AWKWARD ZOMBIE

I said "every pedophile fantasizes about committing the act." Not that every one will get around to doing it. As was said up there in the article, not everyone who looks at kiddie porn is going to be a child sex offender, but all child sex offenders have checked out kiddie porn. There is a clear progression that I have provided proof for but at this point I think I just need to be done.

Neither was homosexuality in the 70s.



The two sources you gave (and thus, by proxy, the DSM-V) doesn't state that simply being sexualy aroused by children equates to having a paraphilic disorder. As it states, you need to feel distress over your arousal, or the nature of the arousal involve the distress of another human being. Now while it's a debatable, case-by-case issue if someone feels distress over being aroused by children, I feel that the second one is making the assumption that anyone who is sexually aroused by children also incorporates the aspect of "rape" and "molestation." While the two can be incorperated, they aren't automatically assumed to be the prime motivation. If their motivation is an unwilling participant, then it wouldn't have to be children. It could be the same "blonde haired coed" issue from the example I gave before. The issue isn't that they are attracted to kids, it's that their fantasy involves harming other people.

Reyo you can't just keep saying that.
It's not even an argument.
Pedophiles are not like homosexual people because pedophiles are child rapists, or get off to being a child rapist.
Homosexual activity isn't rape.
Pedophilic activity is.

Though comparing pedophilia and homosexuality makes me uncomfortable as well, reading through all of Reyo's posts in this thread shows that he does not think pedophilia will be considered normal in the future like homosexuality is (rightfully) starting to be. I may be mistaken but his overall train of thought seems to be as follow:

"Pedophilic activity is wrong, but can it be said that being attracted to children but never acting on this fetish is on the same level as other sexual fetishes and preferences?"
I don't see him at any point saying pedophilic activity will be accepted as normal down the line, only that the question formulated above can be asked and studied.

As you can see he makes a difference between "people turned on by children" and "people who abuse children" that you may not agree with but that is worth discussing.
As for his "comparison" of pedophilia and homosexuality: Even though homosexuality isn't a paraphilia, there are people out there who fetishize homosexuality/ homosexual intercourse, who are not necessarily homosexual themselves (some of you may know what yaoi and yuri are, and the kind of fans they have nowadays). As far-fetched as the comparison is, there are some parallels - though not between pedophilia and homosexuality, but between "the fetishization of children" and "the fetishization of homosexuals".

The main comparison I'm making between the two is is the argument people are making about pedoophilia is that it should be classified as a mental disorder just because it's "wrong". What's morally right and wrong is something that's changed across every culture that's existed. Way back then, it was normal to have sex, and reproduce, with people we would consider "children", where the second they had their first period, their parents seriously looked into getting her a family. Children weren't just having sex, but having children of their own.

What else is homosexuality was viewed as deviancy way back in the day. If you just hinted that you might be a homosexual, you'd be executed. It was viewed as a mental disorder just on the grounds that it was "wrong". Now, for both of those cases, it's the exact opposite. Homosexuality is celebrated and pedohilia is cause for social outrage. If me comparing it to homosexuality sounds rediculous, that's the point I'm trying to get at. We need more than just "It's wrong" to classify it as a disorder, because what's "wrong" today was a way of life back then, and will probably be viewed as something completely different in the future. I'm not saying that to say pedophilia will be brought back as a cultural norm, I'm saying that because we just don't know what the taboos will be in the future.

It doesn't even have to be pedophilia. The future generation can look back at how we treated upstanding members of society with awe, and disgust, because in their culture upstanding members of society are perfectly normal. Social norms change from generation to generation. We can't base hard science on something just because "It's wrong." There needs to be more.



This is precisely it. There's a difference between having a sexual preference, and acting on it, and there's especially a difference between the two sexual preferences discussed. We make the connection between "child porn" and "rape" because of all of the creeps we see on dateline NBC. Having a sexual preference that includes children is different from getting off to physically controlling a victim through rape or torture. That's something else entirely. Quietly having child pornography is different from going out and actively seeking a child to molest. Some people could spend all of their lives never even touching a child, even though they have the questionable content on their hard drives. The problem with the people who go out and actively seek children to molest is not that they're atacted to children, it's that they're willing to hurt other people, and break social taboos just to get what they want. The problem isn't necessarily that they're attracted to children. The attraction to children certainly provides motivation, but the underlying issue is that they're displaying sociopathic tendencies. Even if we had a magic pill that removed the sexual attraction to children, if we were able to change it to something that was more socially acceptable, like college aged girls, there could still be the fact that they're willing to hurt other people just to get what they want. Pedohiles don't delude themselves into thinking that the kid "wants them" and that they're not hurting anyone. They know that they're hurting people. It's why they try to covertly take the kid and then hide from society.

My main point is that I feel we're looking at the wrong thing to point out a problem. Being sexually attracted to children being wrong is simply a social taboo. Being willing to kidnap someone, and forcibly have sex with them even though they're most likely not consenting to the act isn't just socially wrong, it's a nuisance on society.

We also have very little idea of the actual impact of people that young having sex, since what records we have are only proof that it HAPPENED, not that it was a good idea. Since the majority of children who's been subject to sexual abuse in real life tend to be traumatized for life, we can probably draw the conclusion that its not beneficial.

Body dysmorphic disorder has been linked to being molested as a child. Typically, the body part that's "morphed" is the same body part that the perpetrator made a big deal of during the act. "I just love your mature hips!" equates to "I look in the mirror and I see that my hips are the size of a room..."

I'm not saying that sex with children should make a "huge comeback" just that there are more pressing matters than just the simple attraction to kids.

Sure, there's always more pressing matters, doesnt mean the smaller details shouldnt be dealt with too. Honestly, I do think that kiddie porn is horrible, even if its just drawn, though I cant in good conscience support it being censored, since art is free speech, and free speech has no exceptions. Anyone selling it should probably take a good look at what kind of customers he'd attract and decide if its worth it, though.

Great Handsome Oppressor, I think Reyo really means something more along the lines that pedophilia (and really a buttload of sexual fetishes and borderline disorders) aren't really understood scientifically or psychologically, so they're lumped as mental disorders, which is what we used to do to homosexuals and homeless people.

I think most of us can agree that being homosexual or homeless isn't a mental illness, and since very little is still known about the human mind in these areas, it's a bit strange to call it a mental illness and just call it a day, especially with how people view mental illness patients as if they're subhuman already (same with homosexuals back in the day). Science has offered many possible theories that suggest a physical difference in brain chemistry than heterosexuals, and it's legitimacy as an alternate lifestyle has helped take it away from being a disorder.

I'm not sure if pedophilia is rightfully a mental illness more than any other fetish is because of the conditioning effect I discussed earlier. I think more research would need to be done before jumping on that boat because not only is it a harmful association to these fetish groups (some of which may be mental illnesses, or may not be), but more so it can likely trivialize mental illness and lead to even more of a lack of understanding and empathy from the public for people with mental illness ("just a bunch of pedophiles and crazies"). I know there's people out there now that think that mental illnesses are a joke or a scam from psychologists because of overdiagnosis or things being reclassified later (like homosexuality).

And for some reason this post didn't submit earlier.

why do middle class people hate middle class people? I mean that on a class base, too. I've never seen working class people get angry at other working class people because of their position, or the same for upper class people.

I.....wasn't aware that was a thing.

I could have sworn the middle class was considered the working class.

I think working class is below middle class oddly enough.

Middle class and working class are different things, yes. Working class is basically a nicer term for Lower class

I've always seen it as middle-class: decently off, lower level management or tech/creative jobs; working class: physical labour, low-end desk jobs etc.