Pedophilia is reclassified as a sexual orientation, does not wanting your child to be a pedophile make you a bigot? /r/worldnews discusses (np.reddit.com)
SubredditDrama
99 ups - 38 downs = 61 votes
130 comments submitted at 23:37:38 on Oct 27, 2013 by NovaDeez
Oh sweet lord jesus, the prophecy comes true. I'm fucking sick of all the people who say that pedophilia and homosexuality are fundamentally different. I've been saying it for years that the way we treat pedophiles is no way different than the way homosexuals were several decades ago, and that eventually we would wake up to it. Homosexuality used to be considered a sick disgusting disease, and then it we stopped calling it a disease, but merely a harmless orientation and now today it is increasingly accepted with open arms. I have absolutely no doubt that pedophilia is on the same path.
Look at all the drama threads relating to it! More than once on Reddit has the negative attitude towards pedophiles been questioned. The doubters get called sick and "apologists" but they are there and are in increasing numbers. So many times I've been told "pedophilia is not an orientation it's a sick DISEASE" and now I and others like me will hold up these facts and rub it in their bigoted faces until they bleed.
That article is honestly one of the most inspiring things I've seen in my entire life. Mark my words, this is societal progress happening right in front of your eyes.
> harmless orientation
no
>That article is honestly one of the most inspiring things I've seen in my entire life
then it's gonna be a real bummer when you find out it's completely fabricated.
http://www.reddit.com/r/SubredditDrama/comments/1pch43/pedophiliaisreclassifiedasa_sexual/cd1234n
I don't how that's fabricated at all.
You don't see how the DSM V never calls it a sexual orientation even a little bit?
Woah woah woah dude, wrong sub. Popcorn is consumed here.
You want to go back into that thread with whatever it is you're shopping around.
>I've been saying it for years that the way we treat pedophiles is no way different than the way homosexuals were several decades ago, and that eventually we would wake up to it.
The key difference being that it was wrong to treat homosexuals that way, whereas it's not wrong to treat pedophiles that way.
We treat murderers the same way today that we used to treat heretics and witches. Does that mean that we're wrong about how we treat murderers? For fuck's sake, think.
>The key difference being that it was wrong to treat homosexuals that way, whereas it's not wrong to treat pedophiles that way.
50 years from now, people will be disgusted by statements like that.
>We treat murderers the same way today that we used to treat heretics and witches. Does that mean that we're wrong about how we treat murderers? For fuck's sake, think.
I'm the one that is thinking here, not you. Pedophiles and homosexuals having nothing in common with murderers.
>50 years from now, people will be disgusted by statements like that.
I'd like a citation for that.
Well, I'd hope that in 50 years the reaction to pedophilia is more positive, not in the way we currently view homosexuality, but instead that we react with sympathy and push for mental help instead of walling them off from society like a leper colony and pushing non-acting pedophiles to molest children.
But yeah, the inability for a child to consent to a relationship with an adult prevents pedophilia from ever being a "legit" sexuality instead of a paraphilia that's ultimately harmful to its host and any children they may harm.
I agree completely. I hope I haven't come off as completely unsympathetic, but it will not be accepted in 50 years.
You'd like a citation for a prediction about a future shift in public sentiment? What would that even look like?
That's the point- it doesn't exist.
First off, it wasn't I who downvoted you.
Secondly, not all statements require citations. To turn regular conversation into a Wikipedia article is foolish. A feeling about what might happen cannot be adequately backed up by a pithy statistic.
That doesn't mean that it's wrong to say, for example, "You're going to regret not having asked her to marry you". You did not pull that statement out of nowhere. It just means they're two different kinds of statements. It's an opinionated feeling and it too has a place in discourse.
Well I haven't downvoted you either so let's stop talking about that, okay?
>Secondly, not all statements require citations. To turn regular conversation into a Wikipedia article is foolish. A feeling about what might happen cannot be adequately backed up by a pithy statistic.
Oh, sure. But there's got to be a basis for an opinion. What would lead someone to believe pedophilia and sex with prepubescent children would be accepted society-wide in 50 years?
He said nothing about actually raping children, so let's get that out of the way.
A rationale for why you think some way is way different than a citation. One is based on your thinking, the other is based on someone else's thoughts or observations. If I were to speak for them, I'd assume their basis is that increasing acceptance in views is pretty constant throughout most of history, so it will eventually be so that pedophilia is accepted.
That's debatable and not my personal thinking, but it doesn't come from nowhere.
>He said nothing about actually raping children, so let's get that out of the way.
Of course not; it'd be called sex in that future.
>A rationale for why you think some way is way different than a citation. One is based on your thinking, the other is based on someone else's thoughts or observations.
It may be "accepted", but it I can't see a society where pedophilia is viewed as harmless or glady accepted. It's a sad situation for pedophiles, but that's just wishful thinking on his part. Also, according to other comments in this thread, it's not even an orientation so he's way off-base with his thinking anyway.
Common sense?
>My ass.
Thought so.
Do you really think the majority of the world will ever be okay with some guy having sex with a child? Regardless of the amount of copy pasta that is developed and shown to them?
Homosexuality does not inherently violate the consent of someone when acted on. If you're arguing whether the age of consent should be 16 or 18, there's some argument there. But to say that pedophilia as a whole is like homosexuality as a whole is laughable.
It's like when some right wing nutjob tries to compare gay marriage to being allowed to marry an animal.
Wait, I thought that's what gay marriage meant. It was nice to see all those kissing men support it.
Are you saying we can't marry animals?
> ... but merely a harmless orientation and now today it is increasingly accepted with open arms. I have absolutely no doubt that pedophilia is on the same path.
Do you think pedophilia is a harmless orientation?
I wish people like you would just shut the fuck up. It's doing more harm to people who are sexually attracted to people who can consent than it is protecting pedophiles. There's no reason to connect the two things in the first place so just stop now.
Your wish will not be granted. The fact that the only response you can muster is to plug your ears and say "stop talking! I don't want to consider other ideas! I'm always right!" is perfect evidence of just how fantastically wrong you are. I have absolutely no intention whatsoever or in any shape or form of "shutting up." I stand by my convictions unwavering.
Perhaps your convictions might justify some wavering?
RES tagged as "Blatant child molester". There needs to be some kind of list you can be put on so everyone will know to keep their kids away from you.
Haha I haven't molested anyone, my friend, just as I don't have to be gay to support gay rights.
Anyway, tag away, but this is not my only account.
To be honest you ARE pretty angry about people not liking pedophiles. That's at least a little worrying.
Pedophiles =/= rapists
Shaming someone until they act on it is a damaging attitude.
Children can't consent. Ergo having sex with a child is rape. Ergo all pedophiles want to or have comitted rape. Ergo rapists or wannabe rapists.
My point is you are very passionate about people who hurt children, but you have not really even acknowledged the children. It makes me think you either have a close friend that is a pedophile or you feel that way yourself. Sorry to be so openly judgmental but that's just the way you come across and the way a lot of people are seeing you here and downvoting you because of.
It's not anyone's fault but your own when you finally snap and start raping kids. Don't be passing that buck.
>Your wish will not be granted.
Such bravery.
> I'm fucking sick of all the people who say that pedophilia and homosexuality are fundamentally different
You can be a practicing homosexual without raping someone (having sex with them without their consent).
This cannot be said of a practicing pedophile.
Two adults fucking in a non-conventional way with both totally consenting? I really don't care, no matter how weird it is.
One adult fucking someone else in a non-conventional way without full consent? Major problem.
Wanting sex with a 15-17 year old is more okay, only because if it walks and has boobs, our inner caveman wants it.
Now if you are talking about someone wanting sex with a 10 year old, that is fucked up. It causes harm to the kid, whereas a 15-17 year old can consent pretty consciously. A ten year old cannot consent. So age matters in what you consider pedophilia. If you are talking about a late teen, you have some notable points in your argument.
>inner caveman
that's such shitty logic
Your inner caveman has natural inclinations towards rape and murder, too.
Civilisation is about getting rid of the inner caveman and behaving like a decent human being rather than an ape. Biological functions do not make something morally correct.
a 15-17 year old can not consent at least not legally in most of the states.
They can in a lot of countries in Europe.
And excluding 15 year olds, much of the United States, too. Age of consent is 16 in a majority of states, and 17 & 18 are split roughly evenly over the rest.