10-12-2013, 11:04 PM
I agree to a very limited extent. As long as paedophiles fear public stigma, persecution, and even death, no paedophile will ever come forward.
They will hide.
And if a paedophile is hiding, you do not know he/she is a paedophile until he/she engages in sexual relations.
This is inefficient, helps no one, and increases the odds of not knowing how to keep children safe..
If John is a paedophile, and self identification as a paedophile is encouraged, John will be able to get psychiatric help, and individuals will know to keep their kids safe from him.
If John is a paedophile, and hides from fear of persecution, it is unlikely John will get therapy or be known as a paedophile until he "babysits" a relatives child.
This is logical.
Unfortunately, I ultimately have no solutions as to how to treat a paedophile, as they, like us, cannot change their sexual orientation. I do, however, agree that the current methods of responding to paedophiles is inefficient and not beneficial to us or them. I believe that if it was encouraged to receive psychiatric assistance for being a paedophile, and a paedophile who willingly self identified to receive said help was looked at in a good light, less sexual crimes would occur.
LAST NOTE: I actually strongly disagree with NAMBLA, as a child is not cognitively ready to make his or her own decisions. Even as teenagers, individuals are not fully mature in their frontal lobes which makes them more able to be manipulated, although most people gain the ability to think about complex problems during teenage years, so I still wouldn't feel personally comfortable knowing that people are having sex before around 16 - 18.
Conveniently , laws will usually agree with me. It's just not logical for an older person to have sexual intercourse with a child, due to a child's cognitive inability to fully understand consent.
So, to summarize, no, I don't logically believe that the shame and stigma placed on a paedophile is actually helping society, but neither do I logically believe that children are able to consent to intercourse.
They will hide.
And if a paedophile is hiding, you do not know he/she is a paedophile until he/she engages in sexual relations.
This is inefficient, helps no one, and increases the odds of not knowing how to keep children safe..
If John is a paedophile, and self identification as a paedophile is encouraged, John will be able to get psychiatric help, and individuals will know to keep their kids safe from him.
If John is a paedophile, and hides from fear of persecution, it is unlikely John will get therapy or be known as a paedophile until he "babysits" a relatives child.
This is logical.
Unfortunately, I ultimately have no solutions as to how to treat a paedophile, as they, like us, cannot change their sexual orientation. I do, however, agree that the current methods of responding to paedophiles is inefficient and not beneficial to us or them. I believe that if it was encouraged to receive psychiatric assistance for being a paedophile, and a paedophile who willingly self identified to receive said help was looked at in a good light, less sexual crimes would occur.
LAST NOTE: I actually strongly disagree with NAMBLA, as a child is not cognitively ready to make his or her own decisions. Even as teenagers, individuals are not fully mature in their frontal lobes which makes them more able to be manipulated, although most people gain the ability to think about complex problems during teenage years, so I still wouldn't feel personally comfortable knowing that people are having sex before around 16 - 18.
Conveniently , laws will usually agree with me. It's just not logical for an older person to have sexual intercourse with a child, due to a child's cognitive inability to fully understand consent.
So, to summarize, no, I don't logically believe that the shame and stigma placed on a paedophile is actually helping society, but neither do I logically believe that children are able to consent to intercourse.
![[-]](https://gayspeak.com/images/duende_v3_local/collapse.png)
