Is 'liking children' wrong, if you don't harm kids?

Really?

I thought I had checked all his utterences on the subject, since I was a bit gobsmacked, and found them to refer to thoughts only. But you usually get this stuff right.

I think Dennis Miller offered appropriate advice for the potential sickos: "If you're having inappropriate thoughts about children and you think you're capable of following through on them, don't tell anyone. Just put a gun to your head and take one for the team."

Yes, I absolutely think someone who recognizes they will hurt children, would do the world a favor by hurting themselves instead.

There is no good reason to pretend a suggestion that dangerous sickos take themselves out of the equation is the same as suggesting that everyone who has a passing thought should.

Not too many years ago homosexuality was considered unnatural and sick and twisted. Now it seems to be, by and large, socially acceptable. People have sex-change operations; there are transvestites walking around in public without fear of being lynched or arrested. This is quite an about-face from not too long ago. Are we, as a society, more 'enlightened', more tolerant? How do we explain society's current attitude?

I think you are missing a point here. Gay lovers are two consenting adults. People who have a fetish for underwear either get it from someone who consents, or commit petty larcency to steal it from someone. People who have a foot fetish can probably find a consenting adult to join them in their interest.

But children cannot consent (at least cannot legally and reasonably consent, in the opinion of society)--which makes the case very, very different. Additionally, children are "unformed" or are not fully-formed personalities, whereas an adult (even if they might arguably have personality defects) is considered to be fully-formed personalities. Children don't know enough about life or about themselves to make a reasonable judgment to consent.

Not too many years ago homosexuality was considered unnatural and sick and twisted. Now it seems to be, by and large, socially acceptable. People have sex-change operations; there are transvestites walking around in public without fear of being lynched or arrested. This is quite an about-face from not too long ago. Are we, as a society, more 'enlightened', more tolerant? How do we explain society's current attitude?

Perhaps pedophilia is also a completely natural impulse (for some) but as a society we deem it unacceptable so we find it abhorrent. I am speaking now of those who do not act on those urges. Anyone who preys on the weak, innocent, defenseless, etc. are in a different category.

Thanks to craven and dlowan for the time you took to explain so much to me. I understand the nurture argument; upon reflection, I really wanted to know more about innate impulses... those who hadn't been abused, why they have these inclincations. I think perhaps it is simply one more component in human beings which we have decided is unacceptable. If they do nothing about these urges, then where is the danger? That they might?

Well, anyone might get an uzi tomorrow and shoot up a school. 'Might' is a pretty insignificant word there. Not enough to act on, in my opinion.

What I am most surprised at is the outrage against someone's personal view ... why so much anger about it? I understand his position, which is preventative, and also, of course, reactionary. (You don't ask someone to kill themselves for their thoughts. At least two here would hand Bill a gun, in that case.) It's the heat his position has generated which boggles my mind. So what? So what if that's what he thinks?

Here's a thing.....many people who have sexual feelings for kids were eroticised to kids of that age because they were abused themselves at that age.

What I am most surprised at is the outrage against someone's personal view ... why so much anger about it? I understand his position, which is preventative, and also, of course, reactionary. (You don't ask someone to kill themselves for their thoughts. At least two here would hand Bill a gun, in that case.) It's the heat his position has generated which boggles my mind. So what? So what if that's what he thinks?

In discussing the causes of pedophilia, Sipes noted that a large number of sexually abusive clerics had been victimized as youths. While this is not applicable to every case, sexual victimization as a child may lead the individual to seek refuge in the clergy as a way of denying the reality of life.

This is such a weird thread.

I've been sporadically looking in -- don't have much to say that hasn't already been said, so have just been agreeing when someone says it especially well.

The vitriol is weird and distressing, though. Talk about failing to give the benefit of the doubt, Bill.

HokieBird, quick Google search yields:

Quote:

In discussing the causes of pedophilia, Sipes noted that a large number of sexually abusive clerics had been victimized as youths. While this is not applicable to every case, sexual victimization as a child may lead the individual to seek refuge in the clergy as a way of denying the reality of life.

www.nccbuscc.org/nrb/johnjaystudy/litreview.pdf

(Lots of interesting stuff in that review of various studies, including a type of therapy that results in a relapse rate of only 4% among pedophiles.)

Mame wrote:

Not too many years ago homosexuality was considered unnatural and sick and twisted. Now it seems to be, by and large, socially acceptable. People have sex-change operations; there are transvestites walking around in public without fear of being lynched or arrested. This is quite an about-face from not too long ago. Are we, as a society, more 'enlightened', more tolerant? How do we explain society's current attitude?

Homosexuality has been a commonplace in many human societies, and has even been celebrated in some of them. Iulius Caesar was bi-sexual, Alexander III of Macedon (misnamed "the Great") was bi-sexual, and Richard Lionheart was homosexual. It is entirely possible that both Caesar and Alexander were homosexual, but had heterosexual relations with wives as political policy. In ancient Egypt and in ancient Greece, homosexuality was sufficiently common as not to receive special attention. Certainly, there were no "sex change" operations in those times, but had the technique been safe and readily available, i suspect it would not have drawn public censure. As for transvestites, i also suspect that this was probably common, and also probably not much commented upon. Jeanne d'Arc was condemned for defying the Church Militant (the Church on Earth, as opposed to the Church Triumphant, i.e., the Church in Heaven) on the basis of wearing men's clothing, but in her second trial, in which she was vindicated after her execution, it was pointed out that the Church recognized a compelling justification for wearing the clothing of the opposite sex in certain, particular circumstances.

Which brings us to the root of the problem we have in our societies, and which has lead Mame to describe these behaviors as ". . . an about-face from not too long ago." They are only an about-face when seen in the context of a sexually oppressive and perverted Christian society--these repressive attitudes are not eternal human values which have suddenly come into question.

In the end, though, the distinction between homosexuality, cross-dressing and other such activities, as compared to paedophilia is the matter of consent. In the second post of this thread, i pointed that out:

Setanta wrote:

I think you are missing a point here. Gay lovers are two consenting adults. People who have a fetish for underwear either get it from someone who consents, or commit petty larcency to steal it from someone. People who have a foot fetish can probably find a consenting adult to join them in their interest.

But children cannot consent (at least cannot legally and reasonably consent, in the opinion of society)--which makes the case very, very different. Additionally, children are "unformed" or are not fully-formed personalities, whereas an adult (even if they might arguably have personality defects) is considered to be fully-formed personalities. Children don't know enough about life or about themselves to make a reasonable judgment to consent.

So, although societies heavily influenced by the Judeo-Christian tradition might eventually lose their narrow-minded views about homosexuality and cross-dressing, the case against paedophilia does not rest on cultural norms, but on the issue of intelligent, informed consent. Children don't know enough about the world or themselves to reasonably consent.

A) Go to a counselling center, police station, psych ward, hospital or other such facility and seek professional help for his problem.

B) Have himself neutered at a local hospital.

C) Blind himself so as to virtually disqualify himself from any predatory activity.

D) Pull out a gun and blow his own head off.

Which is the best option for all concerned?

Mame wrote:

What I am most surprised at is the outrage against someone's personal view ... why so much anger about it? I understand his position, which is preventative, and also, of course, reactionary. (You don't ask someone to kill themselves for their thoughts. At least two here would hand Bill a gun, in that case.) It's the heat his position has generated which boggles my mind. So what? So what if that's what he thinks?

I would guess that it's because of one of the following:

A) his stubborn refusal to even see or hear what others are saying.

B) his inability to back off his position even one iota, even after proudly proclaiming his own ignorance of the topic under discussion.

C) His past history of being such an arrogant poopityhead.

D) All of the above.

Which one do you think it is, Bill?

The vitriol is weird and distressing, though. Talk about failing to give the benefit of the doubt, Bill.

However, a search at a large university library turned up most of the materials, and led us to other useful information. Continued research and a desire to make this information accessible eventually led us to create this website.

Richard Kramer, M.S.
David White, B.Ed., M.A.

In accordance with this opinion, Augustine referred to the male and female sex organs as obscoenae partes (obscene parts) and viewed all "carnal" desire with barely concealed disgust. Moreover, he was convinced that all decent people everywhere felt the same way. Yet, in actual fact, his attitude was not universally shared even in his own time. There were still tribes in distant parts of the Roman empire who preserved their old "pagan" customs and delighted in group sex and various sexual displays. Thus, Augustine's statement about the "shame attending all sexual intercourse" was not really true. It was only much later, and only through Christian influence, that it became true for most Europeans. Outside of Europe, however, many societies developed very different sexual values. When, after centuries of isolation, Christian explorers finally discovered such societies, they were amazed and incredulous. For example, when Captain Cook came to Tahiti he was greatly surprised to find that the Tahitians had sexual intercourse in public and "gratified every appetite and passion before witnesses". Thus, he reported in his Account of a Voyage Around the World (1769):

"A young man, nearly six feet high, performed the rites of Venus with a little girl about 11 or 12 years of age, before several of our people and a great number of natives, without the least sense of its being indecent or improper, but, as appeared, in perfect conformity to the custom of the place. Among the spectators were several women of superior rank who . . . gave instructions to the girl how to perform her part, which, young as she was, she did not seem much to stand in need of."

In spite of his consternation, however, Captain Cook apparently kept his composure and did not try to stop the performance. After all, he was not a moral crusader, but a practical Englishman, a seasoned world traveler, and a son of the Age of Enlightenment. It was left to the Christian missionaries of a later time to become outraged and to eradicate the traditional island customs. Indeed, one can easily imagine the effect the sexual spectacle would have had on Augustine, had he been able to witness it. One can also assume that it would not have changed his opinion. Instead of admitting that he had been proven wrong by the "shameless" islanders, he would probably have condemned them all as slaves of the devil.

At any rate, we know only too well what would happen to the Tahitian performers if they appeared in the United States today. Any man who performed in a "live sex show" with an eleven-year-old girl would be sent to prison as a statutory rapist. Even worse, as a "child molester" or "pedophile", he could be declared a "sexual psychopath". This means that, before, after, or instead of serving his prison term, he could be committed to a mental hospital for forced psychiatric treatment. If he should ever be released, he would be required to register with the police for the rest of his life. The girl, on the other hand, would be regarded as a juvenile delinquent and could be sent to "reform school". Finally, the entire audience might be arrested for having witnessed, and thereby encouraged, an act of public "lewdness and obscenity".

I mean giving dlowan the benefit of the doubt as to whether she was actually suggesting that you kill yourself. Come ON.

Oh god, not that again, Chumly.

Ah well, perhaps everyone can focus their vitriol on your apologia and start getting along with each other again.