Author Topic: should peadohpiles be allowed to live ?  (Read 33367 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline jaimehlers

  • Fellow
  • *******
  • Posts: 4959
  • Darwins +566/-18
  • Gender: Male
  • WWGHA Member
Re: should peadohpiles be allowed to live ?
« Reply #522 on: July 16, 2012, 09:36:28 AM »
I think I need to clarify terminology.

PedophiliaWiki refers to sexual interest in pre-pubescent (not sexually developed) children.  HebephiliaWiki refers to sexual interest in pubescent (sexually maturing) adolescents, usually from the start of puberty to 13-14 years old.  EphebophiliaWiki refers to sexual interest in post-pubescent (sexually mature) adolescents.  And teleiophiliaWiki refers to sexual interest in adults.

It's important to not mistake pedophilia for those attracted to sexually maturing or sexually mature individuals.

Offline screwtape

  • The Great Red Dragon
  • Administrator
  • *******
  • Posts: 12381
  • Darwins +683/-28
  • Gender: Male
  • Karma mooch
Re: should peadohpiles be allowed to live ?
« Reply #523 on: July 16, 2012, 09:44:25 AM »
For all practical matters, ephebophilia and teleiophilia seem to be 99% the same thing.  The objects of attraction have adult characteristics, only the age is at issue.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ephebophilia#Characteristics
Quote
Because mid-to-late adolescents may have physical characteristics near (or in some cases, identical) to that of full-grown adults, some level of sexual attraction to persons in the age group is common among adults.


I'm not sure why it is even a category. 
Links:
Rules
Guides & Tutorials

What's true is already so. Owning up to it does not make it worse.

Offline pianodwarf

  • Global Moderator
  • ******
  • Posts: 4367
  • Darwins +208/-6
  • Gender: Male
  • Je bois ton lait frappé
Re: should peadohpiles be allowed to live ?
« Reply #524 on: July 16, 2012, 09:51:58 AM »
For all practical matters, ephebophilia and teleiophilia seem to be 99% the same thing.  The objects of attraction have adult characteristics, only the age is at issue.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ephebophilia#Characteristics
Quote
Because mid-to-late adolescents may have physical characteristics near (or in some cases, identical) to that of full-grown adults, some level of sexual attraction to persons in the age group is common among adults.

I'm not sure why it is even a category.

Me, neither.  As I've said in the past, our society (American, at least, not sure about others) has this weird notion that it's sick or depraved to be sexually attracted to someone who's sixteen years old, when in fact it's perfectly normal.  On the Tanner ScaleWiki, a typical sixteen-year-old girl is a Tanner Five (full sexual development).  There are probably a minority who are still at Tanner Four, but it's highly unlikely that any girl that age would be a Tanner Three or below unless she had some kind of physiological developmental disorder.

This kind of attitude isn't harmless.  It creates a society full of people -- mostly men, but probably some women, too -- who go thru their day-to-day lives secretly thinking to themselves that they must be twisted and perverted, when there's actually nothing wrong with them.  I can't practice psychiatry, but to me this sounds like an excellent formula for some pretty severe neurosis.
[On how kangaroos could have gotten back to Australia after the flood]:  Don't kangaroos skip along the surface of the water? --Kenn

Offline jaimehlers

  • Fellow
  • *******
  • Posts: 4959
  • Darwins +566/-18
  • Gender: Male
  • WWGHA Member
Re: should peadohpiles be allowed to live ?
« Reply #525 on: July 16, 2012, 10:50:28 AM »
Right.  Regardless of that, the main point is that there's a difference between being attracted to a child and being attracted to an adolescent.

Offline pianodwarf

  • Global Moderator
  • ******
  • Posts: 4367
  • Darwins +208/-6
  • Gender: Male
  • Je bois ton lait frappé
Re: should peadohpiles be allowed to live ?
« Reply #526 on: July 16, 2012, 11:03:13 AM »
Right.  Regardless of that, the main point is that there's a difference between being attracted to a child and being attracted to an adolescent.

Yes, there is -- but the weird thing about our society is, everyone seems to presuppose that they're the same thing.

"Law and Order: Special Victims Unit" is fiction, of course, but even so, opinions expressed by characters on the show are usually reflective of attitudes in American society (the writers do that on purpose, using the show as a pulpit -- separate discussion though).  For example, there was one episode once where a middle-aged man was married to a seventeen-year-old girl.  The captain of the SVU called this "legalized pedophilia", which is absurd.  (Aside, by the way, seventeen is the age of consent in the state of New York.)
[On how kangaroos could have gotten back to Australia after the flood]:  Don't kangaroos skip along the surface of the water? --Kenn

Offline joebbowers

  • Reader
  • ******
  • Posts: 1074
  • Darwins +91/-47
  • Gender: Male
    • My Photography
  • User is on moderator watch listWatched
Re: should peadohpiles be allowed to live ?
« Reply #527 on: July 16, 2012, 10:23:09 PM »
I think I need to clarify terminology.

This has already been discussed. What I said before is that the clinical definitions are only useful in an academic discussion. In practice, society has it's own definition of pedophilia, which is generally considered to be the attraction to anyone under 18. I do not fit the clinical definition of pedophile, yet regardless I have been labeled one by the government, and subsequently by my former family and friends.
"Do you see a problem with insisting that the normal ways in which you determine fact from fiction is something you have to turn off in order to maintain the belief in God?" - JeffPT

Offline Timtheskeptic

  • Reader
  • ******
  • Posts: 2239
  • Darwins +20/-1
  • Gender: Male
  • atheist and loving it
    • atheist blogspot
Re: should peadohpiles be allowed to live ?
« Reply #528 on: July 17, 2012, 09:28:57 AM »
ah, so you're not a pedophile, you're just called by because of what some government considers you to be. Well, i think the idea of seventeen or sixteen is clearly not pedophilic because they're practically almost adults themselves. I think some people look at sixteen year olds and seventeen year olds like they have a mindset of 12 year olds.
Me:What are you looking at Eminem?
Brother: Nothing, Harry Potter.

I love to read books, just not your Bible. i support gay rights and women's rights. Why? Because i'm tired of the hate, stupidity, and your desire to control us all and make up lies.

Offline jaimehlers

  • Fellow
  • *******
  • Posts: 4959
  • Darwins +566/-18
  • Gender: Male
  • WWGHA Member
Re: should peadohpiles be allowed to live ?
« Reply #529 on: July 17, 2012, 10:25:54 AM »
This has already been discussed. What I said before is that the clinical definitions are only useful in an academic discussion. In practice, society has it's own definition of pedophilia, which is generally considered to be the attraction to anyone under 18. I do not fit the clinical definition of pedophile, yet regardless I have been labeled one by the government, and subsequently by my former family and friends.
If you don't fit the clinical definition of pedophile, then you aren't a pedophile.

Both of the criteria you state above are based on societal prejudices, which can and have been wrong.  For example, black people were long considered to be lazy stupid brutes because they had to be forced to work by their white overseers.  The fact that there were other reasons which far more accurately explained this behavior were ignored by most people because it was easier for them to cater to their prejudices.

If you know you aren't a pedophile (attracted to prepubescent children), then why are you tacitly accepting being called one just because "society" and "government" claim you are?

Offline Traveler

  • Reader
  • ******
  • Posts: 2056
  • Darwins +142/-2
  • Gender: Female
  • no god required
    • I am a Forum Guide
    • Gryffin Designs
Re: should peadohpiles be allowed to live ?
« Reply #530 on: July 17, 2012, 10:46:46 AM »
What j said.

You are not a peadophile. You are not a child molester. One has to wonder if you're deliberately trying to be misunderstood and judged harshly by us. A simple attraction to young (seemingly) adult women is one thing. But you seem not to mind letting people assume the worst of you in order to, what? Get a rise out of us? Get to tell us we're wrong about you? I don't get it.
If we ever travel thousands of light years to a planet inhabited by intelligent life, let's just make patterns in their crops and leave.

Offline Samothec

  • Postgraduate
  • *****
  • Posts: 585
  • Darwins +49/-2
  • Gender: Male
Re: should peadohpiles be allowed to live ?
« Reply #531 on: July 17, 2012, 10:28:08 PM »
If you look at the news reports, anyone accused of sexual contact with teens is wrongly labeled a pedophile. Sadly, this is true of even the 'better' news agencies.

Obviously because of the margin of error. 3-9% would be more than 4-10% if the estimate of the percentage of pedophiles is more accurate to the higher end, say 7-9% and the estimate of the percentage of homosexuals is more accurate to the lower end, 4-6%. That's why I said equal to or possibly outnumber.

After looking at the source material, I see the source of the numbers:
Quote
Pedophilic [paraphilias] in sexual fantasies and in real-life sociosexual behavior was reported by 9.5% and 3.8% of participants, respectively.
So, not because of the margin of error.

The 3.8% would be compared to the 10% number I gave at the very least. Possibly comparable to 37% depending upon the minimum requirements to qualify as part of the 3.8%. As for the 9.5%, I do not know of a comparable number for homosexuals but it would be a minimum of 37%. The 4% for homosexuals would be compared to a value of nearly 0% for pedophiles.



In a rational society we could collect all existing child porn and catalog it.
<snip>

... The control you're suggesting is far stricter than handguns. It's quite insulting to say that people who have never even touched a child should have to register and submit to intense scrutiny and regulation of their masturbatory habits. That is thought crime. You are ruling out any possibility of self-control and convicting and punishing without any evidence that the person would even commit a crime.

What you claim would happen with my suggested system is what is happening right now for real. And people are considering ways to lock pedophiles up for life either in prison or in a mental health facility.

With my suggested system, pedophiles would get to live a more normal life unsupervised and unregulated unless they stop participating in the website for more than a brief period.

An accurate comparison would be giving self-admitted alcoholics who have not commited vehicular murder manslaughter a small amount of free alcohol each day and only scrutinizing them if they stop taking the free alcohol.
« Last Edit: July 17, 2012, 10:34:55 PM by Samothec »
Faith must trample under foot all reason, sense, and understanding. - Martin Luther

Offline joebbowers

  • Reader
  • ******
  • Posts: 1074
  • Darwins +91/-47
  • Gender: Male
    • My Photography
  • User is on moderator watch listWatched
Re: should peadohpiles be allowed to live ?
« Reply #532 on: July 18, 2012, 05:29:04 AM »
An accurate comparison would be giving self-admitted alcoholics who have not commited vehicular murder manslaughter a small amount of free alcohol each day and only scrutinizing them if they stop taking the free alcohol.

And you don't see how that's ridiculous?
"Do you see a problem with insisting that the normal ways in which you determine fact from fiction is something you have to turn off in order to maintain the belief in God?" - JeffPT

Offline joebbowers

  • Reader
  • ******
  • Posts: 1074
  • Darwins +91/-47
  • Gender: Male
    • My Photography
  • User is on moderator watch listWatched
Re: should peadohpiles be allowed to live ?
« Reply #533 on: July 19, 2012, 03:55:53 AM »
You are not a peadophile. You are not a child molester. One has to wonder if you're deliberately trying to be misunderstood and judged harshly by us. A simple attraction to young (seemingly) adult women is one thing. But you seem not to mind letting people assume the worst of you in order to, what? Get a rise out of us? Get to tell us we're wrong about you? I don't get it.

Tomatos are not vegetables. Yet they are in the vegetable section of the supermarket. That is the difference between how things should be and how they are.

The government has labeled me a pedophile and told my friends and family to keep their children away from me. Yet I am not attracted to pre-pubescent children. No competent therapist would consider me a danger to any child. I am not a pedophile.

My best friend was labeled a pedophile in the media, is serving 6 years for possession of child porn despite never harming a child, and will have to register as a sex offender. He, also, it not a pedophile.

If you don't fit the clinical definition of pedophile, then you aren't a pedophile.

And yet we're both in the pedophile section of the supermarket.
« Last Edit: July 19, 2012, 04:02:35 AM by joebbowers »
"Do you see a problem with insisting that the normal ways in which you determine fact from fiction is something you have to turn off in order to maintain the belief in God?" - JeffPT

Offline Gnu Ordure

  • Fellow
  • *******
  • Posts: 3832
  • Darwins +109/-9
  • Gender: Male
Re: should peadohpiles be allowed to live ?
« Reply #534 on: July 19, 2012, 09:30:15 AM »
For all practical matters, ephebophilia and teleiophilia seem to be 99% the same thing.  The objects of attraction have adult characteristics, only the age is at issue.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ephebophilia#Characteristics
Quote
Because mid-to-late adolescents may have physical characteristics near (or in some cases, identical) to that of full-grown adults, some level of sexual attraction to persons in the age group is common among adults.


I'm not sure why it is even a category.
Screw, technically in order to qualify for a psychiatric diagnosis of paedophilia, hebephilia or ephebophilia, the attraction has to be primary or exclusive. As the wiki article says:
Quote
Ephebophilia refers to a primary or exclusive sexual interest of adults in mid-to-late adolescents, generally ages 15 to 19

So, an 18-year-old ephebophile might marry a woman his own age, and start a family. Ten years later, his sexual desire for his wife evaporates and they get divorced. He falls in love with another 18-year-old, they get married and start a family. Ten tears later, his desire for her disappears, and the cycle repeats.

That's dysfunctional and very painful for all involved, particularly for the women and children.
« Last Edit: July 19, 2012, 09:34:45 AM by Gnu Ordure »

Offline Samothec

  • Postgraduate
  • *****
  • Posts: 585
  • Darwins +49/-2
  • Gender: Male
Re: should peadohpiles be allowed to live ?
« Reply #535 on: July 19, 2012, 09:50:58 AM »
And you don't see how that's ridiculous?

So our current system is better? You used to be arguing against our current arrangement which would be equivalent to anyone found in possession of alcohol is arrested, thrown in jail and when eventually released labeled an alcoholic for life. That’s better?

Or do you really think that child porn will be decriminalized worldwide any decade soon? That’s the ridiculous idea.
Faith must trample under foot all reason, sense, and understanding. - Martin Luther

Offline Gnu Ordure

  • Fellow
  • *******
  • Posts: 3832
  • Darwins +109/-9
  • Gender: Male
Re: should peadohpiles be allowed to live ?
« Reply #536 on: July 19, 2012, 01:30:23 PM »
ah, so you're not a pedophile, you're just called by because of what some government considers you to be.
If you don't fit the clinical definition of pedophile, then you aren't a pedophile.
You are not a peadophile.

As Joe said, we covered this. His first words on this thread were:
I'm a pedophile
And my first reply to him gave the definitions of paedophilia, hebephilia and ephebophilia just cited by Jaime, and I continued:
You clearly state several times that you're not attracted to prepubescent children. So no psychiatrist would diagnose you as a paedophile.

Joe still chooses to label himself a paedophile, even though he knows that technically he isn't. It's a little confusing, but as long as we know what definitions we're using, we can still communicate.

Offline jaimehlers

  • Fellow
  • *******
  • Posts: 4959
  • Darwins +566/-18
  • Gender: Male
  • WWGHA Member
Re: should peadohpiles be allowed to live ?
« Reply #537 on: July 19, 2012, 01:51:33 PM »
And yet we're both in the pedophile section of the supermarket.
I hope you're not saying you're content with this state of affairs.  Because when you play word games that seem to excuse the way other people think and act, that's how it comes across.

The fact that you don't consider yourself a pedophile, and that you don't fit the clinical definition of a pedophile, means you aren't one.  Now you just have to get that through to the people who don't comprehend that.  As for your friend, that's not so cut and dried, because it seems he does does fit the clinical definition.  The fact that he hasn't harmed any children is good; but I don't know what kind of child porn he possessed.  Some kinds are far more heinous than others.

Offline Kimberly

  • Reader
  • ******
  • Posts: 1044
  • Darwins +78/-1
  • Gender: Female
    • I am a Forum Guide
Re: should peadohpiles be allowed to live ?
« Reply #538 on: July 19, 2012, 07:42:33 PM »
I'm confused.... I thought Joe's main physical requirement was "budding breasts" as a justification for his attraction? As Quesi pointed out this can happen rather early. I wonder... if you met a chubby 8 year old who had breasts due to being obese if that would be a "good enough" justification? I'm almost certain you haven't said anything about menstruation. Please correct me if I'm wrong, but I could have sworn some where in the middle of this conversation you admitted to your main physical qualifier being budding breast. Given that Quesi clearly documented factual evidence that this happens rather early at times, and you never said she was incorrect, or refuted/rejected an attraction to children with early onset puberty I don't think we can say you don't meet the clinical standard for being a pedophile. Anyone is free to correct me if I've missed something but I've now read every single post in this thread. If I've missed it I'd like to know where please.
Thank you for considering my point of view; however wrong it may be to you.

Offline Gnu Ordure

  • Fellow
  • *******
  • Posts: 3832
  • Darwins +109/-9
  • Gender: Male
Re: should peadohpiles be allowed to live ?
« Reply #539 on: July 19, 2012, 10:00:11 PM »
^^^

Kimberly, Joe mentioned budding breasts in his first post:
I'm sexually attracted to young teenagers especially but sometimes even younger if they've developed a bit. Budding breasts, long legs. What's not to like?

The next day, he clarified that he's not interested in prepubescents:
I think an attraction to girls who have reached puberty and begun to develop secondary sex characteristics (breasts, pubic hair, etc.) is normal and healthy. However, society in general would still label these men pedophiles,

Does that resolve your confusion?


Offline Kimberly

  • Reader
  • ******
  • Posts: 1044
  • Darwins +78/-1
  • Gender: Female
    • I am a Forum Guide
Re: should peadohpiles be allowed to live ?
« Reply #540 on: July 19, 2012, 10:01:44 PM »
Partially. What about early onset puberty. Did he address that?

Edit to add: I could only read about 2-3 pages of this thread every 2-3 days. So to get caught up took almost two weeks or more. So I'm sorry for missing that, I guess that first point stuck out more.
« Last Edit: July 19, 2012, 10:03:35 PM by Kimberly »
Thank you for considering my point of view; however wrong it may be to you.

Offline Gnu Ordure

  • Fellow
  • *******
  • Posts: 3832
  • Darwins +109/-9
  • Gender: Male
Re: should peadohpiles be allowed to live ?
« Reply #541 on: July 19, 2012, 10:17:52 PM »
Partially. What about early onset puberty. Did he address that?
Not as far as I know.

Quote
Edit to add: I could only read about 2-3 pages of this thread every 2-3 days.
May I ask why, Kimberly?
« Last Edit: July 19, 2012, 10:20:06 PM by Gnu Ordure »

Offline Kimberly

  • Reader
  • ******
  • Posts: 1044
  • Darwins +78/-1
  • Gender: Female
    • I am a Forum Guide
Re: should peadohpiles be allowed to live ?
« Reply #542 on: July 19, 2012, 10:36:27 PM »
Several reasons. Primarily the time it took and how far behind I was. I stopped following this thread after the drive by poster left. I work during the day so I only had time to read it after I got off of work.[1]. The baby just so happens to eat right after I get off work, is cutting teeth, and typically needs me until about 8 when she takes a short nap and wakes up again around 10-11. I also care for my oldest daughter who talks alot and distracts me while I'm reading.

It's also the same reason I limit how many Law & Order SVU marathons I watch. Too much exposure to this topic makes me sad. I prefer it in small doses. I don't enjoy this side of humanity. I've never been assaulted by a pedophile but I was a victim of child abuse. So while I want to learn more to help cope as well as understand abuse, I don't wish to think about it too much at once. I do find the concept of pedophilia interesting and I also am intrigued by how it affects the mind. I also enjoy understanding the social dynamics it creates, and the moral quandaries about how we address them. So, I worked through it in doses that suited my lifestyle as well as the personal boundaries I set up about how much time I spend reading and/or watching things about child abuse in general.

TLDR = Because I didn't have the time.

Was that what you needed to know?
 1. I wanted to pay attention to detail and not have to read it while distracted by my job.
« Last Edit: July 19, 2012, 10:38:03 PM by Kimberly »
Thank you for considering my point of view; however wrong it may be to you.

Offline joebbowers

  • Reader
  • ******
  • Posts: 1074
  • Darwins +91/-47
  • Gender: Male
    • My Photography
  • User is on moderator watch listWatched
Re: should peadohpiles be allowed to live ?
« Reply #543 on: July 20, 2012, 02:03:34 AM »
So our current system is better? You used to be arguing against our current arrangement which would be equivalent to anyone found in possession of alcohol is arrested, thrown in jail and when eventually released labeled an alcoholic for life. That’s better?

This argument assumes your idea and the status quo are the only two options.

Or do you really think that child porn will be decriminalized worldwide any decade soon? That’s the ridiculous idea.

I absolutely think so. As I've pointed out, many experts and authorities have argued for that position, and federal judges are breaking their sentencing guidelines because they believe the punishment doesn't fit the crime. The ACLU is in favor of decriminalization and defends people caught in possession. The ball is rolling.
"Do you see a problem with insisting that the normal ways in which you determine fact from fiction is something you have to turn off in order to maintain the belief in God?" - JeffPT

Offline joebbowers

  • Reader
  • ******
  • Posts: 1074
  • Darwins +91/-47
  • Gender: Male
    • My Photography
  • User is on moderator watch listWatched
Re: should peadohpiles be allowed to live ?
« Reply #544 on: July 20, 2012, 05:58:01 AM »
Screw, technically in order to qualify for a psychiatric diagnosis of paedophilia, hebephilia or ephebophilia, the attraction has to be primary or exclusive.

Just a note here, hebephilia or ephebophilia are not considered disorders, and you can't be diagnosed with them. An attempt was made to classify hebephelia as a disorder akin to pedophilia, but it was struck down by a vote of the American Association of Psychiatry and Law. Twice.[1]

 1. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hebephilia
"Do you see a problem with insisting that the normal ways in which you determine fact from fiction is something you have to turn off in order to maintain the belief in God?" - JeffPT

Offline Gnu Ordure

  • Fellow
  • *******
  • Posts: 3832
  • Darwins +109/-9
  • Gender: Male
Re: should peadohpiles be allowed to live ?
« Reply #545 on: July 20, 2012, 06:48:46 AM »
^^^

That is correct at the moment, I was getting ahead of myself. As I said in my first post:
You clearly state several times that you're not attracted to prepubescent children. So no psychiatrist would diagnose you as a paedophile.

This definition is going to be clarified in the next edition of DSM-4, by the way; it's going to incorporate the conditions of hebephilia (primary sexual attraction to early-pubescent children), and ephebophila (primary sexual attraction to late-pubescent children). Possibly you qualify as one of those, but note that such attractions must be primary.

Offline joebbowers

  • Reader
  • ******
  • Posts: 1074
  • Darwins +91/-47
  • Gender: Male
    • My Photography
  • User is on moderator watch listWatched
Re: should peadohpiles be allowed to live ?
« Reply #546 on: July 20, 2012, 07:01:05 AM »
It is not going to be included in the next classification system. It was struck down by vote twice. By a huge margin. 50-3 the first time and 100-1 the next. No respectable psychologist would consider a male attracted to sexually developed females dysfunctional.

And yet sadly, most of society would label you a pedophile if she was a single day under 18. This is why I've said the clinical definition is purely academic and has no practical use in any context. Society has it's own definition and our laws are based on that. When they put people in prison for having nude photos of teens, nobody cares that that person is not primarily or exclusively sexually interested in prepubescent children.

It's quite disturbing that not only have we demonized and criminalized a normal healthy sexual attraction but that most people are perfectly ok with it.
« Last Edit: July 20, 2012, 08:14:03 AM by joebbowers »
"Do you see a problem with insisting that the normal ways in which you determine fact from fiction is something you have to turn off in order to maintain the belief in God?" - JeffPT

Offline Gnu Ordure

  • Fellow
  • *******
  • Posts: 3832
  • Darwins +109/-9
  • Gender: Male
Re: should peadohpiles be allowed to live ?
« Reply #547 on: July 20, 2012, 08:16:29 AM »
It is not going to be included in the next classification system. It was struck down by vote twice. By a huge margin. 50-3 the first time and 100-1 the next. No respectable psychologist would consider a male attracted to sexually developed females dysfunctional.
As far as I can see it is still being considered; so I was wrong to assert that it would definitely be changed. The hebephilaWiki article says:
Quote
The proposed DSM-5 replacement for the pedophilia diagnosis, called pedohebophilic disorder, largely reflects the proposal of Blanchard and his colleagues.[16] The naming of the new disorder also reflects the more general distinction proposed between paraphilia and paraphilic disorder in DSM-5.
It goes on (my bolding):
Quote
At the annual meeting of the American Association of Psychiatry and Law (AAPL) a group of forensic psychiatrists working with sex offenders made a symbolic vote on the inclusion of Pedohebephilia in DSM-5, with 2 votes for and 31 against. At the International Association for the Treatment of Sexual Offenders meeting in Oslo another vote was made with 1 vote for and 100 against.
So it hasn't been 'struck down', as you assert. Not yet, anyway...
« Last Edit: July 20, 2012, 08:21:02 AM by Gnu Ordure »

Offline Kimberly

  • Reader
  • ******
  • Posts: 1044
  • Darwins +78/-1
  • Gender: Female
    • I am a Forum Guide
Re: should peadohpiles be allowed to live ?
« Reply #548 on: July 20, 2012, 12:19:46 PM »
Partially. What about early onset puberty. Did he address that?
Not as far as I know.

Joe can you please address this?
Thank you for considering my point of view; however wrong it may be to you.

Offline Samothec

  • Postgraduate
  • *****
  • Posts: 585
  • Darwins +49/-2
  • Gender: Male
Re: should peadohpiles be allowed to live ?
« Reply #549 on: July 20, 2012, 01:22:19 PM »
This argument assumes your idea and the status quo are the only two options.

No, we were discussing three options and I addressed the third seperately because of they way you were discussing things.


I absolutely think so. As I've pointed out, many experts and authorities have argued for that position, and federal judges are breaking their sentencing guidelines because they believe the punishment doesn't fit the crime. The ACLU is in favor of decriminalization and defends people caught in possession. The ball is rolling.

Some experts and authorities, not many. You are also ardently ignoring the fact that the ball is also rolling in the opposite direction: permanent incarceration of "pedophiles". This is why I proposed a middle of the road solution that allows more freedom coupled with more tracking. I find it sad that you can't see this.


No respectable psychologist would consider a male attracted to sexually developed females dysfunctional.

True, but hebephilia does not address attraction to a sexually developed person but rather a sexually developing person. So, for the next DSM, don't assume that hebephilia or pedohebophilia won't be in it.
Faith must trample under foot all reason, sense, and understanding. - Martin Luther

Offline joebbowers

  • Reader
  • ******
  • Posts: 1074
  • Darwins +91/-47
  • Gender: Male
    • My Photography
  • User is on moderator watch listWatched
Re: should peadohpiles be allowed to live ?
« Reply #550 on: July 20, 2012, 09:55:51 PM »
Partially. What about early onset puberty. Did he address that?
Not as far as I know.

Joe can you please address this?

Can you phrase that in the form of a complete question for me? I don't know what you're asking.
"Do you see a problem with insisting that the normal ways in which you determine fact from fiction is something you have to turn off in order to maintain the belief in God?" - JeffPT