A Society Unable To Make Critical Distinctions Between Myriad Behaviors Is Unjust There are many arguments, some quite reasonable-sounding, for prohibiting all sexual interaction between adults and children. But they are all exquisitely vulnerable to a thorough examination of the range of actual behaviors and motives which comprise them.



Upon the examination of many actual, real-life, child-adult sexual expressions, one will find that rationalism will not support either the vehemence of condemnation nor the injustices inflicted upon both children/adolescents and the adults with whom they have interacted.



A society that is unable to make distinctions between adults who force themselves onto kids and those who do not will be incapable of making the same distinctions when both parties are kids. And that, quite tragically, is the latest development in the sex-hysteria witchhunt; i.E. Children/adolescents as "sexual predators". It is this development, in particular, which reveals society's stated concerns for "child welfare" as the lie which it is. Indeed, the child sex hysterics greatest concerns is for the preservation of their own malign hatred and their stated concern for "children" is a disingenuous ostentation.



And then there is the whole issue of JEALOUSY which almost no one ever mentions but was demonstrated to be the dominant motivating factor which lies behind homophobic fag-bashing, for example. Do we believe that it is not a factor in the hatred of pedophiles? I don't! The attraction many people have for children includes a sexual component that is impossible to distinguish from affection. I believe they exist on a continuum. But, because of the many assumptions people make about sex and what it consists of (saying much about themselves, in the process) they are unable to acknowledge this natural and most human of responses.



Pedophilia is a naturally occurring phenomenon, with numerous analogs throughout mammalian societies. We would be a much wiser species were we to understand it as an innate, and nurturing, characteristic distinct from forceful and violent interference. Posted by: davidkennerly Report Post

Consent is a major issue here. Say there was a gerontophile, or someone who loved OLD people. Now say if that old man had a case of dementia, and it could be argued that he is not fit to give consent. However, we would only find that odd and brush it off. If we were to argue that children aren't fit to give consent, then people with mental illnesses aren't either, but that's never the case.



Furthermore, children are, of course, much more capable than mentally ill seniors. Naturally, they have a biological predisposition to push themselves away from sexual advances, noting the "girl's-are-icky-boys-have-cooties" sort of thing that goes on with small children, proving they understand the biological roles of men and women. What can be at debate here is the future cost of actually raising a child, which a child cannot possibly comprehend. Add anti-birth methods, that's taken out of the equation. Of course, common knowledge must still be instilled into them, such as the fact that sex is not something that you can do wantonly, etc. Etc., but many of these things kids know based on instinct. And with that, if kids can break the boundary of "girl's-are-icky-boys-have-cooties," they are rational enough to know whether or not sexual activities is something that's okay or not to participate in, and if they believe it's fine, so be it.



But on another note, pedophilia isn't about sexual activities with children, as people suggest. The word itself is only "love of children." While pedophiles may have a sexual preference for children, it's not like they're acting upon it. Like how if I believe a grown woman is stunning, I'm not going to advance on her if I don't actually love her.



If they do act upon it, it's not a bad thing until rape is involved, either. If a grown person likes a child, and they can make the child literally fall in love with him, and he truly loves her, then what's wrong? He's not asking him to "reach into his pocket and take some candy." Nor is he asking for sexual favors. A kiss, a hug, there shouldn't be anything life threatening or life changing with that. Report Post

Sexually attracted to is different from raping. Rape is wrong. Rape is taking away the victims freedom of having or not having sexual relationships at that particular moment. Taking away someone's free choice, someone's freedom is one of the most demented crimes that humans constantly do. We are not talking about rape however, we are talking about being attracted to children. People who are attracted to children cannot help it, even if they want to, which many do. Many of these people curse themselves at night for their inexplicable attraction. And even though children are easy prey and the urge is strong, many of these so called "pedophiles" resist the temptation with great willpower and never touch a child in their lives, these people deserve nothing but support from others. Posted by: Nuanda Report Post

It's a sexual orientation Forcing children is wrong but if a child wants a relationship with an adult it should be allowed. As far as not being 'able to consent' goes I think that's rubbish.

I think the parents should have to give their permission and if so, let the love happen if it's there. Report Post

Sex is fun Simply, sex is fun. Toys are fun, games are fun, activities are fun, etc etc etc. Sex is a fun game that you are active in and may use toys. Children like fun things. What is wrong with harmless fun? Sex is harmless because it does not hurt anyone under normal circumstances. Yes, sex can be dangerous, but so can anything. ANYTHING. But let me not go off topic.



What is bad, is rape/force/non-consent. If the child does not want to do it, then that is fine, do not do it then. It is that simple. Sure, there are many things that children may not want to do, but those are important to development. Personal hygiene, consumption, and sleep are the basics. Sex is not. Sex is optional. Children may want to have sex. If so, then go for it. Just don't hurt them. Report Post

Saying a child cannot consent is like saying a child is incapable of choosing right from wrong. If a child is capable of knowing right from wrong then, they are capable of given consent reguardless weather someone thinks its wrong or not. Hetero, Homo, Pedophile does not matter. You choose who you jump into bed with. For all people that have a problem with it let me say to you what you would say to a person who does not like homosexuals. It takes one to know one. Report Post

No, sex with children is. Having sex with children is morally wrong because their brains are not fully developed, therefore making them incapable of giving true consent. However, simply being attracted to someone does not require consent, so there is ultimately no harm. Besides, being sexually attracted is not a choice. Having sex is a choice, but being attracted to someone is not. Posted by: funwiththoughts Report Post

It is not. Emotions and feelings are outside the realm of morality, so they can't be wrong or immoral; but a person can control their actions and that makes it fair to morally judge. One can not be judged on what they can not control. So no, being a pedophile or having pedophilic feelings is not wrong. Report Post

How can you be wrong for having a preference you can't control? What if someone told you it's wrong to be heterosexual? Now what if society told you that it's wrong to be heterosexual? What if people started to say that all heterosexuals just want to pounce on women and want to rape them uncontrollably. That heterosexual men shouldn't be allowed to socialize with females because they will rape them all....Well congratulations you now know what it's like to be stereotyped... I think child molesters should goto prison, but I think being a pedophile is ok. Posted by: autotrop Report Post