Won't somebody please think of the children?!

SubJeff on 6/5/2014 at 06:05

Quote Posted by Kolya

Yeah, if that was so, it could be "healed" permanently.

What?

Since when was this a thing? This is total, total nonsense of the very highest degree of stupidity.

Re: your 14 year old lover. My point is you've condemned people who would want the age of consent to be 15 as paedophiles without taking into account anything else, at all. Yeah, your age at the time made a difference to the scenario. Why would't that be true of them? Your inability to extrapolate or compare the situation and experiences of people worldwide is astonishing. Surely if the age of consent in the USA was dropped to 15 then 16 year olds having sex with 15 year olds wouldn't be classed as paedophiles, just as you weren't. How does this tally up with your suggesting that I was talking about paedophiles when by definition there are people, all over the world, with more extreme limits of age accepted as non-paedophilic with regards to age of consent?

Muz - all desires are part of the human spectrum, no? No matter how wrong we consider them they naturally all come from the same source - a need for something that makes us feel something we enjoy, regardless of how twisted the need or the enjoyment is.

PigLick on 6/5/2014 at 06:17

Its a little bit more complicated than that Subj.
As Muz said "same biological and developmental processes that create the spectrum of sexual desires in people". Its not about enjoyment or need.
Maybe we should get this thread splintered off and we can discuss it in comm chat? I recommend the title "Pedos : A TTLG Discussion"

Kolya on 4/5/2014 at 12:12

Discussion split off from (http://www.ttlg.com/forums/showthread.php?t=143812&page=3&p=2249463&viewfull=1#post2249463) this thread - Al_B

Quote Posted by Muzman

You seem somewhat behind the times there SJ.
Where I work there's stuff posted everywhere for the kids to read that "The first rule of talking about work online is You Do Not Talk About Work Online".
[...]
Talking vaguely about relative values and using pedophilia as an example is extreme but not yet supporting actual pedophilia.

A) Olin wasn't talking about his work or company.

B) No one ever accused SubJeff of supporting paedophilia. He came up with this comparison of gay marriage to people who would like to have sex with minors. And (http://www.ttlg.com/forums/showthread.php?t=143721&p=2246576&viewfull=1#post2246576) I haphazardly assumed he was talking about - but clearly not supporting - paedophiles. After all he used this as an example of why minorities should NOT be granted every wish. How could he be supporting paedos then?
Now if only I had known then that he really was talking about a fictional "Kolya-tribe" of child-fuckers, as he later nonchalantly explained, none of this would ever have happened. Fortunately I managed to (http://www.ttlg.com/forums/showthread.php?t=143721&p=2247922&viewfull=1#post2247922) clear up this misunderstanding in the thread, before it was crippled and closed.

SubJeff on 6/5/2014 at 06:56

But it is about enjoyment and need, at the most base level. Everything we do boils down to biochemistry - what we like, don't like, who we feel sexually attracted or repulsed by, what we feel urges for; whether it's water because we're dehydrated or sex with the girl next door because our hormones are telling us to bang and our childhood experiences psychologically shaped us to like little blonde spinners - it's all biochemistry.

The same can be said of mental illness. Sadness is a normal expression of grief, depression is an extreme, abnormal, end of the spectrum, just like not caring at all about anything is. Finding young women physically attractive is hard-wired for most people, finding very young girls the same is the extreme abnormal end of that spectrum.

Of course all of this develops slightly differently for different people which is why one develops particular tastes. But taste in women is just an aspect of sexuality - the more basic, and underlying aspect, is the need. Without the need nothing else matters. Without the enjoyment (physical, psychological or emotional) you don't get anything out of it and you'll feel less need.

Everything in life is about the drive to do and the feedback we get when we do.

PigLick on 6/5/2014 at 07:43

Now you are making sense, although I am not so sure you have to enjoy things to "need" them (obviously not talking about stuff like water or food). I have more to say on this topic, but later when I have time. But can we please keep things gender neutral?

Also would like to define what we are actually discussing here - I am talking about how pedophiles are treated within society, and why?

note- not condoning pedos here, just i think its a very "swept under the carpet" issue until it becomes something we can vilify.

Kolya on 6/5/2014 at 08:00

Quote Posted by SubJeff

My point is you've condemned people who would want the age of consent to be 15 as paedophiles without taking into account anything else, at all.

I'm pretty sure you didn't define your tribe as 16 year olds who want to have sex with 14 year olds. I think you just said they would want to lower the age of consent. And I assumed then that you were talking about paedos. But as I said, I wasn't so much interested in the specifics of your fictitious tribe as in the comparison you used it for.
Also I'm very uncomfortable with having inadvertently started a thread about paedophilia now. If PigLick doesn't get an enema by noon I will have to delete all my posts. Just saying.

PigLick on 6/5/2014 at 08:41

I have been on the receiving end of the pedophilic cycle, it affected me quite a bit and subsequently its something I have thought about a lot.
Yeh its a squeamish topic for sure.

SubJeff on 6/5/2014 at 08:45

Quote Posted by Kolya

I'm pretty sure you didn't define your tribe as 16 year olds who want to have sex with 14 year olds.

Oh, was that what all of Germany was when that law was defined? That's amazing.

faetal on 6/5/2014 at 11:10

Re paedophilia as a hardwired phenotype - whether you refer to it as a sickness or a persuasion is just semantics.

There seems to be plenty to suggest that it is not a choice:

(http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/1357650X.2014.898648)

(http://ojs.library.ubc.ca/index.php/ubcujp/article/view/2500)

(http://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s10508-012-9982-y) (deals more with hebephilia, but still relevant in terms of the semantic argument)

(http://books.google.co.uk/books?hl=en&lr=&id=EdZcAgAAQBAJ&oi=fnd&pg=PA168&dq=paedophilia+review&ots=FNeM1RMtsv&sig=qFclAv0j_MJCj8DwQgix16rUjGQ#v=onepage&q=paedophilia%20review&f=false)

There are plenty more - plus I only used one set of search terms.

That it is abhorrent to non-paedophiles is not up for debate, but if it is indeed an extreme point on a spectrum of ordinary human proclivities, then treatment seems to be the preferable option to demonisation. The latter serves only to discourage people from seeking help and will probably be more likely to lead to situations where temptation wins out over restraint.

Still, it's so hard to get past the Daily Mail "hang 'em all" approach, that I can't see that idea gaining any traction in most current societies.
The moment you discuss the subject on this level, most people find it safer to loudly voice their disgust in order to better show how moral they are versus the possibly iffy person trying to understand it better.

SubJeff on 6/5/2014 at 11:57

You can say that about lots of psychiatric conditions though. Schizophrenia has strong genetic component to it. Is calling that an illness semantics?

I agree it shouldn't be demonised because that blocks access to seeking help. Its the same as drugs being illegal - if you've got a certain position you're less likely to seek help for your heroin addiction because of the potential knock on effects.