The debate "Being a pedophile is not bad if you do not harm anyone" was started by
April 23, 2020, 2:41 pm.
20 people are on the agree side of this discussion, while 58 people are on the disagree side.
That might be enough to see the common perception.
It looks like most people are against to this statement.
diecinueve posted 12 arguments to the agreers part.
Allirix posted 10 arguments, Nemiroff posted 2 arguments, PeaceSafe posted 1 argument to the disagreers part.
diecinueve, Rashia and 18 visitors agree.
jrardin12, Allirix, tyler0300, absolutegarbage, Julie_Boudiaf, StrangeTime, jalolloyd, Amir, pratagata, ShayGP, safalcon7, Safalcon77, charles and 45 visitors disagree.
lemme share with you all about 1 (truth history fact) and also 1 opinion about what it actually "pedo" in moderate p,s I'm not psychiatric or some one always true in debating but I will try my best
1st about my religion history ,our last prophet Muhammad p.b.h we as Muslim belive that God only allow us as Muslim to just only married maximum 4 but just for our beloved prophet Muhammad he had 11 wife and Allah allow that , and the truth is his 1st married is a woman that already have a kid(2 or 3 time divorce) and the the final husband is our prophet. and because she past away .our prophet married another 10 women just after that with mean he doesn't make poligamy in 1st place and also take not the ages of both that time in 25(p.b.h) and 40+(1st wife) named khadijah
ok now I will compare this with those hot topic, for those 10 new wife just only one of them is virgin and she is also the child from our prophet friend named (aisyah son of Abu bakar) Abu bakar is our prophet best friend... and his daughter that time is still 9year old with mean the early age for woman had period .( Allah know best)
ok now about my only 1opinion ,we heard this day lolicon or something with those inside our reality (I can found it inside Japan Vrchat) lol.. most of older man love loli is because of good attitude of that little girl and also because theirs voice. So!
to those have problem with their own mind what we call as pedophile ...Go married normal female doctor and make a child..ok done. and don't forget let Ur child became normal mind human like us lol...
I think it would be better if only those with an urge to rape be forced to be treated
I think it's reasonable to assume there would be many more rapes if porn and sex were banned. Doesn't mean everyone would rape, and I can't see myself doing it, but like I said before, the risk may be low but the hazard is so dam high it warrants treatment.
Sex and porn are legal because adults can consent. Children cannot, so making it legal is not an option.
you can't force someone to do something if you don't have clues that he need to do it.
No clue, clearly I can only guess at my answer to that. I wouldn't think it impossible
Having sex is not the only way to get sexual gratification.
If you couldn't watch porn or have consensual sex, would you rape women?
I think you're slowly getting it. You say you don't have impulses to rape, but imagine if you did. Imagine rape was the only way you could get sexual gratification. That's a paedophile.
there is the option of not having sex with children and also not watching child pornography
but its not just about rape.
your attraction to women can be played out with porn, or a consenting relationship.
with pedophilia, there is not option for a consenting relationship, and porn creates a world of abuse of children that i cannot condone participation in. thus although you have plenty of legitatmete options with women, all options are illegitimate with children.
I don't think pedophiles have uncontrolled impulses. I suppose that the sexual attraction that pedophiles feel towards children is equal to the attraction that I feel towards women, and I never have impulses to rape women
if by treatment you mean counseling, sure. removing all sexual desires sounds like something to do after someone fails to control themselves.
you dont have to trust them, but you cant punish them if they havent done anything wrong yet. treatment before a crime is voluntary. and before they commit a crime, how will you even know who has pedophiliac desires? after they are on a list, then you can know who to not trust, but before that, its pure speculation.
past gay treatment attempts were ineffective, immoral, and counter productive. i dont think thats a model to emulate.
Blame? I'm not sure if I'm blaming them for anything.
I'm just saying they should put in precautionary measures to stop the urges from taking over because, even if the risk is low, the hazard is exceptionally high. Yes, most may not need it, but the ones that do need it will believe they won't need it.
I wouldn't trust someone around my kids who is sexually attracted to them and believes he can control his urges without any treatment.
Treatment isn't a cure. There's definitely treatment out there. Just like there was once treatment for homosexuals. It doesn't change the sexual orientation, it just helps them develop the skills they need to live a healthy, offense-free life. If all else fails there are ways to block their sex drives if they feel that need.
ive never heard of a preventative treatment towards non chemical desires. how do you suggest we treat nonactuating pedophiles?
I would agree with this if almost all pedophiles hurt children, but I don't think that's the case.
You can't blame someone for something you don't know if they will
> the option of a pedophile doing nothing to children?
If I ignored the option of a paedophile doing nothing wrong I'd want them in jail. But I don't. I only want them treated. Being a risk based on a predisposition should never be illegal, only mitigated.
If someone had urges to harm another and never acted on them, and suppressing their urges didn't damage them meaningfully, then I agree that's not bad. But that example uses the fact that hindsight is 20/20, it uses the knowledge that nothing bad did happen therefore there's no longer a risk. Foresight isn't 20/20, so a risk to do harm is still present, so it's still bad.
although i do consider indirect harm as harm, for example child pornography
i dont believe a person can be judged guilty or bad based soley on thoughts. the potential for damage is there, but you cant accuse a person of a crime based only on his potential to commit it.
if he does nothing bad, then he is not bad.
Why don't you take into account the option of a pedophile doing nothing to children?
You keep using examples that, when acting them out, don't always lead to harm.
If acting on your interests always lead to harm, then you're a risk.... Your desire is to do harm. A desire for money isn't a desire to steal money from others.
Just because you are interested in something does not mean that you are a risk. I am interested in having more money, that does not mean that I am a risk for those who have money
Missed my point.
What I mean is if they act on their interest, rape is the only option. If you act on your interest, rape is not the only option... the woman can legitimately be interested in you too. Ideally you would lose interest after a woman makes it clear she will never be interested. If you didnt lose interest, then there would be that same risk.
Raping children is not the only option for pedophiles, they can stay without doing them anything
A woman can consent. She knows enough about herself and the world to know if it's what she wants. Therefore attraction to a woman can lead somewhere good: consensual intercourse.
But, children don't know enough about themselves or society to decide what they want. They're too vulnerable to being manipulated and hurt without even knowing it. So attraction to kids can never lead to consensual intercourse, so it can never lead to something good, only something bad, so there's always a risk of harm, never the potential for good.
Of course there's also a risk that attraction to women can lead to harm, rape is non-consensual intercourse. But it's not the only option like with kids because women can legitimately desire you back, children can't.
I have often been sexually attracted to women who do not want to be sexual with me. Does that mean I am a risk to them?
A sexual attraction to underage kids is a desire to be sexual with those kids which harms them. So yes, by definition paedophilia is a desire to cause harm. They may never act on it but if they desire it, it's in there interests to do it, so it's a risk.
If they aren't sexually attracted to kids then they aren't paedophiles.
If suppressing his internal desire doesn't do him much harm, he doesn't need to be treated.
And just because they're pedophiles doesn't mean they're interested in doing harm
Well suppressing a strong internal desire can damage the person with the desire. So that's one reason they need to be treated.
Plus there's no guarantee they won't act on it. If it's in someone's interests to do harm then they're a risk to the rest of us.
if it is not harmful, why is it bad?
It isn't a question or good or bad. Being a pedophile is a sickness that should be treated. A adult feeling an attraction towards young girl or boy should be evaluated and casted aside until fully rehabilitated. It is bad but isn't harmful -yet- but those are two different things.