Your Views On Pedophille??
How's Pedo???
0
I know that not every pedophile actually harms children and that some are aware that something is wrong with them and even seeking therapy. But even then, I can't help but think of them as... well, I guess one could say lesser beings. Of course, that doesn't make it okay to punish them for being pedophile, but at least they should seek help.
Also, it doesn't really make much of a difference whether a child "gives consent" or is raped. A child can't really give consent. Sure, it may agree to have sex, but it doesn't have the necessary maturity to make such a decision. Of course, it's questionable when somebody is ready to do that and it varies between every person. But I'd say everybody below 14 (at most) should be off-limits.
Also, it doesn't really make much of a difference whether a child "gives consent" or is raped. A child can't really give consent. Sure, it may agree to have sex, but it doesn't have the necessary maturity to make such a decision. Of course, it's questionable when somebody is ready to do that and it varies between every person. But I'd say everybody below 14 (at most) should be off-limits.
0
Well, i don't know about much.
But since i like loli, much i am considered as a pedo, though i prefer it in the 2D world rather than real life.
But since i like loli, much i am considered as a pedo, though i prefer it in the 2D world rather than real life.
0
bobing wrote...
Well, i don't know about much.But since i like loli, much i am considered as a pedo, though i prefer it in the 2D world rather than real life.
nah. Incest and pedo irl sucks.
0
Flaser
OCD Hentai Collector
So much ado about "generalities", so little concrete fact. Lets make the picture a bit more shaded:
1. The overwhelming majority of sexual abuse of children is committed by family.
2. Said "abuse", is often non-violent, the child is often a reciprocating partner.
So we've just put the "danger-stranger" or candyman stereotypes as well as the insane kidnappers out of the picture. (They exist, but they compromise a minuscule portion of sexual predators). They're not the main issue.
We will also have to face the fact that these children are very much sexually curious, so the notion of some depraved deviant "corrupting" an "innocent child" is also not exactly what goes on. (The depraved and deviant parts stands... the children being totally ignorant... usually not so).
Such relationships are still *VERY* damaging to the child:
3. Part of that is because the stigma associated with child abuse, that society assumes to just *know* what has happened and forces the child to adopt the "broken bird" stereotype it associates with victims of child abuse.
4. The other part is the inevitable dominance roles, such a relationship entails. Even if the pedophile is the most considerate partner one could ask for, he will still be the dominant one in the relationship and his wishes will take precedence over that of the child. In the long run, it can cause the victim to have trouble expressing their wishes and take part in a relationship as an equal partner.
5. The child will also frequently associate sex with gaining attention and garnering favor... I assume I don't need to go into length how wrong this can be, especially since these patterns can manifest in adulthood as well.
So why did I write all this down? Why did I put forth all these claims that might seem like an apologist essay for pedophiles?
1. Because the current efforts to curtail child abuse are very much misplaced. Focusing on "candyman" and "kidnappers", the system does little to curtail most of the abuse.
2. It also criminalize the normal sexuality of teenagers and has put countless people on the sex offender list for crimes like public urination, or going out with a consenting *teenager*. Neither of which conduct should be classified as child abuse.
Of course, I assume a lot of people will be in an uproar over my views, since to them "Sex is just wrong" (hello Christian dogma!) especially when it involves children (let's ignore everything Kinsey has researched and the fact that playing doctor with other children didn't traumatize us).
The reason why I can't abhor the base stigmatization of sex and sexuality is that it does little to actually curtail abuse, does much collateral damage and fails to address the basic challenge of raising people in a manner where they engage in their sexuality in a responsible and respectful (to their partners and peers) manner.
1. The overwhelming majority of sexual abuse of children is committed by family.
2. Said "abuse", is often non-violent, the child is often a reciprocating partner.
So we've just put the "danger-stranger" or candyman stereotypes as well as the insane kidnappers out of the picture. (They exist, but they compromise a minuscule portion of sexual predators). They're not the main issue.
We will also have to face the fact that these children are very much sexually curious, so the notion of some depraved deviant "corrupting" an "innocent child" is also not exactly what goes on. (The depraved and deviant parts stands... the children being totally ignorant... usually not so).
Such relationships are still *VERY* damaging to the child:
3. Part of that is because the stigma associated with child abuse, that society assumes to just *know* what has happened and forces the child to adopt the "broken bird" stereotype it associates with victims of child abuse.
4. The other part is the inevitable dominance roles, such a relationship entails. Even if the pedophile is the most considerate partner one could ask for, he will still be the dominant one in the relationship and his wishes will take precedence over that of the child. In the long run, it can cause the victim to have trouble expressing their wishes and take part in a relationship as an equal partner.
5. The child will also frequently associate sex with gaining attention and garnering favor... I assume I don't need to go into length how wrong this can be, especially since these patterns can manifest in adulthood as well.
So why did I write all this down? Why did I put forth all these claims that might seem like an apologist essay for pedophiles?
1. Because the current efforts to curtail child abuse are very much misplaced. Focusing on "candyman" and "kidnappers", the system does little to curtail most of the abuse.
2. It also criminalize the normal sexuality of teenagers and has put countless people on the sex offender list for crimes like public urination, or going out with a consenting *teenager*. Neither of which conduct should be classified as child abuse.
Of course, I assume a lot of people will be in an uproar over my views, since to them "Sex is just wrong" (hello Christian dogma!) especially when it involves children (let's ignore everything Kinsey has researched and the fact that playing doctor with other children didn't traumatize us).
The reason why I can't abhor the base stigmatization of sex and sexuality is that it does little to actually curtail abuse, does much collateral damage and fails to address the basic challenge of raising people in a manner where they engage in their sexuality in a responsible and respectful (to their partners and peers) manner.
0
Flaser wrote...
1. The overwhelming majority of sexual abuse of children is committed by family.
Isn't that common knowledge by now? Did anybody here mention even say that it's mostly strangers who commit it?
It's true that children have sexual growth. I know that very well. But it's exactly that: "Growth". There is no way a child is mature enough to really know what it does when it "consents" to sex. It may be that it won't harm it in the long run, but it's still very likely to cause damage to (at least) their sexual growth.
Flaser wrote...
2. It also criminalize the normal sexuality of teenagers and has put countless people on the sex offender list for crimes like public urination, or going out with a consenting *teenager*. Neither of which conduct should be classified as child abuse.That's unfortunate, but a different (albeit related) issue.