[Nicky91]

yes Facebook recently had been making it's rules a lot stricter

probably to be on one line with other social media's (such as twitter) their policies/rules

[The Slim Reaper]

There is actually a conversation to be had around this subject, but it's so offensive in it's nature that we're just not ready for it. We have no control over our sexuality and who we find attractive, so there are probably a high number of high functioning self-celibate paedophiles that are just unable to talk through their mental health with anyone because of the stigma that is rightly attached.

That said, facebook isn't the place for that discussion to take place, and the attitude they show in that response is just weird and non-committal, but FB's audience is increasingly lining up with 4chan's and QAnon extremists and misinformation.

[Ammi]

...weren’t those videos from Don’t **** With Cats../ Luka Magnotta, all posted on Facebook as well...weren’t all the group all Facebook Sleuths...

[GoldHeart]

Wtf is wrong with Facebook , and I use to think violence and anything sexual / porn was banned from FB.

But I have heard that even when people add innapropriate stuff it seems to take FB a while to remove.

And here they are advertising Paedophilia ! ,FB of all places where kids use the platform and families .

[bots]

the world is completely barmy

[Niamh.]

Originally Posted by The Slim Reaper

There is actually a conversation to be had around this subject, but it's so offensive in it's nature that we're just not ready for it. We have no control over our sexuality and who we find attractive, so there are probably a high number of high functioning self-celibate paedophiles that are just unable to talk through their mental health with anyone because of the stigma that is rightly attached.

That said, facebook isn't the place for that discussion to take place, and the attitude they show in that response is just weird and non-committal, but FB's audience is increasingly lining up with 4chan's and QAnon extremists and misinformation.

There's a lot more to it than just not being able to help who they are attracted to when it comes to paedophiles. It certainly isn't a natural attraction. A lot of paedophiles have been victims of abuse as children themselves, a lot of times the motivation behind abusing children, like with adult rape is more about power and control rather than sexual attraction. I think just making a statement like "you can't help who you are sexually attracted to" is just simplifying it too much. You can't have a "relationship" in this category of sexual orientation (if that's what you want to refer to it as) without destroying the other person's life.

[The Slim Reaper]

Originally Posted by Niamh.

There's a lot more to it than just not being able to help who they are attracted to when it comes to paedophiles. It certainly isn't a natural attraction. A lot of paedophiles have been victims of abuse as children themselves, a lot of times the motivation behind abusing children, like with adult rape is more about power and control rather than sexual attraction. I think just making a statement like "you can't help who you are sexually attracted to" is just simplifying it too much. You can't have a "relationship" in this category of sexual orientation (if that's what you want to refer to it as) without destroying the other person's life.

That's why I said it was it was a difficult conversation to have that we weren't ready for. A lot of the points you raised there were points that were formerly charged against gay people.

Sexuality isn't a simple thing, and we know that people are attracted to lots of things that are weird/deviant to 99.9% of us. I think it's actually too simplistic to say that it isn't a genuine sexuality. Also, the point I made was about people living with this, and yet unable to get help because merely admitting these feelings exist could get them in trouble.

[Niamh.]

Originally Posted by The Slim Reaper

That's why I said it was it was a difficult conversation to have that we weren't ready for. A lot of the points you raised there were points that were formerly charged against gay people.

Sexuality isn't a simple thing, and we know that people are attracted to lots of things that are weird/deviant to 99.9% of us. I think it's actually too simplistic to say that it isn't a genuine sexuality. Also, the point I made was about people living with this, and yet unable to get help because merely admitting these feelings exist could get them in trouble.

What points??? gay people are consenting adults, children are not and will never be, in order to pursue this "sexual orientation" you have to abuse another person. Like TS has said children CAN NOT consent

[Cherie]

Originally Posted by Niamh.

What points??? gay people are consenting adults, children are not and will never be, in order to pursue this "sexual orientation" you have to abuse another person. Like TS has said children CAN NOT consent

Precisely its about consent and not only consent but innocence, a 16 year old is going to know a lot more about the world than a 5 year old, can't believe that picture has been deemed appropriate

[The Slim Reaper]

Originally Posted by Niamh.

What points??? gay people are consenting adults, children are not and will never be, in order to pursue this "sexual orientation" you have to abuse another person. Like TS has said children CAN NOT consent

Not once have I ever said children can consent. Sexual orientation exists whether it is acted upon or not, and I was pretty clear in talking about celibate paedophiles unable to access help, this is just setting up straw men to argue points that I didn't make.

[Niamh.]

Originally Posted by The Slim Reaper

Not once have I ever said children can consent. Sexual orientation exists whether it is acted upon or not, and I was pretty clear in talking about celibate paedophiles unable to access help, this is just setting up straw men to argue points that I didn't make.

I did also ask you what points you were talking about when you said similar points were made about gay people in the past

[user104658]

Originally Posted by The Slim Reaper

That's why I said it was it was a difficult conversation to have that we weren't ready for. A lot of the points you raised there were points that were formerly charged against gay people.

I think the main issue is that people who are pro-legalisation will deliberately try, hard, to conflate it with other gender and sexuality issues in an attempt to be able to introduce a "gotcha!"-style logical argument for why it should be OK. Thankfully, I've never heard an argument for children in fact being capable of consent that doesn't fall apart completely under scrutiny from a developmental psychology perspective and it's a null argument. That's why it doesn't need conflating with debates surrounding adult sexuality at all; the only pertinent issue is consent.

Sexuality isn't a simple thing, and we know that people are attracted to lots of things that are weird/deviant to 99.9% of us. I think it's actually too simplistic to say that it isn't a genuine sexuality. Also, the point I made was about people living with this, and yet unable to get help because merely admitting these feelings exist could get them in trouble.

Like I said I don't think that issue is or ever will be solvable, legislation around it doesn't matter, people's personal revulsion and wariness of anyone admitting to paedophilic tendencies will mean that they are socially rejected. There's no way around it. What there should be is a robust, completely anonymous and non-judgemental mental health service where people who have NOT committed an offense can seek help if they think they need it without risk of wider exposure. Unfortunately, I doubt those are the people who pose the greatest risk.

[user104658]

Originally Posted by The Slim Reaper

There is actually a conversation to be had around this subject, but it's so offensive in it's nature that we're just not ready for it. We have no control over our sexuality and who we find attractive, so there are probably a high number of high functioning self-celibate paedophiles that are just unable to talk through their mental health with anyone because of the stigma that is rightly attached.

That said, facebook isn't the place for that discussion to take place, and the attitude they show in that response is just weird and non-committal, but FB's audience is increasingly lining up with 4chan's and QAnon extremists and misinformation.

There's a line between a paedophile and a child molester and one that I think it's important to keep (but it often isn't, we use terms like "convicted paedophile", when of course paedophilia is not the crime, the action is the crime).

The reason it's important to keep the distinction and destigmatise is so that, hopefully, it should be possible for people with paedophillic urges to seek professional help BEFORE there's a risk of child molestation/assault occuring. In practical terms I think that the natural revulsion at the concept of paedophilia makes this pretty much impossible to achieve, but in safeguarding terms, it would be better if paedophiles could safely admit to being paedophiles in a context of seeking help.

The problem comes when you have groups trying to further an agenda of destigmatisation alongside arguments that it's actually acceptable to ACT upon - usually arguments that children are in fact capable of consent. Calling it "natural" is edging very close to that. It sounds like an attempt to turn it into an issue of "rights" and argue for decriminalisation of child molestation. I had one of these people creep onto my parenting forum when I ran one; I let him stick around for a day for educational puropses and because he was quite articulate (how often do you get to one-on-one with someone with a mindset like that?). He ended up banned, deleted and IP banned. It is an immensely ****ed up ideology and there's absolutely no question of it being "natural", and not mental illness.

They make VERY strong efforts to conflate the issue with other aspects of sexuality and sexual identity, rights of self expression, whilst dodging the philosophy of consent.

There's no conflation and the waters don't need to be "muddy" at all. Consenting adults can do whatever they want sexually so long as both parties consent. Children cannot independently consent TO ANYTHING. It's that simple. There is no overlap. They want to introduce that doubt - to suggest that denying the rights of pedophiles endangers other non-heteronormative rights. That side of things needs to be ignored completely and shut down fast.

I think there's a strong indication that this advert isn't saying "paedophiles should be able to access help" - which IS an important issue - but is in fact saying "paedophilic relationships are fine". Which is obviously dangerous and morally void.