Absolutely, well said Kazanne.

Why did a Newspaper actually print this story? Are they that desperate to get sales that they had to stoop to a new low?

Seems like it.Thinking about it.This story is not only idiotic but even though most people won't believe it at all.Some people might.This could colour their view and trust in male teachers,child minders,kids doctors etc....
It is quite an irresponsible thing to print.

A newspapers duty is to report. They haven't made these people and this presentation up, and its not a view that they have fabricated for shock value. This conference really happened, there really was a coming together of people to discuss this and there really are people who hold these views. That won't get wished away by newspapers refusing to print anything about it.

Wow......shocking to say the least

Have we taken the torch of Liberalism to new heights ?

It's not the fact that we are discussing this subject but more the standpoint from which the debate is being held.

the default position in my opinion is set in stone, it is unmovable an arguable , the normal human position is not to engage in sex with pre pubescent children , end off...

This type of "debate" is dangerous as it lends the smallest veneer of credibility to something that has no moral defence under any circumstances......

Indeed. Anything that has an innocent victim is not "normal" . I mean it's like saying stealing is normal because lots of people want stuff they can't afford so it's normal for them to steal it........no it's a crime, it's not OK and it's not normal

I hardly think liberalism is in any danger of attempting to legalise pedophilia and animal buggery Nedusa. :laugh:

Maybe Not..........but you get the point I was trying to make.:laugh:

Loud and clear Chiana :wink:

Ugh....oh

Another Farscape Fan..................:wavey::wavey:

Liberals do not condone pedophilia Nedusa, more the opposite, since a child cannot consent to sex with an adult given that they are not old enough to make a mature decision. That would infringe their sexual rights given that it is essentially rape if you cannot give consent.

:umm2:

^ How can you legislate for sex with children? How can you make it legal to abuse or rape someone? That's crazy

Exactly, it's the same as asking for the legalisation of rape. :umm2:

Stop the world I want to get off.

I think "naturally occurring" would be less inflammatory than "natural" or "normal" - some people develop into adulthood with an attraction to children. We can be as offended as we like about it, it doesn't mean it's not true. Paedophilia is one of the last taboos in our society that people are just not willing to have the conversation about for many reasons, but I think it's important to not immediately grab the pitchforks when there are paedophiles brave enough to speak out publicly. Yes, brave. Terrible though it may be that there are people who are attracted to children, it takes a lot of bravery to admit that to anyone and I'd argue that paedophilia is in the same arena as alcoholism, depression and other forms of addictive behaviour - if you identify with a destructive behaviour, you can only do your best to spend your life not succumbing to that behaviour. You could argue that the ripple effect from any of those behaviours is as savage as the next one - but the difference is that paedophilia is something we legislate against. No one puts alcoholics in jail for ruining their lives and the lives of those around them; but we arrest paedophiles for raping children. Quite rightly too - I think a significant part of the psychology behind paedophilia must stem from childhood abuse, it's a cycle of abuse after all.

However, paedophiles are people too. They have jobs and families and friends and hobbies and it's kind of awful that someone can be branded a paedophile and be stripped of their humanity in the process - if we can better understand why paedophiles come to be and why they offend, we can better understand how to protect children in the future. Paedophilia is naturally occurring because it's in some peoples' nature to be paedophilic. That's just who they are. It must be a horrible kind of torment to know that you'd be despised if anyone ever knew about your attractions. You might never have a family because you're terrified that you'd offend against your own child; you might never hold down a normal relationship because you're scared of having kids or you're not sexually satisfied or you're terrified that if you get close to anyone, they'll find out. I just think there needs to be some understanding in the other corner of this debate. It's hard to know how to feel about proud paedophiles but I suppose I commend them in some way, it can't be easy to live with yourself.

Fantastic post. Essentially what I was getting at, put a lot more eloquently.

Greg :clap2: and Samuel :clap2:

I disagree with this, it's not addictive imo, however I do agree that it is a sexual orientation. Any sexual orientation that can never be described as 'consensual' peadophilia, beastiality can be in someones nature that doesn't necessarily make it natural and/or normal in any way for me.
By that logic psychopathy is 'normal' as it has naturally manifested itself in a percentage of people.
Yes, if they are seeking help then kudos to them for that, But the 'naturally occurring' description is right, normal it's not.

Wait, why is this thread turning into a sympathy for peados thread?

Fair enough if you feel the way you do about the ones that don't act on their feelings but that's not the thread topic at all...

The people from these conferences, people btw that campaign to make sex with children legal, are making the claim that every male adult has sexual feelings towards children, that is bull****, and it's a deeply insulting thing to claim because normal adults do not have feelings like that.

I also don't see the similarities between alcoholism, depression etc if I'm honest, isnt it claimed by some that peadophilia is a sexual orientation? in that case then it's nothing to do with it being an addiction is it? there is one major difference in that the other things don't endanger anyone else as such well accept in extreme circumstances but in general the only people alcoholics are a danger to in the main are themselves, they don't prey on the helpless victims that society are supposed to be protecting.

Definitely seems to me after reading the past page that the spoonfeeding by these conferences is already taking it's toll.

:clap1:

:clap2:

All the more reason to drown them at birth or as soon as their paedo nature comes to light....

There's been plenty of research done previously that supports at least the idea that it's a lot more common than percieved to be.

Ultimately even the concept of children is a social contruction and they've only been seen as vulnerable and innocent in comparison to adults in the last 200-300 years, sex between adult and child wasn't even studied or differentiated until much later. Naturally-occuring attraction to children unfortunately doesn't stop existing simply because our societal values change, they'll continue to be present in some.

Of course, none of this excuses those who rape children. I'd imagine, however, those with attraction to children are no more likely to act upon it than anybody else would act upon raping an adult. There's nothing to suggest otherwise.

Your last comment is simply pathetic.

Samuel and Greg :clap1: thank God there's some people who share similar views on here

This article is absolutely ridiculous, and not because of the content, but because of the way it's been totally misconstrued to stir up outrage. The comment that sexual attraction to children is prevalent in most males was made by one professor and supported by very little others. The rest of the article raises arguments from sociologists which, quite honestly, make a lot of sense. Let's go through them:

True.

Also true, if there wasn't a social stigma attached to it (and at one point in history there wasn't) then there would be nothing to feel guilty about.

The only part I don't really agree with is this:

But then it's important to remember that, as Samuel pointed out, childhood is a social construction and is one that fluctuates across different cultures and time.

The book sounds like quite an interesting read to be honest. At the end of the day all it is is sociological research and academic enquiry, it doesn't have to be taken seriously. It is just the opinions put forward by some academics in much the same way that every other aspect of the social world is theorised. After all, humans have created the rules, they aren't inherent or natural. And yes, that includes paedophilia. That doesn't mean having sex with children is acceptable before someone jumps down my throat, but childhood is a socially constructed categorisation and some people are unfortunately sexually attracted to children.