Law and pedophilia

[Mock Turtle]

Don't try to condescend to me like I'm a moron. I can't stand patronizing attitudes. I had relatives who were pedos. If they're abusing children - yes, "break up" the family!

Don't talk rubbish then.

 

[Saint Frankenstein]

Don't talk rubbish then.

What a rebuttal.

 

[Unveiled Artist]

How much does it matter if someone is addicted to some sexual behavior wherein all the parties involved are deemed capable of giving their consent to be in on it in the first place? Not too much, in my opinion.

In other words, a consenting adult person addicted to sex with other consenting adult persons doesn't pose a problem to a greater portion of society. But a person whose mind cannot release the idea of having sex with children poses a threat too great to ignore, in my opinion.

I don't understand the connection between my quote and this comment. I was just wondering how does the object of attraction (male, female, kid, adult, light post, or shoes) determine the nature of attraction and whether one has an addiction or not?

How does the object of attraction make one person addicted and the other not?

A person addicted to that kind of behavior/thinking/etc. is the person whose addiction we should care about. Not the sexual addictions of consenting adults. If sex-addicted consenting people want to not seek help for their "addictions" it makes little to no difference in any of the lives involved. An "addicted" pedophile, however? That is danger beyond anything you could possibly even remotely cite as "danger" coming from a sex-addicted, otherwise normal adult person.

The comment point wasn't referring to addiction. It was asking how the nature of attraction (addiction, normal, lust, love, etc) is determined by the object of attraction.

 

[A Vestigial Mote]

Well, except if they're destroying families and spreading diseases.

This is true. The diseases part is a bit on the "you asked for it" side, but families being torn up by people who can't keep it in their pants is definitely more problematic to innocent parties who might find themselves involved. I should have stated that the threat to lives and livelihood is diminished, rather than imply that it didn't exist.

 

[Unveiled Artist]

Because pedophiles do not let others try to understand why they feel what they feel.
They don't seek help. They hide.

They don't need help just because they are attracted to children. In the mental health field in the states if someone is not in danger to others, to oneself, and they can take care of themselves (or others of them), they're not in threat to society. There's no need to control oneself because it's not an action and desire thereof. People used to think this of homosexuals, actually, with the same regard that the object of attraction leads them to crimes and molestation of young boys (say in boy scouts). People have strong feelings over this, but objectively I don't see an 'inherent' connection between age (sex, skin color) etc and whether one will break the law or not.

 

[A Vestigial Mote]

I don't understand the connection between my quote and this comment. I was just wondering how does the object of attraction (male, female, kid, adult, light post, or shoes) determine the nature of attraction and whether one has an addiction or not?

How does the object of attraction make one person addicted and the other not?

And my point was, sort of, that it doesn't. Addicted is addicted. but one type of addiction is definitely of greater concern - that being those addicted to sexual desires toward children. And so, care should be taken to assess the level of addiction one is looking at... far more so than when dealing with your average, consenting adult sex-addict.

The comment point wasn't referring to addiction. It was asking how the nature of attraction (addiction, normal, lust, love, etc) is determined by the object of attraction.

And why does this matter? That is my question to you. Why did you mention it if you weren't trying to spread around concern for "the addicted" to include everyone (or exclude everyone)? I don't care much about consenting sex addicts... I care very much about child-sex addicted adults.

 

[Mock Turtle]

Don't try to condescend to me like I'm a moron. I can't stand patronizing attitudes. I had relatives who were pedos. If they're abusing children - yes, "break up" the family!

And if you have forgotten, or didn't know, my mother was sexually abused by her father from when she was a toddler, and had two children by him. So I think that gives me quite enough to want to know about paedophilia, and accurately, without any attached emotions that might interfere.

 

[Unveiled Artist]

And my point was, sort of, that it doesn't. Addicted is addicted. but one type of addiction is definitely of greater concern - that being those addicted to sexual desires toward children. And so, care should be taken to assess the level of addiction one is looking at... far more so than when dealing with your average, consenting adult sex-addict.

I don't see the connection between addiction and my question, though. The question still works without addiction as an example.

And why does this matter? That is my question to you. Why did you mention it if you weren't trying to spread around concern for "the addicted" to include everyone (or exclude everyone)? I don't care much about consenting sex addicts... I care very much about child-sex addicted adults.

I have absolutely no clue how you drew this conclusion.

All I asked was how does the nature of attraction (healthy or not) change based on the object of attraction.

 

[Estro Felino]

How does what one watches always effect what one chooses to do (whether legal or not)?
For example, if you watch a murder movie does that influence you to go out and kill?

No. I am talking the law of the demand and the offer.
The demand and the offer are intertwined.
They are both illegal because one nurtures the other.

 

[A Vestigial Mote]

All I asked was how does the nature of attraction (healthy or not) change based on the object of attraction.

Nope. This was not all that you asked. Here... let's review the original post I replied to and the very reason I brought addiction into it in the first place:

How does the object of attraction determine the nature of the attraction and whether it's an addiction for some and not for others?

I, myself, in all my replies to you, have said absolutely NOTHING about the "nature of attraction" and how the object of attraction "determines" such. Nothing. nothing at all. You get that? Nothing. I wasn't responding to that part of your post. Not responding to that part. It had nothing to do with any thing I said. not one thing.

"whether it is an addiction for some and not for others" - those are your words. THAT is what I was responding to. Perhaps re-read our conversation thus far with that in mind? As it stands, this miscommunication error is simply not my problem. It is yours.

 

[Unveiled Artist]

Nope. This was not all that you asked. Here... let's review the original post I replied to and the very reason I brought addiction into it in the first place:
I, myself, in all my replies to you, have said absolutely NOTHING about the "nature of attraction" and how the object of attraction "determines" such. Nothing. nothing at all. You get that? Nothing. I wasn't responding to that part of your post. Not responding to that part. It had nothing to do with any thing I said. not one thing.

"whether it is an addiction for some and not for others" - those are your words. THAT is what I was responding to. Perhaps re-read our conversation thus far with that in mind? As it stands, this miscommunication error is simply not my problem. It is yours.

"How does the object of attraction determine the nature of the attraction and whether it's an addiction for some and not for others?"

How does the object of attraction determine the nature of attraction and whether it is healthy for some people and not for others?

That or how does the nature of attraction differ (healthy or not) based on what/who one is attracted to?

Nix the word addiction. The question is the same.

 

[Harel13]

Having said that, there are some absolutely disgusting laws in some parts of the US (and probably the rest of the West) that literally allow for child marriage. So maybe you’re right.

And in other parts, there are transitioning procedures readily available for kids. This is something that until not too long ago was unheard of. And yet, here it is.

 

[Estro Felino]

They don't need help just because they are attracted to children. In the mental health field in the states if someone is not in danger to others, to oneself, and they can take care of themselves (or others of them), they're not in threat to society. There's no need to control oneself because it's not an action and desire thereof. People used to think this of homosexuals, actually, with the same regard that the object of attraction leads them to crimes and molestation of young boys (say in boy scouts). People have strong feelings over this, but objectively I don't see an 'inherent' connection between age (sex, skin color) etc and whether one will break the law or not.

I understand your point.
Nevertheless the law is concerned about potentially dangerous manifestations of sexual freedom.
Sexual freedom is absolute, only if it deals with 1) consenting 2) adult people.

I started this thread because I want to point out that the law cannot condone a sexual preference which might encourage people (who feel to same) to act upon it.
In other words: a pedophile cannot say to be proud of their urges, or feelings.
But they can explain how they try to suppress this urge.

 

[A Vestigial Mote]

"How does the object of attraction determine the nature of the attraction and whether it's an addiction for some and not for others?"

How does the object of attraction determine the nature of attraction and whether it is healthy for some people and not for others?

That or how does the nature of attraction differ (healthy or not) based on what/who one is attracted to?

Nix the word addiction. The question is the same.

I don't believe the questions are the same. You're equating "addiction" with health. Is a sexual addiction necessarily viewed as unhealthy? Must it be deemed so by those on the outside, or those who find themselves thusly addicted? I am not quite sure that necessarily follows.

And at any rate, I would state as an answer to what is apparently your actual question that consent is the ultimate trump-card for any and all questions like this. If the target of your sexual attraction is deemed unable to give informed consent to your advances or actions, then you will have crossed a moral line in any sort of taking that attraction to the point of action. And while these people may not have taken any action, they will ultimately remain attracted to their targets regardless the moral implications that would be involved in making their fantasies a reality. Add to this that we humans have instinctual imperatives in play within our psychology and even physiology, and you have something that is most definitely of concern. The drive to find a suitable mate and procreate, for example, or the drive to find a companion as a member of a social species. Even the idea that you can feel physical discomfort for not having relieved certain sexual tensions one will encounter if there is no available outlet. Those drivers, as ample evidence in our world can demonstrate, can see people doing certain things or acting on certain things that they may not normally consider - and very, very likely more often than thoughts of things like suicide or homicide (which have no corollary instinctual/physical/mental/emotional imperative driving them). The numbers back me on this, by the way:

Country: US
Homicide 5 murders (per 100,000 population)
Rape 44.4 (per 100,000 population)
Sexual Assault 270.0 (per 100,000 population)
Robbery 133 (per 100,000 population)​

Note the "rape" and "sexual assault" categories. People breaking the law for reasons of sexual gratification of some sort far outweighs deadly crime, as well as even robbery (which still contains a component of perceived "need" after a fashion)

Do we not red-flag people who have homicidal, or suicidal thoughts? Couldn't the same sort of concern apply to people who have pedophilial thoughts? Desire, or even passion-driven thoughts about actions which are, themselves, a crime? We don't imprison people who have such thoughts - and that isn't what I would advocate for anyway. Just increased concern, attempting to get those people some sort of help - even if only some kind of training or classes to make sure they understand that they can simply never act on their desires if they are to remain in good standing with their communities, and the reasons why.

 

[Saint Frankenstein]

And if you have forgotten, or didn't know, my mother was sexually abused by her father from when she was a toddler, and had two children by him. So I think that gives me quite enough to want to know about paedophilia, and accurately, without any attached emotions that might interfere.

I wasn't the one insinuating you're ignorant about the topic. And good for you, that you can turn off your emotions about it? You're just not going to get me to have "compassion" for people for like that..

 

[Unveiled Artist]

I don't believe the questions are the same. You're equating "addiction" with health. Is a sexual addiction necessarily viewed as unhealthy? Must it be deemed so by those on the outside, or those who find themselves thusly addicted? I am not quite sure that necessarily follows.

The original question to @Estro Felino was "how does the object of attraction determine the nature of the attraction and whether it's an addiction for some and not for others?"

How does the object of attraction (child, adult, black, white, male, female, whatever), determine the nature of attraction (lust, love, whatever), and whether it's an addiction for some people and not for others?

He was implying (or said) that pedophiles are addicted to porn and by looking at porn they have desires to be with children. I asked how porn influences people to do anything against the law.... when we watch a murder movie we don't feel the need to murder a person.

So, objectively, how does the object of attraction determine the nature of attraction.

And at any rate, I would state as an answer to what is apparently your actual question that consent is the ultimate trump-card for any and all questions like this. If the target of your sexual attraction is deemed unable to give informed consent to your advances or actions, then you will have crossed a moral line in any sort of taking that attraction to the point of action.

And while these people may not have taken any action, they will ultimately remain attracted to their targets regardless the moral implications that would be involved in making their fantasies a reality. Add to this that we humans have instinctual imperatives in play within our psychology and even physiology, and you have something that is most definitely of concern.

The drive to find a suitable mate and procreate, for example, or the drive to find a companion as a member of a social species. Even the idea that you can feel physical discomfort for not having relieved certain sexual tensions one will encounter if there is no available outlet. Those drivers, as ample evidence in our world can demonstrate, can see people doing certain things or acting on certain things that they may not normally consider - and very, very likely more often than thoughts of things like suicide or homicide (which have no corollary instinctual/physical/mental/emotional imperative driving them). The numbers back me on this, by the way:

I didn't say it was moral. I just asked how the object of attraction relates to the nature of attraction and how the watching child porn inherently leads to child molestation (but murder movies doesn't lead people to murder).

Note the "rape" and "sexual assault" categories. People breaking the law for reasons of sexual gratification of some sort far outweighs deadly crime, as well as even robbery (which still contains a component of perceived "need" after a fashion)

Yes... but I'm lost to that being connected to what I said and asked.

Do we not red-flag people who have homicidal, or suicidal thoughts? Couldn't the same sort of concern apply to people who have pedophilial thoughts? Desire, or even passion-driven thoughts about actions which are, themselves, a crime? We don't imprison people who have such thoughts - and that isn't what I would advocate for anyway. Just increased concern, attempting to get those people some sort of help - even if only some kind of training or classes to make sure they understand that they can simply never act on their desires if they are to remain in good standing with their communities, and the reasons why.

Red-flag as in it triggers past experiences... can't remember the context since we went off topic of my original points.

Not sure how the rest relates.

 

[A Vestigial Mote]

How does the object of attraction (child, adult, black, white, male, female, whatever), determine the nature of attraction (lust, love, whatever), and whether it's an addiction for some people and not for others?

I can't understand how this question is at all relevant. The nature of the attraction is directed at an object of attraction. Those two things are not mutually exclusive in any way, and I strongly feel that they are intrinsically tied together. You're not going to be attracted to a female sexually, but then only want to "love" that person as the "nature" of your attraction. That makes absolutely no sense. If you are attracted to someone because you love them, then perhaps there is no "Sexual" attraction there - but that's just it... we're talking about sexual attraction, aren't we? When you talk about a pedophile, you're not talking about someone for whom the nature of the attraction to children is just "love." I love my children - does that make me a perdophile? Do you see how ridiculous that is? The "nature" of the attraction and the object of the attraction are BOTH part of the attraction itself as an object. They come as a packaged deal.

He was implying (or said) that pedophiles are addicted to porn and by looking at porn they have desires to be with children.

Well, this seems backward to me. You first find yourself with predilections toward a certain type of pornography, and then you seek it out. I would guess it is extremely less often that a person accidentally sees some form of pornography and then changes their predilections to fit the pronography. That just doesn't make much sense. Like a heterosexual male who is not attracted to men seeing gay porn and suddenly changing his tastes in porn and seeking it out. Not saying it hasn't happened - but it is far less likely than that a man who is intrigued or interested in homosexual porn seeks to find it. Probably also more likely is that a person had certain predilections, but just wasn't aware of them until they saw the pornography that matched them. And this may be along the lines of what @Estro Felino was thinking.

I asked how porn influences people to do anything against the law.... when we watch a murder movie we don't feel the need to murder a person.

No... but people who think often about homicide or have murderous thoughts may be drawn toward movies that contain depictions of the act (think "Faces of Death"). This is, again, where the original notion seems to be backward, but it is not some worthless piece of information to know what kinds of things a person felt drawn to in categories like movies or pornography when attempting to establish patterns of behavior that may have indicated they were on the path to unlawful behaviors that unfolded. It's a "hindsight is 20/20" thing, unfortunately.

 

[Unveiled Artist]

I can't understand how this question is at all relevant. The nature of the attraction is directed at an object of attraction. Those two things are not mutually exclusive in any way, and I strongly feel that they are intrinsically tied together. You're not going to be attracted to a female sexually, but then only want to "love" that person as the "nature" of your attraction. That makes absolutely no sense. If you are attracted to someone because you love them, then perhaps there is no "Sexual" attraction there - but that's just it... we're talking about sexual attraction, aren't we? When you talk about a pedophile, you're not talking about someone for whom the nature of the attraction to children is just "love." I love my children - does that make me a perdophile? Do you see how ridiculous that is? The "nature" of the attraction and the object of the attraction are BOTH part of the attraction itself as an object. They come as a packaged deal.

I'm not sure where you're getting your conclusions from honestly.

Here's what I replied to...

@Estro Felino
People who are attracted to children should not manifest it publicly.
Because they can never put into action what they feel.
What they can do, is that they can ask for help, they can explain why they have these urges.
The law is for preventing crimes and helping people prevent crimes

A lot of people think that people who are attracted to children have addictions based on the object of attraction (the child). They can't "just" be attracted to children, but need to have something wrong with them to justify their attraction.

How does the object attraction determine whether a person has urges to commit a crime and additionally need help for it.

How does the object of attraction determine the nature of the attraction and whether it's an addiction for some and not for others?

In other words, how does being attracted to children determine if someone has the urge or addiction to molest a child while others who have an attraction to an adult do not.

Well, this seems backward to me. You first find yourself with predilections toward a certain type of pornography, and then you seek it out. I would guess it is extremely less often that a person accidentally sees some form of pornography and then changes their predilections to fit the pronography. That just doesn't make much sense. Like a heterosexual male who is not attracted to men seeing gay porn and suddenly changing his tastes in porn and seeking it out. Not saying it hasn't happened - but it is far less likely than that a man who is intrigued or interested in homosexual porn seeks to find it. Probably also more likely is that a person had certain predilections, but just wasn't aware of them until they saw the pornography that matched them. And this may be along the lines of what @Estro Felino was thinking.

I don't see the connection. Felino would have to clarify.

No... but people who think often about homicide or have murderous thoughts may be drawn toward movies that contain depictions of the act (think "Faces of Death"). This is, again, where the original notion seems to be backward, but it is not some worthless piece of information to know what kinds of things a person felt drawn to in categories like movies or pornography when attempting to establish patterns of behavior that may have indicated they were on the path to unlawful behaviors that unfolded. It's a "hindsight is 20/20" thing, unfortunately.

True. I was just saying there's no inherent connection. Many people make an inherent connection between child attraction=child molestation. In post #15 I was telling Felino that's not always the case.

 

[SomeRandom]

And in other parts, there are transitioning procedures readily available for kids. This is something that until not too long ago was unheard of. And yet, here it is.

Well that is certainly another worthwhile discussion to be sure. I fear I’m not well versed enough on the scientific literature to comment.
I do know puberty blockers have been used for a while now and I think that is a good strategy. Because it’s not as permanent as an actual surgery

 

[Unveiled Artist]

I understand your point.
Nevertheless the law is concerned about potentially dangerous manifestations of sexual freedom.
Sexual freedom is absolute, only if it deals with 1) consenting 2) adult people.

I started this thread because I want to point out that the law cannot condone a sexual preference which might encourage people (who feel to same) to act upon it.
In other words: a pedophile cannot say to be proud of their urges, or feelings.
But they can explain how they try to suppress this urge.

Because of morals, I doubt a pedophile would say such a thing. My point was, though, that attraction (the physiological, biological part) is the same for everyone (generalizing) regardless their object of attraction (child, adult, male, female, black, white, whoever); the brain doesn't know the difference. Some people need help, some people don't. Some need to suppress their urge and others go to work, come home a family, and call it a night. The connection between object of attraction and the nature of the attraction (urge, love, lust, whatever) doesn't connect. Of course the law should not condone sexual activity that's not between two consenting adults. I'm just saying not all people attracted to children fall under that category.

@A Vestigial Mote This is my main point above.