I think what I have to say is completely in line with the spirit of what this group represents. People that rape kids are monsters that deserve to be locked up and punished. Hatred is absolutely morally justified.

Pedophiles are people that are sexually attracted to prepubescent children. That on it's own isn't evil. It's the sexual assault, making sexual advances without consent, that is worthy of our hatred. Since children can't legally give consent (rightfully so in my mind) all children/adult sexual encounters should be condemned. In places like Japan where the age of consent is low (13), I think people there should lobby their government to raise it to at least 16 like it is in my home country.

I don't know what it's like to be a pedophile and feel sexual attraction to children. I do know what its like to feel sexual attraction to other people and not act on it because it would be inappropriate for reasons other than their age. I also know what it's like to feel sexual attraction to someone and not rape them (I've done that with every person I've ever been attracted to)

People that are pedophiles but don't act on their feelings are not evil and are not to be hated. I have heard it said that pedophiles that restrain themselves are heroes... I don't think I would go that far. It probably depends on how strong their compulsions are.

Just my thoughts. It's probably a bit pedantic to say 'I don't hate all pedophiles, just the pedophiles that do the action of pedophilia', but there it is. Thoughts?

ALL PEDOPHILE'S are BAD and that is a FACT

7434886
MAJOR SHANE YOU SHOULD BE MAJOR ASHAMED

7434886
Not to nitpick, but recent diagnostic criteria has changed to merge pedophilia with ephebophiles in order to more broadly include the perverse obsession with all minors. Most recent documents I’ve read refer to it as pedohebephilia, and it refers to any desire to rape underdeveloped people.

Pedophiles shouldn't be considered heroes for doing the simple, moral act of NOT RAPING, MOLESTING AND/OR GROOMING MINORS. That's not something to brag about, that's basic fucking human decency. I'm 16 and the fact that some adults can legally get away with having sex with children my age is fucking disgusting and horrifies me; we're fucking teenagers, none of us look like the 30-40 y/os that play teens on American TV, we look like baby-faced, pimpled, stupid teenagers who are delicate and very fucking easy to trick (case in point: CHILD GROOMING aka the "clock-down treatment," where an adult and a minor wait to announce their relationship until its technically legal), and an adult being into that is never something to excuse. Pedophiles should not be rewarded for their disorder, they should get fucking therapy before they hurt someone and never be allowed near anybody under 21. Preferably, they should never be allowed near fucking anyone.

7434886
I think of it from the Christian perspective, Hate the Sin, Not the Sinner, I honestly feel pity for them and I hope they get the help they clearly need.

7434921
Lol
7434929
Interesting, I haven't looked into it much but that makes sense.
7434955

Pedophiles shouldn't be considered heroes for doing the simple, moral act of NOT RAPING, MOLESTING AND/OR GROOMING MINORS. That's not something to brag about, that's basic fucking human decency.

I completely agree. The only thing I would mention is that basic human decency only applies to basic humans. We wouldn't hold a chimpanzee to that standard. If someone's mind is so different from ours that they don't have that same instinctual morality that you and I have then I think it's admirable if they still decide not to succumb to their heinous desires.

I have seen interviews of psychopaths that murdered a bunch of people, and I've seen interviews of psychopaths that spent years in therapy and didn't ever hurt anyone, and their description of their urges is eerily similar. I wouldn't call them heroes, but I definitely have respect for the individuals that don't kill.

If someone has a mental disorder and they resist their urges to hurt or rape others and seek professional help then kudos to them. Hating and demonizing them for being the way they are doesn't help anyone, and if there is a stigma around even discussing these things then some people on the pedophile/pedohebephilia might be encouraged NOT to seek help. That's the last thing we want IMHO.

Pedophiles should not be rewarded for their disorder, they should get fucking therapy before they hurt someone and never be allowed near anybody under 21.

I agree that they shouldn't be awarded, and I agree they need to get therapy. I agree in principle that they should be kept away from children, but I don't see how we could practically enforce such a thing. If they have never acted on their urges and they go to a therapist for help, should the therapist report them to the police and now they are not allowed to attend their church because there is a children's choir there? Now they are being punished and being isolated from society for the crime of seeking help...

Preferably, they should never be allowed near fucking anyone.

If they groomed and raped a minor then I agree they need to be punished and locked away. Any individual or organization that was complicit in protecting these criminals also need to be targeted by the law (like the Catholic church for example).

These conversations are tricky because you never know who is approaching the subject completely academically like me, or who has had a personal trauma and will be triggered by anything other than "KILL THEM ALL". Hopefully I don't come across as a rape apologist, that's not my intention. If we want to build a society where less (or no) children are at risk of these terrible things happening then we need to be able to discuss what causes the abuse in the first place.

7435007
I think it's the opposite. I hate the sinner (the people that actually committed pedophilia) but I don't hate the sin (the people that have the urges and get help).

I honestly feel pity for them and I hope they get the help they clearly need.

The ones that haven't hurt others, I agree.

7435048
There isn’t a medal for not raping kids. They shouldn’t be treated like they’re remotely heroic. Community members also have a right to know who lives among them, and should have a right to choose (where reasonable) who those people are. Give pedos the boot straight into in-patient facilities, and nothing less.

It’s also wildly unfair to compare “hi I’m hardwired to want to rape kids” to people with empathy processing disorders/conditions that can lead to a lack of empathy. The latter is not a condition that will yield an inherently harmful result and isn’t the same as someone who is inherently violent or has those desires. The former makes someone extraordinarily dangerous, and they shouldn’t be welcomed or permitted to engage with innocent folks who are completely unaware of a monster in their midst.

7434955
As someone who is 21+ I don’t want a fucking pedo within a hundred miles of me.

7435201

There isn’t a medal for not raping kids. They shouldn’t be treated like they’re remotely heroic.

Agreed!

It’s also wildly unfair to compare “hi I’m hardwired to want to rape kids” to people with empathy processing disorders/conditions that can lead to a lack of empathy. The latter is not a condition that will yield an inherently harmful result and isn’t the same as someone who is inherently violent or has those desires. The former makes someone extraordinarily dangerous, and they shouldn’t be welcomed or permitted to engage with innocent folks who are completely unaware of a monster in their midst.

I'm not a psychologist so you might be right that psychopath was the wrong example to use. I think my point still stands though. A person that is a mass murderer because of X psychological condition is very dangerous to the community. A person with X psychological condition that isn't murdering people and is getting treatment for their issues is materially different. A pedophile that is raping kids is also very dangerous to their community, the pedophile that is not raping kids is also materially different. It's the actions that are dangerous here. People with similar conditions to the monsters (but less extreme on the spectrum) that aren't doing the harmful actions are not as dangerous. There is a potential for danger here, but if they are receiving treatment and have found healthy outlets for their urges or anxieties then should we be punishing them for things they might do?

Community members also have a right to know who lives among them, and should have a right to choose (where reasonable) who those people are. Give pedos the boot straight into in-patient facilities, and nothing less.
As someone who is 21+ I don’t want a fucking pedo within a hundred miles of me.

I get it if someone is a convicted sex offender and the community decides to evict them. What if someone is a pedophile that has never acted on their urges? How do you identify them as a pedophile?
Suppose science developed a way identify things like this with a brain scan. To what extent do you punish people for their thoughts when there has been no actions?

7435762
Convicted offenders go to the chopping block. Those who have yet to do anything are not made less of pedos, and a community should be able to know, track, and expel them. They can get all the treatment they want far, far away from anyone else. Letting innocent people have to endure them would always be the greater punishment.

7435767

Those who have yet to do anything are not made less of pedos, and a community should be able to know, track, and expel them.

How? Suppose Tom is a pedophile, he is a construction worker and has lived his whole life in some random city. He has friends, family, he volunteers once a month at the salvation army, he's a good person. He has never acted on his pedophilia. How does society identify him?

7435773
>Suppose science developed a way identify things like this with a brain scan.

Now here’s a good investment. Today’s technology isn’t the best for this and has too much margin for error, but we can’t speak of the future’s. The only way to currently ID one is through psychological assessment, at least to everything I’ve read.

7435776

The only way to currently ID one is through psychological assessment, at least to everything I’ve read.

So should every citizen be subjected to a mandatory psychological assessment?

7435777
Specifically for something like that? Probably not. But should countries consider giving citizens mandatory psychological evaluations to gauge a range of things (depression, learning disabilities, gender dysphoria, personality disorders) to genuinely harmful things (murderous intent, pedophilia, incest obsessions) in order to figure out how to allocate resources and take a kind of mental health census? Sure, that’s something a nation should strongly consider making a realistic application, especially in nations with nationalized healthcare.

7435785
I think that's a good idea. (I don't know about mandatory because forcing people to show up to a talk to a psychologist would likely result in them not being open and honest and just wasting time and resources.) If mental health services was widely available and universally paid for then mental illness stigma would be dramatically reduced and people would take advantage of these services and have better mental health across the board. Society would have less addict's, homeless people, crimes committed, abusive relationships, etc...

Now if someone has gone to a government funded mental health center and been identified as high risk for harmful behavior, how should they be dealt with? Should they be told about their psychology and offered support and treatment? Should they be put on a government watch list? Should their employment opportunities be restricted? Should they be relocated and have their freedom restricted? All of the above? (I'm not asking these questions rhetorically, some of them I actually think are good and others I don't. I just am curious what you think.)

7435790
Considering things like the census, taxes, and other acts as citizens are generally enforced in some way, a comprehensive evaluation being normalized I don’t think it would be that hard. Lying to various professionals across different areas of a test would likely just get someone fined, called in again, or so forth. I don’t think that a person would continuously try and do that if they knew they would have to keep taking the evaluations at X intervals and would have to pay or waste their time more than anyone else’s.

The second part of your response would have to vary wildly depending upon what a person ended up getting. Different conditions would require different treatments and responses. There are also different kinds of harm. Someone who is at risk of suicide is not the same as someone at risk of beating their spouse (or has beat their spouse).

7435804
Cool, so if we identify Tom the pedophile, what should we do to him?

7435809
This probably provides the briefest and most easily understood overview of how pedos are treated. It shows that deprivation of NSFW content with minors, constant therapy, isolation from real minors, and sterilization using various SSRIs and injections is the most effective and stable treatment.

Tom should be put in an in-patient program, his community should be made aware of what he is, and his family too. If they want to disown him, that should be within the freedom of either, and his family should be able to access counseling and financially compensated for their troubles in having a pedo among them. (I’m assuming you mean his blood family or guardians here rather than a spouse or children.) Tom should not be permitted within the vicinity of an establishment that aids the vulnerable, like the Salvation Army. A construction worker is also too far of a public profession, unless he’s working on like the 75th floor of business high rises. But his employer should reconsider if he should even be on the team or if he should be working in similar fields that are more likely to be contained, like in a warehouse or dump. Tom should be given SSRIs and snip-snipped so that he has no libido, no fertility, nada.

7435809
KICK EM IN THE NADS

7435818

The current edition, DSM-IV, categorizes pedophilia as a disorder only if the sexual fantasies or urges involve prepubescent children (defined as 13 or younger), if they last at least six months, if the individual has acted on them, or if they cause marked distress (including legal problems).

The article you linked was very helpful in answering my question.

Tom should not be permitted within the vicinity of an establishment that aids the vulnerable, like the Salvation Army.

I'd go further and say that any organization or employer that has people working with children and/or the venerable should have a screening process that includes a phsych eval. We have police background checks for many positions already, and psych evals are used in law enforcement and military positions so expanding that would be a better approach then evaluating everyone just for being a citizen.

Tom should be given SSRIs and snip-snipped so that he has no libido, no fertility, nada.

I don't know how I feel about that. Someone that has committed the crime 100%✂✂, but someone who hasn't committed any crime and is just flagged as high risk in a psychological exam... I'm not there yet. Forced sterilization when someone is only high risk but hasn't done the crime is a line that I'm not comfortable crossing.

7435830
>We have police background checks for many positions already, and psych evals are used in law enforcement and military positions so expanding that would be a better approach then evaluating everyone just for being a citizen.

Well, all-citizen evaluations would be massively helpful for giving substantial data to global happiness indexes and improving other areas too.

>Forced sterilization when someone is only high risk but hasn't done the crime is a line that I'm not comfortable crossing.

If your brain is hardwired to want to do inherently abusive actions to children, it’s one of the extremely small circumstances where it would be justified. No children should ever be had, fostered, or adopted by a person like that. Hormones would be more strongly effected, and it would be well combined with SSRIs and further therapy.

7435819
Why? He hasn't hurt anyone and he might never hurt anyone. Is a pedophile always a child molester?
Consider the following: many people with pedophilia
(1) hate their desires,
(2) do not act on them for moral reasons (and should therefore plausibly be praised rather than vilified), and yet
(3) often do not seek treatment precisely because they are aware that people in general cannot seem to tell the difference between:
(a) feeling involuntarily sexually attracted to young children (not wrong in and of itself), and
(b) molesting or sexually assaulting children (very wrong in and of itself, no matter the reason).

7435833

If your brain is hardwired to want to do inherently abusive actions to children, it’s one of the extremely small circumstances where it would be justified.

I would need to see data that shows that 100% of people that are 'hard wired' actually follow through with these urges. I think steps to monitor, restrict, and treat people with this condition is reasonable. Forced sterilization is not IMHO.

7435819
If they are acting on their urges, or writing stories fetishizing their urges, then hell yeah kick em in the balls (or couchie)!

7435841
It’s certainly worth looking into to find out just how many do.

7435848
Suppose it's 50%. Should we force sterilize them all?
What if it's 90%? Or 95%? At what point should you pay for a crime you didn't commit just because you resemble someone that did?

Again not being rhetorical, I honestly don't know the answer. My thoughts atm are that we should protect peoples liberty until they actually commit the crime... but then if you are putting children at risk that doesn't sit well with me either!

7435852
‘Resemble’ is an incredibly light word to use here.

7435861
Replace it with the word you prefer, the question still stands and I'd love to hear your thoughts.

7435888
I’d still say that it would end up being a considerable amount. An infertile person would be more fit to function outside of an in-patient facility in this context, and they would not have been able to use that part of themselves anyway.

7435948

I’d still say that it would end up being a considerable amount.

How much is considerable? You are the one that says you would want pedophiles that haven't acted on their urges to be removed from society (at least your neighborhood) and be forced sterilized. If we had a system of identifying pedophiles that haven't committed any crime and it is shown to be 30% accurate at identifying future child molesters, should we chemically castrate all people that are flagged by this system? If not, what if it's 60% accurate?

7436270
No, you’d have to get next to no margin of error to ever implement something so severe. And once that’s done, there is absolutely no reason not to take action against all considering the gravity of the condition and that there would not be any negative effects for anyone else, which is the whole point.

7436292
So if we have a test that is 95% accurate that says a certain gene will lead someone to be a pedophile, and it turns out you have that gene, would you submit to be sterilized?

7436297
Even that’s fairly iffy, if it’s someone who didn’t get clear results or anything less than repeatedly conclusive, they should be made to take that part of the hypothetical test again.

If they’re among the 95% there’s no question about, give them that snip snip and its other gendered equivalents.

7436300
If they are among the 95% that we know are dangerous because they have already committed the act then yes I agree.

That's why my position is that we should hate and punish the people that actually do the actions, not the people that have a similar psychology but haven't committed any crime yet.

7436306
If they’ve actually done the crime, there is no point in sterilizing what is only going to go right in the ground.

7436315
I fundamentally disagree with you on treatment of precrime pedophiles. That said, be agree that the act itself is heinous and worthy of punishment.

Good chat, I enjoyed it!

7436316
No problem, dude.