Pedophilia is Natural

[Ghaem]

Well first let me clarify that I am not supporting the very idea of Pedophilia or even agree with the title of this thread.

The very fact that "Pedophilia is Natural" is correct according to psychology, scientifically putting it beside other sexual orientations which are accepted in psychological communities throughout the world, once again saying psychologically.

But is it really correct? As a human being and as a person who is against any type of relations except proper marriage which leads to establishment of a family, consists of a man and woman agreeing to make a family and on proper time try for having babies, I say it is NOT correct at all.

Let us just say that "Pedophilia is Natural, but NOT correct", the same that I personally believe for homosexuality and any other sexual orientation.

I believe since the time we took sexual intercourse out of regular concept of "Family Making", we opened a way for instability.

What about you guys?

[Flapjack]

I think if someone feels like that they must seek help. If they seek help and hurt no one, I have no issue. If they touch a child in any harmful or sexual way then I think they should have very sever penalties.

[Ghaem]

I think if someone feels like that they must seek help. If they seek help and hurt no one, I have no issue. If they touch a child in any harmful or sexual way then I think they should have very sever penalties.

No I am not talking about the act. I am talking about the motive. I mean the very behavior itself scientifically is right or not.

[dxcxdzv]

Oh boy, being placed at the same level as pedophilia...

[Flapjack]

No I am not talking about the act. I am talking about the motive. I mean the very behavior itself scientifically is right or not.
I doubt anybody chooses to be a pedo just like no one chooses to be gay however a gay man can have all the consensual sex in the world and it not be a problem. Being a pedo is a problem.

[Ghaem]

I doubt anybody chooses to be a pedo just like no one chooses to be gay however a gay man can have all the consensual sex in the world and it not be a problem. Being a pedo is a problem.

Being Pedophile is a problem that's what I say too, even if the Pedophile keeps himself from their motives, because even if it is scientifically natural, it is logically wrong. But I would also say the same about Homosexuality.

Remember I am not talking about law here, or trying to demonize anyone or any group of people. I am just trying to see if the very concept of Pedophilia is fine to keep or not. I mean is the Idea of Pedophilia right or not?

[Vermilion]

Hate me love me your choice , I agree I think it's not a choice it's hardwired into the person but Is a choice to act on the feelings like any other sexuality. Yes it's wrong but they need help not to be punished straight away.

I had thought about posting about this before even spoke with other members about this well 2 members. When I posted my thoughts above on a video on Facebook about a guy meeting a fake 13 year old boy I got loads of abuse from people. Even know they wanted the man killed I was wrong for wanting him to get help in there eyes

[dxcxdzv]

Being Pedophile is a problem that's what I say too, even if the Pedophile keeps himself from their motives, because even if it is scientifically natural, it is logically wrong. But I would also say the same about Homosexuality.

You want to know something 'bout me man?
I freaking love logic.

Show me yours.

[Flapjack]

Being Pedophile is a problem that's what I say too, even if the Pedophile keeps himself from their motives, because even if it is scientifically natural, it is logically wrong. But I would also say the same about Homosexuality.

Remember I am not talking about law here, or trying to demonize anyone or any group of people. I am just trying to see if the very concept of Pedophilia is fine to keep or not.
Do you not think there is a difference between a paedophile attacking a child and an adult having a relationship and/or consensual sex with someone of the same sex? As far as I'm concerned, if it's consensual, anyone should be able to do whatever they like with their bodies. No government or religion should get involved unless someone is harmed.

[Ghaem]

Do you not think there is a difference between a paedophile attacking a child and an adult having a relationship and/or consensual sex with someone of the same sex? As far as I'm concerned, if it's consensual, anyone should be able to do whatever they like with their bodies. No government or religion should get involved unless someone is harmed.

I'm not talking about Law or Government here my friend. I'm talking about scientific and logic normality. As I said I am not talking about a Pedophile attacking a child, I am talking about someone who is identified as Pedophile psychologically. What I want to say is that is a person identified as Pedophile correct to say that his motives are logically right?

You want to know something 'bout me man?
I freaking love logic.

Show me yours.

My logic is simple my friend. For humans genitals are for making families. By making families I do not mean breeding. Other purposes are not accepted.

[Flapjack]

I'm not talking about Law or Government here my friend. I'm talking about scientific and logic normality. As I said I am not talking about a Pedophile attacking a child, I am talking about someone who is identified as Pedophile psychologically. What I want to say is that is a person identified as Pedophile correct to say that his motives are logically right?
What do you mean by his motives are logically?

[Ghaem]

What do you mean by his motives are logically?

Is it logic for a person identified as Pedophile to say his motives are directed correctly? Scientifically it is, logically I don't think so.

[Stronk Serb]

Well, animals use intercourse to reproduce and seeing how we are overintelligent animals (some are not), I can say that pedophillia makes no logical sense, because it does not leave offspring because the child is too young for that.

[Ghaem]

Well, animals use intercourse to reproduce and seeing how we are overintelligent animals (some are not), I can say that pedophillia makes no logical sense, because it does not leave offspring because the child is too young for that.

I actually believe "Breeding" is not logical for humans neither, if it is not a part of "Family Making". This is why I do not agree with concept of "Sex and Breeding" as an independent subject, but an associate of "Family Making".

[Zachary G]

[QUOTE=twin;3397445]Hate me love me your choice , I agree I think it's not a choice it's hardwired into the person but Is a choice to act on the feelings like any other sexuality. Yes it's wrong but they need help not to be punished straight away.

I agree with twin here. I believe that it is not a choice one gets to choose. Our sexuality is hardwired into us, but we have the free will to either act on it or not. I dont think anyone woke up one morning and said, "I think Ill have sexual feelings for children today." Its the same way with all forms of sexuality, we didnt choose any of this however, its what we do with this information that makes all of the difference in the world.

[dxcxdzv]

My logic is simple my friend. For humans genitals are for making families. By making families I do not mean breeding. Other purposes are not accepted.
"Genitals" in the Animalia Reign are made to reproduce. The concept of "family" is kinda more superficial than that.

And why other purposes couldn't be accepted?

[Stronk Serb]

I actually believe "Breeding" is not logical for humans neither, if it is not a part of "Family Making". This is why I do not agree with concept of "Sex and Breeding" as an independent subject, but an associate of "Family Making".

Still, pedophilia makes no logical sense, since it cannot fulfill neither breeding nor family making.

[Ghaem]

zack.zack, We are not talking about the act, we are talking about the motive. As said, I am not trying to demonize anyone or any group, I only ask is it logically correct or needs to be reformed and directed properly? I say it needs to be reformed.

Also, the very origin of sexual orientation is still debated and not confirmed, but it is completely clear that it can be directed in many aspects by different matters.

"Genitals" in the Animalia Reign are made to reproduce. The concept of "family" is kinda more superficial than that.

And why other purposes couldn't be accepted?

Concept of Family is core of humanity in logic, not something superficial.

Why should they be considered as logic?

Stronk Serb, that is what I say for every other extramarital relations.

[mattsmith48]

Well first let me clarify that I am not supporting the very idea of Pedophilia or even agree with the title of this thread.

The very fact that "Pedophilia is Natural" is correct according to psychology, scientifically putting it beside other sexual orientations which are accepted in psychological communities throughout the world, once again saying psychologically.

But is it really correct? As a human being and as a person who is against any type of relations except proper marriage which leads to establishment of a family, consists of a man and woman agreeing to make a family and on proper time try for having babies, I say it is NOT correct at all.

Let us just say that "Pedophilia is Natural, but NOT correct", the same that I personally believe for homosexuality and any other sexual orientation.

I believe since the time we took sexual intercourse out of regular concept of "Family Making", we opened a way for instability.

What about you guys?

Pedophilia is obviously not a choice theres no one who chooses to rape a kid we think of it more like a mental illness then a natural thing like homosexuality

Still, pedophilia makes no logical sense, since it cannot fulfill neither breeding nor family making.

I think animals just enjoy sex just like humans do, some animals have gay sex even if it doesnt end up in a child being born

[Ghaem]

Pedophilia is obviously not a choice theres no one who chooses to rape a kid we think of it more like a mental illness then a natural thing like homosexuality


I seem to disagree, also Pedophilic motives is not a mental illness according to recent psychological gatherings anymore.

Remember we are not talking about child rape, we are talking about the very concept of Pedophilia itself as a condition.



I think animals just enjoy sex just like humans do, some animals have gay sex even if it doesnt end up in a child being born

Animals will do what will give them pleasure. Believe in my field many things which give pleasure to animals are called "Stereotypes" which are abnormal but natural acts that usually happen to animals, sometimes dangerous enough to threaten their health, like air-sucking and crib biting in domestic horses.

[dxcxdzv]

Concept of Family is core of humanity in logic, something superficial.
Unfortunately no. Homo sapiens surely develops itself in social groups and, in the education of the youngest, parents play a major role but again, this is just a characteristic inherited from our ancestors as a way to survive.
Needless to say that our highly complex social behavior required such a characteristic as well.
But this brings the interesting fact (yeah, fact, not question) that the sex of the parents has no influence on a child's development. Better, chances are that he grows up more tolerant by not bringing homosexuality at the same level as pedophilia.

If you want to argue that heterosexuality is in the "coordination" with the natural order of a species perpetuity you should know that 1) it doesn't make any other sexual behavior based on mature mutual consent "incorrect" and 2) there is literally no need to follow the restrictions of the "natural way to reproduce", humans are well-known to be this kind of species that can evolve beyond the limitations of Nature (i.e. it's environment).
What is illogic in fact is to consider that at any moment it is incorrect that two consenting adults are in a relationship because there is not "a man and a woman".

You have an extremely limited reasoning if you think that pedophilia (which is, if active, harmful to society in a way) can be compared to homosexuality or "any other sexual orientation".

[mattsmith48]

I seem to disagree, also Pedophilic motives is not a mental illness according to recent psychological gatherings anymore.

Remember we are not talking about child rape, we are talking about the very concept of Pedophilia itself as a condition.

I never said it was a mental illness, I said we see it more like a mental illness.

The concept of Pedophilia is raping a child im not sure what your looking for here

[Ghaem]

Reise, I can say we are at odds about the very concept of humanity here. You see humanity simply as an incident without purpose and mean, I see it with purpose and logic.

Humans are not animals anymore, we have to limit ourselves in directions which are correct.

I say limiting sex as an associate for making a family is the correct direction and other ends which you are using sex for is not considered purposeful and so it is not logic in my mind. Pedophilia is one of these ends.

I never said it was a mental illness, I said we see it more like a mental illness.

The concept of Pedophilia is raping a child im not sure what your looking for here

I want to know if Pedophilia must be logically accepted as it is scientifically.

[PlasmaHam]

Pedophilia is obviously not a choice theres no one who chooses to rape a kid we think of it more like a mental illness then a natural thing like homosexuality

I think animals just enjoy sex just like humans do, some animals have gay sex even if it doesnt end up in a child being born

On your first point, that makes absolutely no sense whatsoever. How is pedophilia any different mentally than being gay? They are both mental disorders, one just happens to be accepted, and one doesn't.

Secondly, having a teen claim that he personally believe animals do sex just for the enjoyment of it is not helping your position. I doubt you know a thing about animal sex, meanwhile people that do don't agree with you. Animals want to spread their seed and lineage. Anyone who watches any sort of animal documentaries know that. Very few animals do sex for enjoyment, of the few being dolphins. And I seriously doubt there are any gay dolphins swimming out there.

Studies have shown that a considerable amount of lesbians (and gays to a certain extent) go to homosexuality because of some sort of mental trauma or fear. If a woman fears she can't be accepted by men, thinks she is inadequate, or experienced some sort of relationship trauma she would often turn to homosexuality. That isn't universal, but it does shown homosexuality is often caused by outside factors.

[mattsmith48]

Reise, I can say we are at odds about the very concept of humanity here. You see humanity simply as an incident without purpose and mean, I see it with purpose and logic.

Humans are not animals anymore, we have to limit ourselves in directions which are correct.

I say limiting sex as an associate for making a family is the correct direction and other ends which you are using sex for is not considered purposeful and so it is not logic in my mind. Pedophilia is one of these ends.



I want to know if Pedophilia must be logically accepted as it is scientifically.

Humans will always be animals atlease untill we figure out how to download our brain to computers.

the purpose of sex is pleasure, that it can end up in a baby popping out is an unfortunate result of it

What do you mean by logical

[Student of Magic]

What do you mean by 'logic'?

From a very 'rational' point of view, I suppose, everything from feelings (love, happiness, pleasure, etc.) to the actions of people are "illogical" as long as they do not have a definite purpose (and an 'irrational' purpose, such as having fun, is, I guess, not admitted). Therefore, yea, probably, any kind of relation would be illogical without the certain purpose of continuing the race by making children.

However, this is not what I'd personally call 'correct'. People are free. For me, correct, proper and normal is for everyone to live their lives however they want in order to be happy as long as they mean no harm to other people (and that includes viewing life as I described in the paragraph above, if that makes you happy and it is okay for you).

As for pedophils, unless they hurt others in any way, I have nothing against anybody that belongs to that group (not that I treat them as a group; I think everybody is different).

[Ghaem]

Humans will always be animals atlease untill we figure out how to download our brain to computers.

the purpose of sex is pleasure, that it can end up in a baby popping out is an unfortunate result of it

What do you mean by logical

I'm afraid the purpose of sex is not just pleasure in my mind.

I believe the main purpose of sex for humans is to start families, pleasure is just a side prize. This is logic in my mind.

What do you mean by 'logic'?

From a very 'rational' point of view, I suppose, everything from feelings (love, happiness, pleasure, etc.) to the actions of people are "illogical" as long as they do not have a definite purpose (and an 'irrational' purpose, such as having fun, is, I guess, not admitted). Therefore, yea, probably, any kind of relation would be illogical without the certain purpose of continuing the race by making children.

However, this is not what I'd personally call 'correct'. People are free. For me, correct, proper and normal is for everyone to live their lives however they want in order to be happy as long as they mean no harm to other people (and that includes viewing life as I described above, if that makes you happy and it is okay for you).

As for pedophils, unless they hurt others in any way, I have nothing against anybody that belongs to that group (not that I treat them as a group; I think everybody is different).

I believe bolding matters like Homosexuality and Pedophilia and Incest in society will bring social mental problems in long terms.

We have to encourage people and make proper backgrounds for Optimal Family Making. Let them choose, under conditions that they keep these matters completely private, but show them the correct logic way.

[mattsmith48]

On your first point, that makes absolutely no sense whatsoever. How is pedophilia any different mentally than being gay? They are both mental disorders, one just happens to be accepted, and one doesn't.

Secondly, having a teen claim that he personally believe animals do sex just for the enjoyment of it is not helping your position. I doubt you know a thing about animal sex, meanwhile people that do don't agree with you. Animals want to spread their seed and lineage. Anyone who watches any sort of animal documentaries know that. Very few animals do sex for enjoyment, of the few being dolphins. And I seriously doubt there are any gay dolphins swimming out there.

Studies have shown that a considerable amount of lesbians (and gays to a certain extent) go to homosexuality because of some sort of mental trauma or fear. If a woman fears she can't be accepted by men, thinks she is inadequate, or experienced some sort of relationship trauma she would often turn to homosexuality. That isn't universal, but it does shown homosexuality is often caused by outside factors.

Ive never said it was mentally different I said we see it differently. One is accepted because its between two adults having consensual sex the other is one guy raping a kid. one of those is obviously wrong the other is two people having fun.

I obvious know more about animals having sex than you know about humans having sex. Dolphins do have sex for fun thats right i wouldnt be surprise if they are dolphins having gay sex, since other animals do it too like monkeys, dogs, cats...

No one chooses to be homosexuals people who say they choose to be gay are either lying or are bi and choose to be with a woman because they feel its easier than being with a men

[Ghaem]

...
No one chooses to be homosexuals people who say they choose to be gay are either lying or are bi and choose to be with a woman because they feel its easier than being with a men

This is a very bold claim. As I said it is still debated what are origins of such matters, since no actual case has been identified that was either full innate or full willingly.

[DriveAlive]

Ghaem: you claim that the logical purpose of sex if "family making." Okay, now support this claim.

[PlasmaHam]

Ive never said it was mentally different I said we see it differently. One is accepted because its between two adults having consensual sex the other is one guy raping a kid. one of those is obviously wrong the other is two people having fun.

I obvious know more about animals having sex than you know about humans having sex. Dolphins do have sex for fun thats right i wouldnt be surprise if they are dolphins having gay sex, since other animals do it too like monkeys, dogs, cats...

No one chooses to be homosexuals people who say they choose to be gay are either lying or are bi and choose to be with a woman because they feel its easier than being with a men

So, wait, you just accepted that pedophilia and homosexuality are both mental disorders?! You basically just reiterated my comment regarding them being the same mentally.

Please, I really don't trust the opinion of a teenager regarding the sexual habits of animals. If you are really that interested in it, you have problems. I just said that scientists have shown that extremely few animals do sex for pleasure. You must be mistaking a dog's tendency to hump everything for being gay, which actually kinda fits with the gay community.

I could just as easily call all the people who think homosexuality isn't a choice liars too you know. The only difference would be that studies support my position. Please come up with better responses than just calling people liars.

[mattsmith48]

This is a very bold claim. As I said it is still debated what are origins of such matters, since no actual case has been identified that was either full innate or full willingly.

Its not a debate, gay people are born that way, just like straight people are born straight

[PlasmaHam]

Its not a debate, gay people are born that way, just like straight people are born straight

Ghaem This kid is clearly stuck in his misguided beliefs. It would probably be best to just ignore his claims for now.

[Ghaem]

Ghaem: you claim that the logical purpose of sex if "family making." Okay, now support this claim.

Well, what you are asking is like this:

"You claim that the logical purpose of Feeding is "Surviving to Live".Okay, now support this claim."

Sex is joyful, but is it solely and mainly for joy? Definitely not, any healthy mind can realize that. The only logic purpose for sex is "Breeding" in animals, and "Making Families" for humans, and it also brings pleasure.

Remember these two are different.

[mattsmith48]

So, wait, you just accepted that pedophilia and homosexuality are both mental disorders?! You basically just reiterated my comment regarding them being the same mentally.

Please, I really don't trust the opinion of a teenager regarding the sexual habits of animals. If you are really that interested in it, you have problems. I just said that scientists have shown that extremely few animals do sex for pleasure. You must be mistaking a dog's tendency to hump everything for being gay, which actually kinda fits with the gay community.

I could just as easily call all the people who think homosexuality isn't a choice liars too you know. The only difference would be that studies support my position. Please come up with better responses than just calling people liars.

Ive never said they were mental disorder I said we see pedophillia more as a mental illness than a naturally accuring thing like homosexuallity or heterosexuallity, Ive never said what I personally think, I just stated how people in general people see pedophillia.

Im legally an adult (not like age makes a difference), Ive had biology classes in high school and from that I know a little about animal having sex. Scientist have observed dogs (like other animals) engage in gay sex.

Ive never said people who think homosexuality is a choice are liars, I said people who say they choose to be straight or gay are lying

[PlasmaHam]

Ive never said they were mental disorder I said we see pedophillia more as a mental illness than a naturally accuring thing like homosexuallity or heterosexuallity, Ive never said what I personally think, I just stated how people in general people see pedophillia.

Im legally an adult (not like age makes a difference), Ive had biology classes in high school and from that I know a little about animal having sex. Scientist have observed dogs (like other animals) engage in gay sex.

Ive never said people who think homosexuality is a choice are liars, I said people who say they choose to be straight or gay are lying


You are contradicting yourself again. You first said they were the same, just with different societal standards. Now you are saying they are not the same. Make up your mind!

I've had high school biology classes as well. That doesn't make you an expert in animal reproduction. Again, you are claiming things you can't support and mistaking a dog's tendency to hump everything as being gay, which is actually pretty close to the gay community.

So, you said they were lying yet they were not liars. Are you sure that you took high-school classes? Because I see some serious contradictions in your post.

[Ghaem]

Ive never said they were mental disorder I said we see pedophillia more as a mental illness than a naturally accuring thing like homosexuallity or heterosexuallity, Ive never said what I personally think, I just stated how people in general people see pedophillia.

Im legally an adult (not like age makes a difference), Ive had biology classes in high school and from that I know a little about animal having sex. Scientist have observed dogs (like other animals) engage in gay sex.

And as I said it can be considered as an "Stereotype".

The animal will try this act, it gives it pleasure and will continue on with it. Animal is doing this because it is giving it pleasure not that it is innately supposed to do this.

Doing somethings like sex solely for pleasure is not considered logic in humans. Sex is not like game. This act has a logic purpose itself.

Besides, no full homosexuality has been observed among animals, like what we say for humans. Just homosexual acts which further more clarifies that animal is just doing this because it gives it pleasure.

In humans, however, we need meaningful purposes for acts like sex. Joy and pleasure are not main purposes of sex and independently are not correct reasons for sex, they are just side prizes.

[mattsmith48]

You are contradicting yourself again. You first said they were the same, just with different societal standards. Now you are saying they are not the same. Make up your mind!

Ive never said if it was the same or not. I said how society see it or think of it.

I've had high school biology classes as well. That doesn't make you an expert in animal reproduction. Again, you are claiming things you can't support and mistaking a dog's tendency to hump everything as being gay, which is actually pretty close to the gay community.

who said he was an expert?

So, you said they were lying yet they were not liars. Are you sure that you took high-school classes? Because I see some serious contradictions in your post.

People like you who think being gay is a choice are not lying they are just miseducated, people who are gay and say they choose to be gay are lying. Your the one who look like he didnt took high school classes you seem to have trouble understanding what you read

And as I said it can be considered as an "Stereotype".

The animal will try this act, it gives it pleasure and will continue on with it. Animal is doing this because it is giving it pleasure not that it is innately supposed to do this.

Doing somethings like sex solely for pleasure is not considered logic in humans. Sex is not like game. This act has a logic purpose itself.

Besides, no full homosexuality has been observed among animals, like what we say for humans. Just homosexual acts which further more clarifies that animal is just doing this because it gives it pleasure.

In humans, however, we need meaningful purposes for acts like sex. Joy and pleasure are not main purposes of sex and independently are not correct reasons for sex, they are just side prizes.

Animals have straight sex for the same reason they have gay sex because its gives them pleasure if it didnt they wouldnt have straight sex and the species would go instinct.

Its not because ''full homosexuallity'' as not been observed yet that it doesnt happen. I wouldnt be suprise some animals do espacially our closer relatives and animals like dolphins who do have sex for pleasure.

[Vlerchan]

I believe the main purpose of sex for humans is to start families, pleasure is just a side prize. This is logic in my mind.
The use of the term 'the main' implies that there are other legitimate purposes to sex.

I say limiting sex as an associate for making a family is the correct direction and other ends which you are using sex for is not considered purposeful and so it is not logic in my mind. Pedophilia is one of these ends.
If a fifty-three year old man has sex with a minor, let us say an eleven year old, and she conceives and bears him a son, that is an example of paedophilia directed towards an ethical end, is in not?

Is there an actual material difference between having a 30 year old woman, and an eleven year old girl, bear your children so that you can raise a family.

---

You also need to define family if this is to be a coherent discussion.

---

Dolphins do have sex for fun thats right i wouldnt be surprise if they are dolphins having gay sex [...]
Dolphins also engage in gang-rape and sexual slavery.

I have no idea why the fact that other animals do something makes it moral for human-beings - or is relevant to a discussion about human-beings. You argue that we are all animals, but being as I have never seen you demand absolutely equal rights for other animals, you must believe there is some sort of qualitative difference.

---

They are both mental disorders, one just happens to be accepted, and one doesn't.
How do you define a 'mental disorder'?

Very few animals do sex for enjoyment[.]
I have no idea how anyone can claim to understand the motivations of animals.

Dolphins have also been seen to engage in homosexual behaviour. Though whether the dolphins are homosexual, or such classifications even exist within dolphin-culture, is not possible to know. I am also not a teenager, which I presume makes my opinion valid on the issue.

If a woman fears she can't be accepted by men, thinks she is inadequate, or experienced some sort of relationship trauma she would often turn to homosexuality.
I would appreciate if you could cite your sources. Thank you.

The understanding I have is that homosexuality is epigenetic.

Biometric modeling revealed that, in men, genetic effects explained .34-.39 of the variance, the shared environment .00, and the individual-specific environment .61-.66 of the variance. Corresponding estimates among women were .18-.19 for genetic factors, .16-.17 for shared environmental, and 64-.66 for unique environmental factors. Although wide confidence intervals suggest cautious interpretation, the results are consistent with moderate, primarily genetic, familial effects, and moderate to large effects of the nonshared environment (social and biological) on same-sex sexual behavior.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/18536986

[sqishy]

As with all forms of sexual attraction, I don't see inherent evil/ill-intent/perversion/etc in those that do not act on desires which will harm others, or manipulate their innocence. There are people (I guess many, taking the human population) who have sexual desires toward the young (younger than 18 let's say), these people being significantly older. These people are included.

Even if they are seen to be a disease and with that in mind, I quote Michael Moore to then say that they can be kept apart from the rest of society, rather than be punished for acts that many have a capacity for but no actuality in doing.

[Hyper]

As far as I know it is not a commonly accepted notion in psychology or any kind of cognitive science that ''pedophilia is natural''

There are certian academics and ''activists'' who would want to convince people otherwise and do say that it is natural but thankfully they haven't become the majority AFAIK.

[Ghaem]

The use of the term 'the main' implies that there are other legitimate purposes to sex.

The main function and use of your eyes is to provide you sight. Who has said that you can't move items with movement of your eyeballs? There is no logic in using it for that however. The same goes for sex. Engaging in sexual intercourse solely and only for fun and pleasure is not logic, but for making a family and maintaining it and as a side prize enjoying its pleasure is logic.

If something is not emotionally logic, it is in no way legitimate in my mind.


If a fifty-three year old man has sex with a minor, let us say an eleven year old, and she conceives and bears him a son, that is an example of paedophilia directed towards an ethical end, is in not?

Surely didn't get my point did you? I said sex is logic when it is for making families, not independently for joy and pleasure. The very concept of Pedophilia means that an individual is directed by a motive toward being attracted sexually to minors, for independent pleasure-goal sex.

What I say is that even two married people who are considered husband and wife, if have sex only for pleasure and not mainly for making family or strengthening the family bonds between each others, it is not logic.

Marriage means that two adult people male and female, freely agree to start a family as the main social core of the society and have children with each others and support each others and their children in this social core.

Is there an actual material difference between having a 30 year old woman, and an eleven year old girl, bear your children so that you can raise a family.


I have already clarified what I meant above.

[Leprous]

Ghaem Actually feeling the need to have sexual pleasure is natural and is something that happens not only with humans. I guess you are letting religion guide you on this topic? Then it is not emotionally logical.

Also marriage does not mean they are going to have children. Nobody can force someone to have children when they get married just so you know.

[Vlerchan]

The main function and use of your eyes is to provide you sight. Who has said that you can't move items with movement of your eyeballs? There is no logic in using it for that however.
I have no idea how this follows.

It is impossible to use our eyes for that function. That does not mean that there might not be a logic reason to do so. You seem to just be throwing the term 'logic' around here though, I would appreciate if you could define it so that we might be able to have a more coherent discussion.

The same goes for sex.
Unlike moving objects without our eyes, we can derive pleasure from sex. It's arguable that such flows even more easily than conception.

Even if we presume the preceding statement made sense, this wouldn't follow, regardless.

I said sex is logic when it is for making families, not independently for joy and pleasure.
When an older man has sex with a much younger girl, with the aim of having her conceive, then that is sex with the ultimate aim of having families.

The very concept of Pedophilia means that an individual is directed by a motive toward being attracted sexually to minors, for independent pleasure-goal sex.
People, generally speaking, tend to prefer to copulate with people they are attracted to. This goes for heterosexual as much as it goes for paedophiles.

That does not mean that all their sex-acts are ultimately devoted to the ultimate aim of seeking pleasure. You are reading this into their sex-act as opposed to it being an inherent quality.

Unless you're about to argue that it is wrong for heterosexual too, to copulate, with the aim of having children, with people they are attracted to.

What I say is that even two married people who are considered husband and wife, if have sex only for pleasure and not mainly for making family or strengthening the family bonds between each others, it is not logic.
Sure. This doesn't contradict the points I'm making.

Marriage means that two adult people male and female, freely agree to start a family as the main social core of the society and have children with each others and support each others and their children in this social core.
This is getting away from the point of an older man and a much younger woman copulating with the express aim of starting a family, and not sexual pleasure.

---

I guess you are letting religion guide you on this topic? Then it is not emotionally logical.
His arguments aren't too far at all from what some the Stoic's argued.

[Ghaem]

Ghaem Actually feeling the need to have sexual pleasure is natural and is something that happens not only with humans. I guess you are letting religion guide you on this topic? Then it is not emotionally logical.

The irreligious part of my mind is inside this discussion right now, and I used to think the same about sexual pleasure, but then came to understand that sexual pleasure itself is never an independent goal, but a side prize.

What you are saying is taking sexual pleasure independently which is in no way correct.

Also marriage does not mean they are going to have children. Nobody can force someone to have children when they get married just so you know.

Then it is a union not marriage. Marriage is for starting a family and family is not possible to be made without having intentions of having children, even if there are problems with fertility. You must have intentions of having children when you start a family otherwise it is not a family.

[Leprous]

The irreligious part of my mind is inside this discussion right now, and I used to think the same about sexual pleasure, but then came to understand that sexual pleasure itself is never an independent goal, but a side prize.

What you are saying is taking sexual pleasure independently which is in no way correct.



Then it is a union not marriage. Marriage is for starting a family and family is not possible to be made without having intentions of having children, even if there are problems with fertility. You must have intentions of having children when you start a family otherwise it is not a family.

Nobody said that anyone who gets married is forced to have children though.

Looking at your posts I'll assume you dislike gays and lesbians having sex because it is for pleasure.

If you are not driven by religion then what does? As I said before it is natural to feel the need for sexual pleasure as it is natural. We are not the only species having sex you know. As far as I'm aware only religious people use your arguments for things like these.

[Ghaem]

Nobody said that anyone who gets married is forced to have children though.

Looking at your posts I'll assume you dislike gays and lesbians having sex because it is for pleasure.

If you are not driven by religion then what does?

I dislike purposeless acts and having sex solely for pleasure is one.
What I say is it only makes sense if pleasure of sex be a side prize of a work with purpose.

Not just gays and lesbians, any other act which falls in this category, even traditional husband-wife sex


As I said before it is natural to feel the need for sexual pleasure as it is natural. We are not the only species having sex you know. As far as I'm aware only religious people use your arguments for things like these.

As I said animals mostly solely follow pleasure even if it leads them to their doom. Humans are not animals to just follow the pleasure but they mainly follow purpose for their lives. Sex is not a game and sex is not solely, mainly for pleasure, it is not its purpose.

[Leprous]

I dislike purposeless acts and having sex solely for pleasure is one.
What I say is it only makes sense if pleasure of sex be a side prize of a work with purpose.

Not just gays and lesbians, any other act which falls in this category, even traditional husband-wife sex




As I said animals mostly solely follow pleasure even if it leads them to their doom. Humans are not animals to just follow the pleasure but they mainly follow purpose for their lives. Sex is not a game and sex is not solely, mainly for pleasure, it is not its purpose.

What makes us humans any different from animals though? We are still a breed of mamals. Humans are not some superior race that is above all others. Humans are just like animals and will follow their desires even if it leads them to their doom.

But with your logic gays and lesbians are not allowed to have sex? Seems a little bit extreme and almost homophobic you know.

[Ghaem]

I have no idea how this follows.

It is impossible to use our eyes for that function. That does not mean that there might not be a logic reason to do so. You seem to just be throwing the term 'logic' around here though, I would appreciate if you could define it so that we might be able to have a more coherent discussion.

It is not impossible but pretty much possible for small objects. I say eyeballs purpose is not to use them for moving small objects, while we can, but for providing enough background for primary sight. It is not logic to use them for moving small objects while we can.



When an older man has sex with a much younger girl, with the aim of having her conceive, then that is sex with the ultimate aim of having families.

And is the older man doing this for making a family or just because he is attracted to the younger girl, which must also be adult? Would he also look for women just a little younger than himself for making a family if the younger girl was not there or did not agree to marry him, or he would go look for other younger girls?

You are still not getting my point about family which I believe is for undermining traditional descriptions of family in your culture.


People, generally speaking, tend to prefer to copulate with people they are attracted to. This goes for heterosexual as much as it goes for paedophiles.

That does not mean that all their sex-acts are ultimately devoted to the ultimate aim of seeking pleasure. You are reading this into their sex-act as opposed to it being an inherent quality.

Unless you're about to argue that it is wrong for heterosexual too, to copulate, with the aim of having children, with people they are attracted to.

I have already made it clear sexual attraction is nonsense in my mind. People will want to make families with those whom they fit better with personally not sexually.

So yes it is also wrong for heterosexuals.


What makes us humans any different from animals though? We are still a breed of mamals. Humans are not some superior race that is above all others. Humans are just like animals and will follow their desires even if it leads them to their doom.

The very thing which is causing we two debate over such matter is what makes us different from animals: Intelligence. It is an established fact that humans are not animals anymore, but new species following body code of their genetic predecessors, the animals.

Those humans following their desires to their doom are Hitlers, Stalins and Genghis Khans which have existed throughout history. You want to be like them?

But with your logic gays and lesbians are not allowed to have sex? Seems a little bit extreme and almost homophobic you know.

Permission to have sex in none of my business unless they do not want to keep it private. I have good evidences taking these matters out of privacy will threaten the concept of traditional families, which are optimal family structures for societies. If they want to have sex, let everyone do anything they want, homosexual, incest, bestiality and so on; but in private, not in society. In society only one type of relationship must be encouraged and that is optimal family making marriage.

[Vlerchan]

It is not logic to use them for moving small objects while we can.
I am not sure how it can be claimed that it is 'not logical' in an absolute sense.

Nonetheless I understand the point being made is that there are more efficient means if serving the same goal.

This is not the same with sex - Which provides quite a distinct pleasure.

And is the older man doing this for making a family or just because he is attracted to the younger girl, which must also be adult?
Like I said: in this instance it for making a family.

The point of this thought experiment is that the girl must also not be an adult.

Would he also look for women just a little younger than himself for making a family if the younger girl was not there or did not agree to marry him, or he would go look for other younger girls?
Being a peadophile he has a strong preference for much younger girls.

This does not mean that the ultimate point of all sex acts is thus pleasure - and nor does it mean that he is incapable of forming a deeper non-sexual bound with them.

You are still not getting my point about family which I believe is for undermining traditional descriptions of family in your culture.
I understand what you're saying.

I have already made it clear sexual attraction is nonsense in my mind. People will want to make families with those whom they fit better with personally not sexually
I would agree that having a family requires a much deeper level of attachment than is available at a sexual level - though I don't believe that this doesn't tend to follow from an initial sexual attraction. Nonetheless I also fail to see how this is not applicable to our peadophilic couple.

The fact that our older man's initial attraction was sexual does not undermine the development of this attraction into something deeper.

[Bull]

[QUOTE=Ghaem;3397450]

My logic is simple my friend. For humans genitals are for making families. By making families I do not mean breeding. Other purposes are not accepted

How do you "make families" with genitals without breeding? "Other purposes are not accepted" in your opinion. When you give a personal opinion you should identify it as such. Many of us in the VT family do NOT share your opinion.

[Ghaem]

I am not sure how it can be claimed that it is 'not logical' in an absolute sense.

Nonetheless I understand the point being made is that there are more efficient means if serving the same goal.

This is not the same with sex - Which provides quite a distinct pleasure.

The problem here is that in my mind sex is not for pleasure, but it gives pleasure.


Like I said: in this instance it for making a family.

The point of this thought experiment is that the girl must also not be an adult.

Non free and understanding adult female : No Family making. We are not talking about Bedouin marriages which are not considered marriages.

Besides, what you say is actually putting pleasure in front of making a family, so it is not for making family independently.

What I say is that it must be for making family independently, and pleasure as a side prize and award, not the independent goal.

This is why I said if the younger girl didn't agree, would he once again look for other younger girls or not? Anyway, as I said for making the family the younger girl MUST be adult. There is no other way.


I understand what you're saying.


I don't think you do. Your statements above for family are against my point.



I would agree that having a family requires a much deeper level of attachment than is available at a sexual level - though I don't believe that this doesn't tend to follow from an initial sexual attraction. Nonetheless I also fail to see how this is not applicable to our peadophilic couple.

The fact that our older man's initial attraction was sexual does not undermine the development of this attraction into something deeper.


My philosophy is simple in this matter:

Making a Family, the social core of society : The Goal
Sexual Pleasure : Side Award (Not even main Award)

Making a family only requires two male and female individuals who are fitting personally, emotionally, physically (health); it does not require sexual attraction.




How do you "make families" with genitals without breeding? "Other purposes are not accepted" in your opinion. When you give a personal opinion you should identify it as such. Many of us in the VT family do NOT share your opinion.

Breeding: Only for making babies not families, no need for presence of families, breeders are enough, the thing which once happened in Greece during ancient times.
Making Family : Marrying and having intentions for having babies for the family


Many other do share my opinion. Giving the vast ground in VT, I believe many of them are here too.

[Uniquemind]

I think their is a foundational flaw and multiple fallacies regarding one function = one purpose.

The OP is over simplified, and is mixing artificial sociological concepts that emerged in early humans after the layer of the frontal cortex on top of the limbic system, which was layered on top of the brain stem.

---

If this thread is still open, I will comprehensively respond, but I as a poster want to state I am partially offended at the tone the conversation is beginning to take these last couple pages.


Let me also inject that I don't believe all cases of pedophilia are equal, just like not all cases of homicide are equal once you look at the victimology profile, method of killing etc..


The details matter here, and I think there is such a stigma discussing this topic, that there is a gut reaction to go crusading to purge evil from among society.

Let me also add that nature makes mistakes...but that nature also has mechanisms that address power-social dynamics.


Acts that cause intimidation and manipulation to give an individual power or control to order a society, is also "logical" or it makes sense why nature sometimes allows nasty behaviors like rape, or pedophilia.


Let me also add that the age of consent being 16 or even 18, as is the case in the US, is an artificial barrier NOT created by nature, but at a social level with established written law and government; a relatively recent phenomena.


Therefore, pedophilia is not just attraction to minors, because minors varies depending on country.

I believe in medical books it is specifically to have a sexual attraction, and lust for, individuals younger than (9-10) in most cases who do not show development of secondary sexual characteristics.

Attraction for the preteen years and early teens (11-15) is hebephilia.

The former in layman speak I think is much more common than we let on in society and we lump it with the term pedophilia, which I think does a disservice to this discussion and debate.

[lliam]

But is it really correct?
Let us just say that "Pedophilia is Natural, but NOT correct", the same that I personally believe for homosexuality and any other sexual orientation.



Correctly, you first should understand it it quite this way:

1. Paedophilia is just like any other sexual orientation, something an individual can't choose to be. If you are marked that way, you stay that way.


Then the correct term would may be such like this:

2. It is therefore natural, but not socially accepted.


And of course you should pedophilia not comparing with homosexuality, transgender and whatsoever.


Now, the special thing about of pedophilia is unfortunately, that it involves children who can get significantly harmed in their development during sexual contact with an adult. In many ways.


Therefore, the subject is much more explosive than about homosexuality, which imo now is supposed to be accepted by everyone as God-given, means, it's not a big deal anymore.

We could could deal with pedophilia same way, if not, as I said, children would be affected.

The duty of adults is to promote, encouraging etc a kid's development into an independent, self-responsible, individual - freed from parental authority.

Those who can't go that way, must keep themselves away from kids. Imo this means especially people with a pedophile orientation.

[Uniquemind]

Correctly, you first should understand it it quite this way:

1. Paedophilia is just like any other sexual orientation, something an individual can't choose to be. If you are marked that way, you stay that way.


Then the correct term would may be such like this:

2. It is therefore natural, but not socially accepted.


And of course you should pedophilia not comparing with homosexuality, transgender and whatsoever.


Now, the special thing about of pedophilia is unfortunately, that it involves children who can get significantly harmed in their development during sexual contact with an adult. In many ways.


Therefore, the subject is much more explosive than about homosexuality, which imo now is supposed to be accepted by everyone as God-given, means, it's not a big deal anymore.

We could could deal with pedophilia same way, if not, as I said, children would be affected.

The duty of adults is to promote, encouraging etc a kid's development into an independent, self-responsible, individual - freed from parental authority.

Those who can't go that way, must keep themselves away from kids. Imo this means especially people with a pedophile orientation.

You know what strikes me as odd about a pedophile's mindset of "love"?

If they really liked the actual person, why can't they just wait for that individual to grow up and THEN try to establish a relationship.

It just strikes a nerve and comes off as some fetish.

On the flip side for argument's sake, what if society did magically accept it? Would such relationships be thrown away after the younger party grew up and visually wasn't satisfying the older party?


--

Now my personal feelings on hebephilia are a little more grey, especially given a historical context.

But I'll wait a response to see who is still in this thread.

[Vlerchan]

The problem here is that in my mind sex is not for pleasure, but it gives pleasure.
You're offering no reason for me to accept that as true.

Anyway, as I said for making the family the younger girl MUST be adult.
This needs to be justified and it hasn't been so far. The argument made so far has been a list of tautology that demonstrate themselves without reference to some clear logical framework.

Making a family only requires two male and female individuals who are fitting personally, emotionally, physically (health); it does not require sexual attraction.
Then I do no see a reason to reject paedophilia.

It might not require serial attraction - but is that to argue that all individuals that fins their partner sexually attractive are incapable of having a 'real family'.

[Just JT]

I can't believe I've read this entire thread.....
To the OP, scientifically, I think there is some truth or what you say, it almost seems natural and normal. And from personal experience, yes...that is how it felt...

But...not sure who what order or who said what, but homosexuality is not a mental disorder. No sexual orientation is. And to some degree neither is pedophilia. However, morally, socially, the act is wrong, on so many levels that I don't really care to dwell on any more than I already have

I get the idea that scientifically, it would seem almost normal, people have all kids of sexual appetites. We all know that. So why would it seem unnatural or abnormal to put children into that rhelm? Hmm, lets ask any child who's been molested sexually abused or raped....or even are aware that they are desired sexually.....

No, no....it's all kinda wrong, sorry....children, young people should be mentored, loved, taken care of....hmmm, seems those words could have a double meaning as well...

Sorry if this post seems random, it just hit pretty close to home for me. I simply can not understand how someone can do these things to a child. But also, I can, if the adults motives are tender loving and caring??? I can't believe I just said that, maybe mentoring???

For me, that almost makes sense, but also, just plane f***in' wrong imo.

[Karpizzle777]

We are all animals right? Since when did other animals put restrictions on which other animals they could fuck...? When was the last time a Zebra didn't have sex with another Zebra because they weren't married...? Exactly none of these things happen outside the human race. Although I think pedophilia is sick and disgusting you must remember humans are just animals and sometimes our natural instincts will get the better of people. Pedophiles are humans just like us except they have that animal sex drive at the back of their heads which overpowers however many social and religious norms the rest of society may have. REMEMBER WE ARE ONLY HUMAN!

[Dalcourt]

a lot of things that are said here why pedophilia is kinda natural make sense in a why.
but having sex with someone is always a matter of consent...so as long the other person is okay with it you can follow your sexual desires but if the person is too young to understand what it is all about and cannot give consent in a proper way...doing these things is just plain wrong.

we might be animals but then animals would only have sex for reproduction purpose something you don't do when having sex with a kid so i think this goes against that theory, right?

[mattsmith48]

Dolphins also engage in gang-rape and sexual slavery.

I have no idea why the fact that other animals do something makes it moral for human-beings - or is relevant to a discussion about human-beings. You argue that we are all animals, but being as I have never seen you demand absolutely equal rights for other animals, you must believe there is some sort of qualitative difference.

It doesnt make it moral it makes it natural, sometimes some animals will engage in cannibalism its a natural thing for animals to do when they are hungry and they cant find food. Its not moral but its natural

[Uniquemind]

I can't believe I've read this entire thread.....
To the OP, scientifically, I think there is some truth or what you say, it almost seems natural and normal. And from personal experience, yes...that is how it felt...

But...not sure who what order or who said what, but homosexuality is not a mental disorder. No sexual orientation is. And to some degree neither is pedophilia. However, morally, socially, the act is wrong, on so many levels that I don't really care to dwell on any more than I already have

I get the idea that scientifically, it would seem almost normal, people have all kids of sexual appetites. We all know that. So why would it seem unnatural or abnormal to put children into that rhelm? Hmm, lets ask any child who's been molested sexually abused or raped....or even are aware that they are desired sexually.....

No, no....it's all kinda wrong, sorry....children, young people should be mentored, loved, taken care of....hmmm, seems those words could have a double meaning as well...

Sorry if this post seems random, it just hit pretty close to home for me. I simply can not understand how someone can do these things to a child. But also, I can, if the adults motives are tender loving and caring??? I can't believe I just said that, maybe mentoring???

For me, that almost makes sense, but also, just plane f***in' wrong imo.

But that begs the question that has research about sexually traumatic been selective towards cases of abuse?


I remember reading somewhere once that did state that those who became sexually active during their tweens and teens (so really hebephiles, not clinical pedophiles, but pedophiles in the layman's term of how society uses the term) we're not necessarily mentally traumatized.


So I think in some cases, younger people aren't by default not knowing what sexually activity is.

Heck look at the puberty section, by age 14 approx, BJ's are already very common, if not intercourse.

If that age range doesn't understand the consequences or were ignorant of STD's it sure isn't stopping the acts performed.

So then the question becomes is an older partner by default harmful?

I don't think it's any more or less harmful than some same or near age relationships I've seen. I think a relationship's health relies on the details of the relationship itself like the respect, communication and power dynamics of the relationship.

[Just JT]

Uniquemind
I get what your saying, and yes, it does make sense. If a 14 year old is sexually active, and wants it (clearly most would) does not mean they consent to it. Or even at a younger age, where they can't understand the concepts involved. Other than the older person loves them, is nurturing them and making them feel good. All for the personal sexual satisfaction of the older person. Hell, a 5 year old knows what makes him feel good down there. But may also not know or understand that a 25 year old has other intentions.

That being said, does not prove it is normal, right, or wrong or abnormal. But it does happen, and much more than society wants to acknowledge or talk about. We don't tolerate it, and we don't talk about it either, until someone complains. Then it's to late. Look at the Boston archdiocese sex abuse scandal. We're some hi times not really victoms?

[Uniquemind]

MUniquemind
I get what your saying, and yes, it does make sense. If a 14 year old is sexually active, and wants it (clearly most would) does not mean they consent to it. Or even at a younger age, where they can't understand the concepts involved. Other than the older person loves them, is nurturing them and making them feel good. All for the personal sexual satisfaction of the older person. Hell, a 5 year old knows what makes him feel good down there. But may also not know or understand that a 25 year old has other intentions.

That being said, does not prove it is normal, right, or wrong or abnormal. But it does happen, and much more than society wants to acknowledge or talk about. We don't tolerate it, and we don't talk about it either, until someone complains. Then it's to late. Look at the Boston archdiocese sex abuse scandal. We're some hi times not really victoms?


Well I've mentioned this above. For arguments sake are we talking about the age range of 0-10, or really hebephilia?


Because depending on that clarification, my views are gonna change given my personal life view on everything and by my own experience here.


Let me also say I've been to a party where a girl age 14 pretty much raped a drunk guy 18+ at a party, because legally you can't consent if alcohol is in your system. How do laws like that address when the younger party is the sexual predator? The crazy thing is that after that they dated for a bit so nobody wanted to report anything that was obviously their business.

-

My personal view regarding the catholic sex scandal is that it is one of abuse.

If coercion is involved, it's abuse. That's one of my barometer tests to see if a scenario is right or wrong.

The truth of why a clear line is set for what is or is not legal flesh, is due to litigation requirements of proving or not being able to prove in court.

That's really the reason, because if you lower the age bar, it becomes the prosecution's job beyond a shadow of a doubt that a rape occurred.


This topic is directly related to how rapes are prosecuted or not in the world, and how victims get treated without compassion in the cross-examination stage with questions like:

1. Did you want it? Why can't you remember what happened that night are you making it up?

Are dropped?

The reason the age of consent is set arbitrarily, is so that if something comes to court, the victim is spared because at face value their genitals aren't supposed to be touched at all period in a sexual way.

[lliam]

You know what strikes me as odd about a pedophile's mindset of "love"?


Define love.

Imo, love embraces the whole spectrum of emotions to which humans are capable. Therefore love can just be anything.

eg

A life full of hate, depending on a partner.
A physical, by instinct driven life, such based on kids.

... and of course, as well as what we generally think in case of love:
A life that one simply shares with one or more individuals.


But I admit, when a pedophile talks about love, the first and foremost guess I get is just about abused, perhaps even murdered kids, buried in the garden or the cellar of their murderer, who usual sits in the evening crying at their unrecognizable graves and assures'em how much he loves them all.

The usual cliche precisely.

In reality, the own dad or the own mom could be an unrecognized pedophile, but for some reasons never lived that way. Anything is possible, I guess.


But with this picture of those buried kids in my mind, my personal understanding of love reaches the end of the line of willing to understand other definitions of love.

So, I believe, everyone has his own limits, beyond which he deliberately is no longer willing just trying to understand other people.

[Uniquemind]

Define love.

Imo, love embraces the whole spectrum of emotions to which humans are capable. Therefore love can just be anything.

eg

A life full of hate, depending on a partner.
A physical, by instinct driven life, such based on kids.

... and of course, as well as what we generally think in case of love:
A life that one simply shares with one or more individuals.


But I admit, when a pedophile talks about love, the first and foremost guess I get is just about abused, perhaps even murdered kids, buried in the garden or the cellar of their murderer, who usual sits in the evening crying at their unrecognizable graves and assures'em how much he loves them all.

The usual cliche precisely.

In reality, the own dad or the own mom could be an unrecognized pedophile, but for some reasons never lived that way. Anything is possible, I guess.


But with this picture of those buried kids in my mind, my personal understanding of love reaches the end of the line of willing to understand other definitions of love.

So, I believe, everyone has his own limits, beyond which he deliberately is no longer willing just trying to understand other people.

For me love is a very empathetic and soft emotion that drives for infinite understanding for all individuals involved and need not be sexual.

Sexuality is a physical act which serves to communicate to independent vessels (bodies who contain a soul) of the presence of two things:

1. A physical passion.

2. Trust and hope for a future of being closer both for the bonding of partners and creation of a family.

---

Any sexual predator, whether they target grown adults or young people violates my understanding of love, and in most coercion in some form is involved instantly invalidating my concept of consent.

--

Another aspect to this discussion is that nobody has mentioned the correlation between situations where those who are sexually abused as children actually in many cases grow up to begin a cycle where they do some abuse to a other child.



Where pedophilia comes from is a really big question and unfortunately I don't think there is much funding behind studying this due to stigma. Deep down it's a public relations nightmare to study this topic. No university wants the reputation of having the scientific study saying pedophilia is a naturally occurring phenomena, outside of abuse.

[lliam]

For me love is a very empathetic and soft emotion that drives for infinite understanding for all individuals involved and need not be sexual. ... [/QUOTE

good definition, I guess. and in short: sex isn't all of love, but a important part of it.



[QUOTE=Uniquemind;3398196]Another aspect to this discussion is that nobody has mentioned the correlation between situations where those who are sexually abused as children actually in many cases grow up to begin a cycle where they do some abuse to a other child.


yeah, thats an important ascpect ... leads me to this:


Where pedophilia comes from is a really big question and unfortunately


I imagine it like this:

Much of what is of any purpose in nature perverts by those, who are living in a civilization like ours.

eg people who could easily survive in the ice ages, are nowadays the losers.
They become fat and more fat and often and perhaps die from their obesity.

The same applies for particularly conspicuous social behaviors that we call nowaday just sick, such as ADHD ...

And I think if you ask experts, they'll may mention, that we can compare the development of humans and animals equaliy in this case.

Our way of life may be probably the main reason that some huamns or animals, living with us, eg are devlopping special sexually orientations.


Therfor onw factor for pedophilia developed by humans might be that certain intsincts evolves the wrong ... if there can be such a thing defined as to wrong. I doubt it.

I eg am thinking of the maternal instinct in this case, which allows a human is brought up by a wolf or wolf pack etc ...

As I said, this is just one possible explanation, which actually can't even really explain anything, cause there are certainly thousands of other factors which influence the development of an individual.

It's just a vague theory for recognition as an explanation experiment.

[Vlerchan]

Heck look at the puberty section, by age 14 approx, BJ's are already very common, if not intercourse.
P101 is hardly a representative sample, and any data set derived is bound to be subject to all sorts of reporting biases.

So then the question becomes is an older partner by default harmful?
The basis to anti-paedophilia laws, is a reject of the power relationship that underpins peadopholic relationships (information asymmetries, if nothing else). Minors can't consent under those conditions - it's notable that in most jurisdictions, minors within two years of each other, can consent to each other.


[...] because legally you can't consent if alcohol is in your system.
You can. Otherwise, nightclubs would be permanent crime scenes.

Consent only becomes invalid when you are intoxicated to the extent that you are no longer in a state of mind that allows one to understand the facts material to the act being consented to. In that case I imagine both would be prosecuted, drunkness does not excuse recklessness, and neither does being 14.

[Uniquemind]

P101 is hardly a representative sample, and any data set derived is bound to be subject to all sorts of reporting biases.


The basis to anti-paedophilia laws, is a reject of the power relationship that underpins peadopholic relationships (information asymmetries, if nothing else). Minors can't consent under those conditions - it's notable that in most jurisdictions, minors within two years of each other, can consent to each other.



You can. Otherwise, nightclubs would be permanent crime scenes.

Consent only becomes invalid when you are intoxicated to the extent that you are no longer in a state of mind that allows one to understand the facts material to the act being consented to. In that case I imagine both would be prosecuted, drunkness does not excuse recklessness, and neither does being 14.

Exactly, but that being said, that last paragraph is a huge gray area lawyers have a field day with, because how do you prove or disprove the level of cognitive impairment due to a foreign substance on an event that happened in the past where evidence is lost. It becomes party 1 says this, party 2 says this and you have a stalemate > case is decided or heavily influenced on precedent.

--


Vlerchan oh reporting biases no doubt, even Universities I believe have trouble with studying a topic like this.

Who is gonna come forward and say "I was sexually active early in my life and I am fine".

[Vlerchan]

Exactly, but that being said, that last paragraph is a huge gray area lawyers have a field day with, because how do you prove or disprove the level of cognitive impairment due to a foreign substance on an event that happened in the past where evidence is lost.
But it's not a legal grey area, the law has been clear for some time.

When it does arise in court, nonetheless, I agree that the reality of the facts under discussion can mean the case is broadly open as to what it results might be. So, it might seen as if the area isn't as tied to the law as others, and to laypeople* it might appear as if a grey area persists.

---

* I am actually one, and just happened to take criminal law

It becomes party 1 says this, party 2 says this and you have a stalemate > case is decided or heavily influenced on precedent.
Outside of noted rarities, cases are always decided on the basis of precedent, where precedent exists. The aim of a lawyer that expects an unfortunate results under the expected precedent is to distinguish the case from current statute and case-law.

@Vlerchan oh reporting biases no doubt, even Universities I believe have trouble with studying a topic like this.

Who is gonna come forward and say "I was sexually active early in my life and I am fine".
There have been some innovative means of getting around it. One famous paper had one group told they were hooked up to a lie machine, and asked them questions about their number of sexual partners. Compared to the control group, the lie detector group had woman report a larger number, and men report a smaller number. You can't be sure that controls the complete bias though. Lie detectors aren't very accurate and smarter people might realise this, and introduce their own separate bias.

Other papers have argued that having people report the activities of their peers results in more accurate results.

Though, economics stopped using survey data for a reason, wholly unreliable.

[Uniquemind]

Uniquemind
I get what your saying, and yes, it does make sense. If a 14 year old is sexually active, and wants it (clearly most would) does not mean they consent to it. Or even at a younger age, where they can't understand the concepts involved. Other than the older person loves them, is nurturing them and making them feel good.


To play devil's advocate here, I would strongly argue that there is very little difference in mindset to older 18+ (legal) people who have sex. They're risk takers just as much as they were, most 18 year old's aren't financially stable enough to support a child either, and the risk to contract STI/STD's still exists, and there is a general acknowledgement in today's culture that sex is for mutual pleasure, and a gesture of a deep affection. Those who experience being sexually "used" (aka: one night stand, or tricked/deceived into sex and dumped later) seems at times just as psychologically and emotionally damaging regardless if it was a same aged peer or not.


Historically the teen years have been parental child-bearing years for millenia, and modern childhood is a relatively recent luxury for the modern world, and some could make the case it has lessened the wisdom of humanity given that their critical thinking skills start later and later due to being put in a bubble called "childhood".

You look at other 3rd world countries, and you could make the case that 12 year olds are more streetwise and hardened (Parts of Mexico, Brazil, Africa) and adult-like purely due to environmental-social differences.

----

Going backward for a second, I do believe that pedophilia in the clinical definition of the attraction towards those in the 0-10 age range, even in the animal kingdom, is some something that is unjustifiable.

My last few posts are only for argumentative and discussion sake and I only find debate merit within older definitions of what in centuries past was deemed as totally acceptable marriage worthy age, and reproductive age.

The purpose was to correlate the fact that perhaps the modern phenomena of pedophilia, went undetected in centuries past and whatever anthropological and sociological reason why it might exist today, traces not only to just abuse-cycles of perpetrator and victim, but perhaps deeper into how the human brain developed and the attraction mechanism evolved in humans.


---

Also here's another moral dilemma, why in post-Phineas Gage world proof where edits to the brain (brain damage, cognitive impairment from a substance) specifically to the frontal-lobes of the brain, does society feel it's okay to attribute blame for an act, if those said regions of the brain that are inhibitors are impaired and functionally serve as judgement centers for action and then consequence.

Also can't some kind of test, test for cognition abilities for any individual in terms of how their brain can measure action and consequence? Perhaps that is a more accurate measure, unique to each individual, to indicate when one is ready for sexual activity or when one is not, since this is indeed the underlying premise behind the age of consent laws.


We say a person is legally responsible, but in alcohol's case, we overlook this fact because prohibition didn't work, and this is the best society could come up with to satisfy some sort of balance between chaos, order, and responsibility. There really is inconsistent logic here.

After reading about Phineas Gage, it called into question my concept of Free Will, VS how much people are actually just more like machines with some impulse controls on and others off, compounded by the environment you are living in.

[jamie_n5]

I can understand your definition but think that pedophilia a horrible thing to practice. Also are you saying that any sexual act or orientation other than that between a man & a woman is as bad as or as wrong as pedophilia?

[Ghaem]

Jamie_n, I definitely say that any kind of sexual act done solely and independently for pleasure between anyone and anything is illogic. Be it even "Husband-Wife" if it is done independently for pleasure I am against it. But when it is for Making or Strengthening the Family, I encourage it.

I have already made it clear that I believe Genitals in humans are only for "Making Family", with certain definition for family, not even for "Breeding", since breeding is not considered "Making Family" at all.

[jamie_n5]

Well then why did God make sex so pleasurable and enjoyable. Yes I know it was so people would mate but we are the highest animal on the planet. I think your argument is a very mute point.

[Ghaem]

Well then why did God make sex so pleasurable and enjoyable. Yes I know it was so people would mate but we are the highest animal on the planet. I think your argument is a very mute point.

As I have said many times above, pleasure of sex is a side prize not an independent goal. Also as I said animals usually follow what gives them pleasure, even if it leads them toward their dooms. We humans have had a parallel evolution and we are not animals anymore, we just share a similar genetic physics with our predecessors, but we look for purpose and logic in our works, unlike animals of nearly all kind.

For humans, I believe, purpose of sex is to "Make Family", different from breeding and mating, not independently pleasure. Pleasure of Sex is a side prize of Making Family, but it is not independent purpose of sex. What I mean is that purpose of Sex is not Pleasure, but it has Pleasure. You know for example playing a video game also gives you pleasure, but its sole purpose is also to have fun and blow off some steam. Sex is not the same.

[jamie_n5]

Well that is why the USA is a free country. We all have our opinions and the freedom of speaking our minds and beliefs. So now I have your opinion and you have mine.

[Ghaem]

Jamie_n, Well that's right. But I strongly believe my opinion must be encouraged, since your opinion if encouraged may threaten my concept of view about Making a family, as it does. But if my opinion about Making a family is encouraged, your opinion will not be threatened, since pleasure is always stronger than logic in general, unless reinforced.

[mattsmith48]

As I have said many times above, pleasure of sex is a side prize not an independent goal. Also as I said animals usually follow what gives them pleasure, even if it leads them toward their dooms. We humans have had a parallel evolution and we are not animals anymore, we just share a similar genetic physics with our predecessors, but we look for purpose and logic in our works, unlike animals of nearly all kind.

For humans, I believe, purpose of sex is to "Make Family", different from breeding and mating, not independently pleasure. Pleasure of Sex is a side prize of Making Family, but it is not independent purpose of sex. What I mean is that purpose of Sex is not Pleasure, but it has Pleasure. You know for example playing a video game also gives you pleasure, but its sole purpose is also to have fun and blow off some steam. Sex is not the same.

How can animals having sex can leave to their doom?

Also the human brain evoled in a way that most people can make the difference between whats right and whats wrong and since there is more humans who have sex for recreation only than procreation only so how can it be wrong to have sex for pleasure?

[Ghaem]

How can animals having sex can leave to their doom?

I didn't say Sex will lead them to their doom. I said animals will do what gives them pleasure even if it leads them to their doom. Like "Stereotypes" which I talked about.



Also the human brain evoled in a way that most people can make the difference between whats right and whats wrong and since there is more humans who have sex for recreation only than procreation only so how can it be wrong to have sex for pleasure?

Regularity does not make something right or wrong. Purposefulness however does.

[Just JT]

Personally, I see this as leading, and persuading of one beliefs, yours, and denouncing someone else's. And your belief is being justified by the simple fact that someone else's belief as simply being wrong and undermine yours.

In the end. We all need to live on this planet together and get along. The less aggression and rents ion there is the better.

[Ghaem]

Personally, I see this as leading, and persuading of one beliefs, yours, and denouncing someone else's. And your belief is being justified by the simple fact that someone else's belief as simply being wrong and undermine yours.

In the end. We all need to live on this planet together and get along. The less aggression and rents ion there is the better.

Why should there be any aggression? I just say the very beliefs which are threatening optimal families must not be encouraged if not encountered.

[Jay21]

Jamie_n, Well that's right. But I strongly believe my opinion must be encouraged, since your opinion if encouraged may threaten my concept of view about Making a family, as it does. But if my opinion about Making a family is encouraged, your opinion will not be threatened, since pleasure is always stronger than logic in general, unless reinforced.
I can understand what you are getting at, that sex should only be used for the purpose of procreation. This applies well with lower species, as their entire lives revolve around passing on their genes. However, humans are vastly more intelligent and inarguably superior to all other creatures on Earth. In addition, our lifespans are much longer than most other creatures on the planet. These in tandem mean that sex does not necessarily need to be only for baby-making for us. Sex is not only pleasurable for both parties involved in the process, but also enhances the bond between the couple. Therefore, especially with the population growing at an exponential rate and living space beginning to run out, it is unnecessary for sex to only be used for having children. If two lovers wish to engage in such endeavors, without wanting to have children at the time or perhaps ever, then that should be acceptable in this day and age.

[Ghaem]

I can understand what you are getting at, that sex should only be used for the purpose of procreation...

Definitely by this part you have realized nothing about what I said. For more than 20 times I have emphasized that sex is for Making Family, not pleasure, nor procreation. Family is a human definition not an animal one. Breeding is for animals not for humans. Humans makes families which are social cores of every society that exists in this world. Making family is not breeding or procreation.

[mattsmith48]

Definitely by this part you have realized nothing about what I said. For more than 20 times I have emphasized that sex is for Making Family, not pleasure, nor procreation. Family is a human definition not an animal one. Breeding is for animals not for humans. Humans makes families which are social cores of every society that exists in this world. Making family is not breeding or procreation.

your contradicting your self to ''make family'' you need to make babies or procreate. Also Humans are animals they dont teach science at your school?

[Ghaem]

your contradicting your self to ''make family'' you need to make babies or procreate. Also Humans are animals they dont teach science at your school?

And animals are Megacytic Protistas right? Maybe it would be better if you get back and check if we are talking about Science or Sociology which is more philosophy than science.

Humans have evolved further than animals haven't you studied this in philosophy? We have made logic societies which are in no actual ways similar to those of animals.

Besides, procreation is not making family. Procreation is simply breeding without any purpose of making family. This is what exists in animals.4

Humans make families. Do you understand what a family is? The very thing which does not exist in animals.

[Uranus]

In some ways I can agree in some very specific ways it may be slightly natural.... Even Though it shouldn't be persued at all. In some ways it could be...

I'm a male teen. I like teen girls round my age. And I definitely take a fair look or two like most teenagers would. In 10 years from now, I still would have a past in which I was sexually attracted to teenage girls. (Which is why I said it was very specific ways) Something like that wouldn't fade away overnight once I turned an adult. But it is avoided and adults have other adults to be interested in rather than children or teens.
Which is why I said I can agree. Should it be a practice for adults? Absolutely not. Is it natural? For Most younger adults, yes. But not all.

[Arkansasguy]

Well first let me clarify that I am not supporting the very idea of Pedophilia or even agree with the title of this thread.

The very fact that "Pedophilia is Natural" is correct according to psychology, scientifically putting it beside other sexual orientations which are accepted in psychological communities throughout the world, once again saying psychologically.

But is it really correct? As a human being and as a person who is against any type of relations except proper marriage which leads to establishment of a family, consists of a man and woman agreeing to make a family and on proper time try for having babies, I say it is NOT correct at all.

Let us just say that "Pedophilia is Natural, but NOT correct", the same that I personally believe for homosexuality and any other sexual orientation.

I believe since the time we took sexual intercourse out of regular concept of "Family Making", we opened a way for instability.

What about you guys?

It is, like homosexuality, contrary to the natural ends of sex. Psychology is, as a rule, balderdash.

P.S. Arguing with gay advocates about the ethics of homosexual activity is a lost cause. Such persons are for the most part beyond reasoning, as their anger impedes from it.

[Uniquemind]

It is, like homosexuality, contrary to the natural ends of sex. Psychology is, as a rule, balderdash.

P.S. Arguing with gay advocates about the ethics of homosexual activity is a lost cause. Such persons are for the most part beyond reasoning, as their anger impedes from it.

I would disagree with that.


Also to reiterate and clarify, even mental disorders are naturally occurring.

So I need to make that clear for the purposes of this conversation which seems to naturally be expanding into what is "mental health" and what is natural vs unnatural.

[sqishy]

It is, like homosexuality, contrary to the natural ends of sex. Psychology is, as a rule, balderdash.

If you mean 'natural ends of sex', then it coincides with that of the nature of sex that produces new life. By changing 'natural' to 'effective', it becomes an Darwinian evolutionary argument. Homosexuality is indeed (so far as is argued) an ineffective side effect in evolutionary processes.


Balderdash as in being useless?

That goes contrary to psychology's arguably immense pragmatic function and scientific value, for which I am included in having gotten help from (among many others here for this website).



P.S. Arguing with gay advocates about the ethics of homosexual activity is a lost cause. Such persons are for the most part beyond reasoning, as their anger impedes from it.

Gay/LGBT+ advocates are not intrinsically angry, rather some get angry because of the opposition they perceive to be at least sometimes unjustified. It is reactionary.

[Arkansasguy]

I would disagree with that.


Also to reiterate and clarify, even mental disorders are naturally occurring.

So I need to make that clear for the purposes of this conversation which seems to naturally be expanding into what is "mental health" and what is natural vs unnatural.

That's not how philosophers use the term "nature".

If you mean 'natural ends of sex', then it coincides with that of the nature of sex that produces new life. By changing 'natural' to 'effective', it becomes an Darwinian evolutionary argument. Homosexuality is indeed (so far as is argued) an ineffective side effect in evolutionary processes.


Balderdash as in being useless?

That goes contrary to psychology's arguably immense pragmatic function and scientific value, for which I am included in having gotten help from (among many others here for this website).

Balderdash as in the premises of it are a load of hooey.

Whether it's an officious lie or a pernicious lie is besides the point.

Gay/LGBT+ advocates are not intrinsically angry, rather some get angry because of the opposition they perceive to be at least sometimes unjustified. It is reactionary.

the use of phrases such as "for the most part" indicates that one is speaking about the majority of cases, not each and every one.

[Typhlosion]

Well first let me clarify that I am not supporting the very idea of Pedophilia or even agree with the title of this thread.

The very fact that "Pedophilia is Natural" is correct according to psychology, scientifically putting it beside other sexual orientations which are accepted in psychological communities throughout the world, once again saying psychologically.


I'm sorry for not reading the whole thread, but do you agree on this? For now, Pedophilia being natural by psychologists means that it can be someone's unfortunate nature they were born with. Or, that they had a large susceptibility of becoming pedophiles. Sometimes it happens.

But is it really correct? As a human being and as a person who is against any type of relations except proper marriage which leads to establishment of a family, consists of a man and woman agreeing to make a family and on proper time try for having babies, I say it is NOT correct at all.

What is correct, the psychological analysis? Possibly, probably so. However, just because it's natural means that anyone is taking their behavior as correct. However sex with children, even if you are a pedophile, is inexcusable.

I disagree with you on the concept of marriage. Because the idea of marriage has been popularized into state politics, and that states should be laic, state marriages should be allowed beyond just a man and a woman. This has nothing to do with religious marriage. Just the same word.

Let us just say that "Pedophilia is Natural, but NOT correct", the same that I personally believe for homosexuality and any other sexual orientation.

Pedophilia is different from homosexuality, because one has to do with a child and the other with grown adults. As adults, it should be their decision to stay with whom they want, as unholy it is to do so. It would be unfair for a laic state to not recognize their union on religious grounds. A separation of state and religion (laic state) is important.

I believe since the time we took sexual intercourse out of regular concept of "Family Making", we opened a way for instability.

Slippery slope fallacy. No one is close to legalizing pedophilia or endorsing that. Rather, we just acknowledge that pedophilia is a problem, and people can't help it.

---

Why is recognizing pedophiles as people with problems something good? If everyone knows it's not all their fault, they can be more open to help them. Many psychologists in the west will refuse working with a pedophile. If we work with pedophiles, we can help them not to ruin children's lives and contain themselves. But if we continue demonizing them and not help, it doesn't help them either, nor the children.

Point is, recognizing =/= endorsing.

[sqishy]

That's not how philosophers use the term "nature".

I know this response was directed to someone else, but I still don't get you here. How do the philosophers use the term?



Balderdash as in the premises of it are a load of hooey.

Whether it's an officious lie or a pernicious lie is besides the point.

Which premises are these?



the use of phrases such as "for the most part" indicates that one is speaking about the majority of cases, not each and every one.

I know what you meant, but I was saying that it does not make sense, though maybe in regions of Arkansas (if I am justified to assume the location).

[Arkansasguy]

I know this response was directed to someone else, but I still don't get you here. How do the philosophers use the term?

In natural law ethics, natural ends are things which a thing seeks by virtue of its nature. Thus sex is naturally directed to procreation. Consequently, dispositions such as homosexuality or pedophilia are corruptions of nature, and acting on them is unnatural.


Which premises are these?

That the human mind is a purely material thing. And that psychoanalysis gives you the power to read other people's minds.


I know what you meant, but I was saying that it does not make sense, though maybe in regions of Arkansas (if I am justified to assume the location).

I'm pretty sure it's true everywhere in America. And I suspect Western Europe as well.

[sqishy]

In natural law ethics, natural ends are things which a thing seeks by virtue of its nature. Thus sex is naturally directed to procreation. Consequently, dispositions such as homosexuality or pedophilia are corruptions of nature, and acting on them is unnatural.

This is a dangerous way to generalise. Sex is, by its essence (let's say that rather than nature), directed toward someone who a desire is felt for. Procreation is something that happens in the majority of cases, but fundamentally, for us, sex is a desire to / act of fulfilling a raw desire to be with someone else.

To say that a raw desire in this context for the same biological sex is unnatural, doesn't make sense, because it is not within the frame of reasoning. You can't argue or think the desire away, it is a deeper part of yourself than your ideas on it are. Good luck with finding someone who has transcended themselves out of being gay/etc through reasoning, and who also isn't acting and/or being in persistent internal conflict over it.

It is unnatural to resist these desires in favour of reaching a different state of desires, the attempt of which only makes oneself feel worse. Attempting to override literally irrational desires with rationality will not help.

It is entirely natural to act upon desires which are known through experience and testimony to not be inherently harmful when engaged in. To say that minority sexual orientations are more harmful than being of the majority, is to mistake irresponsiblity or risk in acting upon those desires, with the process of properly acting upon those desires (with reference to AIDS and such).



That the human mind is a purely material thing. And that psychoanalysis gives you the power to read other people's minds.

It is wrong to see the entirety of psychology as being relevant to physicalism of the mind. Neuroscience? Perhaps. It is simply not relevant in many other regions though, such as psychotherapies like cognitive behavioural therapy (CBT) as example. I could go on.



I'm pretty sure it's true everywhere in America. And I suspect Western Europe as well.

I don't know where you are getting that 'pretty sure' conclusion from.

[Arkansasguy]

Sex is, by its essence (let's say that rather than nature), directed toward someone who a desire is felt for.

Directed toward doing what with them?

[sqishy]

Directed toward doing what with them?

Engaging in intercourse, in whatever form. Intimate contact.

[Arkansasguy]

Engaging in intercourse, in whatever form. Intimate contact.

And what is that directed to?

[sqishy]

And what is that directed to?

It depends. Do you want fun and intimacy? Most of the time.

Procreation is optional, if intention is present and some technology is used (even good timing). Yes, the 'old reliable' process to family planning is there, but it is not necessary.

Also, this is only the case for male-female sex, where both of them are fertile.

I wonder what your opinion is of sex that is done between partners, for which at least one is affected by age-related infertility.

Is this a 'corruption'?

[Arkansasguy]

It depends. Do you want fun and intimacy? Most of the time.

Procreation is optional, if intention is present and some technology is used (even good timing). Yes, the 'old reliable' process to family planning is there, but it is not necessary.

Also, this is only the case for male-female sex, where both of them are fertile.

I wonder what your opinion is of sex that is done between partners, for which at least one is affected by age-related infertility.

Is this a 'corruption'?

No, what is the sexual act directed to, by virtue of its nature.

Subjective considerations are not the least bit relevant here.

[sqishy]

No, what is the sexual act directed to, by virtue of its nature.

Subjective considerations are not the least bit relevant here.

They are incredibly relevant to your view of sex's nature here though.

Does my reasoning not hold?

[Judean Zealot]

They are incredibly relevant to your view of sex's nature here though.

Does my reasoning not hold?

By any standard of logic it would hold that the nature of sex, or more accurately, the sexual organs, is one of reproduction. I don't at all see how that is subjective.

Ordinary sex between an infertile couple is still a use of the organs in their intended fashion, despite the fact that some other cause is frustrating the ultimate end.

And yes, I'm fine with contraception from a natural law point of view.

[Arkansasguy]

They are incredibly relevant to your view of sex's nature here though.

Does my reasoning not hold?

No, not at all. Subjective feelings are simply besides the point here.

And yes, I'm fine with contraception from a natural law point of view.

You are?

[sqishy]

No, not at all. Subjective feelings are simply besides the point here.


Subjective feelings are the entirety of our experience, all thought and ideas within come from complex patterns thereof.

It makes no sense to me to be thinking so much otherwise.


By any standard of logic it would hold that the nature of sex, or more accurately, the sexual organs, is one of reproduction. I don't at all see how that is subjective.

Let's take an Aristotelian view on this then. The final cause/explanation of sex, in this context, is for reproduction.

Yet you take this to mean the total meaning of sex, with that the perception and practice of sex is only natural when it is done this way.

Well, sorry. The nature of sex is the nature of how it manifests itself, which is in many forms. It is not 'actually' one specific form, with the other naturally manifesting forms being actually unnatural / wrong / of corruption.

It's funny how (maybe not you) many with this viewpoint see the sexual desire as explainable away with some reasoning, which makes no sense.

It's a really big effort that doesn't make sense in itself, just to argue that, because someone loves and/or desires another who happens to have the same biological sex. I could continue.

I don't want to get into relatively deep philosophical ideas which explain the wrongness of this with some intricacy, so I don't care what you are thinking of my take on Aristotle here, to be honest. I reached a point of little patience with this topic specifically.

[Judean Zealot]

You are?

I am opposed to it on the grounds that the production of citizens is one of our duties to the state, as is our duty to increase the worshippers of God.

Ultimately that can be ground in the natural law of our essentially social nature, which is the source of our obligations to society, but I don't believe it follows from the natural end of the organs as they themselves are being suitably employed, albeit with some external frustration.

Paraxiom

There's no natural end of an activity (such as sex). The natural end is that of the sexual organs, which is manifestly clear.

[sqishy]

There's no natural end of an (such as sex). The natural end is that of the sexual organs, which is manifestly clear.

I'll take a different angle, if you go with this perspective of course in the first place.

The sexual organs are such because, from an evolutionary perspective, they are the most efficient means for reproduction for humans, through humans' ancestry.

Sexual activity that does not result in reproduction will not manifest in the long-term process of evolution.

There is no implied corruption of sexual activity that does not result in reproduction - the extreme majority of our physiology is such because of long-term evolutionary processes.

That which does not help survival and does not help reproduction, will not manifest in evolution. Evolution is not showing what is right or wrong, it only shows what is very efficient at continuing the survival of the organism and/or the generations of the species the organism is part of.

[Arkansasguy]

Subjective feelings are the entirety of our experience, all thought and ideas within come from complex patterns thereof.

It makes no sense to me to be thinking so much otherwise.

That's simply a red herring. I'm not talking about subjective experiences.

I am opposed to it on the grounds that the production of citizens is one of our duties to the state, as is our duty to increase the worshippers of God.

Ultimately that can be ground in the natural law of our essentially social nature, which is the source of our obligations to society, but I don't believe it follows from the natural end of the organs as they themselves are being suitably employed, albeit with some external frustration.

So deliberately frustrating the end is ok (in itself)?

[Judean Zealot]

I'll take a different angle, if you go with this perspective of course in the first place.

The sexual organs are such because, from an evolutionary perspective, they are the most efficient means for reproduction for humans, through humans' ancestry.

Sexual activity that does not result in reproduction will not manifest in the long-term process of evolution.

There is no implied corruption of sexual activity that does not result in reproduction - the extreme majority of our physiology is such because of long-term evolutionary processes.

That which does not help survival and does not help reproduction, will not manifest in evolution. Evolution is not showing what is right or wrong, it only shows what is very efficient at continuing the survival of the organism and/or the generations of the species the organism is part of.

Natural law, so far as I'm aware, requires a Prime Cause to lend potency to its development as a manifestation of Divine will. One may disapprove of natural law's postulates, but it is worth recalling that natural law is the entire basis for the notion of transcendent human rights; do away with it, and you have a vacuous and arbitrary doctrine of rights, as exemplified in the EU's Declaration of Human Rights.

[Judean Zealot]

So deliberately frustrating the end is ok (in itself)?

I would say so, yes; although I add the caveat that I might disapprove if that frustration is done so constantly as to totally undermine the natural end (such as one who never has children as a result of contraception). That more or less dovetails with my position that "spacing" between children is alright, provided that one actually bears some in time.

[sqishy]

Judean Zealot

I'm not going to grace the response of my reasoning being apparently 'vacuous' and related to the EU Convention on Human Rights* (or maybe you meant the UN, but I do not care about either here).


As I have said before today, "you know, the realm of life doesn't all have to be justified by what is beyond it."


Your perception of an important matter requiring 'correction' because I happen to have attraction that of the same biological sex (just that), to the level of that which is beyond the world and responsible for it, is seriously beyond my reasoning. With what I see you to know otherwise, I fucking cannot make sense of this.

As it's futile, I'm opting out, for the sake of both of us.

Fin.
________________

That's simply a red herring. I'm not talking about subjective experiences.


You are talking through one.

________________

[Arkansasguy]

I would say so, yes; although I add the caveat that I might disapprove if that frustration is done so constantly as to totally undermine the natural end (such as one who never has children as a result of contraception). That more or less dovetails with my position that "spacing" between children is alright, provided that one actually bears some in time.

So particular sex acts don't have procreation as their proper end? Only in general?

[Judean Zealot]

So particular sex acts don't have procreation as their proper end? Only in general?

I'm generally leery of viewing particular acts in isolation of their surrounding context. I don't think deviance from the natural law is always wrong, as the context determines whether a particular aberration serves the ultimate goal of nature or not. In the case of contraception it is very often better for the entire family that they not not be inundated with children beyond their abilities to cope.

But more to the point, I've mentioned earlier that acts have no natural end, as they are entirely artificial. It is objects which have ends, and I see no reason to view each and every incident as an isolated singularity.

I realise I've shifted from my original defence, consider this second account to be my primary one.

Paraxiom

I'm sorry if you were offended by something I wrote. Of course, I never said you were vacuous; I said that rejecting natural law while simultaneously maintaining the doctrine of human rights will lead to vacuous and inane results. But if you wish to pull out, don't let me stop you.

[sqishy]

I'm sorry if you were offended by something I wrote. Of course, I never said you were vacuous; I said that rejecting natural law while simultaneously maintaining the doctrine of human rights will lead to vacuous and inane results. But if you wish to pull out, don't let me stop you.

We can continue ROTWing together of course, but with realising this topic is not going to end well between us. I see little way else for me to argue my point.

[Arkansasguy]

I'm generally leery of viewing particular acts in isolation of their surrounding context. I don't think deviance from the natural law is always wrong, as the context determines whether a particular aberration serves the ultimate goal of nature or not. In the case of contraception it is very often better for the entire family that they not not be inundated with children beyond their abilities to cope.

But more to the point, I've mentioned earlier that acts have no natural end, as they are entirely artificial. It is objects which have ends, and I see no reason to view each and every incident as an isolated singularity.

I realise I've shifted from my original defence, consider this second account to be my primary one.

So you're a consequentialist?

If it is acceptable to violate the natural law under some conditions, then what principle is it that overrides natural law?

[Judean Zealot]

So you're a consequentialist?

If it is acceptable to violate the natural law under some conditions, then what principle is it that overrides natural law?

I'm not a consequentialist. There may be some consequentialist influence on my thoughts, but it's hardly a set in stone doctrine, particularly in the realm of social utility.

It's not that I view some value as superseding the laws of nature, which are God's own laws enshrined in the universe. I see natural law itself as a pointer to a more general state of affairs, as opposed to a blow by blow guide on how to achieve virtue.

God is the target. Natural law shows us how we ought to order ourselves to reach the target. The means of actually achieving that order are consequentialist, provided that the means don't inflict collateral damage on other aspects of natural law. I hope you understand this last paragraph, I apologise for its choppiness.

[Arkansasguy]

I'm not a consequentialist. There may be some consequentialist influence on my thoughts, but it's hardly a set in stone doctrine, particularly in the realm of social utility.

It's not that I view some value as superseding the laws of nature, which are God's own laws enshrined in the universe. I see natural law itself as a pointer to a more general state of affairs, as opposed to a blow by blow guide on how to achieve virtue.

God is the target. Natural law shows us how we ought to order ourselves to reach the target. The means of actually achieving that order are consequentialist, provided that the means don't inflict collateral damage on other aspects of natural law. I hope you understand this last paragraph, I apologise for its choppiness.

So do you recognize a notion of intrinsically evil acts?

[Judean Zealot]

So do you recognize a notion of intrinsically evil acts?

As such? No.

I can think of a number which I don't believe can possibly be useful in the pursuit of virtue, and would thus always be wrong, but if hypothetically the case should arise otherwise I would not say anything is intrinsically evil.

What I'm curious about is what do you maintain gives natural law moral potency? That it is the will of God? If so then it should surely be subservient to the larger picture of His will.

[Arkansasguy]

As such? No.

I can think of a number which I don't believe can possibly be useful in the pursuit of virtue, and would thus always be wrong, but if hypothetically the case should arise otherwise I would not say anything is intrinsically evil.

What I'm curious about is what do you maintain gives natural law moral potency? That it is the will of God? If so then it should surely be subservient to the larger picture of His will.

The natural law tells us how to seek the good. Everything is directed to the good by definition. The natural law proceeds from the nature of things. In this way, the natural law proceeds indirectly from the will of God, since God created the natures of things.

But the moral law does not proceed directly from God's positive will, there is no ethereal moral law that nature is obliged to conform to.

[mattsmith48]

The natural law tells us how to seek the good. Everything is directed to the good by definition. The natural law proceeds from the nature of things. In this way, the natural law proceeds indirectly from the will of God, since God created the natures of things.

But the moral law does not proceed directly from God's positive will, there is no ethereal moral law that nature is obliged to conform to.

If God is real pedophilia must be natural since all his priest do it :P

[Uniquemind]

If God is real pedophilia must be natural since all his priest do it :P

Not true.

But in that same vein of argument, not just in Abrahamic religions, reproductive age or the time to have children for females began as soon as puberty hit naturally, and it became a survival of the fittest during child bearing years in many cultures.

Age 17 was considered "old" as a woman to be unwed.

I remember my history teacher discussing this briefly with us, because people our age commonly would be parents and most likely be married just to give us some perspective in contrast with present day.


My point from earlier is biology hasn't changed so much, and in my view, what about biology and the socio-psychological attraction mechanism, should we expect to change simply because social norms have changed in the last 200 years.

Is it natural? I take a very different line of thinking for that phrase, than where this conversation is going, but for argument sake I think it is natural.

[Flapjack]

Not true.

But in that same vein of argument, not just in Abrahamic religions, reproductive age or the time to have children for females began as soon as puberty hit naturally, and it became a survival of the fittest during child bearing years in many cultures.

Age 17 was considered "old" as a woman to be unwed.

I remember my history teacher discussing this briefly with us, because people our age commonly would be parents and most likely be married just to give us some perspective in contrast with present day.


My point from earlier is biology hasn't changed so much, and in my view, what about biology and the socio-psychological attraction mechanism, should we expect to change simply because social norms have changed in the last 200 years.

Is it natural? I take a very different line of thinking for that phrase, than where this conversation is going, but for argument sake I think it is natural.
I think being a pedo is natural the same as being gay is however being gay is awesome and harmless, being a pedo and acting on them desires is horrific. Just because there was pedos 200 years ago does not make it okay. In Rome 7 year olds got married. Think that's okay?

I think a pedo that has hurt no one should get help from doctors as it is not their fault to have the attraction but the second they act on it I want them having the most severe punishments.

[Ghaem]

Mimikyu, Does Incest have the same conditions?

[Uniquemind]

I think being a pedo is natural the same as being gay is however being gay is awesome and harmless, being a pedo and acting on them desires is horrific. Just because there was pedos 200 years ago does not make it okay. In Rome 7 year olds got married. Think that's okay?

I think a pedo that has hurt no one should get help from doctors as it is not their fault to have the attraction but the second they act on it I want them having the most severe punishments.

Agreed.

But also understand my main point of maturity differences between 0-10, and 11-17.

There are stark differences and a gray area does exist in my opinion in the teen years for a minority few who are just as mature as adults are, and can think and forecast their futures and the relationship between action and consequence just fine.

If a relationship doesn't work, you break up; simple.

Conversely there are many adults who obviously can't do this despite being well into their adult years. (I.e. Anybody voting for trump isn't thinking in a mature way).

So that's my main argument point.

[Judean Zealot]

Agreed.

But also understand my main point of maturity differences between 0-10, and 11-17.

There are stark differences and a gray area does exist in my opinion in the teen years for a minority few who are just as mature as adults are, and can think and forecast their futures and the relationship between action and consequence just fine.

If a relationship doesn't work, you break up; simple.

Conversely there are many adults who obviously can't do this despite being well into their adult years. (I.e. Anybody voting for trump isn't thinking in a mature way).

So that's my main argument point.

Agreed. I find it difficult to condemn sex with a 15 or 16 year old as pedophilia: it is entirely suitable anatomically, and it's condemnation is based solely on the extremely recent determination that they are unable to make judgements. In general I dislike referring to 15 year olds and above as "children": that they are so useless now is an aberration of the past 50-60 years or so, and has no basis in anything but miserable parenting.

[Ghaem]

Agreed. I find it difficult to condemn sex with a 15 or 16 year old as pedophilia: it is entirely suitable anatomically, and it's condemnation is based solely on the extremely recent determination that they are unable to make judgements. In general I dislike referring to 15 year olds and above as "children": that they are so useless now is an aberration of the past 50-60 years or so, and has no basis in anything but miserable parenting.

I am typically against any sexual act out of family. In my view, extramarital sexual relations threatens concept of the family and people involved in marriage must also be at least 22 these days.

[Judean Zealot]

I am typically against any sexual act out of family. In my view, extramarital sexual relations threatens concept of the family and people involved in marriage must also be at least 22 these days.

I agree that it should be done within the context of marriage, but I disagree about the age. All 7 of my older siblings have married younger than 22, and they are all still quite happily married.

[Ghaem]

I agree that it should be done within the context of marriage, but I disagree about the age. All 7 of my older siblings have married younger than 22, and they are all still quite happily married.

I said these days. For sure if the conditions are provided, the age of marriage must be even around 17. But these days I think 21-22 is optimal age for marriage and having a family of your own. I am planning the same. I just need to make sure about my capability to earn money, keep a good man-mood and stay as moral as I can.

[Uniquemind]

Agreed. I find it difficult to condemn sex with a 15 or 16 year old as pedophilia: it is entirely suitable anatomically, and it's condemnation is based solely on the extremely recent determination that they are unable to make judgements. In general I dislike referring to 15 year olds and above as "children": that they are so useless now is an aberration of the past 50-60 years or so, and has no basis in anything but miserable parenting.

That's precisely why SOME US states have Romeo and Juliet laws.

But even saying that, I have known a few cases even from my own high school, where a 3-4 year age gap was not protected under such lawful provisions, and a person's parents (usually the girl's) lawyered up, and because they came from money, were able to stronghold the boy's family into a plea deal.

So I think there is a definite drawback on age of consent laws that rarely anybody debates because most are fearful of being smeared as pro-pedo.

[Flapjack]

@Mimikyu (http://www.virtualteen.org/forums/member.php?u=122060), Does Incest have the same conditions?
I think incest is fucked up but tbh if no one is getting hurt just let them do what they want. The government shouldn't interfere in people's relationships.

[Vlerchan]

I think incest is fucked up but tbh if no one is getting hurt just let them do what they want.
What if there's structural disparities in terms of power? Like, a mother and a dependent child.

[Flapjack]

What if there's structural disparities in terms of power? Like, a mother and a dependent child.
Then it's fucked up dude there is not much more I can say. What about when the guy earns all the money and so the women can't leave because she has no employable skills? It is sad and fucked up but the government cannot regulate it.

[Ghaem]

Vlerchan

What we are talking about is about consent relationships.

Mimikyu,

I agree with that government should not interfer in people's private lives, but I say these relationships are no human at all and will affect and harm normal optimal family concept if gets public. So government must feel responsible about this matter and stop these relations get normalized in society.

But as you say incest is F uped for you, the same goes for any extramarital relationships for me.

[Flapjack]

But as you say incest is F uped for you, the same goes for any extramarital relationships for me.
and that is why the government should not force values on people. I am fine with extramarital relationships and where I am from, everyone is in one! If you don't like them, you don't get in one!

[Vlerchan]

It is sad and fucked up but the government cannot regulate it.
If one partner is using that statues to control the other, is is considered a form of abuse.

If there is structural issues, as opposed to their being potential issues, then why shouldn't the government be able to regulate it? It regulates peadophilia, because of the structural issues involved, and not just because it is disgusting.

What we are talking about is about consent relationships
I am, too.

[Flapjack]

If one partner is using that statues to control the other, is is considered a form of abuse.

If there is structural issues, as opposed to their being potential issues, then why shouldn't the government be able to regulate it? It regulates peadophilia, because of the structural issues involved, and not just because it is disgusting.


I am, too.
The government regulates paedophilia because a child cannot consent. Yes if someone has sex with someone they have power over to pressure them into sex then yeah it is abuse. But if 2 consenting adults want to do incest let them. The government should only get involved if people are being harmed.

[Vlerchan]

The government regulates paedophilia because a child cannot consent.
Why can't children consent to adults, but can consent to other children within a few years of themselves?

But if 2 consenting adults want to do incest let them. The government should only get involved if people are being harmed.
The argument I'm making is that these relationships are inherently harmful, same as paedophilic relationships.

[Ghaem]

and that is why the government should not force values on people. I am fine with extramarital relationships and where I am from, everyone is in one! If you don't like them, you don't get in one!

That is not the point. This is not forcing the values but maintaining that most majority of the society feels their social values safe.

Where I live family is so important most people agree with it. Extramarital relations endanger the very concept of family, increasing age of marriage to nearly 30 while it has to be arround 20 in good economic conditions.

When most majority of the society do not want the concept of family get threatened, government must take responsibility and secure these values.

It does not mean that it has to interfer with private lives of people who feel to live other ways, but people's private lives of people must not interfer with soicial lives of the majority od people. They can have their private lives behind their home doors, but they have no right to threaten social lives of other people.

[Emeka]

Well first let me clarify that I am not supporting the very idea of Pedophilia or even agree with the title of this thread.

The very fact that "Pedophilia is Natural" is correct according to psychology, scientifically putting it beside other sexual orientations which are accepted in psychological communities throughout the world, once again saying psychologically.

But is it really correct? As a human being and as a person who is against any type of relations except proper marriage which leads to establishment of a family, consists of a man and woman agreeing to make a family and on proper time try for having babies, I say it is NOT correct at all.

Let us just say that "Pedophilia is Natural, but NOT correct", the same that I personally believe for homosexuality and any other sexual orientation.

I believe since the time we took sexual intercourse out of regular concept of "Family Making", we opened a way for instability.

What about you guys?

I dont think it is. I also think, at least since I read a book recently, that sexual intercourse being regarded as a Family making activity or a marital activity is what opened it up to instability.

[Ghaem]

I dont think it is. I also think, at least since I read a book recently, that sexual intercourse being regarded as a Family making activity or a marital activity is what opened it up to instability.

And how exactly?

What I see is that youths wasting their youth on matters out of family and then when they turn about 30, thinking about making a family and marry and 4 years later divorce and perhaps once again marry at an age near 40.

I have seen more social and mental instability out of family than inside.

[Flapjack]

Why can't children consent to adults, but can consent to other children within a few years of themselves?


The argument I'm making is that these relationships are inherently harmful, same as paedophilic relationships.
I'm not sure if that's a legal thing buddy, all I know is that 16+ is the age of consent in the UK. I think a child cannot consent to anyone as they don't know the risks and are vulnerable to being pressured. Kids having sex with each other happens obviously but if no one is hurt tbh who cares? Go after them and you'll have half of the high school population in jail. If a child has sex with an adult then that person is a predator and should be punished.

I completely agree Incest is inherently harmful but if for example a brother and sister are of legal age and want to do it, who is getting hurt? I wanna make it clear I think it's really wrong I just don't believe we should regulate it.


Where I live family is so important most people agree with it. Extramarital relations endanger the very concept of family, increasing age of marriage to nearly 30 while it has to be arround 20 in good economic conditions.

Good for where you live buddy. If people want to wait until they're 30 to marry then let them. Just don't force that on others.


When most majority of the society do not want the concept of family get threatened, government must take responsibility and secure these values.

If the concept of family must be enforced by law then it is too late. I am from the UK and there are manyyyy loving families all around, none of them forced by law. What is the majority of society are against gay marriage to 'protect the concept of family' that's what all the homophobes used to hide behind.


It does not mean that it has to interfer with private lives of people who feel to live other ways, but people's private lives of people must not interfer with soicial lives of the majority od people. They can have their private lives behind their home doors, but they have no right to threaten social lives of other people.
This makes zero sense. How do their private lives interfere with the majority of people? So you'd be okay with people having sex outside of marriage and giant orgies and whatever else they want in a free country?

[Vlerchan]

I'm not sure if that's a legal thing buddy, all I know is that 16+ is the age of consent in the UK.
In the U.K., I did just check, and such exemptions don't exist. Nonetheless, across the world, it isn't uncommon.

Furthermore, you seem to have a double-standard as expressed here in the following extracts, so that's enough to continue with the argument,

Kids having sex with each other happens obviously but if no one is hurt tbh who cares? Go after them and you'll have half of the high school population in jail.
If a kid can't consent then presumably they are subject to an inherent harm contained in their activities.

That the entire country might be breaking a law, also does not invalidate it as a law. If you want to change the law, that's fine. But it's no defence for not prosecuting people if you accept the law.

If a child has sex with an adult then that person is a predator and should be punished.
OK. So, you agree that's a qualitative difference between children consenting to other children, and children consenting to adults. The child being consented to is just another kid, whilst the adult is something bad, a predator.

Which gets back to my original point that 'they can't consent' isn't the ethical basis you actually believe in, and neither do a considerable number of legal jurisdictions.

completely agree Incest is inherently harmful but if for example a brother and sister are of legal age and want to do it, who is getting hurt?
I am arguing about parents and capably-consenting children, do you believe their relationships should be banned?

[Flapjack]

If a kid can't consent then presumably they are subject to an inherent harm contained in their activities.

That the entire country might be breaking a law, also does not invalidate it as a law. If you want to change the law, that's fine. But it's no defence for not prosecuting people if you accept the law.

No there is no inherent harm from under age sex, many of my friends have done it and the vast majority of my high school did and no one got hurt. I'm talking like 14-16. However as many do not understand the risks and are not mature enough to handle stuff like that then there can be pregnancies and STIs etc etc:) I don't think it should be illegal to do it because otherwise you would be charging kids with rape, a crime that will obviously have sever legal penalties but also screw up the rest of their lives. That is why kids that have sex with each other are not prosecuted.



OK. So, you agree that's a qualitative difference between children consenting to other children, and children consenting to adults. The child being consented to is just another kid, whilst the adult is something bad, a predator.

Which gets back to my original point that 'they can't consent' isn't the ethical basis you actually believe in, and neither do a considerable number of legal jurisdictions.
Yeah there is a difference buddy because the adult knows the risks involved in sex and is mature enough to make the decision on whether or not to have sex and should not choose to have sex with someone that cannot consent whether that is because of age or mental illness. I do see where you are coming from buddy but that is what I think. This is a very complex issue.

[Ghaem]

Good for where you live buddy. If people want to wait until they're 30 to marry then let them. Just don't force that on others.

There is no forcing buddy. The fact that people live up to 30 without marriage, is not because they do not want to marry. Extramarital relationships being encouraged or ignored by the government and not discouraged endangers the concepts of Loyalty, Values of Family itself, Respect even Love itself at its cores. These are all the consequences that I have seen in my society caused by this behavior, so I am talking for my own society.

What I say is that family is the core of each society and must not be undermined. Unfortunately it seems it is and ONE of the reasons is normalization of extramarital relationships, or let's say Junk Love.


If the concept of family must be enforced by law then it is too late. I am from the UK and there are manyyyy loving families all around, none of them forced by law.

Who said forced by law? I say marriage must be encouraged in the society and extramarital relationships must be discouraged.

What is the majority of society are against gay marriage to 'protect the concept of family' that's what all the homophobes used to hide behind.

Well that is the Right of The Majority over Minority. I say if encouraged, publicly normalized and regularized, it endangers the concept of family and it does.

This makes zero sense. How do their private lives interfere with the majority of people? So you'd be okay with people having sex outside of marriage and giant orgies and whatever else they want in a free country?

Yes, just behind their own doors. There must be no shouting of "Hey! I have had intercourse yesterday with some dude!" in the society. If anything like this happens, it is not Privacy anymore it is in the Public and Public belongs to all members of a Society. When most majority of a society are not fine with such a thing going public and are strongly against it, I believe government must react and limit such behavior to privacy. Law must limit these matters to private lives.

[Vlerchan]

When most majority of a society are not fine with such a thing going public and are strongly against it, I believe government must react and limit such behavior to privacy.
What about when the majority is fine with such behaviour?

Furthermore, despite all the supposed philosophical nuance outlined above, are you advocating something fundamentally different from crude majoritarianism here? Should, in other words, the majority always have there way.

---

Mimikyu: I can respect your opinion, then :).

[Ghaem]

What about when the majority is fine with such behaviour?

Of course. Then government must listen to its people, even if what people want is not innately right. Law must be accepted by majority.

Furthermore, despite all the supposed philosophical nuance outlined above, are you advocating something fundamentally different from crude majoritarianism here? Should, in other words, the majority always have there way.

In the Public matters, yes, because their social lives are being spent in a public where they make its majority. In private matters, they have no right.

[Emeka]

And how exactly?

What I see is that youths wasting their youth on matters out of family and then when they turn about 30, thinking about making a family and marry and 4 years later divorce and perhaps once again marry at an age near 40.

I have seen more social and mental instability out of family than inside.

I think sex starvation makes people do weird things.

[Ghaem]

I think sex starvation makes people do weird things.

Why sex starvation? I say marriage age must be around 20 right now while it had to be 17 or 18 if everything was alright. Still 20 is pretty fine.

[Emeka]

Why sex starvation? I say marriage age must be around 20 right now while it had to be 17 or 18 if everything was alright. Still 20 is pretty fine.

Sorry if I am misunderstanding your meaning. When I said sex starvation, I was referring to the tendency for people to have sexual desires towards children, that is per the topic of this thread. Why do you think marriage should be at twenty? The way I see it is that sex with a person is marriage, so we should only have sex with the right person.

[Ghaem]

Sorry if I am misunderstanding your meaning. When I said sex starvation, I was referring to the tendency for people to have sexual desires towards children, that is per the topic of this thread. Why do you think marriage should be at twenty? The way I see it is that sex with a person is marriage, so we should only have sex with the right person.

Oh apologize then.

Not that sex with a person is marriage. I say sex must not be independently for sexual pleasure, it must a side prize. Only with main purpose of family making and strengthening family ties it is possible for it.

[Emeka]

Oh apologize then.

Not that sex with a person is marriage. I say sex must not be independently for sexual pleasure, it must a side prize. Only with main purpose of family making and strengthening family ties it is possible for it.

I don't agree with that. Marriage is a human invention. Two teens can be married through sex, without the obligation of human "marriage". Only after then should 'marriage' happen, not before.

[PlasmaHam]

I don't agree with that. Marriage is a human invention. Two teens can be married through sex, without the obligation of human "marriage". Only after then should 'marriage' happen, not before.

I could argue about marriage being a human invention, but I don't see why you think sex is essential to marriage. There are men out there who have sex with different women everyday, are they married to all those? Most people I know didn't have sex until after marriage, does that mean they are not married until they had sex? There are couples out there that due to physical or mental limitations have never had sex, are they not married? Like Ghaem, I believe sex is meant for family making, and in human society, family comes after marriage,

[Uniquemind]

Sorry if I am misunderstanding your meaning. When I said sex starvation, I was referring to the tendency for people to have sexual desires towards children, that is per the topic of this thread. Why do you think marriage should be at twenty? The way I see it is that sex with a person is marriage, so we should only have sex with the right person.

For the record I don't think that's what marriage either.

In my opinion viewing marriage and attaching either's meaning to another creates gray areas regarding marriages that have sexual dysfunction, either through disease and or trauma (mental or physical).

Marriage is more of an earthly law thing, and what bond it is a mutual love, which is a very spiritual thing.

[Flapjack]

There is no forcing buddy. The fact that people live up to 30 without marriage, is not because they do not want to marry. Extramarital relationships being encouraged or ignored by the government and not discouraged endangers the concepts of Loyalty, Values of Family itself, Respect even Love itself at its cores. These are all the consequences that I have seen in my society caused by this behavior, so I am talking for my own society.

Extramarital relationships are ignored by most of the western world and yet they're doing just fine!:) Love is not something that needs encouragement, it is natural and beautiful. Just because a couple is not married, does not mean they're not loyal or there is no respect. There is nothing special about your society buddy, we're all humans and we all love:)


Yes, just behind their own doors. There must be no shouting of "Hey! I have had intercourse yesterday with some dude!" in the society. If anything like this happens, it is not Privacy anymore it is in the Public and Public belongs to all members of a Society. When most majority of a society are not fine with such a thing going public and are strongly against it, I believe government must react and limit such behavior to privacy. Law must limit these matters to private lives.
Why can't they go around shouting about their sex lives? I know both girls and guys that are very open with their sexuality and do tell people. If they're not hurting anyone then why can't they? Why should you have the right to force your opinions on others and take away their rights?

[Uniquemind]

Extramarital relationships are ignored by most of the western world and yet they're doing just fine!:) Love is not something that needs encouragement, it is natural and beautiful. Just because a couple is not married, does not mean they're not loyal or there is no respect. There is nothing special about your society buddy, we're all humans and we all love:)


Why can't they go around shouting about their sex lives? I know both girls and guys that are very open with their sexuality and do tell people. If they're not hurting anyone then why can't they? Why should you have the right to force your opinions on others and take away their rights?


It's not a matter of "why can't they" it's a matter of "they can, but if they do here are some consequences that come with doing so".

[Flapjack]

It's not a matter of "why can't they" it's a matter of "they can, but if they do here are some consequences that come with doing so".
That's the same with literally everything that is illegal XD

[Ghaem]

Extramarital relationships are ignored by most of the western world and yet they're doing just fine!:) Love is not something that needs encouragement, it is natural and beautiful. Just because a couple is not married, does not mean they're not loyal or there is no respect. There is nothing special about your society buddy, we're all humans and we all love:)

Eh excuse me. Love just does not come out of nowhere, that is the first thing. This is why nearly all tales of love before correct marriages are nonsense, and usually end with an emotionless end or an unstable marriage.

Second, I do not see effects like 12 year-olds using +18 slangs as a sign of respect in my society. And let us not forget that sex has a consequence of emotional matter which if you are not married and want to change your partner time to time, you will need to ignore it and by ignoring it you are actually little by little killing the factor of emotion in your love life. That is where loyalty is lossing its place to pleasure which in generations will cause trouble.

Third, I am talking about a society I am witnessing, definitely not talking about yours. And yes people here brings excuses like you but when they fail... no turning back easy ways.


Why can't they go around shouting about their sex lives? I know both girls and guys that are very open with their sexuality and do tell people. If they're not hurting anyone then why can't they? Why should you have the right to force your opinions on others and take away their rights

Because people do not want to hear it. What right you have to force most majority of people to listen to things which are useless for them and annoying? Alright they are important to you you have that right to speak with it with anyone who is happy to hear it, but you absolutely have no right to force it on other people. Majority has a right that you are undermining with doing so.


Uniquemind, What I am talking about is mostly about right of the Majority.

[Vlerchan]

Of course. Then government must listen to its people, even if what people want is not innately right. Law must be accepted by majority.
For reference, I see this as definitional bad governance.

But it's not the point of this thread, so I won't go on any sort of sustained criticism of it. Just be aware, that I can't accept it.

[PlasmaHam]

For reference, I see this as definitional bad governance.

But it's not the point of this thread, so I won't go on any sort of sustained criticism of it. Just be aware, that I can't accept it.

I don't really. While we should consider the minority, we should also consider the majority over them. We spend so much time trying to appease the minority (Affirmative Action) that we oppress the majority. That is an unfair system in my opinion.

I won't go further here for the sake of the thread, but saying minority over majority is foolish.

[Judean Zealot]

I don't really. While we should consider the minority, we should also consider the majority over them. We spend so much time trying to appease the minority (Affirmative Action) that we oppress the majority. That is an unfair system in my opinion.

I won't go further here for the sake of the thread, but saying minority over majority is foolish.

Minority over majority per se isn't an optimal state of affairs, but ultimately what government ought to look at is not the majoritarian whim but what is effective governance. Just because the majority wants something idiotic like corporate taxation, or immoral like interrogative torture, that doesn't mean the government has to do it.

[Vlerchan]

Minority over majority per se isn't an optimal state of affairs, but ultimately what government ought to look at is not the majoritarian whim but what is effective governance. Just because the majority wants something idiotic like corporate taxation, or immoral like interrogative torture, that doesn't mean the government has to do it.
This - for reference - is exactly what I meant.

Though I was considering an even more base and usual characteristic of liberal-democratic governments ahead of this: constitutions and independent courts.

[PlasmaHam]

This - for reference - is exactly what I meant.

Though I was considering an even more base and usual characteristic of liberal-democratic governments ahead of this: constitutions and independent courts.

Good to know, I was just making sure you weren't doing the "minorities will inherit the Earth" thing that some liberals like to suggest. We must strike a balance between them. My personal opinion is that the US Government is leaning more toward the minority side, but that is irrelevant. We probably should get back on topic before some mod gets angry.

[Ghaem]

Minority over majority per se isn't an optimal state of affairs, but ultimately what government ought to look at is not the majoritarian whim but what is effective governance. Just because the majority wants something idiotic like corporate taxation, or immoral like interrogative torture, that doesn't mean the government has to do it.
Last unrelated post, I swear. We will continue this discussion on a new thread.


This is what I was referring to.

What I mean is that the basic of constitution must be accepted by the Majority, something Vlerchan you oppossed. When majority accepts the basics of constitution, they cannot complain abot a law which is in proper accordance with the constitution. For example a tenet in constitution is Free Civil Services for all citizens. This means that the majority cannot abandon a civilian from civil services only because they do not like his Name for example.

What I say is that the basics of constitution MUST be accepted by the majority. Rest of the laws which are in accordance with constitution only need to be approved by legal experts repressenting people.

[ethan-s]

No I am not talking about the act. I am talking about the motive. I mean the very behavior itself scientifically is right or not.

No, it's not. It is clearly a mental disorder.

[Judean Zealot]

No, it's not. It is clearly a mental disorder.

Why do you say so, other than the fact that you have an instinctive revulsion of it? If anything homosexuality is more of a disorder, because it is incongruent with the actual physical function of the organs.

[Flapjack]

No, it's not. It is clearly a mental disorder.
I think this is an understandable knee-jerk reaction to horrific crimes however I will ask what evidence do you have for this?I don't know why people are pedos and I don't know why people are gay. I think if someone is a pedo they must seek help. If they seek help and hurt no one, I have no issue. If they touch a child in any harmful or sexual way then I think they should have very sever penalties.

[ethan-s]

If you believe in evolution, then why are all other animals attracted to adult reproductive aged animals? Do sheep screw lambs? No. Also, People are naturally wired to be attracted to members of the opposite sex, not to people of the same sex.

[Judean Zealot]

If you believe in evolution, then why are all other animals attracted to adult reproductive aged animals? Do sheep screw lambs? No. Also, People are naturally wired to be attracted to members of the opposite sex, not to people of the same sex.

Not to be crass, but once a girl begins to menstruate she is able to reproduce. That's at what, age 13?

[Flapjack]

If you believe in evolution
I doXD
then why are all other animals attracted to adult reproductive aged animals?
You ever had a dog? They will try to shag everything XD
not to people of the same sex.
Like all these gay animals? http://www.gaystarnews.com/article/so-it-turns-out-giraffes-are-gayest-animal-planet231014/#gs.ZTqqttE

[Ghaem]

I doXD

You ever had a dog? They will try to shag everything XD


As a DVM I confirm that.

Like all these gay animals? http://www.gaystarnews.com/article/so-it-turns-out-giraffes-are-gayest-animal-planet231014/#gs.ZTqqttE[/QUOTE]

Please please... Gay animals? The giraffes involved in homosexual relations are not Homosexual. They mate with females on proper times. There is no full homosexuality in animal world, they do what gives them pleasure. One of the differences between Animals and Humans in Ethics.

[Flapjack]

Please please... Gay animals? The giraffes involved in homosexual relations are not Homosexual. They mate with females on proper times. There is no full homosexuality in animal world, they do what gives them pleasure. One of the differences between Animals and Humans in Ethics.
If I shagged a guy, would you call me gay? If they also shag female animals they're bi XD yeahhhh shagging a guy for pleasure makes you gayXD

How is homosexuality unethical?

[Ghaem]

If I shagged a guy, would you call me gay? If they also shag female animals they're bi XD yeahhhh shagging a guy for pleasure makes you gayXD

How is homosexuality unethical?

Well seriously we need a psychologist here to say it is different.

No no I was referring to Ethics, subject of Ethics, you know it is a subject in university, like what Philosophy?

What I was saying is that in human ethics is not we do what gives us pleasure, we do what we know is right, even if it does not give us pleasure.

[Leprous]

Well seriously we need a psychologist here to say it is different.

No no I was referring to Ethics, subject of Ethics, you know it is a subject in university, like what Philosophy?

What I was saying is that in human ethics is not we do what gives us pleasure, we do what we know is right, even if it does not give us pleasure.

You are avoiding the subject of homosexuality in animals being natural though. We are not the only species who do this you know, it's a fact. Science. Proof.

[Ghaem]

You are avoiding the subject of homosexuality in animals being natural though. We are not the only species who do this you know, it's a fact. Science. Proof.

Let us say bestiality is natural too. Science Proof. Also faeces eating among giraffes and many others.

What I said is that in humans homosexual is a person who is solely attraced sexually to the same sex

Heck what we are talking about here is Hecking Ethics, not Biology. Why do not you understand it? I have already said it do not mix them up!

[Leprous]

Let us say bestiality is natural too. Science Proof. Also faeces eating among giraffes and many others.

What I said is that in humans homosexual is a person who is solely attraced sexually to the same sex

Heck what we are talking about here is Hecking Ethics, not Biology. Why do not you understand it? I have already said it do not mix them up!

Actually Jack didn't talk about ethics but about facts. Biology. So yeah you know, facts

[Ghaem]

The Special One, Judean Zealot,

Would you please clarify for our friend here that Ethics is a very important fact in humanity?

[Leprous]

The Special One, Judean Zealot,

Would you please clarify for our friend here that Ethics is a very important fact in humanity?

We are talking about animals here, humans aren't animals right? This kinda makes no sense on the current topic of homosexuality in animals.

[Flapjack]

@The Special One (http://www.virtualteen.org/forums/member.php?u=105747), @Judean Zealot (http://www.virtualteen.org/forums/member.php?u=116847),

Would you please clarify for our friend here that Ethics is a very important fact in humanity?
Am I this friend? 'Cos I know they are :)

[Ghaem]

We are talking about animals here, humans aren't animals right? This kinda makes no sense on the current topic of homosexuality in animals.

This whole thread waa all about Ethics and Validity of an act which is biologically considered Natural.

[PlasmaHam]

This whole thread waa all about Ethics and Validity of an act which is biologically considered Natural.

Agreed, the thread originated on ethics and human perception of right and wrong.

[Leprous]

Agreed, the thread originated on ethics and human perception of right and wrong.

Ghaem

/originated/ that wasn't the current topic.

You guys really have a problem with people saying stuff that makes you seem wrong don't you?

[PlasmaHam]

Ghaem

/originated/ that wasn't the current topic.

You guys really have a problem with people saying stuff that makes you seem wrong don't you?

You have a problem with not acknowledging common sense. We want to have reasonable discussions and you keep wanting to veer the topic into irrelevant material.

[Flapjack]

You have a problem with not acknowledging common sense. We want to have reasonable discussions and you keep wanting to veer the topic into irrelevant material.
Dude you can't just say he has no common sense. If you think he is wrong, disprove him. Use some critical thinking, step back and actually read what he has to say whilst removing your own bias. If you still think you're right respond with logic and evidence. We are a few steps away from calling each other smelly and saying the other started it XD

[Uniquemind]

I'm just going to recap with this.

I think that attractions, whatever they may be which aren't socially accepted are indeed caused by some mix between the psychological, biological, and sociological factors.

I think from there we rate the amount of harm (hypothetical or observed historically) that actually is inflicted upon society, and at the end of the day we either let it exist or become part of the accepted culture or not.

Homosexual relationships fall into the category in modern day of being not very harmful to outward society, various religious camps will disagree but they are more concerned about hypothetical spiritual-world-after-life concepts which can't be measured in the observable world.

In comparison, there have been a lot of relationships historically between adults and young teens and children which have not yielded good outcomes. A lot of which is that modern feminist rights did not exist in the past, where such large age gap relationships were accepted, and adulthood began around what we consider the teen years.

Does this mean that there did not exist relationships that weren't positive despite a large age gap in the past? No, but it is the belief nowadays that that's a pandora's box developed world society does not want to open again.

However in my view, we have the after affects of situations where there are a small percentage of people who can and do feel those attractions and are just basically stuck.


So the current solution is that if you happen to be in such a relationship where there is a large age gap, you're playing a dangerous game at your own risk.

[mutantboy]

I think we should make a big difference from pedophilia for medicine and for the law.
For medicine pedophilia is being attracted from child or from who hasn't developed sexual features yet. This is really insane, I think.
For the law pedophilia is having sex with people under the age decided by laws, and every country is different. So for example you can be a pedo if you have sex with a 15 years old girl in a certain country, and not in another. In this case, if you like a young boy/girl already developed, it's ok. Someone can prefer a 14 year old girl, someone a 30 year old, it's up to you. But I can't feel a wrong people just because a country says it.

[Leprous]

You have a problem with not acknowledging common sense. We want to have reasonable discussions and you keep wanting to veer the topic into irrelevant material.

What Jack said. Prove me wrong.

[Flapjack]

I think we should make a big difference from pedophilia for medicine and for the law.
For medicine pedophilia is being attracted from child or from who hasn't developed sexual features yet. This is really insane, I think.
For the law pedophilia is having sex with people under the age decided by laws, and every country is different. So for example you can be a pedo if you have sex with a 15 years old girl in a certain country, and not in another. In this case, if you like a young boy/girl already developed, it's ok. Someone can prefer a 14 year old girl, someone a 30 year old, it's up to you. But I can't feel a wrong people just because a country says it.
Ya know there is sick bastards that do stuff to toddlers right?
9e_UvHH_Y0k
Yeah what age is legal varies from country to country but this isn't a you do whatever floats your boat situation. I have a friend that was molested as a child and when my sister was in a mental hospital she had a friend that was raped as a child and is suffering from hallucinations of him at the age of 17.

[mutantboy]

....that's exactly what I was saying....

[Flapjack]

....that's exactly what I was saying....
I don't see that in the post you made but I'm glad!

[mutantboy]

I don't see that in the post you made but I'm glad!

I wrote "For medicine pedophilia is being attracted from child or from who hasn't developed sexual features yet. This is really insane"

[Flapjack]

I wrote "For medicine pedophilia is being attracted from child or from who hasn't developed sexual features yet. This is really insane"
Do you mean medicine like the study of medicine?

[mutantboy]

Do you mean medicine like the study of medicine?
I mean by a medical point of view. The definition of pedophilia disease.

[PlasmaHam]

I mean by a medical point of view. The definition of pedophilia disease.

I believe what you are trying to say, is that medically, pedophilia is seen as a disease or disorder. Is that right, I can't really understand your syntax.

[Flapjack]

I believe what you are trying to say, is that medically, pedophilia is seen as a disease or disorder. Is that right, I can't really understand your syntax.
He is Italian dude lay off a little!

[PlasmaHam]

He is Italian dude lay off a little!

I wasn't criticizing him. I was just stating the obvious in that we are not sure what he is talking about, and I offer my own interpretation to see if that is what he actually means.

[ethan-s]

We are talking about animals here, humans aren't animals right? This kinda makes no sense on the current topic of homosexuality in animals.

Yes, humans are not animals.

[Flapjack]

Yes, humans are not animals.
NO NO NO NO! xD The Special One we're not starting this again... :D:D:D:D

[Leprous]

NO NO NO NO! xD The Special One we're not starting this again... :D:D:D:D

B..b...but debates :(

[sqishy]

Humans have evolved further than animals haven't you studied this in philosophy? We have made logic societies which are in no actual ways similar to those of animals.


It isn't a given in philosophy that humans have evolved 'further' than animals, taking the nature of philosophy. Sure, it makes many arguments, but the study of philosophy doesn't entail seeing humans as such. Necessarily involves saying what humans are evolving further to.



What I see is that youths wasting their youth on matters out of family and then when they turn about 30, thinking about making a family and marry and 4 years later divorce and perhaps once again marry at an age near 40.


Whatever you are seeing is a minority of situations, not an indication of the way of the youth-onwards today in general.


I do not see effects like 12 year-olds using +18 slangs as a sign of respect in my society.

An aspect of the teenage life stage for many is basically initial over-use of harder language. We tend to more enthusiastically immerse in newer experiences, compared to 'older' ones.

I'm with you if you see some of it as a sign of lack of respect/consideration of other people and society as a whole, but its existence does not come from only this.



There is no full homosexuality in animal world, they do what gives them pleasure. One of the differences between Animals and Humans in Ethics.

So does 'full' sexuality require ethical / non-ethical practice, for you?

I don't see ethics as relevant in the defining of sexual orientation and its forms.


No, it's not. It is clearly a mental disorder.

I'd like it if the 'mental disorder' move is made with a good description of how the thing needs to be classed as a mental disorder. The lack of such gives me the impression of mainly just repulsion toward that thing, like here.

By all means explain further! I'm for that.


If you believe in evolution, then why are all other animals attracted to adult reproductive aged animals? Do sheep screw lambs? No. Also, People are naturally wired to be attracted to members of the opposite sex, not to people of the same sex.

The claim of universal absence of animal pedophilia has not been scientifically proven. There have been reports of such behaviour in sea otters and bonobo chimpanzees.


Yes, humans are not animals.

No, humans are animals. Our bodies are not made of plant or fungi cells. The biological definition is totally fine here. If it aint broke then don't fix it.

[ethan-s]

It isn't a given in philosophy that humans have evolved 'further' than animals, taking the nature of philosophy. Sure, it makes many arguments, but the study of philosophy doesn't entail seeing humans as such. Necessarily involves saying what humans are evolving further to.




Whatever you are seeing is a minority of situations, not an indication of the way of the youth-onwards today in general.




An aspect of the teenage life stage for many is basically initial over-use of harder language. We tend to more enthusiastically immerse in newer experiences, compared to 'older' ones.

I'm with you if you see some of it as a sign of lack of respect/consideration of other people and society as a whole, but its existence does not come from only this.




So does 'full' sexuality require ethical / non-ethical practice, for you?

I don't see ethics as relevant in the defining of sexual orientation and its forms.




I'd like it if the 'mental disorder' move is made with a good description of how the thing needs to be classed as a mental disorder. The lack of such gives me the impression of mainly just repulsion toward that thing, like here.

By all means explain further! I'm for that.




The claim of universal absence of animal pedophilia has not been scientifically proven. There have been reports of such behaviour in sea otters and bonobo chimpanzees.




No, humans are animals. Our bodies are not made of plant or fungi cells. The biological definition is totally fine here. If it aint broke then don't fix it.

Yes, but humans have a soul. Animals don't.

[sqishy]

Yes, but humans have a soul. Animals don't.

You'll be saying it better if humans are animals with souls, but overall I don't see this as relevant for pedophilia.

[Ghaem]

You'll be saying it better if humans are animals with souls, but overall I don't see this as relevant for pedophilia.

Actually animals have souls too. There is a defintion of soul which applies to it.

[sqishy]

Actually animals have souls too. There is a defintion of soul which applies to it.

I'm familiar with the Aristotelian view of a soul, but also aware of other views too. I was making a point though that the existence of a soul is no defining characteristic between humans and animals, and also not relevant in pedophilia.