poll about sexuality

[zapatos]

Yes, and pedophilia is not a fetish, is a sexual orientation.

 

Pedophiles are not killers and don't hurt anyone.

"According to the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM), pedophilia is a paraphilia in which a person has intense and recurrent sexual urges towards and fantasies about prepubescent children and on which feelings they have either acted or which cause distress or interpersonal difficulty."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pedophilia

 

"Pedophilia is a commonly found, but rarely admitted, psychological disorder"

 

"Physical, emotional, sexual and neglect are the major types of child abuse."

 

"Some other common psychological effects of child abuse are behavioral problems, attention problems, anxiety, alcohol abuse or drug abuse, bed-wetting, academic difficulties, concentration problems and chronic sexual behaviors. The abused child suffers from depression, insomnia, eating disorders, dissociative states, fear or shyness, failure to thrive, learning problems, inability to concentrate, panic attacks, malnutrition and repeated self-injury. An emotionally abused child suffers from low self-esteem, paranoia, loneliness, poor relationship with the opposite sex, interpersonal sensitivity, lack of interest in daily activities and sense of dissociation."

http://www.buzzle.com/articles/the-psychological-effects-of-child-abuse.html

 

How does this fit with your belief that pedophiles don't hurt anyone?

 

If I said that there isn't any link between attraction to men and attraction to women, would you need citations? So, why do you need citations about the fact that there isn't any link between attraction to adults and attraction to children? Exaplain me this, please!

 

Being attracted to women, doesn't mean to be attracted to men, right? So there isn't any link between the two attractions.

 

Being attracted to women/men doesn't men to be attracted to little girls/little boys, right? And viceversa, bening attracted to little girls/little boys doesn't mean to be attracted to women/men, right? So there isn't any link! It's a fact of logic!

A citation is a quoting of an authoritative source for substantiation. You are making many claims and I would like to be able to verify that your claims are valid. Just because you say it doesn't make it so. You are making the claims. I am just asking you to back them up.

[DrmDoc]

This is true, i was pointing out how most people think due to the media circus that surrounds such behavior, TV shows that supposedly show real life usually show pedophiles as murderers and killers.

Some pedophiles may not be killers but do you sincerely believe that "they don't hurt anyone", which includes the psychological development of the subjected children? By what rationale would the perspective of "they don't hurt anyone" be considered "true" when that perspective involves subjecting a child to the sexual advances of an adult. Such behavior is akin to those fellows in California who where arrested after video surfaced of them sexually molesting paralyzed and otherwise invalid patients--individuals incapable of defense against the aberrant behaviors of others.

[Remunigerin]

The poll had a big mistake!!

 

The right poll is this: http://www.polljunki...k/Poll9973.aspx

 

If you voted in the old poll, please, vote again!

 

Yes a corpse is a category of persons, dead persons...

 

A corpse is not a person. You can't have a conversation with a corps! A person is a BRAIN. A corpse WAS a person, but now is only organic material!

 

 

 

Actually I have read of people who did, they tried to keep the corpse fresh as long as possible

 

 

They were not true necrophile, then! A necrophile likes decomposed corpses! They were probably persons who lost the person they loved and so they wanted to conserve the corpse!

 

I think it's already been said but I'll say it again, people are not exclusively one or the other, there is a spectrum of behaviors, most people fall somewhere between the two extremes of heterosexual and homosexual.

 

That's exactly what I think: human sexuality is a spectrum, and sexual orientations are "names" we use to approximatively describe human sexuality. But what I don't understand is why people think to describe human sexuality only with "homosexual" and "heterosexual". Humans sexuality is not 1 or 0, 0 or 1! But it seems that most persons don't understand this... when a pedophile have sex with little boys, they say "gays are dangerous, gays are child molesters". They assume that a man attracted to little boys and man attracted to men have the same sexuality... why? Because we don't have as many names as we need to seperate the different sexual orientations in human sexuality! Many people think that sexuality is only "homosexual" or "heterosexual"... they don't understand that is more complex. Pedophilia is an other sexuality, but until we'll describe human sexuality only with "homosexual" and "heterosexual", people won't understand the differnce between a gay and a pedophile who likes little boys.

 

In my point of view, a pedophile who likes little boys has pratically nothing in common sexually with a gay who likes men... his sexuality his more similar to a pedophile attracted to little girls.

 

I think that sexuality is not attraction to genitals.... but attraction to features and forms of body! An heterosexual men is attracted to women because he's attarcted to typical physical features of women. An homosexual man is attracted to men because he's attracted to typical physical features of men. A pedophile is pedophile because he's attracted to typical physical features of prepubescent children.

 

Since children have not hit puberty yet, they don't have secondary sex carachters, and the body of little boys and little girls is pratically identical. A pedophile attracted to little girls and a pedophile attracted to little boys are pratically attracted to the same features, to the same forms! Contrarily, a man attracted to men and a man attracted to little boys are attracted to features and forms which are really different!!

 

But the words "homosexual" and "heterosexual" create a great confusion: according to this definition, pedophiles attracted to little boys have more in common with gay men, and not with pedophiles who like little girls. That's why people say gays are pedophile.

 

"Homosexual", "bisexual" and "heterosexual" are quite good to describe sexuality of people attracted to adult humans. Men have their typical body. Women have their typical body. If you like men, you like some features and forms which are typical of men, and if you like women, you like some features and forms which are typical of women.

 

But there are people who are not attracted to adult humans, and so the words "homosexual" and "heterosexual" are not only limited, but senseless! You won't never understand human sexuality with two labels!! Describing a zoophile attarcted to female dogs, a pedophile attracted to little girls and a man attracted to women with the same label, it's nonsense.

 

A man attracted to female dogs has sexually more in common with a man attracted to male dogs, but the word "heterosexual" let you think that a man attracted to female dogs or to little girls have sexually something in common with men attracted to women. This is absurd!! Don't you think?

 

Humans have four main type of body: body of prepubescent males, body of prepubescent females, body of women, body of men. So, there are at least four sexual orientations! We have four type of bodies with theirs own peculiar features, and so there are at least four sexual orientations!

If we want to describe human sexuality, we need them!! If you want to understand sexuality only with 0 and 1, heterosexual and homsoexual, you won't be so far!

 

 

 

 

You are still assuming that people are one or the other, that if you are attracted to adult women there would be no way you could be attracted to an adult man

 

Have I ever said this? I am criticizing the labels "homosexual" and "heterosexual", which don't permit to udnerstand well human sexuality.

 

or if you like little girls there is no way you could be attracted to little boys

 

Have I ever said this? I'm quite sure that if a person is attracted to little girls, he can't have repulsion to little boys, and viceversa, if a person is attarcted to little boys, he can't have repulsion to little girls. Little boys and little girls have basically the same body, and since I believe that sexual orientation is mostly about body (and not genitals), I think that there aren't sexually so many differences between pedophiles attracted to little girls and pedophiles attracted to little boys.

 

actually it is generally assumed that a true pedophile desires sex with children their sex is secondary to that attraction

 

I'm not sure you're right. I think that a true pedophile will always prefer children, and so if a pedophile who likes little boys has to choose between men and little girls, he'll choose the second one. But it's not true that he doesn't care about sex of the child!!

By the way, if a true pedophile will always prefer children, it's because, like I said, there is no such thing as an "homosexual" or an "heterosexual". There are forms and features, and a person is simply attracted to features and forms that he likes. A pedophile will always prefer children because little girls have a body which is the most similar to the body of little boys.

But the senseless labels "homosexual" and "heterosexual" let many people think that a pedophile who likes little boys is a gay man who can't get men... a gay man like body and forms of men, so why should a gay man have sex with little boys?

Edited January 9, 2011 by Remunigerin

[Moontanman]

The poll had a big mistake!!

 

The right poll is this: http://www.polljunki...k/Poll9973.aspx

 

If you voted in the old poll, please, vote again!

 

 

 

A corpse is not a person. You can't have a conversation with a corps! A person is a BRAIN. A corpse WAS a person, but now is only organic material!

 

 

 

 

 

 

They were not true necrophile, then! A necrophile likes decomposed corpses! They were probably persons who lost the person they loved and so they wanted to conserve the corpse!

 

 

 

That's exactly what I think: human sexuality is a spectrum, and sexual orientations are "names" we use to approximatively describe human sexuality. But what I don't understand is why people think to describe human sexuality only with "homosexual" and "heterosexual". Humans sexuality is not 1 or 0, 0 or 1! But it seems that most persons don't understand this... when a pedophile have sex with little boys, they say "gays are dangerous, gays are child molesters". They assume that a man attracted to little boys and man attracted to men have the same sexuality... why? Because we don't have as many names as we need to seperate the different sexual orientations in human sexuality! Many people think that sexuality is only "homosexual" or "heterosexual"... they don't understand that is more complex. Pedophilia is an other sexuality, but until we'll describe human sexuality only with "homosexual" and "heterosexual", people won't understand the differnce between a gay and a pedophile who likes little boys.

 

In my point of view, a pedophile who likes little boys has pratically nothing in common sexually with a gay who likes men... his sexuality his more similar to a pedophile attracted to little girls.

 

I think that sexuality is not attraction to genitals.... but attraction to features and forms of body! An heterosexual men is attracted to women because he's attarcted to typical physical features of women. An homosexual man is attracted to men because he's attracted to typical physical features of men. A pedophile is pedophile because he's attracted to typical physical features of prepubescent children.

 

Since children have not hit puberty yet, they don't have secondary sex carachters, and the body of little boys and little girls is pratically identical. A pedophile attracted to little girls and a pedophile attracted to little boys are pratically attracted to the same features, to the same forms! Contrarily, a man attracted to men and a man attracted to little boys are attracted to features and forms which are really different!!

 

But the words "homosexual" and "heterosexual" create a great confusion: according to this definition, pedophiles attracted to little boys have more in common with gay men, and not with pedophiles who like little girls. That's why people say gays are pedophile.

 

"Homosexual", "bisexual" and "heterosexual" are quite good to describe sexuality of people attracted to adult humans. Men have their typical body. Women have their typical body. If you like men, you like some features and forms which are typical of men, and if you like women, you like some features and forms which are typical of women.

 

But there are people who are not attracted to adult humans, and so the words "homosexual" and "heterosexual" are not only limited, but senseless! You won't never understand human sexuality with two labels!! Describing a zoophile attarcted to female dogs, a pedophile attracted to little girls and a man attracted to women with the same label, it's nonsense.

 

A man attracted to female dogs has sexually more in common with a man attracted to male dogs, but the word "heterosexual" let you think that a man attracted to female dogs or to little girls have sexually something in common with men attracted to women. This is absurd!! Don't you think?

 

Humans have four main type of body: body of prepubescent males, body of prepubescent females, body of women, body of men. So, there are at least four sexual orientations! We have four type of bodies with theirs own peculiar features, and so there are at least four sexual orientations!

If we want to describe human sexuality, we need them!! If you want to understand sexuality only with 0 and 1, heterosexual and homsoexual, you won't be so far!

 

 

 

 

 

 

Have I ever said this? I am criticizing the labels "homosexual" and "heterosexual", which don't permit to udnerstand well human sexuality.

 

 

 

Have I ever said this? I'm quite sure that if a person is attracted to little girls, he can't have repulsion to little boys, and viceversa, if a person is attarcted to little boys, he can't have repulsion to little girls. Little boys and little girls have basically the same body, and since I believe that sexual orientation is mostly about body (and not genitals), I think that there aren't sexually so many differences between pedophiles attracted to little girls and pedophiles attracted to little boys.

 

 

 

I'm not sure you're right. I think that a true pedophile will always prefer children, and so if a pedophile who likes little boys has to choose between men and little girls, he'll choose the second one. But it's not true that he doesn't care about sex of the child!!

By the way, if a true pedophile will always prefer children, it's because, like I said, there is no such thing as an "homosexual" or an "heterosexual". There are forms and features, and a person is simply attracted to features and forms that he likes. A pedophile will always prefer children because little girls have a body which is the most similar to the body of little boys.

But the senseless labels "homosexual" and "heterosexual" let many people think that a pedophile who likes little boys is a gay man who can't get men... a gay man like body and forms of men, so why should a gay man have sex with little boys?

 

 

So far you have failed to show any reason pedophilia should be considered a sexual orientation. I also see no reason an adult/child sexual relationship should be allowed, no matter how molestation occurs it always causes problems. You've made a lot of claims from pedophiles do not harm children to an oddly limited view of human sexuality, can you back any of your claims up with anything but your opinion?

[Remunigerin]

So far you have failed to show any reason pedophilia should be considered a sexual orientation.

 

Why should pedophilia NOT be considered a sexual orientation? This is the right question!

 

I explained it better.

 

Humans have four main type of body: body of prepubescent males, body of prepubescent females, body of women, body of men. So, there are at least four sexual orientations! We have four type of bodies with theirs own peculiar features, and so there are at least four sexual orientations!

 

"Sexual orientation" is about body, and humans have basically four type of bodies: men, women, little girls, little boys.

 

There are differences between men and women, between women and little girls, between women and little boys, between little boys and ltitle girls, between men and little boys.

 

Every attraction towards one of this categories, is a peculiar attraction: a sexual orientation!

 

The basical look of a person is defined by two things: sex and age. Every person in the world has a prefernce of age and sex.

 

You said that preference of sex is a spectrum... you're right!

 

And there is an "age preference spectrum" too. The two extremes of this spectrum are: prepubescent children and adults. Women and men have different features, a different body, a different face. Prepubescent children and adults have a different body, different features, a different face.

 

So the correct question is: why is homosexuality a sexual orientation but NOT pedophilia?? There are as many objective differences between adults and children as between men and women... so, if preferring men rather than women or women rather than men is a sexual orientation, then preferring children rather than adults is a sexual orientation too. Simple and plain!

 

A citation is a quoting of an authoritative source for substantiation. You are making many claims and I would like to be able to verify that your claims are valid. Just because you say it doesn't make it so. You are making the claims. I am just asking you to back them up.

 

If I wrote that sun is hot, would you ask citations?

 

I said an obvious thing: attraction to adults and attraction to children are not the same thing. If you need citations about this.... well... I guess you're trolling!

Edited January 10, 2011 by Remunigerin

[Ringer]

"Sexual orientation" is about body, and humans have basically four type of bodies: men, women, little girls, little boys.

 

There are differences between men and women, between women and little girls, between women and little boys, between little boys and ltitle girls, between men and little boys.

 

Every attraction towards one of this categories, is a peculiar attraction: a sexual orientation!

 

What makes you arbitrarily decide what body types count? What about fat/skinny, tall/short, strong/weak, dark/light. All of which should be a sexual orientation according to my recently decided standards. The fact is you can't arbitrarily decide what constitutes orientation.

 

Sexual orientation is defined as"sexual attraction to one's own sex (homosexual), to the other sex (heterosexual), to both sexes (bisexual), or lack of sexual interest to either sex (asexual)."*

 

The basical look of a person is defined by two things: sex and age. Every person in the world has a prefernce of age and sex.

 

Again, just deciding what you think the basic look is to fit your opinion doesn't mean it's true. Yes everyone has a preference of age and sex, but they have a preference for everything mentioned above as well, so why is it that it is only those two things.

 

You said that preference of sex is a spectrum... you're right!

 

And there is an "age preference spectrum" too. The two extremes of this spectrum are: prepubescent children and adults. Women and men have different features, a different body, a different face. Prepubescent children and adults have a different body, different features, a different face.

 

So the correct question is: why is homosexuality a sexual orientation but NOT pedophilia?? There are as many objective differences between adults and children as between men and women... so, if preferring men rather than women or women rather than men is a sexual orientation, then preferring children rather than adults is a sexual orientation too. Simple and plain!

 

Sexual orientation is not about the age of the cause of attraction, but the gender. There are not as many objective differences between adults and children as men and women. I can almost guarantee that any difference you give I can give one that is as objectively different between two people of the same sex and age. It's only simple and plain because you are assigning labels at will and deciding what words mean. It's easy to make things simple when you assign your own categories.

 

If I wrote that sun is hot, would you ask citations?

 

I said an obvious thing: attraction to adults and attraction to children are not the same thing. If you need citations about this.... well... I guess you're trolling!

Why is it obvious. I can both see when a child, male or female, will grow up to be attractive, although it is an assumption, and when a male is attractive. I want to have sex with neither of these but that doesn't mean that no one will have an attraction to what I see as potentially attractive. You need citations because your presumptions are neither common knowledge nor an agreed upon notion. Citations would help people take you more seriously.

 

*Baur, Karla & Crooks, Robert. Our Sexuality

 

 

[Remunigerin]

What makes you arbitrarily decide what body types count? What about fat/skinny, tall/short, strong/weak, dark/light. All of which should be a sexual orientation according to my recently decided standards. The fact is you can't arbitrarily decide what constitutes orientation

 

You are confusing "sexual orientation" with "preferences".

 

A man is attracted to women -----> this is his sexual orientation.

 

Then he prefers tall, skinny women with brown hairs ----> these are his "preferences"

 

 

A pedophile...

 

A man is attracted to little boys ----> this is his sexual orientation.

 

Then, he prefers blonde, skinny boys -----> this is his preference

 

 

There is a great difference between the sexual orientation and the preferences...

 

The first man prefers women with brown hairs, but he'll be able to have sex with a blonde woman too. Contrarily, he won't be able to have sex with men (or little girls or little boys)

 

 

The second man prefers blonde boys, but he'll be able to turn on with brown boys too. Contrarily, he won't be able to have sex with men (or women, or little girls).

 

Sexual orientation is more strong... much more strong than a simple "preference".

 

 

The attraction that a pedophile has towards children is not only a simple "fetish".. " I prefer little boys, but I still like men". No, there is a very strong line in both senses: pedophiles have repulsion to sex with grown men, and gay men have repulsion to sex with little boys. A pedophile who is attarcted to blonde boys is able to understand a pedophile attracted to brown boys, but he's not able to understand an other man attracted to grown men. 60% of pedophiles attracted to little boys are exclusively attracted to little boys, and 80% don't have any attraction to men.

To my experience, pedophiles attarcted to little girls usually have at least some attraction to women, but pedophiles attracted to little boys tend to be really exclusive, and those who are not exclusive, are often attracted to women but not to men.

 

Why is pedophilia not only a "preference" but a "sexual orientation"?

Well, not only because between pedophilia and gynephilia/androphilia there is empirically a strong line, but also because the differences between a prepubescent child and an adult of the same sex are similar with differences that threre are between men and women.

 

For example...

One difference between men and women is that women have boobs and men not...

 

But is it not the same difference that there is between women and little girls? ---> women have boobs, little girls have not

 

An other difference...

Men have a deeper voice than women: women have an "high" voice, and men have a "deep" and throatly voice.

 

But is it not the same difference that there is between men and little boys?

 

An other one...

Men have facial hairs and hairs in the whole body. Women have little or none hairs.

 

But is it not the same difference that there is between men and little boys?

 

Do I have to go on?

 

 

 

Sexual orientation is defined as"sexual attraction to one's own sex (homosexual), to the other sex (heterosexual), to both sexes (bisexual), or lack of sexual interest to either sex (asexual)."*

 

Well... then I guess that pedophiles and zoophiles don't exist!

 

Yes, every living in the earth has a sex, and so it's obvious that until you'll have sex with a living, you'll have sex with a male or with a female.

 

But this doesn't mean that the discrimination of an attraction is always based on the sex... The attraction of pedophiles, for example, is not based on the sex, but it's primarily based on "the state of developement".

 

Gynephiles and androphiles have an attraction primarily based on the gender: they like features which are directly related to a sex.

 

Pedophiles have an attraction towards some features which are primarily linked with a "state of developement": we can say that pedophiles like the the "androgynous" body. They like the lack of features who define masculine and feminine body. Obviously, pedophile can prefer children of a sex or an other, but their attraction is not based on the sex... contrarly, they have repulsion to the sex... they have repulsion towards features which define the sex.

 

So pedophilia not only is not based on a sex, but it's pratically mutually exclusive with the sex: pedophile are attracted to androginy.

 

To conclusion, the fact that EVERYONE is homosexual or heterosexual, that means he is attracted to ONE sex, it's bullshit. It's like to exclude pedophiles and zoophiles from human sexuality. You can exclude them, if you want, but it not scientifical!

 

 

 

Sexual orientation is not about the age of the cause of attraction, but the gender. There are not as many objective differences between adults and children as men and women. I can almost guarantee that any difference you give I can give one that is as objectively different between two people of the same sex and age.

 

I like the game! Write all the differences you can between men and women: I'm sure that I'll find as many ojective differences between little boys/men and little girls/women as you can find between men and women... except one: the genitals.

 

And then, write all differences you can between little boys and little girls: I'm sure I'll find MORE objective differences between men/little boys and women /little girls than you can find between little boys and little girls.... except one: genitals.

 

Let's go!

 

 

Why is it obvious. I can both see when a child, male or female, will grow up to be attractive, although it is an assumption, and when a male is attractive. I want to have sex with neither of these but that doesn't mean that no one will have an attraction to what I see as potentially attractive. You need citations because your presumptions are neither common knowledge nor an agreed upon notion. Citations would help people take you more seriously.

 

Maybe you can also see when a man is attractive, but this doesn't mean that you're sexually attarcted to men.

 

There is difference between SEXUAL attraction to children and SEXUAL attraction to adults.

 

And by the way are you sure that you can say if (for example) a little boy will be a good-looking man? I'm not sure: usually children change a lot when they grew up, and many beautilful children become horrible adults, and many good-looking adults were ugly children!

Edited January 11, 2011 by Remunigerin

[Remunigerin]

PEDOPHILIA IS A SEXUAL ORIENTATION!!

 

 

"Pedophilia, the sexual attraction to children who have not yet reached puberty, remains a vexing challenge for clinicians and public officials. Classified as a paraphilia, an abnormal sexual behavior, researchers have found no effective treatment. Like other sexual orientations, pedophilia is unlikely to change"

 

"Consensus now exists that pedophilia is a distinct sexual orientation, not something that develops in someone who is homosexual or heterosexual. Some people with pedophilic urges are also attracted to adults, and may act only on the latter urges. Because people with pedophilic urges tend to be attracted to children of a particular gender, they are sometimes described in the literature as heterosexual, homosexual, or bisexual pedophiles. Roughly 9% to 40% of pedophiles are homosexual in their orientation toward children — but that is not the same as saying they are homosexual. Homosexual adults are no more likely than heterosexuals to abuse children."

 

http://www.health.harvard.edu/newsletters/Harvard_Mental_Health_Letter/2010/July/pessimism-about-pedophilia

[DrmDoc]

PEDOPHILIA IS A SEXUAL ORIENTATION!!

 

 

"Pedophilia, the sexual attraction to children who have not yet reached puberty, remains a vexing challenge for clinicians and public officials. Classified as a paraphilia, an abnormal sexual behavior, researchers have found no effective treatment. Like other sexual orientations, pedophilia is unlikely to change"

 

"Consensus now exists that pedophilia is a distinct sexual orientation, not something that develops in someone who is homosexual or heterosexual. Some people with pedophilic urges are also attracted to adults, and may act only on the latter urges. Because people with pedophilic urges tend to be attracted to children of a particular gender, they are sometimes described in the literature as heterosexual, homosexual, or bisexual pedophiles. Roughly 9% to 40% of pedophiles are homosexual in their orientation toward children but that is not the same as saying they are homosexual. Homosexual adults are no more likely than heterosexuals to abuse children."

 

http://www.health.ha...bout-pedophilia

 

Should we consider pedophilia acceptable behavior because of this "orientation" label? Does "orientation" legitimize or justify pedophilia? Homosexual and heterosexual behaviors differ from pedophilia in that they ideally require willing, sexually mature participants. Have you any data regarding the sexual "orientation" of prepubescent children towards adults without adult influence or coercion? Have you reviewed any studies regarding the affects pedophilia has had on children subjected to this behavior? Rather than an objective inquirer, you seem to be interested only in discussions that engender support for pedophilia. Have you no thoughts, comments or care regarding the children?

Edited February 17, 2011 by DrmDoc

[Remunigerin]

Should we consider pedophilia acceptable behavior because of this "orientation" label? Does "orientation" legitimize or justify pedophilia? Homosexual and heterosexual behaviors differ from pedophilia in that they ideally require willing, sexually mature participants. Have you any data regarding the sexual "orientation" of prepubescent children towards adults without adult influence or coercion? Have you reviewed any studies regarding the affects pedophilia has had on children subjected to this behavior? Rather than an objective inquirer, you seem to be interested only in discussions that engender support for pedophilia. Have you no thoughts, comments or care regarding the children?

 

You missed the meaning of the word "sexual orientation"; it has nothing to do with morality!

 

2.orientation - an integrated set of attitudes and beliefs

 

4.orientation - a predisposition in favor of something; "a predilection for expensive cars"; "his sexual preferences"; "showed a Marxist orientation"

 

http://www.thefreedi...com/orientation

 

Adj.1.sexual - of or relating to or characterized by sexuality; "sexual orientation"; "sexual distinctions"

http://www.thefreedi...nary.com/sexual

 

 

So, a sexual orientation is an integrated set of sexual attitudes and a predisposition in favor of something that has to do with sexuality.

 

The sexual orientation describes the direction of your sexual desire.

 

 

Human sexuality can mainly have four directions: towards men, towards women, towards little boys, towards little girls.

 

Like I said, persons who prefer men usually are not attracted to little boys, and persons who prefer women, usually are not attracted to little girls.

 

And many pedophiles are eclusively attracted to children. In particular, pedophile attracted to little boys are usually very much "oriented": 80% of them don't like men at all.

 

Between a prepubescent child and an adult of the same sex there are very strong differences, which are practically as strong as the differences there are between men and women. That's why pedophilia is not a fetish like the preference of the hair color or something like this, but it's a real and defined sexual orientation.

 

Recognizing pedophilia as a sexual orientation is not a benediction to sex with children. It simply means that attraction to adults and attraction to children are two different sexualities. In other words, pedophilia is not a fetish which is complementary to an adult sexual orientation, but an independent sexual orientation.

 

To conclude, I quote a few parts of a text written by Dr James M. Cantor, who explains very well that pedophilia is a seperate attraction.

 

 

"The basic tenet behind describing the human sexual interests under discussion here is that erotic interest in children versus adults is just as integrated into a person as is erotic interest in males versus females. Pedophilic men experience penile erections when they view erotica of children in the same way that teleiophilic men experience erections when they view erotica of adults (e.g., Blanchard et al., 2001). Both gay and straight men show little reaction when viewing erotica of the less interesting age group in the same way that both gay and straight men show little reaction when viewing erotica of the less interesting sex (e.g., Freund et al., 1973; Freund, Watson, & Rienzo, 1989). Thus, describing a man's sexual interest requires naming both the sex and the age that interest him and leads to the terminology above."

 

"Given the precision used by professional sex researchers, the question 'How many gay men are pedophiles?' also evaporates. To ask 'how many gay men are pedophiles' is to ask 'how many of the men with a primary interest in adults have a primary interest in non-adults?' The answer is none."

 

"The scientific error, however, is not in the measurement of sex ratios of victims, but in the failure to recognize that homosexual pedophilia and homosexual teleiophilia are distinct and that humans do not shift between them. Attempts to change age-orientation have been as dismal as attempts to change sex-orientation. As a corollary, among non-specialists there also exists a general failure to recognize heterosexual pedophilia as distinct from heterosexual teleiophilia."

 

"Also embedded in this belief about etiology is that gender-orientation overrides age-orientation. That is, that homosexual pedophilia is most closely linked with homosexual teleiophilia (and that heterosexual pedophilia is most closely linked with heterosexual teleiophilia). The evidence suggests, however, that homosexual pedophilia is most closely linked with heterosexual pedophilia; pedophiles differentiate less between males and females than do teleiophiles, when they receive a psychophysiological test of erotic preference (Freund & Langevin, 1976; Freund et al., 1991)."

 

"Studies of brain function have revealed certain patterns of functioning in normal gay men that differentiate them from straight men (e.g., Wegesin, 1998). Likewise, the brain functioning of pedophiles appears to differ from that of teleiophiles in yet another pattern (e.g., Cantor, Christensen, Klassen, Dickey, & Blanchard, 2001)."

 

http://individual.ut...ntor/blog1.html

Edited February 17, 2011 by Remunigerin

[DrmDoc]

You missed the meaning of the word "sexual orientation"; it has nothing to do with morality!

 

By "sexual orientation" you are indeed describing that which arouses sexual desire and congress. In analogous terms, is a murderous act and its repercussion irrelevant to our discussions when its perpetrator is compelled by sexual desire? Is the sexual abuse of a child truly inconsequential to our discussions? As I previously commented, "...you seem to be interested only in discussions that engender support for pedophilia. Have you no thoughts, comments or care regarding the children?" Well, have you?

Edited February 17, 2011 by DrmDoc

[CaptainPanic]

Or homosexuality. In fact, according to Kinsey, the hetero-homo divide isn't actually a divide at all, but rather a spectrum.

Then we are left with no choice but to build the multidimensional multispectral model of sexual arousal, integrating all the different sexual spectra once and for all !!!

[Remunigerin]

By "sexual orientation" you are indeed describing that which arouses sexual desire and congress. In analogous terms, is a murderous act and its repercussion irrelevant to our discussions when its perpetrator is compelled by sexual desire? Is the sexual abuse of a child truly inconsequential to our discussions? As I previously commented, "...you seem to be interested only in discussions that engender support for pedophilia. Have you no thoughts, comments or care regarding the children?" Well, have you?

 

This is not the right place to discuss about child molestation. Here we discuss about sexual orientations!

 

Your question sounds strange...

"In analogous terms, is a murderous act and its repercussion irrelevant to our discussions when its perpetrator is compelled by sexual desire? Is the sexual abuse of a child truly inconsequential to our discussions?" ----> If you think that rape and murders of women are consequences of heterosexuality... then yes, child molestation and murders of children are consequences of pedophilia.

 

BUt no... I think that these two statements are false and ridiculous!

 

Being a killer or rapist is something that has to do with personal characteristics, and it isn't at all related with sexual orientation. If a black man stole a car, you would say that his action has something to do with his hair color? Persons who create links between personal features and bad actions, are called racists!

 

Many pedophiles are not child rapists, and most child rapists are not pedophiles. A pedophile is someone who is primarily attracted to children, and most child rapists are not. Most child rapists are primarily attracted to adults and they rape children only because it's easier.

 

I'll give a citation about it: " most child molesters are not paedophiles and many paedophiles are not child molesters"

 

http://www.attractedtochildren.org/

 

 

So to conclusion, I think no: child molestation is not directly linked with pedophilia. Even less is murder of children!

 

By the way, it seems that you don't want to consider pedosexuality a sexual orientation because you think that is contrary to a moral law.

 

It's a false argument called: "argument from adverse consequences": "If we allow people to believe the evolutionist doctrine that they are nothing but animals, human civilization will be DESTROYED in a tidal wave of immorality!"

 

http://rationalwiki....loney_Detection

 

----> "If we allow people to believe that pedophilia is a sexual orientation, pedophiles will think that they have the right to have sex with children"

 

Nature and science have nothing to with morality!

Edited February 18, 2011 by Remunigerin

[DrmDoc]

This is not the right place to discuss about child molestation. Here we discuss about sexual orientations!

And this is a science forum rather than a platform for one-sided discussions of topics with tremendous sociological and psychological impact and implications. If we are discussing science rather than some effort to building support for one's personal predilections, then an exchange of perspectives on the sociological and psychological effects of a behavior or "orientation" is indeed part of the science in our discussion.

 

Your question sounds strange...

"In analogous terms, is a murderous act and its repercussion irrelevant to our discussions when its perpetrator is compelled by sexual desire? Is the sexual abuse of a child truly inconsequential to our discussions?" ----> If you think that rape and murders of women are consequences of heterosexuality... then yes, child molestation and murders of children are consequences of pedophilia.

 

BUt no... I think that these two statements are false and ridiculous!

 

Being a killer or rapist is something that has to do with personal characteristics, and it isn't at all related with sexual orientation. If a black man stole a car, you would say that his action has something to do with his hair color? Persons who create links between personal features and bad actions, are called racists!

 

Many pedophiles are not child rapists, and most child rapists are not pedophiles. A pedophile is someone who is primarily attracted to children, and most child rapists are not. Most child rapists are primarily attracted to adults and they rape children only because it's easier.

If you understood my use of the term "analogous," you would know that I was not referencing pedophilia as murder but was attempting to draw a cogent comparision between a behavioral aberrance and its sociological/psychological impact. In relative terms, a discussion of the potentially severe social and psychical impact of a behavioral aberrance is a siginificant aspect of our discussions as responsible scientist.

 

I'll give a citation about it: " most child molesters are not paedophiles and many paedophiles are not child molesters"

 

http://www.attractedtochildren.org/

 

You are referencing a site that clearly lack objectivity in its content and goals. A balance discussion should ideally encompass both sides of an issue. You seem to have taken one side, whereas, I am seeking your perspective of the other.

 

 

"If we allow people to believe that pedophilia is a sexual orientation, pedophiles will think that they have the right to have sex with children"

 

Nature and science have nothing to with morality!

Beyond morality, this "orientation," if acted upon, has sociological and psychological implications exceeding most others in that it compels behaviors that ultimately do not serve the lasting wellbeing of either the oriented or the subjected. Therefore, our discussions should include therapeutic remedies.

Edited February 18, 2011 by DrmDoc

[Remunigerin]

And this is a science forum rather than a platform for one-sided discussions of topics with tremendous sociological and psychological impact and implications. If we are discussing science rather than some effort to building support for one's personal predilections, then an exchange of perspectives on the sociological and psychological effects of a behavior or "orientation" is indeed part of the science in our discussion.

 

It's not a one-sided discussion. I can support all claims I make with citations from researchers and studies about the topic.

 

You are free to believe the stereothypes that you have learned from society (----> pedophile: a fat, old and disgusting man who rapes children), but don't expect that science supports this stereothype.

 

Researchers who have studied pedophilia have found out that there is a difference between a pedosexual and a child molester.

 

Most child molesters are not pedosexuals: they are men who have failed their relationships with adults, and they have sex with children only because they want an hole; they are like heterosexual men who in jail fuck men, but not because they are homosexuals, but because they want an hole.

 

Pedosexuals are usually the opposite: they are primarily attracted to children, and they have sex with adults only to have an hole. Most pedosexuals sublimate their sexual desire with heterosexual sex and relationships with adults. Many of them search for child porn in internet, but they don't have sex with children.

 

Like I said, this is not the right post to discuss about child molestation. Would you want to speak about "man to man" rape in a post about homosexuality?

 

Sexual acts and sexual orientations are two separate things. Even more, are sexual orientations and violence.

 

Actually, it seems that homosexuals and heterosexuals are more dangerous than pedophiles. Infact, like I said most child molesters are heterosexuals and homsoexuals (usually heterosexuals) who don't have success with adults and so they sublimate their sexuality with children. Furthermore, most murders of children are committed by straight persons, and not by pedophiles (of 3000 cases of murders of children, only 50 have a sexual background).

 

 

 

 

In relative terms, a discussion of the potentially severe social and psychical impact of a behavioral aberrance is a siginificant aspect of our discussions as responsible scientist.

 

No, it's not. Here we are discussing about pedosexuality and other sexual orientations, and I have well explained that there isn't a direct link between pedosexuality and child molestation. It seems that you don't like the definition of pedosexuality as a sexual orientation because you think that is like to legitimate sexual acts between adults and children.

 

It's an empty argument: the "argument from adverse consequences" -----> "If we allow people to believe that attraction to children is a sexual orientation, pedophiles will think that they are normal and they have the right to have sex with children".

 

 

 

You are referencing a site that clearly lack objectivity in its content and goals. A balance discussion should ideally encompass both sides of an issue. You seem to have taken one side, whereas, I am seeking your perspective of the other.

 

The site I refer is a scientific site that supports all "strong" claims with studies and citations. I don't see why a scientific site should support false sthereoypes; what do you mean with "both sides"? The topic has two sides: the scientific side and the sthereotypical side. And a scientical site must only consider the first!

 

 

Therefore, our discussions should include therapeutic remedies.

 

There are not therapeutic remedies for pedosexuals. There are therapeutic remedies for child molesters (so they can learn self control), but changing the sexual orientation is practically impossible. THe exclusive thing we can do with pedosexuals is to accept them and show them that they are absolutely accepted in society until they don't molest a child.

The attitude that society has towards pedosexuals is absolutekly wrong: we don't help them if we label pedosexuals as "sick" and/or "disgusting" and/or "monsters".

Edited February 19, 2011 by Remunigerin

[PhDwannabe]

I can support all claims I make with citations from researchers and studies about the topic.

 

Go ahead. Lay them out. Peer-reviewed papers.

 

Make a specific, scientific claim, then make a citation. Then we'll talk about it. It's easy. Go ahead.

[DrmDoc]

It's not a one-sided discussion.

To which I have written:

You seem to have taken one side, whereas, I am seeking your perspective of the other.

You have only espoused views supporting pedophilia as an "orientation," which is indeed one-sided. I was asking if you considered the sociological/psychological impact and implication of this "orientation".

 

You are free to believe the stereothypes that you have learned from society (----> pedophile: a fat, old and disgusting man who rapes children), but don't expect that science supports this stereothype.

Review my comments and you will find that I have expressed no such belief.

 

Researchers who have studied pedophilia have found out that there is a difference between a pedosexual and a child molester.

 

Most child molesters are not pedosexuals: they are men who have failed their relationships with adults, and they have sex with children only because they want an hole; they are like heterosexual men who in jail fuck men, but not because they are homosexuals, but because they want an hole.

So here you are making the distinction that a "pedosexual" differs from a child molester in that a true pedosexual does not have sex with children. Is that correct? If so, why wouldn't he? If the behavior is merely an innocuous sexual orientation, why would or should a pedosexual restrain himself?

 

Pedosexuals are usually the opposite: they are primarily attracted to children, and they have sex with adults only to have an hole. Most pedosexuals sublimate their sexual desire with heterosexual sex and relationships with adults. Many of them search for child porn in internet, but they don't have sex with children.

If I understand correctly, having sexual congress with adults and viewing child pornography are ways a true pedosexual calm his desires? How does viewing pornographic images or other sexually explicit media involving children differ from direct sexual contact? Isn't this child molestation by proxy?

 

Like I said, this is not the right post to discuss about child molestation. Would you want to speak about "man to man" rape in a post about homosexuality?

Homosexuality does not lead to man-rape as pedophilia to child molestation does invariably. Invariably, either directly through contact or indirectly through media viewing, a child must be molested to satisfy a pedophile's sexual desires.

 

Sexual acts and sexual orientations are two separate things. Even more, are sexual orientations and violence.

Then how does one know that he is sexually attracted to children? Isn't arousal a sexual act?

 

No, it's not. Here we are discussing about pedosexuality and other sexual orientations, and I have well explained that there isn't a direct link between pedosexuality and child molestation.

Are you now suggesting that there could be an indirect link?

 

It seems that you don't like the definition of pedosexuality as a sexual orientation because you think that is like to legitimate sexual acts between adults and children.

So, if I understand correctly, the "sexual orientation" label is not an attempt to legitimize pedophilia? Is it your opinion that sexual acts between adults and children can or should be legitimized?

 

The site I refer is a scientific site that supports all "strong" claims with studies and citations. I don't see why a scientific site should support false sthereoypes; what do you mean with "both sides"? The topic has two sides: the scientific side and the sthereotypical side. And a scientical site must only consider the first!

As I wrote:

A balance discussion should ideally encompass both sides of an issue. You seem to have taken one side, whereas, I am seeking your perspective of the other.

Although the referred site was part, my comments regarded our discussion and my impression of bias in your perspective.

 

There are not therapeutic remedies for pedosexuals. There are therapeutic remedies for child molesters (so they can learn self control), but changing the sexual orientation is practically impossible. THe exclusive thing we can do with pedosexuals is to accept them and show them that they are absolutely accepted in society until they don't molest a child.

The attitude that society has towards pedosexuals is absolutekly wrong: we don't help them if we label pedosexuals as "sick" and/or "disgusting" and/or "monsters".

Shouldn't there be? If I understand your perspective, "pedosexuality" involves behaviors that cannot be acted upon directly and if ever a child is involved in satisfying the pedosexual, that should be consider behavioral aberrance. Without a legitimate outlet for the expression of their sexual desires, wouldn't therapy ameliorate what is obviously a frustrating compulsion?

[Remunigerin]

Go ahead. Lay them out. Peer-reviewed papers.

 

Make a specific, scientific claim, then make a citation. Then we'll talk about it. It's easy. Go ahead.

 

Write all my claims that you think should be supported with citations, and I'll try to find them.

 

Finding peer-reviewed in internet is difficult. I should go to the library and look for peer-reviewed books about the topic.

 

By the way, I can cite the opinions of different researchers and the results of differents studies, which say the same things. I'm not the kind of person who believes everything he reads. But when more researchers and more studies say the same things, then to me there is surely something true.

 

I also write in pedo sites to understand better pedosexuality: I ask questions and open polls. Then I compare the results of different polls and I look for scientific researchers about the examined topic; when more of my polls, more experts and more results of scientific researches say the same thing, I consider it true.

 

I can tell you that I'm not the kind of person who invents bullshits. But you surely can understand that a discussion in a forum has many limits.

 

I'll try to find citations for you, but if you really want to learn something about the topic, go to the library, and I'm sure that in books you'll read practically the same things I am writing here. Obviously the book must be written by an expert. The worst thing you can do is read a book which was written by an anti-pedophile. Antis are the primary cause of disinformation about pedophilia.

 

 

To which I have written:

 

You have only espoused views supporting pedophilia as an "orientation," which is indeed one-sided. I was asking if you considered the sociological/psychological impact and implication of this "orientation".

 

You should ask me more precise questions: what do you exactly mean with sociological/psychological impact?

 

 

 

So here you are making the distinction that a "pedosexual" differs from a child molester in that a true pedosexual does not have sex with children. Is that correct?

 

No, it isn't. What I am saying is very easy and obvious.

 

"A black man steals a car" --------> Is the man black? Yes!

Did the man steal a car? Yes!

Did the man steal the car because he is black? No, he stole the car because he's a stealer. Maybe there is an indirect link between the two things: the average black man in USA is poorer than the average white man in USA, and so black men could be more predisposed to steal. BUT not because they are black, but because they are poor.

 

A man can be black and a stealer, but the two things are not directly linked. Infact a steler is not necessarily black, and a black man is not necessarily a stealer.

 

 

"A pedosexual rapes a child" ------> Is the man pedosexual? Yes!

Did the man rape a child? Yes!

Did the man rape the child because he is pedosexual? No, he raped the child because he's a rapist, and since he's a pedosexual, he raped a child and not a woman.

 

A man can be both a pedosexual and a rapist, but the two things are not directly linked. Infact a child rapist is not necessarily pedosexual, and a pedosexual is not necessarily a child rapist.

 

 

Creating categories and associating sthereotypes to them is the main base of every form of racism. Racism is the most irrational and stupid thing of the human brain. CATEGORIES DON'T EXIST!! There are only single and unrepeatable individuals with different brains who commit different actions.

 

Associating pedosexuals with child molesters is a form of racism, because pedosexuals are not a category (categories have been invented by humans), but single persons with a different brain who commit different actions. A pedosexual can be the most wonderful person of the world, and an other pedosexual could be the worst person of the world.

 

 

If so, why wouldn't he? If the behavior is merely an innocuous sexual orientation, why would or should a pedosexual restrain himself?

 

Sexual orientations and sexual acts are two separate things.

 

Sexual acts with children are wrong, but sexual attraction to children (pedosexuality) is not.

 

 

If I understand correctly, having sexual congress with adults and viewing child pornography are ways a true pedosexual calm his desires?

 

Yes, most pedosexuals have heterosexual sex and relationships with adults. Many (most?) of them watch child porn and don't have sex with children; they sublimate their pedosexuality with child porn.

 

 

How does viewing pornographic images or other sexually explicit media involving children differ from direct sexual contact? Isn't this child molestation by proxy?

 

No, it isn't! Usually pedophiles don't pay for child porn, but they download it for free. So they don't give money to anyone! Most child porn is home-made: pedophiles who have sex with children take pics and movies while they're having sex with the child. And then they share pics and movies in internet with other pedophiles, who don't pay for it.

The abuser is the man who produces child porn; pedophiles who watch it are not abusers. You can't abuse anyone with a "click".

 

Child porn is not a market: infact most child porn is home-made!

 

 

 

Are you now suggesting that there could be an indirect link?

 

Yes. If a man has sex with an other man, he could be homosexual, but not necessarily!

 

He could have sex with a man for money.

 

He could have sex with a man because he got LSD and he thinks that the man he is fucking is an attractive woman.

 

He could have sex with a man only because he wants to prove it, and maybe he sees that he doesn't like homosexual sex.

 

He could have sex with men because he can't have sex with women.

 

Or.... maybe he is attracted to men.

 

 

Many child molesters are not pedosexuals: they simply want an hole.

 

Since many pedosexuals are not child molesters and many child molesters are not pedosexuals, there isn't a direct link between the two. But obviously the sexual desire of a pedosexual can drive the man into sexual acts with children... BUT NOT NECESSARILY.

 

 

 

 

So, if I understand correctly, the "sexual orientation" label is not an attempt to legitimize pedophilia? Is it your opinion that sexual acts between adults and children can or should be legitimized?

 

I can't reply to your answer. In our society sexual acts with children are considered a bad thing. But I wonder if it really is a bad thing. I am quite sure that in the world there are persons who had sex with an adult when they were children and are happy with it. I'm also sure that in the world there are many persons who had sex with adults when they were children and are NOT happy with it.

 

But we can't know what is the percentage of people who are happy with it and that of people who are not happy with it.

 

To reply to your question I need resarches, but I'm quite sure that there isn't any research about the topic. People simply assume that sexual acts with children are always a violence because society says so.

What I can say is that I have read positive testimonials about sex in childhood, and so I know that in some cases is not a violence.

Edited February 20, 2011 by Remunigerin

[DrmDoc]

You should ask me more precise questions: what do you exactly mean with sociological/psychological impact?

 

How pedophilia impact the life, mind, and emotion of both children and society. And then there's this exchange:

 

So here you are making the distinction that a "pedosexual" differs from a child molester in that a true pedosexual does not have sex with children. Is that correct?

No, it isn't. What I am saying is very easy and obvious…."A pedosexual rapes a child" ------> Is the man pedosexual? Yes!

Did the man rape a child? Yes!

Did the man rape the child because he is pedosexual? No, he raped the child because he's a rapist, and since he's a pedosexual, he raped a child and not a woman.

 

So, not all pedosexuals molest children; however, those who do molest children chose them because of their "orientation." Is that correct?

 

A man can be both a pedosexual and a rapist, but the two things are not directly linked. Infact a child rapist is not necessarily pedosexual, and a pedosexual is not necessarily a child rapist.

When is sex between an adult and child not considered rape?

 

A pedosexual can be the most wonderful person of the world, and another pedosexual could be the worst person of the world…Sexual acts with children are wrong, but sexual attraction to children (pedosexuality) is not.

 

Among all your statements, this is the first time you've made such a direct declaration...interesting. Do you understand why they are wrong?

 

And then again, there is this exchange:

How does viewing pornographic images or other sexually explicit media involving children differ from direct sexual contact? Isn't this child molestation by proxy?

No, it isn't! Usually pedophiles don't pay for child porn, but they download it for free. So they don't give money to anyone! Most child porn is home-made: pedophiles who have sex with children take pics and movies while they're having sex with the child. And then they share pics and movies in internet with other pedophiles, who don't pay for it. The abuser is the man who produces child porn; pedophiles who watch it are not abusers. You can't abuse anyone with a "click".

 

Perhaps you didn't understand my use of the words, "by proxy." Whether or not a pedophile or pedosexual pays for child porn and whether that porn is home-made, that individual is engaging vicariously in the sexual violation of a child. When an individual derives pleasure from pornographic images of children, that individual is deriving pleasure from the sexual molestation of children. Although the pedosexual may not be the abuser, the actual abuser becomes the pedosexual's agent when the pedosexual views the abuser's pornographic material.

 

Child porn is not a market: infact most child porn is home-made!

 

In your words, "Sexual acts with children are wrong". Are you suggesting that "home-made" material involving sexual acts with children are acceptable?

 

I can't reply to your answer. In our society sexual acts with children are considered a bad thing. But I wonder if it really is a bad thing. I am quite sure that in the world there are persons who had sex with an adult when they were children and are happy with it. I'm also sure that in the world there are many persons who had sex with adults when they were children and are NOT happy with it.

 

But we can't know what is the percentage of people who are happy with it and that of people who are not happy with it.

 

To reply to your question I need resarches, but I'm quite sure that there isn't any research about the topic. People simply assume that sexual acts with children are always a violence because society says so.

What I can say is that I have read positive testimonials about sex in childhood, and so I know that in some cases is not a violence.

 

Have you any testimony from children who willingly—without adult influence, urging, or coercion—engaged in sexual contact with an adult? If you do, is it likely that a prepubescent child has the sexual maturity in mind, body, and emotion to independently and deliberately initiate such behavior?

Edited February 23, 2011 by DrmDoc

[PhDwannabe]

Write all my claims that you think should be supported with citations, and I'll try to find them.

All of them.

 

Finding peer-reviewed in internet is difficult.

Nope.

 

I should go to the library and look for peer-reviewed books about the topic.

Yup.

 

I can tell you that I'm not the kind of person who invents bullshits.

Oh?

 

if you really want to learn something about the topic, go to the library

Rather not.

 

The worst thing you can do is read a book which was written by an anti-pedophile. Antis are the primary cause of disinformation about pedophilia.

I'll try to keep that in mind.

[Remunigerin]

All of them.

 

You have to specify about what do you want citations.

 

Some of the things I said are obvious, other are less obvious. But I can't know what is obvious and what is not obvious to you, and I can't spend hours to find citations for every word I have written. Be more precise, please! Which of my claims do you think have to be proved?

[PhDwannabe]

You have to specify about what do you want citations.

 

Some of the things I said are obvious, other are less obvious. But I can't know what is obvious and what is not obvious to you, and I can't spend hours to find citations for every word I have written. Be more precise, please! Which of my claims do you think have to be proved?

 

Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. Why don't you start with the claims that seem to annoy the highest percentage of the thread responder population.

 

Oh, and we're not proving them. Or disproving them. You're just supporting them. Or, trying to.

[Ringer]

1.)Men are a category of persons.

Women are a category of persons.

Little girls are a category of persons.

Little boys are a category of persons.

Animals are a category of livings.

 

Corps are not a category of persons.

2.)Yes, and pedophilia is not a fetish, is a sexual orientation. A fetish is complementary to a sexual orientation. Pedophilia is not complementary to a sexuality... it's an independent sexuality. And unlike a fetish, which is only sexual arousal, pedophilia means also "romantical attraction", so pedophilia it's a sexual orientation, and not a fetish!

3.)Being attracted to women, doesn't mean to be attracted to men, right? So there isn't any link between the two attractions.

4.)You missed the meaning of the word "sexual orientation"; it has nothing to do with morality!

2.orientation - an integrated set of attitudes and beliefs

 

4.orientation - a predisposition in favor of something; "a predilection for expensive cars"; "his sexual preferences"; "showed a Marxist orientation"

 

http://www.thefreedi...com/orientation

 

Adj.1.sexual - of or relating to or characterized by sexuality; "sexual orientation"; "sexual distinctions"

http://www.thefreedi...nary.com/sexual

 

 

So, a sexual orientation is an integrated set of sexual attitudes and a predisposition in favor of something that has to do with sexuality.

 

The sexual orientation describes the direction of your sexual desire. (not a from a web dictionary, from a reputable scientific source).

That only took me about 30 seconds, I'm sure I can find more after you provide sources for these.

[zapatos]

You have to specify about what do you want citations.

 

Some of the things I said are obvious, other are less obvious. But I can't know what is obvious and what is not obvious to you, and I can't spend hours to find citations for every word I have written. Be more precise, please! Which of my claims do you think have to be proved?

How about this one?

 

Pedophiles are not killers and don't hurt anyone. A pedophile is only a person primarily attracted to children.

[Marat]

In Ancient Greece, it was not only considered normal for adult males to have sex with adolescent boys, but it was even regarded as exercising a positive, mentoring influence on the young boys to help introduce them to adult society. Since this style of upbringing produced what many cultural historians regard as the greatest development of human culture ever achieved -- the Age of Pericles -- it doesn't seem that there is anything transculturally harmful about adult-young adolescent sexual relations, though no doubt if the society goes into a panic over those activities, it would make them psychologically harmful.

 

But as for the earlier classification debate in this thread, the fact that Ancient Greek males who had sexual relations with young boys also married adult women suggests that attraction to underage males is not inconsistent with attraction to adult females if we are considering whether those preferences can constitute a unified type. Although perhaps that assessment can be limited by noting that Ancient Greek males, even when they were married, didn't take their relationships with women very seriously, and social bonds with other males were more intimate. For example, the first thing Socrates did when he was preparing to commit suicide was to dismiss his wife and ask his male friends to remain.