didn't need to be kreskin to see this one coming...

[madhatter]

http://www.nytimes.com/2014/10/06/opini ... .html?_r=0" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Pedophilia: A Disorder, Not a Crime...

By some estimates, 1 percent of the male population continues, long after puberty, to find themselves attracted to prepubescent children. These people are living with pedophilia, a sexual attraction to prepubescents that often constitutes a mental illness. Unfortunately, our laws are failing them and, consequently, ignoring opportunities to prevent child abuse.

The Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders defines pedophilia as an intense and recurrent sexual interest in prepubescent children, and a disorder if it causes a person “marked distress or interpersonal difficulty” or if the person acts on his interests. Yet our laws ignore pedophilia until after the commission of a sexual offense, emphasizing punishment, not prevention.

[Bubba]

Not sure what you're trying to say. Clearly, it's a mental disorder and acting on that disorder should be a criminal offense. What the author of the opinion piece concludes, however, is the following:

A pedophile should be held responsible for his conduct — but not for the underlying attraction. Arguing for the rights of scorned and misunderstood groups is never popular, particularly when they are associated with real harm. But the fact that pedophilia is so despised is precisely why our responses to it, in criminal justice and mental health, have been so inconsistent and counterproductive. Acknowledging that pedophiles have a mental disorder, and removing the obstacles to their coming forward and seeking help, is not only the right thing to do, but it would also advance efforts to protect children from harm.

With what are you disagreeing, if anything?

[madhatter]

Not sure what you're trying to say. Clearly, it's a mental disorder but being gay/trans etc is not? why is there a difference? a guy that thinks he is a woman is "normal" but a guy that likes 12 year olds has a mental disorder? not advocating for or against either just posing the same question I posed before " how is one "natural, "normal" and the other not? and acting on that disorder should be a criminal offense. What the author of the opinion piece concludes, however, is the following:

A pedophile should be held responsible for his conduct — but not for the underlying attraction. Arguing for the rights of scorned and misunderstood groups is never popular, particularly when they are associated with real harm. But the fact that pedophilia is so despised is precisely why our responses to it, in criminal justice and mental health, have been so inconsistent and counterproductive. Acknowledging that pedophiles have a mental disorder, and removing the obstacles to their coming forward and seeking help, is not only the right thing to do, but it would also advance efforts to protect children from harm.

With what are you disagreeing, if anything?

well if ya read the whole article it kinda states that these people are programmed to feel the way they do, kinda the same reasoning behind other "sexual" preferences... being that age and the restrictions placed on adult/child relations is 100% artificial being that nature doesn't mandate them, the reasoning that "people are born that way and thus their behavior is "normal" doesn't apply to those with whom society disagrees...yet on other fronts seeks to normalize deviant behavior...whats next? where's the consistency in thought? or are we simply picking and choosing the winners and losers? the accepted and scorned? the protected class and the chastised class? if both occur in single digit % of the population how are either of those "conditions" considered "normal"?

[Bubba]

Not sure what you're trying to say. Clearly, it's a mental disorder but being gay/trans etc is not? why is there a difference? a guy that thinks he is a woman is "normal" but a guy that likes 12 year olds has a mental disorder? not advocating for or against either just posing the same question I posed before " how is one "natural, "normal" and the other not? and acting on that disorder should be a criminal offense. What the author of the opinion piece concludes, however, is the following:

A pedophile should be held responsible for his conduct — but not for the underlying attraction. Arguing for the rights of scorned and misunderstood groups is never popular, particularly when they are associated with real harm. But the fact that pedophilia is so despised is precisely why our responses to it, in criminal justice and mental health, have been so inconsistent and counterproductive. Acknowledging that pedophiles have a mental disorder, and removing the obstacles to their coming forward and seeking help, is not only the right thing to do, but it would also advance efforts to protect children from harm.

With what are you disagreeing, if anything?

well if ya read the whole article it kinda states that these people are programmed to feel the way they do, kinda the same reasoning behind other "sexual" preferences... being that age and the restrictions placed on adult/child relations is 100% artificial being that nature doesn't mandate them, the reasoning that "people are born that way and thus their behavior is "normal" doesn't apply to those with whom society disagrees...yet on other fronts seeks to normalize deviant behavior...whats next? where's the consistency in thought? or are we simply picking and choosing the winners and losers? the accepted and scorned? the protected class and the chastised class? if both occur in single digit % of the population how are either of those "conditions" considered "normal"?

You seem to be overlooking the distinct difference between activities between consenting adults who may be programmed the way they are versus the actions of an adult toward a child; a child who is vulnerable to the unwanted actions of an adult and where there is demonstrable harm inflicted upon that child. Society can deem behavior driven by one genetic program acceptable and another unacceptable. There is nothing inconsistent about accepting one type of programmed behavior but not accepting another one that is harmful.

[madhatter]

Not sure what you're trying to say. Clearly, it's a mental disorder but being gay/trans etc is not? why is there a difference? a guy that thinks he is a woman is "normal" but a guy that likes 12 year olds has a mental disorder? not advocating for or against either just posing the same question I posed before " how is one "natural, "normal" and the other not? and acting on that disorder should be a criminal offense. What the author of the opinion piece concludes, however, is the following:

A pedophile should be held responsible for his conduct — but not for the underlying attraction. Arguing for the rights of scorned and misunderstood groups is never popular, particularly when they are associated with real harm. But the fact that pedophilia is so despised is precisely why our responses to it, in criminal justice and mental health, have been so inconsistent and counterproductive. Acknowledging that pedophiles have a mental disorder, and removing the obstacles to their coming forward and seeking help, is not only the right thing to do, but it would also advance efforts to protect children from harm.

With what are you disagreeing, if anything?

well if ya read the whole article it kinda states that these people are programmed to feel the way they do, kinda the same reasoning behind other "sexual" preferences... being that age and the restrictions placed on adult/child relations is 100% artificial being that nature doesn't mandate them, the reasoning that "people are born that way and thus their behavior is "normal" doesn't apply to those with whom society disagrees...yet on other fronts seeks to normalize deviant behavior...whats next? where's the consistency in thought? or are we simply picking and choosing the winners and losers? the accepted and scorned? the protected class and the chastised class? if both occur in single digit % of the population how are either of those "conditions" considered "normal"?

You seem to be overlooking the distinct difference between activities between consenting adults who may be programmed the way they are versus the actions of an adult toward a child; a child who is vulnerable to the unwanted actions of an adult and where there is demonstrable harm inflicted upon that child. Society can deem behavior driven by one genetic program acceptable and another unacceptable. There is nothing inconsistent about accepting one type of programmed behavior but not accepting another one that is harmful.

the term "consenting adults" is contrived, nature makes no such delineation, we as a society have created that... some in society are just as opposed to other forms of "sexual deviance" yet they are vilified as haters, homophobes etc...the pro-gay segment believes that being gay is natural and thus acceptable simply because of that, despite the fact that that same behavior doesn't really manifest itself in almost every other species, yet in nearly every species it is quite common for those of breeding age to breed or try to breed...so which is the more naturally occurring act? and which is not? the argument is a valid one, that no one will engage in because it destroys a narrative used to further a cause...anyone opposed is simply told to STFU and accept it as "common" despite it being nothing of the sort... Again I don't care if people are gay nor really whether they "chose" to be gay or were born that way...I'm also not advocating for any kind of law, ruling or restrictions for or against gays I'm just not sure why we seek to promote and reward certain deviant behaviors that many find offensive simply because they are deemed "natural" ... IMO its purely politically driven to gain votes for one side while vilifying those opposed as un-accepting of a "natural" thing...

[Bubba]

Not sure what you're trying to say. Clearly, it's a mental disorder but being gay/trans etc is not? why is there a difference? a guy that thinks he is a woman is "normal" but a guy that likes 12 year olds has a mental disorder? not advocating for or against either just posing the same question I posed before " how is one "natural, "normal" and the other not? and acting on that disorder should be a criminal offense. What the author of the opinion piece concludes, however, is the following:

A pedophile should be held responsible for his conduct — but not for the underlying attraction. Arguing for the rights of scorned and misunderstood groups is never popular, particularly when they are associated with real harm. But the fact that pedophilia is so despised is precisely why our responses to it, in criminal justice and mental health, have been so inconsistent and counterproductive. Acknowledging that pedophiles have a mental disorder, and removing the obstacles to their coming forward and seeking help, is not only the right thing to do, but it would also advance efforts to protect children from harm.

With what are you disagreeing, if anything?

well if ya read the whole article it kinda states that these people are programmed to feel the way they do, kinda the same reasoning behind other "sexual" preferences... being that age and the restrictions placed on adult/child relations is 100% artificial being that nature doesn't mandate them, the reasoning that "people are born that way and thus their behavior is "normal" doesn't apply to those with whom society disagrees...yet on other fronts seeks to normalize deviant behavior...whats next? where's the consistency in thought? or are we simply picking and choosing the winners and losers? the accepted and scorned? the protected class and the chastised class? if both occur in single digit % of the population how are either of those "conditions" considered "normal"?

You seem to be overlooking the distinct difference between activities between consenting adults who may be programmed the way they are versus the actions of an adult toward a child; a child who is vulnerable to the unwanted actions of an adult and where there is demonstrable harm inflicted upon that child. Society can deem behavior driven by one genetic program acceptable and another unacceptable. There is nothing inconsistent about accepting one type of programmed behavior but not accepting another one that is harmful.

the term "consenting adults" is contrived, nature makes no such delineation, we as a society have created that... some in society are just as opposed to other forms of "sexual deviance" yet they are vilified as haters, homophobes etc...the pro-gay segment believes that being gay is natural and thus acceptable simply because of that, despite the fact that that same behavior doesn't really manifest itself in almost every other species, yet in nearly every species it is quite common for those of breeding age to breed or try to breed...so which is the more naturally occurring act? and which is not? the argument is a valid one, that no one will engage in because it destroys a narrative used to further a cause...anyone opposed is simply told to STFU and accept it as "common" despite it being nothing of the sort... Again I don't care if people are gay nor really whether they "chose" to be gay or were born that way...I'm also not advocating for any kind of law, ruling or restrictions for or against gays I'm just not sure why we seek to promote and reward certain deviant behaviors that many find offensive simply because they are deemed "natural" ... IMO its purely politically driven to gain votes for one side while vilifying those opposed as un-accepting of a "natural" thing...

Maybe it's just a live and let live attitude?

[madhatter]

A pedophile should be held responsible for his conduct — but not for the underlying attraction. Arguing for the rights of scorned and misunderstood groups is never popular, particularly when they are associated with real harm. But the fact that pedophilia is so despised is precisely why our responses to it, in criminal justice and mental health, have been so inconsistent and counterproductive. Acknowledging that pedophiles have a mental disorder, and removing the obstacles to their coming forward and seeking help, is not only the right thing to do, but it would also advance efforts to protect children from harm.

With what are you disagreeing, if anything?

well if ya read the whole article it kinda states that these people are programmed to feel the way they do, kinda the same reasoning behind other "sexual" preferences... being that age and the restrictions placed on adult/child relations is 100% artificial being that nature doesn't mandate them, the reasoning that "people are born that way and thus their behavior is "normal" doesn't apply to those with whom society disagrees...yet on other fronts seeks to normalize deviant behavior...whats next? where's the consistency in thought? or are we simply picking and choosing the winners and losers? the accepted and scorned? the protected class and the chastised class? if both occur in single digit % of the population how are either of those "conditions" considered "normal"?

You seem to be overlooking the distinct difference between activities between consenting adults who may be programmed the way they are versus the actions of an adult toward a child; a child who is vulnerable to the unwanted actions of an adult and where there is demonstrable harm inflicted upon that child. Society can deem behavior driven by one genetic program acceptable and another unacceptable. There is nothing inconsistent about accepting one type of programmed behavior but not accepting another one that is harmful.

the term "consenting adults" is contrived, nature makes no such delineation, we as a society have created that... some in society are just as opposed to other forms of "sexual deviance" yet they are vilified as haters, homophobes etc...the pro-gay segment believes that being gay is natural and thus acceptable simply because of that, despite the fact that that same behavior doesn't really manifest itself in almost every other species, yet in nearly every species it is quite common for those of breeding age to breed or try to breed...so which is the more naturally occurring act? and which is not? the argument is a valid one, that no one will engage in because it destroys a narrative used to further a cause...anyone opposed is simply told to STFU and accept it as "common" despite it being nothing of the sort... Again I don't care if people are gay nor really whether they "chose" to be gay or were born that way...I'm also not advocating for any kind of law, ruling or restrictions for or against gays I'm just not sure why we seek to promote and reward certain deviant behaviors that many find offensive simply because they are deemed "natural" ... IMO its purely politically driven to gain votes for one side while vilifying those opposed as un-accepting of a "natural" thing...

Maybe it's just a live and let live attitude?

butt I'm totally on board w that, its the promotion, legislation, creation of a protected class etc that I am opposed to... I'm far more for getting the gov OUT of the marriage business than I am for expanding the classification of who qualifies as "married"...the social aspect of it is nearly irrelevant to me, I'm speaking of and concerned about the massive expansion of gov reach and over reach...I don;t really care what people do, what they like, what they don;t like, what they choose to engage in etc... I'd like for everyone to afford each other that same consideration...live and let live...got no problem w that at all, but it cuts both ways...

one more "inconsistency" why are many who are pro gay and "concerned about the safety and concerns of children" also perfectly fine with abortion? is that not an unnatural act that destroys a life or harms a child? and how is it that those who seek to protect those children are deemed anti women? again it's politics and the demonization of the opposition much more than it's any kind of "principles of integrity"...


I'm not against abortion either, its the inconsistency in the application of the same line of reasoning to justify some things and vilify others that I take issue with...

and I f'd the whole quote thing up and don;t have time to fix it, solly...

[XtremeJibber2001]

I find it interesting that homosexuality is something you're born with, but pedophilia is a mental disorder. Of course there are material differences, one being homosexuality generally occurs between consenting adults, but do humans really have any control to who or what they're attracted?

[Bubba]

one more "inconsistency" why are many who are pro gay and "concerned about the safety and concerns of children" also perfectly fine with abortion? is that not an unnatural act that destroys a life or harms a child? and how is it that those who seek to protect those children are deemed anti women? again it's politics and the demonization of the opposition much more than it's any kind of "principles of integrity"...


I'm not against abortion either, its the inconsistency in the application of the same line of reasoning to justify some things and vilify others that I take issue with...

"A foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds, adored by little statesmen and philosophers and divines." Ralph Waldo Emerson

"The test of a first-rate intelligence is the ability to hold two opposed ideas in mind at the same time and still retain the ability to function" F. Scott Fitzgerald

[Geoff]

Another Fruit Loop thread rambling from pedophilia over to gay rights.



What I want to know is why just about all porn these days features women shaved to look prepubescent. :)

[madhatter]

Another Fruit Loop thread rambling from pedophilia over to gay rights.



What I want to know is why just about all porn these days features women shaved to look prepubescent. stop going to laotian houseboys.com..but I guess its yer best and maybe only hope... :)

as usual you have so little to offer your comments are subtraction by addition.... actually whenever you comment it's more like multiplying by zero...

yeah that's it, you shall now be known as ZERO K to note your status as ...

[Geoff]

What? No ZeroHedge copy & paste from our resident nut log?