View Poll Results: How should we treat pedophiles who do not harm a child?

Voters
80. You may not vote on this poll
  • We should try to understand them.

    31 38.75%
  • They should be thrown in jail!

    20 25.00%
  • I am not sure.

    29 36.25%
Page 1 of 9 12345 ... LastLast
Results 1 to 10 of 86

Thread: Pedophiles

  1. #1

    Default Pedophiles

    How should we treat pedophiles that do not harm a child (not including child porn)? Should we try to understand them, or should we arrest them? The choice is yours.

    I'm not sure where I stand in this. The poll is private to protect the innocent.

    Click here:
    Last edited by Kovy; 03-Jun-2009 at 17:12.

  2. #2
    EmeraldsAndLime

    Default

    Boil'em, mash'em, stick'em in a stew!


    Nah seriously though. How do we know they're paedophiles if they haven't harmed a child? It's like scrutinising someone for being a DL despite no evidence to suggest so.

    But nitpicking aside, I assume you mean in situations like Chris Hansen's "To Catch a Predator" stuff, where people get caught, but they don't actually do any harm. As far as I'm concerned, they should receive an appropriate sentence under the region's "attempting illicit sex acts with a minor" law, as well as put under an internet watchgroup.

    Namely the latter, as the crime isn't as serious (relatively speaking) when the act hasn't taken place, yet people who are like this tend to re-offend. I think once they're exposed as a predator, they should immediately be blacklisted and banned from certain activities, places, events and be put under intense surveillance.

  3. #3

    Default

    Well, I suppose my view is that as long as they haven't tried anything, as in they can control themselves not to do it, they shouldn't be punished...Though...I still think they should be watched if at all possible.

    I mean, not blacklisting them or anything, but definitely watched.

  4. #4

    Default

    I say throw them in jail if they have done something with children. I say force them to go to a shrink if they haven't done anything to hurt a child.

  5. #5

    Default

    I think we should try and understand them. Pedophile is when someone is sexually attracted to a pre puberty child, doesn't say anything about acting on it when you look it up in a dictionary. To be diagnosed with pedophilia, you have to have acted on it before and be at least 16 years of age and the child is at least 5 years younger than you. So I don't know what they call kids who are 13-15 years of age and they molest younger kids. According to the DSM they can't be pedophiles because they are too young.

    That's why I say DSMs are bull because they are made up by doctors basically. All they did was write the criterias for mental conditions. Plus they change like after every so many years.

  6. #6

    Default

    As far as I know, not jailing people for thought-crimes is one of the cornerstones of a free society. We just don't do that. Pedophiles should be no exception.

    Child molesters, traders of child porn and the likes (note the important difference from simply being pedophiles or having pedophilic tendencies) should naturally be imprisoned if found guilty of such crimes. Preferably receiving a lot of psychiatric help while in jail.

    EDIT:



    To be diagnosed with pedophilia, you have to have acted on it before and be at least 16 years of age and the child is at least 5 years younger than you.
    Quite correct, except for the fact that you don't have to carry out acts of child molestation to be a pedophile. A pedophile is simply someone, as you said, above the age of 16 who have sexual fantasies or attractions to children at least 5 years younger (assuming they're 16) than themselves for an extended period of time (5-6 months if I remember correctly). Again, note the difference between a pedophile and somebody who acts on their pedophilia.

  7. #7

    Default

    You can't lock someone up if they haven't done anything. Nor should we.

  8. #8

    Default

    The difficult part here is the notion of harm.

    Does it harm a child to have pictures taken of them in sexual/sexualized poses? Likely. Does it harm a child to have 1 million people beating off to these images any more than 1 person beating off to it? Likely not.

    This implies, though, that the actions of masturbator #1 are different from that of #1,000,001--and I'm uncomfortable with this.

    I know how we do this: this is a good case for very compelling CG. IF the pedophile can be forever satisfied with the images, so be it. If it spills over into anything other than fantasy-driven masturbation, they should be carted away.



    Quote Originally Posted by RadGravity View Post
    A pedophile is simply someone, as you said, above the age of 16 who have sexual fantasies or attractions to children at least 5 years younger (assuming they're 16) than themselves for an extended period of time (5-6 months if I remember correctly).
    I'm pretty sure there's a "pre-pubescent" component that is needed for an actual "pedophile / pedophilia" designation.

  9. #9

    Default

    I didn't make that clear. I meant if they didn't molest a child, but they might have looked at child porn.

  10. #10

    Default

    Pedophilia, I have no problem with; at all. As long as it remains a Fantasy. Drawn porn,
    "simulations", it's all fine... I am not into it.. but there is no harm; and releasing disires in the fashion mentioned above is healthy for everyone... Especially the pedophile.

    Most pedophiles do not act upon their actions, the same as most child molesters and rapists aren't even pedophiles.

    The DL's here don't all go an relieve themselves publicly... yes; some find this hot. But, they wont do it. It is the same principal. Like DLsm pedophilia is where the child is the paraphalia, instead of a diaper, or wetting. Almost no one chooses to have a fetish, especially one as... out there as this.


    There are some loopholes I'd like to bring up:

    Is getting "turned on" by a drawn picture of a child that is MEANT to be provocative still pedophilia; or is it having a natural biological reaction to an image meant to solicit that from your body?

    Is it possible that Pedophilia.... as we know it isn't at all? There are some DEVELOPED countries where the age of consent is 12.

    Why is it most "pedophiles" victims are over 13? Is this because they are attracted to this age range (13-16) or because they have repressed anger from this time in their childhood and are taking it out on a new generation? Again that brings up that most child molesters and rapists aren't pedophiles at all, and are rather people looking for revenge, or a place to take out their anger or what have you on a different target.


    There's lots of gray areas within this topic. I wish I could write the mile long post I want to...

    ah well.
    Last edited by Corri; 13-Jun-2009 at 17:50.

Similar Threads

  1. Pedophiles
    By Kovy in forum Mature Topics
    Replies: 257
    Last Post: 26-Dec-2008, 10:50
  2. Female Pedophiles/Child Molesters
    By Pramrider in forum Mature Topics
    Replies: 28
    Last Post: 09-Aug-2008, 15:41

Tags for this Thread

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  
ADISC.org - the Adult Baby / Diaper Lover / Incontinence Support Community.
ADISC.org is designed to be viewed in Firefox, with a resolution of at least 1280 x 1024.