Seraphim

Let's look at Pedophilia from another point of view, shall we?

A children's point of view - Do a child have a choice whether he or she wished to be treated like that in a society by a total stranger?

Remember that age of maturity where a children is considered Mature is 18 where he or she could legally have sex with others, thus any form of sexual activity with a child below 18 is illegal.

A Parents' point of view - I don't think any parent coud want their children to be exposed to someone who is taking advantage of them simply because he is older and more cunning.

In a society, a parent have right to demand that the society protects their children through laws when their children are outside the house.

Taking both views in considerations, I could say that a person who is Pedophilia is required to change - whether physcial changes or other changes IF he wished to live in society.

echidna

Bree, I feel somewhat left out of this one, but unfortunately I've been somewhat ... preoccupied. I'll try to finish my post next week.

case

Bree,

If you have the time, you might want to check out this book:

<a href="http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/0816640068/qid%3D1036818008/sr%3D11-1/ref%3Dsr%5F11%5F1/103-2525356-1014264" target="_blank">Harmful to Minors</a>

It has an interesting chapter on the concept of the "pedophile". And, being the lazy creature that I am, that's all I have to add.

echidna

Well crucify me if I actually respond with, possibly partially.

2 paedophile rationalisation arguments run along the lines of :

1) That males are innately driven to dominate so as such petiteness can be associated with beauty. Certainly the Kate Moss waif model-style (and younger looking !) is to appeal to just that image of beauty, and as such is highly questionable.

2) That males are innately driven to seek youthful partners to better ensure healthy offspring.

Now, innate or not cannot be confused with right or wrong. I have the innate desire to covet my neighbour’s BMW, but that does not make it right to steal it. I have an innate desire to punch the dickhead who just parked across my driveway, but that doesn’t make it right to deck the shit.

The Seinfeld episode is of relevance here. To males, cleavage is cleavage, until in shame we realise that the subject is most likely not ready to be treated as a sexual object, at which point we furtively hope no one noticed us & promise ourselves we’ll never do it again.

As much as we can / should blame anyone for their actions, completely independently of any deterministic arguments over the “true” nature of free will. Free will must be assumed wherever possible or else it becomes a shelter to absolve individuals of responsibility.

As above.

A bit too hypothetical, since we cannot objectively demonstrate pure thoughts or feelings. We can’t legislate or set laws on thoughts as is often said here, but to varying extents our thoughts are influenced by external prompts.

Why else our billion dollar advertising industries & the mass of laws governing their operation. While it’s easier to punish offenders for their actions, thoughts can only be dealt with by moderating external influences.

This is the basis I use for opposing the unfettered operation of organizations and individuals which promote such extreme views as those who seek to justify paedophilia, even if that is contrary with pure free speech.

Also, while the thought in itself is not inherently harmful, the human route between thought and action is a 2-way street & in any risk assessment of serious crime, thought cannot be ignored, indeed one would be foolish to suggest otherwise.

[ November 10, 2002: Message edited by: echidna ]</p>