# 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:** 9
**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 29, 2009, 5:41pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/pedophiliacs-should-we-feel-sympathy-for-them/510462/161 "2009-09-29T17:41:16Z")
> [@Cesario](#): > > Ah, so disagreeing with you is grounds for being “fucked up with distorted thinking”. And that’s why you’re justified in mind raping anyone who falls into that category. > > … > > Which must mean it’s more moral to violently rape her, yes? > > … > > And yet we still treat them as adults when they pass the magic age line. What a wonderful system that magic age line, allowing people to take advantage of slow people to their heart’s content so long as they’re chronologically adults. > > … > > Again with you just declaring stuff and providing no argument or justification for it whatsoever. As though your word were divine gospel. > > … > > Whereas we can improve their lives so much by convincing them that what they explicitly wanted was evil and wrong, and that no matter what they think of the matter, they’re a victim and should damn well start acting like one. :rolleyes: > > … > And you’re asserting that every human being under 18 years of age is operating at the same mental level as this? You do grasp that I’ve been advocating screening people for basic levels of education and reasoning ability so as to separate out people who are genuinely endangered from the ones who are perfectly competent to make their own decisions, yes? “…” are mine. After reading the following quotes, **Cesario** , you would do well to read my signature. It most definitely applies to your arguments here. ---
**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 29, 2009, 5:42pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/pedophiliacs-should-we-feel-sympathy-for-them/510462/162 "2009-09-29T17:42:33Z")
Where’s your sig? ---
**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 29, 2009, 5:44pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/pedophiliacs-should-we-feel-sympathy-for-them/510462/163 "2009-09-29T17:44:19Z")
Sorry, I just edited it! ---
**Author:** ![AboutAsWeirdAsYouCanGet](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/22d042/32.png) [@AboutAsWeirdAsYouCanGet](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/AboutAsWeirdAsYouCanGet)\ **Post date:** [September 30, 2009, 4:48am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/pedophiliacs-should-we-feel-sympathy-for-them/510462/164 "2009-09-30T04:48:33Z")
> [@](#): > > Ah, so disagreeing with you is grounds for being “fucked up with distorted thinking”. And that’s why you’re justified in mind raping anyone who falls into that category. No. Not at all… > [@](#): > > Which must mean it’s more moral to violently rape her, yes? Again no. What’s moral is NOT doing that at ALL. I have friends who have been molested or raped (and the thing is most of my friends who were raped were emotionally children at the time, since they were developmentally delayed) and it fucked them up majorly. Even in the cases where it was “consentual” it fucked them up majorly…Sorry…but it really does fuck kids up majorly! If you have seen the psychological damage to kids that I’ve seen (b/c they were molested) you would not be yapping on and on about how children can consent and it doesn’t harm them. > [@](#): > > And yet we still treat them as adults when they pass the magic age line. What a wonderful system that magic age line, allowing people to take advantage of slow people to their heart’s content so long as they’re chronologically adults. Well you do have to have a dividing line somewhere. … … > [@](#): > > Whereas we can improve their lives so much by convincing them that what they explicitly wanted was evil and wrong, and that no matter what they think of the matter, they’re a victim and should damn well start acting like one. > Why would a little kid WANT to have sex with an adult? They are at two completely different developmental levels! (and not like someone who’s of age and is dating someone ten years older or younger then they are) > … > [@](#): > > And you’re asserting that every human being under 18 years of age is operating at the same mental level as this? You do grasp that I’ve been advocating screening people for basic levels of education and reasoning ability so as to separate out people who are genuinely endangered from the ones who are perfectly competent to make their own decisions, yes? Not at all…Teens (especially older teens) are more likely to have a grasp on human realtionships, and to see a relationship the way an adult sees it. BUT, they are still generally learning about human realtionships, and can still be easily manipulated. Which is why we need AOC laws! ---
**Author:** ![Broomstick](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/broomstick/32/246_2.png) [@Broomstick](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Broomstick)\ **Post date:** [September 30, 2009, 1:49pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/pedophiliacs-should-we-feel-sympathy-for-them/510462/165 "2009-09-30T13:49:10Z")
> [@Cesario](#): > > Personally, I’ve never really grasped what benefit it was to have someone pity you. Maybe it’s just me. Well, pity is probably safer for you than, say, homicidal rage leading to a public lynching. > [@](#): > > Do you exclusively adult attracted individuals really find **not raping people** to be such a difficult task that you need professional help to keep yourselves in check? If no, why do you assume that pedophiles are different? There _are_ some heterosexuals who are serial rapists, of course. Impulse control problems are not limited to just one segment of the population. I think part of the problem is that the vast majority of people have only one awareness of pedophiles: people featured on the news for actually raping children. I recall being rather surprised some years ago to hear of a pedophile who had gone to considerable trouble to never hurt a child - he lived alone, told relatives he did not want to be alone with their children, etc. - and never harmed anyone. Then I thought about it again, and had to conclude that if a pedophile never actually hurt a child then, well, I find their impulses icky and disgusting but I can’t consider them criminal. If you haven’t done anything wrong then, well, you’re an upstanding citizen regardless of whatever thoughts you may have in the privacy of your skull. And if there is one of those guys then likely there are a lot more, but since pedophilia is so reviled I will likely never know who among those I know are non-criminal pedophiles, will I? So it _might_ be that people with pedophila are much more common than anyone suspects but as long as they aren’t committing a crime we never see them. Also seems to me that one can have pedophiliac urges AND also have attraction to adults as well - such a person would have an outlet for their sexual impulses in part, which might makes it easier for them to avoid harming children. Again, such people are likely to never be revealed to have a perversion. So, while we have some idea of how many _criminal_ pedophiles there are out there, we don’t really know if they’re a majority or a minority of people who have sexual attraction to children. > [@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. Why just men? Are you under the assumption that there are no female pedophiles? If so, you are incorrect. > [@](#): > > 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. Rather draconian, don’t you think? Isn’t that punishing someone for what they MIGHT do? We don’t punish people _before_ the crime. I don’t give a damn what fantasies someone has as long as they don’t hurt someone else. There are people who fantacize about raping someone, but as long as they don’t _actually commit rape_ I can’t condone punishing them for that desire. There are probably people who have sexual fantasies about killing people with a wood chipper and rolling around in resulting mess, but as long as they don’t act it out they are not criminal and should not be treated as such. I am totally skeeved by the idea of someone finding sex with an infant or toddler desirable but as long as they don’t perform any act that would harm a child I can’t condone punishing them for their _thoughts_. > [@](#): > > 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. When are you subjected to a breath test for alcohol outside of a setting where it is suspected you have done something wrong while intoxicated? > [@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. Humans have been known to settle for a sexual partner that doesn’t meet their ideal when they have no other choice. A classic example is heterosexual males thrust into all male groups who, with no females available for a long period of time, perform sexual acts on each other. If there were no other outlets for sex without extreme sanctions it might be of help to pedophiles who have no desire to harm others or break laws but yet also still have to contend with their sexual urges. I mean, c’mon, who _hasn’t_ masturbated when horny and no sex partners are available? Right now we offer pedophiles no options - it’s either entirely repress your desires or go to jail. There’s something to be said for offering them options, something like “if you restrict yourself to these approved outlets we won’t throw you in jail or restrict your movements”. Producing a sex toy for them that appeals to their kink and gives them an outlet for their urges seems like a tolerable idea to me. As to whether or not it would help them - I’d rather ask a pedophile if that would be of benefit rather than making a snap judgement. > [@Marley23](#): > > I’m not a therapist, but I doubt current approaches involve actually creating simulated child porn for the pedophiles in therapy. Even if seeing porn helps them refrain from acting on their impulses - a point I also doubt - this sounds like a job few healthy people would want due to its disturbing nature. That’s what I was saying. Who wants the job of creating “healthy” fake child porn for pedophiles? Sounds like a great job if your a closeted pedophile but rather hellish for anyone else. Well, is it a _problem_ if “closeted pedophiles” are the ones making such simulated porn? As long as no actual children involved? > [@](#): > > Even if hysteria is high now, I don’t think the climate for pedophiles has ever been favorable or ever will be. The fear may die down, but the feelings won’t, and I don’t think the genie’s never going back in the bottle on things like online registries that let parents find out if a sex offender lives in the area. Well, if a pedophile _has_ raped a child.. they’re a rapist. A criminal. I’d like to know if the guy down the block has raped _adults_, too, as that could impact my safety. But if the pedophile _hasn’t_ raped a child then they’re _not_ an offender and won’t be on the list, right? The problem with those registries, of course, is that they only identify the ones who got caught and convicted. There are people out there who rape, murder, steal, and commit all sorts of crimes who haven’t been caught yet, and they don’t appear on registries. The registries provide a false sense of security. Yes, a known child rapist is dangerous, but the ones who haven’t been caught, the ones you can’t identify, are actually even more dangerous because they aren’t being watched. Bottom line, I can’t condone actions which harm others. I think it would interesting to have a calm, rational discussion with **Cesario** about how to determine at what point a human being is truly capable of consenting to sexual acts, but given what a hot-button issue we’re dealing with here I can’t see that happening. ---
**Author:** ![VarlosZ](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/v/d78d45/32.png) [@VarlosZ](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/VarlosZ)\ **Post date:** [October 1, 2009, 12:42am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/pedophiliacs-should-we-feel-sympathy-for-them/510462/166 "2009-10-01T00:42:46Z")
**Cesario** , a suggestion having to do entirely with form and style: you might do better by quoting one or two sections from others’ posts and responding in paragraphs, as opposed to going line by line and responding in (frequently dismissive) sentences. The latter style makes it virtually impossible to approach any kind of mutual understanding, and also makes each dialogue nearly impenetrable for any except the two taking part. Yes, other people are doing this as well, but you’re the common vector for this thread, and once one side of a dialogue stops breaking each post into a dozen fragments, there’s a good chance the other side will stop as well. ---
**Author:** ![AboutAsWeirdAsYouCanGet](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/22d042/32.png) [@AboutAsWeirdAsYouCanGet](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/AboutAsWeirdAsYouCanGet)\ **Post date:** [October 1, 2009, 1:04am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/pedophiliacs-should-we-feel-sympathy-for-them/510462/167 "2009-10-01T01:04:26Z")
> [@](#): > > but since pedophilia is so reviled I will likely never know who among those I know are non-criminal pedophiles, will I? So it might be that people with pedophila are much more common than anyone suspects but as long as they aren’t committing a crime we never see them. I think ephophillia is probaly very common…look at all the porn sites with " HOT barely legal teens!" But true pedophillia is probaly extremely rare. Someone who’s psychologically healthy does not lust after little kids, or think that little kids can consent. ---
**Author:** ![fuzzypickles](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/9d8465/32.png) [@fuzzypickles](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/fuzzypickles)\ **Post date:** [October 1, 2009, 2:25am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/pedophiliacs-should-we-feel-sympathy-for-them/510462/168 "2009-10-01T02:25:38Z")
> [@VarlosZ](#): > > **Cesario** , a suggestion having to do entirely with form and style: you might do better by quoting one or two sections from others’ posts and responding in paragraphs, as opposed to going line by line and responding in (frequently dismissive) sentences. This > [@VarlosZ](#): > > The latter style makes it virtually impossible to approach any kind of mutual understanding, style > [@VarlosZ](#): > > and also makes each dialogue nearly impenetrable for any except the two taking part. is > [@VarlosZ](#): > > Yes, other people are doing this as well, but you’re the common vector for this thread, truly > [@VarlosZ](#): > > and once one side of a dialogue stops breaking each post into a dozen fragments, very > [@VarlosZ](#): > > there’s a good chance the other side will stop as well. annoying. ---
**Author:** ![Cesario](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/ecae2f/32.png) [@Cesario](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Cesario)\ **Post date:** [October 1, 2009, 2:46am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/pedophiliacs-should-we-feel-sympathy-for-them/510462/169 "2009-10-01T02:46:00Z")
> [@NineToTheSky](#): > > I think \*\*Cesario \*\*is (probably not willfully) missing the point of some other posters’ claims. Please, enlighten me. > [@NineToTheSky](#): > > For example, here, **AboutAsWeirdAsYouCanGet** says: > \*\*Cesario \*\*replies > I think that if you held a poll, the general public would define an ‘active pedo’ as someone who molests children. The general public is composed primarily of the ignorant. The term is meaningless. He really was referring to child molesters, and he ought to get his terminology straight. > [@NineToTheSky](#): > > But - and this is an interesting aspect of Cesario’s posting style - he ignores what I take to be the main thrust of **AboutAsWeirdAsYouCanGet’s** argument, which relates to ‘kids with very poor self esteem’. Cesario doesn’t address this point at all. What do I have to say about the behaviors of child molesters? I don’t consider it germane to a topic about pedophilia. It’s not as though I endorce, in any way, the behavior of rapists or sexual predators of any sort, so expecting me to defend their kind will be an exercise in futility. > [@NineToTheSky](#): > > \*\*Cesario \*\*has said that thinking kids aren’t “emotionally mature enough to understand the ins and outs of being in a relationship” is nonsense, and he doesn’t understand what it means: If he doesn’t understand it, then he’s not in a position to call it nonsense. I think it’s very significant, and indicative of the problem that he faces that he claims he has no understanding of children’s emotional maturity when it comes to relationships. Wrong. I said I have no understanding of what “emotionally mature enough t understand the ins and outs of being in a relationship” means in any circumstance for anyone, and I requested that the person who was using that phrase define it in a falsable format. Can you do that, or do you want to just keep attacking in a misguided effort to score points? > [@Shodan](#): > > No, unfortunately this is not true. I made no reference to any such campaign. That reading comprehension thing you get so het up about seems to have struck again. A persecution complex can do that. So let’s just get this whole misunderstanding settled right here. You do not agree with forced reorientation efforts, regardless of the potential success rate, correct? > [@Shodan](#): > > Well, somebody posted this under your name - > This as well - You see how that works? If you want to include anyone with any attraction, that includes the “stress reaction” group of 85%. If you want to use the actual definition, you use the 33% figure. > [@Shodan](#): > > As well as So, it’s wrong in this society, but society is wrong. > > This is what I meant by "You have rather clearly announced that you will molest children if you think you will not be detected. " > > Since you claim Your only objections to molesting children are practical - you don’t want to get caught. If you can deal with the practical matter of getting caught, you find no objection to the implementation of this grossly immoral behavior. I claimed no such thing. I have a very clear moral reason not to have sex with children, which I address in one of the quoted sections you just put up. I care about what you and the rest of society would do to those children as a result of even a fully consensual encounter. Hence the mention of “very effective threats on my loved ones”. > [@Guinastasia](#): > > “…” are mine. > > After reading the following quotes, **Cesario** , you would do well to read my signature. It most definitely applies to your arguments here. Of you don’t want me to fill in the blanks, don’t leave blanks. If you have a problem with my interpretations, explain why they are incorrect. I’m not going to argue against a nonexistent argument. > [@AboutAsWeirdAsYouCanGet](#): > > No. Not at all… I disagree with you about the likelihood of a minor providing meaningful consent, and you declare that makes my thinking “distorted”. I’m afraid there are precious few conclusions it is possible to draw from that. > [@AboutAsWeirdAsYouCanGet](#): > > Again no. What’s moral is NOT doing that at ALL. Unclear on the concept of a comparison? While it is not a particularly moral act to light another person on fire, it is perfectly valid to say it is more moral to the tip of their shoe than to douse them bodily in gasoline then apply a blow torch. > [@AboutAsWeirdAsYouCanGet](#): > > I have friends who have been molested or raped (and the thing is most of my friends who were raped were emotionally children at the time, since they were developmentally delayed) > and it fucked them up majorly. Even in the cases where it was “consentual” it fucked them up majorly…Sorry…but it really does fuck kids up majorly! If you have seen the psychological damage to kids that I’ve seen (b/c they were molested) you would not be yapping on and on about how children can consent and it doesn’t harm them. You have read my proposal for making sure that people are mentally competent to consent, right? You know, the one that would identify people with developmental delays and extend statutory rape protections to them, while at the same time identifying people who are developmentally advanced from what we expect, and granting them their rights? > [@AboutAsWeirdAsYouCanGet](#): > > Well you do have to have a dividing line somewhere. No, you don’t. > [@AboutAsWeirdAsYouCanGet](#): > > Not at all…Teens (especially older teens) are more likely to have a grasp on human realtionships, and to see a relationship the way an adult sees it. BUT, they are still generally learning about human realtionships, and can still be easily manipulated. Which is why we need AOC laws! Why do you need an age of consent if your own experience demonstrates that the age of consent is crap, and people can pass it without having the slightest idea what sex is or any meaningful ability to actually consent? > [@Broomstick](#): > > Well, pity is probably safer for you than, say, homicidal rage leading to a public lynching. Yeah, but the homicidal rage is more honest. > [@Broomstick](#): > > There _are_ some heterosexuals who are serial rapists, of course. Impulse control problems are not limited to just one segment of the population. > > I think part of the problem is that the vast majority of people have only one awareness of pedophiles: people featured on the news for actually raping children. I recall being rather surprised some years ago to hear of a pedophile who had gone to considerable trouble to never hurt a child - he lived alone, told relatives he did not want to be alone with their children, etc. - and never harmed anyone. Then I thought about it again, and had to conclude that if a pedophile never actually hurt a child then, well, I find their impulses icky and disgusting but I can’t consider them criminal. If you haven’t done anything wrong then, well, you’re an upstanding citizen regardless of whatever thoughts you may have in the privacy of your skull. And if there is one of those guys then likely there are a lot more, but since pedophilia is so reviled I will likely never know who among those I know are non-criminal pedophiles, will I? So it _might_ be that people with pedophila are much more common than anyone suspects but as long as they aren’t committing a crime we never see them. > > Also seems to me that one can have pedophiliac urges AND also have attraction to adults as well - such a person would have an outlet for their sexual impulses in part, which might makes it easier for them to avoid harming children. Again, such people are likely to never be revealed to have a perversion. > > So, while we have some idea of how many _criminal_ pedophiles there are out there, we don’t really know if they’re a majority or a minority of people who have sexual attraction to children. We can extrapolate from other figures: > [@](#): > > 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: > [Valley Advocate: Profile of a Pedophile](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. > [@Broomstick](#): > > Bottom line, I can’t condone actions which harm others. I think it would interesting to have a calm, rational discussion with **Cesario** about how to determine at what point a human being is truly capable of consenting to sexual acts, but given what a hot-button issue we’re dealing with here I can’t see that happening. Well, if it proves impossible to have such a discussion in open forum, there’s always PMs, if you’re really interested. > [@VarlosZ](#): > > **Cesario** , a suggestion having to do entirely with form and style: you might do better by quoting one or two sections from others’ posts and responding in paragraphs, as opposed to going line by line and responding in (frequently dismissive) sentences. The latter style makes it virtually impossible to approach any kind of mutual understanding, and also makes each dialogue nearly impenetrable for any except the two taking part. > > Yes, other people are doing this as well, but you’re the common vector for this thread, and once one side of a dialogue stops breaking each post into a dozen fragments, there’s a good chance the other side will stop as well. Aren’t I being accused of cowardly avoiding people’s points enough already? You are aware of how much that will increase if I start omitting parts of people’s posts and replying to large paragraphs with my own, which are guarenteed to miss some minor “point” raised. > [@AboutAsWeirdAsYouCanGet](#): > > I think ephophillia is probaly very common…look at all the porn sites with " HOT barely legal teens!" > But true pedophillia is probaly extremely rare. Someone who’s psychologically healthy does not lust after little kids, or think that little kids can consent. You are aware that lusting after little kids is a completely distinct thought process from thinking they can consent, yes? > [@fuzzypickles](#): > > This > style > is > truly > very > annoying. Promise not to disingenuously accuse me of ignoring your points if you can’t be bothered to read the paragraph long responses I pen for you? ---
**Author:** ![NineToTheSky](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/n/b5a626/32.png) [@NineToTheSky](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/NineToTheSky)\ **Post date:** [October 1, 2009, 7:49am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/pedophiliacs-should-we-feel-sympathy-for-them/510462/170 "2009-10-01T07:49:51Z")
This thread - and all the others like it - is beginning to remind me of the threads debating religion with the likes of Kanicbird: there comes a point - which I think has been reached - where points, from both sides, are being repeated. It has become clear that neither side will give to the other, and it also seems that nothing new is being added. Having said that - do carry on. ---
**Author:** ![Broomstick](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/broomstick/32/246_2.png) [@Broomstick](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Broomstick)\ **Post date:** [October 1, 2009, 12:06pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/pedophiliacs-should-we-feel-sympathy-for-them/510462/171 "2009-10-01T12:06:00Z")
> [@Cesario](#): > > > [@Broomstick](#): > > > > Bottom line, I can’t condone actions which harm others. I think it would interesting to have a calm, rational discussion with Cesario about how to determine at what point a human being is truly capable of consenting to sexual acts, but given what a hot-button issue we’re dealing with here I can’t see that happening. > > Well, if it proves impossible to have such a discussion in open forum, there’s always PMs, if you’re really interested. It’s the public discourse with multiple viewpoints I’m interested in. An “Ask the pedophile” thread has been suggested and might be a good place for the discussion as it would seem an important part of the topic. The problem, of course, is the very volatile emotions that would be raised. There is also the issue that there are some who think a discussion of an issue means to condone it (which it doesn’t) and concerns that you might be advocating criminal activity, which is a bannable offense on the Dope. I have yet to see you admit to any crime, and some of your statements here lead me to believe that you fully understand that sex with children is a crime in this country and you do not advocate that people do it (although your reason for obeying the law may differ from other peoples’ reasons). ---
**Author:** ![NineToTheSky](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/n/b5a626/32.png) [@NineToTheSky](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/NineToTheSky)\ **Post date:** [October 1, 2009, 4:10pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/pedophiliacs-should-we-feel-sympathy-for-them/510462/172 "2009-10-01T16:10:07Z")
While I appreciate that Cesario seems to be immune to our reasoning, I do think it is very important that he should realise one thing. Adults having sex with children can cause the most appalling harm to the child. Unless you have witnessed it, the most graphic description of what the child suffers doesn’t even begin to explain the intense pain that the child goes through. And that suffering is life-long: there is no reprise or break from it. The mental trauma invades every part of her life. Cesario has said that he wouldn’t force or rape a child. That he would assess the child’s ability to enter, without harm, into a sexual relationship. Remember that his prefered age span is from 0 to 10. This is pure fantasy. Can you even imagine a child in that age group being able to make a rational decision about how a sexual relationship with an adult will pan out for her? Even accepting his bizarre premise, how does he - or she - know how she will feel about it in the years to come? History tells us that many abused children grow up with a horrific cross to bear. There may be some who can cope with it, or who do not suffer from it. But is it worth taking the risk with even one child? I applaud Cesario for not acting on his desires, but I implore him not to ever give in to them. The high probability of inflicting a cruel and unusual torture is just too high a risk. ---
**Author:** ![VarlosZ](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/v/d78d45/32.png) [@VarlosZ](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/VarlosZ)\ **Post date:** [October 1, 2009, 5:18pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/pedophiliacs-should-we-feel-sympathy-for-them/510462/173 "2009-10-01T17:18:08Z")
> [@Cesario](#): > > Aren’t I being accused of cowardly avoiding people’s points enough already? You are aware of how much that will increase if I start omitting parts of people’s posts and replying to large paragraphs with my own, which are guarenteed to miss some minor “point” raised. First, most people realize that you’ve got a couple dozen posters arguing with you and that you can’t be expected to respond to every single thing that each one of them says. Second, if you’re going to be accused of dodging arguments anyway, then why not post in a format that gives you at least some chance of convincing another person of something? Third, switching formats would be unlikely to increase the number of complaints you get about dodging; if anything, it would decrease the number. It’s the apparent attempt to address every bit of minutia individually that leads others to expect you to speak to the specific point that they felt was particularly important. If you’re posting complete thoughts instead of disjointed points, there won’t be the same expectation that you cover every inch of ground. Seriously, I’ve been on this message board for eight damn years, and I’ve \*never \* seen a line-by-line deconstruction of a post result in the two parties’ being more understanding of each other. ---
**Author:** ![mswas](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/e99b99/32.png) [@mswas](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/mswas)\ **Post date:** [October 1, 2009, 5:43pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/pedophiliacs-should-we-feel-sympathy-for-them/510462/174 "2009-10-01T17:43:49Z")
Pedophiles are the reason for flagellant monasteries. ---
**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:** [October 1, 2009, 6:29pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/pedophiliacs-should-we-feel-sympathy-for-them/510462/175 "2009-10-01T18:29:34Z")
**Cesario** , I cut your “arguments to non existant” for the sake of brevity. As others have pointed out, you don’t have to quote the ENTIRE post, and go over it line by line. As for those specific quotes I chose, and why I pointed to my signature, surely you have heard of the [strawman fallacy](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Strawman)? Because I’d say that a great deal of your arguments are exactly that. > [@NineToTheSky](#): > > Cesario has said that he wouldn’t force or rape a child. That he would assess the child’s ability to enter, without harm, into a sexual relationship. Remember that his prefered age span is from 0 to 10. This is pure fantasy. Can you even imagine a child in that age group being able to make a rational decision about how a sexual relationship with an adult will pan out for her? Even accepting his bizarre premise, how does he - or she - know how she will feel about it in the years to come? And even without the severe harm (and to that I say WORD), let’s face it: most kids are pretty immature when it comes to the topic of sex. Upon learning what sex really IS, most kids (including myself) are extremely grossed out. I mean, who here didn’t say, “Eeeeew, my mom and dad did THAT???” Then you realize you have siblings. 😉 And it has nothing to do with shame, just that when you’re that little, you’re not old enough to understand the nuances of a sexual relationship. I think if you tried to explain a blow job to a six year old (as was discussed in a previous thread), you’d get a mixture of being grossed out ("that’s where you PEE!!!) to uncontrollable giggles. Think _Beavis and Butthead_, only a hell of a lot younger. I don’t think a person like that is mature enough for sex. Would you want to have sex with an adult who keeps saying things like, “I can see your boobies!!!” ---
**Author:** ![AboutAsWeirdAsYouCanGet](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/22d042/32.png) [@AboutAsWeirdAsYouCanGet](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/AboutAsWeirdAsYouCanGet)\ **Post date:** [October 2, 2009, 4:24am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/pedophiliacs-should-we-feel-sympathy-for-them/510462/176 "2009-10-02T04:24:24Z")
> [@](#): > > You have read my proposal for making sure that people are mentally competent to consent, right? You know, the one that would identify people with developmental delays and extend statutory rape protections to them, while at the same time identifying people who are developmentally advanced from what we expect, and granting them their rights? Well…kids by definition are basicly developmentally delayed…that is emotionally not an adult, or even a teen. Even the “mature” kids back in elementary were still really innocent about sex and love. We knew about sex…but we didn’t connect it to lovemaking until we were teens. Gunistasia…RIGHT ON!!! ---
**Author:** ![lurking\_guest](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/2acd7d/32.png) [@lurking\_guest](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/lurking_guest)\ **Post date:** [October 2, 2009, 4:44am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/pedophiliacs-should-we-feel-sympathy-for-them/510462/177 "2009-10-02T04:44:10Z")
Have read all of these pages and cannot believe Dopers have seriously proferred all of this intellectual discourse regarding the pros and cons of raping children. For the sake of argumentation with a self-proclaimed pedophile. Such vehement arguments! Such wishes for the pedophile to understand! Such a sorry state of affairs!!! Raping anyone is wrong. Raping children is adamantly, clinically, research-proven…INSANE. Why engage this person? ---
**Author:** ![Cesario](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/ecae2f/32.png) [@Cesario](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Cesario)\ **Post date:** [October 2, 2009, 5:16am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/pedophiliacs-should-we-feel-sympathy-for-them/510462/178 "2009-10-02T05:16:04Z")
Alright, VarlosZ, let’s try this your way. Let’s just go through the thread and make a response to the arguments as they’re brought up. Let’s start with the idiotic assumption that just because I’m attracted to girls in a certain age range that I must automatically believe that those girls are all fully capable of informed consent. Just because I think someone’s hot doesn’t mean I assume they’re willing and able to have sex with me. Can we recognize that point yet? My arguments on amending the age of consent (or more accurately, eliminating the age of consent and replacing it with the RMSC or similar assessment), has little to nothing to do with my age of attraction. I neither know nor care what the average age someone is going to be able to pass the thing is. If someone can pass it, they should be allowed to consent. If they can’t pass it, they shouldn’t be allowed to consent. That’s equally true if it turns out no one can genuinely meet the requirements until their thirties as it would be if it turned out practically no one over the age of eight couldn’t meet the requirements. Now, Guinasta has suggested that a child is likely to be put off by the whole idea, and generally not interested in sex. The only response to that is to ask what you’re worried about if that’s the case? If they won’t consent, it doesn’t matter if they can consent. Why people seem to assume that just because you’re allowed to say “yes” to something means you are no longer allowed to say “no” is completely beyond me. ---
**Author:** ![bdgr](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/a87d85/32.png) [@bdgr](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/bdgr)\ **Post date:** [October 2, 2009, 7:14am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/pedophiliacs-should-we-feel-sympathy-for-them/510462/179 "2009-10-02T07:14:00Z")
For a few years, I worked in an inpatient locked psych ward with children, many of whom were there because they were the victims of pedophiles. a couple of them, were also abusers themselves. I remember one in particular who at a young age was forced to have sex with his aunt, and in turn molested a small child…I had a few conversations with that kid, it was not hard to feel sympathy for him. It also did not excuse his actions. most of the kids who had been molested had no desire to do the same, but ALL of the pedophiles that I worked with, both on the kids unit and the adults, were also molested themselves… ---
**Author:** ![NineToTheSky](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/n/b5a626/32.png) [@NineToTheSky](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/NineToTheSky)\ **Post date:** [October 2, 2009, 9:35am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/pedophiliacs-should-we-feel-sympathy-for-them/510462/180 "2009-10-02T09:35:46Z")
I’m not sure about this, but I think I am beginning to understand what Cesario is trying to say to us. I am posting this in order to see if he, and others, think I have got this right. Cesario, very strongly, wants to have sex with a child in 0-10 year age range. That, indisputably, everyone agrees with. Now, either he has adjusted his replies over his numerous posts, or his message is finally sinking in for me. He says he would only have sex with a child if that child consented. He has been absolutely adamant that rape (that is, coercion) is not his modus operandi. (But see below.) He now seems to accept that it is very unlikely that a child would be able or willing to give consent. > [@](#): > > _Let’s start with the idiotic assumption that just because I’m attracted to girls in a certain age range that I must automatically believe that those girls are all fully capable of informed consent. Just because I think someone’s hot doesn’t mean I assume they’re willing and able to have sex with me. Can we recognize that point yet?_ The only difference is, I think, that he believes that there could be situations where if he believes a child freely consents, it would then not be rape; I don’t believe that a child in that age range is ever, under any circumstances, able to give consent. This doesn’t in any way dilute my distaste for his thought processes, and while I am certain that if his criteria were met, he would act on his desires, he also accepts that those criteria are actually unlikely to be met. So the potential for harm is still there, but is being held in check by not being able to find a willing participant. Is that right? [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/pedophiliacs-should-we-feel-sympathy-for-them/510462.md?page=8) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/pedophiliacs-should-we-feel-sympathy-for-them/510462.md?page=10)