In every state the age of consent is at least 18. You are thinking of the age to marry and if they are still undre 18 they can only do so with parents permission.

So yes I still stand by my statement. However if you are talking about sex between two people under 18 that is differant. If it is consensul that in my opinion is not rape, and that is where the age 16 to 18 rule varies.

 

Your definition's faulty. If you want to argue from that position, then please replace the word 'paedophile' with 'rapist' or 'abuser' or 'enabler'.

Your desire to read into it notwithstanding, the definition of a paedophile is very simple: attraction to pre-pubescent children. Nothing more, nothing less. It makes no definitions as to action or lack of it.

And, frankly, I suspect there are a lot more people - both men and women - who harbour sexual attraction to the young and make the choice to keep it under control because they know it's both legal wrong and morally reprehensible. Those who take advantage are, as I've said before, rapists before they are paedophiles.

And why do I say this? Because rape and abuse isn't about sex, it's about power. That is a standard psychological and psychiatric tenet: rapists don't get off from the sensation of sex, they get off on the power they possess. I see no reason why this should be any different between rapists of adults and rapists of children.

 

Doesn't stop them from coming though

 

.

 

What should happen to pedo involves a steel catheter and a blow torch.

 

I totally agree.

 

"I'm "W" and I approved this here message!"

Fuck the pedos!

 

My definition is not faulty because I make it clear that it is "my definition". I'm not saying the dictionary definition, I'm saying what I consider to be a paedophile.

Paedophile is a very strong term that is associated with actual abuse. If people viewed paedophiles as just people who were attracted to children but never harmed a child then the term paedophile would not be viewed with such revulsion.

Just as I don't consider someone who fantasises about killing someone else to be a murderer I, personally, don't consider a person who fantasises about sex with under-age children a paedophile, so long as they do not act on their fantasy or encourage others to do so.

It is not appropriate to call these people rapists or abusers or enablers (although I agree they satisfy these descriptions) because they are focussed specifically on children and it is this aspect that makes their crimes so abhorrent.

 

Depends

People who molest little kids should be put away in prison for life but consensual sex with say a 16 year old is not a bad thing.

 

ha ha!! I am AMAZED at the hypocrisy!!! LOOK at the age of about half the so called 'teen' girls on THIS site! ((you are fully retarded or disillusional if you think all of them are of age.. )) and in some cases EVEN CLOSE to being of age.. GET REAL..

I can't relate to full on pedos.. be lets get real.. a beautiful 17 and 1/2 year old girl horny as hell?? we all know damn well we'd fuck her (if we knew we wouldn't get in trouble).. so lets get that acknowledged.. lets cease with the hostility...

As to the question... I'm not a psych major. but its probably as treatable as homosexuality.. in other words... not very.

Thats my 2 cents.

 

A lot of states have ages of consent under 18 (many are 16 or 17), but pretty much universally the rule is that people under 18 can't be involved with people over 18.

 

I know.

 

Burn them at the stake!!!

 

Why would you wilfully disregard the dictionary definition? Almost immediately, you're clouding the argue by using arbitrary associations.

Maybe that would be a good thing. Maybe, then, paedophiles might be more likely to get the therapy they unquestionably need without being metaphorically eviscerated.

Seems logical.

This is bonkers. Murderers are murderers because they have committed an act. The noun 'murderer' comes from the verb 'to murder'. There is no verb 'to paedo'; paedophile is a simple noun - a noun with a specific definition. There's no meaningful reason to start adding baggage onto the word; that's just succumbing to emotive, illogical whims.

I think it's important to focus on the action rather than the emotional weight it carries. Anything else is likely to lead one down the same kind of emotive, illogical road as those who would string paedophiles up and hang 'em. We've moved beyond that as a civilised people - or I'd hope so. Maintaining rigid definitions is part of that; maintaining rigid descriptors is another.

Be it a child or an adult, forcing sexual contact is abuse or, in the worst cases, rape. If the victim is a child, the rapist may very well be a paedophile (though not necessarily), and it's important to make the distinction between those who harbour attraction to prepubescent children (paedophiles) and those who rape children -- who are rapists who are most likely paedophiles.

Case in point: there is a culture of rape endemic in sub-Saharan cultures through superstitious belief that sex with a virgin will either cure or protect from AIDs. This has led to horrific cases being reported (perhaps apocryphally, who knows?) of young children -- even infants! -- being raped. Are the men who do that - desperate men, no less - paedophiles?

Do they harbour attraction to children, or are they simply desperate, twisted men?

[Edit] If you refuse to call them rapists, by the way, you're in danger of creating a 'scale of rape'. I don't think any rape sufferers would be appreciative of someone's attempt to start putting quantifiers on how 'bad' or 'abhorrent' the rape is. All rape is abhorrent, be it the rape of a woman, man, or a child. By introducing a scale, you're implying that it's not as bad to rape a fully grown woman as it is a child, and I find that disturbing.

 

God has nothing to do with it. I'm not religious and I strongly feel there is no punishment severe enough for those who prey upon children. What gives us the right to judge? The pedophile does, the minute he lays his hands on a child. That gives the parent EVERY right to judge the piece of shit. You don't stick your dick in a toddler and then say "but but but but...i was born this way... You should be ashamed for judging me!". You screw with someones child and whatever happens is brought upon by yourself. I would personally bury anyone who touched my child. They were born with the desire to diddle kids, well, I was born with the desire to to violently put an end to anyone who tries harming my child. So I guess I can't help how I was born either. Don't judge me.

 

I'm totally against it but I also think it is idiotic when a guy is arrested for "child molestation" when he has sex with a 16 or 17yo girl when he isn't much older than 18.

 

I think that it's pretty sick.
Older men will convince a younger girl that they love her, and that they could get married someday, and have children, and have the white picket fence, and a dog named Rover. So as a young girl, you have all these grown up thoughts in your head, and you think that someone is there that is going to take care of you and love you, and then you give yourself to them, and then they leave you for another silly little girl who doesn't know any better. It's manipulative. And it can ruin a girls life.

 

Pedophilia is sick fuckery. How any adult could ever look upon prepubescent children in a sexual way and as objects of sexual desire is beyond rationality.

When we discuss pedophilia we need to keep in mind that there are basically two types. (See Wikipedia.) I would call these basic types....
1. Criminal Pedophilia
2. Just Fucked Up In The Head Pedophilia

Criminal Pedos should be sent to prison for the rest of their miserable lives. Or better yet sentenced to death.

OTOH Just Fucked Up In The Head Pedos (which make up the majority of the sick fucks BTW) need some very serious physiological counselling and reconditioning for their mental disorder.

 

I dunno cuz i did stuff with men when i wuz little and liked most of it

 

"What gives us the right to judge? The pedophile does" the best part!