Hypothetical situation: a politico is running for office. He has every view that you like in politicos, and none you don’t. With one possible exception: he/she is sexually attrated to prepubescent children, and admits to being so.
We’re not dealing with a child molester here. Just a person who would otherwise be your personal favorite candidate for the public office of your choice. I hate sentance fragments, but it’s 9:40 and I’m tired.
And no baby-kissing jokes. Okay, maybe one or two.
Also assuming that you aren’t saving your vote for a politico because you believe that a known pedophile would never be elected.
If they have clearly acknowledged that pedophilia is wrong and are getting treatment (or have gotten treatment), then yes. Otherwise, no.
No
Yes. I don’t see why not.(well with the possible exception of me being too young to vote:))
No, No and HELL NO!!!
In practice, no, because I would be throwing my vote away, as the candidate who admits such a thing doesn’t have a chance in hell.
In theory, I’m not sure. On the one hand, we’re talking about fantasy instead of reality – he hasn’t actually done anything but think about this, and I’m not sure if he can really help who he’s attracted to and who he is not. Yet, someone who fantasizes about abuse to a point sufficient to publicly declare it is a concern. ITR makes a good point – is he seeking any treatment or counseling? Does he believe that sex with children is morally wrong and he can’t help himself, or does he believe that it is morally acceptable and abstains only to stay out of prison? I can’t say I’d care to vote for someone who’s pro-child-molestation. After all, if all that’s keeping him from sex with kids are the laws, I’d think about the last place I’d want him is in the very organization that has the power to change those laws.
Nope.
I really need to pick up a copy of the DSM-V, it’d make these debates so much easier.
Supposing that an attraction to children has a biological basis, much as say alcohol dependence and other addictions do, than wouldn’t you arbitrarily be condemning someone for something they had no control over? This isn’t a defense of pedophilic acts, you can’t use alcoholism as a defense for a DWI and I don’t think you can use genetic predisposition as a defense for a pedophilic act. If the person acknowledges his problem and has taken steps to help insure that he never acts, or at least has reduced to the lowest level possible, the likelihood of his acting upon these urges than what has he done that is so repulsive?
After doing a little googling it seems that pedophilia is likely not caused by biology but more likely by environment. But even if pedophilia is caused by environment there is little chance that a person’s sexual attractions will change without intensive therapy for years and that is with little or no guarantee that a change will actually occur. Although I would hope the person would seek such treatment (and deny my vote if he didn’t/wasn’t) he’s still stuck in a situation where he has no control over his situation.
I’m sorry, but condemning a man for a crime that he’s never committed, and shown (hypothetically) that he is not likely to commit in the future is simply being prejudiced.
Also to try to help the debate here are the characteristics of pedophilia from the DSM-IV. Parts of the def. have changed but those changes are noted.
No.
No.
No.
No.
No.
No.
No.
Bottom line: I want to be able to have a least a modicum of trust in someone I want to vote into office. It would be very hard for me to place any trust in someone who admits to having such predilections.
I wouldn’t vote for him because that is a really really really stupid thing to admit.
But other than that, I wouldn’t have a problem with it. People have all kinds of strange and icky sexual fantasies. I don’t judge people by their thoughts- especially their most personal and private thoughts. I don’t care (or really want to know) what people are thinking about when they are whacking off. What I care about is if they can handle their thoughts without hurting others, and if they are fit to do their job.
NO
Why would it be difficult to place trust in such a person? The hypothetical politician didn’t wake up in the morning and decide to be a pedophile (or at least a potential), it was something decided long ago with little to no input from him. The fact that he would openly admit to his sexual predisposition would strike me as being an incredibly honest thing to do. He would have to be aware of people’s opinions of such things and the only reason I can think of to admit such a thing (assuming he wasn’t Enquireized) is that he felt it was something people should be aware about. It would be the politician who denied his pedophilic predispostions when he actually had them that would make me suspicious of his honesty.
And allow me to do a quick clarification if anyone is unsure: I think that pedophilia is disgusting and incredibly harmful to the victim, and anyone who suffers from it should seek treatment as soon as possible. My disagreement is that the hypothetical politician knows of his problem, has never acted on it, and has sought treatment. This is a man who has done nothing wrong and should be commended for his actions.
If I may, let me expand on my previous answer a little…
In the hypothetical situation, we are asked if we would consider voting for a politician who fantasizes about committing a crime. And not just a minor illegality, like speeding or jaywalking, but a serious felony.
Nope, not gonna vote for somebody like that.
So you’ve never fantasized about commiting a crime? Robbing a bank? Killing your boss? Joining the mafia?
People fantasize, sexually and non-sexually, about breaking the law all the time.
And you’ve never had a bizarre sexual fantasy? I highly doubt it. Almost everyone has had some wierd fantasy about their mother or something at some point. It’s okay. You don’t ask for these fantasies. You don’t act on these fantasies. In some cases, it may even be impossible to act on these fantasies (for example, a female with strong fantasies about being a male rapist). Fantasy is a wierd world that doesn’t obey the normal laws of decentcy and even personal ideas about what is acceptable.
I see your point Atreyu, but I think the problem with your analogy is that with many felonies (murder, B&E, etc.) there is a component of wanton disregard for another person’s well being. That does not have to be the case with pedophilia. It is theoretically possible for a pedophile to believe that he is love with the child and he may even seek to protect them from all harm.
Now, we know that pedophilic acts are harmful and the pedophile rationalizes away his own behavior, but in the instance of the hypothetical politician he has realized the potential harm and has taken steps to nullify it.
No,
…but a necrophiliac is a whole different story!
Depends on the other candidates. If those would be junkies, drunks, notorious criminals or similar, then yes. If he can do something good for society (well, very rare for any politician), and does not harm chilldren, then yes. Otherwise, if he would only stand out by being pedophile, then probably no. I’ll be trowing my vote away.
**
I have doubts as to whether I could vote for a politician that fantasizes about any kind of felony…it simply does not strike me as appropriate behavior for a person elected to represent a large community, or in the case of a governor/President, elected to represent an entire state or the nation.
Actually, re-reading the OP would show that the scenario posed does not include the politician taking steps to nullify the behavior…just simply admitting to it. I’m responding to the OP as it was written.
Suppose the guy does say that he is seeking treatment for his fantasies. Good for him, and I hope it works out. But that doesn’t change my mind about withholding my vote. I simply would not be able to bring myself to trust him that far.
Think about it, as well-might he try to court people like NAMBLA and stuff?
I had hoped to get slightly more than NO!!! Thanks for those who read the implied why.
Assume that this person does not act, has not acted, and has given no evidence of being about to act on his fantasies. Also assume he’s not getting treatment. He knows that pedophilia is wrong, and simply does not act on his fantasies. Also, I said
<quote>
Also assuming that you aren’t saving your vote for a politico because you believe that a known pedophile would never be elected.
</quote>
So, why would you choose not to vote for a politico just because he was a pedophile?