Is pedophilia wrong?

[Galilean]

I'm not talking about child molestation - I hope there isn't anyone here who needs to argue about whether sexually abusing children is wrong or not.
I am talking about the concept alone, that is just people who are sexually attracted to children. Is the urge itself wrong?
I have been told (on these forums) that to say anyone is perverted for their sexual prefence,
is the same as saying that an african-american is a pervert for having black skin (yeh, I don't know either ).
And I guess the same goes for other orientations like zoophilia,
and necrophilia and or gendophilia. Forget about the issue of violating an animal/dead body/tree. I'm talking about the urge itself. Is there anything immoral, or perverted about a person who has these urges, or the urges themselves. One thing people tend to say about homosexuals is that if you knew one, then you would realise they are a person just like anyone else. This would also apply to say, a pedophile, who hasn't and doesn't molest children, but is attracted to children. Lots of the things we say to accept homosexuals would apply to these other sexual orientations. People who accept homosexaulity say that it is ok because its between two consenting adults, as opposed to pedophilia or zoophilia where an animal or child cannot consent and they are being violated - but what I want to know from 'you' is, is there anything immoral or perverted about just the urges themselves or the people who have them. And if so,
why is it different when it comes to homosexuals.
Also . . .
Would you be against discrimination? if someone was not hired for a job not because they have molested kids or because they are any danger or harm to anyone but just because they have pedophilic, or zoophilic or exhibitionist fantasies/urges/fetishes, would you think thats wrong?
Say if there was a movie about a cow boy having an affair with a horse, would you have the same veiws on it that you do with brokeback mountain? (for the people who accept the movie)

 

[Maxwell511]

I applaud your bold attempt to try and liken a tolerance of homosexuality to a tolerance of every urge under the sun.

Is the urge to molest children wrong? Yes because any attempt to act on this urge will result in the violation of another individual. A quite traumatic violation.

Is the urge of a grown man to have consentual sex with another man wrong? No because acting on it does not result in this sort of violations.

Let my put it this way: I am sure that you are tolerant of a man having the urge to have consentual sex with a woman. Does this mean that it is okay to for him to have the urge to have non-consentual sex with a woman?

As for the other urges you mentioned, what the hell is up with wanting to do trees? Are these Greenpeace members who went a bit too far?

 

[kopilo]

Paraphilas such as pedophilia, zoophilia and necrozoophilia are against the law, and hence legally wrong.. Apparently many religions reguard them as wrong.. As for the person themselves, it depends on their personal ethics..

A fairly comprehensive article on paraphilas can be found here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paraphilia

I would not say the urge itself is an issue, it is if action is taken because of those urges.. Such as if you see someone elses mobile phone which you could walk past and pick up with out them noticing straight away (stealing) and you feel an urge to do so.. You have done nothing wrong until you follow out on that urge. (of course dimishing the urge asap would be the smart thing to do).

(hope that helps, it's just basically an opinion.)
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

As for the other urges you mentioned, what the hell is up with wanting to do trees? Are these Greenpeace members who went a bit too far?

lmao! "male tree huggers going to new heights"

 

[CSmrw]

I'm not talking about child molestation - I hope there isn't anyone here who needs to argue about whether sexually abusing children is wrong or not.
I am talking about the concept alone, that is just people who are sexually attracted to children. Is the urge itself wrong?
I have been told (on these forums) that to say anyone is perverted for their sexual prefence,
is the same as saying that an african-american is a pervert for having black skin (yeh, I don't know either ).
And I guess the same goes for other orientations like zoophilia,
and necrophilia and or gendophilia. Forget about the issue of violating an animal/dead body/tree. I'm talking about the urge itself. Is there anything immoral, or perverted about a person who has these urges, or the urges themselves. One thing people tend to say about homosexuals is that if you knew one, then you would realise they are a person just like anyone else. This would also apply to say, a pedophile, who hasn't and doesn't molest children, but is attracted to children. Lots of the things we say to accept homosexuals would apply to these other sexual orientations. People who accept homosexaulity say that it is ok because its between two consenting adults, as opposed to pedophilia or zoophilia where an animal or child cannot consent and they are being violated - but what I want to know from 'you' is, is there anything immoral or perverted about just the urges themselves or the people who have them. And if so,
why is it different when it comes to homosexuals.
Also . . .
Would you be against discrimination? if someone was not hired for a job not because they have molested kids or because they are any danger or harm to anyone but just because they have pedophilic, or zoophilic or exhibitionist fantasies/urges/fetishes, would you think thats wrong?
Say if there was a movie about a cow boy having an affair with a horse, would you have the same veiws on it that you do with brokeback mountain? (for the people who accept the movie)

No, the urges are not wrong. Acting on them is. My urge to go back to tobbacco is not wrong. Going back to tobbacco is.

 

[loriersea]

I am talking about the concept alone, that is just people who are sexually attracted to children. Is the urge itself wrong?

Is it morally wrong? I don't know. I tend to think not. But, it is problematic, given that it is a desire that can only be acted on by a sexual encounter with someone who lacks the ability to consent and with whom there is a serious and disturbing power differential.

I have been told (on these forums) that to say anyone is perverted for their sexual prefence,
is the same as saying that an african-american is a pervert for having black skin (yeh, I don't know either ).
And I guess the same goes for other orientations like zoophilia,
and necrophilia and or gendophilia.

It has been explained to you many times that necrophilia and zoophilia are NOT sexual orientations. Pedophilia is not a sexual orientation, either. Actually, these are more in the realm of fetishes. Would you say that someone who had a fetish for leather had a sexual orientation toward leather? No. You cannot simply redefine "sexual orientation" to mean what you want it to mean.

People who accept homosexaulity say that it is ok because its between two consenting adults, as opposed to pedophilia or zoophilia where an animal or child cannot consent and they are being violated - but what I want to know from 'you' is, is there anything immoral or perverted about just the urges themselves or the people who have them. And if so,
why is it different when it comes to homosexuals.

Why is it different from heterosexuality? I honestly have no idea what you are talking about here. You obviously recognize that there is a difference between two consenting adults and sex with someone or something that cannot consent. But then you act as if that is irrelevant, when in fact that is the most relevant point of all.

But, in general, I would say that there is nothing immoral about someone's desires, or at least no more immoral than the desires of anyone else. After all, Jesus said that if we lust in our hearts, we are committing adultery. Clearly, Jesus saw heterosexual lust as immoral. Now, if that is the case, and if it is also true that all sin is equal, then why would you assume that any other lust is more immoral? The way I see it, either ALL lust is immoral, or none of it is.

However, some desires can be more disruptive than others. It depends on the context. If someone is a straight married man, and he constantly has sexual fantasties about other women, then THAT would be problematic. And, in general, sexual fantasies about children are problematic, because they cannot be satisfied without having sex without someone who cannot consent.

Again, I think power has something to do with it. We have to think about "why" with these things. And, it does seem that many people who desire sex with children in many ways feel their desire because of the power they have over the child and the powerlessness of the child. That should be addressed, but I would not label it necessarily immoral.

Would you be against discrimination? if someone was not hired for a job not because they have molested kids or because they are any danger or harm to anyone but just because they have pedophilic, or zoophilic or exhibitionist fantasies/urges/fetishes, would you think thats wrong?

Yes, I would think it was wrong. We have the freedom to any beliefs we want. I would also think it was wrong to discriminate against someone because they were a homophobe, a Nazi sympathizer, or because rape fantasies turned them on.

Say if there was a movie about a cow boy having an affair with a horse, would you have the same veiws on it that you do with brokeback mountain? (for the people who accept the movie)

Now you've gone back on your entire premise. You are talking about someone who is actually having sex with a horse, which obviously involves sexual activity where consent is not possible, which is wrong.

But, would I "accept" the movie? Sure. There is plenty of porn out there that shows women getting off on rape, and I certainly wouldn't say it's good or watch it, but I "accept" it in the sense that I don't think it should be illegal. As long as everyone involved in the making of it was an adult who fully consented to everything depicted, then if other adults want to watch it, I do not think that I (or the government that represents both me and them) have any right to try to say they can't.

 

[sparklecat]

I'm not talking about child molestation - I hope there isn't anyone here who needs to argue about whether sexually abusing children is wrong or not.
I am talking about the concept alone, that is just people who are sexually attracted to children. Is the urge itself wrong?

IMO, no. You can't choose what turns you on, and even if someone did choose to be aroused by children, animals, or whatever else, you're not hurting anyone else by your desires unless you act on them. It simply makes it a little harder for you to find something that satisfies you sexually without breaking the law or injuring others.

but what I want to know from 'you' is, is there anything immoral or perverted about just the urges themselves or the people who have them.

Perverted, yes, but that's not the same as immoral.

Would you be against discrimination? if someone was not hired for a job not because they have molested kids or because they are any danger or harm to anyone but just because they have pedophilic, or zoophilic or exhibitionist fantasies/urges/fetishes, would you think thats wrong?

Yes.

Say if there was a movie about a cow boy having an affair with a horse, would you have the same veiws on it that you do with brokeback mountain? (for the people who accept the movie)

You're back to the whole practicing vs. having urges here. Sexually molesting a horse is not the same thing as being in a consenting relationship.

 

[xMinionX]

I don't think there's anything morally wrong about urges to do certain things. We all have vile urges from time to time. Why, just yesterday I fought the temptation to run someone off the road (who had just cut me off and flipped me the bird). But did I do it? No.

Should a person feeling urges to 'do stuff' with little kids seek help? Absolutley.

 

[kopilo]

loriersea if you want to know a small amount of the differences between hetrosexuality, homosexuality and paraphilias, read the wikipedia artical stated in post #3.

Which I have included an appropiate snippet from, for you:

Homosexuality was previously listed as a paraphilia in the DSM-I and DSM-II, but this has been rejected from the DSM-III and DSM-IV, consistent with the change of attitude among psychiatrists.

Likewise, zoophilia was clinically re-evaluated between DSM-III and DSM-IV. As of 2004, transvestic fetishism was still listed as a paraphilia in the DSM-IV-TR.

 

[sparklecat]

Is it morally wrong? I don't know. I tend to think not. But, it is problematic, given that it is a desire that can only be acted on by a sexual encounter with someone who lacks the ability to consent and with whom there is a serious and disturbing power differential.

Not necessarily. I'm sure there are plenty of drawn or simulated images, not to mention literature. It might not be as satisfying as the real thing, but it's not immoral or illegal (in some countries).

 

[Arnold_Philips]

Lolita is absolutely one of my favorite novels of all time.

 

[Thirst_For_Knowledge]

Pedophilia, by definitition, is a fetish. A Pedophile is not someone who is attracted to young children. A pedophile is someone who is only attracted to young children, which makes it a fetish.

A fetish, contrary to common belief, is a sexual desire towards something, of which you can't get sexual gratification without (at least in psychological terms). When people say that have a foot fetish, because they are attracted to feet, this is not actually a fetish unless they can only get sexual gratification when feet are involved.


Anywho, back on topic, no, urges are not wrong. It is the acting on the urges that is wrong.

 

[xMinionX]

Lolita is absolutely one of my favorite novels of all time.

And a very odd movie.

 

[kopilo]

Pedophilia, by definitition, is a fetish. A Pedophile is not someone who is attracted to young children. A pedophile is someone who is only attracted to young children, which makes it a fetish.

A fetish, contrary to common belief, is a sexual desire towards something, of which you can't get sexual gratification without (at least in psychological terms). When people say that have a foot fetish, because they are attracted to feet, this is not actually a fetish unless they can only get sexual gratification when feet are involved.

I'm just wondering.. Let's say a pedophila's spose dresses up as a child so that the pedophila is turned on by them, etc.. Is that person still a pedophiliac, or is it something else or could that be legal pedophilia..?

 

[Janus]

I'm not talking about child molestation - I hope there isn't anyone here who needs to argue about whether sexually abusing children is wrong or not.
I am talking about the concept alone, that is just people who are sexually attracted to children. Is the urge itself wrong?
I have been told (on these forums) that to say anyone is perverted for their sexual prefence,
is the same as saying that an african-american is a pervert for having black skin (yeh, I don't know either ).
And I guess the same goes for other orientations like zoophilia,
and necrophilia and or gendophilia. Forget about the issue of violating an animal/dead body/tree. I'm talking about the urge itself. Is there anything immoral, or perverted about a person who has these urges, or the urges themselves. One thing people tend to say about homosexuals is that if you knew one, then you would realise they are a person just like anyone else. This would also apply to say, a pedophile, who hasn't and doesn't molest children, but is attracted to children. Lots of the things we say to accept homosexuals would apply to these other sexual orientations. People who accept homosexaulity say that it is ok because its between two consenting adults, as opposed to pedophilia or zoophilia where an animal or child cannot consent and they are being violated - but what I want to know from 'you' is, is there anything immoral or perverted about just the urges themselves or the people who have them. And if so,
why is it different when it comes to homosexuals.

No, I don't think pedophiles who don't act on their desires are immoral. On the contrary, I think they're quite heroic. It must be an excruciating torture to have these desires all the time, and yet never allow yourself to fulfill them.

The same goes for necrophiles and zoophiles, although I don't think the ones who do act on their urges are in the same class as "practicing" pedophiles.
In the case of necrophilia, I don't see anything wrong with it, except for the fact that there are few families who would allow someone to screw with a loved one's corpse, and doing so without thier permission would be akin to vandalism.
I consider zoophilia to be wrong if the animal is in any kind of pain, which I suppose happens in the case of sex between a male human and female "lower" animal. So what's wrong with zoophilia is animal abuse, not the sex itself, IMO.
I've no idea what gendophilia is. Sex with trees? That's just masturbation, nothing wrong with that.

 

[Thirst_For_Knowledge]

I'm just wondering.. Let's say a pedophila's spose dresses up as a child so that the pedophila is turned on by them, etc.. Is that person still a pedophiliac, or is it something else or could that be legal pedophilia..?

A pedophile wouldn't have a functioning spouse...err, functioning marriage for there to be a spouse.

 

[Thirst_For_Knowledge]

Sex with trees? That's just masturbation, nothing wrong with that.

 

[reverend B]

so why does Jesus say that we have committed adultery when we simply contemplate it? this a question for the Christians on board. does that not actually operate in the real world? this is a legitimate question.

 

[outlaw]

I'm not talking about child molestation - I hope there isn't anyone here who needs to argue about whether sexually abusing children is wrong or not.
I am talking about the concept alone, that is just people who are sexually attracted to children. Is the urge itself wrong?

Like Maxwell511 I also applaud you for trying to defend hatred as tenaciously as you are.

I have been told (on these forums) that to say anyone is perverted for their sexual prefence,
is the same as saying that an african-american is a pervert for having black skin (yeh, I don't know either ).

That said I have to question weather you simply have poor reading skills or if you don’t think the ninth commandment is applicable to you personally.

What has been said is that choosing to hate someone because of an intrinsic trait is hate no matter who or what trait that may be. There is no difference between hating someone because they are black and hating someone because they are Jewish or because they are homosexual. Hate is hate no matter how desperately one tires to justify it or defend it.

 

[outlaw]

A pedophile wouldn't have a functioning spouse...err, functioning marriage for there to be a spouse.

Actually most pedophiles are happily married men….marrying a woman especially one with children provides easy access to children.

 

[Abbadon]

Here's a thought.

Milla Jovovich is 11 years my senior. I think this is a pretty picture of her.

So... Any other fellow heterosexual men having a slightly better day because I posted this pitcure?

Guess what. She's not even a high school student there.

Pervs. ;P