There are 2 choices, 5 votes for makeitgoaway's debate

How do you tell someone you love their hurting you, without hurting them?

Honestly, I don't know. Thats why I made this topic. I found out some stuff about my boyfriend and even though at the time it rubbed me wrong, I just smiled and said, "It's not that bad, I don't mind." It's by that smile I am now imprisioned. I have to fake happiness when I remember what I read in his journals.It makes me feel almost less than human to him even though I know he loves me...it hurts....it hurts SO bad...Some of you know what I'm talking about, but those of you that don't, let me elaborate a little. He has entries from about 2 years ago talking about one girl in his dreams. A whole journal was deicaded to just her. Please don't think I'm racist when I start describing her for it will all make sense later...She has long black hair and brown eyes, and shes asian.First she would play hard to get, and then she would 'give in' to all of his desires. He says he's forgotten about her...But how do I know when he looks at me...or when he touches me...that he isn't replacing me with her? It also doesn't help that after a couple of months of dating I found an asian porno under his bed. He also said the asian women were the prettiest women in the world. I'm a 16 year old white female with no tan and blue/green eyes. How do I compete with that? It makes me fell worthless. Then there was another entery that stated he want to buy a 9-11 year old asian girl to play with....He's 23 years old and I don't know what to think. I'm in love with him but how do I know I'm not just a symbol to him....That he really sees me instead of them? It's hurting me so much inside that I want to scream and rip out my organs. But I can't talk to him about any of it because I promise not to think like this and to trust him. I love him...So as so stated before, How do I tell him he's hurting me, without hurting him?

• Personality Problems

  From what you describe, your boyfriend seems to prefer females who are much younger than himself. This might explain why at 23 years of age he is dating a 16 year old girl. Your age difference wouldn't be that important except for what you described about his innterests. Generally men prefer much younger girls for two possible reasons: 1. It makes it easier for them to be in control or 2. They feel less threatened by feelings of inadequacy. You might want to explore how much success he has had dating females his own age and if he has dated much younger girls in the past. Sometimes white males become atracted t young asian girls because of their misperception that they can control them.

  I hate to sound negative, but I think your boyfriend may have some personality problems which will prevent a mature relationship with you.

  80%  Voted for by nanrek, Weydon, Applehead, XxRaDiAnTtRaGeDyXx.

  View 44 comments Hide Comments

  Please login or register to comment.

  Registration is required because of issues with spam. It is fast and free! This author would LOVE to get a comment from you, please join!

  • right now

    Adding your comment:
  • 
    Applehead
    September 20, 2006
    Edit | Reply
    Totally agree! I started off thinking maybe you shouldn't be reading his journals but now you mention the age difference and his liking for children it's a blessing you did! Get out and don't look back seriously men like this are not capable of a real relationship. No matter how much they may persuade you otherwise.
  • 
    TeChNoWC
    September 23, 2006
    Edit | Reply
    one in five males are prone to the desire of being in some way attracted to very younger girls. Just because they have this desire does not make them incapable of a healthy relationship with someone. Are we to avoid and disregard from society one in five men? They need healing, not to be treated like a criminal.
  • 
    Weydon
    September 23, 2006
    Edit | Reply
    Define "very younger". If you mean a 45 year old will find a 23 year old attractive, I agree and think the statistics may actually be higher. If you're delving into pedophilia I'm going to have to ask for sources on this one.
  • 
    Applehead
    September 24, 2006
    Edit | Reply
    Are we talking children? This needs clarifying if so one in five is disgusting and they should have it chopped off! AAhh breathe No sorry your right healing is the best way after all sicko's like this have probably been guided by life to feel this way. And if healing doesn't work then chop it off!! "Just because they have this desire does not make them incapable of a healthy relationship with someone" You said yourself they need healing there is nothing healthy about this. Maybe they can pretend to have a healthy relationship but under the surface it's rotting.
  • 
    TeChNoWC
    September 26, 2006
    Edit | Reply
    are you so sure as to make this claim? Think about who you may be talking to before you incite rash comments. I admire your self-control, but forgive me if I seem to be slightly more passionate about this topic than others, considering the amount of assumation and stereotyping involved. Does this man deserve to have his penis chopped off simply because of a desire, even if he has never commited a hurtful act, is aware of its potential harm, and is able to keep the desire under relative control while maintaining a relationship with a 'healthy' aged girl?
  • • 
      Weydon
      September 26, 2006
      Edit | Reply
      She has the right to want to, but you should always have an actual crime before you go and do anything rash. Or at least reason to believe they will go through with the crime. I was on the bus and a man of about 40 was leering at a 13 year old, and she was quite obviously very uncomfortable about it. He even moved his seat to be closer when someone got off. His eyes were crazed with lust and he was practically drooling. I wanted to slam his head into the window, but technically he didn't do anything. He hadn't groped her or anything. So instead I simply said "Hey!" and stared at him until he moved his seat. I still think about this creepy man and what he might do around no witnesses. But without any proof, I couldn't jump to conclusions as to what he'd do or not I guess.
    • • 
        TeChNoWC
        September 27, 2006
        Edit | Reply
        A most noble and admirable stance, despite my inside, double minded torments on the matter (no need to elaborate). Q: did you know the girl prior to the occassion? How were you aware of her age, or was this just a guesstimate? I ask simply because 13 is a turning point in one's life, and the girl may have in fact been more like 15. This would create a slightly different scenario. However, the girl may have also been more like 10, and this again would change the scenario. To show you the flip side of this, I remember a time, way back when, when one of my friends was approached and scolded by a suspecting old man for 'fratenizing' with a very young girl, which, in actual fact, happened to be his own sister. Such an event, although not necessarily harmful, does show that people do make mistakes. Ensuring that the big ones aren't made, when it really matters, is most important. Sometimes we are inclined to jump to conclusions, but when these conclusions attempt to decide the outcome of one's life (potentially), such conclusions should not be jumped upon.
      • • 
          Weydon
          September 27, 2006
          Edit | Reply
          *did you know the girl prior to the occassion?* No, nor do I know her now. *How were you aware of her age, or was this just a guesstimate?* Guestimate. She got on the stop outside of a middle school, and seemed to be one of the older ones. I suppose she could have been younger or older. *Such an event, although not necessarily harmful, does show that people do make mistakes. Ensuring that the big ones aren’t made, when it really matters, is most important. Sometimes we are inclined to jump to conclusions, but when these conclusions attempt to decide the outcome of one’s life (potentially), such conclusions should not be jumped upon.* Agreed. But I see nothing wrong with what the man did. Perhaps he saw them having ice cream together and laughing and being extra playful and affectionate. This is either a loving family thing, or a date. The old man could have done nothing and hoped for the best, shot him, or tried to protest against the potential harm. I think he chose the best action.
        • • 
            TeChNoWC
            September 28, 2006
            Edit | Reply
            Yes, I would agree, but this however was not my point. The man, in all is age and wisdom, made a quick, assuming mistake, and should we form another serious scenario and pit the same man within, I would hate to think how he would fare. By observing his actions I wouldn't be surprised if he had shot my friend, had their been a gun within the immediate vicinity.
          • • 
              Weydon
              September 28, 2006
              Edit | Reply
              Gun use is not the immediate successor to a stern scolding. He could have done a number of things, involving other methods of violence or calling the police.
            • • 
                TeChNoWC
                September 29, 2006
                Edit | Reply
                I would go the other method of violence. It seemed most likely. He was ready to punch my friend in the face. Boy was he fired up.
              • • 
                  Weydon
                  September 29, 2006
                  Edit | Reply
                  Had the man been right, and depending on the age difference, I wouldn't be so upset upon the news.
  • 
    TeChNoWC
    September 26, 2006
    Edit | Reply
    *"Define “very younger”. If you mean a 45 year old will find a 23 year old attractive, I agree and think the statistics may actually be higher. If you’re delving into pedophilia I’m going to have to ask for sources on this one."* You are right, it refers to a desire to appropriate with people outside of one's age bracket (I can't remember the term) and is a form of fetish. The statistic focuses primarily on men with desires for younger women (the largest group) which is 1 in 5 men. However, paedophilia in itself is hard to define. Sometimes the person is actually an ephebophiliac, which is slightly less extreme than paedophilia; or they could be a nepiophiliac, which is more extreme again (babies and such). Paedophilia itself would encompass a fraction slightly smaller than the proposed 1/5, but, as it goes, all people with the desire to appropriate with people of differing ages, are highly possible of having or coming to have in future, paedophilic desires. Treatments include brain surgery. The recipient has large portions of their brain removed until they are almost in a vegetative state. See wikipedia. I thought this was most distressing. Hence, some advocate that many forms of paedophilia, unfortunately so, as evolution does not play favourites, is actually a sexual orientation, no different to homosexuality or heterosexuality. Should we be forced to kill off all of these people? How could we support such a notion, despite our feelings towards such?
  • 
    Weydon
    September 26, 2006
    Edit | Reply
    *actually a sexual orientation, no different to homosexuality or heterosexuality.* There is a huge difference. That's like saying there's no difference between getting pissfaced drunk with your buddy after work and getting pissfaced drunk with your 5 year old neighbor after work. Between a 45 year old voting and a 7 year old voting. Sex and rape. If these pedophiles desires are natural I feel bad for them. But they cause harm. Disgusting harm against children. If they can't control themselves, I look forward to their demise.
  • 
    TeChNoWC
    September 26, 2006
    Edit | Reply
    I don't necessarily support this view, but it is worthy of pondering. But Weydon, I can always expect to get narrow minded comments from you, so thank you. The idea is that the same argument posed for homosexuals concerning sexual orientation, due to a biological phenomenon, can be applied also to paedophiles, as it is believed they too may acquire this same biological phenomenon termed as 'sexual orientation'. *"I look forward to their demise."* Then I look forward to yours, Weydon. Because it is hypocrites like you that truly destroy society. People that claim equality and equal rights, yet when push comes to shove, your just as 'religiously' hell bent as the next fundamental, evangelical christian/muslim activist. Death to all who disgust Weydon. The anarchy is pooping up again. Anyway I've had my rant. I suppose now you will wish to show through why paedophilia should not be accepted and how sick and disgusting it is- but to prevent this, Weydon I already realise this. And no it is not to be accepted, however, the people are. If they really are the sicko, mindless zombies that you portray them to be, maybe we should just isolate them and let them get on with their pitiful lives away from children so that they can no longer cause anyone any harm. But still, killing them would seem a rather rash resort, even if your stereotype was true
  • 
    Weydon
    September 26, 2006
    Edit | Reply
    I said if they can't keep it under control. If they can't keep it under control, they aren't victims to strange genetics that make them attracted to kids in spite of their self-hatred for it. They are kiddie rapists. Don't think I haven't caught on to your reasoning behind your vehement defense for those lust for children. I'm not here to make accusations, nor would it even matter in an annonymous online setting. But I recomend you get some help immediately. *Then I look forward to yours, Weydon.* Shrug *Because it is hypocrites like you that truly destroy society. People that claim equality and equal rights, yet when push comes to shove, your just as ‘religiously’ hell bent as the next fundamental, evangelical christian/muslim activist.* I'm so hypocritical. One minute I'm all "Hey, treat that race as you would yourself! Let those 2 adults who love each other get married!" The next I'm all like, "Hey! Pedophiles and rapists in general are bad! They should be locked up and I hate them with a passion!". What backwards world am I living on anyway?! *But Weydon, I can always expect to get narrow minded comments from you, so thank you.* No problem. That's Weydon for you! The most narrow minded person at allphilosophy!
  • 
    TeChNoWC
    September 27, 2006
    Edit | Reply
    *"But I recomend you get some help immediately."* Unfortunately yes, I haven't revealed anything; from my gender to my age. I can say though, that given all criteria, it is not appropriate. However, I do thank you for the concern. *"I said if they can’t keep it under control. If they can’t keep it under control, they aren’t victims to strange genetics that make them attracted to kids in spite of their self-hatred for it."* I am happy to hear this. You were starting to scare me for a minute. Thank you for clarifying. My point is, that this is the case (seemingly so) for the man indicated above. I quote (myself): "Does this man deserve to have his penis chopped off simply because of a desire, even if he has never commited a hurtful act, is aware of its potential harm, and is able to keep the desire under relative control while maintaining a relationship with a ‘healthy’ aged girl?" Given this criteria, the man is guilty of nothing, except maybe 'bad taste' and a certain, subjectively, disgusting thought life. *"I’m so hypocritical. One minute I’m all “Hey, treat that race as you would yourself! Let those 2 adults who love each other get married!” The next I’m all like, “Hey! Pedophiles and rapists in general are bad! They should be locked up and I hate them with a passion!”. What backwards world am I living on anyway?!"* Yeah, basically. It is more your ignorance towards the more complex situations that I am concerned with. However, this ignorance may not be so, because we do all have our explanations, whether or not we give them. Keep your stance, that is fine by me, but all I ask is that you don't turn your stance into a witch hunt, burning the nearest passer by who cries 'kids are cool'. And I shall, in turn, endeavour to do the same. It is your choice though. If one wishes to be a problem, no amount of winging (seemingly) will stop the occurence. But do expect to be served with what one dishes out.
  • • 
      Weydon
      September 27, 2006
      Edit | Reply
      *My point is, that this is the case (seemingly so) for the man indicated above.* His situation seems to be entirely different. He IS with a younger girl, but this girl is 16 going on 17. I've been invovled with almost exlusively older people from age 15, sometimes with a decently signifigant difference. A 17 year old is quite capable of making their mistakes in love, even though it's technically illegal in many states. 16 years old is rather iffy and should be judged in a case-by-case instance, though I'm being gender bias here because I saw no problem with such an age difference when I was 16. Of course, looking back I don't think it was the greatest idea of a long term commitment. Point is, I don't care if he can control himself from a consenting relationship with a 17 year old. Maybe he's taking advanatage and being a dick, maybe he genuinely cares for her. Doesn't really matter, she's old enough to choose for herself and make mistakes. My hatred is geared towards pedophiles. *‘healthy’ aged girl?”* That was the line that concerned me. "'Healthy' aged girl" could imply many things, and with a stress on healthy it seems to imply "everythings in working order for reproduction", which can variably happen from ages 9 to 14. *It is more your ignorance towards the more complex situations that I am concerned with.* I do not wish to concern myself with with the better nature of pedophiles. I know of few instances of people who are attracted to kids but would never actually want to be with one or watch dirty movies and pictures of them. Though, admitedly this could be because of their keeping their condition quiet out of shame. So called "rehabilitated" pedophiles are not people who's rights I'm standing behind firmly. I would never trust one. Not even "I would never trust one around kids", I would never trust one. I would never want to speak to this man, even to exchange directions. Harsh? Boo-hoo for you, you raped a child. *but all I ask is that you don’t turn your stance into a witch hunt, burning the nearest passer by who cries ‘kids are cool’.* I don't know what I did to imply all that.
    • • 
        TeChNoWC
        October 5, 2006
        Edit | Reply
        *"That was the line that concerned me. ”’Healthy’ aged girl” could imply many things, and with a stress on healthy it seems to imply “everythings in working order for reproduction”, which can variably happen from ages 9 to 14."* Ok, I didn't mean to advise that. The statement was merely projected at a more subjective bias, you are right, but mainly your bias. I assumed you thought 17 was an ok age, but correct me if I am wrong in that assumption. You may think that it is wrong for anyone under the age of 35 to have sex, but I guess I don't know until you tell me your thoughts on the matter. *"I do not wish to concern myself with with the better nature of pedophiles. I know of few instances of people who are attracted to kids but would never actually want to be with one or watch dirty movies and pictures of them. Though, admitedly this could be because of their keeping their condition quiet out of shame. So called “rehabilitated” pedophiles are not people who’s rights I’m standing behind firmly. I would never trust one. Not even “I would never trust one around kids”, I would never trust one. I would never want to speak to this man, even to exchange directions. Harsh? Boo-hoo for you, you raped a child."* I assume you will accuse me of 'jumping around' with my arguments again, but the man in question has not raped any children, nor has he consented to sex with children. Good on you for voicing your oh so strong stance on warring criminals and injustice, and adamation to see such instigators of crime isolated from society. Personally I wouldn't need to trust someone to be able to merely even speak to them, but that's your call. I'm not going to debate your stance on the issue, because that's personal, and, as long as you maintain what you have stated here, I am relatively happy, so we may agree to disagree. *"I don’t know what I did to imply all that."* Mere overstatement to eliminate possible radicalism. I never said you implied it, I just put forward a request. It is good to hear your opinion on the man in question. I am sorry if I got a little side-tracked, but the main aim of my comments was to inform Applehead that her stance on the man's condition was rather uneeded. The man is not a pedophile and is capable of a long-term relationship, unless some other condition is present that we are to become aware of. *"Either we’ve moved on to discussing why you believe pedophiles are an alright bunch of victims, or we’re talking about this girl’s boyfriend. Not one or the other when you’re in a bind."* Oh my gosh. Ok, I shall clarify. We are discussing the man and the claims made that he is 'trash' because it was assumed he is a pedophile due to desires of his. When I was attempting to defend, I most certainly was not trying to defend convicted pedophiles, although I may have inadvertantly. I was defending the man in relation to the so-called 'disorder', that being the desire and not the crime itself. I never said stuff like 'its ok to rape little kids' and what not, I specifically defended the 'desire' that one may have, and not to rape little kids, but just a turn on that may attempt to make the man want to appropriate such desires. This may merely done through fantasies and what not. Applehead suggested that a man in such a predicament is not worthy of having a relationship with another woman. I don't care if she is 17, this is not the case, just because of the given criteria. So as to not incite wrongful assumptions, I am not condoning people and their desires for little children, neither am I condemning it. I am in no position to do either. I only wish to put such desires into perspective, and help one realise that it doesn't class the individual as criminal or evil just because of the mere presence of such a thing. It is what they choose to do with such desires, that ultimately makes the man.
  • 
    TeChNoWC
    September 27, 2006
    Edit | Reply
    *"Totally agree! I started off thinking maybe you shouldn’t be reading his journals but now you mention the age difference and his liking for children it’s a blessing you did! Get out and don’t look back seriously men like this are not capable of a real relationship. No matter how much they may persuade you otherwise."* I must point out though that this is seemingly not true. I can only give you my word on this matter, but as a woman, Applehead, hopefully you may understand. It does worry me how the man approached the desire, but without additional info, I am unsure as to whether or not he truly would persist to appropriate these desires, or was merely just rambling angry hopefuls ('I wish I could kill that guy'). I do believe he understands the extent of the matter, and is, hopefully, mature enough to resolve appropriately.
  • 
    Applehead
    September 27, 2006
    Edit | Reply
    Well boys! this is a touchy subject. I hate to ruin your Love hate relationship but you guys seem to have agreed with each other throughout most of this debate your just coming at each other from opposite sides of the fence. "I can only give you my word on this matter, but as a woman, Applehead, hopefully you may understand." Mr TeChNo the word patronising springs to mind. No need to mock me I may not be academically educated but I am no fool. Life has taught me to be defensive, always on the look out for predators. How can you possibly compare homosexuality to paedophilia. As Weydon rightly said: "There is a huge difference. That’s like saying there’s no difference between getting pissfaced drunk with your buddy after work and getting pissfaced drunk with your 5 year old neighbor after work. Between a 45 year old voting and a 7 year old voting. Sex and rape." "actually a sexual orientation, no different to homosexuality or heterosexuality." Absolute Bull, if consenting adults (and for me this would be 18) have unusual sexual habits, say he likes putting a nappy on while breastfeeding or he has a 100lb life like doll he dresses up, great good for them. But for anyone, man or woman to rob a child of the innocence they all deserve is an abomination. A child is coerced into things they don't understand or have any control over it's sick and should be dealt with appropriately. "And no it is not to be accepted, however, the people are." I'm glad you think it's not acceptable but as for accepting the people that depends on the person. Personally one mistake would be enough for me to despise the perpetrator until hell freezes over but in the society we live in it just wouldn't be right would it. So yeah lock them up give them the recommended therapy and hope it works. If it doesn't TeChNo's idea below sounds good to me. "If they really are the sicko, mindless zombies that you portray them to be, maybe we should just isolate them and let them get on with their pitiful lives away from children so that they can no longer cause anyone any harm. " The only problem with giving "Them" another chance in society is that it's a risk for some poor child. These attrocities damage lives, I truly believe paedophiles have been victims themselves whether they remember or not. People are not born this way, and I'm sorry Weydon but I don't believe people are born homosexual, bisexual maybe but not homosexual. You may have evidence of changes in the brain but that damage may have occured in childhood. People who are treaed violently as children often end up very aggressive as adults. If it's not vented towards others it will be aimed inward releasing built up tension and anger at being treated so badly. And also because it becomes normal or they have been taught no other way to behave. As for the guy above, his whole problem is that he hasn't matured he is looking to younger people to relate to. If the journals weren't evidence I'd say maybe she comes over as a mature sixteen and he genuinely likes her (as an adult), but in light of what he wrote it is certain he is fantasising which is dangerous. If a person was truly ashamed the thoughts would be destroyed as soon as they appeared. But this is not the case. It could be possible he is trying to use the 16 year old to gain contact with younger children. All speculation I know but prevention is better than cure and he is thinking and openly discussing, this tells me he has persuaded himself that it maybe ok to behave this way. Lets hope she shows him these comments so we can tell him "Its bloody well not!!"
  • 
    Weydon
    September 27, 2006
    Edit | Reply
    I hope you are right in thinking me and Techno are basically on the same side for whether or not pedophiles are to be accepted or not. *and I’m sorry Weydon but I don’t believe people are born homosexual, bisexual maybe but not homosexual.* I didn't mean to imply that as my belief. I feel some cases genetics must be playing a role, and in others it may just be an open mind. But I have no evidence to this. My current stance is that I don't know or care if homosexuality is geneitc or not. It is harmless either way. Curious though, why do you think bisexuality can be genetic by not homosexuality? *As for the guy above, his whole problem is that he hasn’t matured he is looking to younger people to relate to.* I find that often to be the case in certain circumstances. However it may be for the best, at least for a short term relationship. He's a little immature, she's a little mature, and they meet at the same maturity level. Honeslty the idea of a 23 year old guy anda 16 year old girl makes me very uncomfortable, but I remember being 16 and I knew full well what I doing and also was in a relationship with an older girl. Granted, I am a fairly different person now than I was then and see the relationship wasn't what I thought it was, but our feelings were genuine and well intentioned. Maybe it's because I was a dumb kid that now I can look back wiser, but chances are years from now I will look back at more recent relationships and say the same thing. Which is why I just say 16 is an iffy age. To quote Dave Chappelle, "How old is 15 REALLY?". Of course, they're kids. Of course, they're inexperiences and perhaps not intelligent enough to realize the reality of certain situations, and therefore more prone to being taken advantage of. But they're also old enough to make certain choices. They don't have to comtemplate if they're comfortable being peed on or not (from Chappelle if you didn't see it ;) ), they KNOW. *It could be possible he is trying to use the 16 year old to gain contact with younger children.* Agreed. As I said in my choice, his mentioning of wanting to buy an asian child to play with is either extremely perverse and dangerous, or entirely harmless. He obviously finds asians in general exotic. Many people do. Kids ARE cute and fun to the majority of the people. An asian child would be especially adorable to someone who at one point prefered them in general. Phrasing it as "I just wanna buy one so I can play with!" might be a humorous/cute way he had of how much he loves making faces at ones in the store. Like when someone says "I just wanted to gobble that baby up it was so cute!!!". We don't know, as we don't know him.
  • 
    TeChNoWC
    September 28, 2006
    Edit | Reply
    *"Absolute Bull, if consenting adults (and for me this would be 18) have unusual sexual habits, say he likes putting a nappy on while breastfeeding or he has a 100lb life like doll he dresses up, great good for them. But for anyone, man or woman to rob a child of the innocence they all deserve is an abomination. A child is coerced into things they don’t understand or have any control over it’s sick and should be dealt with appropriately."* You missed the point entirely. To you, this may seem like a black and white, easy solved, burn em all religious crusade, but you have, unfortuantely, allwoed your emotions to cloud your judgement. The premises for sexual orientation has nothing to do with our notion of ethics - if it is biologically instigated, then it appears that such biological instigations would not need to adhere to an ethical system. We could argue God, and I would take this on board - however the christians aren't going to back you up on this one, considering that they would disagree with you upon views of homosexuality. It merely comes down to recognising that the paedophilic drive may in fact be within the same line as homosexuality and heterosexuality (biologically). So, it is pretty strongly engrained. Make what you like of this, I am only showing you the problem. Decide that you wish to burn them all, but what will the implications of this be? I can't seem to get across to you the so called 'ethical value' of deciding to forfeit another's life, as you are intoxicated by your own biological manifestations that seemingly cling on to your 'uber righteous faculties', and are unable to see clearly the merit of the situation. This man has done no wrong. You may find it revolting and worthy of maintaining a defensive posture directed his way, but killing him for being revolting, is, seemingly unethical. I believe that the woman in question loves her boyfriend enough to see past these faults for what they are, and notice the man's strengths; even though he may not be the perfect boyfriend all the time, he is trying his damn hardest. Well if that's not worth noting, then I don't know what is. *"if a person was truly ashamed the thoughts would be destroyed as soon as they appeared."* Oh, how one wishes to dwell in such a place of sanctity. Show me, please. Because, apparently so, this is, well I hate to go all rational on you, bullshit. Hypothetical: If you were to try and stop 'thinking' about the safety of your own children, I doubt you could do so for any length of time. Try and do it when you've got a madman in your house with a gun to their heads. A little extreme, but so is lust. Just because one merely despises something, does not necessarily mean that they can 'instantly' deter it. I detest lust, however, I am not now, instantly prone from feeling lust. "*Lets hope she shows him these comments so we can tell him “Its bloody well not!!”*" Good luck on your domination of other's thought lives. Let's hope she shows him these comments so I may be able to lend some support to this hurting young man. What would do if your own son was a paedophile? Would you grant me the honour of burning him at the stake? Your son, like all other people, have feelings. His feelings are evident to you because you love him. This man's feelings are evident to his girlfriend, because she loves him. However, you immediately seem to think that, once a person has felt turned on by something innapropriate, then they immediately lose all conscious experience and default to a vegetative state (or, alternatively, walking scum). Your narrow minded views piss me off. I'll patronise you all I want, because you fail to lack the needed insight and understanding into male behaviour, and thus your comments are sighted by your motherly instincts, not your compassion towards other people. If I am wrong in this assumption, feel free to enlighten me, and release me from my angered state.
  • • 
      Applehead
      September 28, 2006
      Edit | Reply
      TeChNoWC your reading this as black and white maybe because your defenses are up. Firstly I have not mentioned killing anyone, castration yes killing no. "If you were to try and stop ‘thinking’ about the safety of your own children, I doubt you could do so for any length of time. Try and do it when you’ve got a madman in your house with a gun to their heads." This is just not comparable. It would be dangerous of me to stop thinking about the safety of my children so this I would not want or need to do. If a paedophile is thinking about a child he needs to stop thinking about that child for the childs and his own well being. The question is does he want to? I agree it's impossible to stop thoughts popping into our heads but it is possible to send them packing when we recognise them to be damaging. Even if this means stopping them over and over again. "However, you immediately seem to think that, once a person has felt turned on by something innapropriate, then they immediately lose all conscious experience and default to a vegetative state (or, alternatively, walking scum)." I have not mentioned vegatative states at all. Mental distraction is what I was trying to get across. That single corrupt thought should be pushed aside and buried under 100ft of sane mind, if there is no sane mind they should be looked after a long way from anyone. Domination of thoughts is not what I hope for and you know it. He hardly sounds like he's hurting to me but we are both being slightly presumptious about this aren't we. "What would do if your own son was a paedophile?" You are wound up you missed a word out.I could answer this but will not as I respect my children. "Your narrow minded views piss me off." Although I don't like pissing people off I at least I know you are listening. "I’ll patronise you all I want, because you fail to lack the needed insight an understanding into male behaviour, and thus your comments are sighted by your motherly instincts, not your compassion towards other people." I have not missed that this comment in itself is patronising, but hey I don't really care anyway. I have held these same opinions prior to being a mother, my abilities as a compassionate human being are not restricted to children on this matter, but I do believe that people (not just men) with an illness such as this should not be treated lightly. How you can accuse me of narrowmindedness makes me laugh. True I have closed opinions for somethings but my opinions are all aimed at protecting humanity as a whole without predjudice so long as no harm is being done to innocent people. If you play with fire your sure to get burned. (And don't use this litterally I not talking about burning at the stake.) You don't seem to mention the children involved do you have no defense for them. As the rounded debater you seem to be I would have hoped for at least a mention of the damage this does to a childs mind and body?
    • 
      Applehead
      September 28, 2006
      Edit | Reply
      Weydon, Heterosexual relationships are seperated from homosexual by procreation. This being a natural process of creating life. So to be heterosexual is natural. To be Bisexual is different it's about sex, you may fall in love with a person but the relationship is based on friendship and sex not procreation. We are all born sexual beings I do feel we are all slightly bi, some of us just don't admit it. To make this choice means that we have a varied sex life and can still choose to procreate thus still natural. Homosexuality means you are choosing a lifestyle that prevents procreation and goes against the course of nature (not natural). People make this choice to be drawn to a particular sex even if it is confusing and scary and not "the norm" because something has caused them to think this is what they need or want. In my view only, I am aways open to being proved wrong. "He’s a little immature, she’s a little mature, and they meet at the same maturity level. Honeslty the idea of a 23 year old guy anda 16 year old girl makes me very uncomfortable, but I remember being 16 and I knew full well what I doing and also was in a relationship with an older girl." I do partly agree with what you and this Chappelle guy are trying to say but having been in a relationship that was very similar I now feel, after having been the age he was then, he should have known better. We all think we know it all when we are 15/16, but an adult over 20 has a different view altogether. "Phrasing it as “I just wanna buy one so I can play with!” might be a humorous/cute way he had of how much he loves making faces at ones in the store. Like when someone says “I just wanted to gobble that baby up it was so cute!!!”. We don’t know, as we don’t know him." Yeah lets hope so!
    • 
      Weydon
      September 28, 2006
      Edit | Reply
      I have to agree with Applehead on this one, Techno. You are right in assuming we can't completely control our thoughts and desires. But boo-hoo. If you have a thing for one of your best friends girlfriends, or even just someone who doesn't want you back, it is not a pleasant situation. It may be very hard to get them out of your mind and to stop feeling for them a certain way. But what you want with them is not going to happen and it's wrong to try and do anything about it. Nurutring these thoughts by saying "Well I can't exactly help it!!!" only justifies them. It's not awesome. It's very unfair for someone to have desires to something they can't (AND SHOULD NOT *EVER*) have. Too bad. Accept it as just an idle thought that can *never* reach fruition, and occupy your mind and activities with other things. Other girls or guys (your own age), sports, crafts. Whatever. Move on.
    • • 
        TeChNoWC
        September 30, 2006
        Edit | Reply
        Yes, I agree also. Now if the man in question is able to do this as you suggest, then what's the problem? Tell the girl about your newfound theory, she can pass it on to him, and whalla. Problem solved.
  • 
    Weydon
    September 28, 2006
    Edit | Reply
    *To be Bisexual is different it’s about sex, you may fall in love with a person but the relationship is based on friendship and sex not procreation. We are all born sexual beings I do feel we are all slightly bi, some of us just don’t admit it. To make this choice means that we have a varied sex life and can still choose to procreate thus still natural.* I believe it is the same for homosexuals. Their relations are based on friendship and sex and love and not procreation because they know thats impossible. Maybe they'd like to adopt someday, but they don't think they can have kids. It is really no different than knowing a man or woman is incapable of having kids but falling in love and marrying them anyway. *Heterosexual relationships are seperated from homosexual by procreation. This being a natural process of creating life. So to be heterosexual is natural.* Arguably. The idea of people naturally being homosexual is that something in their genes makes them that way in spite of the fact that humans and all organisms tend to have evolved with the underlying nature to continue their species. Some have argued that homosexuality is a natural step in evolution allowing for population controls. I don't feel this way, as evolution is not with purpose. It may happen to work out to this advanatage, but mammoths did not grow hair because they needed to stay warm. They happened to have more hair so they happened to survive and their descendents only got hairier. Personally I don't think I'll want kids. This view may change overtime but it's just how I feel. Whether I change my mind or not I will not find people that decide not to have kids as all that unnatural. But it's just semantics really, because I don't find an immediate connection between natural always being right and unnatural being wrong. *We all think we know it all when we are 15/16, but an adult over 20 has a different view altogether.* I couldn't agree more. Well, I guess a little more. I feel sometimes the adult over 20 SHOULD know better, and usually does. I certainly would be creeped out about entering a relationship with a 16 year old. But I'm sure some of them know better but have deluded themselves into thinking this is different. That this boy or girl is special and more mature. Silly 99.9%-100% of the time, absolutely.
  • 
    TeChNoWC
    September 29, 2006
    Edit | Reply
    *"If a paedophile is thinking about a child he needs to stop thinking about that child for the childs and his own well being."* (laugh) that was not my point. You said that one can easily switch off undesired thoughts. I merely disagree, shown by the example. Extremes are shown to facilitate the reciever's understanding of the responder's given stance. It is merely to show it through your eyes, so you may relate to the inner struggle of controlling one's thought life beyond measure. *"I have not mentioned vegatative states at all. Mental distraction is what I was trying to get across. That single corrupt thought should be pushed aside and buried under 100ft of sane mind, if there is no sane mind they should be looked after a long way from anyone."* You have entirely missed my point again. You seemed to imply that such people are commonly 'evil'. This is not always the case. Evil people come in all shapes and forms, and are not necessarily moulded by such influences we are discussing. *"You are wound up you missed a word out.I could answer this but will not as I respect my children."* Assume what you will, but you may notice in time that I always refer to extremes, so when I do, it may seem as if I come across as 'wound up'. The extreme allows you to see the depth of the situation, without having to revert to surface answers. You are not obliged to answer the question, however, the question still posed, it has served its purpose. Whether or not you voice your opinion on the matter, it has been challenged, to whatever degree. *"You don’t seem to mention the children involved do you have no defense for them. As the rounded debater you seem to be I would have hoped for at least a mention of the damage this does to a childs mind and body?"* Yes, but that it is not the issue at hand. Your job in this is to decide the fate of the accused. Pretend your job is to attend to the man in question, not the child. Particularly as their is no child in this situation, but just a man and his thoughts.
  • 
    Applehead
    September 29, 2006
    Edit | Reply
    "You seemed to imply that such people are commonly ‘evil’." Not all Evil but a definate threat. "The extreme allows you to see the depth of the situation, without having to revert to surface answers." I would say it allows you to control a debate by avoiding important details. " Your job in this is to decide the fate of the accused. " I was in no way intending to decide a mans fate. A girl had a dilemma I simply gave her my opinion and hoped she might now be more aware that SOME men are devious bullshitting arseholes who know that younger girls are impressionable and are sometimes in awe of an older man (fatherfigure). With this advice in mind she may carry on the relationship but hopefully she will not be completely naive and blinded by the words of a more experienced person. "one in five males are prone to the desire of being in some way attracted to very younger girls. Just because they have this desire does not make them incapable of a healthy relationship with someone.Are we to avoid and disregard from society one in five men? They need healing, not to be treated like a criminal." You through this into the pot at an early stage leaving the statistic lacking in detail and knowing where the conversation would lead so please don't try to redirect me by telling me my job. "Does this man deserve to have his penis chopped off simply because of a desire, even if he has never commited a hurtful act," You know I was not actually talking about the man in the post, I was infact refering to the statistic you so happily through at us, without explaining what "very younger girls" incinuates might I add. When you were ready you through this in: "The statistic focuses primarily on men with desires for younger women (the largest group) which is 1 in 5 men. However, paedophilia in itself is hard to define." Not meaning to undermine Weydon but you lead the debate in this direction knowing it would generate an aggressive response. As soon as Weydon mentioned paedophillia you jumped on the band wagon. Which for me nakes the below statement completely wrong. "Particularly as their is no child in this situation, but just a man and his thoughts." We are now discussing paedophillia not just the "man", and with paedophillia there unfortunately are children involved. Innocent naive children who are defiled by immature warped minded people who SHOULD be able to control their minds, if they cannot then they should be kept away from those under threat.
  • 
    TeChNoWC
    September 29, 2006
    Edit | Reply
    *"I would say it allows you to control a debate by avoiding important details."* Then state the important details, and make an extreme of them, if need be. *"You through this into the pot at an early stage leaving the statistic lacking in detail and knowing where the conversation would lead so please don’t try to redirect me by telling me my job."* Critique me as you will, but don't try and cling to useless arguments. If you see the statement as innapropriate, please show how. I was clear in my direction, and purpose of presenting the comment: "Just because they have this desire does not make them incapable of a healthy relationship with someone. Are we to avoid and disregard from society one in five men?" I was suggesting that the problem, encompassing a significant portion of the male community, and not necessarily denoting a 'serial rapist' but rather a man with a rather odd fetish that requires self-control, is not worthy of making the huge fuss about it that you did (as in jumping to rash conclusions, such as 'Get out and don’t look back seriously men like this are not capable of a real relationship. No matter how much they may persuade you otherwise'). *"You know I was not actually talking about the man in the post, I was infact refering to the statistic you so happily through at us, without explaining what “very younger girls” incinuates might I add."* The man is a representative of that statistic. So in effect, in your world system, he loses his penis. So you were in fact 'referring' to the man, also. *"We are now discussing paedophillia not just the “man”, and with paedophillia there unfortunately are children involved. Innocent naive children who are defiled by immature warped minded people who SHOULD be able to control their minds, if they cannot then they should be kept away from those under threat."* No, I was using the statistic to back up the plight of the man. If you want references, I'm sure wikipedia can help (and it also should provide some nifty links). The argument was still centred around the initial post, but with the added insight of a statistic. The debate still revolves around this example. In future, I would appreciate it if you were to clearly notify as to what you are 'attacking' so such confusions no longer occur. *"We are now discussing paedophillia not just the “man”, and with paedophillia there unfortunately are children involved. Innocent naive children who are defiled by immature warped minded people who SHOULD be able to control their minds, if they cannot then they should be kept away from those under threat."* Well, I'm not going to debate that in it's raw form, particularly pertaining to severe and prolific offenders, as my arguments are primarily focused on the man.
  • 
    Weydon
    October 1, 2006
    Edit | Reply
    Techno you jump back and forth from "I'm not talking about generalized pedophilia, I'm talking about the man in this debate" to "There's no victim when it's just a man and this thoughts" at your own convenience. If you are arguing about the guy here, he is not a guy and his thoughts he is a guy on the 17 year old girl that posted this (which, even if it is a moral dilemna, is not pedophilia and possibly not even that next stage one you were talking about as she is almost of legal age). Either we've moved on to discussing why you believe pedophiles are an alright bunch of victims, or we're talking about this girl's boyfriend. Not one or the other when you're in a bind.
  • • 
      Applehead
      October 2, 2006
      Edit | Reply
      So it's not me reading it wrong. Phhew "It is really no different than knowing a man or woman is incapable of having kids but falling in love and marrying them anyway." Hhmm yeah maybe "It may happen to work out to this advanatage, but mammoths did not grow hair because they needed to stay warm. They happened to have more hair so they happened to survive and their descendents only got hairier." I agree about the population control but I'm not so sure about mammoths it would be like saying why do we have lungs instead of gills, it's not because we need air we just happened to survive because we have lungs. Anyway thats a bit off track so I'll shut up about that. "I don’t find an immediate connection between natural always being right and unnatural being wrong." Natural to me means created by nature I suppose anything can become natural because of evolution in that whats unnatural in one millenia maybe natural in another because something may have evolved that way. Like the chemicals we are creating in our labs are manmade now but as they mix with nature they may mutate into with nature and become natural things natural things. Tell me if I'm talking crap I am tired.
  • 
    Weydon
    October 2, 2006
    Edit | Reply
    *but I’m not so sure about mammoths it would be like saying why do we have lungs instead of gills, it’s not because we need air we just happened to survive because we have lungs. Anyway thats a bit off track so I’ll shut up about that.* Well technically I think that's what happened. We were all aquatic lifeforms, and then amphibnians came about which could do both, even if for short periods of time, which then evolved into completely land animals. This is not really my area of expertise and I find it difficult to fathom the idea of an organism gradually gaining lungs or something slowly becoming a bee. Either experts know more than me or we're all missing a step. *Tell me if I’m talking crap I am tired.* No, I hear what you're saying. Aside from the possibility of natural things being bad, unnatural things can be good. Inventions are not natural, and there certainly are good ones. Marriage is not a natural concept and varries from culture to culture. Kissing in itself is not "natural" for the mouth, but something we've come to do with it.
  • 
    Weydon
    October 5, 2006
    Edit | Reply
    *Ok, I didn’t mean to advise that. The statement was merely projected at a more subjective bias, you are right, but mainly your bias. I assumed you thought 17 was an ok age, but correct me if I am wrong in that assumption. You may think that it is wrong for anyone under the age of 35 to have sex, but I guess I don’t know until you tell me your thoughts on the matter.* lol Well, I guess 17 is an okay age to decide. I feel they are a little inexperienced to know for sure and older people should know better than to possibly take advantage of their poor judgement--but I'm also being gender bias. I was with an older woman when I was only 15. I think I was probably wrong in my feelings on her and perhaps embelshed things due to my inexperience, but I don't think I was taken advantage of and knew what I was doing. When I hear cases of female teachers having sex with their male teenage students, I sort of laugh and think "That kid wasn't taken advantage of, he was dying for it to happen and it will be something he'll be proud of for the rest of his life, even if he looks back and thinks it was pretty weird." Either way though, I am not comfortable with idea of myself pursuing a girl still in high school. *I assume you will accuse me of ‘jumping around’ with my arguments again, but the man in question has not raped any children, nor has he consented to sex with children.* You are jumping around with your arguments again. I don't care about the man in question, I don't think much wrong has happened unless he's secretly a pedophile on top of being a guy that's dating a younger girl. *Personally I wouldn’t need to trust someone to be able to merely even speak to them, but that’s your call.* Heh, a bit of miscommunication on my part. I meant to convey more than distrust. I'd also hate them and not find them deserving to be talking to, too disgusting to talk to, and too easy to make me enraged to be talked to. *The man is not a pedophile and is capable of a long-term relationship, unless some other condition is present that we are to become aware of.* Totally agree with that. *I was defending the man in relation to the so-called ‘disorder’, that being the desire and not the crime itself. I never said stuff like ‘its ok to rape little kids’ and what not, I specifically defended the ‘desire’ that one may have, and not to rape little kids, but just a turn on that may attempt to make the man want to appropriate such desires. This may merely done through fantasies and what not. Applehead suggested that a man in such a predicament is not worthy of having a relationship with another woman.* Well that's where the issue branched out more. Me and I believe Applehead were arguing more about the nature of this disorder than just the man in question. I find anyone with the disorder highly disturbing and the thought makes me uncomfortable. However, as I said, my stance merely firm but I believe fair. As long as they are 100% capable of keeping it under control--no molesting, no child porn, nothing sexual at all actually happening; I think they're allowed to continue on being regular humans and believe it would be healthy for them to pursue adult relations. However, the fact that they have these desires makes me wary. Not just a strange instance or two. A misplaced thought, a nightmare. An actual desire that they have. Something that they're near constantly bummed out about that it's horrible because they'd REALLY like to do that. The idea worries me greatly. I believe that if anyone has this desire constantly, there is very well something wrong in their head that could lead to further craziness and they do something rash and horrible. But, again, as long as they are able to completely control themselves, if they do nothing wrong--they have done nothing wrong.
  • 
    TeChNoWC
    October 5, 2006
    Edit | Reply
    *"there is very well something wrong in their head that could lead to further craziness and they do something rash and horrible."* You wrecked it when you said that. Ok, the issue disgusts you. But this has no bearing on external reality. Would I be safe to assume that a homosexual is far more prone to insane and crazy behaviour? They might lose control and try and screw me, and then they'll pull out guns and shoot everyone, yeah! Most people that you hear about on the news with the added problem of such a lust are the ones that have taken it to the next level, and are crazy not because of the problem but because they are, for other reasons, sick and twisted. I wished to show that, biologically, homosexuals and people that get turned on by juveniles are, arguably, similiar conditions, and so I wished to show this to show through the situation with the man in question. If the man is crazy, it is because he is crazy, not because he gets turned on by little asian children. But if he does, then that makes his craziness all the more harmful. Those that aren't blind to reason are able to see that it isn't a good thing to molest little kids, and so won't do it. The only times they do is if they can't see that it is bad, if they don't care (in which case they are kinda evil), they are mentally deranged or they have some serious problem with lust that exemplifes there desires to appropriate with the desires so much so that they cannot control it, but such people would be delerious and in need of institutionalisation. I feel for these people deeply, but I have no happy solutions for both parties in such a situation. However, this man doesn't seem to be, with the limited information that we have, in any of these categories. He may be slightly unaware of the extreme nature of such predicaments, due to immaturity and lack of understanding of his condition, but he is most likely coming to terms with it if he is resorting to a diary to confide in to isolate his feelings so they do not harm others. Also, he does not seem deleriously lustful, as most people assume of people that admit to getting turned on by juveniles, because otherwise he probably would have a history with sexually assaulting his girlfriend. She never said he didn't, but you would need to find out if such a claim was to be made. Primitive society before the 20th century were easily persuaded into assuming that if people had physical ailments or disease, or many other symptoms that appeared rather lax or different, that they were in fact deranged, mental, crazy people. We see now that this isn't necessarily the case. People can have a variety of symtpoms and not be crazy, because craziness is a symptom in itself. One can have unusual desires present that aren't attributed with craziness. I see that you like to think that it's easy to assume that because it seems wrong then those people are mentally deranged and morally unstable (I am speaking not of perpetrators, but of people that merely have the desire), but this is just the same as those rather primitive assumptions from the 15th and 16th centuries, and what not. People that have these desires can just be regular people with absolutely no other problems whatsoever. A gene simply tells them that they are attracted to juveniles, and with a little life experience, the desire to keep society safe, to fit into society and to ensure that such desires are not enacted upon quickly takes over. This may sound odd to you, but the worst stage for people with such desires is in the early teenage years (puberty), as they are of yet, possibly so and more often so than later years, lacking in enough maturity to realise the extent of the wrongness caused by enacting upon such desires, and are infantile in their understanding of their own problem. Creates a kind of problem when your main enemy appears to be children themselves.
  • 
    Weydon
    October 6, 2006
    Edit | Reply
    If you naturally desire something inherently wrong, like sexual relations with kids, I don't think I'm getting out of hand in assuming a possibility of something WRONG with that person. As I said, if this is something an individual can 100% control, then there's not much to stop them living out a normal life. I wouldn't care if the cause of pedophilic attraction has similar gene relation to homosexuality. Sad that this harmful and disgusting pedophilic gene is thrusted upon some unsusupecting fetus? Sure. That's awful. Change my stance that they either need to control it always or become the forefront of scum in the world? Not at all. It's possible it is caused by genes, just as it it possible homosexuality is caused by genes. But if one or the other IS caused by genes, the connection may not be as immediate as you think Techno. Brunettes, blondes, panties, stockings, BDSM, skirts, roleplay, costumes, tan lines, height, smells. There's practically an endless list of fetishes and high level aphrodisiacs that vary from person to person. I highly doubt we're going to find the "skirt gene" or anything like that along with the possibility of finding a homosexual one. Aside from the possibility of preventing this gene or psychological condition or WHATEVER, I couldn't care less what causes pedophilia.
  • 
    TeChNoWC
    October 7, 2006
    Edit | Reply
    *"I couldn’t care less what causes pedophilia."* Nice to know that we are living in a society where everyone looks out for each other. Kill them all now Weydon, and just let it be done with. We should kill them because their is a chance that they may do something wrong. Or, to avoid you cussing me for finding erronous implications, then just shun them instead because they might do something wrong. Bit like pre-crime from minority report. Free will has no bearing on ethical actions. (sarcasm). *"inherently wrong"* did God tell you that, did he? If one is not to suggest that God in fact did, then you can't argue 'inherently wrong' as if it transcends reality with no transcender. *"if this is something an individual can 100% control"* That's what we call free will. You have to let them try. If they fail, then you lock them up, because they had their chance. But you can't lock them up just because they may do harm. You might kill someone because you are depressed, but it doesnt mean you will. The person can control it, unless one of those other problems are involved that I stated earlier.
  • 
    Weydon
    October 7, 2006
    Edit | Reply
    *Nice to know that we are living in a society where everyone looks out for each other.* Nice to know you left out the rest of that sentence that explained the only good thing is being able to find ways of preventing it. What else do you want from me? Sympathy? Sure, I'll get out my violins for the poor victimized pedophiles. *We should kill them because their is a chance that they may do something wrong. Or, to avoid you cussing me for finding erronous implications, then just shun them instead because they might do something wrong. Bit like pre-crime from minority report.* It sounds exactly like that pre-crime from Minority Report, unless you consider that I've said about a dozen times now that as long as they don't actually go through with doing something wrong, there's nothing preventing them from leading a normal life. *did God tell you that, did he? If one is not to suggest that God in fact did, then you can’t argue ‘inherently wrong’ as if it transcends reality with no transcender.* I thought we were already in agreement that having sexual relations with kids was wrong (as is everyone who isn't a pedophile) when you said *I most certainly was not trying to defend convicted pedophiles,*, and *Those that aren’t blind to reason are able to see that it isn’t a good thing to molest little kids,*. I hadn't realized YOU were connected to God when you cited the obvious nature of molestation being wrong, as seems to be the prerequisite for making such a claim based on your newest proposal. So are you being difficult with more of this "philosophical skeptisism", or have you found some groundbreaking advancements in pedophilia that shows it's an awesome desire to have? *That’s what we call free will. You have to let them try. If they fail, then you lock them up, because they had their chance.* That's exactly what my implication of "if this is something an individual can 100% control, then there’s not much to stop them living out a normal life." says. *The person can control it, unless one of those other problems are involved that I stated earlier.* Of course they can. Maybe to repent they can become priests. We all know how well that works out. I maintain that I am NOT off base in thinking there may be something WRONG with pedophiles other than "Hm? What's that? I'm aroused by this child!? That's weird. But no biggie, I don't care, I'll just never do that."
  • 
    TeChNoWC
    October 7, 2006
    Edit | Reply
    *"Nice to know you left out the rest of that sentence that explained the only good thing is being able to find ways of preventing it. What else do you want from me? Sympathy? Sure, I’ll get out my violins for the poor victimized pedophiles."* *"It sounds exactly like that pre-crime from Minority Report, unless you consider that I’ve said about a dozen times now that as long as they don’t actually go through with doing something wrong, there’s nothing preventing them from leading a normal life."* Thankyou, except you seem to be paranoid of the fact that these people can't do that, as if it is relatively impossible. NO IT IS NOT! No. Understanding, not sympathy. As you may have picked up on something earlier, I think it may come to you that I have observed a little more closely than others the affects of such desires, and I am telling you, there is nothing 'evil' about a person having the desires. When I say 'evil', I mean, the person could still be the nicest person in the world. He could be Mahatma Gandhi, but realise that the desires are to be dealt with in one's own personal walk with God, and not deserving to have your dick chopped off simply because you confess the thoughts of your mind to a close individual. It is in my opinion a sin to enact such desires even in privacy (but that's between you and God), and also to enact such desires with others. But trials in themselves aren't sins, they are just the cause of having the problem of evil inherent in our world. Concieved in sin, destined to be sinful, but not necessarily an outright evil sinner. You decide that upon yourself. *"I thought we were already in agreement that having sexual relations with kids was wrong (as is everyone who isn’t a pedophile) when you said I most certainly was not trying to defend convicted pedophiles,, and Those that aren’t blind to reason are able to see that it isn’t a good thing to molest little kids,. I hadn’t realized YOU were connected to God when you cited the obvious nature of molestation being wrong, as seems to be the prerequisite for making such a claim based on your newest proposal. So are you being difficult with more of this “philosophical skeptisism”, or have you found some groundbreaking advancements in pedophilia that shows it’s an awesome desire to have?"* I'm not going to cite ethical possibilities, because of my convictions of the fact that even discussing such a possibility is morally wrong. Hey, I may be weak, but this is kind of draining for me, given the circumstance. Yeah I was being philosophically difficult. Because I do agree that it is wrong, but I don't agree that it is inherently wrong. This would suggest that God had some active role in create such inherency, and although I do believe such, I can't claim to 'know' it, and I don't wish to defend such a stance. *"Those that aren’t blind to reason are able to see that it isn’t a good thing to molest little kids"* When I said such a thing, sure reason shows it is wrong, seemingly. But remember, I don't agree to reasons infallibility like you do. I must hold to the infallibility of such reason in this case, because I am morally obliged. Tis a bit of a dilemma of which I could foresee you forcing me into such a pickle of a situation. If I for even one instance toy with the thought that it is possible that having sex with children is ok, then for me, doing that would be immoral. So I'm not going to play with the thought, not even for the purposes of philosophy. I don't deny someone else the pleasure of doing so, but they better be bloody careful if they do that they don't fall prey to seemingly incorrect surmises. It's dangerous ground indeed. *"unless you found some groundbreaking advancements in pedophilia that shows it’s an awesome desire to have?"* I'm sure you could discuss such a topic with NAMBLA, but not me, sorry. Point is, anyone can come up with both reasons why and reasons why not. There is some disgusting forms of reason in this world, that only stands as a mere testimony to reason's infallibility. Sure, reason away, and prove the inherent nature of its wrongness, although I pity your chances of success. Getting people to agree with you, that's easy, but actually proving the inherency of something, that's another matter. *"That’s exactly what my implication of “if this is something an individual can 100% control, then there’s not much to stop them living out a normal life.” says."* Then get off their backs, and leave them alone. If they haven't done anything wrong, you may be warranted in being wary, but you aren't warranted in punishing them in any way shape or form. Fine. Don't talk to them in the freeway. Don't give them the pleasure of being in your company. Maybe even frown, but that's pushing it. What you did with that guy I on the bus, that was being wary - but had you had the ability to look into his heart and see that he was supressing lustful feelings towards that girl and yet he prevented himself from doing anything other than talk to her (and yes, he has that right), then back off.
  • 
    Weydon
    October 9, 2006
    Edit | Reply
    *No. Understanding, not sympathy. As you may have picked up on something earlier, I think it may come to you that I have observed a little more closely than others the affects of such desires, and I am telling you, there is nothing ‘evil’ about a person having the desires. When I say ‘evil’, I mean, the person could still be the nicest person in the world.* This is a difficult concept for me to accept, but take solace in that as long as this person does nothing wrong and never will, I will treat them as an equal. *Then get off their backs, and leave them alone. If they haven’t done anything wrong, you may be warranted in being wary, but you aren’t warranted in punishing them in any way shape or form. Fine. Don’t talk to them in the freeway. Don’t give them the pleasure of being in your company. Maybe even frown, but that’s pushing it. What you did with that guy I on the bus, that was being wary – but had you had the ability to look into his heart and see that he was supressing lustful feelings towards that girl and yet he prevented himself from doing anything other than talk to her (and yes, he has that right), then back off.* Of course, but I still worry. The man on the bus seemed like a little unhinged. If desiring females was just as horrid, and I spent my entire life not only denying myself but denying the thoughts and chiding myself for having them, whoi knows how I'd turn out. I don't imagine it's a pleasant existance, and always existing as such could possibly cause someone to go off balance. I have an understanding for these people if it is in fact beyond their control. But they have to have an understanding for my "caution", and punishments that go against them should they ever get out of line.
  • 
    TeChNoWC
    October 10, 2006
    Edit | Reply
    *"This is a difficult concept for me to accept, but take solace in that as long as this person does nothing wrong and never will, I will treat them as an equal."* Thankyou, kind friend. *"Of course, but I still worry. The man on the bus seemed like a little unhinged. If desiring females was just as horrid, and I spent my entire life not only denying myself but denying the thoughts and chiding myself for having them, whoi knows how I’d turn out. I don’t imagine it’s a pleasant existance, and always existing as such could possibly cause someone to go off balance. I have an understanding for these people if it is in fact beyond their control. But they have to have an understanding for my “caution”, and punishments that go against them should they ever get out of line."* Thankyou, thankyou thankyou. This is all I asked for, and to see your kindness in such an approach, as well as your resolution to stand firm in protecting the child under justified instances, is appreciated dearly. We have come to a rather firm agreement, I do believe.
  • 
    Weydon
    October 10, 2006
    Edit | Reply
    Glad to see it. Too bad it couldn't be on a more upbeat topic :(
  • 
    TeChNoWC
    October 11, 2006
    Edit | Reply
    Yeah, but that's debate for ya.

  Please register or login to comment! It's totally free
• right now

  Adding your reply:
• Your Comment: