Wow Illuminatiprimus! I have no doubt that no one here has ever thought I’ve stated anything perfectly, so just let me tell you that I’m extremely gobsmacked. You have no idea how much I almost wanna ask permission to use that as my signature. 
In lieu of that though, I’ll simply say thanks for making my day then.
< squee >
I’m not sure that “**Illuminatiprimus **thinks my view on associating with paedophiles is perfect” as a sig would be quite the currency you possibly think it would.
You’re welcome none the less.
Nope. I don’t hang about bad people.
So, then, every aspect of your personality is perfect?
Now that’s silly. First, whether I was a bad person or not, I’m pretty much stuck with myself, so it’s not that I can’t hang about myself. Second, I’m not a bad person, so your physically impossible hypothetical is moot anyway.
And third, there’s a very great difference between not being as practically perfect in every way as Mary Poppins, and being someone who fucks children.
What about people who want to fuck children but don’t and have gone to great lengths to ensure they never get put in a position where it may happen (like moving to an all-adult community in Antarctica, as per the hypothetical situation we’re supposed to be responding to)?
That’s not the hypothetical situation. The hypothetical situation sets out that he “speaks with regret about things he’s done.”
In any event, no, I prefer not to associate with bad people.
Extremely sanctimonious people, presumably, would be just fine.
That’s rather rude of you. The pit would be a better place for such snark.
Which could mean anything from regretting fantasies he’s had during masturbation to actual child abuse. Again, you’re jumping to conclusions about someone without knowing the full story. You’re allowed more than a “yes/no” answer – come up with your own hypotheticals rather than generalizing. See pepperlandgirl’s.
I think mhendo is right, and not being snarky at all. It seems extremely sanctimonious for you to judge someone’s entire character based on one vaguely known aspect of their personality.
I’ll just say yes as I do maintain links with such a person, being as they’re a close family member and someone who has a number of very positive characteristics as well as those tendencies. I’m very up front about the fact I choose to ignore the aspects of personality that I so strongly disapprove of, and hope fervently that any such inclinations are no longer being acted upon.
I wonder if you’ve thought this position through.
Are you seriously saying that your discomfort at being around such a person warrants kicking them out of a place with no children and forcing him to go back someplace else that DOES have children, but where you won’t have to be around him? Even if that ultimately put him in a position to re-offend and he wasn’t able to resist? Because if I were responsible for that, I would blame myself big time.
I worked with real-life pedophiles at “treatment center.”
Based on my experiences with them, I can only say that Lust4Life has already given the correct answer.
Theres a huge difference between 40 year old and 10 year old compared with 19 and 17. Pedophilia isnt always wrong
That would technically be ephebophilia.
It would but the law in most western countries doesn’t make that distinction.
18 years old = adult
17 years and 364 days = child
Whilst most authorities would probably not prosecute in a situation where there was a close age gap between the two parties (I think there’s even a legal ceiling on statutory rape in the UK which says you can’t commit it if you’re under 18, even if the other party is below 16), technically having sex with someone a day under 18 makes you a paedophile.
Not by definition. If you’re suggesting that there’s a law that says “having sex with someone under 18 makes you a pedophile,” I’d like to see it.
Of course there isn’t a law that specifically states that in the wording of the statute, but if (for example) in the UK you have sex with someone who is under the age of 16 and you are over the age of 18 you have committed an offence because technically that person is still a child. Cite.
The implications of that would make you, in the eyes of the law, a paedophile and consequently a sex offender. How is that an incorrect paraphrasing of the situation with regard to age of consent?
The person is a minor, not a child. There’s a difference in definition between a pedophile and an ephebophile, even if not in the law.