benbenthegamerman said:
Ok, i know this thread might get me banned, but its something thats been on my mind for a while. I know that over the course of history, people have become more accepting of different things like homosexuality. Ive been wondering: will pedophilia ever be accepted as something that isnt something to be ashamed of? Is it still wrong?
There have been a lot of replies to the last question in this post, which isn't surprising because it's also the question specifically posed by the poll, so although it's pretty much been exhausted and really shouldn't need saying anyway: yes, pedophilia is wrong.
But- though I hate to bring semantics into it- that's implied in the term itself, at least as we understand it today (which has admittedly taken on a different meaning to its etymology). If someone's referred to as a pedophile it's because they've acted on a sexual attraction to a minor, whereas if someone is *known* to be sexually attracted to minors but *hasn't* acted on them the term is less likely to be applied. Even so, having those desires, whether acted upon or not, is still considered wrong. And rightly so: the individual may not have any control over what he or she finds sexually stimulating, but nor may a different individual have any control over those desires to, say, take the meat cleaver from the knife rack, butcher his largely blameless family and make clothes out of their skin (dramatic over-exaggeration, I know, but there's a point to it); simply *not acting* on those impulses doesn't make them *right*, or even neutral. Why doesn't the individual act? Because they *know* it's wrong.
On the other hand, simply having the desire is no indication of the individual's character, which is what matters and I think is what people are actually getting at when they say things like:
Furburt said:
I suppose in its base state, paedophilia isn't wrong. It's just a sexual preference. If you have your fantasies, fine, keep them in your head. It's only when a person acts on them that it becomes a problem.
By which I mean the preference is wrong, acting on it would be wrong, but not acting on it redeems the individual somewhat. Of course if they *really* have it under control no-one would have any inkling of their preference to begin with and it wouldn't be an issue.
Now back to the original point: pedophilia as we understand it (and it's important to say 'as we understand it', because what pedophilia more closely means is a *platonic* love of children, usually reciprocated; our understanding would more accurately represented by 'pedosexual') is wrong and will always be wrong. That fact can't be disputed. We see pedophilia as a power relationship wherein a mature person exploits a minor unable to protect themselves or understand what's happening, whether exploiting their trust, their weakness or both. And we see a minor as being someone unable to consent because they have no concept of what they would be consenting to. To put it another way, pedophilia is rape, and the only culture in which rape would be acceptable is one that operates under the credo of 'get whatever you can grab'.
On the other hand, the legal definition of 'minor' in any given society will almost certainly change in the future, just as it's changed in the past. We would consider the man in his late 20's consummating his marriage to the 10-year-old girl to be a pedophile, but in his 18th-or-so-century society (my dates may be off but you get the point) not only was this acceptable, it was practically standard amongst the upper classes. Whether individuals condemned it or not doesn't matter; the society as a whole had no problems with it. And it's conceivable that in another 200 years our reaction to that will be mirrored by theirs when learning that 30-year-olds used to sleep with people barely in their 20s.
To sum up: pedophilia as a sexual orientation will never be accepted in society (unless, as mentioned, we regress to the primitive 'right of the strong' philosophy), but what actually constitutes that offense will change. There's no way to be sure that specific example we currently have may not be considered wrong in the future. For all we know, 'minor' might eventually be pushed back to mean 'in the womb'. We hope not, but there's just no way to be sure.
On the other hand I'm a 21st-century Australian, raised in a certain culture to hold certain widely held moral values and hence think in a certain way. So I could be completely wrong, because superimposing my morals onto a theoretical future in no way leads to certainty. Hell, maybe in the future pedophilia will be standard and you'll get locked up for letting your gaze linger too long on a shapely 20-something, but then again maybe in the future our legs will be on our head and we'll hear the way the world's smell looks.
And finally (for real this time), I don't see why people are worried that this thread should be closed. It's a valid question and merits discussion, if nothing else than at least as a hypothetical. Although yes, it's contentious, so if people start flaming/playing an extremely dumb devil's advocate, or even worse *seriously* interpret it as an invitation to start posting their pics of the "Here's a little boy I met in the park, here he is in my van..." variety, then there might be grounds to close it. But again, I could be wrong.
)
