Let's lower the voting age to twelve while we're at it SunnyC.
Let's lower the voting age to twelve while we're at it SunnyC.
As for the rest of your argument dewey911p, your orientation has nothing to do with the possible success of the relationship. A real relationship with between an adult and a child (same definition as you used) is of course not possible. But that doesn't make the feelings of the pedophile, whose brain does not draw the line between a ripe body and a unripe body correctly, less true. For someone to be heterosexual he or she does not need to be or have been in a relationship, he or she just needs to feel an attraction to the opposite gender. Also, a pedophile can be a parent without being in a relation with a child. I feel like I did not bring across correctly that I meant a single parent pedophile instead of one in a relation with a child. A pedophile as a person can still produce a child in the same ways you mentioned a homosexual couple can.
While true, I don't think this biological pressure you're speaking has been active in the human population for at least several thousand years. As soon as mankind transitioned from nomadic societies to permanent agricultural settlements, the biological pressure essentially ceased to exist with the development of more complex cultures and the presence of patriarchy. Even before the Abrahamic religions came on the scene, powerful social pressure on homosexuals has been in place since recorded history. Even in the absence of discriminatory religions, the desire to foster children by your own seed and forge your own special lineage and legacy was in every known culture. Natural selection is only the driving force behind evolution if and when there is biological pressure to drive certain mutations in a specific direction. You might concur that point is neither here nor there considering a few thousand years is but a blink of an eye biologically speaking, but evidence shows when your body is no longer pressured to have a certain trait, you lose it much more quickly than it takes to develop.Of course because of the social stigmas we do not know the true number of homosexual people alive today and defiantly alive in the past. But even we where without the social stigmas there would not be more homosexuals, we would just know the true ration. And they would still be a small part of the entire population. And a homosexual who had children because he was being pressured to marry and have children, because he suppressed his homosexuality isn't disproving my statement. To produce a child he had to perform a heterosexual act. Our body, our hormones, have not kept up with our understanding of our self as an animal. Sex feels good so we want to have it, cause the more we have it the higher the chance we produce offspring. And we are attracted to the other gender because to produce offspring it has to be heterosexual sex. Other animal special to not have the understanding that offspring requires 1 man 1 woman (not including the species for which it doesn't) so there brains have evolved to stimulate heterosexual behavior. This makes homosexuality bluntly put faulty "programming" (and I know that saying that makes me look very wrong but I'm certain you can read behind what seems like a discriminating remark to get my scientific argument). With our increasing intelligence have outgrown the need for the "program" but evolution doesn't go nearly as quick as scientific progress. Which brings me to my next point.
For example, the curious case of the pinky toe.
Now consider that in todays age where homosexuals can not only reproduce, they can maneuver around their inhibitions with surrogate mothers. In fact, technology is developing to where one day it will be possible for homosexuals to even have children by their own seed. Stem cell research is awesome.
While you might be accurate in the fact there wouldn't be more homosexuals than heterosexuals, I highly question whether the biological pressure is really as prevalent as you're making it out to be. Given enough time, it will be completely nonexistent.
Okay, gotta focus. On to the point lol. Pedophilia on the other hand, there has never been that kind of social pressure up until relatively recently. I'm not entirely sure the logic you're using to compare the two is entirely accurate, especially considering early humans matured much, much quicker because they died much, much earlier. I wager even early, more primitive humans still had the intellectual capacity to place value on a female despite its age.
If we go by this, seemingly any possible sexual attraction under the sun could be construed as an "orientation"As for the rest of your argument dewey911p, your orientation has nothing to do with the possible success of the relationship. A real relationship with between an adult and a child (same definition as you used) is of course not possible. But that doesn't make the feelings of the pedophile, whose brain does not draw the line between a ripe body and a unripe body correctly, less true. For someone to be heterosexual he or she does not need to be or have been in a relationship, he or she just needs to feel an attraction to the opposite gender. Also, a pedophile can be a parent without being in a relation with a child. I feel like I did not bring across correctly that I meant a single parent pedophile instead of one in a relation with a child. A pedophile as a person can still produce a child in the same ways you mentioned a homosexual couple can.
The loss of a toe in a specie is not comparable to lose the grindstone of evolution. That is something we might never lose and if we do it will also be the lose of the feeling of love. But I agree we lost focus so I will safe that argumentation for a different debate.
The logic is that that it is nothing more then a deviation from the "normal" formula of love in which the limitations put on the age of the object of your love are messed up. I know that there is a similar thing to pedophilia where instead of loving children you fall in love with old people who are way passed the age of reproduction.
And I guess that orientation sounds like a big word but what word would you use then for something where a real significant limitation is put on the object of your love, a limitation with which you are born and which isn't your fault? That maybe the best way to put it, it is similar to homosexuality because it is a deviation of the "normal" love formula your brain uses which isn't your fault.
A child rapist should never be excused, but I don't think all child rapists are truly pedophiles. Dewey911p described pedophilia as:
An act of dominance, control, and manipulation. It is taking advantage of a younger individual for personal satisfaction and no other reason.
And I believe that some if not most child rapists are like that, but I also believe some are pedophiles. In their brain the rape is only as bad as a "normal" rape (which is also inexcusable, it's just the easiest way to describe the difference) And more importantly what I believe, no what I know, is that there are pedophiles who can control this sad attraction to children, who have accepted that they are doomed never to be able to feel true love or gain a real relation. I know this because I have seen a brave soul on television who came onto a television debate about pedophilia in which he stated he was a pedophile but would never rape or have a relationship with a child. He knew that the love he felt was an impossible one and that any display of it would most likely hurt the child but he just couldn't help it, he just fell in love with children.
If there is one who is willing to admit he is a pedophile, in this day and age in which everyone can be found with google instantly, where a child raper is not even same from his fellow prisoners, there just have to be more "good" pedophiles who stay silent.
Age of Consent may not be working... but the failure is a good indicator that guidance is in fact needed. For instance my Niece (age 17), became a mother last Christmas, She wanted to be a mom. So she CHOSE to have sex to get pregnant. She has a absolutely beautiful daughter, and now she is regretting her choice/actions. She has a child and she isn't even done being a child yet. Her childhood is over thanks to her making an irrational choice she was not ready to make.
As to your reference to mentally challenged individuals, the comparison is nothing similar.
Last edited by CSolarstorm; 4th September 2012 at 10:33 PM.
Part of the idea of having an age of consent is to protect kids, teens in particular, from their own stupidity. Teens are gonna have sex regardless, but even though it's not necessarily the best method of keeping them from doing stupid things to themselves or others in regard to sex (on its own, anyway, especially without proper sex education to go with it), it's a hell of a lot better than abolishing it.
SHINY RAINBOWS BECKON YOU TO THE ARTIST'S CORNER
Trainer Name: Misha
3DS FC: 5112-3720-5938
Friend Safari: Fighting; Pancham, Machoke, Hariyama
I don't see anything wrong with a 14 year old dating or having sex with a 20 year old. What's that like a six year difference? No harm really.
It seems even more unlikely to me that attraction toward minors just suffers from a meaningless social stigma if there has been so much study onto it that it was divided into three separate phenomenons (although ephebophilia isn't a disorder officially).
What I'm trying to say is, isn't it interchangeable or are there really people who narrow it down to only the age group 11-14? Or does it count as hebephilia as long as you thought she was from that age group even if she is older?
I don't think that legalizing gay marriage would have anything to do with pedophilia. Remember, the only thing illegal about same-sex relationships is the marriage itself. There's nothing illegal about sex between two consenting adults of the same gender. And that is exactly why, because they are consenting adults. Children cannot legally give consent.
EDIT: Also, who is to decide whether or not children can legally give consent? BTW Im disgusted by pedophilia and dont support pedophiles in any way but Im also disgusted by homosexuals and I dont support what they do either.
Last edited by OldManJenkins; 5th October 2012 at 7:26 AM.
Pedophilia is wrong in every circumstance and there is no moral/ethical/rational defense for it. The reason is consent. Children are not capable of understanding sexual situations and making informed decisions. They can't give legal consent. With teenagers, it's iffier, but should largely come down to age difference. A 20 year old and a 16 year old together? Sure. A 30 year old and a 15 year old together? **** no. I don't think there's a debate in this at all.