-963
This is probably going to be very controversial, but if sexualities such as gay and bi are supported, then sexualities such as pedophilia and necrophilia should be supported too, right? I'm not saying I WANT or SUPPORT pedophilia or necrophilia, and I have absolutely nothing against homosexuals, but following our own rules, all sexualities should be allowed, amirite?
No. Homosexuality is (most of the time) between two consenting adults, and if it is, it doesn't hurt anyone. Pedophilia is between one consenting adult and a child who is too young to give informed consent. Necrophilia is between one consenting adult and a corpse that can't give consent. It's way different.
So if I give someone consent, it's okay for them to bang me when I die?
I suppose.
Well then
http://myfacewhen.com/160/
Isn't that insulting of some mature children's intelligence? I've never understood why there's not a world-wisdom test you can take as a child to gain legal adult status.
Like emancipation?
Which you can only have once you turn 16 if your parents are proven in a court of law to be irresponsible and unable to properly care for you.
It's a matter of frontal lobe size...it doesn't fully develop until well after age 18 (fyi it's the decision making part of your brain)
Ok so, what about adults with small frontal lobes? Child or adult, both are humans.
Most children's are still developing...so later in life hopefully they would not make the same decision
It's called necroPHILIA and pedoPHILIA for a reason. They are not sexualities, they are fetishes. HomoSEXUALITY, biSEXUALITY and heteroSEXUALITY are all sexualites.
Yeah, I capitalize words for emphasis.
I repeat words for emphasis. EMPHASIS.
Somehow, it made SEXUALITY look sexier.
Illegal fetishes... that sounds funny.
There are many more, as rule 34 would dictate, but generally you wouldn't hear about them because they're so generally percieved as 'eww'.
What if Ihave a fetish for women?
Then you are a heterosexual.
I think for some words, sexuality and philia could be interchangeable. It's just what whoever named the concepts chose to name them.
Examples of words that could be interchangeable? Any sexuality that I am aware of involves the consent of two or more parties. All of those sexualities actually end in the word "sexuality."
Fetishes can happen with the consent of both parties, too. If I tell my boyfriend to shit on my chest and lick it off, it's like he's been waiting his whole life to do so. That's theoretical, of course.
I mean Bisexuality doesn't care about gender. And then ageless love (20 yr old w/ 70) is probably labeled as a philia, but it could still be sexuality if whoever labeled it chose to.
I think it only counts as a sexuality if it refers to what sex (or sexes) you are attracted too.
Since things like pedophilia, necrophilia, and your desire for your boyfriend to shit on your chest refer what state you like your partners to be in they would be fetishes. I think in most cases the word fetish just has a negative connotation. Being over the legal age of consent and being attracted to old people would be considered a fetish like pedophilia, but the fact that it is a fetish doesn't make it wrong. The thing that makes certain fetishes wrong is the consent issue.
I, for one, have a candy fetish. I am attracted to the thought of using sweets to stimulate my partner. That can be compared to pedophilia because they are attractions to specific ideas, not to a certain sex.
Idk if that makes sense... It did in my head.
"I, for one, have a candy fetish. I am attracted to the thought of using sweets to stimulate my partner." -pikabeau
thank you for that.
You're welcome.
Candy fetish? That's... awesome XD
this made me think that in the 20 yr old with the 70 yr old, you are comparing it to necrphilia. hating on the elderly is not cool.
Pedophilia + committed relationship = gateway to necrophilia
I'm not hating on the elderly, I am just comparing two fetishes.
said the liar
and homosexuality and heterosexuality can happen without the consent of both parties. It's called RAPE
How about gay underaged sex with a corpse?
....why not have MULTIPLE CORPSES? Share the love!
Simon prefers monogomous gay underaged sex with a corpse it seems.
It's the issue of consent, as Wizard said above ^
It would have been interesting if you'd said polygamy instead...
I say legalize polygamy. I see no problem with it.
I agree, but for whatever reason it's more controvertial than gay marriage and I doubt it's going to be legalized anywhere in the states in the near future.
Which annoys me to no end. They're not hurting anyone by being married to more than one person. People just have problems wrapping their tiny, pathetic little minds around the idea, but stand up for gay marriage even though most of the same arguments can be used for each.
I don't think polygamy should be legal. It doesn't mean I can't 'wrap my tiny, pathetic little mind around the idea'.. It's just that it seems wrong to me. It's my opinion.
But why? I mean, if consenting adults want to get married, why not?
Because everyone's idea of polygamy is one cruel, over-powering man marrying a bunch of young girls bred to be his wife in a crazy town
Well to me, it sounds like they're all in in for the sex. I get that they're consenting to it.
What if one of them has an STD? They all get one.
And they say that there's one person for you, someone who will love you unconditionally forever. Does she really love all her husbands? Fraud marriage is illegal.
Again, it's my opinion.
If they say that there is one person for you, why is it that people can divorce and remarry? And somebody can have a fraud marriage marrying just one person, too, should we ban marriage in general?
They divorce because they thought they were the one, but they weren't. Let's say there is a man married to 5 women. If there's one person for everyone, there's about 20% chance that he loves all of them. For a man marrying only one women, the chance is about 100%. But then again it's just chance and statistics, and those can be false.
Not a single bit of that comment made sense.
Well, I don't believe in the "one person for everyone" crap. I mean... If you're with one person until their death, and then you remarry and are with that person until you die, you loved them both, no? And I believe that people can love more than one person.
The point about STDs is completely invalid, if one of them has and STD and the others don't know about, they're all stupid and the person with the STD is a complete twat. If anything, there would be less spreading of diseases seeing as how if you marry or plan to marry someone, chances are you would know if they had a sexual disease. This is opposed to if you're just having casual sex with someone and one of your partners or someone else's partners has an STD.
there's not one person for EVERYONE; there's a type of sexuality called "polyamorous" where people actually fall in love with multiple people at the same time. it's not as common as your basic hetero/homo/bisexuality, but just as normal. people like that might have two or three live-in partners at once & be in loving relationships with all of them. why can't they get married?
I think it's wrong too/ But it's not my place to impose my will on others.
What is wrong about loving or wanting to be with more than one person? I'm just curious. I don't see a problem with it.
What is wrong with wanting to be with or loving more than one person? I'm just curious because I don't see a problem with it if everyone in the relationship is consenting of it.
That's so strange to me that it's illegal. I personally wouldn't want to share a husband, but that's my personal choice. If someone chooses to marry someone who already has a wife (or husband, polygamy goes both ways) then that does nothing to hurt me or anyone else. The obvious issues arrive with people marrying multiple people without them knowing about it.
Yeah but that can still happen today, bigamy laws cover it
I don't know...Utah might sneak it in...
Perhaps not in the future...but what about the past? Instead of fighting for polygamist rights, lets focus all our money and attention into building a time machine that can go at least as far back as the 1800s.
futer*
"What's the punishment for polygamy? Having more than one wife."
Pretty sure you're allowed to live in a polygamous relationship, but not allowed to get legally married because you can exploit, tax laws and welfare etc. Also a lot of polygamous communities get into trouble for breaking other laws such as not sending their children to school, underage marriage and sex and also high instances of domestic violence.
beat me to it. Good job
The problem is that polygamy is just ASKING for a drastic increase in crimes of passion, and devalues the purpose of marriage to being pointless.
Yeah, polygamy would have made a more interesting debate. Like KittyNinja said, if a bunch of adults want to be in a relationship and know what they're getting into, why not.
The thing is that there are actually some substantial arguments against legalizing polygamy. Unlike gay marriage, polygamy really would affect society. If 20% of women were married to 10% of men, then the remaining 90% of men would have to compete for 80% of women. I don't think it's enough to justify banning it, but it is something to think about.
I'm think more of polyamory, which would be adults of any sex in a more than two person relationship.
But, yeah, I do agree that there are arguments against it, like how children would be raised in such an environment, etc., and that's why it would be a better debate than paedophilia.
Polygamy is one dude with multiple wives, polyandry is one woman with multiple husbands, and polyamory is a more than two person relationship with people of any sex.
But, yeah, in most contexts I've heard polygamy used to refer to any of those, so maybe I'm just nitpicking the right terms.
Also Eric, you're a smart guy, can I ask your opinion on something I was thinking about a while ago?
http://degeneratetrash.blogspot...hole-show.html
Basically that the legal benefits available to people in marriages should be available for everyone to assign a next of kin, regardless of whether they're blood related to them, or whether they're in a relationship with them.
Ok, after the link I typed: "Basically that the legal benefits available to people in marriages should be available for everyone to assign a next of kin, regardless of whether they're blood related to them, or whether they're in a relationship with them."
And thanks, I'm actually doing a series on posts on something similar soon.
The touch site is weird sometimes and it's actually cut off in the middle of the line, so I can see the first five words or so but that's it. And yeah it makes sense to me, although like Polygamy I don't see it happening anytime soon. It could probably be set up in way similar to how we write wills, except there would be no need to keep it a secret...
Well, that can be solved by legalizing polyandry as well.
But there are also more homosexual men than women, so that would even it out some, too. And you have to remember that there is polygamy where the woman is married to more than one man. I think the men are usually brothers, but I could be wrong on that.
You're right! This is very controversial!
LOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOL
Like everyone else said, homosexuality and bisexuality (and polygamy or polyamory) aren't bad, because they're sex and relationships between adults.
Having sex with a child is RAPE, full fucking stop.
I'd say necrophilia is immoral because it's not just an object - like, someone have a fetish for balloons or stuffed animals isn't the same as having a fetish for a dead body. And, you'd have to break the law to obtain one.
Would you say that polygamy is usually done for religious reasons?
IDK that much about it, to be honest. Like, I mostly use the word polyamory when talking about sex and relationships, to mean a relationship between more than two people. The thing that comes to mind when I hear "polygamy" is Mormonism, but I honestly don't know that much about it.
Well, because it seems like most polygamist relationships are because of religious reasons (like the sect of mormons who broke away). Usually they end up creating or becoming a part of a whole culture. When you involve yourself with polygamy, it's usually one man and several women. This can lead to sexism, which it usually does in the breakaway mormon faction. Because of other religious beliefs, they tend to have many children, and only the man works, which leads to economic struggle. Many times the man is still looking for new wives, so he regards any sons as a potential threat. The women have constant jealousy problems. (In the extreme, a society of pure polygamists, the gene pool would be extremely limited). There is also a limited supply of women, so there tend to be problems with older men marrying underage girls. It just leads to a lot of negative repercussions, and a whole culture. Which is why, polygamy has been steadily declining. (I watch the Discovery channel too much). When you look at things like polygamy, you can't just look at, oh consenting adults, it's cool, you have to look at the actual outcomes of it longterm.
Yeah, that's what me and Breakfastfan touched on a bit before - that polygamy actually is debatable, compared to paedophilia. Also, I said in a comment a bit down that as well as being adults and consenting, you do have to consider the impact on society and other people.
But, yeah, all of what you said does make a good point. As I said, I don't know much about religious polygamy, but I do know a bit about modern polyamory.
I just have serious doubts about being able to fully devote romantic love, fully, to multiple people at the same time. I just don't think of it as a good idea.
People really just need to think about whether or not what they're doing will affect other people. If children are involved, it definitely will.
Did you know that 95% of child molesters were molested themselves? Isn't that sad? As many as one in three girls, and one in seven boys go through it. Pedophilia is not something anyone should try to advocate. It's not even comparable!
Oh, when I said "polygamy actually is debatable, compared to paedophilia" I meant that "polygamy is debatable, compared to paedophilia which ISN'T debatable, because every decent person knows it's wrong".
Yeah, I've never been interested in a non-monogamous relationship, or with more than one person. Thought about it a few times, but definitely not for me.
And, yeah, I've never thought about polygamy in small religious communities, like what you were talking about - communities such as those aren't common in Australia.
I knew what you meant, I was talking about what the post what trying to say, about it being comparable.
Mormons are very common, here, in America. There's also a lot of prejudice against Mormons, based upon the erroneous notion that they still practice polygamy. The Mormon church outlawed it. So I decided to actually learn about something that's kind of a big issue here.
Obviously, not all of the sect that still practices polygamy also practices underage marriage, but there still is a bit of a disturbing society that is created. Luckily, it's in the decline.
I think that a lot of people who are in polyamorous relationships are not looking at love correctly, or are in it for the wrong reasons. What's you take on this? I know you said that you have more knowledge about this compared to religious polygamy...?
Well, basically polyamory is the idea that you can love more than one person at a time, and that many people are so used to monogamy that they see is as the only option, when having a relationship with multiple people can and does work.
There's also different types, like consensual non-monogamy, and the "V" relationship, where one person is dating two people, both of whom know about other, but those two people aren't dating.
And, like, it's become more common among young people, and like I said, religious communities and polygamy isn't common where I live, so I've never really thought about polygamy/amory in the way that you put forth.
But yeah, I know that I personally don't want that type of relationship, but that isn't to say that it couldn't work for others - obviously there'd be a lot of jealously thing to work though and all, but I've always been curious about how humans would be if we weren't conditioned into certain ways - like, if monogamy wasn't consider the absolute norm for a relationship in society.
I just don't think that would truly work in the long run. Nor would it be ideal for raising children. I think humans were meant to live their lives with one person. It's hard to have a heart that's divided.
Meh, I dunno. But I don't reckon in the 21st century there is any way that humans are "meant to live". I'm a bit of a social constructionist in regards to a lot of things, and I do wonder what common option would be if we weren't socialised to believe the monogamy was the norm.
But I do think there would be a hell of a lot of difficulties, particularly with children, but again, I dunno if having two parents would be dramatically different from having three parents. Like, contrary to popular belief, most polyamory relationships aren't all about sex, they're also what monogamous relationships are about - love, caring, building a life together, etc.
When I say meant to live, I mean based on emotional evolution.
I also think that monogamy is the norm because it works well. It's easy to have a two-person partnership. Only two people can biologically have a child together. It's hard to spread affection and love equally with several different romantic partners. Say someone starts to feel neglected? Plus when two people stay together, now through marriage, they tend to complement each other. Yin and yang and all that. I just really don't see them lasting. People get jealous. People as a species mate for life (unless the split up/divorce). It's what the collectively like to do. I'm Catholic so I maybe have a bias, because I believe that the reason to get married, is to have children, and that to have children, you should get married. But it just seems to be what works for humans.
I also don't care for relationships purely based on sex; I don't care if they're even monogamous. Love is the biggest part of sex for humans. We aren't merely animals.
I don't see why it wouldn't be ideal for raising children. Sure it might be strange to imagine knowing your father/mother is doing the deed with someone other than your biological mother/father whilst doing the deed with you biological mother/father, but if that is the way you grew up, you probably wouldn't see any problem with it. It would be normal.
You would most likely have more siblings, and parental figures than the average child today, but is that really a bad thing? I think it would be interesting, you would have more opinions to hear, more people to go to when you need help, more people who you would have to learn to live with, you probably wouldn't be obsessed over like most children today, who have MAYBE one sibling and you would most likely be tougher.
I'm sure there would be problems with polygamists having children, but it has worked in the past right? And who is to say that these problems would be worse than children growing up with one parent, no parents, fighting parents, no siblings or lots of siblings?
It doesn't work. That's what I'm saying. It creates a culture that is disturbing.
It isn't ideal for raising human children. Which is the reason human culture hasn't evolved into it.
It creates sexism, the man is usually in charge and the only man in the relationship. He treats his sons as threats. There aren't enough women. It just does not work. It also isn't a lifestyle, so much as a religious choice and belief with other religious teachings defining how it works.
Your trying to as "progressive' but in actuality, society is progressing passed polygamy. It's in the decline for a reason. The children don't want it for themselves, or their children.
Humans mate in couples, they are meant to live as couple. We aren't just animals, but we are the type of "animal" that mates in pairs, like penguins or wolves. THAT is what works for us as a species.
I don't think any family "works." You just presume it is disturbing because you find it to be wrong. It isn't always one man, though that is often the case. You are stereotyping this.
Scratch what I said before, you can't use the past as an example because the scenario was different, different things were allowed and accepted.
Yes, in the past, and still today, the men were abusive, but that doesn't just limit itself to polygamy. Plenty of women were abused because that was considered okay.
I suppose most people presume that since men in polygamist relationships were abusive, polygamy must, automatically, cause abuse. I don't think that is the case. Sure, like any marriage, there is the possibility for abuse.
Polygamy is declining but I hardly think it is because it is a bad idea, not that I would partake in it. It is declining because some powerful people with their own opinions started to oppose against it. That hardly makes it bad.
If they are all aware of the situation and accept it, what is the harm? Yes humans mate in couples and that still happens in a polygamist relationship. It isn't like they just stop evolution and stop mating in pairs there is just... more cou...
couples. As long as we are still mating, the scenarios in which we mate should not matter. Also to address your comment below. In any mating relationship it isn't just choosing a lifestyle for themselves. Whether you like or not no child is going to grow up in the same situation. The only reason polygamy is considered a problem is because people, like you, are making it one. If people would just accept it there would be no reason... for the children to be extremely affected by their parents' relationships.
The only reason children would feel disgraced or insulted by their parents' relationships isn't because it is bad but because people think of it as wrong. Take the show Sister Wives. The only reason those children are being ostracised is because other people are judging the way the family works. The parents aren't causing them trouble, society is. Society and its prejudice ways.
Side note, what the hell does "Your trying to as 'progressive'" even mean?
That sounds rather like a statement of opinion rather than fact.
what you say may be true, but i don't think that justifies keeping it illegal. even if you have legitimate reasons to disagree with it, your disagreeing with it doesn't mean people shouldn't be allowed to choose this lifestyle,
It's illegal because of what it creates, and the possible economic strain. And they shouldn't choose the lifestyle because it's not ethical or logical. It has so many negative components, that it's not justifiable. It also isn't just about two people choosing a lifestyle for themselves, they're choosing it for their children too.
what you're trying to do, though, is legislate morality. "It also isn't just about two people choosing a lifestyle for themselves, they're choosing it for their children too."
common argument against gay marriage. "It has so many negative components, that it's not justifiable."why do they need to justify it to you? it's their lives, & they aren't hurting anyone. i'm not buying your "economic strain" argument; somebody else posted something about the different types of homophobia, & your this economic thing is reminding me of that (although i know you aren't talking about homosexuality; it's just the same sort of prejudice). also, why would you bar this from people who are polyamorous? i know you've said it "doesn't seem like a good idea to you" & you "don't think they're looking at love correctly," or whatever, but that sounds to me like you just don't understand it. just because you don't understand something doesn't make it wrong.It's not the same. Being gay and molesting someone are two different things.
When did anyone mention molestation?
Pedophilia is child molestation and I'm also pretty sure Necrophilia is also a type nonconsential touching.
Pedophilia can lead to child molestation, it doesn't equal it.
Pedophilia is ATTRACTION to a child.
Molestation is molesting someone.
Okay that's a little (A LOT) ridiculous. But if they legalize gay marriage, shouldn't they legalize polygamy? Like the people on Sister Wives. "Love is love." I mean, as long as there were no underage marriages, of course.
That's exactly what I'm saying. If a bunch of consenting adults want to get married, why shouldn't we let them? It's just ignorant and wrong.
You capitalize words for emphasis too?
I say that it should be legal, providing that the other wife/wives know about it and give(s) consent. Honestly, having it stay illegal is dangerous. Even if one disagrees with polygamy, it should be legal because children suffering abuse in polygamous families are afraid to go to the police because they've been raised in hiding from law enforcement. Children are afraid that if they tell police their situation, their entire family will end up in jail.
if someone was to have sex with my dead body I would haunt the fucker. That is all
Society makes me not want to agree with this, but my own mind does question, why did we draw the line here? Who decided what is okay and what isn't?
I think the lines should be drawn:
Over the age of consent (16 in most places)
All partners consenting, and being aware of what exactly they are consenting to, either sex or the relationship
Impact on society/other people - for example, two consenting adults having sex in a public place would impact on the people in public.
I guess you're right, and so are the boundaries. I think part of what is confusing is that we are still animals with instincts.
Yeah, but I don't think that instinct = moral. For example, in nature, male animals have sex with any female in their sight, but it is immoral and illegal for a man to have sex with a woman without her consent.
True, and that's what separates us from them, the animals. We can compare right and wrong. But a lot of what we view as right and wrong is just someone else's idea. Usually these morals are right, but what about the controversial ones, such as homosexuality? It's become more accepted overtime. In the future, the same could happen to other things that we view as immoral today
Yeah, I agree, but I don't see things like paedophilia or necrophilia becoming moral any time in the future, whereas I can see things like laws against married more than one person being relaxed.
Necrophilia I can't even comprehend. Not natural. Pedophilia, I assume is wrong to you because the child doesn't have full knowledge to consent, right?
And, yeah, I don't see natural as being the same as moral.
Like, let's say a guy has a fetish for stuffed animals - if he buys a teddy bear and goes home and has sex with it, there's pretty much no problem there - it's a bit weird, but no harm done.
Whereas I don't see a dead body as being the same as an object.
Sex is an instinct for repopulation and to continue our species, so I'm confused on how someone could be attracted to a dead body, and as far as I know, it doesn't happen in other species. But the same goes for pedophilia, for obvious reasons. Homosexuals cannot reproduce but I do know that it does happen in other species, irrelevant? Anyway, can I ask a hypothetical question based on what you just said about a child's body being underdeveloped?
Sex isn't just for reproduction. Sex is for pleasure, and sex is to connect with other human beings, etc. I think I said this in a post yesterday, but it is benefical to the human race if not every human reproduces.
And, sure I'll have a go at the hypothetical. About the child's body, women used to be married off a few month after their first menstral cycle, as their body was now able for them to reproduce, so they were considered of marrying age, but we now know that being able to reproduce doesn't make one mentally able to make adult decisions.
So who are we to deny someone pleasure? Hypothetical: one of the people born with the genetic mutation that effects growth and hormones to where they never go through puberty. What is your opinion, morally, on someone with the body of a child but the mind of an adult?
If they're 16 (or, if the age of consent is 18, then 18) then sure.
If they don't have a mental handicap (which is a whole 'nother issue) than an adult should be allowed to have sex.
But, and all people with physical handicaps know this, they would have to have sex in regards to their ability. For example, if the person was female, penis-in-vagina sex would be out if their vagina/vulva hasn't developed enough for it not to hurt, but they could still have oral sex and clit stimulation, etc.
If they're over the legal age of consent, and don't have a mental handicap, then they're still an adult, just as a person in a wheelchair is still an adult, and can consent to sexual activity.
Also, I disagree with "deny someone pleasure". Sex isn't a right, especially not for someone underage, but someone underage has the right to be protected.
So to sum this conversation up, you agree with today's morals (assuming homosexuality is considered moral, not sure, religion is another story)?
Yes, I agree with what I said before - when it comes to sex and relationships, if all people involved are over the age of consent, if they all give clear consent and are aware of what they are consenting to, and if it doesn't harm anyone else or any other parties, I don't see the problem, which is why I think that homosexuality and polyamory are moral.
Yes. A child's body is not developed for sex, but most importantly, a child's mind has not developed enough to be fully aware of what they're consenting to.
TL;DR
Awwww, someone's about to get one of the lowest rated posts of all time......
Pedophilia is between an adult and a child too young to understand sex and give consent to it. Necrophilia surely has no consent on one end. Homosexuality and Bisexuality are two men or women who are in a consensual relationship.
This logic is ridiculous. It's like saying "If you support the consumption of strawberries and blueberries, you should also support the consumption of nightshade berries, because they're all berries."
Soooo, now homosexuality is being compared to necrophilia? Charming.
What, doesn't ANYONE want to make jokes? You're all just going to sit around and debate this?
It's like walking into a night club and seeing a group of actors reciting Shakespeare...
Well this doesnt sound like a joke
Yeah, but usually even the most serious POTDs have some jokes going after 100 comments or so.
Well yea im just sayin
Here's one of my favorites: Two ducks are in a bathtub. One says to the other, "hey can you pass the soap". The other says "No soap, radio!"
...
Umm...no. That being said, I don't have a particular problem with necrophilia. Doesn't hurt anyone, but still not the same. Its creepy...gay people aren't.
how can you not have a problem with necrophilia....it's a non-consenting corpse
I just figure when I'm dead, I don't really care anymore. People can do what they please with my corpse.
The families would care, though.
consent from next of kin then.
Consent from the next of kin? You mean, when I'm dead my family can pimp out my corpse?
I'd fucking care.
Just saying.
It's disrespecting the dead body of someone. And that's disgusting.
Only if they don't give permission, which is essentially posthumous rape.
Agreed. Necrophilia is creepier than words can properly express, but I don't think "disrespecting" a dead body is a significant moral problem.
Yeah they are. And half of them are in your face about it to boot
The comments were very interesting to read.
YO PEOPLE, ANTHONY YYA'D THIS.
I understand the gist of this post, pedophilia is illegal NOW, but wasn't in the past. Homosexuality is legal NOW, but wasn't in the past. Attitudes change, for better or worse.
I suppose the issue is consent. If a kid really WANTS to have sex with an adult, thats difficult, but the law would say that they are not capable of making such decisions until they are (in the UK) 16 years old. This is a completely arbitrary age, some 16 years olds are very mature, others still act like children.
So in place of uncertainty we make sweeping judgements (these can be good things). We say, no kid can really decide if and with who they want to have sex, and people who have sex with kids manipulate them. Its ALWAYS abuse. We make a law against it, and prevailing social attitudes does all the rest. This is almost definitely a good thing, I'd rather have a few cases of actual genuine consensual relationships between kids and adults not happen, than a thousand cases of abuse happen.
As for necrophilia, maybe if the deceased stated his/her consent in their will... But its way to obscure a fetish to every require any sort of movement to protect it.
The important thing when it comes to sex of any kind is consent. Children cannot legally give consent. A dead body cannot legally give consent. Consent seems like a pretty clear distinction between homosexuality and sick fetishes such as necrophilia/pedophilia.
But as people said above, you can't help who or what you're attracted to. I'm not saying people should act on their urges, but they shouldn't be condemned for them, either.
Yes, I agree, but violating the laws of consent is an act, not an urge. If you're referring to the part in which I refer to them as sick fetishes, the way I see it, pedophilia and necrophilia are illnesses. If a pedophile/necrophile doesn't act on their urges, they're not hurting anyone else, but I would assume those attractions are debilitating to their own lives. Either way, someone is getting hurt, which is why I would consider it a sickness.
I agree with you there.
I have an opinion and am commenting about it.
I disagree with part or all of your opinion and am replying to it angrily and with a slight sense of superiority.
I start to grow angry and post an unnecessarily long reply with facts copy and pasted from Wikipedia.
The thing is: pedophilia and necrophilia aren't sexualities, they're mental disorders, as stated above.
Holy crap! Confession time: I posted this. I don't know if I'm supposed to admit to it. And I'm probably going to get a lot of hate for revealing who I am. But the comments were very interesting to read, guys! Nice to hear both sides of the debate; I was exposed to a lot of opinions and now I'm sort of swayed. And also, I wasn't trolling.
No
No. No. No.
I was on the beach by myself yesterday and a creepy grown man came up to me and was trying to talk to me and ask me how old I was and I ran away immediately because I was scared to death. Pedophiles are definitely NOT alright.
Pedophilia, necrophilia, and beatiality shouldn't be allowed because they don't have the consent of the other person which is basically rape. Being gay is very different imo.
Just so you know, not all pedophiles rape kids... (Sorry if there was already a comment saying this, but there's just so many and I don't have the time to read them all. )
uh...... okay understand this first. Homosexuality is between two same-sex lovers who are willing to be in a relationship. Children are forced or lured in by pedophiles and dead bodies are..... supposed to stay where they are
Did you even read my comment? Not all pedophiles do that to children. A lot of them do, but some are just attracted to them. It's gross, but not their fault.
This is one of the largest and most pitiful flame wars I've seen on this site.
This is exactly how I feel. However, as Simon said somewhere up there, people with these urges should seek counselling, lest they act on these urges.
That's exactly how I feel about what you said, except I would include homosexuality in that list.
The real tragedy is the amount of people that actually agreed with this.
Anon, you crazy. :l
I think it should be illegal to act on such fetishes. But if someone is exposed as a pedophile, but doesn't have sex with children because they know it's illegal (just like someone might have the urge to rob a bank, but they know it's illegal so they don't) then they shouldn't be arrested. If they like to watch children online, that should be legal even though it's pretty f*cking disturbing.
You wouldn't get arrested for having the urge, you would only get arrested if you did act on it. I don't think it should be legal to watch children online because the children can't consent to it.
My friend (he's 15) was caught searching for "teen porn" online and his dad got in trouble. So it's illegal to even search for teen porn, nevermind watch it. However, his dad and the FBI did sort it out and my friend got grounded for like 2 months.
If a father was caught watching child porn, should his kids be taken away from him (considering he hasn't actually acted on his fetish, he just watches it).
Oh well pedophilia and child porn is different from "teen porn" because pedophilia is the attraction to children who haven't gone through puberty, so usually under 13, and children that young can't consent. It's illegal to search for porn of people under 18.
That's a tough question, child porn is illegal and he should be punished for watching it and being part of sexually exploiting children. He should be investigated to make sure he isn't hurting his own children, or has plans to. He should get psychological help, and be monitored to make sure he doesn't act on the urges.
So why's searching for porn under 18 illegal?
Because individuals who are under 18 aren't legally allowed to be in porn. It's for their own protection. Once those images or video are out there that's it, you can't get it back, people under 18 aren't deemed to be mature enough to give consent, this is the same with signing a legally binding contract, people under 18 can't be held to the terms of a contract because they are considered minors.
Not like film porn, but like a personally uploaded strip or something.
That's still illegal, to both upload and view.
Oh and it's not actually illegal to search for "teen porn", the FBI can use that to investigate, but they couldn't have charged him with anything unless they found images of people under 18.
I don't think the viewing part should be illegal.
Up to what age though? Like I can understand it's a problem if the person in the image is 17 and they look older, and you didn't realise when looking at them. But it's illegal for a reason, to protect people from being exploited.
16 I think. But only because it seems like watching porn starts at an earlier age than 18.
Yeah but even if you're watching it before you're 18 why can't you just view images of people over 18? Also it's illegal to provide porn to people under 18, so porn companies aren't allowed to target younger teens anyway, yes I know that the reality is that people watch it younger than 18, but that doesn't mean we should have under 18s in porn.
I agree that someone should not be arrested for being a pedophile if they don't act on it, although I do hope that they would seek some sort of help. However, I disagree that it should be legal to view child pornography. Funding or viewing child pornography helps further the industry, and it's an industry in which children are being hurt. As for the "teen porn" you mention below, while teenagers aren't children, we have pornography laws in place for a reason, and someone who searches that should know what they're getting into.
I don't watch porn, but I don't think people who do should be arrested for searching for "teen strip tease" or whatever.
If that person is old enough to know that they are breaking the law and that child pornography encompasses teenage pornography as well, there should be consequences.
But the law is wrong IMO. It shouldn't be illegal to search for it. It should be illegal to act on it, though. And what are these illegal sites doing up anyway? It's the internet. The user can look at whatever is on there. The one who's doing something illegal is the site itself.
That's not at all what I'm talking about, though. I'm talking about someone who intentionally searches for underage pornography. The law considers any pornography that involves people under eighteen to be child pornography. There should be consequences for deliberately searching for child pornography.
The problem is people assume "rape". It's not rape if they like to do it, but don't act on it.
Anthony really loves a contoversial and already low rated post as potd occasionly, doesn't he?
It's about consensus. Kids are considered too young to know better and the dead can't give it, making them more like rape than homosexuality or bisexuality.
Pedophilia or necrophilia are not a sexuality. A sexuality is who you are attracted to gender wise. Pedophilia and necrophilia are mental disorders that need major help.
I really liked this POTD because even though I disagreed with it, it sparked some interesting debates and comments.
This isn't controversial at all.
Oh lord.
I see what you're saying and though your suggestion is literally logical it is not morally acceptable. Homosexuality and bisexuality are two lifestyles that, when having sex, both parties are generally aware and accepting of the position they are in. In when someone is a pedophile they are doing something to a child that could potentially scar them for life. When someone is a necrophiliac they are defiling a dead body for a simple pleasure that can very easily be obtained from a willing participant of the living variety. By comparing these lifestyles you are indirectly saying that being attracted to someone of the same sex is just as bad as touching an innocent child or violating a corpse.
I would just like to point out that a corpse can't exactly be non-consenting, because it can't say no, but it cannot be consenting either because it can't say yes. And personally if someone wants to have sex with my dead body they can go right on ahead, because I'm dead. And I'm not in my body anymore. And I'm dead.
Well if polygamy was legal.....there would be like 50 girls married to every celeb and they'd never have to settle for average guys like us.
The only part of the post I agree with is the first line.
So you're saying a 25-35 year old man should be able to rape and harass little innocent girls... wow. just wow.
i agree.
I disagree. Homosexuality, both partners consent to having sex with each other. Animals and children can't really say no...
I apologize... I could have sworn you said beastiality..
Umm, ok? Who said anything about animals? That was never part of the discussion...
I respect OP for this post. True, it is controversial, but it has encouraged quite an interesting discussion.
I was about to click "No way" until I realized that I actually agree with the post. If you think about it on a deeper level it makes more sense.
Paedophilla isn't considered wrong because it's 'icky'. It's considered wrong because it infringes a child's rights, and can be equated to rape. Necrophilia isn't considered wrong because it's 'icky'. It's considered wrong because it infringes the rights of the deceased and their family, and can be equated to rape. Bestiality isn't considered wrong because it's 'icky'. It's considered wrong because it infringes the animal's rights, and can be equated to rape. Now tell me, whose rights are infringed by allowing homosexuality? Noone's.
When you consider how many teenagers have sex these days, I know many people who were of sexual consenting age (16 here in the UK) having sex with a girl who was under that age line but they happened to be boyfriend and girlfriend and in a relationship. Personally I don't see much wrong in this. Problem is I know some 15 / 16 year olds who are more mature than some girls I know who are my age. Sometimes maturity doesn't match the age.
A 50 year old shagging a 12 year old however is a different story. But I think the ages surrounding the age of consent should have some sort of lee-way when considering it a crime. For example a 15 year old who is in a relationship with an 18 year old who want to have sex.
Frankly if you're that much of a pedo, I hear Mexico's age of consent is 13, as is Japans.
Pedophilia is not supported because children are easily manipulative and sometimes can't say no. They're whole lives they are told to listen to adults, so if an adult (one they trust, that is) tells them to strip, chances are, they will. So basically, it's rape. No matter your sexuality, rape is never permitted.
Yay! Intelligence!
Okay, I'm almost a month late on this post so you don't have to reply. But your argument fails to explain why homosexuality and pedophilia are comparable. You say that homosexuality used to be considered a mental illness, but that diagnosis is now almost universally considered wrong by the experts in the mental and health professions. You can't compare homosexuality and a mental illness like pedophilia just because homosexuality used to be considered a mental illness. That's like comparing women and chimpanzees, and saying they're both inferior to men because women used to be considered inferior.
Homosexuality is now considered a normal variation of sexuality in humans. For the purposes of your argument, if you're comparing pedophilia and homosexuality, you might as well compare pedophilia and heterosexuality, because they're equally similar.
I also agree completely with what ForeverMarauder said about consent.
The thing is that children are too young to give legal consent. They can't understand what it means to have a sexual relationship with someone, and they can't understand the repercussions. You could argue that fifteen, sixteen, and seventeen year olds are old enough to consent to sex with an adult, but the line has to be drawn somewhere. I think eighteen (or sixteen, in some places) is a good place to draw that line.
You say that "we can't decide who is able to understandingly give consent and who is not." I agree that we cannot fully understand this, as everyone is different, but we do need to place boundaries. It isn't fair to say that anyone who is able to form the word yes is capable of giving legal consent.
Rape is really about taking advantage of someone. If a twenty-five year old has sex with a nine year old just because the nine year old said yes, the child is still being taken advantage of. Even if that relationship is consensual (though not legally consensual), there is a very good chance that someone is getting hurt. I fail to see how that relationship is comparable to homosexuality.
An illegal fetish is not equivalent to a mental illness. Otherwise I kinda agree with your post. Age isn't a direct indicator of maturity.
I think one of the things crucial to this delicate topic is to remember that empathy is not a strong point of the human race making certain taboo subjects hard to discuss. When facing the unknown we form tight groups and shun it as evil even without the unbiased facts to back it up, just a hastily knocked together policy that's full of logical fallacies, then stick our fingers in our ears and go 'la la la'. Paedophilia and mentall illness would be two of these topics.
A portion of paedophiles have mental issues ofcourse, but that's certainly not the only motivation. I'd probably credit the rest to intelligence / size / authority domination, longing to remain a child, simple attraction to an individual person, or if in doubt rule 34.
I'm 100% for gay rights. However, the reason I disagree with this is that necrophilia and pedophilia aren't consensual.
See i think the only reason is that in most cases in pedophilia and in all cases in necrophilia, the person they are in love with is not consenting. Also in pedophilia, even if the younger person agrees to having sex, people feel they don't have the correct judgement, however your point is valid and i believe more and more types of sexualities (such as being in love with inanimate objects) will be accepted.
"being in love with inanimate objects" is not a sexuality. IT'S A MENTAL PROBLEm.
You could say plenty of things that aren't normal are mental disorders, they could be accepted in society. No one shuns someone with ADD
I wasn't refering to being accepted into society, I was correcting you when you said that the love of inanimate was a sexuality.
sex·u·al·i·ty/ˌsekSHo͞oˈalitē/Noun
1. Capacity for sexual feelings.
2. A person's sexual orientation or preference
If someone has sexual feelings for an inanimate object, it's a sexuality, even if it's also a "disease"
It's not a sexuality. Sexuality refers to a gender, AND ONLY THE GENDER, to whom you are sexually attracted to. Your name is yay_im_wrong, so practice what you preach.
1st of all, sexuality doesn't have to refer to gender, just who you're sexually attracted to. 2nd, i'm only a troll when i want to be
Sexuality DOES refer to which gender you are attracted to, hence "SEXuality". In this case, sex refers to the sex of the people to whom you are attracted to. If things like pedophilia and necrophilia are sexualities, explain why theyre not called "pedosexuality" and "necrosexuality". And to be honest, pedophiles and necrophiles DO have actual sexualities, but they act on the sexualities on children and corpses. And I never called you a troll, I was merely stating that you were wrong. By the way, how old are you? You look about twelve or so. So stop talking, you're an embryo.
Sexuality DOES refer to which gender you are attracted to, hence "SEXuality". In this case, sex refers to the sex of the people to whom you are attracted to. If things like pedophilia and necrophilia are sexualities, explain why theyre not called "pedosexuality" and "necrosexuality". And to be honest, pedophiles and necrophiles DO have actual sexualities, but they act on the sexualities on children and corpses. And I never called you a troll, I was merely stating that you were wrong. By the way, how old are you? You look about twelve or so. So stop talking, you're an embryo.
Sexuality DOES refer to which gender you are attracted to, hence "SEXuality". In this case, sex refers to the sex of the people to whom you are attracted to. If things like pedophilia and necrophilia are sexualities, explain why theyre not called "pedosexuality" and "necrosexuality". And to be honest, pedophiles and necrophiles DO have actual sexualities, but they act on the sexualities on children and corpses. And I never called you a troll, I was merely stating that you were wrong. By the way, how old are you? You look about twelve or so. So stop talking, you're an embryo.
Sexuality DOES refer to which gender you are attracted to, hence "SEXuality". In this case, sex refers to the sex of the people to whom you are attracted to. If things like pedophilia and necrophilia are sexualities, explain why theyre not called "pedosexuality" and "necrosexuality". And to be honest, pedophiles and necrophiles DO have actual sexualities, but they act on the sexualities on children and corpses. And I never called you a troll, I was merely stating that you were wrong. By the way, how old are you? You look about twelve or so. So stop talking, you're an embryo.
Sexuality DOES refer to which gender you are attracted to, hence "SEXuality". In this case, sex refers to the sex of the people to whom you are attracted to. If things like pedophilia and necrophilia are sexualities, explain why theyre not called "pedosexuality" and "necrosexuality". And to be honest, pedophiles and necrophiles DO have actual sexualities, but they act on the sexualities on children and corpses. And I never called you a troll, I was merely stating that you were wrong. By the way, how old are you? You look about twelve or so. So stop talking, you're an embryo.
Sexuality DOES refer to which gender you are attracted to, hence "SEXuality". In this case, sex refers to the sex of the people to whom you are attracted to. If things like pedophilia and necrophilia are sexualities, explain why theyre not called "pedosexuality" and "necrosexuality". And to be honest, pedophiles and necrophiles DO have actual sexualities, but they act on the sexualities on children and corpses. And I never called you a troll, I was merely stating that you were wrong. By the way, how old are you? You look about twelve or so. So stop talking, you're an embryo.
That was me, though I only posted once. My iPod must've spazzed out or something.
being in love with inanimate objects is called "objectisexuality." (i may have spelled that wrong, my bad.) it's a real thing; it's not a mental disorder any more than homosexuality is. if you go back & read one of the comments i said above, homosexuality was considered a mental disorder until the 1970s, & people used that classification to justify keeping it illegal or barring homosexuals from holding certain jobs--the same way you're calling objectisexuality a mental disorder & condemning these people now.
no, actually, it isn't.
NO WAY!!! how can he/she say that? gay or bi is attracted to other sex nothing to do with extra things....pedophilia...really? wow just wow
I see where you're going but pedophilia and necrophilia are not sexual preferences, they are mental disorders.
this has probably been said, but homosexuality is a mutual feeling, while pedophilia is more parasitic
I can't agree with the pedophilia thing... but I really don't care about necrophilia. As long as like, no one kills me with the sole purpose of having sex with my corpse... That would kind of blow.
I LIKE SEX!
Generally speaking, consent is a key factor. I suppose I see your point with paedophilia so long as both parties are consenting and have a stable mind to do so, but necrophilia is not consensual, and therefore does not follow the guidelines that you are laying out for us.
WAY different. Pedophiles and necropheliacs do what they because of a sick sexual preference. Being gay isn't only about sex, it's about who you love. Pedophiles don't have relationships with children and necropheliacs don't have relationships with bodies. Also, not that I think it's right or should be legal, but I think people are way too defensive of dead bodies. Once we're dead, the person we were disappears. Our body no longer belongs to us and no longer IS us. It's just a fleshy sack of rotting organs. People are all "OMG RESPECT DEAD BODIES." I think it's kind of silly.
Your vote and comment seem to contradict each other?
When I first voted I thought it was a troll and I voted yes as like a joke-ish. But then I realized it was kind of serious.
Comparing the beautiful AND consensual love of two people of the same gender to fully grown adults who molest, rape, and sodomize young children takes a disgusting person. I hope this was posted just to get feedback, because if this is ACTUALLY your opinion you are a horrible person to make such an accusation about sexuality.
I am not questioning homosexuality. I fully support homosexuality, and did not say anything negative about that in the post. And just because you are sexually attracted to children does not MEAN you are going to rape them; it doesn't mean you're a horrible person. You can't control who you are sexually attracted to; man, women, or child. Nobody should blame you for that. That being said, I don't support pedophilia or necrophilia. I was merely saying that in MY opinion, all sexualities should be supported. Also, I resent being called a "disgusting person" merely for posting my opinion online. In fact, it's YOU who are blaming someone for terrible crimes such as rape, just because of their sexuality. And that is just plain ignorant.
Again, I was just stating my opinion when I made the POTD. And I know I could be wrong. But there is no need to start the personal attacks.
"beautiful AND consensual love of two people of the same gender "
"sodomize"
Umm...
They weren't questioning it, they were comparing it to pedophilia.
Well you ARE right about something...this WAS controversial
I think we heard you the first time.
Well you ARE right about something...this WAS controversial
Well you ARE right about something...this WAS controversial
Well you ARE right about something...this WAS controversial
Well you ARE right about something...this WAS controversial
I LIKE THIS GUY!
Oh the anger......
lol -800
They are.
It is not illegal for an adult to love a child. It is the doing of something that is illegal. It is illegal because of consent. Children cannot consent. The loving itself is not illegal. For gay rights, love exists and both parties are able to consent. That is where the difference lies.
big difference. Stop thinking about gross things
Lol, so many assumptions. Have you ever met or studied a pedophile/pedophilia?
WOW
No you dumbass, when two people of the same gender have sex it's ight because they both want to have sex.. Usually when pedophiles have sex they're raping little kids, as in the kids don't want a dick in them but pedophiles do it anyway. What part of that is okay? Fucking sick bastard.
Rape is implied but not necessitated. What if a 13 year old girl "loves" a 45 year old man and she fully consents? Is that still rape? Legally yes, she is too young to consent. But morally?
Obviously I am no pedophile, and playing devil's advocate, but getting this angry without thinking about things rationally for at least a second is a practise best avoided.
If the scenario happened, surely waiting to be old enough wouldn't be a problem. It is rather controversial though that mature children technically aren't free.
Anyway such people aren't paedophiles, they're rapists. paedo - children, phile - lover. I'm pretty sure rape dosn't involve love.
Lets just say rape is always bad, that includes everyone.
I LIKE SEX!
Well you ARE right about something...this WAS controversial
wtf. why is this POTD
Because you touch yourself at night.
It makes a nice change from "School sukks, amirite?"
This site should be here to spur discussion, not placidity.
I'm getting kind of tired of political debates on this website
How about gay underaged sex with a corpse?
Sorry, what was that?
I THINK HE (she?) SAID "HOW ABOUT GREAT OVERAGED SEX WITH A HORSE?"
This is excellent. I literally agree entirely. Gay rights supporters can go eat it.
Have you read any of the above comments? Necrophilia and Pedophilia aren't the same as Bisexuality or Homosexuality because they aren't sexuality's, and they have victims that can't consent.
What if I put in my last will and testament that I want someone to have sex with my corpse? Is that not consent?
That's not LEGAL consent. For example, a child could agree to have sex with an adult, but the adult would still be committing a crime, because a child cannot give legal consent. Consent is more complicated than just mentioning that you wouldn't mind having sex.
I wouldn't have a problem with that. But the family in charge of the remains might, like for example where I live, even if you are a registered organ donor your family can overrule your decision after you've died because they're now in charge of your body. Also you wouldn't be able to change your mind after you've died like with other sexual consent where either party can back out at any time.
What would I care, I'd be dead
I LIKE SEX!
I couldnt hear you say that again?
Why is this POTD?
Because it's a controversial opinion that will strike debate and will hopefully make us think about some hard subjects.
It's summer, kids. Anthony doesn't want your brain to rot.
Because it's a good post! Amirite isn't about getting the most people to agree with you, it's about sharing thoughts and ideas to see what others think of them. It is POTD because it was well-worded and sparked an interesting, (mostly) intelligent conversaation.
Is this like the first POTD to be that downvoted?
Don't judge, people, I've barely been here for a month. :(
http://amirite.net/433427 There was that one
Yeah but that was downvoted cause that was the point of the joke, not because people disagree with that post.
http://amirite.net/9065
http://amirite.net/10996
http://amirite.net/5675
http://amirite.net/46521
http://amirite.net/429970
http://amirite.net/225582
http://amirite.net/335680
That one's funny
http://amirite.net/165876
http://amirite.net/59231
http://amirite.net/48933
http://amirite.net/7992
http://amirite.net/54228
http://amirite.net/46417
This one might freeze your computer while loading the comments
http://amirite.net/48844
http://amirite.net/147
http://amirite.net/14613
http://amirite.net/29771
http://amirite.net/30170
http://amirite.net/8498
http://amirite.net/28708
I think the futer/time macne post got deleted, though :/
LOL you must be really bored to search all these posts xD Thanks though, I guess. I realize I've NW'd and even YYA'd a few of them, though, but I probably didn't notice that they were POTD then or something, idk. Oh and it didn't freeze my computer, instead a blank screen with this came lol: "Fatal error: Allowed memory size of 33554432 bytes exhausted (tried to allocate 1129 bytes) in /home/amirite3/amirite/app/misc.php on line 76"
What is the post that keeps freezing my computer? :[ I'm a girl. Make it unavailable and it seems 10X more interesting.
Nope, I believe we've had just under 25 negatively rated POTD.
There was one about eating twice as much meat to get back at vegetarians a while ago, you could probably search it.
http://amirite.net/165876 , right?
LOL I see you YYA'd it.
Then there was everyone's favorite, the futer post.
Why did it get deleted?
I'm not sure. Maybe it was too awesome to handle.
I never saw the futer post o.O Can you please explain it to me?
"God is real if someone come from the futer, god is not real if no one comes from the futer and we made the time macne also we were first than the futer, amirite?" Thank God I wrote that down. Apparently, some guy shared his account with his Korean friend that was still learning proper English, and the friend wrote that. It was so stupid that it was hilarious.
Hahahah xD Now I see why everyone loves that post :)
It's one of my favorite posts, the comments still make me laugh.
I suppose its because pedo and necrophilia are against the laws of underage sex and something along the lines of defacing the dead. But generally speaking, you've got a point.
this person has no point. those aren't "sexualities" those are mental problems. the people who are into paedophilia and necrophilia are mentally unstable, they may seem okay on the outside but are inside on the same level as sociopaths and schizophrenics. they should have no rights to desecrate a corpse or take a childs innocence.
but homosexuality used to be considered a mental disease, too. it didn't get taken out of the DSM til the 70s. i really don't want to agree with the OP here but i'm interested to see if anyone comes up with a good argument as to why they're wrong.
"Homosexuality was, in fact, listed as a mental illness in psychiatry's main reference book, the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual, until the third edition came out in 1980. This edition included a category for homosexuals who were troubled by their sexuality and wanted to change it. All mention of homosexuality, however, was purged from the manual by 1987." -http://www.webmd.com/sex-relati...ophilia?page=2 :)
Not that I support said " sexualities" in anyway, but people also argue that those who are gay have "mental problems". And not that I'm defending paedophilla or necrophilia in anyway, but the beginn
Who are you to declare what is a sign of mental instability? There are some scenarios where a paedophile genuinely cares about a child in the same way as adult lovers do. Attacking it in this manner is attacking all relationships, so be careful what argument you use.
because as other people said, it is rape, they can imagine having sex with minors all they want, but if they do it, it is rape. even if the paedophile does care for the child, can (s)he not wait until the child is of consenting age, and actually does know what they're doing? if not, they have something wrong with their heads. are you including necrophilia in this argument too?
Paedophilia doesn't mean raping children. It means sexual attraction towards children. And calling that evil outright is basically accusing people of thought crime. I'm taking the alternate view not because I'm part of it but because it's required to make two halves of a fair debate. Like prosecution and defence.
i'm tired of this. pedophilia is wrong. necrophilia is wrong. can i call it over?
No. Calling something wrong outright without giving sufficient proof is called being closed minded, the same thing that allowed the nazis to kill the jews, gypsies, homosexuals and disabled for being 'wrong' in their eyes.
So open your eyes and just think about it for two seconds. If you're that confident in your belief, what do you have to lose in questioning it?
do i really need to give proof that pedophilia is wrong? it hurts children. mentally scars children. usually, it is rape. i'm not counting the Pedophiles who "genuinely care" for the victim. necrophilia is desecrating a corpse, as many others posted. if someone gives consent to fuck a corpse, i don't really care, but a child deserves what little innocence they can have in 16 years.
i'm sorry for being "close minded," but as a person with a big family, i have relatives that were molested as children, by trusted adults, and that shit just doesn't fly with me.
Pedophilia alone doesn't. If you add rape and violence then yes. Pedophilia on it's own is not an action as I keep saying. Why are you not counting those people when they fall within the boundaries of the word? Seriously your only problem is with not understanding the definitions of words. I'm not trying to be of offence, I am truly repulsed by those that would violate another person's rights.
You don't think that gay's are mentally unstable, i mean a guy has gotta be pretty fucked up in the head to want a giant weiner in his butt, and most certainly unstable.
some girls like it in the butt too, so no, i don't think that they're mentally unstable.weiners come in all shapes and sizes.
Not that I support said " sexualities" in anyway, but people also argue that those who are gay have "mental problems". And not that I'm defending paedophilla or necrophilia in anyway, but the beginn
Then if those should be illegal, should all paraphilia be illegal? What about BDSM and fetish of the foot? I'll never be able to attain an erection if Obama was like you!
things along the lines of foot fetishes don't hurt people though.
Neither does necrophilia.
I'm not exactly an expert but I hear that gay sex hurts a lot, at least the first few times, and it also hurts for most girls when they lose their virginity, are you suggesting that should be illegal?
If people are having consensual sex they can have it as rough as they like. You can't have consensual sex with a dead body.
You've got to be kidding. If they're in heaven, wouldn't they be able to look down at their body being desecrated? And thus be able to care? Never mind the fact that they, nor the executor of their estate, likely didn't give consent for that to happen to them.
I would care. I find it odd that you wouldn't. But, if you believe that way, i have no point in arguing. Granted, I still think your original point is wrong.
I can read whether or not you use CRUISE CONTROL. Seriously.
And I want a new puppy.
Exactly!
I never knew they were mental disabilities, I always thought it was just some sick shit people got into. Cool.
i said mentally unstable, as in crazy, not mentally disabled.
Btw nice post dude, it's gonna get everyone arguing.
I hope this is satire. I'm assuming it is, but there are some genocidal people out there...
maybe in 30yrs the mainstream populous will be ready to support necrophilia, although i doubt child abuse will ever be okay. Who knows, maybe people will look back at this and be shocked that it was so down voted. The liberals of today are the bigots of tomorrow.
I agree to an extent. I don't think a pedophile should be allowed to have sex with 8 year olds. But if they want to have sex with someone that is under 18 but old enough to understand what they're doing and make their own decisions soundly, let them do it. Now where you draw the line, I couldn't say. And necrophilia: as long as the family of the deceased has no problem with it, let them do it. Just like donating your body to science, you could choose to donate to necrophiliacs.
No, I disagree. The age of consent (usually 16) is there for a reason - that a person's mind hasn't developed enough to understand exactly what they're saying yes to.
And, yeah, people's minds mature at different rates, but I think having 16 just as a blanket age for everyone makes perfect sense.
I don't know where you're from, but here the age of consent for sex with anyone is 18. And 14-15 year olds understand just as well as 16 year olds. They may not have as good of judgement, but they still understand what they're agreeing to.
The majority of countries have the age of consent as 16. I'm aware that some states in the US and other places have it as 18, but in most countries it's 16.
And I reckon 14, or even 15, is too young (a bit hypocritical, I suppose, since I had sex before 16, but whatever). I don't think they're mentally and emotional mature enough to know all the risk of sex - not just pregnancies and STDs, but emotion risks too, as sex is very rarely a value-neutral act.
And, unless their partner is also under 16, I would question anyone over who wanted to have sex with a 14 year old.
But Simon, yours didn't count because it was gay butt sex and gays aren't human. <troll/> On a more serious note: I don't mean to pry, but at the time did you truly believe you were ready for sex when you first had it, and looking back now do you think you were ready? I understand peoples' maturity can vary radically, and certainly agree there should be a blanket age for consent, but based on your own experiences and observations do you think this age should be reexamined? I know in most places the age is 16, but where I live in the US it's 18 (I'm fairly certain). I only say this because I see many, many, many people my age (around 15 or 16), and personally knowing them it's my opinion they are definitely not ready.
Hmm, good points.
1. For if the age of 16 should be reexamined, I'm not sure. Like I said, not everyone is at the same mental level and has the same understanding of sex and consequences at 16, but I think just to legally regulate it, 16 would be ideal. I think you're suggesting it should be upped to 18, which is something to consider. Also, you have to think about whether teenagers would wait that long - like, I reckon 16 is perfectly reasonable, if you think you know enough about sex to prepare yourself for the emotional risks, as well as condoms, the Pill, STD tests, pap smears, etc., then you should probably know enough to know the legal issues and the reasons behind them.
2. My own observations would be that most people have sex around 16 anyway, and putting the legal age as 18 wouldn't make most of them wait.
3. To be honest, I never even thought about whether I was ready. I don't regret any of the sex I had when I was younger, but I think if I could go back now I'd wait, rather than think "The law applies to everyone BUT ME COS IM SO SMART"
To be honest, the age that came to mind was 17, and that is an excellent point you make about people who probably won't wait if the age is raised. But keep in mind when these laws are created, it is generally assumed people will adhere to the new law; I doubt they give much consideration as to whether people will do it anyway. Just look at marijuana; it's illegal in the states yet all kinds of people still use it for recreational purposes. It's just my belief that a majority of people aren't quite ready for sex at the age of 16.
hey yeah! it's 17 in my state!
which is great, except i had a teacher in high school who would always ask someone how old they were if he found out it was their birthday. & when they turned 17 he'd say "you're finally legal!" :/
That is pretty creepy
Oh haha lol usofunneh I totes ment 2 say that 5 timez. It's not like the touch site does multiple posts all the time for no reason -.-
I know this part of the conversation's already over, but I thought I'd share this link, so maybe it would come in handy for future reference.
http://www.avert.org/age-of-consent.htm
Thank you!
And thanks for reminding me that my state is still the only one in Australia that has a different age of consent for homosexual sex :/
I can't see anyone actually donating a loved one's body to necrophiliacs
people donate their bodies to science because they see it as a noble cause and helping for the future
why would anyone want to donate their body to a necrophiliac
Yeah, this.
Donating a body to science helps others learn more about the human biology, donating a body to a necrophilia just helps them get off.
Even though a dead body is more or less an object, I think there should still be some degree of respect for something that once was a person.
I'd have to disagree with you on that one, Simon. A living thing is just a combination of, let's call it, lucky chemicals. So as you said, it's an object. Depending on your beliefs that person is in Heaven (or Hell if they killed a hooker, or even worse, were a hooker) or they are just no more and just an object. So, theoretically, if I were to fuck my grandfather, who is probably all bones by now, it'd just be like using a dildo. Theoretically, of course
.
My point is necrophiliacs can do what they want as long as no one sees, they don't post it online, and they have consent of their (the body's) loved ones.
And for pedophiles, little kids don't know any better and 18 is the age where people can actually make smart decisions; so if you're at least 18, idgaf if you date an old pedophile. Ageless love, my friend. Ageless love.
Woah woah woah woah woah. Back up a bit there. Being a hooker is even worse than murder? I don't think so.
1) I was being facetious.
2) When you kill a hooker, it's automatically an accident.
3) Number 2 was facetious.
4) About 40% of women say they masturbate.
Jim who? And I am 88% sure that statistic is false. In fact, I am 99.9% sure that it's false.
I Googled "Jim hooker 88 percent". It didn't help me understand.
You could just have people sign an agreement, like an organ donor card. But for necrophilia.
I'm not arguing the process or means of donating the body, just that i dont think anyone in their right mind would
I would. What do I care? I'm gonna be dead.
So you'd let someone use and abuse your body any way they please just so they could fulfill their sexual desire?
Yeah. Again, I'm dead, why would I object? I don't care what happens to my body when I'm dead. You could string me up from a tree, or feed me to alligators, or have sex with me. I don't care.
Let's say you could donate your body to necrophilia. How would it be controlled? Would you just waltz up to your nearest clinic and pay for an hour with a body of your choice? Who in their right mind would want to work there? Cleaning up bodies covered in cum doesn't sound so fun.
Let's say you could donate your body to necrophilia. How would it be controlled? Would you just waltz up to your nearest clinic and pay for an hour with a body of your choice? Who in their right mind would want to work there? Cleaning up bodies covered in cum doesn't sound so fun.
I was just going to say "I disagree" until you mentioned the necrophilia part. I'm hoping that was a joke, if not, I'll stick with a "WTF"
Pedophilia is typically described as sexual interest in children specifically, not necessarily, say, 15-17 year olds.
TROLL IN THE DUNGEON!
I don't think OP is a troll, he/she truly is saying how society has banned certain things over others. He has also clarified that he doesn't support pedophilia or necrophilia, I'm guessing it was an honest question.
There is so much evidence, though. I mean why would someone try to spark such a controversial debate so it'd be the POTD? If you ignore evidence so much, did you support Casey Anthony?
Then obviously you're not familiar with amirite or the concept of trolling. Casey Anthony posts like flooded the site a few weeks ago.
For the love of god, I know what trolling is, I just don't think OP was trolling. You know what? I honestly cannot be bothered arguing any longer about this. You win, OP is such a massive troll.
Well, Daniel, I guess they don't make it like they don't do and it broke so the world would go over it in bad like it's not even done
How can you criticize someone for not being "familiar with amirite" when you just joined on July 9th? And you're a complete idiot, OP was very respectful and was able to word this fairly well, it's obvious they weren't trolling.
Well thank you, at least someone agrees with me.
Don't worry, that person can barely speak English and comments anonymously on their own post while voting up and loving their own comments to make their post look better.
I think you're trolling right now. I find it funny how obvious it is, too, because your comment is red which completely contradicts what you just said!
Just because he disagrees with a post does not mean it is a troll post, using that logic 99% of posts are just troll posts because someone disagreed with them.
I'm completely neutral. I sway one way and the other. But I think that WHAT he disagreed with countered his point, so he was trolling. And the OP made a controversial POTD so... yeah, it goes without saying that they're a troll.
Either way, Velociraptor, a troll, admitted he made the post.
tl;dr
Call homosexuality what you want, it's a perversion and nothing more. It's a genetic defect, in the same category as child molesters and necrophiliacs - they all feel their own perverse desires towards their own gender or children or dead bodies. I'm not even religious but the bond of marriage should be kept as the sacred legal contract between two consenting adults of the opposite sex, its fucked up otherwise.
In what way is homosexuality any more perverse than heterosexuality, if you really aren't religious?
Clearly you've never heard of bonoboes.
A "sacred" contract?
It's not in the same category at all. First of all, homosexuality isn't a mental disorder. Look it up. Treatments for Necrophilia include: psychoanalysis, hypnosis, behavior therapy, cognitive therapy, drug therapy...etc. You'll notice the word therapy. It's because it's a serious mental disorder but it can be fixed/helped.
Pedophilia you get arrested for first of all. That might tell you something is horrible wrong with it. You don't get arrested for being homosexual.
Also : "The biggest misunderstanding many people have is that pedophilia and homosexuality are one and the same. But to say that all homosexuals are pedophiles, or that all pedophiles are homosexual, is like comparing apples to rat poison. "They certainly are two distinct things," says James Hord, a psychologist in Panama City, Fla., who specializes in treating sexually abused children and sex offenders."
[ http://www.webmd.com/sex-relati...ing-pedophilia ] Maybe you should just read up on things like this instead of being a jerk.
homosexuality USED to be a mental disorder. who's to say that 20 years from now, pedophilia & necrophilia will still be considered mental disorders? obviously molesting a child or desecrating a body is & always should be a crime, but does having a fetish make you mentally unstable? i'm not convinced.
No it was thought to be a mental disorder back when people didn't know much about it. Nowadays people have been studying pedophilia and necrophilia and talking to actual patients with those disorders. It's been proven to be one. Being attracted to children really isn't "being attracted to children". In most cases it's desperate people who want to show dominance in a sexual way and it's easiest to do so with kids. Others see it as a game. http://www.webmd.com/sex-relati...ophilia?page=2 read that? I can see what you're getting at though
it seems that the article just states that it should never be considered normal or not a disease because it is harmful--fair enough, but they don't back it up at all besides that. & the fact that it can't be treated, i think, is telling.
It's hard to treat mental illnesses. But you can most certainly help them which is what can be done in this case.
Do you believe in evolution?
People can't control who they are attracted to. Some people are are attracted to the same sex, others to children. Yes, having sex with a child is wrong. But there is no sense in looking down on someone just because they are attracted to children or dead bodies.
But don't leave them with your children, or take them to a morgue.
Yes, there is.
Also, one of the things that irrates me is when people compare same-sex attraction to other types of attraction - the only thing that it's really comparable to is opposite-sex attraction.
And, I would advise anyone who finds themselves attracted to children to try and seek help or councilling. Yes, there is no harm if the attraction is purely in their minds, but there is a possibility they could seek child porn, or even act on their feelings.
No, there isn't. They are all perversions and fetishes of what sex is supposed to be. The purpose of sex is for two things: pleasure and procreation. They don't always have to be satisfied, but it is wrong if it completely impossible. So yes, necrophilia is wrong. Child molestation is wrong. So is gay butt sex. It serves no purpose but to satisfy the base and perverse pleasures of one or both individuals.
"it is wrong if it completely impossible."
Can everybody please accept the fact that the argument that gays cannot reproduce is an invalid justification for homophobia? If "it is wrong if it [is] completely impossible", that means it is wrong for elderly or infertile people to have sex. This isn't any more an argument against homosexuality than it is against infertility. Seriously,find a new angle.
If you have to resort to nitpicking at my argument then you have no case.
If your argument has blatant holes in logic, don't be shocked when someone points them out.
The point is, sex between a man and a woman is following the laws prescribed by nature itself, with the chance of furthering the species in the majority of cases. Sex between a man and a man, or a woman and a woman, goes against the laws of nature and serves no purpose other than pleasure.
I suppose I can assume you are therefore against the use of contraception also, because that would mean having sex for the sole purpose of pleasure.
Do you watch television? Do you play games? Do you eat cake? What purpose do those activities serve other than pleasure? Something isn't wrong JUST because it's pleasurable.
I'm on the fence about contraception. Haven't given it much thought.
Those activities are solely made FOR pleasure though - sex is for pleasure, yes, but it also serves other purposes - strengthen the bond of the spouses and, if possible, create new life. I figure as long as some of those 3 are happening, along with the laws of nature being observed, then it's ok.
Except cake. That's food, it's made for eating. Enjoyable or not, personally I find too much icing to be sickeningly sweet.
So what I'm reading, and correct me if I'm wrong, is that your problem with homosexuality is that it doesn't observe the laws of nature? What are the "laws of nature"? Who wrote them? Who says what's natural and what's not? Seeking pleasure is natural. Most of our lives are spent seeking pleasure in one form or another, whether it be short-term ecstasy or long-term happiness.
The laws of nature say don't put your penis into any hole with a heartbeat. Not sure how this isn't clear to you.
My question is: Who are you to say what the laws of nature are? That's what is unclear to me.
The laws of nature are there for us to observe. I'm not making them up, I'm just voicing them. Nature says that sex is meant to be between males and females - even animals seem to know this better than us.
I'm sure you've heard this argument before, but countless animal species have been observed copulating with members of the same sex. If we observe nature, we can see that animals engage in homosexual behaviors also. What other evidence do we have that the "laws of nature" prohibit homosexuality? Nature doesn't "say" anything; we say something, based on what we observe. What I observe is that animals engage in homosexual behaviors, and that humans naturally seek pleasure. I don't see how either of those observations suggest that homosexuality is unnatural.
Yeah I've heard that one before.
Interesting opinion that I heard recently: Homosexuality is nature's way of "Survival of the Fittest" - that is, their line is being eliminated due to inability to have children. Thoughts? I'm not saying that I support it. Just an interesting idea imo.
I'll try to ignore the fact that you've decided to totally distract from the argument at hand, most likely because you have no counterpoints, and move onto this "Survival of the Fittest" business.
Genetic variation occurs no matter what, so the idea that all homosexuals would be wiped out is ridiculous. Not to mention the fact that homosexuals can have biological children thanks to surrogacy (take Neil Patrick Harris and his partner for example). And homosexuality really has nothing to do with survival of the fittest anyway, because homosexuality is not debilitating in any way.
Not because I have no counterpoints, it's just that you're clearly not understanding what I have to say. "Surrogacy" is hardly providing a biological child - no matter what, one member of the couple will be left out of the child. It does have to do with survival of the fittest in my mind, because they can't naturally conceive their own children.
Secondly, I'm not sure if you're thinking that I'm against homosexuality as a whole or just as far as marriage is concerned. I'd say they are entitled to have their relationships, that what they do in bed is their own business and should stay behind closed doors (but, as I've stated above, I believe it is wrong), but all in all, I should not be able to identify a person of a different sexuality just by the way they talk or act. It is of no import what they do in their bedroom, human or other species.
That being said, I do believe that marriage should be kept within the heterosexual community. I'm confused about what specific topic of homosexuality we're talking about.
I figured we were talking about homosexuality as a whole, as you were saying that it's wrong because it's unnatural. Of course, this whole conversation is pretty irrelevant anyway, because 'natural' is somewhat of an abstract concept and has no bearing on whether or not something is right.
Now, I don't see what you mean about "I should not be able to identify a person of a different sexuality by the way they talk or act." Are you saying that homosexuals should try to change the way they speak and conduct themselves so as not to let on that they're gay? Please elaborate.
As far as banning marriage goes, laws exist to protect people. Again and again, I fail to see how gay marriage harms anyone.
I'd say the conversation is irrelevant because it's an internet debate between two strangers. What I meant was, I would prefer if they weren't so "in your face" about it. I honestly could not care less what they do with other people behind closed doors. It seems to me that many of the gays I meet deliberately make their mannerisms reflect their sexuality. Quite frankly, if the most defining characteristic of that person is their sexual orientation, then they need help. I've never heard of a straight man or woman walking up to somebody and saying, "Hi, my name is such and such, and I am heterosexual!" But all too often I've personally heard a person walk up to strangers and say "Hi, my name is such and such, and I'm gay!" Really? I don't care who you fuck. This continues on to my view of Don't Ask Don't Tell. Why was that such an issue? When I'm at work, I don't try to astound people with my manliness and love of boobs. I focus on the task at hand and complete my shift.
Really? Cause I've never heard that. I hear that on reality shows and such, which I agree is annoying, but I've never heard someone introduce themselves as gay in person. I agree that if they did, it would be as obnoxious as if someone introduced themselves as straight.
The whole speaking/ acting like they're gay thing is a bit ridiculous. Are you saying if a gay guy has a higher voice or talks about shopping he should try to stop it? What makes you think that he acts that way on purpose, and why does it bother you?
I completely disagree when it comes to Don't Ask, Don't Tell, because countless soldiers were discharged because someone found out they were gay. When he's spending extended amounts of time with someone, a male soldier should be able to be able to mention his boyfriend back home just as his friend is able to mention his girlfriend. If a package comes for him, he shouldn't have to lie and say it's from his roommate when it is in fact from his boyfriend. It's just not right that that double standard could exist.
I disagree somewhat with the discharges. As a guy myself, I can understand why they would happen. If I walked into a shower full of naked women, I would be at full mast in a jiffy. I'm betting the same would happen to the gay guys if they saw a bunch of naked, in shape dudes taking showers. That would cause extreme amounts of embarrassment, confusion, and most guys would feel threatened by it. Discharging the gay guys would save a lot of face for some of them, even though it was not justified. As far as your bf/gf situation, I'll just say it won't ever be that way. When guys are all packed onto a ship or a base with a bunch of other guys, if they're in a talk about their girlfriends, it isn't exactly kept at a PG rating. No straight guy would tolerate that kind of talk about another man from another man while they're going into their stories about their girlfriends. The package thing, you're right. It shouldn't be that kind of a double standard. But, to be quite honest, military institutions are extremely conservative and practical, as are the people who inhabit them. When people spend 6 months together in an enclosed space, the last thing a straight guy wants to hea...
Speaking from a girl's perspective, I wouldn't really give a shit if I was showering in the same room as a lesbian. As long as I mind my own business and lather rinse repeat, I don't see how the possibility of her getting the hots affects me. I realize it's a bit different for guys with the whole hard-on situation, but discharging a guy from the military just to avoid an awkward moment in the shower seems illogical.
Again, I'm speaking from girl's perspective when I say this, and I realize it might be a bit different for guys (although in most situations it shouldn't be), but I would have no problem rooming with a lesbian. It doesn't make any difference to me. If I'm spending six months in an enclosed space with someone, I'm going to want to make friends with that person. If the rest of the women are talking about boyfriends, I would want her to feel like she could jump in and talk about her girlfriend.
Oh, I remember you.
Hey, this comment reminds me, I was doing research about the different types of homophobia, because you were one of the guys who ticked multiple
http://www.pcc.edu/resources/il...ransphobia.pdf
1. Medical Homophobia: the notion that gay, lesbian, and bisexual people are ill and unfit to engage in specific familial and or social opportunities (e.g., raise children, teach, etc.).
2. Religious Homophobia: the idea that gay, lesbian, and bisexual individuals are sinful based on any particular faithbase, and may be cured as a result of prayer or other forms of intervention (e.g., reparative therapies).
3. Criminal Homophobia: the fear that gay, lesbian, and bisexual people are
committing deplorable illegal acts, including pedophilia.
4. Political Homophobia: the perspective that lesbian, gay, and bisexual individuals are good “common cause enemies” for those who want to advance on the social and political ladder (e.g., attracting the conservative vote).
5. Sociocultural Homophobia: the idea that lesbian, gay, and bisexual people live underground and corrupt lives, and “wish” social discord and chaos on the general population.
Sociocultural homophobia also upholds the perspective that
samesex couples flaunt their affection, wish to dismantle traditional family values, and push their lifestyle on others (e.g., gay pride parades, holding hands in public, samesex marriage).
6. Biological Homophobia: the belief that lesbian, gay, and bisexual people are genetically defective. This perspective also upholds that if there is a genetic “link” to homosexuality, then there must be a cure
And last time I saw this Frozen guy, he ticked all of them 'cept for 2 and 4.
I'm more of a #6 myself, but I wouldn't vouch for a cure, nor encourage it. I just don't think marriage should be such an issue - keep it at no. Gays can have their relationships, and heterosexuals can have marriage. I'm not going to say separate but equal, because a heterosexual relationship is superior to a homosexual one. Imo, homosexuality is like nature's way of bluntly stating "Your line ends here"
A man and woman are in love. They get married. They have a child. Something during childbirth goes wrong and the woman ends up having to have a hysterectomy. The woman no longer has a uterus, so it is physically impossible for her to have another child. If she ever has sex with her husband again, is it "wrong" because the only purpose to the sex would be pleasure, and procreation for her is completely impossible?
No, because it still obeys the laws of nature and serves the purposes of pleasure and making the spouses closer to each other.
Same for a woman and her wife.
And no one is talking about love here, attraction and love are totally different things.
Fred's not saying it should be supported. He's saying that people shouldn't be belittled because of these attractions, because they are not purposeful.
Pedophilia is not the act of abusing a child. It's the attraction to a child.
You can't control who or what you are attracted to. but yes, abusing a child is wrong, and should never be condoned. but it is not their fault they are attracted to children.
Wow all the down voters must really hate thought crime. Attraction is quite clearly an emotion not an action, so I don't get how anyone can be held responsible for it. It's like the whole thing about people saying people 'choose' to be gay which is quite clearly bullshit. They seem to miss the parrallel question "Did you ever 'choose' to be straight?" Again the usual discalimer: I DO NOT CONDONE PEOPLE VIOLATING OTHER PEOPLE'S RIGHTS. But if there is no action, there are no rights violated, and no harm done. If anything we should admire any paedophiles that abstain, we don't have to go through the pain they do for having a feeling they cannot allow. It must be hell. Prepares for lots of NWs