Jared Fogle & Subway

[MentalGiant]

They may not be able to 'help' it, but sex is a very primal urge and if it's children (especially pre pubescent children) that you're attracted to you should be closely monitored and/or receive some kind of mandatory ongoing therapy to help be certain you have the tools necessary not to harm children. And if you are not able to control yourself, you should be locked up indefinitely. Sorry, but I am not pro-coddling pedophiles. Too much potential damage to others can come from their sexual preference. One pedophile who does not control their urges can ruin the lives of innumerable children until they are caught. Serial killers also have very strong urges they cant particularly 'help' either. Should we just let them run loose in society because it's the "PC" thing to do? Fuck no.

[robvalue]

I would estimate that the vast majority of paedophiles never act on their urges, nor ever reveal them to anyone. So what we see are the few that do, giving us a skewed outlook. I'd be surprised if the rate of abuse for paedophiles is significantly higher than the rate at which rape occurs in the general population.

This is all speculation, of course. We're never going to know just how many paedophiles are closeted. You can't blame them, can you? If I was, I'd probably have to keep my mouth shut about it or face rejection from society, even though I'd never hurt anyone.

It's going to be much easier to study and help people when the reaction isn't instantly hostile. If that ever happens. I liken it to the paranoia that every gay man constantly wants to bum me, which is what some people seem to think.

[MentalGiant]

The difference between someone attracted to pre-pubescent children and someone attracted to adults of their own gender is that gay people can have guilt-free consensual sex with other gay adults as much as they want and theres nothing wrong with it. Pedophiles, on the other hand, should never engage in sex with children, ever. Young children are not sexual beings yet and their bodies are not ready for sex yet nor are they mentally capable of processing it.

To be honest, I'm really not bothered by 'legal adults' who are attracted to minor teens because biologically speaking, as soon as you get your period if your a girl or your balls drop if your a boy you are capable of reproducing, your hormones kick in that make you mentally ready and your body is physically ready for sex. Whether society wants to still call you a "kid", your not biologically speaking. I don't really 'count' attraction to biological adults as pedophilia even if they are legally minors, nor do I really think having 18 as the age of consent is beneficial to society. It's the attraction to pre-pubecent children that's something I feel should be kept an eye on. It's not like I'm suggesting we publicly hang them if they've never actually abused a child, but it is a potentially dangerous attraction that shouldn't just be swept under the rug.

[robvalue]

I'd disagree that anyone can have consensual sex as much as they want. Some people have trouble finding a sexual partner, temporarily or permanently. Although they will still most likely have access to legal pornography.

I see paedophiles as people in need of help and support, rather than removing from society or monitoring before they've done anything wrong. Until that attitude changes, no one is ever going to "come out", and getting help will be harder. This will surely lead to more harm against children than if they could get help without judgement.

When people can come out without being ostracised, the condition can be better studied and understood, to the benefit of all.

[Dystopia]

The difference between someone attracted to pre-pubescent children and someone attracted to adults of their own gender is that gay people can have guilt-free consensual sex with other gay adults as much as they want and theres nothing wrong with it. Pedophiles, on the other hand, should never engage in sex with children, ever.  Young children are not sexual beings yet and their bodies are not ready for sex yet nor are they mentally capable of processing it.

To be honest, I'm really not bothered by 'legal adults' who are attracted to minor teens because biologically speaking, as soon as you get your period if your a girl or your balls drop if your a boy you are capable of reproducing, your hormones kick in that make you mentally ready and your body is physically ready for sex. Whether society wants to still call you a "kid", your not biologically speaking. I don't really 'count' attraction to biological adults as pedophilia even if they are legally minors, nor do I really think having 18 as the age of consent is beneficial to society. It's the attraction to pre-pubecent children that's something I feel should be kept an eye on. It's not like I'm suggesting we publicly hang them if they've never actually abused a child, but it is a potentially dangerous attraction that shouldn't just be swept under the rug.

I agree but I think when it comes to consent the issue is when much older people use a position of authority to abuse others. Yes, a 17 year old is not a child by any means, even if the law says so, but we should pay attention to people who use means to "coerce" younger kids and late teens to have sex with them. I don't think a 14 year old having sex with a 50 year old has to be oppressive but there's a big possibility there's something wrong and someone may be abusing the other party.

[robvalue]

I spent many years lusting after females, with scant access to pornography, and no one being interested in being my sexual partner. Apart from a few booby pictures, I was in the same position as a paedophile. Unless it's scientifically shown that a paedophile is physically less able to control themselves, then I too would have to be considered a "threat' in such a situation to any female I was left alone with. Of course, I was no such thing.

[Thumpalumpacus]

I spent many years lusting after females, with scant access to pornography, and no one being interested in being my sexual partner. Apart from a few booby pictures, I was in the same position as a paedophile. Unless it's scientifically shown that a paedophile is physically less able to control themselves, then I too would have to be considered a "threat' in such a situation to any female I was left alone with. Of course, I was no such thing.

Assuming that the females were adults, this is an inapt comparison, because they would have been able to give or deny consent.

[robvalue]

I don't get what you mean. They can deny consent but I can just force myself on them anyway. My point is no one was giving me consent because no one was interested in me. So I was in the same position; I take what I want, or I keep it in my pants. I had no other choice.

Of course, I never would force myself. But my point is, I doubt the vast majority of paedophiles would either. We just hear about the ones that do. I'm trying to challenge this idea that all/most paedophiles have no self control. I'd be interested to know if they do actually have a harder time controlling themselves than the average sex-denied person.

I believe Exian said earlier that you shouldn't leave your kids with anyone you don't trust implicitly, and I totally agree with that. That's common sense, covers a multitude of possible problems, and avoids needless risk. At that point, it's irrelevant who is a paedophile and who isn't.

[Thumpalumpacus]

Implicit trust goes wrong as well, but an adult woman generally has the judgement to consider for herself your level of riskiness, whereas a child doesn't. Equivocating an adult woman with a child is in this sense fallacious.

[robvalue]

Yeah, you're right. I hadn't thought about that. It wasn't a great example for my point after all.