# Pedophiliacs: Should we feel sympathy for them? **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [September 17, 2009, 5:19pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/pedophiliacs-should-we-feel-sympathy-for-them/510462 "2009-09-17T17:19:45Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 6
**Author:** ![Cesario](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/ecae2f/32.png) [@Cesario](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Cesario)\ **Post date:** [September 22, 2009, 5:26am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/pedophiliacs-should-we-feel-sympathy-for-them/510462/101 "2009-09-22T05:26:02Z")
> [@AboutAsWeirdAsYouCanGet](#): > > I wonder, if a lot of them are stunted emotionally, and that’s why they feel sexually attracted to children. It really does seem like a lot of them for whatever reason never made the maturity leap to being attracted to adults. > I also thought that the percentage of “pure” pedos was very low. I could have sworn that I read most pedos had extremely complicated emotional issues. > It’s possible that a psych could help a pedo mature, emotionally so they wouldn’t be attracted to kids any more. I honestly think that its being emotionally stunted which is the root cause of peodphillia. > There used to be some online messageboards. The only reason I know about them is b/cI was doing some reading on the book " I Know My First Name Is Steven" ,which in turn led me to Better a Millstone which then had links to the online messageboards. I used to lurk at them…Many of them were kind of ambigious…(ie attracted to young teens) but some of them… How would your “theory” apply to nonexclusive pedophiles like me? Since I am capable of emotional and sexual attraction to adults, does the stunted theory not apply to me? Do I have to completely lose the ability to see certain kinds of beauty before I can be said to get past whatever it is you think is hanging me up? > [@Shodan](#): > > “Act on it” in the sense of “ever having sexual contact with a child”. Since children are not capable of consent, all sexual contact with children is rape by definition. Not the most solid defintion ever, but potentially workable for the sake of this argument. I seem to recall someone talking about whether or not I ought to be allowed to walk down the street with my eyes open for fear I might look at a child and thus cause someone discomfort. > [@Shodan](#): > > This is what I was talking about. It would not matter in the slightest to me if some pedophile mentioned a desire to keep children from being as miserable as he was as a child as a justification of his sexual advances towards a child. This is not a sufficient excuse, and would not (in my view) make any difference to how he should be treated. Where were you getting that this was intended as some justification for making sexual advances towards a child? I’ve been pretty consistent about how making sexual advances towards a child in this culture is a bad idea. > [@Shodan](#): > > Yes, by any means necessary. > Yes, I do. Good that we have some agreement on these points. > [@Shodan](#): > > I don’t think it would go as far as war, but see what I said above about “any means necessary”. Any means necessary applies on both sides. We do have the slight advantage of being practically undetectable while the people who want to kill us are doing a wonderful job of shining a spotlight on themselves. 😉 Just a thought on the logistics of such a conflict. > [@Shodan](#): > > [Cite](http://www.minddisorders.com/Ob-Ps/Pedophilia.html). > > Regards, > Shodan Perhaps I should have specified an academic source that actually supported your position instead of just listing off a dozen different compeeting ideas with no backing whatsoever for any of them. My mistake. > [@The\_Flying\_Dutchman](#): > > I feel sorry for them. I feel even sorrier for their innocent victims. > > Given we have two sorry populations. I believe it is incumbant upon society to search for solutions that can eradicate the problem. Whatever we are doing today seems quite ineffective. > > I propose we consider that all young males at some post pubescent age be required to submit to a physical evaluation whereby penis response to pictures of young children in bathing suits is measured. > > Those who are identified at risk can then be subjected to counseling which could offer coping mechanisms from response techniques to arousal all the way to permanent castration. The sooner the problem is dealt with, the more effective the treatment. > > Yes, there’s a civil liberties issue here. I don’t like to be subjected to a breath test for alcohol consumption either. . So what. Mutant registration. There’s a reason I occasionally use the alias Magneto. > [@Whack-a-Mole](#): > > It is not a difficult task to not rape people because there is ample room for acceptable sexual expression. Most people can get laid, if nothing else they can hire a prostitute. They can access strip clubs. They can access pornography. > > A pedophile has no such outlets (well, there is child porn but accessing that is pretty much as bad as molesting a kid since someone abused a child to appease someone else’s appetite for kiddie porn). You honestly believe that if you couldn’t get consentual partners, you’d resort to rape? And I’m the monster here? > [@Whack-a-Mole](#): > > Here are stats on that: Is there any particular reason they bothered listing the rate of sex offenses as second crimes in there? I would assume that recitivism statistics, in general, would reffer to the same or similar crimes being comitted again, comparing apples to apples. Maybe I just don’t understand the statistics they were trying to present. > [@hotflungwok](#): > > This differentiates between a strict definition of a pedophile, someone who is sexually attracted _exclusively_ to children, and someone for whom that attraction is not exclusive. While this may be useful statistically, in practice I see no difference. People who want have sex with children are people who want to have sex with children. It makes no such distinction. Did you read what I put up there? It identifies a pedophile as someone who is primarily sexually attracted to children. Exclusives are included in that group, but they by no means stand as the only group being discussed. Further, it’s about the difference between pedophiles and child molesters. As significant as the difference between heterosexuals and rapists. > [@Freudian\_Slit](#): > > I have an impulse problem because I flirt with guys I think are cute? Look, a lot of people who aren’t pedophiles do this. It’s natural. I don’t always have to analyze every situation. If a cute guy smiles at me or does something sort of flirty, I’ll flirt back without thinking, “Wait, am I reading too much into this? Is he just being nice, am I coming on to strong?” If you start acting that same way with a kid, it’s weird. You have an impulse control problem because you do this without thinking or considering the consequences, yes. Just because you don’t get screamed at or stoned, and because some sector of society thinks your behavior is acceptable even if unwanted does not make it any less a problem. > [@Freudian\_Slit](#): > > My point is that you, as a pedophile, have to be on guard against making sure you do something untoward. Again, never had any problem with it. I continue to find it baffling that you have such a problem, and consider it normal to be so lacking in self-control. > [@Freudian\_Slit](#): > > Most people don’t. I’d like some backing for this assertion. > [@Freudian\_Slit](#): > > I can usually tell when a guy really wants to kiss me or is attracted to me. Just as in a lot of cases a guy can tell when I’m interested in him. In some cases, that’s awkward/uncomfortable. In others, it’s awesome. Your magical ability to tell when people are interested in you is fastenating. If you could bottle that, I’m sure that many of the problems men and women have faced over the millenia of human existence could be wiped out. Why are you not working with our top scientists to do so? > [@Freudian\_Slit](#): > > But for you to ever let a kid know you feel that way is unacceptable because you’re saddling them with way too much information that they shouldn’t be dealing with. I don’t believe information is inherently evil. Any information. You no doubt disagree, but I find that deliberately keeping children ignorant is never really about benefiting them. It’s about benefiting the person who wants them not to know something. > [@Freudian\_Slit](#): > > I think you’re being deliberately obtuse. It’s wrong to make a kid think they’re special when you’re doing it so that they’ll think molestation is normal. And where in the world did I suggest that we should be making them think molestation is normal? I’ve been noticing a distinct trend with people putting words in my mouth here, and it’s getting quite annoying. > [@constanze](#): > > Yes, I want options for pedophiles to safely live out their desires without harming real children. I wonder about whether allowing virtual child porn - that is, made with video software, not with real children - would help or hinder pedophiles. I do not know of any studies done - does anybody know whether watching virtual porn would deflate desire or increase it? Should be able to extrapolate from adult attracted individuals. Personally, I would assume release is going to be release, and live up to its name by decreasing pressure. But that’s just me. > [@constanze](#): > > There was a thread some time ago about whether completly digital videos of child porn should be forbidden, or only real child porn (thus documents of real abuse). One problem was how to differentiate between the two. That problem has an easy solution. License the graphic designers who are making the stuff, have them put their brand name on it, and have the feds regularly check up on them, requiring that they regularly doccument every step of their production process so they can prove the material is faked. Of course, this is only for the hyper-realistic stuff. You don’t need to be as strict with the obviously fake, stylized stuff like hentai mangas. > [@constanze](#): > > Maybe we could set up projects with social workers, in a controlled setting, using virtual videos. What about the setting needs to be controlled, exactly? Followed up on, I can see, but what about the setting is important? Is there some reason that a sterile white room is going to be a more suitable viewing area for the porn than in the privacy of their own homes? > [@constanze](#): > > I also wonder, given the wide variety of how old/young people look, that having people who are legally adult (over 18), but look anatomically much younger, as prospective partners. If you can find someone over 18 who actually looks like they’re prepubescent, let me know. My best friend is underdeveloped due to a growth condition, but even she looks closer to 14 than 9. > [@constanze](#): > > It was certainly eye-opening for me to read in another thread that research shows that pedophilic attraction is hard-wired like being gay. I always believed that pedophiles were mentally/psychologically deficient: unable to maintain a relationship with adults, wanting the power of an unequal relationship. I’m glad **that** misconception has been cleared up. Oh how I loathe that one. > [@constanze](#): > > But since I’m for gay rights, and since we know today that being gay can’t be cured, we should research on safe ways for pedophiles to have sex, instead of abstinence-only. I should think this would be an important pursuit even if you did think you could “cure” us. After all, would it be moral to return to the opressive laws of yesteryear for homosexuals if they could be reliably “cured”? > [@constanze](#): > > Um, because adult attracted people have a reasonable hope of finding a mate and building a relationship, while pedophiles can almost never hope that? > > I certainly find the attitude some people express in regards to gays or guys that because their desires are so strong, they want to rape all women in sight, and it takes almost superhuman control (usually with religion) to keep that in check absurd. But that’s because I know enough guys who don’t do that, and have a normal relationship. > > But if I try to imagine that I could never have a normal relationship with somebody I love, because I wouldn’t feel attracted to them … damn, that’s scary to imagine. I’ve read some stories of gays, how they tried for years to suppress their feelings and desire because of the strong societal taboo against and - and they usually fail and come out. But they can today expect to live in liberal places and find a mate. What can pedophiles expect? The fact that you honestly believe yourself so morally bankrupt that you’d rape someone if no one would consent to sex with you is kind of sad, actually. > [@gaffa](#): > > I’m pretty sure robotics will solve this problem, although the maker of Real Dolls has refused to make an under-age one. This fact seems to suggest that robotics **won’t** solve the problem, since the people making the robots are refusing to let their technology solve the problem. We need to deal with the social issues before we can get the robot makers over their “moral” objections on this, it would seem. > [@gaffa](#): > > Yes, but we don’t bother to verify that nobody is actually murdered while filming _Texas Chainsaw Massacre_. The real difficulty with making animated, virtual child porn is the cost of the work compared to the expected return - though I have no doubt it will first appear as anime. From what I understand there is lots of magna that features visually underage characters. There is a good deal of pornographic anime and manga that features prepubescent characters. Most of it is doujin, a kind of non-professional, home-made sort of manga, but there’s professionally made stuff in that vein. The Japanese have fewer hangups with people admitting their interest in this area than we have in the west, and that pornography demographic is profitable enough. I have no doubt that with 33% of the adult male population being more arroused by images of nude children than they are by nude adults, that this sort of porn wouldn’t be hurting for paying customers. > **[97-048 article](https://www.ipce.info/ipceweb/Library/97-048_article.html)** > [@Marley23](#): > > Because it would be trivially simple to find out if anyone had. It’s not so easy with child pornography, where the victim may be far too young to speak or may be abused by a parent, relative, or acquaintance of one of the above. It is, however, trivially easy to determine if the child actually exists if you’ve got the graphic artists licensed to produce this kind of pornography, and who can produce the evidence of their process on demand. I know I for one would very much like to see an officially licensed pornographer producing this under those strict controls, since I have no interest in actual explotative materials. I can’t imagine I am alone in that preference. > [@constanze](#): > > That would be a first step, but comes back to the other problem: are people pedophiles because they are emotionally not grown up, or is it a normal (in biological terms) desire like being gay? Because if it’s the latter, that’s like telling a gay person to have sex with a rubber doll, instead of marrying his boyfriend. Desire and sex is one part, but most normal people want a real relationship, too. Banging a robot won’t help with that. And it’ll help with someone who’s emotionally stuck in his development how? Seriously, like I said in the real-doll thread. It’s a sex-toy. Nothing more and nothing less. ---
**Author:** ![Cesario](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/ecae2f/32.png) [@Cesario](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Cesario)\ **Post date:** [September 22, 2009, 5:27am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/pedophiliacs-should-we-feel-sympathy-for-them/510462/102 "2009-09-22T05:27:06Z")
> [@AboutAsWeirdAsYouCanGet](#): > > Qadgop, I think youmisinterpreted what gaffa was saying. > Gaffa was saying that he was attracted to girls who were his same age peers. > A pedophile is not. A pedo is stunted emotionally (for whatever reason) and so attracted to little boys or girls. > Like Gaffa I don’t think it’s “hardwired” ala sexual orenitation. I don’t think it’s a nature thing…It’s more of a “nurture” wired thing. Like a life experiance wired thing…I do think that many if not most pedophiles if they matured emotionally and dealt with the “trauma” that caused them to be pedophiles could move on to real realtionships with adults. Do you have any actual basis for this assessment, or is it just something that belongs in IMHO? > [@Napier](#): > > I absolutely feel pity for pedophiles, including those who act on their impulse by molesting children. Having an entire (if small) demographic who deserves nothing but hatred for failing to completely avoid acting on their innate sexual inclinations, to me, seems implausible. > > I feel even more pity for children who are molested. > > As a practical matter, molestation is a terrible thing, and it’s appropriate to imprison or otherwise restrain pedophiles as needed to prevent molestation, but doing so does not require us to hate them or be unpitying. How to do it is debatable, but as a hypothetical, if there were incarcerated communities containing nothing but pedophiles, I would not mind cooperating with them, for example visiting them to facilitate some kind of gainful employment within the community. I really don’t know how society might set these things up, but am only trying to characterize my feelings to answer the OP. Is this yet another offer of our own country? Because as often as I’ve seen that proposal put forward, I’m still waiting on the governments of the world settling on which large landmass they’re going to offer us to settle on. (Keeping in mind that, at a bare minimum, we represent 20-33% of the adult male population, and an unknown percentage of the female population.) > [@NineToTheSky](#): > > One thing I’ve always wondered is whether their attraction to children is purely physical, or do pedophiles feel an emotional/intellectual attachment? Is it just lust, or does love (as in what a pedophile might think is love) come in to it as well? Lust is all that is required for a diagnosis, but it isn’t as though sexual interest in someone makes you incapable of loving them or forming strong emotional connections of other sorts. > [@Dusty\_Rose](#): > > As someone who was both raped at the age of 5, and repeatedly molested at 7 or 8, I’d like to throw my opinion into the mix. > > I can see feeling sorry for pedophiles to a certain extent. But not once they act on it. I can understand how difficult it would be to have true sexual desire for a child but not have an acceptable outlet for it. That has to be hard to deal with. But it is never right to draw a child into your problem. > > As far as computerized porn, why? Who says anyone has to has visual materials to masturbate? You want to whack off to thoughts of children, fine. I don’t care. Isn’t allowing child porn, even computer generated, a form of condoning it? What’s to condone? What is the practical difference between an image that is in my head, and an image that is on my computer screen, or doodled in my notebook? > [@Lust4Life](#): > > Yes I feel sorry for them. > It must be awful to know that you’re a loathsome piece of scum and each day must be a nightmare for them resisting temptation. > > So I think that we should help them out by euthanising them. > > And I am more then happy to help end their misery. Always nice to know where you stand. > [@constanze](#): > > That’s a very interesting question. With the conventional explanation that pedophiles are stunted, it seems to be about lust. Although when convicted molesters tell about their attraction to the victim, it sounds like they feel it’s a relationship. And the victims often tell how much effort the molester puts into manipulation to make the child feel that he wants it. Okay, some of that might be a way to rationalize their guilt, but it’s still different from a normal rape/ sex with adult-oriented people. > > Also, if the desire is hard-wired, like being gay, then they would want a real relationship and not only quick sex. How exactly is that different from sex with adult-oriented people, again? > [@Guinastasia](#): > > Well, quite honestly, I DO think my sympathy ends once a person acts on said feelings. Like I said – get help. See your psychiatrist. I don’t think a doctor is required to report someone who hasn’t or isn’t planning on acting on said feelings. They are required to report you if they have any reason to believe that you might. That reason need not be logical or rational, and doctors are just as emmersed in our culture’s paedo-hysteria as anyone else. Also, medical privacy is a joke. Even without doctors being allowed to explicitly tell other people about your conditions, the doctors you see, the medications you’re prescribed, and a dozen other things mean there are a lot of people capable of easily extrapolating your diagnosis. > [@Guinastasia](#): > > However, my pity is for those who admit to having a problem. Who admit that they need help. For those who claim their feelings are perfectly all right, because they’re _natural_, well, then you’re an asshole. (Think NAMBLA.) Think an organization founded to support gay rights by oposing jurisdictions using different ages of consent for heterosexual and homosexual sex in order to discriminate against gays? > [@Guinastasia](#): > > \*“Natural” does NOT mean “good”. Snake venom, after all, is “natural.” That doesn’t mean that I’m going to put it in my coffee. So, yes, your feelings are “natural.” But they’re also wrong, and you need HELP. > > Does that make sense? I only ever bring up nature (and I have a number of lovely pieces on it) when some idiot makes a naturalistic fallacy claiming it’s unnatural (by which they mean “wrong”). > [@Dusty\_Rose](#): > > You guys are making some good points, and I find myself examining my thoughts a little closer on this. > > I could see a controlled study, using computer generated images only, to see if it did help reduce the incidence of molestation/rape. I know I’m not against porn. I remember years ago a case where someone got in trouble for pictures that he drew and stories he had written regarding child rape. I didn’t at the time, and don’t now feel that he should have been charged with anything. > > I certainly wouldn’t advocate thought crime laws… > > And I don’t believe that victimless crimes should be prosecuted. > > It’s an interesting question, really. The conventional wisdom is that pedophiles cannot be rehabilitated. Maybe they can’t. But what have we really tried, I wonder? > > And, as has been pointed out, there are several different levels of pedophilia. (Though to be honest, I have never been able to wrap my mind around the concept of “situational” molesters.) > > I’m going to have to explore this particular concept a little more. I’m not sure exactly what I think about it. Situational offenders are just regular rapists who don’t care who or what they’re raping so long as they get to hurt someone. Children just happen to be smaller, weaker, and avalible to said offenders. Nothing at all to do with sexual prefference there. > [@Curtis LeMay](#): > > No, I don’t and we shouldn’t. If you can keep it under control and shut up about it all good and good, but if you actually a commit a crime, then TOO BAD, and they deserve to be punished. And why do I need to “shut up about it”, exactly? > [@fuzzypickles](#): > > If we’re thinking of the same case, I believe that guy had already been convicted of actual sex offenses, and he was instructed not to create visual or fictional pornography as a condition of his parole. Naturally, one wonders how long it would have taken for him to commit yet another crime against an actual child. ☹ > > The whole “virtual porn” issue is a sticky wicket. Where do you draw the line? The [CPPA of '96 was ruled unconstitutional](http://usgovinfo.about.com/library/weekly/aa041602a.htm) because it would have classified legitimate films like _American Beauty_ as child pornography. It’s true that mere drawings, paintings, and computer-generated imagery can be created without causing actual harm to a child, but it does raise the question if such material encourages pedophiles to view their orientation as legitimate, and perhaps make them more likely to act on those sexual urges. No amount of avalible masturbatory aids will impact, in any way, how legitimate my orientation is. Wiping out free speech and putting up blocks on anything that anyone might ever consider might look in any way like a child won’t change the fact that there is nothing wrong with my desires. It’ll just mean the state is fascist beyond hope of redemption and needs to be destroyed rather than just changed as is my current hope. > [@fuzzypickles](#): > > Family nudist camps, in particular, [are a hotbed for pedophiles](http://www.nostatusquo.com/ACLU/NudistHallofShame/index.html). There were many nudist-oriented magazines published in the '60s & '70s where the underage subjects were later discovered to be victimized by genuine child pornography – this situation continues today, in fringe markets located in former Soviet countries. > > However, I think it’s a mistake to restrict our civil liberties just because someone like **Cesario** might get sexually aroused by a Coppertone ad. Even if there was some rock-solid test to screen out pedophiles and remove them from the general population, there will always be more to fill that void. The best defense, I think, is for parents to be hyper-vigilant whenever [some creepy pedo starts lusting after their children](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?t=532587) – remember, most sexual predators target children who already come from dysfunctional families. Most predators target their own children. The dirty little secret that the myth of the pedophile lurking in the bushes tries so hard to conceal. Incest abuse accounts for 87.5% of child sexual abuse. More if you count step-parents and other close family members. [http://www.acf.hhs.gov/programs/cb/pubs/cm04/figure5\_2.htm](http://www.acf.hhs.gov/programs/cb/pubs/cm04/figure5_2.htm) > [@fuzzypickles](#): > > There’s definitely an emotional attraction, albeit an aberrant one. Would you care to define “aberrant” in this context? > [@fuzzypickles](#): > > It’s important to understand that for most genuine pedophiles, the desired relationship is NOT about exerting power over someone young and helpless – instead, it’s about returning to a state of childhood themselves. Some pedophile activists like **Cesario** will claim that there’s a coming-of-age or mentoring component involved, as evidenced by certain cultures like the Classical Greeks or the [semen warriors of New Guinea](http://www.tribalwar.com/forums/archive/t-169429.html) – but that’s almost exclusively the domain of ephebophilia (i.e. an exclusive attraction to teenagers), not pedophilia. Not to mention that there are vastly different cultural factors which come in to play here. Again, putting words in my mouth and attributing arguments to me that I have never put forward in any context in any argument I have ever participated in on this or any other board. If you want to set up a straw-man, kindly don’t attach my name to it. > [@fuzzypickles](#): > > One thing that stands out for me is the pedophile’s tendency to objectify children – not necessarily in a sexual manner, but instead as objects of innocence. No, that’s you nonpedophiles’ thing. As I’ve been reading these threads, I’ve been consistently recognising that children have interests and knowledge that those on the other side of the debate flattly refuse to accept they have. > [@fuzzypickles](#): > > The problem lies in the fact that many pedophiles don’t discriminate between actual images of innocence, and children who have been victimized. Even today, there are several YouTube channels run by pedophile activists, which contain photo montages of choirboys and Disney Channel actors posted right next to similar montages of cropped kiddy porn. Report them. You-tube has plenty of cause to take down kiddie porn imagery, and if you aren’t reporting them to the site moderators when you find them (as you are implicitly claiming you have), you are complicit in this distribution of child pornography. > [@fuzzypickles](#): > > A long time ago, there was a pedophile-run website (now long gone) which hosted galleries of artistic nudity (i.e. Sally Mann, Jock Sturges, etc.) alongside non-nude images of young Russian models. A visitor pointed out that many of the Russian models were actually victims of an organized pornography ring, and that the children had been murdered by the criminals shortly before the ring was busted. (The rumor was later proven to be false, btw.) The webmaster came back with a reply along the lines of, _“Oh that’s very sad, but we must always remember the beauty and innocence of these children when they were alive…”_ And the fact that this was a false accusation doesn’t seem in the slightest bit relevent to you, to the point that you put it in as a parenthetical footnote. Fact of the matter is, such webmasters are almost certainly going to get a deluge of such accusations about anything they put up, but so long as they’re enforcing their board’s standards, they not only have a justification for doing so, but they have a moral obligation to brush off baseless accusations. And really, the “beauty and innocence” thing has zip to do with the webmaster in question. It has everything to do with the phrasing of certain laws relating to artistic nude images. The only psychological disconnect here is with the lawmakers. > [@fuzzypickles](#): > > It’s difficult to feel sympathy for people who possess that degree of extreme psychological disconnect. :mad: I agree, lawmakers need to be brought to task for that. > [@fuzzypickles](#): > > Oh, I didn’t mean to disrespect nudist camps in general. I think it’s laudable for parents to teach children not to be ashamed of their bodies. And I think it’s critical for society as a whole to NOT restrict our civil liberties due to a few bad apples – these perverts will always find some way to satisfy their desires, whether we like it or not. The best defense, as always, is for parents to teach their children how to recognize the warning signs, and stay far away from any stranger who seems to take undue interest in them. It’s not a perfect solution, but it’s the best we can possibly come up with for now. Just like the best defense for women from rapists is to wear nonrevealing clothing, not walk home alone, not get drunk, and effectively live as paranoid prisoners in fear of some asshole coming along and raping them? > [@boytyperanma](#): > > Yes there is already existing child pornography. It exploited real children. I can’t imagine any of those children or families would be supportive of using it for any purposes. I think effort should only be put into destroying it. Taking action to further distribute it is a disgusting act against those victims. Don’t you think that ought to be up to the individuals depicted therein? I support a ban on using existing materials out of respect for the people depected in them to control their own image, but that means they deserve the right to release it just as much as it means they deserve the right to prevent its release. Never allow the molesters to profit, but there’s no reason that the victims can’t if they so chose. > [@boytyperanma](#): > > To me any child porn that involved real children in making it is not acceptable. So artificially created is the only option. A reasonable assessment. I don’t agree with it, but I think that reasonable people can disagree on this point. > [@boytyperanma](#): > > The concept of registering it is interesting. Not sure what the purpose would be. I think it feeds into the fears people have. We don’t make people register to watch adult porn so we have a database to look at when it comes to rapists. That, and ensuring that we have a convient list that we can go to when we feel like rounding people up and putting them in camps (as someone has already managed to suggest. ---
**Author:** ![AboutAsWeirdAsYouCanGet](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/22d042/32.png) [@AboutAsWeirdAsYouCanGet](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/AboutAsWeirdAsYouCanGet)\ **Post date:** [September 22, 2009, 6:33am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/pedophiliacs-should-we-feel-sympathy-for-them/510462/103 "2009-09-22T06:33:52Z")
> [@](#): > > With the conventional explanation that pedophiles are stunted, it seems to be about lust. Although when convicted molesters tell about their attraction to the victim, it sounds like they feel it’s a relationship. And the victims often tell how much effort the molester puts into manipulation to make the child feel that he wants it. Well…the root cause could be distorted thinking. Sort of along the lines of borderline personailty disorder/ general mental illness. Actually, I wonder if a lot of it may be due to the pedophile misinterpreting friendliness as “OMG they’re interested in me! They want to have a honest to god romantic relationship with me.” Whereas a non pedo would just see it as normal friendliness…I can remember back when I lurked at those aforementioned messageboards, someone mentioning that he was autistic…and yammering on about how amazing it was that another autistic person was posting there (NOT demonizing autisim) Just saying that, it’s possible that the pedos have the “right” combonation of being emotionally stunted PLUS distorted thinking PLUS not being able to interpret “normal social cues” Or perhaps the pedophile is misinterpreting appreciating the beauty of little kids with being sexually attracted to them. One of the posters from the pedo msg board was a dude who identifyed as pedo even thou the only thing about him was that he had a fixtation on little girl’s underwear. While that is creepy, it’s not the same as diddling a little kid or thinking that a little kid is a desirable sex partner. I mean I think little kids are cute…but I also know that virtually ALL little kids really don’t have the emotional abilty to understand sex in the content of a honest to god emotional/romantic relationship. I mean little kids are at the point where they are " I like grape soda…you like grape soda? We’ll be best friends!" Whereas adult realtionships are far more complicated then something like that. ---
**Author:** ![Cesario](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/ecae2f/32.png) [@Cesario](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Cesario)\ **Post date:** [September 22, 2009, 6:39am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/pedophiliacs-should-we-feel-sympathy-for-them/510462/104 "2009-09-22T06:39:30Z")
> [@AboutAsWeirdAsYouCanGet](#): > > Well…the root cause could be distorted thinking. Sort of along the lines of borderline personailty disorder/ general mental illness. > Actually, I wonder if a lot of it may be due to the pedophile misinterpreting friendliness as “OMG they’re interested in me! They want to have a honest to god romantic relationship with me.” Whereas a non pedo would just see it as normal friendliness…I can remember back when I lurked at those aforementioned messageboards, someone mentioning that he was autistic…and yammering on about how amazing it was that another autistic person was posting there (NOT demonizing autisim) Just saying that, it’s possible that the pedos have the “right” combonation of being emotionally stunted PLUS distorted thinking PLUS not being able to interpret “normal social cues” > Or perhaps the pedophile is misinterpreting appreciating the beauty of little kids with being sexually attracted to them. > One of the posters from the pedo msg board was a dude who identifyed as pedo even thou the only thing about him was that he had a fixtation on little girl’s underwear. While that is creepy, it’s not the same as diddling a little kid or thinking that a little kid is a desirable sex partner. > I mean I think little kids are cute…but I also know that virtually ALL little kids really don’t have the emotional abilty to understand sex in the content of a honest to god emotional/romantic relationship. I mean little kids are at the point where they are " I like grape soda…you like grape soda? We’ll be best friends!" > Whereas adult realtionships are far more complicated then something like that. More complicated… maybe. Not seeing how that makes them more legitimate, thought. ---
**Author:** ![Shodan](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/9f8e36/32.png) [@Shodan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Shodan)\ **Post date:** [September 22, 2009, 1:08pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/pedophiliacs-should-we-feel-sympathy-for-them/510462/105 "2009-09-22T13:08:55Z")
> [@Cesario](#): > > Not the most solid defintion ever, but potentially workable for the sake of this argument. I seem to recall someone talking about whether or not I ought to be allowed to walk down the street with my eyes open for fear I might look at a child and thus cause someone discomfort. The discussion will go better, ISTM, if we can focus on restrictions we can reasonably impose and not focus on strawmen. > [@](#): > > I’ve been pretty consistent about how making sexual advances towards a child in this culture is a bad idea. Good. Keep that in mind. Very, very clearly in mind. > [@](#): > > Any means necessary applies on both sides. We do have the slight advantage of being practically undetectable while the people who want to kill us are doing a wonderful job of shining a spotlight on themselves. 😉 Just a thought on the logistics of such a conflict. I am not exactly sure what you mean by this. Child molestation is not undetectable. That is to say - some people have the impulse to have sex with children, they act on it, it comes to the attention of the authorities, society acts to eliminate the threat. Like I said, it’s not gong to come down to a war, unless you count criminal laws against child molestation as a war. On the one side, we have the vast majority of Western society. On the other side, there are a few perverts. Not much of a war. > [@](#): > > Perhaps I should have specified an academic source that actually supported your position instead of just listing off a dozen different compeeting ideas with no backing whatsoever for any of them. My mistake. There are no such studies. The causes of pedophilia are not known for certain. > [@](#): > > Further, it’s about the difference between pedophiles and child molesters. As significant as the difference between heterosexuals and rapists. This is a distinction without relevance. If you are the sort of person who finds himself in a situation where he can molest a child, and does so, then he is a child molester by definition. And he had at least some inclination towards pedophilia, or the notion of attacking the child would not have occurred to him. Your comparison of heterosexuals and rapists is fine, but it has nothing to do with exclusive vs. non-exclusive pedophiles. I am a heterosexual. I find women sexually attractive. But I have never raped anyone, even though my attraction to women is exclusive - I have no impulse towards men or children. I believe this is the source of much of the anger towards child molestors. Before I met my wife, I was celibate. Therefore I know from personal experience that it is perfectly possible to refrain from acting on one’s sexual urges based on a belief that such action would be morally wrong. But if I can manage it, I become that much less sympathetic towards pedophiles who don’t. This is especially so when fornication is “less wrong” than child molesting. That’s why I find stuff about not being able to walk down the street because you might cast an eye on a child to be annoying at best and disingenuous at worst. We as a society do not care what someone’s impulses are - control them, and there is no issue. If some pedophile complains about how difficult it is to have these impulses and not act on them, then my response is twofold - [list=a][li]It’s not that tough - I managed it, so can you, and [\*]even if I’m wrong and it is much more difficult for you to control yourself, tough shit - you damn well better do it anyway, because no excuses are going to be good enough.[/list][/li] Regards, Shodan ---
**Author:** ![wonky](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/wonky/32/393_2.png) [@wonky](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/wonky)\ **Post date:** [September 22, 2009, 1:28pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/pedophiliacs-should-we-feel-sympathy-for-them/510462/106 "2009-09-22T13:28:44Z")
> [@Cesario](#): > > That, and ensuring that we have a convient list that we can go to when we feel like rounding people up and putting them in camps (as someone has already managed to suggest. No, it means you have a list of people who are permitted to have the material. It’s like the difference between a shotgun and a machine gun. The former can be owned by Joe Schmoe. The latter requires more hoops for the jumpin’ because they are generally illegal. ---
**Author:** ![fuzzypickles](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/9d8465/32.png) [@fuzzypickles](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/fuzzypickles)\ **Post date:** [September 22, 2009, 2:06pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/pedophiliacs-should-we-feel-sympathy-for-them/510462/107 "2009-09-22T14:06:24Z")
> [@AboutAsWeirdAsYouCanGet](#): > > Actually, I wonder if a lot of it may be due to the pedophile misinterpreting friendliness as “OMG they’re interested in me! They want to have a honest to god romantic relationship with me.” Whereas a non pedo would just see it as normal friendliness… I’d say that’s generally the case, yeah. > [@Cesario](#): > > More complicated… maybe. Not seeing how that makes them more legitimate, thought. Nobody’s claiming that child/child relationships are any more or less legitimate than adult/adult relationships. The problem with adult/child relationships is that it throws off the balance of power. The adult has a body of social experience which the child has yet to encounter, and the adult also is acting on physical and emotional desires which the child has not experienced yet. Sure, adult/child relationships are a necessary part of the nurturing process (parents, teachers, coaches, etc.) but in order for them to work, certain boundaries must be set. ---
**Author:** ![furt](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/439d5e/32.png) [@furt](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/furt)\ **Post date:** [September 22, 2009, 2:47pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/pedophiliacs-should-we-feel-sympathy-for-them/510462/108 "2009-09-22T14:47:35Z")
> [@The\_Flying\_Dutchman](#): > > I propose we consider that all young males at some post pubescent age be required to submit to a physical evaluation whereby penis response to pictures of young children in bathing suits is measured. > > Those who are identified at risk can then be subjected to counseling which could offer coping mechanisms from response techniques to arousal all the way to permanent castration. The sooner the problem is dealt with, the more effective the treatment. Well, shit, why stop there? Test for rape and bondage fantasies, for anger issues … shit, for kleptomania. Why not? Put every single person who has non-approved thoughts in camps. In the totalitarian state you prefer, I’d be on the side of the pedophiles. Actually, I’m on the side of the pedophile in this thread. Congratulations, **Cesario** , on keeping your cool in dealing with a number of people with reading comprehension and logic issues. I admire your restraint in um, several different areas. ---
**Author:** ![constanze](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/f9ae1b/32.png) [@constanze](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/constanze)\ **Post date:** [September 22, 2009, 3:03pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/pedophiliacs-should-we-feel-sympathy-for-them/510462/109 "2009-09-22T15:03:30Z")
> [@Cesario](#): > > What about the setting needs to be controlled, exactly? Followed up on, I can see, but what about the setting is important? Is there some reason that a sterile white room is going to be a more suitable viewing area for the porn than in the privacy of their own homes? In order to make sure that the legal porn, made from licensed animators, isn’t mixed and manipulated with illegal porn from molested children. Yes, you can digitally stamp an image with software. But somebody who’s computersavy can surely take that stamp and reproduce it and stamp an illegal image, too. Also, I wanted data and studies on how porn, esp. simulated porn, actually affects pedophiles. Theorizing from personal experience is one thing, real studies with a lot of data is much better. And a controlled setting makes gathering the data easier. > [@](#): > > If you can find someone over 18 who actually looks like they’re prepubescent, let me know. My best friend is underdeveloped due to a growth condition, but even she looks closer to 14 than 9. Maybe because I don’t know what terms exactly people are using here. Is a pedophile everybody who’s attracted to people under 18, or is it divided into ephebophiles who are attracted to teens, and pedophiles who are attracted to pre-puberty children? I guess many people use the latter to mean both groups. > [@](#): > > I should think this would be an important pursuit even if you did think you could “cure” us. After all, would it be moral to return to the opressive laws of yesteryear for homosexuals if they could be reliably “cured”? This is a difficult question. If there was a reliable cure - I wonder how many are wired, and how many are emotionally stunted and thus would benefit from therapy - then I would consider it better to cure the pedophiles than have them spend their whole lives locked up or unable to fulfil their attractions. Because if they are wired and there is no cure, we have to find a humane way for them to live out their attractions, without causing harm to real children, and that’s going to be quite difficult. Gays are different in that respect because the gay partner isn’t molested or harmed; real children are harmed if you have sex with them. > [@](#): > > The fact that you honestly believe yourself so morally bankrupt that you’d rape someone if no one would consent to sex with you is kind of sad, actually. You quote my whole paragraph and read that I would rape someone??? Please work on your comprehension. You don’t want posters to put words in your mouth, then don’t do it yourself. Nowhere did I say that I would rape somebody. I said that it frightens me to consider a lifetime of being alone (aside from friends) because you have no hope of finding a partner. That has got nothing to do with what I would do. Even more so because not only I have a partner, but because I have a hope of finding somebody. As for the gay people, they didn’t rape somebody. However their situation is similar in that one aspect that most of them try to suppress or overcome their orientation, and fail. That’s why I wonder if pedophiles are able to suppress their attraction forever. Maybe you are a wonderful example (but then, you also said that you are attracted to adults, too? So do you count as “real” pedophile? I thought pedophiles were unable to feel attracted to adults?) of self-restraint and can keep it up. But the amount of molested children and the real-world experience of “normal” adults tells us that on the broad scale self-restraint alone won’t work. So it’s back to locking up or helping in some way. I want the latter to work, if we find out how. Obviously, people are different, and many are interested in only sex, not a relationship (although personally, I consider those people to be stunted emotionally, too, and need therapy). But those people are not the problem, they can have porn and robots. It’s the people who are wired to be only attracted to underage people, not adult people, who are not emotionally stunted, that I’m thinking off, and feeling sorry for. > [@](#): > > Seriously, like I said in the real-doll thread. It’s a sex-toy. Nothing more and nothing less. I didn’t read the real-doll thread. But maybe you misunderstood my point. If a person wants to have sex with underage people and nothing more, then get him a doll, end of story. I have no sympathy or anything for that kind of person, because he bores me and I can’t connect to somebody who’s only interested in sex. But what about people who want a real relationship? Many real adult people who are attracted to adult people are deeply unhappy to the point of depression because they can’t find a partner (due to the impossible standards of society re looks and money), and they aren’t content with banging a robot or a whore. Those people, I feel sympathy for. ---
**Author:** ![Freudian\_Slit](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/5daacb/32.png) [@Freudian\_Slit](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Freudian_Slit)\ **Post date:** [September 22, 2009, 3:12pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/pedophiliacs-should-we-feel-sympathy-for-them/510462/110 "2009-09-22T15:12:04Z")
> [@Cesario](#): > > Again, never had any problem with it. I continue to find it baffling that you have such a problem, and consider it normal to be so lacking in self-control. > > I’d like some backing for this assertion. > > Your magical ability to tell when people are interested in you is fastenating. If you could bottle that, I’m sure that many of the problems men and women have faced over the millenia of human existence could be wiped out. Why are you not working with our top scientists to do so? :rolleyes: You’ve never been aware of anyone wanting to have sex with you? Ever? ---
**Author:** ![Blackberry](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/ecd19e/32.png) [@Blackberry](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Blackberry)\ **Post date:** [September 22, 2009, 10:26pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/pedophiliacs-should-we-feel-sympathy-for-them/510462/111 "2009-09-22T22:26:22Z")
> [@Cesario](#): > > You honestly believe that if you couldn’t get consentual partners, you’d resort to rape? And I’m the monster here? You keep saying this. The point is that \*\*you don’t think an adult having sex with a prepubescent child is necessarily rape \*\* (morally). That’s the root of all the disagreement, as far as I can tell. So no, I would never rape someone if I couldn’t get a consenting partner for some reason, but if I DID believe I had a consenting partner and it was only an unjust law that was standing in our way, and that was going to be the case with everyone I might want to have sex with in my life…then I don’t know, maybe I would do it. Same as gay people having sex even when it’s a crime, but morally I still wouldn’t consider them criminals. Of course I don’t agree with you that a child can ever consent to sex with an adult, but based on YOUR beliefs, it wouldn’t morally constitute rape. ---
**Author:** ![Freudian\_Slit](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/5daacb/32.png) [@Freudian\_Slit](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Freudian_Slit)\ **Post date:** [September 22, 2009, 10:33pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/pedophiliacs-should-we-feel-sympathy-for-them/510462/112 "2009-09-22T22:33:51Z")
**Cesario** , have you been following the other thread? (Back the fuck off my kiddos, pedo-creep!) I’ve posted before that pedophiles can do things that creep out kids (or for that matter parents) without actually raping them. Do you think that thread is an example of overreaction and why or why not? ---
**Author:** ![Guinastasia](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/guinastasia/32/5751_2.png) [@Guinastasia](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Guinastasia)\ **Post date:** [September 23, 2009, 5:21am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/pedophiliacs-should-we-feel-sympathy-for-them/510462/113 "2009-09-23T05:21:22Z")
> [@Curtis LeMay](#): > > No, I don’t and we shouldn’t. If you can keep it under control and shut up about it all good and good, but if you actually a commit a crime, then TOO BAD, and they deserve to be punished. Who said that anyone who has committed a crime doesn’t deserve punishment? And most people here are talking about those who HAVEN’T molested anyone. **Cesario** , I think most gay rights groups do not like being lumped in with NAMBLA. It’s not about gay rights, and I think most of our gay posters here would be offended. I’m not trying to be nasty, but that is one thing I’m sure of. And I don’t think a group that compares child molestation (and call it what you will, but adult/child relationships are NOT equal), to being gay CAN be related to gay rights. ---
**Author:** ![wonky](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/wonky/32/393_2.png) [@wonky](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/wonky)\ **Post date:** [September 23, 2009, 4:21pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/pedophiliacs-should-we-feel-sympathy-for-them/510462/114 "2009-09-23T16:21:10Z")
> [@Freudian\_Slit](#): > > I’ve posted before that pedophiles can do things that creep out kids (or for that matter parents) without actually raping them. There are at least three members of this board who creep me out beyond reason without actually raping anyone (as far as I know). I don’t think being creepy is much of an accusation. ---
**Author:** ![Cesario](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/ecae2f/32.png) [@Cesario](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Cesario)\ **Post date:** [September 24, 2009, 3:33am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/pedophiliacs-should-we-feel-sympathy-for-them/510462/115 "2009-09-24T03:33:59Z")
> [@Shodan](#): > > The discussion will go better, ISTM, if we can focus on restrictions we can reasonably impose and not focus on strawmen. Ah, so you’re not saying it’s an unreasonable request, you just don’t think you can enforce it. > [@Shodan](#): > > Good. Keep that in mind. Very, very clearly in mind. :rolleyes: > [@Shodan](#): > > I am not exactly sure what you mean by this. Child molestation is not undetectable. That is to say - some people have the impulse to have sex with children, they act on it, it comes to the attention of the authorities, society acts to eliminate the threat. > > Like I said, it’s not gong to come down to a war, unless you count criminal laws against child molestation as a war. Do you read? You haven’t been talking about criminal laws against child molestation. You’ve been talking about murdering or brainwashing anyone who doesn’t share your ideas of what ought to be considered sexy. Post 42 in this thread, back on page 1 where this conversation thread started. > [@Shodan](#): > > On the one side, we have the vast majority of Western society. On the other side, there are a few perverts. Not much of a war. Once again, my side has at least 20-33% of the adult male population, in this hypotehtical fighting against an extremist minority trying to exterminate them. I think you overestimate your chances. > [@Shodan](#): > > There are no such studies. The causes of pedophilia are not known for certain. Concession accepted. > [@Shodan](#): > > This is a distinction without relevance. You’re the one who brought it up. > [@Shodan](#): > > If you are the sort of person who finds himself in a situation where he can molest a child, and does so, then he is a child molester by definition. And he had at least some inclination towards pedophilia, or the notion of attacking the child would not have occurred to him. Just like how if you rape a woman, you must have thought she was attractive on some level, so the bitch should take it as a complement, right? Guess you know better than the FBI sex offender experts who’s job it is to analyze these things, though… > [@Shodan](#): > > Your comparison of heterosexuals and rapists is fine, but it has nothing to do with exclusive vs. non-exclusive pedophiles. Kind of the point. Exclusive vs. non-exclusive pedophiles has nothing to do with pedophiles versus child molesters. > [@Shodan](#): > > I am a heterosexual. I find women sexually attractive. But I have never raped anyone, even though my attraction to women is exclusive - I have no impulse towards men or children. > > I believe this is the source of much of the anger towards child molestors. Before I met my wife, I was celibate. Therefore I know from personal experience that it is perfectly possible to refrain from acting on one’s sexual urges based on a belief that such action would be morally wrong. But if I can manage it, I become that much less sympathetic towards pedophiles who don’t. This is especially so when fornication is “less wrong” than child molesting. And you assume (with no evidence) that I’m different from you in this regard why? > [@Shodan](#): > > That’s why I find stuff about not being able to walk down the street because you might cast an eye on a child to be annoying at best and disingenuous at worst. You haven’t been reading. **Freudian Slit** was discussing precisely that. I’m not making this shit up. > [@Shodan](#): > > We as a society do not care what someone’s impulses are - control them, and there is no issue. You haven’t been living in this society long, have you? > [@Shodan](#): > > If some pedophile complains about how difficult it is to have these impulses and not act on them, then my response is twofold - [list=a][li]It’s not that tough - I managed it, so can you, and [\*]even if I’m wrong and it is much more difficult for you to control yourself, tough shit - you damn well better do it anyway, because no excuses are going to be good enough.[/list][/li] > Regards, > Shodan And you think my responses differ? > [@jsgoddess](#): > > No, it means you have a list of people who are permitted to have the material. It’s like the difference between a shotgun and a machine gun. The former can be owned by Joe Schmoe. The latter requires more hoops for the jumpin’ because they are generally illegal. Please explain to me why you’re using weapons as your analogy. What possible thing can I do to someone when I have a certain kind of porno magezine versus a different kind of porno magezine? How does my posession of porn enable me to harm people? > [@fuzzypickles](#): > > I’d say that’s generally the case, yeah. Ah, so you assume we’re all delusional. > [@fuzzypickles](#): > > Nobody’s claiming that child/child relationships are any more or less legitimate than adult/adult relationships. Seemed to be the implication of what I was quoting there. > [@fuzzypickles](#): > > The problem with adult/child relationships is that it throws off the balance of power. So, Bill Gates has sex with someone, it’s automatically rape? He’s got way more power and influence than them, so obviously there’s a power imbalance. > [@fuzzypickles](#): > > The adult has a body of social experience which the child has yet to encounter, And this experience is relevent how? Since it’s principally about a social system the child isn’t a part of, I fail to see what possible advantage it could convey. > [@fuzzypickles](#): > > and the adult also is acting on physical and emotional desires which the child has not experienced yet. And? What possible relevence has the motivation to do with anything? Men and women shouldn’t be allowed to form relationships since they’re acting on desires the other gender has never experienced. :rolleyes: > [@fuzzypickles](#): > > Sure, adult/child relationships are a necessary part of the nurturing process (parents, teachers, coaches, etc.) but in order for them to work, certain boundaries must be set. So you think that power issues are going to be inherently harmful to a relationship, so you only acknowledge relationships where there is an inherent power imbalance? > [@furt](#): > > Well, shit, why stop there? Test for rape and bondage fantasies, for anger issues … shit, for kleptomania. Why not? Put every single person who has non-approved thoughts in camps. In the totalitarian state you prefer, I’d be on the side of the pedophiles. > Actually, I’m on the side of the pedophile in this thread. Congratulations, **Cesario** , on keeping your cool in dealing with a number of people with reading comprehension and logic issues. I admire your restraint in um, several different areas. Thank you. Considering the persistent urge I’ve been having to beat people over the head with heavy blunt objects due to the lack of reading comprehension, I don’t think I’ve been maintaining my cool that well, but it’s nice of you to say so anyway. > [@constanze](#): > > In order to make sure that the legal porn, made from licensed animators, isn’t mixed and manipulated with illegal porn from molested children. Which impacts the study how? > [@constanze](#): > > Yes, you can digitally stamp an image with software. But somebody who’s computersavy can surely take that stamp and reproduce it and stamp an illegal image, too. And you can stamp on a barcode that uniquely identifies the image, so all you have to do is compare the image in the database of legitimate material the barcode refers to the image it’s stamped on. Very simple verrification. But then, as a software developer, I resolve these kinds of issues all the time. > [@constanze](#): > > Also, I wanted data and studies on how porn, esp. simulated porn, actually affects pedophiles. Theorizing from personal experience is one thing, real studies with a lot of data is much better. And a controlled setting makes gathering the data easier. Not really. You’ll get more accurate information if you give one group the materials, send them home, have them live their lives, and compare their future incarceration rates to the control group. > [@constanze](#): > > Maybe because I don’t know what terms exactly people are using here. Is a pedophile everybody who’s attracted to people under 18, or is it divided into ephebophiles who are attracted to teens, and pedophiles who are attracted to pre-puberty children? I guess many people use the latter to mean both groups. May people are idiots who don’t know what words mean. You seem to understand the distinction. > [@constanze](#): > > This is a difficult question. If there was a reliable cure - I wonder how many are wired, and how many are emotionally stunted and thus would benefit from therapy - then I would consider it better to cure the pedophiles than have them spend their whole lives locked up or unable to fulfil their attractions. > Because if they are wired and there is no cure, we have to find a humane way for them to live out their attractions, without causing harm to real children, and that’s going to be quite difficult. While I have no intrinsic objection to helping those who are distressed, I have no doubt that someone would attempt to force this “cure” on unwilling subjects. That cannot be morally justified, and would justify pretty much any action taken in the name of stopping it. > [@constanze](#): > > Gays are different in that respect because the gay partner isn’t molested or harmed; real children are harmed if you have sex with them. And this is relevent to people’s **thoughts** how? > [@constanze](#): > > You quote my whole paragraph and read that I would rape someone??? Please work on your comprehension. You don’t want posters to put words in your mouth, then don’t do it yourself. Nowhere did I say that I would rape somebody. I said that it frightens me to consider a lifetime of being alone (aside from friends) because you have no hope of finding a partner. That has got nothing to do with what I would do. Even more so because not only I have a partner, but because I have a hope of finding somebody. Ah, so this was on the subject of pity, not fear-mongering. My mistake. > [@constanze](#): > > As for the gay people, they didn’t rape somebody. Neither did pedophiles. > [@constanze](#): > > However their situation is similar in that one aspect that most of them try to suppress or overcome their orientation, and fail. That’s why I wonder if pedophiles are able to suppress their attraction forever. Why should we suppress it? Seems to me that only leads to psychological strain and impulse control problems making someone more likely to act out. Self-acceptance seems important in either case. > [@constanze](#): > > Maybe you are a wonderful example of self-restraint and can keep it up. Again, with the idea that **not raping people** is some titanic act of self-restraint. Also: > [@constanze](#): > > (but then, you also said that you are attracted to adults, too? So do you count as “real” pedophile? I thought pedophiles were unable to feel attracted to adults?) You thought wrong. A pedophile is someone who prefers children. This need not be an exclusive orientation like heterosexuality or homosexuality. It merely describes the primary orientation. I assure you I fit the criteria for the sexual orientation (if not the definition for the paraphelia due to the lack of “marked distress or interpersonal difficulty”). > [@constanze](#): > > But the amount of molested children and the real-world experience of “normal” adults tells us that on the broad scale self-restraint alone won’t work. So it’s back to locking up or helping in some way. I want the latter to work, if we find out how. If you want to help, you should get yourself informed about the facts. I reccomend this for starters: > [@](#): > > Not only are pedophiles unlikely to rape children (in the same way heterosexual males are unlikely to rape women), but statistical evidence has shown that nonpedophiles are more than twice as likely to molest children than pedophiles are. > > Don’t believe me? I don’t blame you. Here are the statistics. > > FBI sex offender expert Kenneth Lanning stated in a 2001 interview that “About 90 percent [of child molesters] are so-called “situational child molesters” who capitalize on opportunities to molest children but don’t necessarily prefer sex with children … The 10 percent of child molesters who make up the second category are the bona fide “pedophiles,” those who genuinely favor sex with children.” > > Here’s the link to the interview: > [http://web.archive.org/web/20030621002758/http://old.valleyadvocate.com/articles/pedophile.html](http://web.archive.org/web/20030621002758/http://old.valleyadvocate.com/articles/pedophile.html) > > Lanning’s figure is supported by various sources. Here is another source citing similar figures: > [http://www.martinfrost.ws/htmlfiles/nov2006/pedophile1.html#Occurrence\_in\_child\_sex\_offenders](http://www.martinfrost.ws/htmlfiles/nov2006/pedophile1.html#Occurrence_in_child_sex_offenders) > > Studies of adult arousability has shown that pedophiles make up as much as 20-33% of the adult male population. 20% is the lowest number I’ve seen, but I haven’t seen the actual study purporting this number. I have seen, and can link to the study purporting the 33% figure. > > [97-048 article](http://www.ipce.info/ipceweb/Library/97-048_article.html) > > For those uninterested in reading the whole article, it was done using a number of volunteers, and measuring their arousal using a device attached to the penis as they were shown different materials. While 85% showed some arousal to pedophilic stimuli, in 33% of their test subjects, the arousal equaled or exceeded the arousal to adult stimuli. > > Taking the conservative numbers together, the math works out as follows: > > Pedophile molesters 10% \< 90% Nonpedophile molesters > > Pedophiles 20% \< 80% Nonpedophiles > > 10/20 is then the proportion of pedophile molesters to pedophiles relative to the figure 90/80 that represents nonpedophile molesters to nonpedophiles > > 10/20 = .5 \< 1.125 = 90/80 > > The proportion thus is 1 to 2.25, making a given nonpedophile more than twice as likely to molest a child as a given pedophile. > [@constanze](#): > > Obviously, people are different, and many are interested in only sex, not a relationship (although personally, I consider those people to be stunted emotionally, too, and need therapy). But those people are not the problem, they can have porn and robots. It’s the people who are wired to be only attracted to underage people, not adult people, who are not emotionally stunted, that I’m thinking off, and feeling sorry for. You are aware that emotional relationships and sex need not go along with one another, yes? That you can have celebate emotional relationships just as well as you can have meaningless sex. > [@constanze](#): > > I didn’t read the real-doll thread. But maybe you misunderstood my point. If a person wants to have sex with underage people and nothing more, then get him a doll, end of story. > I have no sympathy or anything for that kind of person, because he bores me and I can’t connect to somebody who’s only interested in sex. I see, so you can only feel sympathy for people who have your particular views in terms of sex. Got it. > [@constanze](#): > > But what about people who want a real relationship? Many real adult people who are attracted to adult people are deeply unhappy to the point of depression because they can’t find a partner (due to the impossible standards of society re looks and money), and they aren’t content with banging a robot or a whore. Those people, I feel sympathy for. What about them? > [@Freudian\_Slit](#): > > :rolleyes: You’ve never been aware of anyone wanting to have sex with you? Ever? See, that wasn’t so hard to understand, was it? > [@Blackberry](#): > > You keep saying this. The point is that \*\*you don’t think an adult having sex with a prepubescent child is necessarily rape \*\* (morally). That’s the root of all the disagreement, as far as I can tell. So no, I would never rape someone if I couldn’t get a consenting partner for some reason, but if I DID believe I had a consenting partner and it was only an unjust law that was standing in our way, and that was going to be the case with everyone I might want to have sex with in my life…then I don’t know, maybe I would do it. Same as gay people having sex even when it’s a crime, but morally I still wouldn’t consider them criminals. > > Of course I don’t agree with you that a child can ever consent to sex with an adult, but based on YOUR beliefs, it wouldn’t morally constitute rape. The difference is who is threatened by the violation of that unjust law. I don’t give two shits what happens to me for violating an unjust law. Indeed, I consider it a moral imperative to violate unjust laws. But in this situation, society effectively holds a gun to my would-be-lover’s head. If we go through with this, society will do everything in its power to turn that event into a rape, and said lover into a wreaked-for-life rape victim. And while I don’t accept responsibility for that evil, I also can’t bring myself to risk someone I care about in the pursuit of toppling said unjust law. Hope that clears things up. > [@Freudian\_Slit](#): > > **Cesario** , have you been following the other thread? (Back the fuck off my kiddos, pedo-creep!) No, I don’t think I’ve seen that one. I assume from the title, it’s in the Pit? > [@Freudian\_Slit](#): > > I’ve posted before that pedophiles can do things that creep out kids (or for that matter parents) without actually raping them. Do you think that thread is an example of overreaction and why or why not? Considering I spent nearly an hour the other day chatting with a very attractive four-year-old in the presence of her mother and older brother, and the only reaction was for the girl to try to get her brother to leave so she could have me to herself, yes, I do think you’ve been horribly over-reacting. > [@Guinastasia](#): > > Who said that anyone who has committed a crime doesn’t deserve punishment? And most people here are talking about those who HAVEN’T molested anyone. I know I have been. > [@Guinastasia](#): > > **Cesario** , I think most gay rights groups do not like being lumped in with NAMBLA. It’s not about gay rights, and I think most of our gay posters here would be offended. I’m not trying to be nasty, but that is one thing I’m sure of. And I don’t think a group that compares child molestation (and call it what you will, but adult/child relationships are NOT equal), to being gay CAN be related to gay rights. Whether they like it or not, the organization was founded because a bunch of homophobic bigots were trying to use the age of consent as a weapon of discrimination against gays. You might want to look up the incident some time. ---
**Author:** ![AboutAsWeirdAsYouCanGet](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/22d042/32.png) [@AboutAsWeirdAsYouCanGet](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/AboutAsWeirdAsYouCanGet)\ **Post date:** [September 24, 2009, 6:51am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/pedophiliacs-should-we-feel-sympathy-for-them/510462/116 "2009-09-24T06:51:00Z")
> [@](#): > > They are required to report you if they have any reason to believe that you might. That reason need not be logical or rational, and doctors are just as emmersed in our culture’s paedo-hysteria as anyone else. What’s wrong with being on top of things? Pedophlic molestation REALLY fucks kids up psychologically. It’s NOT hysteria for crying out loud! It’s being CAUTIOUS!!! > [@](#): > > Once again, my side has at least 20-33% of the adult male population, Ummmm how did you come up with that stat? By counting those guys who are attracted to teen girls? Sorry…but you really can’t do that. I think there’s a comedian who says that when he finds himself attracted to teen girls, they open up their mouths and spoil the whole thing. Some people might think I was a pedo b/c a few years ago I happened to develop feelings towards a girl I thought was at least 18, but was 17-ish. ( I was in my mid-late twenties) We never had a romantic realtionship when she was underage, and I certainly wasn’t attracted to the fact that she was a teen. I wasn’t stuck on the fact that she was YOUNG. (the way virtually ALL pedos are) I loved her b/c I really really liked her as a PERSON!!! (she was very mature, unschooled ,very libral chick) > [@](#): > > The problem with adult/child relationships is that it throws off the balance of power. > > So, Bill Gates has sex with someone, it’s automatically rape? He’s got way more power and influence than them, so obviously there’s a power imbalance. No. Not that way. Adults tend to be a heck of a lot more savvy then little kids about how relationships work. Heck…even teens and young adults (you really don’t even want to KNOW about the stuff that went on in college) aren’t too savvy about relationships. > [@](#): > > The adult has a body of social experience which the child has yet to encounter, > > And this experience is relevent how? Since it’s principally about a social system the child isn’t a part of, I fail to see what possible advantage it could convey. That’s easy… As I said before almost all kids are on the " You like grape soda?I like grape soda" level of social interaction. Adults (except for those with significent developmental issues) tend to have a more sophiscated grasp on realtionships. > [@](#): > > and the adult also is acting on physical and emotional desires which the child has not experienced yet. > > And? What possible relevence has the motivation to do with anything? Men and women shouldn’t be allowed to form relationships since they’re acting on desires the other gender has never experienced Huh? Men and women experiance the same emotional desires. Granted they don’t experiance the same physical desires…but that’s par for the course for hetro couples. ---
**Author:** ![Guinastasia](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/guinastasia/32/5751_2.png) [@Guinastasia](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Guinastasia)\ **Post date:** [September 24, 2009, 6:51am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/pedophiliacs-should-we-feel-sympathy-for-them/510462/117 "2009-09-24T06:51:38Z")
> [@Cesario](#): > > Whether they like it or not, the organization was founded because a bunch of homophobic bigots were trying to use the age of consent as a weapon of discrimination against gays. You might want to look up the incident some time. Oh really? :dubious: [History of NAMBLA](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NAMBLA#The_founding_of_NAMBLA): > [@](#): > > The founding of NAMBLA > > In December 1977, police raided a house in the Boston suburb of Revere. Twenty-four men were arrested and indicted on over 100 felony counts of the statutory rape of boys **aged eight to fifteen**. Suffolk County District Attorney Garrett Byrne found that the men used drugs and video games to lure the boys into a house, where they photographed them as they engaged in sexual activity. The men were members of a “sex ring”, and said that the arrest was only “the tip of the iceberg.” The arrests sparked intense media coverage, and local newspapers published the photographs and personal information of the accused men. Maybe, just maybe, this time they were justified. ---
**Author:** ![NineToTheSky](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/n/b5a626/32.png) [@NineToTheSky](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/NineToTheSky)\ **Post date:** [September 24, 2009, 7:03am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/pedophiliacs-should-we-feel-sympathy-for-them/510462/118 "2009-09-24T07:03:57Z")
Cesario spends most of his posting time, as far as I can tell, in justifying why his desire to have sex with children is reasonable, including, at one point, posting a form that a child should fill in to prove that she understands, for example, the concept of rape, and that she understands what consensual sex is. It should be born in mind that Cesario has said that [he finds a new born baby sexually attractive.](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?p=11488818#post11488818) Can anyone explain to me how the concept of consensuality and form filling when applied to having sexual intercourse with a new born baby has any relevance at all? If he, and others who feel the same way, manage to resist carrying out their urges, then, yes, I feel sympathy for their dilemma. My sympathy is considerably reduced if they believe that there is nothing wrong with their attraction for children: mainly because I think that that would make it even harder for them not to act on their desires. But I cannot think of any justification at all for the desire to have sex with a baby. ---
**Author:** ![ivan\_astikov](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/i/58f4c7/32.png) [@ivan\_astikov](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ivan_astikov)\ **Post date:** [September 24, 2009, 11:24am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/pedophiliacs-should-we-feel-sympathy-for-them/510462/119 "2009-09-24T11:24:11Z")
Shodan stated up above _“There are no such studies. The causes of pedophilia are not known for certain.”_ Doesn’t this seem odd for an activity that has been going on for as long as humans have existed?\* Why\* haven’t enough studies been done yet to establish what is going on in this area of sexuality? Another thing about this subject that has aroused my curiosity - can I say “aroused” in this type of thread? - is, if watching child pornography is so likely to lead to actually carrying out the physical act, how do investigators sit and watch all that mind-warping stuff with immunity? Do they have special glasses? Is it just women who watch them? Are the men fitted with plesmographs and told to take a break if a response becomes apparent? It all seems like such ridiculous scaremongering when the most likely pedophile of all is going to be the child’s father. ---
**Author:** ![Shodan](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/9f8e36/32.png) [@Shodan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Shodan)\ **Post date:** [September 24, 2009, 12:43pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/pedophiliacs-should-we-feel-sympathy-for-them/510462/120 "2009-09-24T12:43:45Z")
> [@ivan\_astikov](#): > > Shodan stated up above _“There are no such studies. The causes of pedophilia are not known for certain.”_ > > Doesn’t this seem odd for an activity that has been going on for as long as humans have existed?\* Why\* haven’t enough studies been done yet to establish what is going on in this area of sexuality? It doesn’t strike me as odd - the causes of human behavior are often complex and difficult to establish. We don’t even know much about the mechanism(s) that determine heterosexual vs. homosexual. > [@Cesario](#): > > [Quote=Shodan] > > The discussion will go better, ISTM, if we can focus on restrictions we can reasonably impose and not focus on strawmen. Ah, so you’re not saying it’s an unreasonable request, you just don’t think you can enforce it. [/quote] I’m not sure what you are talking about. It is not reasonable to expect pedophiles to walk down the street with their eyes closed to avoid looking at children. Unless he has been convicted, in which case I can think of a couple of ways to prevent him from walking down the street at all. > [@](#): > > [Quote=Shodan] > > Like I said, it’s not gong to come down to a war, unless you count criminal laws against child molestation as a war. Do you read? [/quote] Yes, quite well, thank you for asking. > [@](#): > > You haven’t been talking about criminal laws against child molestation. You’ve been talking about murdering or brainwashing anyone who doesn’t share your ideas of what ought to be considered sexy. No, I have been talking about criminal laws against child molesting. I am not sure if you draw a distinction between “war against child molesting” and “laws against child molesting”. If you do, feel free to explain it; if not, then your point loses its point. > [@](#): > > [Quote=Shodan] > > On the one side, we have the vast majority of Western society. On the other side, there are a few perverts. Not much of a war. Once again, my side has at least 20-33% of the adult male population, in this hypotehtical fighting against an extremist minority trying to exterminate them. I think you overestimate your chances. [/quote] 33% of the adult population sympathizes with those who attack children and wants to revoke the laws against these attacks? I decline to believe you. > [@](#): > > > [@Shodan](#): > > > > If you are the sort of person who finds himself in a situation where he can molest a child, and does so, then he is a child molester by definition. And he had at least some inclination towards pedophilia, or the notion of attacking the child would not have occurred to him. > > Just like how if you rape a woman, you must have thought she was attractive on some level, so the bitch should take it as a complement, right? Yes, it is correct that a rapist is “attracted” to his victim on some level. The notion that she should take it as a compliment is a grotesquely stupid and offensive load of horseshit posted in an apparent attempt to forestall debate. > [@](#): > > And you assume (with no evidence) that I’m different from you in this regard why? Because I don’t pollute the SDMB with posts about how nice it would be to get a blow job from a six year oild child. > [@](#): > > > [@Shodan](#): > > > > We as a society do not care what someone’s impulses are - control them, and there is no issue. > > You haven’t been living in this society long, have you? Longer than you, I am willing to bet. > [@](#): > > FBI sex offender expert Kenneth Lanning stated in a 2001 interview that “About 90 percent [of child molesters] are so-called “situational child molesters” who capitalize on opportunities to molest children but don’t necessarily prefer sex with children … The 10 percent of child molesters who make up the second category are the bona fide “pedophiles,” those who genuinely favor sex with children.” Again, this really doesn’t establish much. A normal person, when he has an opportunity to molest a child, doesn’t do it. Anyone who does is a pedophile on some level. An opportunistic pedophile is no better, and no different, than the guy who lies awake nights thinking about how he wants to rape a six year old. On some level, this is a _tu quoque_ - “it isn’t so bad that I want to rape babies because somebody else has a stress reaction to kiddie porn”. This is a logical fallacy - get over it. Regards, Shodan [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/pedophiliacs-should-we-feel-sympathy-for-them/510462.md?page=5) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/pedophiliacs-should-we-feel-sympathy-for-them/510462.md?page=7)