# Would you be friends with a pedophile?



## MobiusX (Nov 14, 2008)

If a close friend of yours told you he or she is a pedophile and also still attracted to adults, would you still be friends with this person?


----------



## Virgo (Jun 27, 2016)

Did this just happen to you?


----------



## Virgo (Jun 27, 2016)

That's an interesting question, though.

I think if it were a close friend I would urge them to get help for it, though I'm not too confident how much that would do for them...

Maybe I would slowly let go of the friendship? I don't have any close enough friends where I would say "I definitely can't leave you", I think I would just end the friendship.

If it were a family member, I don't think I can imagine myself abandoning them.

But if anyone I know acted on this flaw, we would definitely have a problem.


----------



## eukz (Nov 3, 2013)

Probably.. it'd depend on the person, but they'd also need to understand that I won't ever keep a secret of theirs if it's certainly related to a crime.


----------



## Kevin001 (Jan 2, 2015)

Nope, your friends are a reflection of you and vice versa. Why surround myself with people like that? No thanks.


----------



## Overdrive (Sep 19, 2015)

Nope


----------



## RobinTurnaround (May 11, 2016)

Why not? Pedophile doesn't equal child molester


----------



## Red October (Aug 1, 2016)

Lol, public poll results :lol


----------



## Overdrive (Sep 19, 2015)

RobinTurnaround said:


> Why not? Pedophile doesn't equal child molester


Yeah, this is what they say


----------



## eukz (Nov 3, 2013)

Red October said:


> Lol, public poll results :lol


IKR, voting here is a big nope XD


----------



## Virgo (Jun 27, 2016)

RobinTurnaround said:


> Why not? Pedophile doesn't equal child molester


That's very true. However, you will go on never knowing if they are going to snap at one point. If they do snap and you're still friends, you might never know.

I mean, we can all be friends with a pedo right now and not know it, and that would be really unfortunate... but if you have that knowledge on someone it's a matter of how would you use it. It's a blurry line for me. If it were an uncle or aunt something, I'd cut all contact. If it were my sister, I couldn't abandon her ever. If it's a close friend, probably cut contact...? or I wouldn't really believe it.


----------



## Friendonkey (May 13, 2016)

I don't think so.


----------



## farfegnugen (Aug 16, 2010)

No, an active pedophile would need to keep his distance from me.


----------



## Carolyne (Sep 20, 2016)

I'd be confused as to why they're telling me, attraction doesn't mean much of anything, I don't tell my friends what type of women I like or any fetishes and I surely wouldn't tell them if it was something sick. The fact that they couldn't keep that to themselves makes me think they're close to actually touching a kid, so I would not be friends with them.


----------



## Scrub-Zero (Feb 9, 2004)

No ****ing way.


----------



## AffinityWing (Aug 11, 2013)

I thought initially it doesn't necessarily have to be dangerous for me now since I'm not a minor anymore, but then I remembered I still look like I'm in the body of a middle schooler so no. :no


----------



## ScorchedEarth (Jul 12, 2014)

As long as it was limited to animation and no minors were harmed directly or indirectly, I'd be understanding. We're all entitled to our kinks, so long as they hurt no one.


----------



## KILOBRAVO (Sep 17, 2011)

ScorchedEarth said:


> As long as it was limited to animation and no minors were harmed directly or indirectly, I'd be understanding. We're all entitled to our kinks, so long as they hurt no one.


so there might be a pic or animation and no-one is hurt? wrong. its still going to be illegal because it still creates demand for this phucked up stuff, and it allows those how consume it to be able to still get at least something related to it.

in my country, it is illegal AFAIK for so-called pseudo-images to be illegal. because it still causes demand for such related material.

as for the original question, i'd have to say no because its just too creepy to know


----------



## doe deer (Oct 9, 2016)

no. kind of shocked to see some people say yes. also i don't think pedophilia is something that can be changed, so telling them to get help is pointless. you can have fetishes or whatever but if someone is physically attracted to a child i can't see myself being friends with them.


----------



## Karsten (Apr 3, 2007)

Probably not.


----------



## Persephone The Dread (Aug 28, 2010)

KILOBRAVO said:


> so there might be a pic or animation and no-one is hurt? wrong. its still going to be illegal because it still creates demand for this phucked up stuff, and it allows those how consume it to be able to still get at least something related to it.
> 
> in my country, it is illegal AFAIK for so-called pseudo-images to be illegal. because it still causes demand for such related material.
> 
> as for the original question, i'd have to say no because its just too creepy to know


Er no it doesn't, it causes demand for more animated stuff and gives those people an outlet that isn't actual child porn.

You are right though on it being illegal, there was a case here where someone was arrested for downloading 'child pornography' and it was a cartoon.

I'm a bit more pragmatic than most and realise that constant suppression doesn't work (as a solution to anything,) so outlets that don't hurt other people are important.


----------



## KILOBRAVO (Sep 17, 2011)

Persephone The Dread said:


> *Er no it doesn't, it causes demand for more animated stuff and gives those people an outlet that isn't actual child porn.
> *
> You are right though on it being illegal, there was a case here where someone was arrested for downloading 'child pornography' and it was a cartoon.
> 
> I'm a bit more pragmatic than most and realise that constant suppression doesn't work (as a solution to anything,) so outlets that don't hurt other people are important.


its a bit of a grey area but heres how i see it; convicted pedo, does time for dodgy computer stuff, gets "rehabbed"

goes online and seeks out what you say... something cartoonish... something not real.... "this isnt hurting anyone" quickly spirals back into the "real" stuff and therefore possibly then recontribute to the re-bolstering of demand of the real illegal stuff > supports demand for teh children exploited into making teh "real" images.

its a bit like tempting a alcoholic with a massively diluted shandy, only to get the taste for what teh brain remembers and indulges in a half a bottle of neat gin/vodka again.

i think thats why even pseudo-depictions are illegal... its still connected to the idea of it... even if its still intrinsically fake. ..


----------



## Persephone The Dread (Aug 28, 2010)

KILOBRAVO said:


> its a bit of a grey area but heres how i see it; convicted pedo, does time for dodgy computer stuff, gets "rehabbed"
> 
> goes online and seeks out what you say... something cartoonish... something not real.... "this isnt hurting anyone" quickly spirals back into the "real" stuff and therefore possibly then recontribute to the re-bolstering of demand of the real illegal stuff > supports demand for teh children exploited into making teh "real" images.
> 
> ...


I'm not convinced that actual pedophilia functions similarly to an addiction, and they should be in therapy anyway.

Another interesting thing to note:



> A 2015 study found that pedophiles who molested children were neurologically distinct from non-offending pedophiles. The pedophilic molesters had neurological deficits suggestive of disruptions in inhibitory regions of the brain, while non-offending pedophiles had no such deficits.


----------



## ScorchedEarth (Jul 12, 2014)

KILOBRAVO said:


> so there might be a pic or animation and no-one is hurt? wrong. its still going to be illegal because it still creates demand for this phucked up stuff, and it allows those how consume it to be able to still get at least something related to it.
> 
> in my country, it is illegal AFAIK for so-called pseudo-images to be illegal. because it still causes demand for such related material.
> 
> as for the original question, i'd have to say no because its just too creepy to know


We are still talking about drawn/digital animation, right? Where absolutely no children are involved in its creation?


----------



## KILOBRAVO (Sep 17, 2011)

ScorchedEarth said:


> We are still talking about drawn/digital animation, right? Where absolutely no children are involved in its creation?


 i was meaning like a totally made up drawn cartoon that involved whatever that's not containing any sort of human child in any description whatsoever.

i think its the very premise of the fact that the entity is underage which is the factor for defining illegality?

im not sure. but as Percy Dread said, thre was a person arrested for a fake cartoon image however the content of that is obviously unknown.

i have also read that pseudo-images of bestiality images are illegal to. its comes under the Extreme Pornography Act or something


----------



## KILOBRAVO (Sep 17, 2011)

Persephone The Dread said:


> I'm not convinced that actual pedophilia functions similarly to an addiction, and they should be in therapy anyway.


i agree. i dont think its addiction as in the same addiction to smoking or drinking [which is mostly a choice or habit picked up]

as freaky and uncomfortable as it is to even think about.. but is being attracted to underage people is probably part of their sexual orientation...?? { and i genuinely shudder even typing that] the same as a person who is naturally straight, gay or bi.. those people may just be naturally attracted to underage people?

the same way as a person suddenly does not wake up one day and decide to be gay, or whatever..i mean... do they really choose to do something that they know is very immoral and wrong and illegal... or do they spend all their days fighting against some sexual urge they know is prohibited?

unfortunately, it just so happens that its illegal [ and rightly so] because the underage person is not in a position to consent to anything they yet have not much understanding of.

thats why i put rehabilitated in "" because i don't think they can be rehabilitated. all i can think is that they can take meds or get castrated to kill the urges so they have no desire to act on anything and other people around them are safe.


----------



## ironjellyfish (Oct 6, 2016)

MobiusX said:


> If a close friend of yours told you he or she is a pedophile and also still attracted to adults, would you still be friends with this person?


No I wouldn't. It's not something I could handle or tolerate in a person. And firstly, I'd want to know the exact nature of these tendencies of theirs ie; are they committing crimes and ruining lives or involved in any online evils? Then I'd take it from there. In a legal manner.


----------



## PrincessV (Aug 17, 2015)

You'd have to be pretty desperate to do something like that.


----------



## Tetragammon (Jun 2, 2015)

The sheer amount of ignorance and hate in this thread disgusts me. Is a person's private sexuality that important to you in a FRIENDSHIP when you won't be having sex with that person anyway? What, are you afraid that it could be "contagious" or something? People are so eager to judge a person by their sexual orientation when it shouldn't matter at all.

Obviously if a person breaks the law then it becomes a concern. That's a given. But being a pedophile doesn't automatically make a person a sexual predator, any more than homosexuality or heterosexuality does. It's no wonder you people don't have any friends!


----------



## PrincessV (Aug 17, 2015)

^ Cmon on now. Just think about it... when I think pedophile, I think this person is actually molesting children and planning his kidnappings in his bunker. 

Like... stay the **** away from me.


----------



## PrincessV (Aug 17, 2015)

Even if they're not breaking the law, they're still weird.

get away from me.


----------



## ironjellyfish (Oct 6, 2016)

Tetragammon said:


> But being a pedophile doesn't automatically make a person a sexual predator, any more than homosexuality or heterosexuality does. It's no wonder you people don't have any friends!


No. The pedophile has a desire which endangers children's lives, the gay person does not. Two completely different things. I wouldn't trust a pedophile as far as I could throw him.


----------



## Persephone The Dread (Aug 28, 2010)

KILOBRAVO said:


> i agree. i dont think its addiction as in the same addiction to smoking or drinking [which is mostly a choice or habit picked up]
> 
> as freaky and uncomfortable as it is to even think about.. but is being attracted to underage people is probably part of their sexual orientation...?? { and i genuinely shudder even typing that] the same as a person who is naturally straight, gay or bi.. those people may just be naturally attracted to underage people?
> 
> ...


Scientific research over the past decade has been showing that there are structural brain differences. There are a number of other correlations too including rate of left handedness and suffering head trauma in childhood. I think it's probably quite complicated like all sexuality, so I don't imagine they could change assuming they were pedophiles from childhood. There are a number of overlapping things considered pedophilia though like sadist child molesters that are not attracted to, or not exclusively attracted to children, and that isn't the same thing but there are definitely a group of people who are unlikely to be able to change or to focus on adults as depressing as that is.


----------



## KILOBRAVO (Sep 17, 2011)

Persephone The Dread said:


> Scientific research over the past decade has been showing that there are structural brain differences. There are a number of other correlations too including rate of left handedness and suffering head trauma in childhood. I think it's probably quite complicated like all sexuality, so I don't imagine they could change assuming they were pedophiles from childhood. There are a number of overlapping things considered pedophilia though like sadist child molesters that are not attracted to, or not exclusively attracted to children, and that isn't the same thing but there are definitely a group of people who are unlikely to be able to change or to focus on adults as depressing as that is.


I see. its not black and white. I suppose its like when i have heard stories about gays in the past where thay have had people trying to therapy them etc to try and " fix" them to be straight. ... you cant really treat someone to.change a sexual orientation. its a very grey area problem really


----------



## coeur_brise (Oct 7, 2004)

Regardless of sexual orientation, there are certain boundaries that should never be crossed. And pedophilia crosses those boundaries, I don't care what anyone says. So no, I would not be friends with one.


----------



## komorikun (Jan 11, 2009)

According to the Wikipedia article on pedophilia, it looks like pedophiles are more likely to have a low IQ, be left-handed, short (physical height), shy, neurotic, sensitive, and depressed.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pedophilia#Comorbidity_and_personality_traits


----------



## 812161 (Oct 8, 2016)

Not that I have any friends, but you'd have to respect the person you're a friend with. Not to say you have to agree with them, but respect them. I couldn't respect a pedophile, nope.


----------



## eukz (Nov 3, 2013)

komorikun said:


> According to the Wikipedia article on pedophilia, it looks like pedophiles are more likely to have a* low IQ*.
> 
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pedophilia#Comorbidity_and_personality_traits


Catholic priests.


----------



## ScorchedEarth (Jul 12, 2014)

KILOBRAVO said:


> i think its the very premise of the fact that the entity is underage which is the factor for defining illegality?


Well that's a silly freaking thing then, isn't it, given that animations that depict graphic violence and crime are fine and dandy even though they could ''theoretically'' trigger a psychopath. Such laws are nothing but misguided, hypocritical moralism. Countries that don't ban such animation aren't exactly exploding with child abuse. I believe it's banned in Austria, the country that had the most high-profile case of sexual child abuse of the past decade until the Rotherham case.


----------



## Ominous Indeed (Sep 6, 2015)

Tetragammon said:


> The sheer amount of ignorance and hate in this thread disgusts me. Is a person's private sexuality that important to you in a FRIENDSHIP when you won't be having sex with that person anyway? What, are you afraid that it could be "contagious" or something? People are so eager to judge a person by their sexual orientation when it shouldn't matter at all.
> 
> Obviously if a person breaks the law then it becomes a concern. That's a given. But being a pedophile doesn't automatically make a person a sexual predator, any more than homosexuality or heterosexuality does. It's no wonder you people don't have any friends!


I agree with this. A person who likes someone, doesn't become a rapist before that person actually rapes that someone. Think about all the people on this website who hasn't had sex, but are attracted to someone. I don't go around thinking all the people here are ticking time bombs that will eventually act on their sexual desires and rape someone just because they can't have what they want for whatever reason, may it be anxiety or the law. I don't punish all of you, because of what some people have done.

Though I believe what I said over to be true: I must also admit that I am also swayed by the stigma created by society. I would feel uncomfortable leaving a pedophile with my child because I am human. I also know that I technically shouldn't have this fear, because the same essential question could be why to ever let any man close to my hypothetical wife because there exists men who rape? It's really just a different scenario, but of course I'd be fine with that because it's normal to do so..

The question is really hypothetical, and there are a lot of ifs to me. Was the person my best friend? and many other questions that would sway the situation one way or the other. In the end I'd try my best to be as judgmental-free as possible, I think.


----------



## Miach (Mar 29, 2016)

If they are moral enough and strong enough to resist, or not act upon their desires in a way that is harmful, then absolutely yes. I would highly value such a friend.


----------



## MobiusX (Nov 14, 2008)

going to make another poll and change pedophile to hebephile


----------



## lisbeth (May 18, 2012)

I'd report them to the police, if I could. And warn people in the town who had children.

I have no sympathy for paedophiles whatsoever. But I do have a lot of sympathy for vigilante groups.



Tetragammon said:


> The sheer amount of ignorance and hate in this thread disgusts me. Is a person's private sexuality that important to you in a FRIENDSHIP when you won't be having sex with that person anyway? What, are you afraid that it could be "contagious" or something? People are so eager to judge a person by their sexual orientation when it shouldn't matter at all.
> 
> Obviously if a person breaks the law then it becomes a concern. That's a given. But being a pedophile doesn't automatically make a person a sexual predator, any more than homosexuality or heterosexuality does. It's no wonder you people don't have any friends!


Yes it does. Being a paedophile _gives you the desire_ to abuse children. Homosexuality or heterosexuality doesn't give you the desire to rape people. It's not "a person's private sexuality" when it potentially puts children at risk of harm.

Also, what a cheap shot. "It's no wonder you people don't have any friends" because we have some ****ing morals. It makes one wonder why you're so personally offended, to be lashing out like that.


----------



## Just Lurking (Feb 8, 2007)

I'd be careful about condemnation and shaming over it because 1) pedophiles need to be _encouraged_ to come forward and seek treatment rather than shamed into silence, and 2) some of these people aren't actually pedophiles, but instead dealing with a particularly awful form of OCD that masks itself as pedophilia (the treatment for which involves exposure therapy to... wait for it... _lots of children_).



> Would you be friends with a pedophile?


With a close friend, I would rather just not know because it's a very heavy load to take on, and I'm not sure I'd be capable of that level of support. What if they work with kids? Or have kids of their own? Or are otherwise closely involved with them? Could I deal with just _knowing_ about that situation? And what about legally? Is there a duty to report there? But, pedophilia is just the thoughts, and thoughts aren't crimes, so what do you do with that?


----------



## MobiusX (Nov 14, 2008)

strange how people would discriminate based on someone's sexuality, if I changed the title of the thread to homosexuals people would be complaining and whining and some would probably even insult me. Hypocrites these people are.


----------



## Red October (Aug 1, 2016)

KILOBRAVO said:


> so there might be a pic or animation and no-one is hurt? wrong. its still going to be illegal because *it still creates demand* for this phucked up stuff, and it allows those how consume it to be able to still get at least something related to it.


are there actually any statistics/studies about that? I'm not so sure about it, in general I think it's demand that creates supply

likewise I'm skeptical of the idea that violent media promotes violent behaviour, or other forms of 'learned desire'

if anything, I think repression of desires contributes to people 'snapping' and doing something terrible. For example I don't think it's a coincidence that catholic priests specifically have a reputation for being sexually abusive, I think they probably go a bit nutty trying to maintain a vow of celibacy.

or like Flanders with anger :b


----------



## eukz (Nov 3, 2013)

MobiusX said:


> strange how people would discriminate based on someone's sexuality, if I changed the title of the thread to homosexuals people would be complaining and whining and some would probably even insult me. Hypocrites these people are.


You have to consider that pedophilia isn't a sexual orientation for starters.


----------



## Protozoan (May 26, 2014)

MobiusX said:


> strange how people would discriminate based on someone's sexuality, if I changed the title of the thread to homosexuals people would be complaining and whining and some would probably even insult me. Hypocrites these people are.


So you would equate two developed consenting adults to someone taking advantage of an adolescent who is still growing and doesn't completely understand their own sexuality or how it will affect them psychologically?


----------



## Ominous Indeed (Sep 6, 2015)

eukz said:


> You have to consider that pedophilia isn't a sexual orientation for starters.


How is it not? Because that is exactly what it is.

"Pedophilia or paedophilia is a psychiatric disorder in which an adult or older adolescent experiences a primary or exclusive sexual attraction to prepubescent children."

"In popular usage, the word pedophilia is often applied to any sexual interest in children or the act of child sexual abuse. Researchers recommend that these imprecise uses be avoided because although people who commit child sexual abuse sometimes exhibit the disorder,[6][9] child sexual abuse offenders are not pedophiles unless they have a primary or exclusive sexual interest in prepubescent children,[7][10][11] and the literature indicates the existence of pedophiles who do not molest children.[5][12][13]"

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pedophilia


----------



## eukz (Nov 3, 2013)

Demon Soul said:


> How is it not? Because that is exactly what it is.
> 
> "Pedophilia or paedophilia is a psychiatric disorder in which an adult or older adolescent experiences a primary or exclusive sexual attraction to prepubescent children."
> 
> ...


I don't see the wikipedia confirming it's a sexual orientation though.

Pedophilia (loving children younger than 12 IIRC) is indeed a psychiatric disorder; but as you can see, the fact that this particular condition adds a whole new dimension to the picture (which is life stage), plus the fact that pedophiles tend to have *negative* personality traits, as posted more above, both pretty much make pedophilia fall to the paraphilia category IMO.

Now I'm not sure about this, but I've always understood that "sexual orientation" is basically the concept that determinates your sexuality as long as you're part of a group in which not everyone shares a psychiatric disorder; simple as that. Not to mention that obviously a relationship between a kid and an adult won't ever be something healthy.

I found this post in Quora though:



> It is not.
> 
> Sexual orientation, as a technical term, describes only sexual attraction in relation to gender/sex preferences.
> 
> ...


----------



## sad1231234 (Jul 10, 2016)

A child molester? Never. A sexually screwed up person? Maybe.


----------



## a degree of freedom (Sep 28, 2011)

I would wonder what they meant by the term and would ask for clarification. I don't particularly trust people's one-word labels for themselves, in particular when the word typically carries some shock value. And if shock value was intended, I may begin to think of them as a little intellectually lazy for presuming I should react a specific way to a label, or that their self-judgment were universal.


----------



## MobiusX (Nov 14, 2008)

Protozoan said:


> So you would equate two developed consenting adults to someone taking advantage of an adolescent who is still growing and doesn't completely understand their own sexuality or how it will affect them psychologically?


taking advantage? All I said that the person is a pedophile, that's only a sexual attraction, that's it, your mind made up the rest


----------



## ShatteredGlass (Oct 12, 2012)

Depends who they are as a person other than their... issue. I'll trust what my intuition tells me. Being a pedophile doesn't equate to being a child molester, as @RobinTurnaround & @Atheism agree. I'd ever involve myself in a romantic relationship with one, though.

A friendship like this would be a very interesting one indeed. A person who is sexually attracted to children on top of adults, but possesses the will and moral fibre to not dare touch children, is an interesting person who is indeed worthy of friendship, in my humble opinion.


----------



## Ominous Indeed (Sep 6, 2015)

eukz said:


> I


Googling it I can find answers upon answers and page upon page saying it is, and saying it isn't.

http://www.webmd.com/mental-health/features/explaining-pedophilia
http://www.wnd.com/2016/04/psychologist-pedophilia-a-sexual-orientation/
https://medium.com/pedophiles-about...-a-sexual-orientation-d414e0780f6d#.96w0tai4t










______________________
What I personally think though is that if you are limiting the word sexual orientation to just man, woman or both.. It becomes a word that if used to describe someone, can in example-situations become very non-descriptive and empty word. Situations could occur where you would be misinformed (or at least not completely enlightened) about a persons sexual attraction, even though that is the kind of information you would like to know when asking someone what their sexual orientation is. I see the society eventually accepting pedophiles though as something that is ok to be, or at least not bad, just like they have done with gays.

Thus I wonder what the word "sexual orientation" included in it's definition 50 years ago, or if it even was a word? and what it will include in it's definition 50 years from now.


----------



## JohnDoe26 (Jun 6, 2012)

If I had developed a genuine connection (friendship) with someone and they revealed to me that they were attracted to children, I would ask them if they ever acted on those urges. If yes, then I really couldn't see myself being friends with them. If no, and they were resisting those urges, I'd feel sorry for them and try to be supportive of their struggle.


----------



## JustThisGuy (Mar 24, 2012)

I feel that they could get help. You're sexualizing the non-sexual. This is one form of deprogramming that is healthy. It's like being attracted to a buzzsaw. Best to tell them not to be attracted to sharp things.

But also, every sexual fantasy they have is rape. That's horrid. I mean, it's likely that at least some priests don't start as pedos. They condition themselves with sexual frustration and hangout with choir boys, fixate, and reason out that it'd be an easy target, what with their obedience and small frames. So it is a negative programming. It's so odd.


----------



## eukz (Nov 3, 2013)

Demon Soul said:


> What I personally think though is that if you are limiting the word sexual orientation to just man, woman or both.. It becomes a word that if used to describe someone, can in example-situations become very non-descriptive and empty word. Situations could occur where you would be misinformed (or at least not completely enlightened) about a persons sexual attraction, even though that is the kind of information you would like to know when asking someone what their sexual orientation is. I see the society eventually accepting pedophiles though as something that is ok to be, or at least not bad, just like they have done with gays.
> 
> Thus I wonder what the word "sexual orientation" included in it's definition 50 years ago, or if it even was a word? and what it will include in it's definition 50 years from now.


Well, the main reason society only accepted one sexual orientation a few decades ago was the total lack of scientific research and psychiatric observation. As we know now, LGBT individuals stopped being considered mentally ill in the 70s because psychiatrists observed for a long time that these people were just as healthy as straight people, and ignoring the psychiatric conditions produced by discrimination in most of them, they were still fully capable of being members of society. On the other hand, since sexual orientation change efforts (supported by the Church) demonstrated to be a total failure, all of this has made psychiatrists admit that they were wrong in the past.

However, apparently none of this has happened with pedophiles yet, as we can see at least in this source:



> According to the Wikipedia article on pedophilia, it looks like pedophiles are more likely to have a low IQ, be left-handed, short (physical height), shy, neurotic, sensitive, and depressed.
> 
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pedoph...onality_traits


I think the concept of sexual orientation can only change when the scientific method proves what it needs to prove.


----------



## Ominous Indeed (Sep 6, 2015)

eukz said:


> However, apparently none of this has happened with pedophiles yet, as we can see at least in this source:
> 
> I think the concept of sexual orientation can only change when the scientific method proves what it needs to prove.


It's a very good assumption to think that at least half of those are direct impacts made by the society. It's exactly the same as what happened to the gays, and the studies back then - They figured out that the negative traits that were shared by homosexuals like depression, in fact did not come from being gay, but the society and that is why they could not conclude it to be a negative disorder anymore.

Being a pedophile - how can you not have depression seeing what other people write about you, for example in this thread. Some people in this thread would call the police on you just knowing that you are pedophile..


----------



## MobiusX (Nov 14, 2008)

eukz said:


> I don't see the wikipedia confirming it's a sexual orientation though.
> 
> Pedophilia (loving children younger than 12 IIRC) is indeed a psychiatric disorder; but as you can see, the fact that this particular condition adds a whole new dimension to the picture (which is life stage), plus the fact that pedophiles tend to have *negative* personality traits, as posted more above, both pretty much make pedophilia fall to the paraphilia category IMO.
> 
> ...


I got an ebook on the topic just to read for reference. In this example it is using a modified version of some guy named Jerome Wakefield's theory of disorder. There is more than what I will type but it's too long to type.

A condition is a mental disorder if and only if the following are true:

1. Criterion #1: Harm. The condition causes some harm or deprivation of benefit to the subject (or, perhaps, to a relevant third party).

2. Criterion #2: Dysfunction. The harm or deprivation of benefit results from the inability of some mental mechanism to perform its natural function, wherein a natural function is a process that is part of the evolutionary explanation of the existence and structure of the mechanism.

This is the author's argument why pedophilia is not a mental disorder.

(P1) If pedophilia does not satisfy both the dysfunction- and harm-conditions, then it is not a mental disorder.

(P2) Pedophilia does not satisfy the dysfunction-condition.

(C1) Hence, pedophilia is not a mental disorder. [(P1), (P2)]

Premise (P1) (If pedophilia does not satisfy both the dysfunction- and harm-conditions, then it is not a mental disorder)

Premise (P1) resets on the assumed notion of a disorder.

Premise (P2) (Pedophilia does not satisfy the dysfunction-condition.)

Premise (P2) resets on the following. First, if a mental mechanism has a dysfunction, then it fails to preform its natural function. Pedophilia does not involve a mental mechanism in the subject failing to perform its natural function. A natural function is a function that is part of the evolutionary explanation of the existence and structure of the mechanism.

There are several reasons to believe that pedophilia has an evolutionary explanation. In evolutionary terms, one would expect thoughts or behaviors that are selected for by evolution or associated with conditions that are so selected to be (1) widely held by (or done by) human beings today, (2) held by (or done by) human beings across history and cultures, and (3) held by (or done by) apes. This is because a feature in the human beings that significantly frustrates reproductive fitness would likely be selected against, whether directly or indirectly. If a feature is so widespread, then it probably has some connection to fitness-enhancing genes, however indirect. All three conditions are present to some degree with respect to pedophilia even though the exact degree is controversial.


----------



## Aribeth (Jan 14, 2012)

sure, why not

and what the heck is up with those poll results, you guys are really intolerant, aren't you


----------



## nubly (Nov 2, 2006)

Hell no.


----------



## MobiusX (Nov 14, 2008)

Aribeth said:


> sure, why not
> 
> and what the heck is up with those poll results, you guys are really intolerant, aren't you


Or maybe since you have Rogue on your avatar you can touch a pedophile and then become one yourself


----------



## NoEgo (Jul 5, 2016)

I just saw the words "Would you be friends" in the Recent Discussions box. I clicked on it, and I thought, "I bet this will be a cute discu--HOLY SH*T!"

If he's a pedophile and doesn't act on his tendencies, maybe. That's a tough question. It's something that can't be changed and there's sick people who act on their urges, but there's probably a lot of people who suppress their urges as well. Just like the amount of people who feel the urge to kill, but don't. I'm sure there are pedophiles who are decent people, but as far as I know, I haven't met one. There's also the fact that he could snap at any moment. I wouldn't want to befriend one and have him to take me on a guy's night out and bring me to a f**king Chuck E. Cheese.


----------



## KILOBRAVO (Sep 17, 2011)

MobiusX said:


> Or maybe since you have Rogue on your avatar you can touch a pedophile and then become one yourself


haha...

I think its @MobiusX 1-0 @Aribeth

moby... you haven't voted on your own poll? I guess its a no?


----------



## lisbeth (May 18, 2012)

I'm curious about the people who say "yes, if they didn't act on those urges". How would you know? If you asked them "do you abuse children", do you actually think they would say yes? Of course they're going to say no, whether it's true or not. And even if they haven't acted on the urges _yet_, there's such a risk that they will in future. If you were friends with a paedophile and you said "they're harmless really, they need support and understanding", and later it turned out they did abuse children and you hadn't warned anyone or done anything, how could you live with yourself?

You really give way too much credit and trust in people.


----------



## MobiusX (Nov 14, 2008)

lisbeth said:


> I'm curious about the people who say "yes, if they didn't act on those urges". How would you know? If you asked them "do you abuse children", do you actually think they would say yes? Of course they're going to say no, whether it's true or not. And even if they haven't acted on the urges _yet_, there's such a risk that they will in future. If you were friends with a paedophile and you said "they're harmless really, they need support and understanding", and later it turned out they did abuse children and you hadn't warned anyone or done anything, how could you live with yourself?
> 
> You really give way too much credit and trust in people.


Then what you are really saying is dont trust anyone and that should include family members, why not? Most who do sexually abuse are related to the victims


----------



## lisbeth (May 18, 2012)

MobiusX said:


> Then what you are really saying is dont trust anyone and that should include family members, why not? Most who do sexually abuse are related to the victims


Well if you have a creepy family member who says they are (or you think might be) a paedophile, then no, you definitely shouldn't trust them. Most sexual abusers are known to the victims in some way (such as family members, friends, neighbours, teachers) and seem like nice, trustworthy people until something happens. So trusting someone like that for the sake of it is just stupid.

That obviously isn't to say you shouldn't trust anyone at all, but to be very watchful of warning signs and be very mindful of who you give your trust to. Trust shouldn't be given out by default, it ought to be earned bit-by-bit as you get proof of someone's character.


----------



## Carolyne (Sep 20, 2016)

lisbeth said:


> I'm curious about the people who say "yes, if they didn't act on those urges". How would you know? If you asked them "do you abuse children", do you actually think they would say yes? Of course they're going to say no, whether it's true or not. And even if they haven't acted on the urges _yet_, there's such a risk that they will in future. If you were friends with a paedophile and you said "they're harmless really, they need support and understanding", and later it turned out they did abuse children and you hadn't warned anyone or done anything, how could you live with yourself?
> 
> You really give way too much credit and trust in people.


On the other hand, if they were acting on it secretly, they probably wouldn't tell you about their pedophilic desires since that only puts more attention and suspicion on them. In a way, telling you is like asking you to keep an eye on them and help them avoid their temptation.


----------



## lisbeth (May 18, 2012)

Carolyne said:


> On the other hand, if they were acting on it secretly, they probably wouldn't tell you about their pedophilic desires since that only puts more attention and suspicion on them. In a way, telling you is like asking you to keep an eye on them and help them avoid their temptation.


Why would they put that kind of pressure on another person, though? Why would it be your responsibility to stop another person from committing a crime or hurting someone else? And shouldn't it put attention and suspicion on them anyway? Any reasonable, normal person would be suspicious of someone who said that to them. I would be questioning what it was that made them think I'd be okay with it.

People will often tell people things like "oh, I can be a real *****" or "I tend to be manipulative" and the listener feels privileged for hearing it, thinking, "oh, if they trusted me enough to tell me about their deepest flaw, they must really like me. I must be an exception to the rule and they won't do it to me. They're so self-aware. I can trust them, they've let their guard down". Whereas in reality, people make statements like that because they've internalised it as part of their identity and have no desire to change it. It's like by saying something like "I'm selfish", they justify their selfishness - like "hey, I warned you, I laid my cards on the table, you knew what to expect".
I always used to take people admitting things like this to me as a sign of their inner goodness and brokenness, which used to endear them to me as they admitted horrible things because obviously they must just be sweet suffering people underneath, and every time I got ****ed over.

If they don't have enough shame to keep it secret, they probably don't have enough shame to really think it's wrong. Not that I think keeping it secret is any better.


----------



## Carolyne (Sep 20, 2016)

lisbeth said:


> If they don't have enough shame to keep it secret, they probably don't have enough shame to really think it's wrong.


Well I'm not necessarily saying I believe that, my first post in this thread was exactly this quote, but I can see why other people wouldn't be bothered, and really I'd rather know who the pedophiles are than be completely in the dark about it, don't ask them to babysit.


----------



## lisbeth (May 18, 2012)

Carolyne said:


> Well I'm not necessarily saying I believe that, my first post in this thread was exactly this quote, but I can see why other people wouldn't be bothered, and really I'd rather know who the pedophiles are than be completely in the dark about it, don't ask them to babysit.


Sorry, I missed your first post so I assumed you were in the "it's OK" camp. I agree with your first post. I don't see why other people wouldn't be bothered, though, unless they don't think it's that bad. I would rather know who's a paedophile too, but so I can stay away from them.


----------



## MobiusX (Nov 14, 2008)

lisbeth said:


> Well if you have a creepy family member who says they are (or you think might be) a paedophile, then no, you definitely shouldn't trust them. Most sexual abusers are known to the victims in some way (such as family members, friends, neighbours, teachers) and seem like nice, trustworthy people until something happens. So trusting someone like that for the sake of it is just stupid.
> 
> That obviously isn't to say you shouldn't trust anyone at all, but to be very watchful of warning signs and be very mindful of who you give your trust to. Trust shouldn't be given out by default, it ought to be earned bit-by-bit as you get proof of someone's character.


well, I was abused and it's the reason why I have SA, my main abuser (had 2 others) was considered normal and social, I used to sit in back of the church drawing while he shook hands with everyone else and everyone thought it was a great person, so what you said is not true, it's not true in all cases, serial killers are worst than pedophiles, pedophiles only means they have a sexual attraction to a particular group, that's it, serial killers do more than just have feelings, they did worst than just sexually abuse, they freaking KILL, they are able to blend in with people unlike the personality of mass murderers who have a similar personality trait of people with SA


----------



## HenDoggy (Jul 26, 2014)

Depends how close of a friendship it is. The definition of being a friend is to support one another through hardships, so I think i would advise them to seek counseling for these issues. I don't think it's right to abandon a close friend in time of need and support, just like if you ever needed a shoulder to lean on, you wouldn't want them to abandon you. Unless if you actively see them hurting a child or any type of evidence he/she is mistreating a child then I would have to cut ties and call the police.


----------



## NeuronAssembly (May 24, 2013)

Interesting question. For me it depends; obviously if they've actually acted on their desires and they've touched a kid inappropriately or they, I dunno, paid to see an underage camera worker, or if they weren't against doing any of that, then yeah that'd be a huge problem. But if they're a nice person and they're adamantly against child molestation or otherwise taking advantage of children in a sexual manner, then it'd be alright. I would be wondering why they decided to reveal this information to me though. Also, if they had other issues in addition to being a pedophile I'd probably stop talking to them, tbh.



lisbeth said:


> I have no sympathy for paedophiles whatsoever. But I do have a lot of sympathy for vigilante groups.


So you'd want them to get lynched even if they haven't actually done anything and don't intend on doing anything... you sound like a great person.


----------



## twitchy666 (Apr 21, 2013)

are any of them female?


----------

