• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

Paedophila

IndigoChild--

That's okay. :) I'll supply a refresher:

Prima said:
That's utterly ridiculous and unfounded. Research suggests that children masturbate in the womb. Many people remember masturbating as young as they have memories - three, four, or five years of age.
I'm afraid I don't talk to many people about when they remember first masterbating, and as such I await evidence to support this claim.
Mr_Spinkles said:
Also, can you provide any evidence to support your claim that "before adult porn was legal, rapes were much more common"?
I am still waiting for the requested evidence.

IndigoChild said:
Of course, the biggest drop in child molestation stats would come if extramarital affairs and prostitution were legalized, as over 90% of child molestations are familial rape, usually the father.
I await a reference for this statistic.
 
IndigoChild-- I'm sorry, but I cannot find the statistic that "over 90% of molestations are familial rape" in any of the links you provided. Could you quote it, please?
 

Druidus

Keeper of the Grove
I'll do it Spinks. According to the F.B.I. and various other sources, the vast majority of child rapes are committed by situational molesters, who do so not out of a sexual desire for children, but for an easy means of sex. More of a glorified masturbation, than sex, really, to them. The vast majority of situational molesters are family. Sources and quotes to follow...
 

Professor

Member
Excellent question. Without God in the picture there is nothing wrong with this. Atheists, Skeptics, Agnostics CANNOT say it is right or wrong. And most liberal professors would say all is relative (including ethics).

It's a cultural taboo and offends our society. So Atheists and others can say to get along with society it's not the right thing to do. But they cannot say this universally. If another culture molested children and that was okay, the atheist would HAVE TO not have any opposition to this.

The ONLY way it is wrong is if an ultimate source exists to say it is. If This source is non-existenct, so it absolute ethics - absolutely.

Professor
 

jamaesi

To Save A Lamb
Excellent question. Without God in the picture there is nothing wrong with this. Atheists, Skeptics, Agnostics CANNOT say it is right or wrong. And most liberal professors would say all is relative (including ethics).

It's a cultural taboo and offends our society. So Atheists and others can say to get along with society it's not the right thing to do. But they cannot say this universally. If another culture molested children and that was okay, the atheist would HAVE TO not have any opposition to this.

The ONLY way it is wrong is if an ultimate source exists to say it is. If This source is non-existenct, so it absolute ethics - absolutely.

Professor
Please.

As someone who was molested and raped at a young age I can say paedophila is wrong, even if I'm agnostic.

If something hurts another person it's WRONG. A "God" or higher authority doesn't have to say it's wrong to make it wrong. It just is.
 

Professor

Member
I'm sorry you were abused at a young age. BUT if you are agnostic, you CANNOT say it is wrong absolutely. It is just a personal preferance in this culture and your taste that you don't like it.

And to say it's just wrong [becase] it just is goes against logic. It's a fallacy known as circular reasoning and is a lucanae emotional argument.

So what was wrong for you might be okay in another country if the society says so? What about Rape or even cannibalism? It's okay to eat people in some primitive tribes, can you really say absolutely that is absolutely wrong?

even if you use the utilitarian principle, you are defeated since in some cultures, cannibalism and molestion and rape is considered normal.

Thus you CANNOT identify true evil at all, only "preferences" you'd rather not prefer.

Your worldview leaves you hopeless with no answers, no solution, no hope.

No wonder Ernest Hemingway shot himself in the head. His philosophy was empty just as yours is.

Professor
 

IndigoChild

Member
Mr_Spinkles said:
IndigoChild-- I'm sorry, but I cannot find the statistic that "over 90% of molestations are familial rape" in any of the links you provided. Could you quote it, please?
Crap, the most important link there is now dead. No wonder you didn't find it. But it was an FBI stat, that 90% thing.

Kat
 

Jaymes

The cake is a lie
Professor said:
I'm sorry you were abused at a young age. BUT if you are agnostic, you CANNOT say it is wrong absolutely. It is just a personal preferance in this culture and your taste that you don't like it.
Who says agnostics can't have morals?

No wonder Ernest Hemingway shot himself in the head. His philosophy was empty just as yours is.
You're getting precariously close to a flame there, "Professor."
 

jamaesi

To Save A Lamb
I'm sorry you were abused at a young age. BUT if you are agnostic, you CANNOT say it is wrong absolutely. It is just a personal preferance in this culture and your taste that you don't like it.

And to say it's just wrong [becase] it just is goes against logic. It's a fallacy known as circular reasoning and is a lucanae emotional argument.

So what was wrong for you might be okay in another country if the society says so? What about Rape or even cannibalism? It's okay to eat people in some primitive tribes, can you really say absolutely that is absolutely wrong?

even if you use the utilitarian principle, you are defeated since in some cultures, cannibalism and molestion and rape is considered normal.

Thus you CANNOT identify true evil at all, only "preferences" you'd rather not prefer.

Your worldview leaves you hopeless with no answers, no solution, no hope.

No wonder Ernest Hemingway shot himself in the head. His philosophy was empty just as yours is.

Professor
I'm going to stick by to my "pathetic and hopeless" If It Hurts Others, Don't Do It worldview, thank you much.

In Saudi Arabia it's okay to oppress women and beat your wife. It's not right to hurt others. It's not right to do this.
In many places in Africa it's okay to cut off a young girl's sexual organs. It's not right to hurt others, it's not right to do this.
If you kill someone who is unwilling to be killed to be eaten it's not right because they don't want to and they are hurt.
When you rape someone who hurt them mentally and physically and invade them without their permission. This is wrong.

It's not that hard to get. I don't need some "higher power" to tell me it's not right to do things that hurt others.


[size=-1]Some people have so much respect for their superiors they have none left for themselves.
- [/size]Peter McArthur


Jam, paedophilia is not wrong. Child molestation is, yes, but not paedophila itself.

And this is something we will never agree on.

Why do you draw this huge line between child molestion and paedophila. Some paedophiles do want to have sex with children and do so- a paedophila is sexually attracted to young children, by definition.

I'm not saying we thought police. I'm just saying I will never accept something that is so wrong. If you want to have paedophilic thoughts, then good for you. Just never try and get me to accept it as an okay past time and I'd also rather you stay away from children.
 

michel

Administrator Emeritus
Staff member
Professor said:
Excellent question. Without God in the picture there is nothing wrong with this. Atheists, Skeptics, Agnostics CANNOT say it is right or wrong. And most liberal professors would say all is relative (including ethics).

It's a cultural taboo and offends our society. So Atheists and others can say to get along with society it's not the right thing to do. But they cannot say this universally. If another culture molested children and that was okay, the atheist would HAVE TO not have any opposition to this.

The ONLY way it is wrong is if an ultimate source exists to say it is. If This source is non-existenct, so it absolute ethics - absolutely.

Professor
I disagree entirely with the highlighted phrase; it is perfectly acceptable, culturally, for an African Native of one village to kill another one from another village - it would be unnaceptable from the same village.

Now tell me that that means that, to an atheist, murder of someone from a local town is acceptable?:rolleyes:
 

Druidus

Keeper of the Grove
Why do you draw this huge line between child molestion and paedophila.
Because the line exists. The vast majority of child molesters are not paedophiles.

Some paedophiles do want to have sex with children and do so- a paedophila is sexually attracted to young children, by definition.
Yes. However, only 0.0046% of paedophiles are child molesters, while 1.85% of all men are child molesters. Clearly, "normal" men are more dangerous.

2,712,917 children are sexually molested each year in the U.S. (1992). Assuming the current population of 295,734,134 people in the U.S., and about 147,867,067 males above the age of 15 and below the age of age of 65 (CIA World Factbook), and assuming no repeat molesters, 1.85% of all men are child molesters. 29,573,413.4 men are paedophiles. 0.0046% of all paedophiles are child molesters.

I'm not saying we thought police. I'm just saying I will never accept something that is so wrong. If you want to have paedophilic thoughts, then good for you. Just never try and get me to accept it as an okay past time and I'd also rather you stay away from children.
Think for a second, how could you help it if you have paedophilic thoughts? It's something you are born with. No one chooses to be a paedophile, the only choice is whether you molest or not. 99.9954% of paedophiles do not choose to molest a child.

And why is it wrong? As long as they keep it to themselves, and harm no one, why have they done that is immoral?

How much of your argument is emotion from something that happened to you (indeed, something horrible), and how much is actually based on fact?
 

torpaedo

Member
Mr_Spinkles said:
IndigoChild--

That's okay. :) I'll supply a refresher:

I'm afraid I don't talk to many people about when they remember first masterbating, and as such I await evidence to support this claim. I am still waiting for the requested evidence.

I await a reference for this statistic.

Here are some anecdotes of very young girls masturbating. These were recorded by doctors in the early 20th century, letters from concerned parents looking for a "cure" for this "bad habit." The website exists as an analysis of the effects of repressing childhood sexuality, but this particular page is also helpful in answering the question of how young people are when they start masturbating.

Also, according to Wikipedia:

It is understood that most people begin masturbating when reaching adolescence. Many scholarly and clinical studies have been done on the matter, and many informal surveys have asked the question. A 2004 survey by Toronto magazine NOW was answered by an unspecified number of thousands. [1] The results show that an overwhelming majority of the males – 81% – began masturbating between the ages of 10 and 15. Among females, the same figure was a more modest majority of 55%. It is not uncommon however to begin much earlier, and this is more frequent among females: 18% had begun by the time they turned 10, and 6% already by the time they turned 6. Being the main outlet of child sexuality, masturbation has been observed in very young children. In the book Human Sexuality: Diversity in Contemporary America, by Strong, Devault and Sayad, the authors point out, "A baby boy may laugh in his crib while playing with his erect penis (although he does not ejaculate). Baby girls sometimes move their bodies rhythmically, almost violently, appearing to experience orgasm."
 

jamaesi

To Save A Lamb
Child molestation is a form of rape. Rape usually happens because of unrelieved sexual frustration that the person cannot find a socially acceptable way to relieve. Some do it for power, yes, but most are simply frustrated and stressed to the point where their base instincts take over. (And any look at the natural world will show you that rape is, sadly, a natural part of the natural world. Doesn't make it right, but it happens all the same.)
Pedophilic rape, ie child molestation, is the same way as normal rape. A few do it for power, but most are just frustrated pedosexuals with no socially acceptable outlet, so they snap and let their base instincts take over...
And I'm going to call you out on this. Rape is mostly about power.

Dr. A. Nicholas Groth, author of Men Who Rape: The Psychology of the Offender, described four types of deliberate rapists, based on their motivations and behavior patterns. Forensic scientists, criminologists, and law enforcement agencies often use these profiles to analyze rapists and prevent future rapes.



  • The power-assertive rapist: This is argued to be the most common type of rapist, accounting for about 40 percent of all reported rapes. An alpha male, he tends to value machismo and physical aggression. Often, he will commit date rape against victims he meets in places like bars, but he may pose as or be an authority figure. Power-assertive rapists do not intend to kill their victims, but to traumatize and humiliate them. They rarely target specific people for rape.
  • The power-reassurance rapist: This type of individual is usually socially deficient and unable to develop interpersonal or romantic relationships. Usually not physically aggressive, he will select and stalk a victim before committing the crime, and this victim is usually a neighbor or work acquaintance. Power-reassurance rapists often force the victim to emulate foreplay and take "trophies" of the rape, and may record the event in a personal journal. Power-reassurance rapists usually have average intelligence, insecurities about their masculinity, and tend to be the least violent type of rapist. They also often fantasize about consensual sexual relationships with women, rather than violent conquest. Law enforcers describe this type of rapist, responsible for about 27.5% of reported rapes, as the "gentleman rapist".
  • Anger-retaliatory rapist: Responsible for about 28% of rapes, this type of individual is often a substance abuser with impulsive behavior and anger-related pathologies. This type of rapist does not target specific victims, and often feels animosity toward women in general. The anger-retaliatory rapist's attacks are usually spontaneous and brutal, and, while he does not intend to kill the victim, may beat her to death if she resists. This rapist usually has below-average intelligence and is likely to leave more evidence than other types of rapists.
  • The anger-excitation rapist: This type of rapist, considered the most dangerous and elusive, accounts for about 4.5 percent of rapes. The anger-excitation rapist exhibits behavior characteristic of antisocial personality disorder, and is therefore often perceived as charming and intelligent. This makes such rapists difficult to catch. The anger-excitation rapist may or may not choose victims selectively. Often sadistic, he will often torture or murder his victim to prevent her from identifying him, or for his own sexual gratification. Ted Bundy was an example of this type of rapist.
Even if you "can't get any" it gives you no right to force others to have sex with you or to porn that hurts others.

Yes. However, only 0.0046% of paedophiles are child molesters, while 1.85% of all men are child molesters. Clearly, "normal" men are more dangerous.
Think for a second, how could you help it if you have paedophilic thoughts? It's something you are born with. No one chooses to be a paedophile, the only choice is whether you molest or not. 99.9954% of paedophiles do not choose to molest a child.
Forgive me for being wary of statistics. Where do those numbers come from? I wasn't aware that there was a count on how many paedophiles there were. A huge amount of rapes also go unreported.

And why is it wrong? As long as they keep it to themselves, and harm no one, why have they done that is immoral?

How much of your argument is emotion from something that happened to you (indeed, something horrible), and how much is actually based on fact?
If they want to think that, that's fine and dandy.

However, I don't want it to be considered a normal and okay thing. If those thoughts were to be acted apon, they would hurt someone- that's why I don't think it's okay. Yes, a lot of this is based on that I was hurt- and I don't want any other children to have to go through that.
 

jamaesi

To Save A Lamb
On the masturbating note- I masturbated since I was very young... say, two or even younger.

It didn't mean I was ready for sex. Hardly. There is a huge difference between masturbating and having sex.
 

Druidus

Keeper of the Grove
Even if you "can't get any" it gives you no right to force others to have sex with you or to porn that hurts others.
Jam, I most certainly agree.

And I'm going to call you out on this. Rape is mostly about power.
Yep. But most child molestations are about both power and easy sex (children are malleable).

Forgive me for being wary of statistics. Where do those numbers come from?
Various reputable sources. The FBI, the Australian Parliament, a University Study, and a few others.

I wasn't aware that there was a count on how many paedophiles there were.
It is, of course, an approximation. But approximately 20% of all adult men admit to consciously being aroused by pre-adolescents.
A huge amount of rapes also go unreported.
Sadly, yes. But I can only go by the numbers that exist.

However, I don't want it to be considered a normal and okay thing. If those thoughts were to be acted apon, they would hurt someone- that's why I don't think it's okay.
I see what you mean. But I disagree. I've often thought of killing someone in particular, even thought I would enjoy it. But I would never do such a thing. I'm not equipped, mentally or emotionally, to harm someone other than in self-defense. Most paedophiles would never think of harming a child, and that means molesting or raping them. Rather than derisement or scorn, I believe the non-practicing paedophile deserves respect, for they are forced by society and their own morality to have no means of relieving sexual tension, beyond masturbation.

Yes, a lot of this is based on that I was hurt- and I don't want any other children to have to go through that.
I, too, would never want anyone to go through that. Hell, in my world, pain wouldn't exist.

On the masturbating note- I masturbated since I was very young... say, two or even younger.

It didn't mean I was ready for sex. Hardly. There is a huge difference between masturbating and having sex.
I agree.
 

Druidus

Keeper of the Grove
Just because a number of people do something or think something doesn't make it right.
That's not what I was implying, Jam. I was merely explaining where my number came from.

Wrong or right, it is natural; we are either born paedophile or not.
 

Neo-Logic

Reality Checker
Druidus said:
What, exactly, is the moral issue with paedophilia? Don't get me wrong, I don't think it's right to molest children, or take pictures of them for purposes of selling, but what, in essence, makes it wrong?
What makes paedophilia wrong are the facts that -

1. Children are sexually immature (in the sense of sex with another person as masturbation is known to be practiced by children through different ages); both physically and mentally.

2. Children cannot make decisions regarding sex (no matter how ready one thinks a certain child maybe, physically, for sex) with adults by themselves as their limited intellect makes them easily manipulatable and gullible.

3. The fact that molested children often face emotional and psychological problems involving issues of trust, guilt, and sense of identity. These are added complications for the person molested and the family; something that paedophilia helps to cause and today's world does not need more of.

There is not a single thing right or morally responsibile about paedophilia and any acts of sex between an adult and a child; therefore, one could say it's wrong. It's always for the gratification, often sexual, of the person commiting the abuse and it's the children and their families that suffers the long term consequences.
 
Top