere that because we are longer lived we are also taking longer to mature.) We now have the luxury, at least in 1st and even 2nd world countries, to take longer to "grow up". So ultimately what we consider "pedophilia" isn't really so in other countries.

Now granted we don't really have a way to test this, but here is a thought experiment for you (the general you and not Chromium specifically). If you've seen "Interview with a Vampire" or you have read the "Fables" comic/graphic novel series, you are probably familiar with the concept of someone who lives for a long time and matures, but never physically grows beyond childhood. I think it was also touched upon in the Highlander TV series. So the question is, once the pedophile realizes the actual maturity of the "child", would they lose interest in them? What is the actual attraction?

I suppose a line has to be drawn somewhere? That's all I can think. But if any adult engages in sex with a minor, they need to go to jail for a very long time.

Oh look, the law now says that a person becomes an adult at age 10. Now what? Face it, the law does not necessarily reflect reality. Sometimes that is because a factor that we are trying to legislate for is widely variable and we have to draw the line somewhere, as you said. However, we far too often make that a hard line and not the rule of thumb and instead look to see if the intent was actually violated or not. A person does not magically change between the day before and the day of their 18th birthday. Yet if a 40 YO were to have sex with the 18 year old, it's all well and good. But if it happened the day before, somehow the 40 YO is causing trauma to the 17 YO? If the individual has the maturity that we see out of the average 18 year old, then it shouldn't matter if they are younger than 18. Because that is what we are legislating about, the "child's" maturity, or lack thereof.

So you are justifying child rape?

While joG has already responded, let me rephrase. He's not justifying actual child rape. He's saying that we are applying the crime to situations that are not actually rape along side those that are.

It would make the aggressor a pedophile. Different words are used to describe different things. It's a wonderful thing about language! Embrace it!

More accurately, the same word can be used to describe different things in different manners. A "fag" can describe a bundle of sticks, a cigarette or a homosexual. The same word has three different applications, minimum.

You'd have a point if someone here was conflating your normal heterosexual desires with a male who rapes a female child, but no one is doing that. And NO ONE here has even hinted that pedophilia should be decriminalized.

But we are saying that pedophilia the disorder, as long as it has not be acted upon, should be de-stigmatized. A point that some people can't seem to comprehend.

Oh, what the hell, man, I was so hung up on the statement that man-on-girl rape is less traumatic than the alternatives that I actually missed the worst part of his post. My brain said "Well, the rest of the post can't get any worse than this."

Jesus.

Yeah I missed an aspect of that earlier too. He's said a female adult pedophile will have a willing female child as a participant in the crime.
 
Again, it matters to me not if the pedophile was a man, a woman, a homosexual, a bisexual, a transgender or space alien----all should be hanged in the same manner. However, the added "badness" of a homosexual act makes the crime more henious. Gernerally a male on boy rape would be more traumatic and invasive than a woman on girl rape. Usually if a female is part of an act of pedophilia---she is just a willing partner in the crime.

Wow! just when I though you couldn't get any lower, you turn out to be a sexist too. I suppose women who get raped when they were wearing "sexy" clothes really wanted it, too.

ANY male on boy sexual act would automatically make the aggressor a homosexual.
Aside from your lack of comprehension of the difference between an act and an attraction, your logic fails in that the vast majority of male pedophiles are straight, i.e having sexual relations and attractions to adult women. Thus at best, engaging in the act with a boy would make them bisexuals, not homosexuals. But heaven forbid you should let facts ruin your fantasy.

Let's look at another example between the act and the desire. A common event nowadays are "women-less weddings" and "women-less fashion shows", events when men dress in drag as part of a charity fund raiser. My father has participated in a few of these, with others from his church no less. These men have no desire to dress in women's clothing (although obviously they have no repulsion from it or at least override it for the greater good), yet they engage in the act of dressing in women's clothing. While they are cross-dressing, they are not Cross-Dressers. So it is with sexuality. The act is not automatically linked with the attraction. One can physically act against their attraction.

Or we can look at something more mundane. I am a truck driver. I hold the CDL and everything. Even when I am not in the cab of a truck, I am a truck driver. Now you can hop on up in the cab of my truck and drive it around, maybe even manage not to damage anyone or any thing in the process. All that means is that you have driven a truck, not that you are a truck driver. While what a person is and what they do are usually linked, it is not an automatic linkage.

Maybe no one in this forum may be saying they don't want pedophilia decriminalized, however, there are many out there that do:

ATHENS, Greece (AP) — Greek disability groups expressed anger Monday at a government decision to expand a list of state-recognized disability categories to include pedophiles, exhibitionists and kleptomaniacs

Furor in Greece over pedophilia as a disability

While I do have problems with their overall disability payout system (an item for a different forum and thread), at no point did I see anything in that article that they were removing the crimes and penalties of acting upon those disabilities. So a pedophile who actually assaulted a child would still be subject to criminal penalties, as would a kleptomaniac who actually steals something.

An honest person will seek help first.

An honest pedophile who has not acted typically meets with hatred, scorn, and even assault. With that kind of track record, why would a person admit that they have these feelings? Ideally, when they ask for help they are treated with compassion and aid. Such has not been reality and that is why B4UAct was formed.

Commit just one act of raping a child and give them the rope. That is the best cure for preventing more pedophillic acts. I support the same treatment for all repeat violent offenders---at least for those who have had at least two trips through the prison system for prior violent convictions.

The lack of comprehension here is phenomenal. At best you are only preventing acts by that one person. The best cure is to be able to identify these people before they act and get them help.

However, I happen to be more replused at the idea of a man raping a boy, aside from the rare cases of a woman raping someone of either sex. But that's just me.

Wait! so now you are more repulsed by a woman raping anyone than a man raping a boy? Oh you get get better and better!
 
What research? I don't see anything.

What percent of pedophiles rape boys?

Know that all men who rape boys are commiting homosexual acts---and are therefore homosexuals and/or bisexuals.

I already posted research that destroyed your position. Easily and with little effort.
 
Your defense of the APA is as humorous as the APA itself.

The APA and the Psychiatric industry is driven by a political adenga---not a scientific one.

I'll go by what the dictonary defines as homosexuality, and not what your junk science says.

Your attempts at political re-education I'll gladly throw into the garbage dumpster.

This is just standard anti-gay rejection of science and research when it proves you wrong... which it does. Your rejection of the APA is irrelevant. They provide and do research... which not surprisingly. destroys what you claim. And your dictionary definition has already been shown to be contextually incorrect.

Fortunately, your attempts at political re-education are so bad, no one will give them any credence.
 
Why is homosexuality protected by the government, but pedophilia isn't?
 
Sounds distressing to me.

Suicide among LGBT youth











"Researchers have found that attempted suicide rates and suicidal ideation among lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, queer, and questioning (LGBTQQ) youth is comparatively higher than among the general population.[1][2][3][4][5][6] LGBT teens and young adults have one of the highest rates of suicide attempts."

Suicide among LGBT youth - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Not because of being gay. Because of the stigma from others about being gay and because of discrimination of being gay. Research has demonstrated that the level of acceptance is the major player in gay suicide rates.
 
Back
Top Bottom