Is pedohilia bad?

[The Chaos Heart]

Because to have sex with a child is wrong.

You think sex with children are bad but you do not think sex with grown ups are? double moral.

Uhhh...yes. Children do not have the mental capability to properly understand sex, and are not in a position to consent. Adults are.

[Chinese Regions]

You think sex with children are bad but you do not think sex with grown ups are? double moral.

Uhhh...yes. Children do not have the mental capability to properly understand sex, and are not in a position to consent. Adults are.

And why is that bad since according to you, that does not exist?

[1000 Cats]

It's really not so much the dominance, so much as the fact that a very young individual is, once again, not psychologically developed enough for a sexual relationship. We as humans look a lot into sex; we are a very social species, and thus sex has developed, not only culturally but biologically, a very strong emotional implication that, one could theorize, is the reason that even in circumstances where the prepubescent child said "OK", and may not have been in quite the same situation as a raped person, or one overtly coerced, there are life-long consequences to the individual's psychological well-being.

Still there are plenty of young teens that have sex with others of their age, usually with much less severe consequences. But as an adult, who is used to having sex and displays more dominance over the younger person, it's a lot easier to, either on purpose or accidentally, pressure somone into doing something they will regret. I'm not opposed teenagers or even younger children having sex, I think that's perfectly normal and mostly harmless. An adult with a child is a different matter, for the lack of equality.

Teens have, however, entered puberty; by the time they are fourteen they tend to be well on their way (depending on the sex and the individual). Young children having sex tends to be quite a different matter, even in the case of a pubescent teen and a prepubescent youth.

[The Chaos Heart]

Uhhh...yes. Children do not have the mental capability to properly understand sex, and are not in a position to consent. Adults are.

And why is that bad since according to you, that does not exist?

Truthfully? It isn't bad. There's nothing truly bad about having sex with a child.

My opinion is that, because it causes harm, it is bad.


I have the ability to step out of my opinion, and realize that it is just opinion. That doesn't change my opinion though.

[Chinese Regions]

And why is that bad since according to you, that does not exist?

Truthfully? It isn't bad. There's nothing truly bad about having sex with a child.

My opinion is that, because it causes harm, it is bad.


I have the ability to step out of my opinion, and realize that it is just opinion. That doesn't change my opinion though.

Ok I think we are settled

[1000 Cats]

And why is that bad since according to you, that does not exist?

Truthfully? It isn't bad. There's nothing truly bad about having sex with a child.

My opinion is that, because it causes harm, it is bad.


I have the ability to step out of my opinion, and realize that it is just opinion. That doesn't change my opinion though.

But the term "wrong" can be objective?

[United low territories]

Teens have, however, entered puberty; by the time they are fourteen they tend to be well on their way (depending on the sex and the individual). Young children having sex tends to be quite a different matter, even in the case of a pubescent teen and a prepubescent youth.

Which demonstrates the same problem I had with an adult-teen relationship. A 14 year old teen can use his or her position to, either on pupose or accdentally, pressure a nine year old into things that child will regret. But two nine year olds that decide to play doctor are apparently ready for that step, if one of them is not it is a lot easier to reject an equal than to reject a more experienced, more developed and more dominant person.

[The Chaos Heart]

Truthfully? It isn't bad. There's nothing truly bad about having sex with a child.

My opinion is that, because it causes harm, it is bad.


I have the ability to step out of my opinion, and realize that it is just opinion. That doesn't change my opinion though.

But the term "wrong" can be objective?

No. It can't. Nothing in my post implied that. My opinion that sex with a child is wrong is, as I said, opinion. Not objective.

Basically, what I'm saying is, the idea that sex with a child is wrong is not true, because it's opinion. But I don't care. I'm still going to hold that and other opinions of mine. Why? because life would be fucking boring as hell otherwise.

[Zoysia]

I made known my opinions on pedophilia.

I just also have the ability to objectively look at the situation, and realize my opinions are just that; opinions.

I also like to look at things objectively and would like to further the discussion on good and bad, if you don't mind. (I'm having trouble falling asleep and I find this interesting.) What is good itself in essence does not change, for we define things as good when it increase happiness, pleasure, ect. and bad is the absence of good. Rather the thing that changes or is considered opinion would be ethics and morals which is what we "consider" to be good or bad. Ethics and morals are what changes and are opinion rather than good and bad itself. If we were to put it in the context of the discussion. It is more of a problem of labeling of the words.

[United low territories]

Ah, get a topic.

[The Chaos Heart]

I made known my opinions on pedophilia.

I just also have the ability to objectively look at the situation, and realize my opinions are just that; opinions.

I also like to look at things objectively and would like to further the discussion on good and bad, if you don't mind. (I'm having trouble falling asleep and I find this interesting.) What is good itself in essence does not change, for we define things as good when it increase happiness, pleasure, ect. and bad is the absence of good. Rather the thing that changes or is considered opinion would be ethics and morals which is what we "consider" to be good or bad. Ethics and morals are what changes and are opinion rather than good and bad itself. If we were to put it in the context of the discussion. It is more of a problem of labeling of the words.

Some would argue that that it is not good to feel pleasure and happiness. The Catholic church of the Middle Ages was a lot like this actually.

[The Chaos Heart]

You also caught me at a bad time, as I was just about to go to bed. I'll stay up for a bit, but if I drop off suddenly, that's why. It's almost 4 in the morning here.

[Zoysia]

I also like to look at things objectively and would like to further the discussion on good and bad, if you don't mind. (I'm having trouble falling asleep and I find this interesting.) What is good itself in essence does not change, for we define things as good when it increase happiness, pleasure, ect. and bad is the absence of good. Rather the thing that changes or is considered opinion would be ethics and morals which is what we "consider" to be good or bad. Ethics and morals are what changes and are opinion rather than good and bad itself. If we were to put it in the context of the discussion. It is more of a problem of labeling of the words.

Some would argue that that it is not good to feel pleasure and happiness. The Catholic church of the Middle Ages was a lot like this actually.

Then let us redefine good, as it's essence do not change but rather the thing that changes is what we consider to be good. That change is the ethics or morals of the times, region, culture, ect.

[Vecherd]

You think sex with children are bad but you do not think sex with grown ups are? double moral.

Uhhh...yes. Children do not have the mental capability to properly understand sex, and are not in a position to consent. Adults are.

So now you call children mentally retarded, you know there are a different between kids, not all are stupid.

[Zeth Rekia]

Ah, get a topic.

Conclusion: Pedophilia is still bad.

[Zoysia]

You also caught me at a bad time, as I was just about to go to bed. I'll stay up for a bit, but if I drop off suddenly, that's why. It's almost 4 in the morning here.

It's almost 6am here, but I do understand if you drop off. But thank you for replying so far.

[1000 Cats]

But the term "wrong" can be objective?

No. It can't. Nothing in my post implied that. My opinion that sex with a child is wrong is, as I said, opinion. Not objective.

Basically, what I'm saying is, the idea that sex with a child is wrong is not true, because it's opinion. But I don't care. I'm still going to hold that and other opinions of mine. Why? because life would be fucking boring as hell otherwise.

Is it also your opinion that an individual should be prosecuted due to an opinion that he has done wrong?

[Chinese Regions]

Truthfully? It isn't bad. There's nothing truly bad about having sex with a child.

My opinion is that, because it causes harm, it is bad.


I have the ability to step out of my opinion, and realize that it is just opinion. That doesn't change my opinion though.

But the term "wrong" can be objective?

My definition of wrong is if it harms the species, it is wrong. Murder is wrong because it makes one member less of the species, bringing the species one body closer to extinction. Cannibalism is good for an animal like a mantis who eats her mate because it provides nutrients for the female and her young when they hatch, maybe if the mantis didn't eat her mate then her young would be weak and they would be vulnerable to dying and if they die, the species becomes smaller and brining them closer to extinction.
Humans are stronger and are bigger and consume large amounts of food, they don't require cannibalism to survive, but when they are on a desert island or a prison with no food, the cliché is to turn to cannibalism, because they need food to survive.
Paedophilia has psychological effects on the victim and some (Not all) tend to harm their victims physically also. Both are harmful in a way. Too much harm means death.

[The Chaos Heart]

Some would argue that that it is not good to feel pleasure and happiness. The Catholic church of the Middle Ages was a lot like this actually.

Then let us redefine good, as it's essence do not change but rather the thing that changes is what we consider to be good. That change is the ethics or morals of the times, region, culture, ect.

But by redefining good, we are essentially changing we consider good.

This may not be the most accurate example, but i'll give this a whirl. A murder. the person who was murdered, a d obviously their friends and family, feel this act was bad. It did not bring them pleasure, but pain. the murderer, however, felt great pleasure.

Given your definitions, the act should be both good and bad. But this simply is not rational. Yeah, it's true for the individual yada yada. But "true for an individual" is code for opinion.

Since the situation cannot be both good and bad, and both sides are subjugating it to their opinion of good and bad, then the action becomes inherently void of these things. It becomes neither good nor bad. It is simply an action that occurred at some point in time.

Now, you'll say "but it's only bad because they experienced pain, and it's only good because they experienced pleasure, so this must prove my point". But I disagree. Pleasure was brought to the murderer. If pleasure automatically = good, why then is the murder not good in the eyes of the victims family and friends?

This is because it's not good in their eyes. In this situation, the pleasure was bad. Wich shows that good and bad don't even have set ideologies, and merely change on the whim of a person, when they don't like something or like something. But this makes it opinion, not fact. Which means it's not truth.

[DaWoad]

Uhhh...yes. Children do not have the mental capability to properly understand sex, and are not in a position to consent. Adults are.

So now you call children mentally retarded, you know there are a different between kids, not all are stupid.

1- you meant double standard.
2- the fact that children are in capable of informed consent before puberty (and, in many cases during puberty as well) is based on some pretty good science and backed by pretttty much every study performed on the psychological damage done to children who've been the victims of pedophilia.

[The Chaos Heart]

Uhhh...yes. Children do not have the mental capability to properly understand sex, and are not in a position to consent. Adults are.

So now you call children mentally retarded, you know there are a different between kids, not all are stupid.

Uhhh...no. I didn't call them mentally retarded. I said they aren't fully mentally developed. Unless you believe that a 6 year old is as developed as a 25 year old (Hint: They aren't.).

[The Chaos Heart]

No. It can't. Nothing in my post implied that. My opinion that sex with a child is wrong is, as I said, opinion. Not objective.

Basically, what I'm saying is, the idea that sex with a child is wrong is not true, because it's opinion. But I don't care. I'm still going to hold that and other opinions of mine. Why? because life would be fucking boring as hell otherwise.

Is it also your opinion that an individual should be prosecuted due to an opinion that he has done wrong?

You meant o find out whether or not he truly did the act? Yes.

[1000 Cats]

Then let us redefine good, as it's essence do not change but rather the thing that changes is what we consider to be good. That change is the ethics or morals of the times, region, culture, ect.

But by redefining good, we are essentially changing we consider good.

This may not be the most accurate example, but i'll give this a whirl. A murder. the person who was murdered, a d obviously their friends and family, feel this act was bad. It did not bring them pleasure, but pain. the murderer, however, felt great pleasure.

Given your definitions, the act should be both good and bad. But this simply is not rational. Yeah, it's true for the individual yada yada. But "true for an individual" is code for opinion.

Since the situation cannot be both good and bad, and both sides are subjugating it to their opinion of good and bad, then the action becomes inherently void of these things. It becomes neither good nor bad. It is simply an action that occurred at some point in time.

Now, you'll say "but it's only bad because they experienced pain, and it's only good because they experienced pleasure, so this must prove my point". But I disagree. Pleasure was brought to the murderer. If pleasure automatically = good, why then is the murder not good in the eyes of the victims family and friends?

This is because it's not good in their eyes. In this situation, the pleasure was bad. Wich shows that good and bad don't even have set ideologies, and merely change on the whim of a person, when they don't like something or like something. But this makes it opinion, not fact. Which means it's not truth.

If we summed all the 'good' and the 'bad', would that not form an objective appraisal? In this case, the murderer is the only one who feels good; however, the victim, the victim's family, and even the whole community, feels bad, making the murder a bad thing.

[DaWoad]

But by redefining good, we are essentially changing we consider good.

This may not be the most accurate example, but i'll give this a whirl. A murder. the person who was murdered, a d obviously their friends and family, feel this act was bad. It did not bring them pleasure, but pain. the murderer, however, felt great pleasure.

Given your definitions, the act should be both good and bad. But this simply is not rational. Yeah, it's true for the individual yada yada. But "true for an individual" is code for opinion.

Since the situation cannot be both good and bad, and both sides are subjugating it to their opinion of good and bad, then the action becomes inherently void of these things. It becomes neither good nor bad. It is simply an action that occurred at some point in time.

Now, you'll say "but it's only bad because they experienced pain, and it's only good because they experienced pleasure, so this must prove my point". But I disagree. Pleasure was brought to the murderer. If pleasure automatically = good, why then is the murder not good in the eyes of the victims family and friends?

This is because it's not good in their eyes. In this situation, the pleasure was bad. Wich shows that good and bad don't even have set ideologies, and merely change on the whim of a person, when they don't like something or like something. But this makes it opinion, not fact. Which means it's not truth.

If we summed all the 'good' and the 'bad', would that not form an objective appraisal? In this case, the murderer is the only one who feels good; however, the victim, the victim's family, and even the whole community, feels bad, making the murder a bad thing.

doesn't work. Ultimately murder could be "good" because, despite the pain and suffering of victim and family, others might benefit from the victims death to a degree that it outweighed that pain and suffering.
Yet murder is still wrong in my opinion.

[The Chaos Heart]

If we summed all the 'good' and the 'bad', would that not form an objective appraisal? In this case, the murderer is the only one who feels good; however, the victim, the victim's family, and even the whole community, feels bad, making the murder a bad thing.

I'm not quite sure what you mean, so forgive me if I miss the mark here.

No, it would not. Pleasure still arose out of the event, as with pain. Regardless of who it was inflicted upon, if good and bad were objective, the situation should be able to be both good and bad at the same time. Which is, or course, a paradox. The only way to rationalize this situation is to state that good and bad are not objective. Then the situation can become both good and bad, because it's a matter of perspective. But in doing this, it also forces good and bad into the opinion state, denying them truthfulness.