Pedophiles: Sick or Evil?

It depends on what your defintion of children is.

If you mean anyone under 18, then most people in the U.S. are pedo's because most people in the U.S. have had sex with someone before that person was 18.

Many men are attracted to young teen-age girls. It's not a question of morals or lack thereof; it's biological.
Girls release their most viable eggs early, soon after they begin menstruating.

And what about kids who get together in someone's garage to play "doctor"? Are they all pedophiles?
If it's an adult who plays "doctor" with a child does it do more harm to the child than if it's 2 children?

A friend of mine has to register as a sex offender where ever he lives for the rest of his life.
Know why? Because when he was 18 (30 years ago) he was caught screwing his 17-year old g/f and got convicted of a sex crime.

 

Are you stupid or something?

Kids that have sexual experiences with other kids are not pedophiles. They are both kids.

A pedophile is an adult who seeks sexual relations with children below the age of consent. A pedophile is a child molestor.

Was your friend still in high school at the time? Because if he was, then he probably has a nice lawsuit on his hands. In most states and counties, an 18 year old still in high school is not considered an independent adult who's subject to statutory rape charges. It's illogical to do so considering that 18 year olds go to the same school and even hang out with 14/15 year olds. I was 15 and my boyfriend was 18, he was a senior and I was a freshman.

What are they supposed to do? Put a giant wall up barring the 18 year olds from all the other students?

Of course, though, once graduation has occurred...all bets are off. It seems extreme but many parents don't want their minor children involved with adults of any age.

And addressing the games of Doctor. It is a proven medical fact that children who experience sexual molestation from adults are mentally and emotionally scarred for life. Adults should not be playing sexual games with kids. period.

 

Sad, but true. Hell, I got married to my girlfriend (now wife) when she was 17. I was 22.

 

Huge difference is that children learn things like this at pretty much the same pace... Both learning... Adults are supposed to have already learnt, and there isn't a single shred of justification for grown ups "teaching" children in this way!

Which effectively means that any sexual contact between adults and children is forbidden. Statutary rape allows the same type of discrepency as children playing Doctors and Nurses, but it only makes for a more lenient crime (bad phrasing I know!).

Finding our sexuality should mean, on the whole, doing something we enjoy, with somebody we trust. Once we've found our sexuality, we're obliged to act responsibly towards everybody of the opposite sex.

.....

I still say paedophilia is a sickness, but am adding another description to what is too vague a word for what we all loathe.. I think paedophiles are distorted, not evil. Normal life has a way of keeping a check on making sure we don't stray from the "knowing right from wrong" path. Our peers nudge us back onto it before our sense of rightousness becomes unbalanced. One way or another, paedophiles have had that removed, so that, even when they know it's wrong, other factors rule over their thoughts that kinda say it's still okay to give in to their urges.. That perhaps nobody gets harmed, or that they themselves won't get punished..

 

Something like what Mr Bush does with the americans people. i see.

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Aristartle
Most pedophiles have been sexually abused, or beaten as children - .

Last Stand, that is a complete logical fallacy.

An example of this logic:
If someone is human (A), then she is mortal (B).
Anna is mortal (B).
Therefore Anna is human (A).

But in fact Anna can be a cat; very much a mortal, but not a human one.

So assuming most paedophiles have been abused and beaten, it still does not follow that everyone who has been abused is a paedophile.

As an easier example, assume everyone who has AIDS has had sex.
This does need mean everyone who has had sex has AIDS.

 

sick and people who harm others are evil, not all pedophiles act on their urges, if a pedophile goes for help before he/she acts on their desires, they will be happier in their lives and do not have to break the law and rot in jail .

 

"As an easier example, assume everyone who has AIDS has had sex..."

Wrong.
A person can get aids from a blood transfusion, or sharing needles.

I've read that nearly EVERY person who seeks sex with children has had sexual contact when they were a child themselves (although not everyone that has had sexual contact as a child goes on to molest children as an adult).

Just like people who beat their kids (another form of child abuse) were almost always beaten as a child. They learn at an early age that physical violence is an acceptable/preferred way of dealing with problems.

I think people who seek sex with children should recieve treatment during incarceration to at least accept that sexual contact with children WILL NOT be tolerated, and they should be monitered and recieve counciling after release.

 

i agree.

 

Rangerdanger, I said 'assume' as it was a hypothetical example to show the logic that "Last Stand" was using, was incorrect.
I did use a bad example obviously though....
I of course know that many people get AIDS from needles, transfusions, work-related accidents etc... (speck of blood in your eye from being a trauma nurse for example! I think i've heard of that once...)

To clear any confusion, the logical flaw was actually a common one which I was trying to point out... in the following form: (Known as 'Affirming the Consequent')

If A, then B.
B.
Therefore, A.

Aristartle said that
"Most pedophiles have been sexually abused, or beaten as children - ."
Last Stand said
"Then most of us would be pedophiles."

If all paedophiles have been beaten, does this mean all people who have been beaten are paedophiles? Clearly not!
I know it sounds like i'm being really picky, and I probably am (haha) but I've got nothing against Last Stand, or you at all, no way, nothing personal, it's just that vague or illogical arguments are the cause of much confusion and at their worst can even start wars and be used to decieve people. Sensationalist media rely on bad logic that appeals only to emotions!
So I decided not to just 'let it go' for once, even though this isn't a Philosophy forum.

Anyhow, back to Paedophiles...some people have made some good points that I can't add anything to.
But one thing, I think sometimes there are certain situations or social institutions such as celibate catholic priests in charge of classes of young boys as one example, which do tend to foster this type of activity.
So I think that society does hold responsibility to an extent in cases like that.
Lock a grown man into a life of chastity without healthy sexual contact with his age and social peers, a whole lot of ritualised/indoctrinated guilt followed by the always-available "release" of confession and forgiveness, and then put this man in the company of only teen and pre-pubescent boys who are encouraged to trust and/or confide in him.

What do you think might happen? *shakes head*....
There's bound to be a 'statistical fallout' from that scenario and it's pretty obvious that there actually is.

 

Paedophilia is a man-made phenomenon by virtue of the fact it's NAMED as such. We give this activity a name, a symbol that carries a rancid stigma. (And rightly so in the cases of true criminal paedophiles who abuse kids etc..)

The difference in our society, is just our capability and need for self-reflection and rumination upon our own activities complete with moral judgements and even laws based on them. A cat or dog might defecate on a busy sidewalk. We generally don't, because it's socially not acceptable. So our way of living, as humans, is much more complex than a normal animal. I don't know where the grey area starts and stops.
When I was 15 or 16, if an attractive 20-year old wanted to have sex, I probably would have loved the idea. Whether that would have ended up being a bad or a good thing for me I don't know.

I'm sure there are many instances of older mature animals trying to mate with very young but still anatomically 'mature' animals of their own kind, but it's not paedophilia because it's not labelled as such.
Also in the animal world, your offspring are born, or hatched etc.. and that's it. As long as you can keep it alive and nourished for the time until it's ready to fend for itself, then you're ok.

A younger girl might be physically ready for sex and to be able to carry a baby to full term, but our social system is based on that general age area of 18 to 21ish as being an 'adult' and our education system, laws, family values, movies etc.. all follow this general idea.

If a 9 year old could get pregnant, could she still operate in all the other ways society expects of a mother other than the sex and baby delivery part?
Could she emotionally handle it all?
Could she support the family financially if she had to?
Could she take care of the baby well enough for it to live without repercussions?
All of THESE things would be the parts where we differ from animals and probably are part of why our paedophilia laws are the way they are.

I can't remember the numbers unfortunately, but generally speaking, animals have a very fast turnaround from being born, to being self-sufficient.
Humans take AGES and our society reflects this, and perhaps the sex and age laws are a reflection on our slow rate of social maturity compared to other animals.

 

There is some extremely good dialogue going on in here.

Shit, I think I'll just sit back and read for a while.

 

I think the "possessed by Satan" thing is a cop-out. These guys are obviously sick and need healing. A compassionate society defines itself by how it deals
with things that are outrageous. Do we abandon all hope for these sick individuals? I don't think so. When we all rise above our outrage, then maybe we can focus on creative ways to heal these people of this condition..not just avenge their deeds.

 

Well, I agree completely.

 

Ahh to be so lucid in one paragraph!
I agree too.

 

I don't fall for the possessed by satan crap either. I also agree that it is a cop out. I also have a really hard time with not the question, but with my own believes. because of coures these people are sick and need to be treated, but they must not be around children. My difficulty comes in my own reaction, I too have known ped. yet still i don't think that I would be able to control a violent reaction if someone were to touch one of my girls. I usually am very non-violent, but this subject reaches right into my gut and twists and leaves me with fear for my children and knowing that this feeling is there without anything happening leads me to believe that i would lose complete control.
that being said we as a society do need to find a way to deal with abusers of children and I think that the stiffest penalties with out death should be manditory where children are concerned. I'm not talking about teenagers or rape or stagitory(sp) rape, I'm speaking of children. there are laws in place for the other situations.
I also can non agree that sex offender lists make the situation worse. I think that it is very important for parents to know if there are offenders in the area where they live where thier children go to school. I also think that offenders should not be allowed to live within a certain range of school nor out of some sort of facility such a half-way house especially for sex offenders so that they may be monitored at all times.
so yes they are sick, and need treatment, but that sickness makes them evil in the end and i do think people can be evil or we wouldn't have to discuss crimes against others they would be non existant.
peace.

 

who mention satan?

 

WTFery! Are you a member of NAMBLA or something?

Does that make it right for an adult man to go out have sex with 9 year olds then? What if she gets pregnant? Does he have to "adopt" her and raise her and his baby?

Just because a girl can get pregnant at 9 doesn't mean she should. She doesn't even fully understand what sex and the consequences of sex mean. She's just a little kid.

Quit defending pedophiles already, it's vomit-inducing.

 

I had a friend that was doing something with kids--we (his wife,friends) never really found out exactly what he was doing..He was set up by a girl who was facing some kind of charge by the police and setting him up,I guess was supposed to lighten her sentence.He was arrested at a fast food joint in Fresno,taken to his house(for what reason ,I don't know),but he asked to be handcuffed in front so he could tie his dog up.When released from the cuffs ,he hauled ass,jumped a fence,went into his bedroom and shot his brains all over the room.Now as I posted days earlier,I have always thought people who take advantage of children should be treated VERY harshly.However--maybe I'm wrong.I don't know--he was one of the most fun,great and generous guys I've ever known.I ran with him in high school.In thinking about the situation--I'm sure I could have forgiven him for whatever he'd done.But maybe not.So it's a dichotomy for me--and an unsolvable one--mainly because he's dead as the proverbial door knob.I have always read that pedophiles CAN'T be cured--and they'll always be a threat to children.Maybe re-hab IS the answer--depends on whose ox is being gored,as it were.