(http://img690.imageshack.us/img690/8944/thisisjustwrong.jpg)
preschoolers anyone? What is the world coming to when creamsickles and little girls asses are being sold in the same advert?
yeah that was weird. The word "lickable" just doesn't fit there.
agreed... creepy
I can see that advert setting a record for being the shortest in circulation.
I don't get it... what's so.... oh I get it! Yeah, right... That text IS WAY too much and small, nobody could read that!
I feel sick :-X
:D
so...
(http://farm1.static.flickr.com/170/456474931_0356ba4a8d.jpg)
I guess
Quote from: NsMn on Sun 07/03/2010 10:03:55
I don't get it... what's so.... oh I get it! Yeah, right... That text IS WAY too much and small, nobody could read that!
U missed the point of this thread. I dont like creamsickles :D
haha pedobear may have commissioned this ad
(http://thenastyboys.files.wordpress.com/2008/04/chris-hansen.jpg)
Where is this even from?
No way is she anywhere near 18, and even if it turned out she was, it would still be wrong.
Quote from: Stupot on Sun 07/03/2010 11:21:08
Where is this even from?
No way is she anywhere near 18, and even if it turned out she was, it would still be wrong.
You moralist! :P
:P
Heh, those with bionic eyes can read it's promoting creamsickles for gymnasts, and since when have advertisers been allowed to write "young gymnasts ... busting their fresh asses to make every american proud". This advert is phony!
Quote from: AtelierGames on Sun 07/03/2010 12:29:32
Heh, those with bionic eyes can read it's promoting creamsickles for gymnasts, and since when have advertisers been allowed to write "young gymnasts ... busting their fresh asses to make every american proud". This advert is phony!
HOLY CRAP, you're right.
'Guess this really isn't as real as it looks.
It really doesn't matter if it is fake. This type of crap is what's wrong with the world. If someone had exploited my niece in such a way, I'd kill them.
Quote from: Gravity on Sun 07/03/2010 12:58:03
It really doesn't matter if it is fake. This type of crap is what's wrong with the world. If someone had exploited my niece in such a way, I'd kill them.
Well now things just got a little creepier..
Quote from: Gravity on Sun 07/03/2010 12:58:03
This type of crap is what's wrong with the world.
Yeah, I hate little girls too.
it IS a fake, so don't worry. Someone just has a sick sense of humor and wants to shock people
Oh wow, it's 2002 again...
Maybe I over reacted in my earlier comment. Maybe not. Some people would find this funny while others would be offended. I just happen to fall under the offended category. Ten years ago I may have not cared or had a different outlook. But I have a precious nephew and niece now. And even my cousin whom I held when she was baby is having her very own child so my perspective on things have changed. I just wondered how I would feel if that happened to be a picture of my own flesh and blood portrayed in such a way. Anyway, apologies if my comment was a bit much.
Quote from: Gravity on Sun 07/03/2010 15:41:46
Maybe I over reacted in my earlier comment. Maybe not. Some people would find this funny while others would be offended. I just happen to fall under the offended category. Ten years ago I may have not cared or had a different outlook. But I have a precious nephew and niece now. And even my cousin whom I held when she was baby is having her very own child so my perspective on things have changed. I just wondered how I would feel if that happened to be a picture of my own flesh and blood portrayed in such a way. Anyway, apologies if my comment was a bit much.
No need to apologize, I agree with you whole heartedly. If it were up to me pedophiles would be drawn and quartered, but I would settle for having them imprisoned for life.
I assume you are aware that being a paedophile is not illegal. It's a psychological compulsion just like any other paraphilia... Obviously ACTING on that compulsion is illegal but just having peadophilic desires is not.
So i presume you mean that *sex offenders* should be drawn and quartered.. still a little harsh i think.
True. You can't really help being a paedophile. Nobody would be one, if there was a choice.
Then again, Calin is splitting hairs a bit, because you really don't refer to someone as paedophile if that person hasn't already crossed that border. It's not like we can scan people for paedophilic tendencies.
I think realising that you have a sick, destructive and even illegal perversion must be the worst nightmare a human can experience. You'll spend a lifetime constantly fighting the same kind of urge that other people find so pleasurable.
Quote from: Andail on Sun 07/03/2010 20:07:08
It's not like we can scan people for paedophilic tendencies.
Won't stop people trying (http://www.boingboing.net/2009/07/17/britain-will-subject.html).
The hysteria surrounding paedophilia in Britain has reached gargantuan proportions. Taking pictures of your
own children in public is now grounds for being stopped by cops of all flavours (http://boingboing.net/2010/02/24/mall-security-guard.html).
Forget terrorism, money woes, global warming...Paedogeddon is Britain's number one panic engine.
EDIT: And the picture in the first post is a pretty weak attempt at humour. The fact that you only have to show a picture of a child, captioned with an obvious
double entendre, for people to become uncomfortable shows how close to hysterical madness the situation has become.
My initial reaction was "ugh" and emotion that I'm looking at something wrong.
Given it a little of thought, why the hell? There's nothing wrong about this little gymnast, neither about the picture. There's really no valid reason why this advertisement couldn't be used, even if girl is 11 years old (as she looks really).
It's not like she's naked or anything. Pedophiles? They're everywhere anyway. So?
The advert itsself is perfectly safe, methinks. It's not like it turns anyone a pedophile or something.
InC I don't think you read the text as it was rather small.
Spoiler
Lickable.
Luscious, smooth, sweet and fun. These are just a few of the words we used to describe our new Vanilla Orange Sherbert Creamsicle [(sic) Notice the extra 'r' in Sherbet..]. These words also apply equally to America's 2006 Olympic Rhythmic Gymnastics Team and the beautiful young ladies that comprise it. In response, Breyers has created a flavour inspired by the sassy metallic orange leotards of our young feminine gymnasts who are eagerly busting their fresh young asses to make every American proud. And of course, our [RSG (??)] themed Creamsicle is just as fun to eat as the girls are a pleasure to watch! So come join in on the action. All proceeds to sales from the Vanilla Orange Sherbet Swirls line go to help sponsor our young ladies in competition against other rhythmic gymnasts from around the world. [(sic) As far as I can tell..if there is anything I got wrong feel free to correct me.]
I understand the idea that there is nothing inherently wrong with the image itself. The suggestive text however does delve into the realm of being questionable at best, and disgustingly vile at worst.
There is nothing wrong with young girls being gymnasts. There is nothing wrong with them wearing leotards. There is something horribly wrong with the type of people who would actually exploit children sexually. There is a difference though, and it is very important to take note of this.
I have encountered in my travels along the "Information Superhighway" extremely graphic representations of the reality that Pedobear represents. I have come across things that make me want to puke, considering the reality the images represent.
I am somewhat hypocritical in that sense I suppose in that I find the idea of Pedobear, conceptually, hilarious. Many of the images of young girls in which he is placed include him as a very comical addition.
Was there anything wrong with the image of these young gymnasts? No.
Was there anything wrong with linking that image via sexual innuendo to Creamsicles? Probably.
Is the result funny? Possibly, to some.
Is the result upsetting, vulgar, and/or disgusting? Probably, to some.
I don't think any of the opinions that have been voiced here have been extremely over the top as of yet..but as I said, there is a difference:
(http://www.monkeyreview.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2009/03/1237521984934.jpg)
If you think all paedophiles are evil child molesters then you think anyone who plays FPS games is a mass murderer waiting to happen.
I don't know what it's like in most countries, but here in Canada and USA the girls seem to dress sluttier and sluttier. Young girls wearing low rise jeans and exposing shirts. I'm 25 and I have a hard time NOT looking at the young fully developed 14 year old girls who are dressing like they're 20. Mostly once I look at them though, I'm usually thinking "God they're young, why are they dressing like that?".
Does that make me a bad person that I check these girls out? No, I don't believe it does. I'm not aroused by these young girls. But now if I started asking these girls out, or wanking off to the mental image of these girls, I wouldn't blame ya if you called me Quagmire. *cough* Giggity Giggity Goo! lol
No really. It's human nature to be attracted to the opposite sex (in most cases) so the only thing that is really making it 'wrong' is what we've become accustomed to and what the law states. Not that I'm agreeing to pedophilia.
And that image in the first post is totally wrong. My eyes are somehow drawn to the area of which I'm not supposed to be looking. Then you see the big words "lickable" and I shudder.
This text is cipher for me. I tried, but cannot make heads of tails out of it, even from your retype
QuoteThere is something horribly wrong with the type of people who would actually exploit children sexually.
Um, cheerleading? Isn't that the culture of stimulating sport with sex? Also, generally drunk public watching game? Games come with tickets, which come with money so it's all business.
Soviet (or japanese or whatever) school uniforms? I always wondered how such short skirts made it into school uniforms - especially at age of when even kissing in movies was taboo: probably at the end of the line was bald, middle-aged, sick and sneaky man/men with power to make laws...
I don't see how named - and billion more similar things would be less "sexual exploit". Pedophiles can think dirty thoughts while looking and whatnot.
It's like this ad: maybe the motivation behind making this WAS unhealthy - why should gymnast care? Or anyone else? We cannot restrict thoughts anyway, so pedos think what they think and others ignore it as people ignore every other ad nowadays.
There's no end of roads we can take here and all lead to something as strict than - say, Islam.
But I think that this particular advert is tasteless and dumb.
From personal standpoint, I wouldn't have sex with underage, or even 18-year old -- they are simply too dumb & underdeveloped for my taste and age -- but I DO believe that when I'm 50 or so, I believe I'll think back and blame myself for playing video games at the time I coulda' get some young ass :D
But attraction? Some 14-year olds can look seriously hot. I don't see anything invalid in this opinion. I'm a man!
True, a girl doesn't automatically become attractive on her 16th birthday (or whatever the age of consent is in your area), but I think if you even slightly suspect a girl to be underage you should turn your eyes immediately... if only because it can get you into serious trouble otherwise.
I mean, age is just a number... but if a lass looks like an attractive young woman as opposed to a little girl, that's not a license to gawk. She probably doesn't want you looking at her anyway... and her parents certainly don't... and all the while she is still young enough to be the responsibility of her parents, you should probably respect their wishes, lest you end up with the pitchfork-toting mobs chasing you around the country for the rest of your life.
Like I said, the image is a joke. Not a very good one, or even a clever one, but a joke all the same.
When you start discussing the variations on the age of consent and what does and doesn't constitute sexual attractiveness, you're not actually discussing paedophilia.
Paedophilia is the sexual abuse of children, as much about the abuse of power involved as it is about sexual gratification.
Yeah. Paedophilia refers to a sexual desire for *pre-pubescent* children.. i.e someone with whom mating would be biologically pointless. Its an unnatural desire (like rape) based on power.. it has nothing to do with sex really.
Finding a fully developed (i.e ready to mate) 14 year old girl attractive is not paedophilia. There is a word for a *compulsive* desire for adolescents but i cant remember what it is.. phagophilia I think... cant remember, cant be arsed to google.
Many cultures have no problem with sex with adolescents.. Western europe (and the US) have really very high ages of consent in comparison. Biologicallly everything that has reached puberty is fair game. However from a social perspective and a perspective that is likely to keep you sane I suggest sticking with your own basic age bracket.
I heard the girl for every man should be half their age +7 years. With that, there should be no problem, just keepp it in mind ;)
I think that equation works best for men between 20-25. Soon reaching 30, I'd definitely consider 22 a bit too young. Even 25, the age of my current girlfriend, seems young at times.
Does that mean a centenarian could date a 57 year old? 43 year age difference :o
Once two people have reached the age of consent, as long as they are both willing participants, I don't think age really matters..at least as much anyway. Certainly age differences can create drastic differences in a person's point of view on certain things; depending how large the difference is there could be a "generation gap" that would be very relevant. However, one of my best friend's parents are 14 years apart and they've been happily married for well over 20 years now. Despite the fact they both already had children, they had four more together.
I won't say I've never seen them have arguments or disagreements in the 13 or so years I've known them, but despite their differences, they are happy together. To me that's the biggest concern. Like I said, although age can make a significant difference, past the age of consent it does become negligible so long as the two people are happy together.
Edit by CalinLeafshade: Posted with girlfriends account. oops
Nope, sorry monkey but thats bollocks.
Age of consent is a number... a 16 year old girl is no more suited to a relationship with a 30 year old guy than a 15 year old girl would be.
Granted, once you both become mature and sensible adults its really not an issue but I would say people dont *really* settle into adulthood until their late 20s/early 30s.
People in relationships should be dealing with a similar period in their lives. It would just be weird if you come home from work after just being promoted to regional manager only to have to help your girlfriend with her maths homework.
also.. more than 4 children? are they not aware that we are dealing with overpopulation?
Quote from: Calin Leafshade on Mon 08/03/2010 07:40:39
Finding a fully developed (i.e ready to mate) 14 year old girl attractive is not paedophilia. There is a word for a *compulsive* desire for adolescents but i cant remember what it is.. phagophilia I think...
I can only say that I doubt it's called that (phagein = to eat).
Fine, ya made me google it.
hebephilia is the desire for pubescent individuals,
ephebophilia is the desire for older adolescents.
It you're interested teleiophiles are people who have a sexual desire for adults. So feel free to call all your friends teleiophiles.
Age of consent is a number that is determined by the government as the age at which a person is physically, mentally, and emotionally (on average of course, noting that this is actually different for every person) mature enough to enter into a sexually active lifestyle if that is their choice.
Whether or not a 16 year old would be better suited to a relationship with a 30 year old than a 15 year old would be would have to take several factors into account that you are not. This would have to be considered not as a generic example, but as a specific instance between two people. If your government decides that a 16 year old is fit to enter into a sexually oriented relationship, then it is entirely her choice whether the person be 16 or 116.
I do agree with you that the "age of maturity" (meaning, "mature and sensible adults") and the age of consent can often be considered as being vastly different. Again though, I still say that this is based entirely on a per-person basis. One girl might be as mature at 16 as another might be at 30. Generally this probably wouldn't be the case, but it is possible.
As for the issue of overpopulation I have never seen any evidence that would suggest that the North American continent (as a whole) is overpopulated. There is plenty of food, water, and other resources to properly accommodate those living here, with room to grow for those who are being born.
If we were living in a country classified as an LDC (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Least_developed_country) (of which Haiti is the only one in the Americas) I might view things differently. But the country I'm living in still has room for growth, so saying that we're dealing with overpopulation seems a bit bullocks to me.
So here's a question
A 16 year old guy is in a relationship with a 15 year old girl or indeed visa versa
They end up having awesome sessions in every room possible,
Anyone see a problem here ?
If so Where ?
No problem here really.
16 year old guy is a bit behind in mental development so he might be actually even younger than the girl, in both mental and physical sense.
So probably both don't quite know what they're doing.
Problems occur when guy (or girl) is far more developed, an adult. In which case, (s)he uses it as an advantage over other.
Our "legal" age is 14 (unless it's been changed in last year or so) and of course, things happen ever earlier sometimes.
But legal side and strange men with candy is one thing. Kids with kids is simply sad, IMO. And for 26-year old as I am, it's almost impossible (or atleast, VERY hard) to find a girl in appropriate age without strange burden of some kind. Like 3-10 years of broken (serious!) relationship, jealous ex(es!) calling at nights... Or a kid. If things like this bother, you're pretty much done for. Like me.
Which sucks unbelievably much.
I'd rather live someplace else, pay some camels and get a ninja. Atleast she's pure.
I know a couple of friends who broke up for a while because the other one was 17 and the other 15. Then when the older turned 18, it became illegal. To me that decision show quite well that they were both pretty immature, having dated for almost a year already. They never got back together anyway.
Quote from: Dataflashsabot on Mon 08/03/2010 13:10:23
Does that mean a centenarian could date a 57 year old? 43 year age difference :o
I know were all thinking Hugh Hefner. Works for him ;)
There's a bit of weird out factor when two people of widely disparate ages hook up, and I get that there is always a chance that the necessary differences in amount of experience and societal role expectations could cause all sorts of problems. But I say leave that to the couples to evaluate and deal with.
The only thing that really bothers me about these sorts of relationships is the possibility that it will lead to an imbalance of power.
But then, so can bread-winner/homemaker relationships, relationships between strong willed and submissive personality types, different levels of education, etc. etc. Or so I would tend to think. Honestly, I tend to suspect that every relationship involves some sort of power imbalance, so we need to be careful when it comes to regulating that sort of thing.
Quote from: InCreator on Mon 08/03/2010 18:21:16
And for 26-year old as I am, it's almost impossible (or atleast, VERY hard) to find a girl in appropriate age without strange burden of some kind. Like 3-10 years of broken (serious!) relationship, jealous ex(es!) calling at nights... Or a kid. If things like this bother, you're pretty much done for. Like me.
Which sucks unbelievably much.
I shouldn't have read this.
It reminds me too much of myself finding something to be bothered by on every single one.
Quote from: Sinsin on Mon 08/03/2010 17:14:55
So here's a question
A 16 year old guy is in a relationship with a 15 year old girl or indeed visa versa
They end up having awesome sessions in every room possible,
Anyone see a problem here ?
If so Where ?
Well here's one for ya:
Would you feel uneasy if you were playing an adventure game where you play a 15 year old boy, and your quest was effectively to lose your virginity, so the whole game you would find yourself pursuing a 15 year old girl? (No sex scenes of any kind, just the pursuit)
School Uniform Sammy?
Quote from: NsMn on Sat 13/03/2010 19:06:06
School Uniform Sammy?
Hrm, I've never heard of it. Do you have a link?
I think my question still stands though.
Quote from: Scarab on Sat 13/03/2010 19:46:01
I think my question still stands though.
Haven't most males (at some point) been a 15 year old boy trying to make it with a 15 year old girl? I would assume that the game is legitimately entertaining and the content is clearly "G Rated." If so, it would be like watching a Disney Channel style show (Hannah Montana, Zoey 101, Degrassi) about a teenager trying to get to get together with a girl in his class. Sex is almost always implied and never explicit but there is a portrayed desire to be together. The fact that I am now older than 15 and know the details of what was driving me doesn't change the fact that I was pursuing women.
Ultimately I think that if the game was truly innocent than I wouldn't have any issues playing the game. Keep in mind, however, that many objects that are inherently innocent are twisted in the minds of certain people and they become more than what they are. I'm looking at YOU Dan Brown...
Yeah, it really depends on how the game is done, but a game meeting that description could really fall anywhere from perfectly innocent to slightly uncomfortable. Without actually including sex or nudity, it would probably have to try pretty hard before it became anything like straight up disturbing, but it could certainly be done.
But everyone knows that fifteen year olds think about sex and have sex and etc etc. And while they may seem a little young, and are below the age of consent in most places, the idea of a fifteen year old seeking out sex with a peer is hardly some huge taboo secret.
Quote from: mkennedy on Sun 07/03/2010 19:36:08
Quote from: Gravity on Sun 07/03/2010 15:41:46
Maybe I over reacted in my earlier comment. Maybe not. Some people would find this funny while others would be offended. I just happen to fall under the offended category. Ten years ago I may have not cared or had a different outlook. But I have a precious nephew and niece now. And even my cousin whom I held when she was baby is having her very own child so my perspective on things have changed. I just wondered how I would feel if that happened to be a picture of my own flesh and blood portrayed in such a way. Anyway, apologies if my comment was a bit much.
No need to apologize, I agree with you whole heartedly. If it were up to me pedophiles would be drawn and quartered, but I would settle for having them imprisoned for life.
And with the worda "convicted pedophile tattooed on their foreheads, so that their fellow inmates will recognize them.
BTW if anyone is against life sentencing for pedophiles, I'd like to propose an alternative: using 2 bricks to..., well you get the idea. (right? or must I make an animated drawing for ya?) ]oo[
What's still sick is that someone got this girl to pose in this position and then took a photogrraph of it...
If this is how AGS would treat paedophiles, I'd hate to see how they'd treat lynch mobs.
So what would you do to him if he was a she?
While I agree the pic is unnecessarily posed and with that writing next to it, it is unreasonable to expect that nobody in marketing department (or whatever) didn't think this is at least odd. Might be like one those stupid photshopped images that get into magazines, cereal boxes etc.
Anyway...this picture and reaction does offer a certain social backfeed. How tainted are we as a civilization/societies that we (let's say "normal" people) think (or think we think) like pedophiles. Reaction like "oh, a pedophile would like this" certainly is curious.
Now if you'll excuse me, I'm going to the mall to find chicks that'd be a perfect target for a serial killer...don't judge me! :P
Quote from: Sinsin on Mon 08/03/2010 17:14:55
So here's a question
A 16 year old guy is in a relationship with a 15 year old girl or indeed visa versa
They end up having awesome sessions in every room possible,
Anyone see a problem here ?
If so Where ?
I think I missed an opportunity. Allow me to time travel and respond to this post:
I SEE A PROBLEM HERE AND I'LL TELL YOU WHERE! ...I just cleaned that god DAMNED kitchen... If the so much as BREATHE ON THE GLASS, there will be hell to pay...
[/timetravel]
Proceed with the thread-
Quote from: Mr Flibble on Fri 19/03/2010 18:17:07
If this is how AGS would treat paedophiles, I'd hate to see how they'd treat lynch mobs.
Well it is still interesting to see how many people are automatically linking the term "pedophile" (or as it is properly spelled, as you have shown, "paedophile") with "convicted sexual offender". Although paedophilia can lead to sexual assault, it's not an inevitability. If someone considered themselves a necrophiliac that wouldn't immediately make them a convicted murderer.
Now I have encountered cases in my interwebbery where children have been abused and assaulted..and the people responsible for doing, supporting, and perpetuating these types of activities certainly deserve to be severely punished. But as has been said, the attraction to young girls does not necessarily place the person in question into any of these fields.
Just some food for thought people..
Quote from: Questionable on Sat 20/03/2010 04:41:50I think I missed an opportunity. Allow me to time travel and respond to this post:
I SEE A PROBLEM HERE AND I'LL TELL YOU WHERE! ...I just cleaned that god DAMNED kitchen... If the so much as BREATHE ON THE GLASS, there will be hell to pay...
[/timetravel]
Proceed with the thread-
Erm..Questionable..I find your username to be rather fitting after this post..because I am very much questioning what you were drinking/smoking/shooting up prior to posting this.
Quote from: monkey_05_06 on Sun 21/03/2010 11:16:32
Well it is still interesting to see how many people are automatically linking the term "pedophile" (or as it is properly spelled, as you have shown, "paedophile") with "convicted sexual offender". Although paedophilia can lead to sexual assault, it's not an inevitability. If someone considered themselves a necrophiliac that wouldn't immediately make them a convicted murderer.
A necrophiliac would never need to be a convicted murderer, it's enough if they use a corpse to have sex with it. I don't know how common it is that necrophiliacs first murder their victims, but it's not necessary.
Also, as much as I endorse the sentiment that nobody should be blamed for their inner desires and sexual tendencies, I think we're splitting hairs here - we wouldn't call anyone a paedophile unless they have in some way taken advantage of a child (or attempted to). I guess a psychologist or a priest or a close friend could possibly know if someone nurtures paedophiliac fantasies, but he'd never be labelled paedophile until there is an act.
Quote from: Andail on Sun 21/03/2010 16:22:30
he'd never be labelled paedophile until there is an act.
Yes he would be. Whether it's correct or not, he would be.
He wouldn't be labelled a paedophile because nobody would know he (or she) was a paedophile until an act actually happened. But they're still a paedophile regardless whether anybody else knows.
If they have a therapist/psychiatrist/psychologist and it comes up, that person would know. They don't even need to have done anything to have one.
Just putting that out there.
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?
Quote from: Calin Leafshade on Sun 21/03/2010 20:38:13Now 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 ;D
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.
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.
Quote from: Calin Leafshade on Sun 21/03/2010 21:10:14
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?
QuotePedophilia (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. :P
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).
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?
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.
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.
Just an off-topic response to this:
Quote from: SSH on Mon 22/03/2010 15:28:23
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.
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.
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.
Quote from: SSH on Mon 22/03/2010 15:28:23Interestingly, 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
(http://cdn-www.i-am-bored.com/media/badkidscarwash.jpg)