Support NeoGAF

[dude]

anecdotal experiences are fine - but you have to know there are limits.

As a bisexual you should understand that sexual orientation is generally believed to exist on a continuum. some people are exclusively gay, some bi, some straight and the degree to which you fall on one side of the continuum or the other can shift through a person's life to some extent although there is not good evidence for example of shifts from exclusively same sex attractions to opposite sex attractions or vice versa (not that I think you would expect there to be).

Homosexuality is considered on EXACTLY the same level as heterosexuality as is bisexuality. They're all normal, healthy valid sexual orientations. Comparing homosexuality to a fetish... it just is WRONG. I mean, I want to be nice about it but... no. it's simply not.

As the APA puts it:

That APA quote doesn't really stand in disagreement with anything I said.
But I have a problem with the APA definition of "sexual orientation", it seems rather arbitrary to me - What is the difference between being attracted to a prticular sex or sexes and to something else entirley? I have some friends in the BDSM community, and many of them don't care whether they get dommed by a man or woman and vice versa - They're attracted to some things that have nothing to do with gender. Where does that put them in that continuum? As Bisexual? That's not entirley accurate. Some people can prefer one sex to the other, but still only be attracted to one aspect of that gender, making the label "heterosexual", for example, not entirley accurate. These "bisexuals", "heterosexuals" and "homosexuals" will not necessarily find "satisfying and fulfilling romantic relationships" with other sharing his "sexual orientation" as described by the APA. Doesn't that make their definition incomplete?

I never claimed homosexuality is not on the same level as heterosexuality - it's just that to me, on the same level as both of these is many other sexual fixation, fetishes etc. I will take back the comment about "vaginal sex for the purpose of reproduction" (which is very differnt than being "heterosexual" as it's defined today.) as being on some different, more "natural" level - I saw that as the natural inclination of most people due to that being the way our genes are probably supposed to be wired. It was an assumption.

It’s certainly something you are born with, plus genes aren’t the only thing that influence development.

There are probably some genes that cause it in some people. The fact that genes aren't the onlt thing that influence developemnt is what I've been claiming. I think society, upbringing etc. are equally as relevant (what Dawkins calls memes.)

TBH, when I said that I was mainly thinking about dude. I can understand to some degree that being thrown in jail for just having very harmful thoughts is "unfair". But how many first time offenders are going to put children in harm. I think that if a person embrasses the thought to rape children and see nothing wrong in these thought they will adventually rape a child in their twisted "lovely" way..

Only very few people will think there nothing wrong with raping a child. That includes people who are attracted to children. usually, even people who rape children will think they did something horrible - Though I'm not sure how common that is. But many former sex offenders understand they did something horrible and immoral.
Again, when you jail people for harmful thoughts - where does the line end? I mean are we seriously discussing a thought police?

 

[bengraven]

Bro you can't just leave us hanging like that, who's the alt?

Spoiler

Londa

? Jekyll and Hyde shit over here man.

PMed.

 

[Riposte]

Sennorin once said would fuck his hypothetical daughter to fulfill her needs, in order to prevent her from having sex with other men. Where there is smoke... just sayin'. (best post I ever saw on NeoGAF, lol.)

 

[YoungHav]

Sennorin needs a therapist badly.

 

[Speevy]

There is a little bit of Sennorin in all of us.

I certainly hope not.

 

[notworksafe]

Dresden: explain to me how I come off as a stealth pedo? Please. I'm thinking that if someone takes the time to point someone out as the atl their usually the alt account. Its funny how you haven't even been discussing anything in here until just now to point out who the alt is.

So you don't know who Jekyll and Hyde are, huh? Or you didn't actually read anything. Both are equally likely.

PMed.

Yo what? If dude has an alt account, out that weirdo!

 

[SUPREME1]

Hope this isn't a long ban. It's a very common (if slightly tasteless) joke. Besides, we all know that KP likes his women old enough to buy booze.

Maybe so, but he deserves the ban for butchering the joke:

If there's grass on the turf play ball

?



Should be:

If there's grass on the field play ball.


Joke aside, fuck this thread and anyone who thinks this shit should be tolerated.

 

[radioheadrule83]

I'd missed this thread. Emotive topic!

Its hard to distance yourself emotionally and to resist reacting emotionally (ie. castrate all nonces!) in order to answer this as objectively as possible -- but I think you'd have to say that its possibly something of both.

Paedophiles are not a new phenomenon, they have been around for as long as there have been human beings. I think it is possible for there to be both a physical or chemical dysfunction that leads people to be attracted to younger teenagers or children, and we know that elements of a persons' psychological profile and personal history can make them more likely to have a proclivity towards this kind of sexual opportunism.

Although both are horrible - and I'm probably opening a can of worms here - I think attraction to completely pre-pubescent children is far far worse than someone being attracted to young teenagers or adults. I believe the latter might be more likely to stem from psychological or personal issues and be treatable if identified early. It might come from that person suffering physical or mental abuse themselves, it might come from a lack of sexual confidence or social inadequacy, it could even stem from other unidentified disorders that make it hard for a person to understand the moral issues or empathise with potential paedophile victims -- I wonder how many paedophiles have an element of autism for example?

Is it functionally, physically, a disorder to be attracted to a pubescent, developed or developing teenager? Or have we merely drew an arbitrary line in the sand (at 16 in some countries, at 18 in others, at 14 in others) because we needed a way to stop predatory, sexual exploitation and protect a more natural progress of the human gene pool? There are probably some teenagers whose bodies are at their most fertile during the teenage years, but there are consequences to rash sexual coupling and to breeding early, or breeding with the wrong partners: far reaching emotional and financial consequences. I think we have probably made it a criminal offence and treat it so seriously because basically - it is a violation of the social and cultural mores that we have evolved over history in order to protect our young and to optimise breeding / pairing through maintaining an aspect of choice and self determination.

Our most emotional reactions come out of lamenting the loss of innocence that comes about because a paedophile takes advantage of the naivete of youth. They take advantage of physical or mental weakness, or the simple inexperience that belies the ability of a person to have sexual self-determination. That's why its sexual opportunism, that's why we call such behaviour 'predatory'. And of course, being creatures of empathy, we put ourselves in the shoes of the person being abused, or the family of the abused and we feel enraged. A paedophile who acts on his lusts is an actor in a position of responsibility acting with complete disregard to the consequences and the physical and emotional wellbeing of his/her victim. Whether its some form of sad misaligned dysfunctional sexual orientation, or whether it is a disorder is irrelevant really -- its something society quite rightly has to be wary of and try to address.

 

[Pollux]

So you don't know who Jekyll and Hyde are, huh? Or you didn't actually read anything. Both are equally likely.


Yo what? If dude has an alt account, out that weirdo!

Wait someone has an alt? Bengraven...comeon we GAF buddies...tell me....

 

[drexplora]

the person's motives are what classify it as a disorder/sexual orientation or w/e.

 

[Izayoi]

you cant just make this statement and leave
"As a medical diagnosis, pedophilia (or paedophilia) is defined as a psychiatric disorder in adults or late adolescents (persons age 16 or older) typically characterized by a primary or exclusive sexual interest in prepubescent children"

there was nothing presumptuous about my statement
they are defined as people that either prefer, or exclusively interested in

So hold on. People who are attracted not only to children, but also to older women, are not technically pedophiles?

 

[dream]

I agree with notworksafe. The public has a right to know!

 

[Izayoi]

no
if their thoughts manifest into confession, then there is a fair chance that they have things that nobody should on their pc
you cant possibly believe that they are just attracted to children and still masturbate to standard porn?

I think that's an incredibly weak argument.

What is your definition of "standard porn"? Not child porn? So does that mean that lolicon is technically "standard porn" or does that fall under your definition of child porn?

 

[freenudemacusers]

the person's motives are what classify it as a disorder/sexual orientation or w/e.

banned? are you the mystery man?

I certainly hope not.

avatar quote

 

[dojokun]

LMAO at all the hypocrits in here acting like they never wanted to ram their meat down a pretty 17 year old's face.

 

[freenudemacusers]

LMAO at all the hypocrits in here acting like they never wanted to ram their meat down a pretty 17 year old's face.

only if it is my daughter and we're shooting a porno amirite

 

[dojokun]

only if it is my daughter and we're shooting a porno amirite

dunno what you're talking about

 

[Uchip]

I think that's an incredibly weak argument.

What is your definition of "standard porn"? Not child porn? So does that mean that lolicon is technically "standard porn" or does that fall under your definition of child porn?

well
obviously i meant porn that doesnt harm people in the making
so no snuff, torture, CP etc
lolicon is illegal in my country but Its not really the same thing (but if lolicon is your porn of choice then theres a good chance that its related)

i guess lolicons are less likely to be dangerous because they seem to prefer 2d over 3d

 

[freenudemacusers]

dunno what you're talking about

aw come now

I think people need to be more open-minded. If I had a daughter who wanted to be an adult film star I would be proud of her, and I would probably perform with her. I know there are prudish people out there who complain about incest, but honestly you can use contraceptives. If that doesn't work you can get an abortion. So what's the downside?

 

[Uchip]

aw come now

is this sennorins alt?

 

[dojokun]

aw come now

Typo.

 

[Angelus Errare]

aw come now

holy shit.

 

[freenudemacusers]

Typo.

you might want to replace your keyboard, it appears to be not only sentient but incestuous as well.

 

[Terrell]

Seriously?


... SERIOUSLY?!


OK, here is the answer. It is neither a disorder or a sexual orientation. It is a fetish. And like all fetishes, they are psychological in nature.


Yes, pedophilia does occur in nature. But what that causes is misleading information, as most of this sexual activity occurs in zoos in an environment that corrupts the animal's psychological foundations, and a third of these instances of sex with prepubescent animals are INITIATED by the prepubescent animal.
Also, this behavior ONLY occurs in animals that are deemed to have a highly social component to their lives in the same manner that humans do, mostly primates, whereas homosexuality occurs in creatures that don't have this same social component to their lives, such as insects. Therefore, the psychological component of environment and level of proximity to human psychology clearly denotes it as a fetish among higher forms of animals who are capable of even HAVING a fetish due to higher brain function.

Second, I define a fetish as something that sexually excites you in a way that OVER-RIDES sexual orientation. And.... well, I don't think I need to explain how this makes pedophilia a fetish, it's well-documented that many pedophiles will sexually abuse any sex regardless of their orientation.

Lastly, studies have shown that people who don't feel any normal interest in prepubescents can still show a sexual arousal response based on specific pedophilic stimuli. Therefore, it appears that sexual interest in prepubescent children operates on a sliding scale and is therefore not a disorder, as they are typically not so flexible or so prevalent, even in subdued ways.

Therefore.... it is psychological in nature, not a disorder as we all exhibit interest in varying small degrees and can over-ride primary sexual interests.... clearly defining a fetish. And thus can not be put in the same field as an orientation.

Can I get an "end of thread", please? Kthxbai.

 

[Mael]

that's like saying don't despise your disgustingly racist uncle if he manages to not blurt out anything in public.

I got my thought expressed for me,
1rst page too.

Funny to see Sennorin get banned for that though.