The major problem with this discussion is the absence of data.< snip> But we don't have those figures; so it would make sense to err on the side of caution.Totally agreed.
But... In what way are we assuming there's a need to err on the side of caution in a way we've rejected for every other non-typical sexual orientation? We don't assume (as much anymore) homosexuals "groom" people to brainwash them into thinking gay sex is okay.
That seems rather obvious to me, Albeto. If a parent is gay, or a rubber fetishist, or into BD/SM, or watches porn, there is no potential risk to their child. The parents sex-life should take place behind the bedroom door, and it doesn't involve the child.
Paedophilia is the exception; there is a risk that the boundary between the parent's sex-life and the child will be violated - because the paedophile wants the child to be in the bedroom.
You bring up adoption and I think that's a fair point about growing intimacy with children living in the home, but living with a child day in and day out renders them more like family than not, so I would suspect that element would be reduced. But again, we have no data (or I don't know of any), so I'm just wondering why this group is considered more dangerous than others.
As we've agreed, we don't have enough data - therefore, it would be sensible to err on the side of caution until we have more.
Right, and that's how it should be. Such a relationship would be inappropriate, and your friend felt that, on a gut level.To repeat Joe's question, what does "should" have to do with an involuntary physiological reaction?
I meant, that's how normal people feel.
And the answer to both those questions is yes. When I was 14, I fell in love for the first time ... snip So this experience of yours is typical. It falls solidly on the bell curve of emotional responses to these kinds of situations. That alone doesn't render it "right," is all I'm saying.
I don't understand; in what way was my experience wrong?
For what it's worth, at age 13 all my crushes were on men older than 25. I thought teen boys looked (and behaved) rather childishly.
That's normal, to have crushes on fantasy objects; but you didn't actually go out with any 25-year-old men, did you?
The data problem again; I don't know whether paedophiles are in fact less trustworthy. That's exactly why I can't simply agree and be done with it. I don't mind being wrong, I just want a reason to hang my hat on, know what I mean?
We should get more data; but until then, erring on the side of caution seems sensible.
And for me, the emotional repulsion isn't a valid reason because it's too subjective and not, in and of itself, indicative of a reasoned argument.
The reasoning is that while children are going through puberty, they need to be protected from people who are more powerful than them and who could exploit their vulnerability i.e. people considerably older than them.
Societies which recognize this legislate close-in-age exemptions
for teenagers, usually 24 or 36 months. Very sensible, in my opinion. And people's gut feelings reflect this.
A gynecologist has a woman in an enormously vulnerable position. Such a doctor could quite easily take advantage of the situation for his/her own sexual gain.
There's always a risk. And of course, you're not obliged to see a gynecologist at all if you don't want to take that risk. A child adopted by a paedophile has no choice in the matter.
Right - it's loaded in that you're essentially asking, albeto, are you okay with putting your four year old daughter in the tub for a pedophile to bathe?
Yes, that's the question, though my question was more detailed...
I'm damned if I say yes, then I expose myself as some kind of sick mother who would willingly offer her child up for rape (which is the scenario I interpret you to be implying).
I wasn't implying that; in my scenario I specified that no assault takes place. Again:
Would you be happy for a (true) paedophile to bathe your 4-year-old daughter? Even though he assured you that he would never act on his sexual feelings for her, and that he would ignore his erection? And let's say he's trustworthy and he keeps his word - though he goes off later to masturbate alone about the experience. Would you be cool with that?
It's not a trick question, Albeto. And I'd still like to know your answer.
I don't think it is.I think so in that it distracts the conversation from the kind of person who fits the legal definition of pedophile by virtue of being sexually attracted to young adults (post pubescent), to a conversation about a four year girl old being emotionally groomed for sex with an adult man.
Well, I'm considering both scenarios.
It's not an appeal to fear; we're trying to calculate risk, which isn't an exact science. Without data, we're calculating it on emotional response, I suspect.
As I said before, emotional responses are a valid source of information.