Moral conundrum

FORMER_FYRDMAN

LE
Book Reviewer
As a general rule, I'm in favour of free discussion and the exchange of ideas, but I find that view seriously challenged by this article.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/comment/10948796/Paedophilia-is-natural-and-normal-for-males.html

It seems that the rather creepy ideas that gave us the Paedophile Information Exchange are alive and well and still being promulgated - in at least one case by someone who championed PIE originally.

I'd be interested to hear the opinions of others on the question of whether philosophical attempts to 'normalise' paedophilia, which is what some of these types seem to be arguing for, should be subject to immediate sanction?

My personal view is 'yes', though I'm less sure of the justification for doing so given that the precedent could be used to shut people up on a range of other issues.

Do we have to tolerate this as the price for wider freedoms?
 

llech

LE
Some/most need to understand the difference between peadophilia and ephebophilia the second we are almost certain to "suffer" from.
 
A century ago homosexuality was regarded as abhorrent as paedophilia is today. Go figure what the logical progression is.


Posted from the ARRSE Mobile app (iOS or Android)
 

llech

LE
A century ago homosexuality was regarded as abhorrent as paedophilia is today. Go figure what the logical progression is.


Posted from the ARRSE Mobile app (iOS or Android)
That's just a lazy argument, however define Paedophilia? And what the AoC laws were brought in for.
 

Yokel

LE
A century ago homosexuality was regarded as abhorrent as paedophilia is today. Go figure what the logical progression is.


Posted from the ARRSE Mobile app (iOS or Android)
Surely the issue is consent? A gay guy or girl can consent to things, understanding the risks and consequences.

A child, being manipulated and coerced by an adult, cannot possibly give willing and informed consent.
 
and a century ago the age of consent was 12 (or 13, I forget). In fact it still is in many countries - e.g. Japan.

We lifted the age to "protect" children who were innocent and easily impressed and being coerced into having sex.

These days the average 13 year old girl has shagged more men (and women) than I had by the age of 40, and is only impressed by 12 inches of black manhood on the end of a millionaire rap star.

But we still need to protect them?

What about protecting us old buggers......
 
I would be surprised if the majority of males could be said to have paedophile leanings frankly I just don't get it. every time one of these cases comes up I wonder what the offender has seen sexually in a child. Dominance, arrested development and the desire of the forbidden are the only driving forces I can see behind the act.
 
Last edited:
Can I float an idea left of left field here? Perhaps there is a bigger picture and all this talk of normalising paedophilia is a smoke screen. Interesting to note all these paedos who are being prosecuted right now are all in the entertainment business and nobody in the media has asked why. Like they are all individual aberrations and totally unconnected.

Well it's no big secret Satanism is the religion of the entertainment industry and ritual child sex abuse is a part of their practices. If you look at movies produced by Hollywood and the music industry it is replete with Satanic symbols hiding in plain sight. It's amazing how many people bury their head in the sand about this.
 
There isn't any moral conundrum here at all.

What's sexually attractive about children? Nothing I can think of! I think some people confuse see a pretty looking child with their feelings for attractive adults? It's completely unnatural.

Children are children. They are innocent and our future. I also don't get that anybody who attempts to seduce children surely must realise that they are scarring those children for the rest of their lives.

I have 3 now grown up kids and currently 2 grandchildren. I genuinely would swing for anybody who tried something with any of them as kids.
 

Chef

LE
A century ago homosexuality was regarded as abhorrent as paedophilia is today. Go figure what the logical progression is.
Posted from the ARRSE Mobile app (iOS or Android)
I believe that the APA Manual of Mental Disorders in its first edition defined homosexuality as an illness. Obviously they got that one wrong and took it out in subsequent editions. Mind you none of the illnesses in the book are provable and the number has grown by orders of magnitude in each new edition. As an example if one mourns for a loved one's death for too long one could be deemed to have a mourning too long syndrome.

Eventually the mantra to tolerate and understand every deviation from 'normal' behaviour is bound to come back and bite people, however well meaning, on the arse. Look at the circles being squared over religious differences or the chattering classes defending the possible actions of Mr Assange.

I would say kiddy fiddling is wrong, I can't give chapter and verse, it just is.
 
Well it's no big secret Satanism is the religion of the entertainment industry and ritual child sex abuse is a part of their practices. If you look at movies produced by Hollywood and the music industry it is replete with Satanic symbols hiding in plain sight. It's amazing how many people bury their head in the sand about this.
Are you talking Satanism the religion which has no connection to the Devil, or people who worship the Devil?
 
Interesting if you read the Psychology of it though. There is an increasing school of thought that says Paedophilia is entirely appropriate to a paedophile because their brain is wired that way. They simply find a child sexually attractive because it's like someone like me finding a woman attractive, entirely natural for the way I am wired.

I'm not saying it's right, simply that it's a theory that appears to be gaining credence and a body of scientific data.
 
As a general rule, I'm in favour of free discussion and the exchange of ideas, but I find that view seriously challenged by this article.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/comment/10948796/Paedophilia-is-natural-and-normal-for-males.html

It seems that the rather creepy ideas that gave us the Paedophile Information Exchange are alive and well and still being promulgated - in at least one case by someone who championed PIE originally.

I'd be interested to hear the opinions of others on the question of whether philosophical attempts to 'normalise' paedophilia, which is what some of these types seem to be arguing for, should be subject to immediate sanction?

My personal view is 'yes', though I'm less sure of the justification for doing so given that the precedent could be used to shut people up on a range of other issues.

Do we have to tolerate this as the price for wider freedoms?

Fact is it constitutes an assault upon and a dire corruption of an innocent by inadequate, deceitful perverts. Frankly it's not something that any society can or should shrug at, as it damages children forever and does nothing about protecting and guiding the young to take their rightful place in the world.

No discernible principle to defend there.
 
Last edited:
Are you talking Satanism the religion which has no connection to the Devil, or people who worship the Devil?
They're actually the same. I know people who say they're Satanists and don't worship the devil. It's a fastidious difference which is self delusion to make them feel comfortable about what they are doing. Rituals are powerful and these rituals are designed to open up the psyche to negative influences no matter how its presented.
 

The_Snail

ADC
RIP
They're actually the same. I know people who say they're Satanists and don't worship the devil. It's a fastidious difference which is self delusion to make them feel comfortable about what they are doing. Rituals are powerful and these rituals are designed to open up the psyche to negative influences no matter how its presented.
<<Shimmies into CA>>

You're strange.

<<Shimmies out again>>
 
They're actually the same. I know people who say they're Satanists and don't worship the devil. It's a fastidious difference which is self delusion to make them feel comfortable about what they are doing. Rituals are powerful and these rituals are designed to open up the psyche to negative influences no matter how its presented.
You might be right, but, going by the definition given by the The Church of Satan here I'm afraid I have to disagree with you.

Why do Satanists worship The Devil?
We don’t. Satanists are atheists. We see the universe as being indifferent to us, and so all morals and values are subjective human constructions.

Our position is to be self-centered, with ourselves being the most important person (the “God”) of our subjective universe, so we are sometimes said to worship ourselves. Our current High Priest Gilmore calls this the step moving from being an atheist to being an “I-Theist.”

Satan to us is a symbol of pride, liberty and individualism, and it serves as an external metaphorical projection of our highest personal potential. We do not believe in Satan as a being or person.
 

alib

LE
A century ago homosexuality was regarded as abhorrent as paedophilia is today. Go figure what the logical progression is.


Posted from the ARRSE Mobile app (iOS or Android)
Not really, or more accurately about 50 years ago. I was reading the prosecution and persecution of homosexuals in Anglo cultures actually reaches a peak after WWII in the moral panic that the licentious behavior of the Greatest Generation caused. Victorians and Edwardians were rather relaxed about elite gentlemen playing for the other side, even more so randy Georgians.

You had to go very far astray like Oscar Wilde who was foolish enough to sue an enemy who made allegations to actually get into hot water. And Sainted Oscar would have got done today as he was fiddling not very discretely with rather young rent.

Even earlier in Christendom crime of sodomy generally applied to all sexual acts outside of procreative sex in the marriage bed. It's socially disruptive adultery that scripture tends to focus on not our modern idea of homosexuality.

Our concept of a lengthy childhood also simply didn't exist. You were in practice and law a consenting adult before you were a teenager and girls reached puberty later then than in well fed modern times. And in practical terms a girl who could not yet conceive was a valuable sexual property in an age before reliable contraception and abortion.

Unsurprisingly what would today be legally classed as pedophilia has a rich tradition in Anglo culture. Upright Victorian gentlemen seem to have had a peculiar obsession with very young waifs. Abuse of young domestics was common. Victorian London was brimming with underage prostitutes ejected from service after compromising an employer. There are well documented cases of respectable literary men becoming obsessed with young girls in the manner of Dante and Beatrice. Poetry and folk song and for that matter jazz and rock and roll are full of gaol bait.

Indeed it is interesting to think of Jimmy Saville as a typical 19th century pervert born out of time. A man who would have happily haunted work houses and done good works amongst fallen women and died a celebrated citizen if a bit of a rum cove. Roving handed Rolf a similarly entitled Victorian paterfamilias with a rock hard certainty of his guilty victims never shaming themselves by speaking up. Ah the bad old days of patriarchy unchallenged.

Homosexuals achieve a final restoration to toleration and now respectability and even admiration just after similarly sexually demonized blacks do in the US. A once rich subculture is well on its way to the dull suburban future of marriage equality and serial divorce.

Pedophiles who may outnumber exclusive homosexuals considerably once thought their tastes for a bit of strange becoming legal inevitable but they reckoned without that great clamp on rapacious male sexuality political feminism. The vengeful puritan harpy screeching "all men are rapists" that arose partly in revolt against the anything goes even stoat the baw male supremacist hippie sexual attitudes of the early 70s.

And really that's what changed, the position of women and relatively recently. No longer a subservient chattel to be abused on a whim like a domestic animal by a tyrannical master of the house and that's been extended to their charges children. Oh brave new world, they have become autonomous creatures of asserted rights. The pansexual opportunities of sleekit male authority figures from the village Priest to the once priapic Radio 1 DJ have shriveled in the cold dawn. A lot of chaps are very disappointed and having to make do with a lot of imagination and barely legal porn.
 

New Posts

Latest Threads

Top