Pedophilia - The Next Taboo To Fall?

[Cow Poke]

To be honest Leonhard, if a man rapes a child I favor a quick execution.

"In the flesh", I'd rather he go to prison for a while, and word get out that he's a child raper.

[rogue06]

All right, that one is interesting.

These two, however, don't really mean anything. The question was whether watching child pornography would reduce a pedophile's odds of molestation; all these studies show is that people who watch pornography are likely to molest someone.

Don't you think that is important to the question of "whether watching child pornography would reduce a pedophile's odds of molestation" if it reveals that people who watch kiddie porn are in fact more likely to be child molesters? If nothing else it casts doubt that allowing child molesters access to child pornography acts as some sort of safety valve

One might as well conclude that inhalers cause asthma because a very high percentage of people who have asthma use inhalers.

I think that is a bad analogy. More fitting would be asking if kiddie porn acts like an inhaler in that it is useful in treating asthma. It appears that not only is it not but in facts aggravates it.

[rogue06]

"In the flesh", I'd rather he go to prison for a while, and word get out that he's a child raper.

Considering what usually happens to known child molesters in prison if they are not kept in isolation, a quick death would be more merciful.

[Cow Poke]

Considering what usually happens to known child molesters in prison if they are not kept in isolation, a quick death would be more merciful.

Yup. Which is why I qualified it as "in the flesh", as opposed to my view as a follower of Christ.

[NorrinRadd]

Than you didn't read very carefully because studies were presented that showed that giving a person porn, does not cure their addiction and the fact that there has not been any evidence presented, thus far, that proves the case. I'd have to say that is pretty damning. Let's start here:

Does giving a person the object of their addiction, cure their addiction?

Is there evidence that all addictions operate in the same way?

[NorrinRadd]

Nicotine and patches don't feed fantasies. and they are actually satisfying a craving. The craving of a pedophile is not to watch porn but to have sex with children. The porn doesn't satisfy that craving, it just drives it higher through fantasy. It would be like watching cigarette commercials to try to stop smoking. It would just make you want to smoke more. And if you think you should actually satisfy the pedophile with actual exposure to sex with children and taper them off, then that would be pretty sick, but that is what would be the equivalent to a "patch"

really? You said there was a "big controversy" among researchers and professionals about this very thing. Now you say there isn't any. Which is it?

If there is not any research, why is that? Could it be because none is needed? That researchers and professionals already know that giving people images that feed their mental fantasies will not help to cure them but will increase their desires? There is no research because none is needed. There is no "big controversy" except in your mind.

Does viewing pornography tend to increase or decrease the drive for "actual" sex? Is there actual *research* on this?

[NorrinRadd]

This reminds me of one of my favorite quotes from Doctor Who when the Doctor's companion stated that her reasoning couldn't be disputed because it was logical. The Doctor responded, "Logic, my dear Zoe, merely enables one to be wrong with authority."

I enjoy smart-aleck, nerd T-shirts. One of mine says, "Logic: The art of being wrong with confidence."

[Mountain Man]

Does viewing pornography tend to increase or decrease the drive for "actual" sex? Is there actual *research* on this?

It seems the answer is that it increases the drives. I posted this earlier:

Source: Men's Health

http://www.menshealth.com/sex-women/porn-debate

© Copyright Original Source

[Sparko]

Does viewing pornography tend to increase or decrease the drive for "actual" sex? Is there actual *research* on this?

have you read this thread? several studies have been cited. Yes, it increases the drive for "actual sex"



And you can ask most men about it and they can tell you from personal experience. That you even ask the question is a bit odd. You must be a lucky guy to never have been exposed to pornography, or have a very low sex drive.

In fact, it is the very POINT of pornography.

[The Thinker]

Usually by males around the same age. And often they were betrothed for a couple years and didn't consummate it until later. There are entire threads on this topic.

I agree it was probably usually the case that there were child to child-marriages, probably consummated later. But that in no way says that it was never the case that an older male married to an under age girl whom he could have sex with was legally allowed. And that's my point. I'm not trying to say this was the most common form of pedophile marriage, I'm asking was it legal at all and considered moral. I'm told over and over again by Christians on this site that they've got the objective, unchanging morality grounded in their god. And so I look at what their god is actually for and it strikes me as if this view is nonsense. Lilditzy can never get this in her lil brain.

[seer]

I'm told over and over again by Christians on this site that they've got the objective, unchanging morality grounded in their god. And so I look at what their god is actually for and it strikes me as if this view is nonsense. Lilditzy can never get this in her lil brain.

Well what strikes Thinker as nonsensical or not is not Gospel - so to speak. But what you seem to have trouble with is the idea that just because God allows certain things that He necessarily condones it. Yes He allowed things slavery, divorce, sin in general, and Israel to have a King - that however does not mean that God thinks these are ultimately the best for us. He is dealing with sinful men and our limitations and makes allowances. And as Christians we get our moral marching orders from primarily from the New Testament. And there we find the goal for humankind, and that for which we were created; to love God with all our hearts and to love our fellow man. This means there is a moral teleology for human beings, and that these ethics are universal and that the goal is immutable. There is a right way for humans to live and a wrong way - depending on how we conform to this goal or not. Atheism simply can not offer that.

[The Thinker]

Well what strikes Thinker as nonsensical or not is not Gospel - so to speak. But what you seem to have trouble with is the idea that just because God allows certain things that He necessarily condones it. Yes He allowed things slavery, divorce, sin in general, and Israel to have a King - that however does not mean that God thinks these are ultimately the best for us. He is dealing with sinful men and our limitations and makes allowances.

I can totally understand the idea that just because god allows certain things that he doesn't necessarily condone it. But you have no reason to argue that god really doesn't like those things. God doesn't say, "I really disagree with child marriage/executing gays, blasphemers, adulterers/slavery/indentured servitude, but I will begrudgingly allow it for now." You have no argument to claim god wants X but condones Y. I have no reason to think god thinks it's best for us not to have those things in our society. And I have no reason to think that your god couldn't tolerate wearing fabric of mixed clothing, yet he could "tolerate" women having to marry their rapist, executing people who worship other gods, as well as gays, adulterers, temple prostitutes, those who are prophesying incorrectly, those who have consensual premarital sex (for women only), etc. That's ridiculous, and if you weren't a Christian and were looking at Christianity from the outside, this would be plain as day. God is commanding genocide, commanding slavery (if the other tribe submits), he is not merely allowing them to happen with displeasure.

And as Christians we get our moral marching orders from primarily from the New Testament. And there we find the goal for humankind, and that for which we were created; to love God with all our hearts and to love our fellow man. This means there is a moral teleology for human beings, and that these ethics are universal and that the goal is immutable. There is a right way for humans to live and a wrong way - depending on how we conform to this goal or not. Atheism simply can not offer that.

The NT condones many of those horrible things too, though less. You cannot be commanded to love. Love doesn't work that way. I cannot command you to love Obama, or Thor. Thus Yahweh's first command is nonsensical. And as far as morality, How can you (1) claim objective morality is grounded in the Christian god's commands, and (2) believe that the Christian god is unchanging and ummutable, while (3) claiming that Christianity offers you moral progress and allows for the view that we can move past at least some biblical morality? That view is contradictory. Your ethics aren't universal. They are not even for humanity. They are for a tribe that existed 2000 years ago. You just assert these things over and over without evidential and logical justification. So all your last few sentences are nothing more than your unjustified opinion. That's it.

Back to the main topic, I understand you think pedophilia is wrong. But tell me why it is morally wrong for a 40 year old man to marry an 11 or 12 year old girl and have sex with her? Give me reasons from your religion - back it up with theology, and not your opinion.

[Jedidiah]

Back to the main topic, I understand you think pedophilia is wrong. But tell me why it is morally wrong for a 40 year old man to marry an 11 or 12 year old girl and have sex with her? Give me reasons from your religion - back it up with theology, and not your opinion.

I find pedophilia abhorrent without regard to my faith. I found it abhorrent before I was saved. Why do you have to have religious reasons?

[Jaecp]

It seems the answer is that it increases the drives. I posted this earlier:

Source: Men's Health

http://www.menshealth.com/sex-women/porn-debate

© Copyright Original Source

As was explained to you in detail like 3 days ago, this does not mean what you think it does. Stop posting it.

[Jaecp]

have you read this thread? several studies have been cited. Yes, it increases the drive for "actual sex"



And you can ask most men about it and they can tell you from personal experience. That you even ask the question is a bit odd. You must be a lucky guy to never have been exposed to pornography, or have a very low sex drive.

In fact, it is the very POINT of pornography.

None of the studies have been directly applicable Sparko. Something I knew before this which is why my proposal was of a thought experiment of if it worked because there's just not much we can go off of. Let me make that clear, zero of the studies posted are particularly useful as applied to the question of whether it's feasible for the goal I have described nor do they impact the methodology I described later on for one way it might work.