Tipsy random question tiiiime

Why do we Brits (well not me, I use the American spelling) put an "a" in pAedophile? What does this "a" do? It's not said "paydophile"

Because you're all waeirdos.

(October 28, 2016 at 2:26 pm)Yeauxleaux Wrote: Tipsy random question tiiiime

Why do we Brits (well not me, I use the American spelling) put an "a" in pAedophile? What does this "a" do? It's not said "paydophile"

Traitor!

(October 28, 2016 at 5:28 pm)Bella Morte Wrote:

(October 28, 2016 at 2:26 pm)Yeauxleaux Wrote: Tipsy random question tiiiime

Why do we Brits (well not me, I use the American spelling) put an "a" in pAedophile? What does this "a" do? It's not said "paydophile"

Traitor!

I do still vehemently insist on "Father Christmas" rather than "Santa Claus" though. Mostly because I think "Santa Claus" sounds unnatural and contrived in our accents.

My thoughts (maybe it will do the questionare later):

1. We need more studies to determine what makes people paedophiles. Is it something to do with evolution? Or is it something to do with how that person's environment/upbringing has affected them?

2. Paedophiles should be treated like drug addicts. The war on drugs has failed and the war on paedophiles is the same (though admittedly many religious people are fine with paedophilia). When Portugal decriminalised drugs drug usage actually went down, as did HIV rates, and they forced people to take rehab. Known paedophiles should be treated for their illness and encouraged to talk about it.

If they refuse the testament offered, then lock them up. How do we know they haven't acted on urges and what's to say they won't do so in the future? Children are in danger. Not saying non-violent drug addicts should be locked up though since a drug addiction is something totally different as it doesn't necessarily need anybody else for that urge to be fulfilled (i.e. It is not necessary to harm somebody else). It should he up to scientists and peer reviewed studies to decide which drugs should be illegal.

3. Where do we draw the line? Is ephebophilia acceptable? That's something I'm not too bothered by. Hebephilia Is where I'd draw the line so that is not acceptable to me.

Religious apologists who want to justify paedophila will often say the legal marriage age use to be much lower than it is today in some states. Of course, there reasoning never seen to factor in whether the child actually wants to be married. Which is true but we now know more about how the human body develops so I guess that's the reason for the shifting marriage age. Or maybe those states where the marriage age was low where the ones run by religious nuts.

I am sure some people know this man:
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=-ZlDvdtaQrw

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RcU7FaEEzNU

This is another amazing British Documentary about the subject.

At 1:13 "Why can we no longer think of the British Isles without the word paedoph in front of them?"

There is a general problem with going and telling people that your friend told you they are a paedophile: they can simply deny it. That leaves you in a very sticky situation. No (moral) authorities can take any action on hearsay either. Back underground they go. Remember people need understanding and emotional support, as well as professional help.

I can understand withdrawal from paedophiles. I'm rather confused at some of the unreserved hatred shown here for someone who hasn't been shown to have done anything wrong. Someone who is trying to avoid doing something wrong by coming to you for help.

Peon: How do you propose we offer treatment and then lock them up when they're all scared into silence?

I don't understand the use of the word "acceptable" here. Such people exist, and do not choose to be that way, unlike drug addicts. You seem to be assuming the paedophile in question is acting on their urges somehow.

Question to all: If you're a paedophile reading this, and you see people saying "I don't accept you", what are you meant to take away from that? You should go and kill yourself? You should exile yourself? I don't get it.

Actually, after re-examining the story from Germany where they had a campaign called "Do you love children more than you would like?" I have a bit more sympathy. The scientists involved in the story say many patients are shocked when they are told they "cannot be cured". The therapy can only teach them to control themselves.

From the article in Spiegel Online:

Quote:Three words imprinted themselves on his mind: "No possible cure."

"Many of the participants are shocked when we tell them this," Ahlers point out. Most of his patients react bitterly when he provides them with the relevant background information on how human sexuality develops, telling them that a person's sexual inclination is fixed for good after puberty, without any possibility of future change, and that no one has the option of choosing their sexual desires -- by deciding, for example, whether they want to be heterosexual or homosexual. He tells them there's no choice.

...

"It's a nightmare for all of them," says Christoph Joseph Ahlers, the psychologist who is coordinating the project in addition to running two of the therapy groups. The sexologist is a tall, reserved and yet friendly man. He knows from countless conversations that pedophile men want nothing more than to hide their urge from the world and from themselves. But he also knows that if those men don't acknowledge who they are, no progress can be made: "If I accept something as a part of me, I can control it in a reliable way," Ahlers says.

Now that I've quoted that, I would like to apologize for any harsh sounding words I typed previously. I have my own struggles and I'd hate to be locked up for those. The Nazis locked up people for all sorts of reasons, including benign disabilities if I remember rightly.

There are worse things that pedophilia I think. Such as necrophilia. It wasn't that long ago that we treated homosexual as criminals. The case of Alan Turning comes to mind. He shortened World War Two by up to a couple of years at least I think, with his amazing computer, yet he was deemed a criminal.

I don't think anybody is saying we should live in a society where having sex with children is acceptable, even the majority of pedophiles themselves by the sounds of the article. If they want that they can fly on over to Afghanistan or the Yemen. Bacha bazi one of Afghanistan's strange practices, along with Buzkashi.


With that said, the questions:

I respect that Peon. Thanks for taking the time to think it over. I think my answers would be the same as yours.

Indeed, no one is suggesting sexual activity with children is acceptable. I suspect it's what makes it such a hard condition to live with; chances are you're disgusted by your own desires. The desires won't automatically be accompanied by a change in morality. I'm addressing the attitude of society towards paedophiles in general. Unfortunately the general attitude seems to be one of hatred, which makes it much less likely anyone will come forward and get support. This outcome is counter productive.

As for necrophilia, again if it's not acted on it doesn't matter. And it's not something you can detect, turn off or cure. Personally I'd rather someone molested a dead body than a child. But I think any condition where the person can't help it deserves sympathy. As soon as they offend, the sympathy is lost but treatment should still be available. Not treating them doesn't make them disappear.

I don't understand the recurring theme here that they should be considered guilty until proven innocent. All I can say is put yourself in their place. You're already protecting your children, and they are probably already miserable. No need to put the boot in.

I believe that people who can't control their impulses at the expense of other people's wellbeing are indeed mentally troubled and need psychiatric treatment and oversight. That is, in some ways, the beginning and end of this debate, in my view. Why the fuck even discuss anything else?