Discussion: Is pedophilia pseudoscience?

Discussion in 'Formal debates' started by James R, Feb 25, 2009.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. scott3x Banned Banned

    Messages:
    3,785
    A good point. S.A.M. apparently wasn't discussing morality, but I am. Nevertheless, I think that she has brought up many points that could be applied to morality and I believe I have as well.
     
  2. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  3. scott3x Banned Banned

    Messages:
    3,785
    That's fine; giving the conflictive meaning of the term, neither am I. ancientregime believes the term to be pseudoscience.


    Definitely.


    Cool

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

     
  4. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  5. leopold Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    17,455
    how do you feel about the AOC in your locality?
    should it be lowered? raised? remain the same?
    how do you feel about this issue sam?
    in a like vein can we also put children to work in "sweat shops"?
     
  6. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  7. S.A.M. uniquely dreadful Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    72,822
    A side issue I have discovered in my reading is that this is a predominantly male "problem", a teen boy having sex with an older woman is seen as an entry into manhood and there have even been instances of such convicted female pedophiles getting out of prison and marrying their victims. Female registered sex offenders are rarely assaulted, beaten up or have their pictures pasted in the neighborhood as a warning to parents and children.

    But that is not true for male pedophiles.

    In the same issue of Archives of Sexual Behaviour [Dec 2002], there is an article, The Dilemma of the Male Pedophile, where the author Schmidt says of the male pedophile that he must "remain abstinent for significant periods of time" and "lead a life of self-denial at significant emotional cost." Schmidt calls for a new, "enlightened discourse on morality" with the recognition that "in view of the pedophile's burden, the necessity of denying himself the experience of love and sexuality," he deserves society's respect.


    http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/12462477

    There is a clear social, sexual, emotional cost to the individual which is often overlooked due to a natural concern for the children [e.g. there is a thread currently on a mother who assaults a registered sex offender for talking to her child a year ago].

    I would even go so far as to say they are not treated like human beings and sometimes, worse than animals.
     
  8. James R Just this guy, you know? Staff Member

    Messages:
    30,644
    For me, the morality of pedophilia is the most important aspect of it. The illegality of it can be put on a firm scientific footing by establishing that it harms the child victims - a point I made central in the Debate.

    As an academic thing, it may be interesting to know if some people have a "natural" predisposition to pedophilia. But it is a huge step from acknowledging that to endorsing the sexual abuse of children.

    Ok. I only want to deal with pre-pubescent children, at least for now. Because if we can't agree that an adult having oral sex with a 4 year old is wrong, then we're not going to get very far arguing the ins and outs of an adult having sex with a 15 or 16 year old, are we?

    Considering that they don't even know what that is, it would be hard for them to want it.

    Many cases of sexual abuse of young boys involve anal rape.

    Not surprised. Pedophiles, I'm sure, also commonly have trouble determining if children "want" sex with them or not. As I pointed out in the Formal Debate, a common rationalisation is that children are "asking for it".

    I covered this point in the Formal Debate, too.

    Again, we need to be careful about the age of the children we're talking about. Pedophiles, of course, have a vested interest in blurring the lines, so that they talk in the same breath about a 17 year old and a 4 year old, as if there was no important difference.

    I have no problem with pedophiles who recognise the necessity of denying themselves the experience of sex with children. I'm worried about the ones who don't see any such necessity.
     
  9. S.A.M. uniquely dreadful Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    72,822
    Are there any instances of female pedophiles with very young victims?
     
  10. scott3x Banned Banned

    Messages:
    3,785
    I don't know about these mythological pedophiles, but I, for one, see a lot of differences between a 17 year old and a 4 year old.
     
  11. S.A.M. uniquely dreadful Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    72,822
  12. James R Just this guy, you know? Staff Member

    Messages:
    30,644
    Yes. They don't get much press.

    It is certainly not true that only men abuse children.

    Of course you do, scott3x. You're not a pedophile. Are you?
     
  13. Stryder Keeper of "good" ideas. Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    13,101
    You're missing the point Scott, it's all very well stirring people up on a forum, if of course that is your objective, however you should make it fully known that is your intention otherwise face the consequences of misinterpretation.

    In this instances the misinterpretation itself is potentially identifying a poster as a felon. This is an understandable interpretation should they choose to dodge straight forward points with circular logic.
     
  14. Stryder Keeper of "good" ideas. Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    13,101
    Actually I've made my decision and it will likely upset some, but here it is.

    You are the TROLL and I'm banning you for being one.
    My evidence is quite simple, out of the entire forum all your posts have been on the subject of Paedophilia or some distorted reasoning in regards to sexuality and have nothing to do with Science or Debate. You are here just to TROLL this forum or because you are deeply disturbed. I see no reason for this forum to cater to you or your ilk.

    I'm sure there will be people that complain (Feel free to express this to myself, James R or Plazma if you so choose to take this up), there always is but this is a decision that has to be made.

    With that there is little need for this thread to continue as is, It will just have to be one of those things "That happened at sciforums" historically.
     
    Last edited: Mar 6, 2009
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.

Share This Page