If by normal you mean 'expected to occur in a certain percent of the population', then yes, it's normal to find a few pedophiles here and there. It's not common, and it's NOT normal in terms of our basic purpose, which is to reproduce. It's counter-productive. Am I supposed to say it's normal to spare someone's feelings? I think not. I'm not even saying that it's not normal with ANY sort of negativity, I mean, it happens, and just like any other 'thang' it should be dealt with openly and with understanding, I agree. It's not going to 'go away' if people ignore it or try to lock it away, I understand this. But normal? No, this is not normal in any way, shape or form. Even beyond just the biological reason of reproduction, I don't think that too many pedophiles don't feel or know that sexual contact with a small child is wrong or something that they should NOT be doing, without being taught this. Of course, different cultures and different times have different 'rules', but I'm talking about a case of say a 35 yr old man and a 4 yr old girl. An extreme. I don't think that at any time that this 35 yr old man is doing what he's doing, that he actually thinks it's OK. Not even due exclusively to the sexual part, but the victimization, no matter what culture or time he lives in.
I don't have a problem with anyone's sexual preference....and as long as they do not harm anyone physically or emotionally with any sort of sexual act, fine. You can be a pedophile all day long, as long as you do not act on your desires inappropriately.
i think the main problem of our mutual understanding lies in the definition of "normal".
For me, "normal" includes minority elements that are to be expected.
In that logic, it's "normal" for me that a small child wets the bed. It's not "normal" if that happens every night or even with regularity. But in your definition, the "normal" case would be that a small child does not wet the bed, therefore it would be ABNORMAL for that to happen. Even if it's a 5-year old and happened once as an accident.
The same thing here. While the MAJORITY of people may be heterosexual, that does not mean only heterosexuality is normal. It's the de-facto STANDARD, but normal and standard are different words for a reason.
Being homosexual is JUST as normal, and, in that venue, pedophilia is ALSO normal. Mark that i over and over said that i am glad there are laws and they should never ACT on that sexual orientation. But their attraction to children is, unfortunately, natural. In that context it's a "normal" sexual orientation that can't be dealt with.
Necrophilia is a fetish. Pedophilia is not. Thats what i'm trying to get across. The handling and the measures taken need to be different. Much as you can't forbid a person to be gay and expect him to change, you can't do that with pedophilia. They shouldn't be cornered and hated, but helped to overcome their nature instead.
Not so much our definition of normal, maybe it's more due to the fact that I don't see humans as having any 'higher purpose' above any other animal. Our purpose is to reproduce and care for our children so that they can reproduce. Just because we've created this 'society' and can do other things with our lives, doesn't mean to me that we have any other purpose than to carry on our species. I look at things on a basic level, to me there really is no other level since there's no proof of such.
Can people exist and have such extreme alternate sexual preferences? Yes. And that's fine. But to me, it's not normal because it goes against what I see is our only REAL purpose (our only purpose that we can prove we have). So..biologically, naturally, NOT normal.
well, but you say yourself, if THAT is our purpose, then it should be perfectly fine that boys and girls are sexually active the moment they CAN reproduce. That means a girl as young as 9 should freely have sex because she already had her period.
If you reduce it to basic animalistic criteria, that should be perfectly normal- which is what i claim all along. or by what reason, using your own argumentation, would it be "normal" that a young female specimen perfectly capable of becoming pregnant is not sexually active until many years later?
No, in fact it's NOT normal that a girl is ready for reproduction and doesn't reproduce for years, or ever in some cases. It goes against nature. Society has intervened. By laws, by expectations, by giving people 'more' to do with their lives, modern medicine (birth control, medicines and vaccinations that allow people to live FAR longer than ever before...it used to be NECESSARY that a female have children very early, as she wouldn't be expected to live past 30)...but that's society, not nature. If nature changed to suit society, girls wouldn't have their periods until they were 18 or until after college...but obviously THAT hasn't happened.
I still say yes, it's our purpose to reproduce....any sexual orientation contrary to that was, is and always will be abnormal. Society can't cancel out nature completely. It can allow for 'more' to life but that doesn't mean anything in the grand scheme, it's all false, it's a concept, it's not an absolute like nature is. Society can go away tomorrow, then what? We're left with only the absolutes.
i don't really get WHAT you are aiming at with your argumentation.
I am _NOT_ to mix society with nature, when you BASE your argumentation on what's normal on our natural and sole purpose of reproduction as a species?
you claim any sexual orientation contrary to reproduction is abnormal, but still deny that intercourse with fertile "children" then HAS to be normal, with nature itself giving prime examples?
You seem to just pick out what you need for your views. So homosexuality is abnormal because it's against our natural purpose of reproduction, and pedophilia is abnormal because it's against our society?
My problem with your argumentation, even if ignoring homosexuality in animals, is this:
You pick out both abnormals but deny me the rights to base my argumentation on exactly the same things based on the outcome not being to your liking?
I actually had the impression that we had the same general idea, but just had a misunderstanding as to what is the definition of normal, but now it seems you are just trying to somehow show me that i'm erring no matter how?
And yeah, i'm trying NOT to be offended by you considering homosexuality as abnormal.
Wait...where did I deny that fertile females, in nature, should be reproducing? I said exactly the opposite...I will cut and paste my exact words...:
"No, in fact it's NOT normal that a girl is ready for reproduction and doesn't reproduce for years, or ever in some cases. It goes against nature. Society has intervened."
I think you read wrong?
I don't care if you're offended...and frankly, you're starting to piss me off. Look, I've said repeatedly that it's my OPINION...OK? I ALSO said that I don't bash anyone for their sexual orientation. I am so FOR equal rights and AGAINST discrimination, it's not even funny. I can live and let live. My opinion is said with NO negative tone. You seem to equate me saying 'abnormal = disgusting, or bad'...I'm NOT saying that at all. I don't go around shouting my opinion all over the place, I only posted it here because it was the topic, people are discussing the issue here. You seem to have the impression that I am going around oppressing anyone I feel is 'abnormal'...NOT so. I look at things differently than you, I guess. You put more stock in society or a higher purpose while I just go with what's real to me.
I'm not even arguing with you, I'm not trying to change your mind, I'm not trying to convince you of anything, not at all...the bulk of my replies have been simply to clear up misunderstandings on your part. You're the one who keeps coming at me. I said a few posts ago, we can agree to disagree. *smiley face*
Does being a pedophile make one a "bad"person?
↑ View this comment's parent
← View full post
If by normal you mean 'expected to occur in a certain percent of the population', then yes, it's normal to find a few pedophiles here and there. It's not common, and it's NOT normal in terms of our basic purpose, which is to reproduce. It's counter-productive. Am I supposed to say it's normal to spare someone's feelings? I think not. I'm not even saying that it's not normal with ANY sort of negativity, I mean, it happens, and just like any other 'thang' it should be dealt with openly and with understanding, I agree. It's not going to 'go away' if people ignore it or try to lock it away, I understand this. But normal? No, this is not normal in any way, shape or form. Even beyond just the biological reason of reproduction, I don't think that too many pedophiles don't feel or know that sexual contact with a small child is wrong or something that they should NOT be doing, without being taught this. Of course, different cultures and different times have different 'rules', but I'm talking about a case of say a 35 yr old man and a 4 yr old girl. An extreme. I don't think that at any time that this 35 yr old man is doing what he's doing, that he actually thinks it's OK. Not even due exclusively to the sexual part, but the victimization, no matter what culture or time he lives in.
I don't have a problem with anyone's sexual preference....and as long as they do not harm anyone physically or emotionally with any sort of sexual act, fine. You can be a pedophile all day long, as long as you do not act on your desires inappropriately.
--
TerryVie
11 years ago
|
pl
Comment Hidden (
show
)
Report
0
0
i think the main problem of our mutual understanding lies in the definition of "normal".
For me, "normal" includes minority elements that are to be expected.
In that logic, it's "normal" for me that a small child wets the bed. It's not "normal" if that happens every night or even with regularity. But in your definition, the "normal" case would be that a small child does not wet the bed, therefore it would be ABNORMAL for that to happen. Even if it's a 5-year old and happened once as an accident.
The same thing here. While the MAJORITY of people may be heterosexual, that does not mean only heterosexuality is normal. It's the de-facto STANDARD, but normal and standard are different words for a reason.
Being homosexual is JUST as normal, and, in that venue, pedophilia is ALSO normal. Mark that i over and over said that i am glad there are laws and they should never ACT on that sexual orientation. But their attraction to children is, unfortunately, natural. In that context it's a "normal" sexual orientation that can't be dealt with.
Necrophilia is a fetish. Pedophilia is not. Thats what i'm trying to get across. The handling and the measures taken need to be different. Much as you can't forbid a person to be gay and expect him to change, you can't do that with pedophilia. They shouldn't be cornered and hated, but helped to overcome their nature instead.
--
wigsplitz
11 years ago
|
pl
Comment Hidden (
show
)
Report
0
0
Not so much our definition of normal, maybe it's more due to the fact that I don't see humans as having any 'higher purpose' above any other animal. Our purpose is to reproduce and care for our children so that they can reproduce. Just because we've created this 'society' and can do other things with our lives, doesn't mean to me that we have any other purpose than to carry on our species. I look at things on a basic level, to me there really is no other level since there's no proof of such.
Can people exist and have such extreme alternate sexual preferences? Yes. And that's fine. But to me, it's not normal because it goes against what I see is our only REAL purpose (our only purpose that we can prove we have). So..biologically, naturally, NOT normal.
I guess we can agree to disagree! :)
--
TerryVie
11 years ago
|
pl
Comment Hidden (
show
)
Report
0
0
well, but you say yourself, if THAT is our purpose, then it should be perfectly fine that boys and girls are sexually active the moment they CAN reproduce. That means a girl as young as 9 should freely have sex because she already had her period.
If you reduce it to basic animalistic criteria, that should be perfectly normal- which is what i claim all along. or by what reason, using your own argumentation, would it be "normal" that a young female specimen perfectly capable of becoming pregnant is not sexually active until many years later?
--
wigsplitz
11 years ago
|
pl
Comment Hidden (
show
)
Report
0
0
You're mixing society with nature.
No, in fact it's NOT normal that a girl is ready for reproduction and doesn't reproduce for years, or ever in some cases. It goes against nature. Society has intervened. By laws, by expectations, by giving people 'more' to do with their lives, modern medicine (birth control, medicines and vaccinations that allow people to live FAR longer than ever before...it used to be NECESSARY that a female have children very early, as she wouldn't be expected to live past 30)...but that's society, not nature. If nature changed to suit society, girls wouldn't have their periods until they were 18 or until after college...but obviously THAT hasn't happened.
I still say yes, it's our purpose to reproduce....any sexual orientation contrary to that was, is and always will be abnormal. Society can't cancel out nature completely. It can allow for 'more' to life but that doesn't mean anything in the grand scheme, it's all false, it's a concept, it's not an absolute like nature is. Society can go away tomorrow, then what? We're left with only the absolutes.
--
TerryVie
11 years ago
|
pl
Comment Hidden (
show
)
Report
1
1
i don't really get WHAT you are aiming at with your argumentation.
I am _NOT_ to mix society with nature, when you BASE your argumentation on what's normal on our natural and sole purpose of reproduction as a species?
you claim any sexual orientation contrary to reproduction is abnormal, but still deny that intercourse with fertile "children" then HAS to be normal, with nature itself giving prime examples?
You seem to just pick out what you need for your views. So homosexuality is abnormal because it's against our natural purpose of reproduction, and pedophilia is abnormal because it's against our society?
My problem with your argumentation, even if ignoring homosexuality in animals, is this:
Nature: Homosexuality "abnormal", Pedophilia "normal".
Society: Homosexuality "normal", Pedophilia "abnormal".
You pick out both abnormals but deny me the rights to base my argumentation on exactly the same things based on the outcome not being to your liking?
I actually had the impression that we had the same general idea, but just had a misunderstanding as to what is the definition of normal, but now it seems you are just trying to somehow show me that i'm erring no matter how?
And yeah, i'm trying NOT to be offended by you considering homosexuality as abnormal.
--
wigsplitz
11 years ago
|
pl
Comment Hidden (
show
)
Report
0
0
See More Comments =>
Wait...where did I deny that fertile females, in nature, should be reproducing? I said exactly the opposite...I will cut and paste my exact words...:
"No, in fact it's NOT normal that a girl is ready for reproduction and doesn't reproduce for years, or ever in some cases. It goes against nature. Society has intervened."
I think you read wrong?
I don't care if you're offended...and frankly, you're starting to piss me off. Look, I've said repeatedly that it's my OPINION...OK? I ALSO said that I don't bash anyone for their sexual orientation. I am so FOR equal rights and AGAINST discrimination, it's not even funny. I can live and let live. My opinion is said with NO negative tone. You seem to equate me saying 'abnormal = disgusting, or bad'...I'm NOT saying that at all. I don't go around shouting my opinion all over the place, I only posted it here because it was the topic, people are discussing the issue here. You seem to have the impression that I am going around oppressing anyone I feel is 'abnormal'...NOT so. I look at things differently than you, I guess. You put more stock in society or a higher purpose while I just go with what's real to me.
I'm not even arguing with you, I'm not trying to change your mind, I'm not trying to convince you of anything, not at all...the bulk of my replies have been simply to clear up misunderstandings on your part. You're the one who keeps coming at me. I said a few posts ago, we can agree to disagree. *smiley face*