Forums > Personal > Why is paedophilia such a taboo?

forum rss feed
Author

Penetration_Guru user not visiting Queenzone.com
Penetration_Guru
Deity: 11013 posts
add to buddy list send PM

Posted: 12 Nov 07, 18:07 Edit this post Reply to this post Reply with Quote

A thought occurred to me earlier, and I wonder how th erest of you feel about it.

Paedophilia is a sexual preference that society deems unacceptable based (at least partly) on the lack of informed consent on both sides. However, at its base level, it is no more than a sexual preference, just like...redheads, or large chests, or even homosexuality.

Now, at this point I can hear the sucking of teeth and the sharpening of knives so I should say that the militant wing (child abuse) is a horrendous thing which should be stamped out, as should its grown up cousin (rape).

I'm just curious as to why (especially with the age of consent varying throughout the world) we deem being attracted to the young as irrevocably evil, when other preferences are tolerated?

Discuss...

Micrówave user not visiting Queenzone.com
Delilah, on Medium Power
Micrówave
Deity: 7037 posts
add to buddy list send PM

Posted: 12 Nov 07, 18:15 Edit this post Reply to this post Reply with Quote

Well, you don't give a baby a nice fat juicy steak for their first meal.

I'd say, metaphorically, there you have it.


This isn't about your "thing" for the Olsen twins again, is it? They're legal, they just don't eat, P_G!




Mr.Jingles user not visiting Queenzone.com
Mr.Jingles
Deity: 10532 posts
add to buddy list send PM

Posted: 12 Nov 07, 19:12 Edit this post Reply to this post Reply with Quote

Micrówave wrote:

This isn't about your "thing" for the Olsen twins again, is it? They're legal, they just don't eat, P_G!


Isn't Lance Armstrong boinking one of them?


[QUOTE][QUOTENAME]Brandon wrote: [/QUOTENAME]... and now the "best you can offer is Mr. Jingles? HA! He's... just pathetic.[/QUOTE]
Music Man user not visiting Queenzone.com

Deity: 2346 posts
add to buddy list send PM

Posted: 12 Nov 07, 22:28 Edit this post Reply to this post Reply with Quote

Pedophilia is taboo because in order for one to satisfy his pedophilia, he must inevitably take advantage of a person who is incapable of making an informed decision.


Creativity can always cover for a lack of knowledge.
YourValentine user not visiting Queenzone.com
registered July 27th 2001
YourValentine
Deity: 7611 posts
add to buddy list send PM

Posted: 13 Nov 07, 03:41 Edit this post Reply to this post Reply with Quote

Also, a child's body is not fit for sexual activities. It's about sheer physical abuse, too. I don't think it's a taboo, it's simply illegal for very good reasons.




I do not want any google ads here.

i-Fred user not visiting Queenzone.com
i-Fred
Bohemian: 403 posts
add to buddy list send PM

Posted: 13 Nov 07, 05:01 Edit this post Reply to this post Reply with Quote

and in most sick cases of it, its not like a 18-25 year old liking some one 10 years younger tha them, its 45-60 year old men who go for 8-14 year old girls that really gets dark.


...
Mr.Jingles user not visiting Queenzone.com
Mr.Jingles
Deity: 10532 posts
add to buddy list send PM

Posted: 13 Nov 07, 07:08 Edit this post Reply to this post Reply with Quote

YourValentine wrote:

Also, a child's body is not fit for sexual activities.


The only one who can abuse a child's body is the child himself.


[QUOTE][QUOTENAME]Brandon wrote: [/QUOTENAME]... and now the "best you can offer is Mr. Jingles? HA! He's... just pathetic.[/QUOTE]
AspiringPhilosophe user not visiting Queenzone.com
AspiringPhilosophe
Royalty: 1711 posts
add to buddy list send PM

Posted: 13 Nov 07, 08:54 Edit this post Reply to this post Reply with Quote

Have to agree with Barb on this one. Children's bodies (especially girls) are not mature enough for sexual activity. If a young girl is a victim of pedophilia, it causes serious and potentially permanent damage to her body with of course all of the life long consequences that come with it. Young boys is a bit of a different story (as always) but that probably has more to do with the emotional linkages that are made between young children and adults in any relationship.
However, I think another important aspect for this the ancient societal aspect of protection. From the time of cavemen on, children have been seen as vulnerable, and needing to be protected from all harm so that they can grow up and become adults and fully functioning members of society (that's the theory anyway). The idea of a child being subjected to something they don't fully comprehend or understand that could cause them serious mental and physical harm is enough to make any normal adult recoil and want to protect the child from whatever the potential harm is.
Maybe another aspect is the place of sex within modern society? Most people today are active with at least two people in the course of their lifetime, and especially for women who form emotional attachments with their partners, when it all comes crashing down it can be very painful. Therefore, sex is viewed as a risky behavior that often leads to pain or increases the pain when a relationship ends. So the protection of children aspect could relate to protecting them from that kind of emotional pain? I don't know...that was kinda random, but it's nine AM and I just woke up!


Formerly MHG
magicalfreddiemercury user not visiting Queenzone.com
magicalfreddiemercury
Deity: 2693 posts
add to buddy list send PM

Posted: 13 Nov 07, 09:36 Edit this post Reply to this post Reply with Quote

I'd say also that the majority of adults attracted to children are not attracted to them in a romantic way. Instead it's a matter of control. Just as rape is not about the sex, but about humbling or overpowering the victim. It's extremely easy to overpower and control the body and mind of a child.

Besides what YourValentine and HistoryGirl said about the anatomy of a child, HistoryGirl is also correct, IMO, about the emotional toil a sexual relationship would cause a child. They're still trusting and learning, so to 'love' them and take all they have only to soon end the relationship could be/would be devastating. We all know how painful first love is and that usually happens between teens - 'children' close in age. Imagine a younger child not just loving but IN love with an adult - someone they've been taught to trust and obey - who seems to suddenly abandon them. It's emotional abuse no matter how you look at it because the adult is not seeing or treating that child AS a child in any way.




"The others don't like my interviews. And frankly, I don't care much for theirs." ~ Freddie Mercury



bobo the chimp user not visiting Queenzone.com
bobo the chimp
Deity: 12703 posts
add to buddy list send PM

Posted: 13 Nov 07, 10:15 Edit this post Reply to this post Reply with Quote

Good question; nice and confronting.

I spose it's frowned upon because most other sexual preferences involve people on a mostly even ground making a consensual agreement on what floats their boat. I've never met anyone under the age of consent who was really smart enough to offer their body to an adult, to be honest. Even those early bloomers who 'think' they're ready... they're just idiots, really. There's no getting around it - and idiot is not a dirty word, so I don't want any angry e-mails from 14 year olds here. Young people are just stupid. Their brains are still changing shape (literally). Hell, I'm not sure mine has stopped yet, I'm only 21.. You guys just aren't 'there' enough to be making decisions about taking big sausages in your cornholes.

Basically, sexual preferences aren't held up to scrutiny unless they tread on thing ground concerning hygiene or the ability of either party not really being mature enough to agree to the act.

I like what my friend said about it once : "Ugh, go and get a normal fetish, like boots or something". He's a funny guy, really.


"Your not funny, your not a good musician, theres a difference between being funny and being an idiot, you obviously being the latter" - Dave R Fuller
John S Stuart user not visiting Queenzone.com
John S Stuart
Deity: 4178 posts
add to buddy list send PM

Posted: 13 Nov 07, 12:25 Edit this post Reply to this post Reply with Quote

While we are being open about this, what I do not understand (it's OK I've never seen it myself - and I have no desire to either - but as a purely academic question) why is just LOOKING at an image illegal? (I am not talking about exploitation or fuelling a need - so let's imagine all concearned died many years ago).

I mean, if I take this to a logical conclusion am I not guilty of slavery because I have seen pictures of black slaves in the 'National Geographic' or guilty of murder because I have seen pictures of dead soldiers in history text books?

Also, I read that some users of a fantasy web site 'Myalternativelifestyle.com' (or something like that) have been reported to the police for inventing paedophilia like activities. But hello, it's fantasy. I know it's sick fantasy, but it is still not real.

Other users of this 'Sims' like 'game' can torture, maim or hack virtual 'people' to death and still have this is accepted as harmless 'fun' - but even fantasy paedophilia (at least in legal terms) is seen as a thought crime too far.

Why?


"Listen to them. Children of the night. What music they make."
magicalfreddiemercury user not visiting Queenzone.com
magicalfreddiemercury
Deity: 2693 posts
add to buddy list send PM

Posted: 13 Nov 07, 12:33 Edit this post Reply to this post Reply with Quote

John S Stuart wrote:

While we are being open about this, what I do not understand (it's OK I've never seen it myself - and I have no desire to either - but as a purely academic question) why is just LOOKING at an image illegal? (I am not talking about exploitation or fuelling a need - so let's imagine all concearned died many years ago).


I'd like to take a stab at this one...

There's the thought among psychologists that pedophilia is 'not curable'. Looking at photos of children - even if those children have grown up and are long gone - implies a need to see or a lust for naked children. It's considered a precursor to child abuse/rape since behavior and need tend to escalate. Therefore, making it illegal to even look can hopefully stop a potential predator at phase one.

???



"The others don't like my interviews. And frankly, I don't care much for theirs." ~ Freddie Mercury



YourValentine user not visiting Queenzone.com
registered July 27th 2001
YourValentine
Deity: 7611 posts
add to buddy list send PM

Posted: 13 Nov 07, 12:40 Edit this post Reply to this post Reply with Quote

"I mean, if I take this to a logical conclusion am I not guilty of slavery because I have seen pictures of black slaves in the 'National Geographic' or guilty of murder because I have seen pictures of dead soldiers in history text books?"

John, the slaves were not made slaves and the soldiers were not killed in order to take pictures for some sickos to enjoy while child porn pictures are exclusively taken for the pleasure of paedophiles. The children are used as models in a sexually arousing manner which is a crime.

The virtual "child porn" is not illegal in all countries, it's illegal in Germany but not in the USA as far as I know. I am not sure why it's illegal, it's virtual, no children are harmed.





I do not want any google ads here.

John S Stuart user not visiting Queenzone.com
John S Stuart
Deity: 4178 posts
add to buddy list send PM

Posted: 13 Nov 07, 13:41 Edit this post Reply to this post Reply with Quote

magicalfreddiemercury wrote:

John S Stuart wrote:

While we are being open about this, what I do not understand (it's OK I've never seen it myself - and I have no desire to either - but as a purely academic question) why is just LOOKING at an image illegal? (I am not talking about exploitation or fuelling a need - so let's imagine all concearned died many years ago).


I'd like to take a stab at this one...

There's the thought among psychologists that pedophilia is 'not curable'. Looking at photos of children - even if those children have grown up and are long gone - implies a need to see or a lust for naked children. It's considered a precursor to child abuse/rape since behavior and need tend to escalate. Therefore, making it illegal to even look can hopefully stop a potential predator at phase one.

???


Good answer - so why aren't gun magazines or pornography itself not illegal? Surely, using your argument, from these little acorns further crimes can grow too?

As for social mores - do violent movies breed further violence - or are they cathartic and keep violence at bay? For the record, I do not actually know - but I do find the debate interesting!


"Listen to them. Children of the night. What music they make."
John S Stuart user not visiting Queenzone.com
John S Stuart
Deity: 4178 posts
add to buddy list send PM

Posted: 13 Nov 07, 13:54 Edit this post Reply to this post Reply with Quote

YourValentine wrote:

...the slaves were not made slaves and the soldiers were not killed in order to take pictures for some sickos to enjoy while child porn pictures are exclusively taken for the pleasure of paedophiles...


Are you sure this this so in all cases?
If you are saying that children 'model' for proxy-gratification, I agree with your logic and you are obviously so correct.

However, what about 'observed' or action photography? (By that I do not mean staged - but a photographic witness of a real life event - just like the war photography I alluded to above).
(In general) No-one is 'shot' for the camera - rather the camera captures the event - so what if that event was paedophilic - would it still be illegal to view, even if it was (as Pete Townsend claimed) for academic research (such as anti-child war-crimes)?

Again, I do not know the answer, but as a pacifist, I find it abhorent that websites like rotten.com can legally exist (and in most cases show images WORSE than paedophilia), but, as long as they do not stray into an anti-child area, these images are accepted by most internet service providers.

I just do not understand the double-standards involved in how the act of VIEWING an image can be criminalised in some cases - and not in others.




"Listen to them. Children of the night. What music they make."
Music Man user not visiting Queenzone.com

Deity: 2346 posts
add to buddy list send PM

Posted: 13 Nov 07, 14:10 Edit this post Reply to this post Reply with Quote

Child pornography is illegal because it is largely exploitative, where the subject of the media is inevitably taken advantage of in order for it to be produced. However, I have no idea why the minimum age to consent to pornography would be higher than the age of consent, as it is in many cases.

It is illegal to view child pornography because such largely eliminates the demand for the material, which logically would save many children from being exploited. It's very indirect legislation, much like speed limit laws.


Creativity can always cover for a lack of knowledge.
magicalfreddiemercury user not visiting Queenzone.com
magicalfreddiemercury
Deity: 2693 posts
add to buddy list send PM

Posted: 13 Nov 07, 14:18 Edit this post Reply to this post Reply with Quote

John S Stuart wrote:


Good answer - so why aren't gun magazines or pornography itself not illegal? Surely, using your argument, from these little acorns further crimes can grow too?

As for social mores - do violent movies breed further violence - or are they cathartic and keep violence at bay? For the record, I do not actually know - but I do find the debate interesting!


I think violent movies soften the shock of the violence. I'm not sure they make the average person more violent, but can possibly plant how-to seeds into an already twisted mind.

I think that's why, as you asked above, gun magazines and porn are not illegal. Porn alone does not lead to rape and gun magazines don't lead to murder. At least not for the average person. Thing is, the average person isn't looking at child porn or the like. I'd say that's where the difference lies. The type of person looking at child porn is a person interested in sexualizing children. To protect children from that possibility, even the viewing of it needs to be scrutinized and made illegal.

Another point about violent movies vs. reality... While everyone was stunned on 9/11, so many people equated what they witnessed with Bruce Willis' Die Hard movies. Some of those interviewed went as far as to say they almost expected him to come save the day. I found that to be both disturbing and interesting.

EDIT -

<font color=666600><b>Music Man wrote:


It is illegal to view child pornography because such largely eliminates the demand for the material, which logically would save many children from being exploited.


Well, there you go. And in one sentence, no less. :-)



"The others don't like my interviews. And frankly, I don't care much for theirs." ~ Freddie Mercury



Killer Queenie user not visiting Queenzone.com
Oooft! xD
Killer Queenie
Royalty: 1807 posts
add to buddy list send PM

Posted: 13 Nov 07, 14:39 Edit this post Reply to this post Reply with Quote

Okay - I am against paedophilia - and I make no bones about it. I think that it is just wrong for kids to be looked at when they don't know it is happening or why it is happening.

I know if was my kid that had or was beening subjected to paedophilia I would be extremely upset and angry.

I wouldn't want my kid to be looked at by some person who might take advantage and possibly take advatage of him or her sexually.

Thats my view... People may disagree or agree... but there you go...


Nothing matters when knowing nothing matters;;

It's just life so keep dancing through;;
Poo, again user not visiting Queenzone.com
Poo, again
Deity: 4776 posts
add to buddy list send PM

Posted: 13 Nov 07, 15:31 Edit this post Reply to this post Reply with Quote

Paedophilia or Pedophilia?


[QUOTE][QUOTENAME]Jake? wrote: I want him to shove it down my throat and shoot. Shoot! Shoot! C'mon! SHOOT! SHOOT!

[/QUOTENAME]



[/QUOTE]







Freya is quietly judging you. user not visiting Queenzone.com
Meh.
Freya is quietly judging you.
Deity: 5913 posts
add to buddy list send PM

Posted: 13 Nov 07, 15:45 Edit this post Reply to this post Reply with Quote

<font color=pink>Poo wrote:

Paedophilia or Pedophilia?

Depends whether you're from England or the US.