• 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

Druidus

Keeper of the Grove
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.
How many times must I say this... Just because you are a paedophile does not mean you molest children. You can be a non-practicing paedophile. Paedophilia does not equate molestation.

By the way, the paedophiles I know, both online and offline, do not have sex with children. Why? Because they feel it would harm the child.
 

Neo-Logic

Reality Checker
Druidus said:
How many times must I say this... Just because you are a paedophile does not mean you molest children. You can be a non-practicing paedophile. Paedophilia does not equate molestation.

By the way, the paedophiles I know, both online and offline, do not have sex with children. Why? Because they feel it would harm the child.
Hey Druidus, I see you're still up this late ( 1:40 here in California ).

I'm too drowsy to form a proper paragraph.

1. Sexuality: sexual orientation, sex acts

2. My point on your claim of non-acting paedophiles is that, if, they do not plan on acting out their thoughts, why do they want to make it a sexuality? SExuality is for the purpose of having sex, sexual orientation. In the past, you said you are a heterosexual, but that doesn't mean you are having sex right now or something to that effect. Well sexuality doesn't mean you have to be having sex every moment. It just means if you are a heterosexual, you are attracted to a certain sex, eventually leading up to the act of sex. Same for homosexuality. What makes paedophiles so special that paedophilia should be declared a sexuality for .... what? Their thoughts of sex with children and not the act of it? This is perhaps the most b.s of a thing i've ever heard.

3. Druidus, yes, one can be a non-practicing paedophile I suppose. However, it is undoubtable that they are having thoughts of sex with children in their heads, is it not. They must be because most everyone else love children, but not in the same way. The difference there being the thought of sex with them which paedophiles have. Have you heard of the story of a child molestor named Duncan? He too thought he could control his feelings, he even kept a blog "The Fifth Nail" in which he kept his daily activities and thoughts down to "acquit" himself of any fault accusations. What happened in the end? He wrote a crazy post, drove somewhere, killd a family (mother, father, 12 yr old son), and took the younger 2 children hostage. He later killed the 9 yr old boy and his acts with the 8 yr old girl is still being investigated. He is arrested and most likely faces the death sentence. How do you know that no "non-practicing paedophile" will ever act out on their fantasies? Making paedophilia a sexuality will start approving certain aspects of their lives giving them more freedom and acceptance, which when it comes to paedophila, is a bad thing. Most paedophiles commit multiple crimes, many, after being released. Criminals, especially paedophiles, to paraphrase something from Batman, relies on the acceptance and forgiveness of the society.

4. By the way, druidus, how certain are you that the non-practicing paedophiles you know, both offline and online, have never done anything (especially online)? The typical paedophile is very manipulative and intelligent. Manipulative and intelligent enough to get close to children, their families even, and even able to put themselves into job positions where they can easily have contact with children.
 

Neo-Logic

Reality Checker
Druidus said:
How many times must I say this... Just because you are a paedophile does not mean you molest children. You can be a non-practicing paedophile. Paedophilia does not equate molestation.

By the way, the paedophiles I know, both online and offline, do not have sex with children. Why? Because they feel it would harm the child.
Hey Druidus, I see you're still up this late ( 1:40 here in California ).

I'm too drowsy to form a proper paragraph.

1. Sexuality: sexual orientation, sex acts

2. My point on your claim of non-acting paedophiles is that, if, they do not plan on acting out their thoughts, why do they want to make it a sexuality? SExuality is for the purpose of having sex, sexual orientation. In the past, you said you are a heterosexual, but that doesn't mean you are having sex right now or something to that effect. Well sexuality doesn't mean you have to be having sex every moment. It just means if you are a heterosexual, you are attracted to a certain sex, eventually leading up to the act of sex. Same for homosexuality. What makes paedophiles so special that paedophilia should be declared a sexuality for .... what? Their thoughts of sex with children and not the act of it? This is perhaps the most b.s of a thing i've ever heard.

3. Druidus, yes, one can be a non-practicing paedophile I suppose. However, it is undoubtable that they are having thoughts of sex with children in their heads, is it not. They must be because most everyone else love children, but not in the same way. The difference there being the thought of sex with them which paedophiles have. Have you heard of the story of a child molestor named Duncan? He too thought he could control his feelings, he even kept a blog "The Fifth Nail" in which he kept his daily activities and thoughts down to "acquit" himself of any false accusations. What happened in the end? He wrote a crazy post, drove somewhere, killd a family (mother, father, 12 yr old son), and took the younger 2 children hostage. He later killed the 9 yr old boy and his acts with the 8 yr old girl is still being investigated. He is arrested and most likely faces the death sentence. How do you know that no "non-practicing paedophile" will ever act out on their fantasies? Making paedophilia a sexuality will start approving certain aspects of their lives giving them more freedom and acceptance, which when it comes to paedophila, is a bad thing. Most paedophiles commit multiple crimes, many, after being released. Criminals, especially paedophiles, to paraphrase something from Batman, relies on the acceptance and forgiveness of the society.

4. By the way, druidus, how certain are you that the non-practicing paedophiles you know, both offline and online, have never done anything (especially online)? The typical paedophile is very manipulative and intelligent. Manipulative and intelligent enough to get close to children, their families even, and even able to put themselves into job positions where they can easily have contact with children, not to mention commit multiple molestations before getting caught.
 

Neo-Logic

Reality Checker
P.S - wasn't there another, more detailed, thread on this subject in which I participated more actively in? This feels like a de javu with me explaining myself all over again.

P.S.S - I found the cure for insomnia. It's called the SAT PREP BOOK BY PRINCTON!!!!!! Well off I go into the dream world. Bye bye.
 

Druidus

Keeper of the Grove
P.S - wasn't there another, more detailed, thread on this subject in which I participated more actively in? This feels like a de javu with me explaining myself all over again.
I believe it was deleted.

Hey Druidus, I see you're still up this late ( 1:40 here in California ).
It's 5:13 here. I pulled an all-nighter so I could fix my sleeping schedule. I started going to sleep at four in the morning, and it didn't help that we get barely any dark up here in the summer.

My point on your claim of non-acting paedophiles is that, if, they do not plan on acting out their thoughts, why do they want to make it a sexuality? SExuality is for the purpose of having sex, sexual orientation. In the past, you said you are a heterosexual, but that doesn't mean you are having sex right now or something to that effect. Well sexuality doesn't mean you have to be having sex every moment. It just means if you are a heterosexual, you are attracted to a certain sex, eventually leading up to the act of sex. Same for homosexuality. What makes paedophiles so special that paedophilia should be declared a sexuality for .... what? Their thoughts of sex with children and not the act of it? This is perhaps the most b.s of a thing i've ever heard.
Is a priest who is still attracted to women but remains celibate not heterosexual? Paedophilia is a sexuality. There is no need for them to practice the sexuality to be possessed of it.

Druidus, yes, one can be a non-practicing paedophile I suppose. However, it is undoubtable that they are having thoughts of sex with children in their heads, is it not. They must be because most everyone else love children, but not in the same way. The difference there being the thought of sex with them which paedophiles have.
Most of them care about children sexually and platonically.

Have you heard of the story of a child molestor named Duncan? He too thought he could control his feelings, he even kept a blog "The Fifth Nail" in which he kept his daily activities and thoughts down to "acquit" himself of any false accusations. What happened in the end? He wrote a crazy post, drove somewhere, killd a family (mother, father, 12 yr old son), and took the younger 2 children hostage. He later killed the 9 yr old boy and his acts with the 8 yr old girl is still being investigated. He is arrested and most likely faces the death sentence.
One man does not prove that all paedophiles are molesters. Only 0.0046% of all paedophiles actually do molest someone.

How do you know that no "non-practicing paedophile" will ever act out on their fantasies?
Quite simply, you don't. How do you know a heterosexual won't rape someone?

Making paedophilia a sexuality will start approving certain aspects of their lives giving them more freedom and acceptance, which when it comes to paedophila, is a bad thing.
I disagree. Thought is not a crime. They deserve freedom, respect, and acceptance, as only this can help them resist their attractions.
Most paedophiles commit multiple crimes, many, after being released. Criminals, especially paedophiles, to paraphrase something from Batman, relies on the acceptance and forgiveness of the society.
This is false.
[size=+0][/size]

[size=+0]Persons who commit sex offenses are not a homogeneous group, but instead fall into several different categories. As a result, research has identified significant differences in reoffense patterns from one category to another. Looking at reconviction rates alone, one large-scale analysis (Hanson and Bussiere, 1998) reported the following differences:[/size]

[size=+0]child molesters had a 13% reconviction rate for sexual offenses and a 37% reconviction rate for new, non-sex offenses over a five year period; and[/size]
[size=+0]rapists had a 19% reconviction rate for sexual offenses and a 46% reconviction rate for new, non-sexual offenses over a five year period.[/size]
By the way, druidus, how certain are you that the non-practicing paedophiles you know, both offline and online, have never done anything (especially online)?
Two have admitted to downloading child porn at one point in their lives. Other than that, I am sure they have done nothing. Completely sure.

The typical paedophile is very manipulative and intelligent. Manipulative and intelligent enough to get close to children, their families even, and even able to put themselves into job positions where they can easily have contact with children, not to mention commit multiple molestations before getting caught.
What do you know about the "typical paedophile"? Obviously you don't seem to understand that 99.46% of all paedophiles never molest anyone.
 

michel

Administrator Emeritus
Staff member
Druidus quote "What do you know about the "typical paedophile"? Obviously you don't seem to understand that 99.46% of all paedophiles never molest anyone."


I don't disbelieve you, but from where did you get that statistic?:help:
 

Druidus

Keeper of the Grove
I don't disbelieve you, but from where did you get that statistic?:help:
I mathematically extrapolated it based on figures from the FBI, a university, a health organization and a few others I can't remember right now (it's been almost a month, I believe.).

Here is the original pragraph I did it in (This is, of course, only for the U.S.):

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.

 

Melody

Well-Known Member
druidus said:
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.
And exactly how is this "respect" manifested in such a way that they can relieve sexual tension "beyond masturbation"....and how are they going to relieve their sexual tension "beyond masturbation".
 

Druidus

Keeper of the Grove
I never said it has to go beyond that, Melody. I said they deserve respect for not being able to go beyond that.
 

michel

Administrator Emeritus
Staff member
Druidus said:
I never said it has to go beyond that, Melody. I said they deserve respect for not being able to go beyond that.
Oh heck; why do you have to be so persuasive!!!!:banghead3
 

Professor

Member
Michael, it's quite simple.

An atheist or agnostic or skeptic...etc CANNOT say anything is right or wrong absolutely. To do so would imply universal knowledge. Since their authority is subjective, limited, and without reference to all, they fail miserably.

Thus murder is neither okay or not okay. It just is if you are a consistent atheist.

Professor.
 

michel

Administrator Emeritus
Staff member
You mean, anything an atheist says, I can take with a pinch of salt? - I don't think Pah, Original Freak, Fluffy and others - whose names escape me at the moment would agree with you!


P.s maybe you'd better lie low for a couple of days - I think you have just created some powerful angst on the forum, with that remark!:)
Oh, and another small thing, I'm Michel, not Michael - I fought hard to keep my francophile name...........I'll forgive you this time...........:jam:
 

Druidus

Keeper of the Grove
An atheist or agnostic or skeptic...etc CANNOT say anything is right or wrong absolutely. To do so would imply universal knowledge. Since their authority is subjective, limited, and without reference to all, they fail miserably.
I'm neither an atheist nor an agnostic, yet I disagree with the basic premise behind that series of statements. You fail to accound for societal and personal morality, which do define whether something is right or wrong.

And murder is wrong in all circumstances because someone is harmed. That is all I need to know to determine if something is moral or not; whether somone was harmed.
 

michel

Administrator Emeritus
Staff member
No it isn't - sorry "And murder is wrong in all circumstances because someone is harmed" - that is not a wold-wide truism - it is a fabricated self imposed moral applicable to most people in the world, but is not a universal truism.

To an African, the murder of someone in the village next to yours is not a sin - it is a means of puting food on the table.................

In the animal kingdom, 'murder' is practiced every day - and that includes we self important human animals - for food.

You see, you can't even make a sweeping staement about murder without being incorrect...:)
 

jamaesi

To Save A Lamb
I'm trying to figure out if you're a troll or not, "Professor."

I'm leaning to the former.


An atheist or agnostic or skeptic...etc CANNOT say anything is right or wrong absolutely. To do so would imply universal knowledge. Since their authority is subjective, limited, and without reference to all, they fail miserably.
How in the hell does that imply "universal knowledge"? To me trying not to hurt people just shows a bit of compassion and empathy.

Just because someone doesn't believe in G-d it doesn't mean they're a soulless, hedonistic monster.
 

michel

Administrator Emeritus
Staff member
jamaesi said:
I'm trying to figure out if you're a troll or not, "Professor."

I'm leaning to the former.



How in the hell does that imply "universal knowledge"? To me trying not to hurt people just shows a bit of compassion and empathy.

Just because someone doesn't believe in G-d it doesn't mean they're a soulless, hedonistic monster.
Jamaesi,

Count to ten before you make these posts; I can understand what you are feeling - if you let comments like that get to you, you are playing straight into their hands..........

I would give the proffessor the benefit of the doubt; at the very worst, he is making us think............;)
You must spread some Karma around before giving it to jamaesi again.:banghead3
 

Druidus

Keeper of the Grove
No it isn't - sorry "And murder is wrong in all circumstances because someone is harmed" - that is not a wold-wide truism - it is a fabricated self imposed moral applicable to most people in the world, but is not a universal truism.
I disagree. I feel that in any circumstance where someone is harmed without need, an immorality has occurred.

To an African, the murder of someone in the village next to yours is not a sin - it is a means of puting food on the table.................
This doesn't make it right.

In the animal kingdom, 'murder' is practiced every day - and that includes we self important human animals - for food.
It's not murder if you have to do it.
 

Professor

Member
Michel - you agree with me it appears in a small degree because I totally agree with your 2nd to the last post thus far.

Those in the occult are inconsistent in "revising" Crowley's Thelma law with the "no harm" bumper sticker attached. Since harm is ambiguous in their worldview. Who's to interpret harm? If a child is abused, perhaps in some cultures it's looked at as a way to show affection? Who's to say? You, just because you are "Westernized" in your thinking. Since Crowley's law and Revision of the law is harmful, the whole thesis of the wiccan/witchcraft theory dies. Crowley and his followers would view the no harm bumper sticker used by "less magicians" as harmful since they restrict their urges on some levels. Who's to say, Crowley or the Druids? Anyone have a coin?

Regarding the position of the atheists. This is an issue of ethics. Agnostic, Atheist, Skeptic,etc really CANNOT speak intellectually on this subject if they are consistent in their worldviews. That's why Dan Barker (Freedom from Thinking Foundation - Madison WI) who is a leading atheist today has admited in his newsletter (which I receive) that as an atheist, he "borrows" christian ethics for his life. Though I view it as theft, but at least he's honest. I personally have never met in my personal life a 110% atheist, agnostic or skeptic. I've read about some who have come very close (they are rare or very dangerous).

The atheists on here may have ethics they hold on to. I don't know any of them personally. But if they do, it's stolen most likely from a theistic worldview (usually Judeo-Christianity).

Thus a consistent, no holds bar, 110% sold out, no compromise, totally and complete atheist, agnostic, skeptic, etc CANNOT speak on absolute right or wrong, good or bad issues. They must guess, adopt to the society they live in, fasten their seat belts, and hope that they'll come out on top.

In terms of ethics, this is the highest form of blind faith.

Thus the child molester via the atheist is really wrong ever, just not prefered at this time in this region of the planet.

Scary stuff

The Professor
 

Druidus

Keeper of the Grove
Professor, it's almost always simple to determine if someone has been harmed. If someone has been harmed, than an immorality has been committed.
 
torpaedo said:
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:
wikipedia said:
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.
Thank you, torpaedo. This is much more useful (and, I presume, accurate) information than Prima's earlier claim that "many children" remember masterbating as young as 3, 4, and 5 years of age.
 
Top