pedophilia and a logical society

[Intolerable]

Unfortunately I can only say that you seem somewhat ignorant on the topics of human psychology, physiology and neurology. I am certainly no expert myself, but you seem to neglect even rudimentary facts like the fact that a lot of an individual's behavior is governed by the concentration of various chemicals in his brain. Do you actually believe you can deliberately control the production of these chemicals? If your argument is simply that there is no difference between a mode of behavior and the choice between two dishes for dinner, I'd suggest reading a book on human behavior. I recommend "Descarte's Error" by Antonio Damasio – actually a very good fit for topic at hand.

Who said anything about changing hormonal balances? Well maybe it is possible by eliminating the triggers that cause those hormones to release? Sure, I suppose it would be but that was not what I have been talking about.

Behavior, modes, etc these terms don't matter. You have base urges like any other animal. To sate those urges you review options. It's really that simple.

Look at drug addicts. The reason drug addicts get addicted to drugs is that their options for sating that urge are extremely limited and pricey. It's like oxygen deprivation and the only way to get it is to pay someone for it. Yet it is completely possible for some people to resist their own urges. People who do cocaine and actually control their dose for example.

The point in all of this is that we choose. It doesn't mean the choice we make is the one we actually wanted at the time we chose.

 

[Yellow]

[...]It is possible and I know this because I have sisters that a girl has sex early in her life and goes on to not be a prostitute, a junkie or a head case. [...]

[...]Have you ever met a woman in her 20, 30s, 40s who by all measure could be called a horrible mother? I have. Age really doesn't prepare you for children. Maybe financially but certainly not emotionally. [...]

[...]I know a woman personally who had her first at 15. The girl grew up to be healthy, smart and beautiful and her mother did just fine as well. [...]

I appreciate anecdotes as well as the next person, but it's not a good idea to rely on them entirely. Every statement you're responding to is part of basic education in the areas of human physiology, psychology, and population genetics. It's literally textbook material with heaps of data behind them. I apologize that I'm in the habit of saying "correlated" when talking about research, but I think we're beyond fuzzy causation in this topic.

What is fertile years to you? Is it wrong for a 40 year old man like me to be sexually aroused by a 16 year old well endowed girl?

Fertile years are years in which a person can reproduce with minimal health risks. I don't see the problem at all with a 40 year old being sexually attracted to a physically mature 16 year old woman (though they would probably have a difficult time forming a healthy relationship because of inherent power inequalities, so the pursuit of sexual congress could still be argued as "predatory" in nature). A 16 year old man is a little more iffy, but it depends on the individual. Women are generally sexually mature at age 16, and as mentioned before, data suggests that it's the average minimum age in which most people can healthily process the physical and emotional intimacy of sex.

So as to not side-track, the thread title says pedophilia, which involves those who are sexually immature (i.e. not finished with puberty). That would include those who range from newborns to about 14 years old (varying with the individual). 14-16 is a sketchy area, and 17 is usually solid ground, physically speaking.

Sexual attraction to a child aged 3 or 7 or 11 is not natural. The thought of having sex with (or someone else wanting to have sex with) a child is disgusting (in the sense that disgust is a moral emotion that occurs with the violation of one's sense of sacredness, and we have an instinct to preserve our vulnerable young by holding their well being as sacred.)

 

[Intolerable]

I appreciate anecdotes as well as the next person, but it's not a good idea to rely on them entirely. Every statement you're responding to is part of basic education in the areas of human physiology, psychology, and population genetics. It's literally textbook material with heaps of data behind them. I apologize that I'm in the habit of saying "correlated" when talking about research, but I think we're beyond fuzzy causation in this topic.

Anecdotal evidence is important enough to suggest that research can often miss a large amount of data due to ulterior motives. Like trying to prove causation under suspicious circumstances.

My point here to you is that if it can exist then it is worth admitting it does. Instead of applying a large, abstract brush against the green of nature and saying you're now blue!

Fertile years are years in which a person can reproduce with minimal health risks. I don't see the problem at all with a 40 year old being sexually attracted to a physically mature 16 year old woman (though they would probably have a difficult time forming a healthy relationship because of inherent power inequalities, so the pursuit of sexual congress could still be argued as "predatory" in nature). A 16 year old man is a little more iffy, but it depends on the individual. Women are generally sexually mature at age 16, and as mentioned before, data suggests that it's the average minimum age in which most people can healthily process the physical and emotional intimacy of sex.

So as to not side-track, the thread title says pedophilia, which involves those who are sexually immature (i.e. not finished with puberty). That would include those who range from newborns to about 14 years old (varying with the individual). 14-16 is a sketchy area, and 17 is usually solid ground, physically speaking.

Sexual attraction to a child aged 3 or 7 or 11 is not natural. The thought of having sex with (or someone else wanting to have sex with) a child is disgusting (in the sense that disgust is a moral emotion that occurs with the violation of one's sense of sacredness, and we have an instinct to preserve our vulnerable young by holding their well being as sacred.)

So we both get that. Sure, it isn't natural. A LOT of sex isn't natural. I don't condone it either. However at risk of accepting sexual perversion as 'baked in' we leave the door open to all of them. Yeah, I get that law can come down on one and not the other. However, you don't get anywhere for no good reason and law generally isn't one of them. If it were, people wouldn't break it.

No, I'd rather have people know the truth about sexual orientation, choice and the malleability of it all. Baked in is horseshit. 1000 research articles can claim otherwise and so long as words like 'we believe' and 'we think' are littered in them they can kiss my ass.

 

[Black Rose]

I started masturbating when I was 8 because of a sexual encounter I has at 7. Seems true enough that it is the wrong thing to do that to a child (it was a blow job by the way). Both of them were teenage males. I wish it never happened to me but psychologically it did not affect me until I realized at 12 that you go to hell for masturbating. As to what a perversion is I think that if you want poop on your dick there is something wrong with you. Even if I was gay I would think you are a sick person for wanting to do that. Also I guess you could say I do have preferences myself for who I think is beautify and who I think is ugly. When using google you encounter some shit ugly people. But also I guess that if you ever google nude Anime you do find hot sexy guys and cute sexy girls. What I would say is that if you are guy that as long as you are attracted to the dicks of hot guys (especially anime guys) its not so bad. But if you are attracted to shit ugly guys then I get a little queasy. Ugly things make me queasy, like transsexuals who do not look like the gender they want to be. If you are a guy and dress as a girl I am sorry, you look like an ugly girl. My friend Yuki has this exact problem. He looks like an ugly girl.

I think Intolerable is correct about virginity. I am 28 right now and if I had sex now then it would be the same experience as if I was 38 or if I was 18. He would be right that you cannot prepare for it. Sex is not the same thing as masturbation. It is going to be a very weird experience for me when it happens. Like walking naked in public. (which I have never done)

That last thing to say is that I would not want to be born gay because then I could not have children in the natural way because if I did then I would need to have sex with a woman which to a gay man is repulsive. The child would probably know I did not love the mother and this would affect their development.

 

[jar of tuna]

Age of consent indeed seems too arbitrary, since our physiological and mental maturity don't suddenly flick on once we reach a certain age. Having said that though, an arbitrary age is likely the most effective way to deal with the subject currently, though there is an interesting trend in western society where physiological maturity is occurring earlier due to endocrine disruptors spurring early and sometimes precocious puberty, while social maturity becomes increasingly more delayed.

Not so long ago 14 year olds were running homesteads, getting married, and dying during childbirth, yet today someone isn't really considered an adult until they graduate college. So does this mean that age of consent should be adjusted or replaced, and if so, how, and how often?

Reproductive maturity alone probably doesn't cut it.

Clearly if your first sexual experience was adult on child it's going to be really difficult for you to adjust later to adult on adult.

I would include child on child as well. Regardless of age, if someone has a sexual experience with a child, that experience could remain imprinted.

Having 20, 40, 60 years post-puberty does not make you any more conditioned for a sexual experience than someone having sex the second time.

I doubt the act can truly and cleanly be separated from its implications and consequences. That's where mental maturity comes into play, imho. In general, age ~25+ seem to have a different understanding of the implications than 16-25, so yeah, I'll say there is a difference. The kicker is that said difference is likely due to experiences pre-25, whether their own or another's.

 

[jar of tuna]

I'll support the idea that sexuality is indeed mostly choice, though not an easy one.

It seems that many view preference as internal and choice as preference applied to the external, e.g. you're either straight or gay and you choose your most preferred partner from the pool of available partners. The reverse can be true as well. With a change in knowledge that changes your decision making process, you can apply choice internally and alter your preferences. It would seem that this change is externally influenced because that's where the knowledge originates, but in truth one can seek it out by choice, and all knowledge is filtered regardless of its veracity, hence the existence of ego defense mechanisms. This type of change is counterintuitive and intentionally sacrificial in nature. It takes actual willpower to achieve.

Anyone who has successfully lost weight or recovered from addiction has experienced this. There are literally changes in their neurophysiology as a result of their choices stemming from the input of new information at the fulcrum of change:

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3946492/

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3426465/

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23867558

This produces an ethical quandry: Should you use this process to limit yourself or expand your horizons? I'd expect most people would strive for the greatest amount of freedom possible, yet the effort may not be worth it if they're already satisfied, ugly, or elderly. Something to consider is that some degree of sexual deviance is natural regardless of species, and this deviance actually benefits those who partake in "normal" sexual behavior, e.g. more gay males = more females available to straight males.

 

[jar of tuna]

Intolerable's flavor of libertarianism seems rooted in the misconception that because someone (usually the libertarian) was prepared for something before others were and felt restricted from acting, others were likely equally prepared at the same age and also restricted. There is no immediate way for the libertarian to differentiate between their reality and competing realities (e.g. most others are neither ready nor restricted) by assessing veracity, so usually they side with their own reality, because that's what they've actually experienced, if they've even considered alternates to begin with. Classic Dunning-Kruger.

Even better, if there were dissonance between reality and the libertarian's perceived reality, following the libertarian philosophy of live and let live would result in no change, which the libertarian could wrongly interpret as the failure of their philosophy, the wrongness of the world, the refusal of others to listen to them, etc. It's needless frustration, really, not to mention that it risks emboldening the naive into bad experiences if the libertarian's understanding of reality isn't perfect, resulting in unnecessary distrust in those who promote what is mostly a sound philosophy of live and let live.

TLDR: As much as they hate to hear this, libertarians should talk less and listen more.

 

[Intolerable]

@jar of tuna

I'm glad you are open-minded enough to consider that baseline gratifications are separate from the choices we leverage to satisfy them.

That said, my anecdotal examples apply in a general rule. The luxury of having siblings and seeing how they behave, when they matured, how their childhood impacted their choice in partner selection are all important here.

I'll give you one more anecdotal. Why do women choose the wrong guy? I have four sisters. Each grew up watching their mother in the dating sphere with wrong guys their entire lives. Violent, stupid apes came and went like it was a revolving door.

It can hardly be argued that a woman naturally would seek a man who doesn't work, who doesn't contribute income to the home, who gets drunk and fights with her all the time. I don't know anybody who would argue that to be normal. Yet here we are, many many years later they all went down the same road. To varying degrees. Character did become a factor. The headstrong one went with the lesser evil. The complacent ones went in a completely same direction as mom.

This is but one example of things I've seen in my life that lead me to believe that sex is a choice. Who we are attracted to is chosen through available environmental stimuli at the time. Then our top choice remains so long as it isn't challenged by another. Hard to do considering once gratification has been met the need for any other option is gone.

Insofar as how that relates to pedophilia I think we agree. Child on child is certainly a large risk factor. Probably the largest when taking into account what we're discussing.

Insofar as the choice. Well, hard choices are hard. Really hard. When you don't want to make a choice that is. We almost have to be forced to choose in this case. That is true for almost all of us. Sex is really no different. Telling a pedophile hey man, just screw women your own age isn't going to jive with the entire life history he has spent on children. No, it doesn't work that way.

It is still however a choice and you can game your psyche by introducing negative examples of the top choice and positive examples of the second and third choices.

No, this doesn't mean a woman can choose a good guy over a bad guy because she's convinced herself that the bad guy is bad for her financially. Though it does sometimes happen I aim to attack the gratification schema directly. Lessen the importance of sex. Perhaps consider what the bad guy doesn't do good sexually and emphasize that. Further emphasize what the good guy does well sexually.

Failing all that a hard reset. Take a long, very long break from gratification. So that your mind has forgotten it. Then reintroduce it with the preferred options.

It takes some work to manipulate the choices and I think this can work for pedophiles. It wouldn't be easy but the answer is a lot friendlier than sorry man you were born that way.

 

[Yellow]

I'll give you one more anecdotal. Why do women choose the wrong guy? I have four sisters. Each grew up watching their mother in the dating sphere with wrong guys their entire lives. Violent, stupid apes came and went like it was a revolving door.

It can hardly be argued that a woman naturally would seek a man who doesn't work, who doesn't contribute income to the home, who gets drunk and fights with her all the time. I don't know anybody who would argue that to be normal. Yet here we are, many many years later they all went down the same road. To varying degrees. Character did become a factor. The headstrong one went with the lesser evil. The complacent ones went in a completely same direction as mom.

Are you kidding me? Just a few posts ago, you were saying that your sisters had sex young and didn't have issues.

This is exactly what I was talking about. Women (and men) who begin having intimate relationships at too young an age are especially vulnerable to these circumstances.

Monkey see monkey do is a part of this. Children imprint most strongly with the same-sex adults in their early lives. Your sisters identified with your mother's role and you identified with the primary male roles (hopefully you've overcome, but it sounds like they didn't). That's what becomes normal.

I never said that there aren't factors leading children to have sex/rape too young. Unhealthy examples in childhood are a huge risk factor. But they all go together. Children/teens without adequate nurturing/supervision will more easily fall prey to risky behaviors and situations, and then grow up to continue the risky behaviors, which they will pass to the next generation. Immature sex and sexual relationships in general are a huge factor.

Why are they a huge factor? Because when you boil right down to it, we are just reproductive machines. So examples of family life, sexual relationships, romance, and sex in general are astoundingly influential. From birth, we are learning how to successfully reproduce. Sex will germinate the next generation, but the health, behavior, stability, etc. of the guardians are what will make the offspring truly successful.

So you see that by protecting our progeny from reproductive acts until the stage is fully set for them to be successful themselves, is in all of our best interest.

Further, for someone to have an instinct to reproductive acts with someone who has not developed far enough adequately care for their offspring, is an enormous red flag indicating that something is wrong. If they are just harming their own gene pools (like a man/woman who always mates with assholes), it's one thing. If they are a threat to ours, then they must be stopped (hence the reprehension at the thought of pedophilia, or someone taking advantage of the mentally impaired, or any number of other examples).

 

[Black Rose]

Monkey see monkey do is a part of this. Children imprint most strongly with the same-sex adults in their early lives.

I never had a strong male roll model in my life. My mother married a degenerate asshole and I have not seen him since I was 6. Everything about maleness to me seems like immature testosterone driven hell fire sermon speeches. I hardly seem to handle such expressions of dominance. Mostly it comes from their eyes and voice where you realize they have no patience with handling sensitive issues or even serious issues. They are uptight and reject criticism because they have an unjustified certainty in themselves that puts everyone else bellow them. They cross the line where they go crazy because you refuse to do what they say. I can think of two examples (the police murdering Freddie Gray) and the girl yelling at Bernie Sanders. Everyone is so cray cray and lack respectfulness. Bill Orally is a twisted propagandist that just wants to manipulate everything he can about the truth.

https://youtu.be/6BnbwUT7lBg

 

[Jennywocky]

Well, I think the thing is, the imprinting isn't necessarily a direct attempt to emulate the parent: It's essentially your reaction to the parent of identification. If the parent isn't there, THAT impacts you. If the parent is there, then you react to the parent's behavior and influence; so if the parent is an asshat, you respond to that, and if they are affirming, you respond to that. Your reaction is based in general on your preferences and perceptions.

Note I'm not even sure it needs to be the same physical gendered parent, it's the one you simply look to as a model / identify with for whatever reason.

Kids do ape their parents in lots of ways; I saw it raising my kids; they soak up what you do and say and/or react with/against it. But kids are not blank slates. That was the predominate view 60-70 years ago, but things changed because it wasn't accurate.

 

[Yellow]

Well, I think the thing is, the imprinting isn't necessarily a direct attempt to emulate the parent: It's essentially your reaction to the parent of identification. If the parent isn't there, THAT impacts you. If the parent is there, then you react to the parent's behavior and influence; so if the parent is an asshat, you respond to that, and if they are affirming, you respond to that. Your reaction is based in general on your preferences and perceptions.

Note I'm not even sure it needs to be the same physical gendered parent, it's the one you simply look to as a model / identify with for whatever reason.

Kids do ape their parents in lots of ways; I saw it raising my kids; they soak up what you do and say and/or react with/against it. But kids are not blank slates. That was the predominate view 60-70 years ago, but things changed because it wasn't accurate.

Its a combination of things, but what is "normal" behavior is left to the early environment to define. It can be rewritten and countered, but that takes a lot more work because it's wired into the more primitive parts of the brain. But studies do suggest that we identify most with (and establish as "normal") the actions of the parent/guardian with whom we share a gender-identity. Obviously, it becomes more complicated with children who have complicated gender identities.

I work with a lot of addicts who are children of addicts and nearly all of them can remember the first time they realized that home wasn't "right". No matter how they'd like to behave, or wish they would act, react, partner, and parent, until they put in the effort to learn a new way of life (and it can be a lot of work) they fall back on the behavior they know. The behaviors that were modeled for them day in and day out.

 

[Intolerable]

Are you kidding me? Just a few posts ago, you were saying that your sisters had sex young and didn't have issues.

They didn't have any issues after they had sex with their boyfriends / husbands / live ins or whatever they are now.

The issue I cite is what they learned from their mother. That has really nothing to do with sex besides the correlated preference of mate.

Sex-specific issues would be for example scarred by the act or something else went horribly wrong that they turned away from it entirely. Their issues are sociological issues but they aren't broken people.

 

[emmabobary]

I really find the act of pedophilia really off-putting. the main point was not the discriminate against someone for what they cant help, as that makes no fucking sense. i think its very odd that someone would even want a little kid as a partner as i dont see any middleground for the two people. i would really like to see an asexual society, as i think people would treat each other much nicer. its all kind of gross to me. that quoted part was basically my deterministic worldview coming out, i dont think people choose relationships based on much more than physical attraction(might just be the fucktards i know) so its all meh in the end nihilism ftw right

Well you got a point here:
There is no such thing actually.
Pedophiles don´t see their partners as equal, a child is like a pet to them, like a sexual toy pet.
It´s a fetish.
What is punishable about it, I guess, is cruelty.

 

[Jennywocky]

Well you got a point here:
There is no such thing actually.
Pedophiles don´t see their partners as equal, a child is like a pet to them, like a sexual toy pet.
It´s a fetish.

Weirdly, while the child is typically being objectified and responses are being read/sexualized in ways that fulfill the adult's fantasies, there's another level where they're simply seeking a relationship where they feel in control and a child is an "equivalent" partner. If you feel incapable/threatened in a relationship by an independent adult partner with their own expectations/demands for you and who can leave if you don't offer something back (or don't even understand what to offer), you will seek out a relationship where you feel in charge and capable.

 

[emmabobary]

How "being in control of a relationship" and "equivalent partner" fit together?
It´s contradictory.
Just from the begining, a child is obviously the vulnerable "partner", a child is manipulable, moldable, inmature: naturally coercible.(And I´m not saying all the children are helpless victims, I´m saying that´s what a real pedo sees in a child, that´s what they´re looking for)

Maybe in your example the other level you refer to is that one where the pedo finds his/her opposite complement. A son to a mother, a lovely pet compnion to a lonely man.
Either way isn´t healthy.

off the air:
Personally I aprreciate better a pedophile who knows that what he/she is doing is wrong, yet he/she does it anyway. It´s already embarrasing when they justify so vehemently their acts, it´s more embarrasing when we buy that bullshit.

back on the air:

If you feel incapable/threatened in a relationship by an independent adult partner with their own expectations/demands for you and who can leave if you don't offer something back (or don't even understand what to offer), you will seek out a relationship where you feel in charge and capable.

I don´t understand this

 

[Jennywocky]

How "being in control of a relationship" and "equivalent partner" fit together?
It´s contradictory.
Just from the begining, a child is obviously the vulnerable "partner", a child is manipulable, moldable, inmature: naturally coercible.(And I´m not saying all the children are helpless victims, I´m saying that´s what a real pedo sees in a child, that´s what they´re looking for)

Maybe in your example the other level you refer to is that one where the pedo finds his/her opposite complement. A son to a mother, a lovely pet compnion to a lonely man.
Either way isn´t healthy.

off the air:
Personally I aprreciate better a pedophile who knows that what he/she is doing is wrong, yet he/she does it anyway. It´s already embarrasing when they justify so vehemently their acts, it´s more embarrasing when we buy that bullshit.

back on the air:


I don´t understand this

When you look at case studies of molesters -- at least the older creepy ones who befriend, molest, and then murder their victims (so maybe I'm just considering a subset of molesters here) -- they usually are infantilized in some ways themselves and aren't capable of building a mature relationship with a romantic partner their age.

 

[Sinny91]

Pedophiles don´t see their partners as equal, a child is like a pet to them, like a sexual toy pet.
It´s a fetish.
What is punishable about it, I guess, is cruelty.

This.

And this is why the surest and most efficient method of dealing with these cancerous thoughts, it te just shoot 'em.

And be done wigh that.

...Putting a dog down...

I am hypocrite (sorta), I do support (some) eugenics.

 

[Intolerable]

When you look at case studies of molesters -- at least the older creepy ones who befriend, molest, and then murder their victims (so maybe I'm just considering a subset of molesters here) -- they usually are infantilized in some ways themselves and aren't capable of building a mature relationship with a romantic partner their age.

Yeah I think this is more along the lines of what happens.

They have desires like the rest of us but no legitimate choice to reach gratification. So they go to the next available choice to get what they need and sometimes that leads to murder which in of itself is a panic response to the situation.

Being limited in such a way means like with any criminal if they're too stupid to see the benefits of following the law they're probably too stupid to not get caught breaking the law.

The smarter people who have these perversions will find choices to reach gratification that allow them to not break the law.

Kinda like illegal drugs when you think about it.

 

[Patch]

This.

And this is why the surest and most efficient method of dealing with these cancerous thoughts, it te just shoot 'em.

And be done wigh that.

...Putting a dog down...

I am hypocrite (sorta), I do support (some) eugenics.

Well you got a point here:
There is no such thing actually.
Pedophiles don´t see their partners as equal, a child is like a pet to them, like a sexual toy pet.
It´s a fetish.
What is punishable about it, I guess, is cruelty.

I agree, I doubt any peadophile would see the child as an equal partner (equal partner = having the same status in the relationship and having the power to negotiate decisions). Also, from a biological point of view, peadophilia is a deviation, simply because we are programmed to have sexual desires with the purpose of procreation, which obviously is not possible with children. That's also the reason why normal people don't find children attractive, but men/women sometimes start "noticing" boys/girls when they hit puberty, since that's the time when you are ready to have kids yourself (purely biologically).

So yeah, it's a mental disorder just as any other (like a doll fetish), the only reason it's frowned upon is because someone actually gets hurt physically or mentally (a good reason to be frowned upon tbh ).

 

[AphroditeGoneAwry]

I am excited to see a pedophile thread. For the simple reason that this is one of the last frontiers to be reckoned with in our social stratum. Seriously, if people cannot talk about this, how is anyone supposed to heal from it, or be treated for it, before possibly harming hundreds of innocent children first?

Pedophilia is our modern day leprosy. Except unlike leprosy, acting on it IS a choice, as @intolerable says.

The Bible does not say anything against pedophilia except when Jesus says you should not hurt a child, or it would be better to have a millstone flung around your neck and be thrown into the sea. Also there is the 'Love Your Neighbor as Yourself' Great Commandment. Incest-wise, Leviticus gives a complete list of those relatives whom you are not supposed to uncover the nakedness of, but not-inconspicuously leaves out one's own children (I suppose because it would be normal to see your own children naked while changing them and bathing them). Conversely, the children are commanded however, not to view the nakedness of their parents or kin.

Biblically it seems okay for an adult to be betrothed to a child. Jewish uncles were doing an honorable deed when they married their nieces. Currently, Muslims practice this in their culture, and are an Abrahamic religion, stemming from the same patriarch Christianity claims, Abraham of the Bible.

However, God also instructs men to marry women. When this happens the two become one flesh. Although polygamy is also not a sin in the Bible (for most men, unless the man is a Son of God or a priest), men are also commanded not to 'multiply wives' for themselves like kings often did. So, biblically, if a man married a young girl (or betrothed her to marry later), he might be a pedophile if he enjoyed her as a child. But because he was married to her, she would grow up and his pedophilia would be effectively squelched.

However, in a worldly or pagan culture which we are steeped within, we think that anything we can imagine we can do, and that what we feel is also what we should do ('as long as it doesn't hurt anyone'). So, the world has a different form of pedophile, the serial pedophile, who is really nothing more than an adulterer of children. This is a most heinous sin.

In short, polygamy and pedophilia in themselves are not sins. Divorce and adultery ARE sins. Serial monogamy is sin (if those involved marry in the name of the LORD and the Lord has put them together, then they divorce), and making love to child after child is a sin. Making love to a child who is married to a person is not a sin. Of course, the commandment to Love Your Neighbor as Yourself would apply here. To actually penetrate a prepubescent girl could harm her physically which is not very loving, is it. But there might be other acts which would be okay short of physically hurting her. Of course, there are many ways to hurt those who are vulnerable: emotionally, socially, and financially. But now we are treading into the realm of abuse, which is not Godly and is not Loving Your Neighbor as Yourself.

I get that men (especially) are programmed to be attracted to girls, and often many of them. God does not say that is a sin. Our modern world has turned the tables on what is sin and what is not so that we do not even understand what is right and wrong anymore. We celebrate sodomy (an abomination in the Bible) and divorce (a clear sin), but denigrate polygamy and pedophilia, both of which are facets of the human experience (even if we are too ashamed or guilty to admit it).

Is pedophilia a choice? We cannot help who we are attracted to to a certain degree. Again, I agree with @intolerable that if someone has been sexually molested as a child and liked it, or derived gain from it, that person might struggle with normal adult relationships. The choice may have largely been made for him. But in the end what God cares about and what counts, is the ACTION. God understands we have feelings and emotions out of our control. But we CAN control the acting out of these feelings and emotions. And if we cannot, jail can prohibit us, as necessary.

I believe this is a large part of what Jesus was referring to when He spoke of cutting off offensive body parts that cause one to sin. It is better to enter heaven maimed than to go to hell for having a 'member' cause you to sin. (castration anyone?). He was speaking in the context of adultery here, which is appropriate to pedophilia.


I do not find pedophiles disturbing anymore because I am used to the idea of it all. I have been exploring this concept for numerous years now because I perceived a long time ago that the person(s) I was most attracted to might be one. I still am not sure if that is so or not, but it is not a deal breaker for me, as it might have been before I knew God.

I suspect that most pedophiles are juvenile at heart. That they have very immature places in them that crave young love because parts of them are perpetually young or bound up or stuck in a developmental phase somewhere. In cycling through the role of older or younger partner, they revisit those feelings and experiences whereby they became stifled. It is in the replaying that we seek a new ending. However, the ending cannot ever be new if we do the same old thing. That is the definition of insanity. New children or new depraved scenes are never going to give one the peace one is deeply seeking, probably unknowingly. Discussing their own sexual history, feelings, experiences, loss of innocence, and allowing a safe expression of repressed anger will be more effective. And of course, becoming a new creation in Jesus Christ, without whom NO ONE can change effectively.


If anyone wants to pm me about pedophilic inclinations, or wants a safe place to discuss this without false judgment, you may pm me. Keep in mind I am not a pedophile myself nor ever have been. Nor do I condone it outside the realm of marriage, which I don't think would apply to most cases, especially in the US. I am a Christian and use the Bible and my knowledge of God to guide me. However, I am sensitive to the plight of those who crave the touch of children, and their struggle to get along in life. ~selah

 

[Patch]

Making love to a child who is married to a person is not a sin.

Nor do I condone it outside the realm of marriage

I honestly don't know what to say. How would marrying a child make peadophilia justifiable? First of all, a child would not be able by itself decide if it wants to marry someone or not, there would always be some bias and emotional manipulation involved. Luckily, I don't see this happening in any country in the 21st century.

 

[Archer]

I honestly don't know what to say. How would marrying a child make peadophilia justifiable? First of all, a child would not be able by itself decide if it wants to marry someone or not, there would always be some bias and emotional manipulation involved. Luckily, I don't see this happening in any country in the 21st century.

"I am incredibly interested in incest." -AGA, incest thread.

 

[Intolerable]

I honestly don't know what to say. How would marrying a child make peadophilia justifiable? First of all, a child would not be able by itself decide if it wants to marry someone or not, there would always be some bias and emotional manipulation involved. Luckily, I don't see this happening in any country in the 21st century.

Arranged marriage gets a bad rap. First, when a child was betrothed to an adult in antiquity the adult did not consummate the marriage prior to her ( almost always was male adult ) reaching puberty. To do so would have been culturally wrong and frowned upon.

In antiquity if you were 15 and had your first blood you were officially a woman. No ifs, ands or buts about it. People grew up faster in antiquity because life generally ended sooner. So it wasn't out of the ordinary to find child lords and wives of 15 years.

Arranged marriages have the benefits of preserving status. That is, most guys don't want a woman with kids already and many women out there today have a rough time finding someone long term because of the choices they made as teenagers.

I look at my own history and family to know that giving choice in adolescence is usually associated with debilitating results later in life. Sexual conduct is really no different than say, hygiene, narcotics and behavior. Adults must control children to ensure they follow the customs of their culture. Failing to do so results in unintended consequences the child will never escape.

 

[Patch]

Arranged marriage gets a bad rap. First, when a child was betrothed to an adult in antiquity the adult did not consummate the marriage prior to her ( almost always was male adult ) reaching puberty. To do so would have been culturally wrong and frowned upon.

In antiquity if you were 15 and had your first blood you were officially a woman. No ifs, ands or buts about it. People grew up faster in antiquity because life generally ended sooner. So it wasn't out of the ordinary to find child lords and wives of 15 years.

Arranged marriages have the benefits of preserving status. That is, most guys don't want a woman with kids already and many women out there today have a rough time finding someone long term because of the choices they made as teenagers.

I look at my own history and family to know that giving choice in adolescence is usually associated with debilitating results later in life. Sexual conduct is really no different than say, hygiene, narcotics and behavior. Adults must control children to ensure they follow the customs of their culture. Failing to do so results in unintended consequences the child will never escape.

Being 15 or biologically mature is something different when you marry an 8 year old child who has no idea what sex is supposed to be for.

 

[Intolerable]

Being 15 or biologically mature is something different when you marry an 8 year old child who has no idea what sex is supposed to be for.

I was pointing out that arranged marriages involving 8 year olds was not pedophilia because they did not consummate until the 8 year old was of age.

Also there is enormous empirical evidence to suggest disarranged relationships are far more harmful to children and young adults. For the simple fact its a game with endless ill consequences and the player is wholly ignorant of that.