Is mild paedophilia like being mildly pregnant? Does it mean you want to fuck kids, but gently? One is either sexually attracted to kids or not.

Great more mental health stigmatisation.

A person doesn't get to choose, Cato, whether they're sexually attracted to children. All they get to chose is how to respond. I believe that most paedophiles choose not to act on their sexual urges in an inappropriate way. However I imagine that even if they don't act on their urges a number of them would turn to child pornography. And childporn itself could act as a "gateway" for at-risk people to then actually offend.

(November 21, 2015 at 10:11 am)Aractus Wrote: And childporn itself could act as a "gateway" for at-risk people to then actually offend.

That or it could prove to be a safe way for people who are shunned by society to have an outlet for their fantasies without actually hurting anyone.

(November 21, 2015 at 10:31 am)Ludwig Wrote:

(November 21, 2015 at 10:11 am)Aractus Wrote: And childporn itself could act as a "gateway" for at-risk people to then actually offend.

That or it could prove to be a safe way for people who are shunned by society to have an outlet for their fantasies without actually hurting anyone.

....except for the children being raped and exploited to create the videos.

But, you know, nobody else is getting hurt.

Completely agree Aractus. Pedophilia is a diagnosable disorder; people seem to forget that.

People also seen to forget that pedophilia isn't illegal, nor should it be. Having feelings of sexual attraction (which you can't control) shouldn't be punished in any fair justice system. Acting on those feelings, when the party you are acting on cannot consent (as in the case of sexual intercourse with a minor) is illegal.

There are likely pedophiles (perhaps most pedophiles) who do not act on their sexual attractions, just as most people do not rape people they are sexually attracted to. Unfortunately the only pedophiles you tend to hear about are the ones that are caught breaking the law.

Probably needs a topic of it's own, but the Jimmy Savile case has been astonishing on several levels. That Subway did nothing as early as 2008 correlates with the apparently massive numbers of reports on Savile that resulted in no action.

I'm still thinking the Savile case is 'unique' in the reported diversity of his offenses.

(November 21, 2015 at 10:46 am)SteelCurtain Wrote:

(November 21, 2015 at 10:31 am)Ludwig Wrote: That or it could prove to be a safe way for people who are shunned by society to have an outlet for their fantasies without actually hurting anyone.

....except for the children being raped and exploited to create the videos.

But, you know, nobody else is getting hurt.

Aside from this, when you are watching CP you are economically creating a demand in the market for such content - There is a market for illegal products, whether it is drugs, guns, child porn or any other kind of illegal stuff - When you watch CP, even if you're not participating in the act yourself and are not profiting, distributing or selling it, you are still creating a demand by adding one more viewer to the videos. 


I do agree with Aractus that paedophilia is a disorder like any other and should be treated whenever possible. It should be illegal to have sex with children, not to feel attraction to them.

I would also like to note that when we're talking about pedos we're looking at a a very large group that may not fit anyone's stereotypes. For example, there's pedos who only like children, and there's pedos who also like adults and even marry/have sex. There's pedos who are the stereotypical 30-50 year old man, but it's possible for a pedo to be a woman or to be much younger.

(November 21, 2015 at 11:02 am)Tiberius Wrote: Completely agree Aractus. Pedophilia is a diagnosable disorder; people seem to forget that.

People also seen to forget that pedophilia isn't illegal, nor should it be. Having feelings of sexual attraction (which you can't control) shouldn't be punished in any fair justice system. Acting on those feelings, when the party you are acting on cannot consent (as in the case of sexual intercourse with a minor) is illegal.

There are likely pedophiles (perhaps most pedophiles) who do not act on their sexual attractions, just as most people do not rape people they are sexually attracted to. Unfortunately the only pedophiles you tend to hear about are the ones that are caught breaking the law.

One more thing - Not everyone who has sex with kids is a clinical paedophilie. Basically, there's people who take advantage of anyone they can and will have sex with incapable, animals, kids, everyone basically - You're a paedophile if you feel attracted to kids, but if you have sex with kids just because you want to satisfy your libido with any human being available (or animal) that is not clinical paedophilia. Just think of countries where the majority of marriages are child marriages - Does anyone believe that something like 60% of the male population is clinically a paedophilie?

Yeah, it's got to the stage where you have to put a qualifier like "non-active" or something in front of paedophile, or else people will assume the person is already abusing children. Since that word has been hijacked almost entirely, I don't think we have a replacement, non-stigmatized word.

The condition itself needs to be met with understanding, not hostility. I have the deepest sympathy for anyone who is forced to live with these urges and has no legal way to act on them. Of course, if they harm a kid, or download child porn, I lose all sympathy.