Shes 18 i swear [some replies could possibly be offensive to sensitive readers]

[Calin Leafshade]

I once heard the issue phrased like this:

There's a vampire and he LOVES blood. It is his greatest high and he is compelled to seek it out whenever he can.
Life without blood for this vampire is torment. He cant go anywhere without feeling the blood pumping through people's veins.

Unfortunately his bite causes his victims to die.

Now ofcourse we should STOP the vampire but should the vampire be considered evil?
Should we blame the vampire for trying to get the blood?
and how harshly should the vampire be punished?

[Anian]

Now ofcourse we should STOP the vampire but should the vampire be considered evil?
Should we blame the vampire for trying to get the blood?
and how harshly should the vampire be punished?

Well we might think that not only is life without blood death to a vampire, while a pedophile won't die and "sexual" part of man's nature is far easier to rule voer (I won't mention celibacy in priests, but still point stands and there are people who are asexual while there is no vampire who is ablood...getting complicated now).

In any case I always wonder "what would Abe Lincoln do?"
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X58RPS665V0  

[Mr Flibble]

In my opinion the desire is not a crime, and whilst sexual assault is a crime, it's not the worst crime and shouldn't carry a punishment of life imprisonment, savage beating, and unending recriminations.

Reading some of the suggestions of people for fit punishments for sex offenders leaves me wondering if they can hear themselves calling someone else a sick criminal.

[Calin Leafshade]

Our hypothetical vampire will not die without blood.

Also your comparison will asexual people isnt valid. asexual people generally find sex distasteful.. they avoid it because they dont care for it.

Some celibate people do it for other reasons (like the aforementioned priests.. and we know how that turned out) but still these are not people who have a *compulsion* towards sex.

Paedophiles are by definition sex-mad. A paedophile is not someone who just likes kids... they have a very strong compulsion towards it.. like our vampire friend.

[Anian]

Paedophiles are by definition sex-mad. A paedophile is not someone who just likes kids... they have a very strong compulsion towards it.. like our vampire friend.

Depending on the mythos, they might not die, but it's bad for their health to abstinate from blood. (weird sentence, but it makes the disscusion fun)

Pedophiles are by definition sex-mad?

Pedophilia (or paedophilia) is a psychological disorder in which an adult or older adolescent experiences a sexual preference for prepubescent children.

That's a WHO definition btw. There is another definition about urges, fantasies etc. but that could also describe any reltion between a heterosexual boy and a supermodel and I think 99% of people would agree with that.
It's described as "a preference" (not that that makes it more appealing). Also nymphomaniacs (well, to be more precise, sexual addicts) are another issue and while they might appear togheter they are separate and not that connected.

Now if you'll excuse me I have to erase my browsing history.  

[Stupot]

Sorry to state the bloody (pun intended) obvious... but vampires are mythical creatures.  If they were real I'm sure their blood-sucking would be very illegal, and they would be punished accordingly if caught.

Paedophiles are very real.

Also, this word 'preference' does not adequately describe paedophilia for me.  Some gentlemen prefer blondes, but most of them wouldn't go around stalking, groping, or even raping women just because they are blonde... if they did they probably have some condition called something like "blondiephilia".

I like Asian girls.  It's not a fetish, or a secret sexual desire, it's a preference.

Unlike other "preferences", paedophilia is a ticking bomb, in which there is a man (or woman) fighting a battle within himself that, without help, he is ultmately going to lose, and when he does it's not just the child that's going to suffer.  They cause a LOT of suffering.  When a paedophile acts upon his "preferences" it can cause whole families to fall apart, court cases, depression, attempted suicides (and presumably some successful ones too).

[Calin Leafshade]

I think you are missing the point of the vampire analogy.

The point is not to ask whether or not it should be illegal but to ask whether or not we should consider the vampire evil.

He was born or created this way so is it his fault?

I would agree with your definition of 'preference' though.

i think you put it best as "paedophilia is a ticking bomb, in which there is a man (or woman) fighting a battle within himself that, without help, he is ultmately going to lose,"

So with that in mind.. *Now* should we draw and quarter them?

[Questionable]

Calin,

I think the argument you're trying to make is that people that find young children sexually attractive must be treated inherently neutral, like all human beings, until their actions define their value as a human. You cannot say someone is evil JUST because they find children attractive, there is no justification for the label.

The problem with this argument is restraint. Pedophiles are the individuals whom lack restraint, if they didn't lack restraint there would be no basis for labeling them. If nobody knows that your Vampire is sucking blood does that not mean that he is killing people? He lacks the restraint to NOT suck blood and regardless of any other fact he is THEREFORE a villain.

The same applies for any addiction that compels people. Coke-heads aren't necessarily "EVIL" but they are social deviants, and they commit heinous and devastating acts that destroy the lives of thousands of people. However, someone who can excessive restraint, who can resist their compulsion is a hero, a champion.

The compulsion itself doesn't determine if someone is a villain or not, instead it is whether or not they ACT on their compulsion. I believe that if someone is a "pedophile," they have acted on their compulsion. Otherwise they would just be an individual with an extremely divergent fetish.

It is our ability to determine right and wrong and act accordingly that allows society to label us "evil" or not. SO, is your vampire evil? No. Is he evil if he drinks someones blood and they die? Yes. It is his actions that define him, not his addiction.

[SSH]

Various sexual attractions are now considered OK that were once taboo. And some that were OK (marrying 12 year olds off) are now taboo.

I think the thing that is the real underlying evil is when it is someone abusing an existing relationship of trust and twisting it into something sexual (so that the victim thinks they want it but dont realise the abuse) or when they attacker forces things, which of course are both wrong whatever the age... (one could easily argue that the former is simply an emotional forcing rather than physical) its just that the former tends to diminish its opportunity when the would-be-victim becomes emotionally mature.

However, the law does need to make clear dividing lines in most cases with only small room  for discresion.

Interestingly, in the UK if an 11 year old boy does something sexual to a 15 year old girl then its the boy who has committed the offence.

[Atelier]

Just an off-topic response to this:

so that the victim thinks they want it but dont realise the abuse

In the middle ages they believed a child could only be conceived through orgasm (therefore meaning the woman enjoyed it). So if a woman was raped and she conceived the man couldn't be accused of rape because it meant she must have enjoyed it.

[monkey0506]

There's some very ridiculous definitions (connotations) of "paedophile" getting tossed around here and the fact of the matter is that much of what's being said is totally off-base and inaccurate.

It is true that there are paedophiles who are also sexual deviants and may actually go so far as acting upon their desires. However, this really isn't any psychologically different from a sexual deviant who rapes an adult. The fact of their sexual desire (alone) was not the problem. The issue was that the desire was allowed to run so rampant that they committed assault.

If the person in question (the rapist) was a male and the victim a female then that would give us a heterosexual, in other words, someone who is sexually attracted to the opposite sex. The fact alone that he is attracted to the opposite sex does not make him a rapist. The unchecked desire is what has led him to being a rapist.

The exact same principle holds true in paedophilia. A paedophile is not (necessarily, though possibly) a child molester, rapist, or otherwise. A paedophile is a person who holds a sexual attraction to children. This attraction is no different from a psychological standpoint than the sexual attraction a "normal" teleiophile holds. The difference comes in the fact that sexual attraction to adults is considered the "normal" and "acceptable" behaviour.

Sexual attraction does not make you into a sexual deviant. Just as a teleiophile can have the ability to manage their sexual desires, so too can a paedophile. And just as a paedophile can become a sexual deviant, so too can a teleiophile.

I'm not condoning any physical act (whether via self-stimulation or otherwise) with regard to paedophilia. I find it abominable and disgusting. Even still, I am capable of understanding the difference between a paedophile and a child molester.

Edit: Also, @Andail:

The bit about the necrophiliac was just an example, an analogy. A paedophile wouldn't have to ever physically encounter a child in real life to be able to obtain a physical response and satisfaction to their urges. There are ways that a physical child would never have to be involved. It's clearly vastly different from physical intercourse, but the fact remains that just because someone has a desire to do something doesn't make them responsible of committing an act upon the desire.

I understand your point about whether or not the person in question would be recognized as a paedophile without the physical act, however, some of the comments being made take no regard of the reality of what paedophilia is versus those who take it to physical extremes.

[ritesaidjed]

Yes, the advert is an obvious hoax. But which part?

Massive thanks if anyone can help with this. I'm researching for a novel I'm writing (which I'm not expanding on in this post because that would be off-topic / spam / self-promotion, etc).

Does anybody recall seeing the advert, or any part of it, anywhere other than on their computer screen? e.g. Same pose, same product, same manufacturer, but with a different, more passable text and headline?

Do pre-teen models pose like that to advertise ice cream or other products in the US?

Have junior gymnasts in the US been known to pose like that as part of a sponsorship deal?

Whatever else was faked, the picture looks to me like a real photograph of real models dressed as gymnasts - or real gymnasts - advertising something.

[Questionable]

Interestingly, in the UK if an 11 year old boy does something sexual to a 15 year old girl then its the boy who has committed the offence.

Interestingly, if the same boy did the same thing to the same girl in the US, he would  be given a Congressional Medal of Pimperishness.

FACT