'Man'imal- Where to draw the line?

[Homburg]

See, I don't get the idea of bestiality being attractive because I can't have it. I'm fine with the idea that I can't have it. Doesn't bother me at all. There are plenty of things I can't have that I really just don't mind being denied. George Bush would not let me tap his ass (I'm assuming, never asked), and I'm alright with that. Forbidden fruit does not automatically mean tastier fruit.

Maybe I'm crazy, but I'm one of those people that finds "Yes" sexier than "No".

 

[Ganyeka]

If you refuse to "judge" someone who engages in bestiality on the basis they can't help what turns them on, if you won't say it is wrong on the basis that something that repulses you might turn someone else on - where do you draw the line?

At what point can we all agree that it doesn't matter what the individual thinks, feels or rationalises, that the act is universally condemnable? Paedophilia seems like it is beyond the pail, yet those involved in it, and those merely aroused by the fantasy of it and who consume images and other material related to it, have all sorts of nifty mental gymnastics they use to justify it in their own minds and within their own groups.

Beastiality seems to me to share a lot of these characteristics.

Whow do you rank these:
- paedophilia
- Beastiality
- Direct Lineage Incest
- Other Incest ???

Someone said that you "can't help what you think" and on one level that is true to an extent - on the purely instinctive and immediate level. But I think it is commonly accepted that we CAN and often do control how we think about something. We can and do CHOOSE our attitudes to things that happen to us. I remember from first year Psych being told that how we think controls how we feel. The cognitive processing of inputs regulates the emotional outputs. And we CAN exercise a great degree of control over those cognitive processes.

 

[YourCaptor]

If you refuse to "judge" someone who engages in bestiality on the basis they can't help what turns them on, if you won't say it is wrong on the basis that something that repulses you might turn someone else on - where do you draw the line?

At what point can we all agree that it doesn't matter what the individual thinks, feels or rationalises, that the act is universally condemnable? Paedophilia seems like it is beyond the pail, yet those involved in it, and those merely aroused by the fantasy of it and who consume images and other material related to it, have all sorts of nifty mental gymnastics they use to justify it in their own minds and within their own groups.

Beastiality seems to me to share a lot of these characteristics.

Whow do you rank these:
- paedophilia
- Beastiality
- Direct Lineage Incest
- Other Incest ???

Someone said that you "can't help what you think" and on one level that is true to an extent - on the purely instinctive and immediate level. But I think it is commonly accepted that we CAN and often do control how we think about something. We can and do CHOOSE our attitudes to things that happen to us. I remember from first year Psych being told that how we think controls how we feel. The cognitive processing of inputs regulates the emotional outputs. And we CAN exercise a great degree of control over those cognitive processes.

I don’t believe that there is a universal underlying principles of rite and wrong.

There are no “nifty mental gymnastics” required to disagree with you, I am not you, we are different, it’s as simple as that.

Pedophilia even has gray areas due to people stereotyping it.

Its definitely not a universal wrong, in cultures past girls where married at the age of 12 and nobody thought it odd.

When it comes to morals, I believe in more of a bottom up structure, where individuals for whatever reason like and dislike certain things get together and form cliques, subcultures, cultures, nations, etc, all building on smaller elements.

Just because a nation (or whatever group) has a specific personality does not mean all those bellow it conform to it, someone like me for example may not approve of nationalism at all.

 

[Ganyeka]

I don’t believe that there is a universal underlying principles of rite and wrong.

There are no “nifty mental gymnastics” required to disagree with you, I am not you, we are different, it’s as simple as that.

Pedophilia even has gray areas due to people stereotyping it.

Its definitely not a universal wrong, in cultures past girls where married at the age of 12 and nobody thought it odd.

When it comes to morals, I believe in more of a bottom up structure, where individuals for whatever reason like and dislike certain things get together and form cliques, subcultures, cultures, nations, etc, all building on smaller elements.

Just because a nation (or whatever group) has a specific personality does not mean all those bellow it conform to it, someone like me for example may not approve of nationalism at all.

I disagree that paedophilia has any shades of gray, and referring to ancient cultures is irrelevant - except to serve as a great illustration of exactly the type of mental gymnastics people use to justify a postition. "This enlightened ancient society recognized x", or "The relationship I have with Y is special and others can't understand it because of Z". The cops who prosecute peadophiles and the people who's lives are destroyed by it would probably disagree that there are shades of gray too. You say it's not a universal wrong - perhaps you can point to the society today that legally permits it?

You're theory about bottom up morality is interesting but it seems the argument defeats it's own purpose. The laws of a democratic nation are those, at least in theory, that are put in place by representatives elected by the people. And the bottom line is that you need to abide by the law of the land. It's pretty simple. You can't choose to accept and take from it what you want without obligation or responsibility. Cliques and subcultures within that framework are natural, but where their ends are illegal that means at some level they have been judged to be harmful to society as a whole.

 

[00Syd]

All I'm going to say is this: Legality does not equal morality or rightness (and vice versa), The majority is not always right, and elected leaders are not always right or looking out for the best interests of society as a whole. To think otherwise is naive.

 

[twysted73]

If you refuse to "judge" someone who engages in bestiality on the basis they can't help what turns them on, if you won't say it is wrong on the basis that something that repulses you might turn someone else on - where do you draw the line?
.

I suppose it all ends where each of our own personal preferences for ourselves begins.
You draw the line in the sand where you, personally, feel is your limit.
Anything past that line isn't for you.
And as such, it falls out of your own right to judge or to pass judgement on unless you personally feel that to be comfortable sharing this planet, there cannot exist this other mindset. This other activity which, if placed within your preference boundries, would repulse and sicken you.

Genocide. Child abuse. Animal abuse. Murder. I feel that way about these things.
These are things I cannot abide by and still exist on the same earth as those who enjoy them.

When I began playing 's advocate (noone else seemed to want to so I thought I'd help progress the thread since conflict and/or differing opinions are the lifeblood of any conversation) I didn't think I'd find myself being the posterchild for bestiality advocacy.
What I truly felt I was defending was not the act itself necessarily, but the right for someone else to choose to do so.

If fireplay isn't for me, if infantilism and CBT isn't for me, then I draw a line in the sane and allow it to exist with others who enjoy it.
Live and let live.

Only when it comes to those aformentioned topics can I not stand by and simply allow it to happen. Because then it reaches in and effects me within my bounds of preference in ways that I will not permit.

 

[YourCaptor]

I disagree that paedophilia has any shades of gray, and referring to ancient cultures is irrelevant - except to serve as a great illustration of exactly the type of mental gymnastics people use to justify a postition. "This enlightened ancient society recognized x", or "The relationship I have with Y is special and others can't understand it because of Z". The cops who prosecute peadophiles and the people who's lives are destroyed by it would probably disagree that there are shades of gray too. You say it's not a universal wrong - perhaps you can point to the society today that legally permits it?

You're theory about bottom up morality is interesting but it seems the argument defeats it's own purpose. The laws of a democratic nation are those, at least in theory, that are put in place by representatives elected by the people. And the bottom line is that you need to abide by the law of the land. It's pretty simple. You can't choose to accept and take from it what you want without obligation or responsibility. Cliques and subcultures within that framework are natural, but where their ends are illegal that means at some level they have been judged to be harmful to society as a whole.

Pedophilia is not a law or an act, it is a sexual attraction, and it is legal in all nations.

The example of past civilizations was not to point out their enlightenedness, but that people just like you and me in a different time thought it perfectly normal.

I don’t know about Australian law, however the founding father knew a true democracy is impossible, if it was attempted laws would change every 5 minutes with majorities representing tiny percentages of the nation. The reason the USA is a republic and has only 2 political parties is to solve this problem.

In the democratic process, when a political question comes up, a small group says no, another small group says yes, the majority says a whole much of different maybes. This is why America has two parties, as to force all citizens into either yes or no situation. That’s why issues always shift between democrats and republicans, yes you have your poplar issues, but in the middle everything is gray and thing switch back and forth between the parties.

Interestingly enough the founding fathers never thought the political correct ideas we have now to be of any value. Had one of the founding fathers kids been abuse they would have no doubt loaded up their musket and gone out to shoot the guy, no trial, no nothing. They never considered any politics to be the end all totalitarian law, if they where alive today they would probably lock and load and try for another revolution, maybe reinstall slavery, who knows what they want.

 

[Ganyeka]

Pedophilia as a desire or attraction may not be an offence, but it invariably involves the commission of crimes - all of which are are illegal in every nation of which I am aware. And this inevitable rise of criminal acts from the this awfully damaging attraction isn't just my opinion. There is an Australian Institute of Criminology paper written on it, as well as any number of other studies that correlate.

Nice exercise in hair splitting though. I am starting to wonder at your motives in defending it.

Your political observations are your opinion in large part, and that is fine. But some of what you say is just plain wrong. You have, right now, 5 political parties in America in theoretical Presidential Contention. In addition, there are any number of other Political Parties recognized in the USA, dozens of them in fact. Everything else in your reasoning that hinges on this incorrect assumption is also flawed. IE most of what you have said. Your comments about how laws change also seems to be based on a flawed understanding of how your own system operates, but I don't feel like a Government 101 debate.

Your other observations, such as the ones on the attitudes and beliefs of the founding fathers frankly made no sense to me, so I'll leave them alone.

 

[00Syd]

The other parties are so weak and powerless they aren't even worth mentioning, but you want to talk politics? Go to the Hillary Thread.

And from what I know (admittedly not a lot) most pedophiles, people who are attracted by children, are self aware enough to realize that their attraction is harmful, it is only in times of weakness that they act on it. Sure, there are going to be people who don't see that is wrong, but I have seen interviews with pedophiles who are grateful for pedophile laws because they see them as a means to protect the world from themselves.

I don't judge someone because of what attracts them, I think for the most part thats unconscious, but I do judge people by their actions.

For me, acting on a pedophiliac attraction is wrong, period.

And I guess I don't care enough about bestiality to judge people who do it. Wrong, yes, gross yes, but not terrible enough to even be close to pedophila.

 

[intothewoods]

I think you are right to focus on conscious acts. The thing is - having an attraction, an urge, etc., is prompted by something in our unconscious. Discussing it here is a conscious act. How you discuss it is a conscious act. Writing a story might be cathartic and limiting, but it might also be glorifying those urges. It all depends on those conscious choices and how they are made. And I do judge people by those. You can make a judgment without that judgment being, and lo, you are now sent to h-e-double hockey sticks.

 

[Ganyeka]

The other parties are so weak and powerless they aren't even worth mentioning, but you want to talk politics? Go to the Hillary Thread.

And from what I know (admittedly not a lot) most pedophiles, people who are attracted by children, are self aware enough to realize that their attraction is harmful, it is only in times of weakness that they act on it. Sure, there are going to be people who don't see that is wrong, but I have seen interviews with pedophiles who are grateful for pedophile laws because they see them as a means to protect the world from themselves.

I don't judge someone because of what attracts them, I think for the most part thats unconscious, but I do judge people by their actions.

For me, acting on a pedophiliac attraction is wrong, period.

And I guess I don't care enough about bestiality to judge people who do it. Wrong, yes, gross yes, but not terrible enough to even be close to pedophila.

The studies show that pedophilic attraction pretty much inevitably leads to the commission of crimes, such as production or consumption of child pornography, grooming children for sex, sexual abuse etc. And your contention that the majority of pedophiles are flawed but noble beings who are self aware and self limiting to the best of their abilities is hopelessly flawed, unsupported by the evidence and studies and completely at odds with all of the anecdotal evidence presented by things such as the extensive web-enabled child pornography and pedophile rings that exist globally.

Interviews with pedophiles saying they are grateful for the laws because they protect the world from themselves are a drop in the ocean, and only get a run in the media because they a) rate and cause controversy, and b) are so the antithesis of your "average" pedophile. Some may try to limit their activities, but the overwhelming preponderence of evidence shows that even these examples commit crimes, and their risk of high impact crimes, like child sexual abuse, is extremely high. At best they propogate and perpetuate the abuse involved in the production of child pornography and participate in a community of like minded pedophiles thereby expanding and encouraging it's existence and the harm it causes.

You see, I DO judge someone by what attracts them. It is difficult to say this without looking harsh, but if you find that images of small children turn you on, then you are fundamentally mentally unwell. There are all sorts of psychological studies and papers written on the topic and NONE of them say "Oh, this pedophilia, it's OK, nothing really wrong there." There are a variety of causes postulated for this fundamental defect in psychological development, but regardless of what the cause, it is a disorder. And a dangerous one. So on that basis, I judge anyone who would be classed as a pedophile as mentally defective and dangerous. It might not be their fault, but sorry, I don't give a shit. No-one would have a problem with that type of reasoning if I applied it to a Pit Bull with a known propensity to bite and an aggressive personality disorder.

And I agree that Beastiality is not on the same order as Pedophilia, but the fundamental psychological background - ie that it is a disorder - isn't entirely dissimilar.

And who do you reckon are the main group in prison who refuse to get psychological treatment for the mental issue that gave rise to the crime that saw them locked up?

 

[00Syd]

Again, I am not trying to rationalize pedophilia or besteality, both of which I think are very wrong, I just want to say:

It wasn't that long ago that an interest in BDSM or being gay was seen as a serious mental disorder. Some people do still see them that way. And what we see as pedophilia today was normal in many "civilized" countries not that long ago. Its really all your perception.

Ooooooonly sayin'

Mental health is pretty complicated stuff.

I'm not disputing you, I'm just saying that psychological papers and studies are not sources I rely on to make a point. There is rarely a consensus or standard, and when there is, it hardly stays the same for longer than a few months.

 

[Ganyeka]

Again, I am not trying to rationalize pedophilia or besteality, both of which I think are very wrong, I just want to say:

It wasn't that long ago that an interest in BDSM or being gay was seen as a serious mental disorder. Some people do still see them that way. And what we see as pedophilia today was normal in many "civilized" countries not that long ago. Its really all your perception.

Ooooooonly sayin'

Mental health is pretty complicated stuff.

You are right, mental health is tricky stuff, and views change over time - hopefully as we learn more and evolve as a civilisation. We learn, we change and we hopefully modify our laws, culture and behaviours to remove or control things and attitudes that this process has revealed to be harmful, or unenlightened. Just because human sacrifice was seen as a legitimate way to get better crops for the Mayans, that doesn't mean we should have sacrifical alters operatin on sheep stations in Queensland.

A deviation from a theoretical "norm" is one thing - like homosexuality, the poo players or BDSM. These aren't even now "mainstream" (and some of the more devout BDSM'ers would, if the general public knew what was really involved, probably be considered pretty damn wierd, and as for the joy of excrement, well, a dirty nappy can have me dry reaching) but they also aren't considered dangerous or necessarily harmful (although anything taken to excess and extremes can be harmful, including normality).

Saying it's really "all your perception" is a little broad. If I perceive that it's ok to have a relationship with a 12 year old is that some kind of excuse?

 

[BiBunny]

You are right, mental health is tricky stuff, and views change over time - hopefully as we learn more and evolve as a civilisation. We learn, we change and we hopefully modify our laws, culture and behaviours to remove or control things and attitudes that this process has revealed to be harmful, or unenlightened. Just because human sacrifice was seen as a legitimate way to get better crops for the Mayans, that doesn't mean we should have sacrifical alters operatin on sheep stations in Queensland.

A deviation from a theoretical "norm" is one thing - like homosexuality, the poo players or BDSM. These aren't even now "mainstream" (and some of the more devout BDSM'ers would, if the general public knew what was really involved, probably be considered pretty damn wierd, and as for the joy of excrement, well, a dirty nappy can have me dry reaching) but they also aren't considered dangerous or necessarily harmful (although anything taken to excess and extremes can be harmful, including normality).

Saying it's really "all your perception" is a little broad. If I perceive that it's ok to have a relationship with a 12 year old is that some kind of excuse?

I'm starting to get suspicious about how hung up you are on pedophilia.

I almost actually responded seriously, but it's obvious you're going to throw up the 12-year-old as a rebuttal no matter what. So if we say, "Yes, you're so much smarter/wiser/whatever than we are. You're right; we're wrong," does that mean we can move on with the discussion?

 

[Homburg]

I'm starting to get suspicious about how hung up you are on pedophilia.

Yep, I'd gotten to that "Methinks the lady doth protest too much."

Someone has been spending time on the homestead plying underage ewes with rice beer.

 

[00Syd]

You are right, mental health is tricky stuff, and views change over time - hopefully as we learn more and evolve as a civilisation. We learn, we change and we hopefully modify our laws, culture and behaviours to remove or control things and attitudes that this process has revealed to be harmful, or unenlightened. Just because human sacrifice was seen as a legitimate way to get better crops for the Mayans, that doesn't mean we should have sacrifical alters operatin on sheep stations in Queensland.

A deviation from a theoretical "norm" is one thing - like homosexuality, the poo players or BDSM. These aren't even now "mainstream" (and some of the more devout BDSM'ers would, if the general public knew what was really involved, probably be considered pretty damn wierd, and as for the joy of excrement, well, a dirty nappy can have me dry reaching) but they also aren't considered dangerous or necessarily harmful (although anything taken to excess and extremes can be harmful, including normality).

Saying it's really "all your perception" is a little broad. If I perceive that it's ok to have a relationship with a 12 year old is that some kind of excuse?

No, of course thats not an excuse, and thats not what I'm saying.

I think we actually agree for the most part.

What I meant by "its your perception" is that what may be OBVIOUSLY wrong to one person could be completely different to what's OBVIOUSLY wrong to another. Or two people can think something is obviously wrong but for two completely different reasons. It depends on the context in which you live. Its a point of view thing, you know? Terrorism is seen as, well, an act of terror to us. But to someone else who comes from a different background it could be a completely valid response to a perceived wrong. Trying to see another's perspective doesn't make me think terrorism in any way right, but it does make me a little more sympathetic, and, I think, fair in my judgments.

You know what I mean?

 

[Ganyeka]

No, of course thats not an excuse, and thats not what I'm saying.

I think we actually agree for the most part.

What I meant by "its your perception" is that what may be OBVIOUSLY wrong to one person could be completely different to what's OBVIOUSLY wrong to another. Or two people can think something is obviously wrong but for two completely different reasons. It depends on the context in which you live. Its a point of view thing, you know? Terrorism is seen as, well, an act of terror to us. But to someone else who comes from a different background it could be a completely valid response to a perceived wrong. Trying to see another's perspective doesn't make me think terrorism in any way right, but it does make me a little more sympathetic, and, I think, fair in my judgments.

You know what I mean?

I understand what you mean. The terrorism thing is actually a good example. If you are raised from a child to hate the west, and in the extremist islamic way, your perception is that terrorism is God's will and part of a Jihad to bring enlightenment to the world.

What I TRY to do, and Lord know's it simply isn't possible, is to be objective, to bring some "reasonable man" test to it. This hypothetical reasonable person is not affected by upbringing, conditioning, prejudice etc - which of course is nonsense but you have to start somewhere.

With something like pedophilia, I don'y see how that conditioning, like the terrorism example, really applies. Our culture, as with all modern societies, reinforces the taboo across the age spectrum. I don't see how someone can legitimately say "from my perspective" in this particular example, although I do see your point in a general sense.

As for bibunny and homburg, as far as I am concerned I am just responding to a flow of posts. I have no direct experience of pedophilia, and no obsession with it but as a parent of 3 kids (9, 6 and 3) the existence of these people is on my radar and I do feel very strongly about it. I fail to see how that justifies suspicion (of what I am not sure) or wisecracks. We had a particularly evil child sex serial offender living temporarily about 1 kilometer from our house when he was released from jail not so long ago. It's not a nice feeling.

 

[faeriefire]

With all due respect Gayenka, your initial posts to this thread did not come off as objective. I think part of the hue and cry to your response and the subsequent sarcasm/teasing has to do with perception and the general response to that first message. On this board folks like talking about topics that run the gamut and in order for that to happen people stay openminded and respect the rights of others to have a differing opinion. At the end of the day your perspective is not going to guide my actions nor is my thought process going to guide your decisions. Subsequent posts after the early ones have shown you to be somewhat more willing to listen to the opinions of others and that makes me happy In all honesty, your announcement to the world that bestiality is wrong in all ways and should never be considered, that anyone who does is sick and unhinged...well, that's not going to cut down on the number of people in the world practicing bestiality or any other kink for that matter. Those folks'll just blow you off and do their own thing privately. On the other hand, if a dialogue ensues where everyone feels safe being honest (I know this isn't practical and is very idealistic, but theoretically speaking) then maybe those folks on the fence or with some doubts will be reached. Or maybe someone will receive info that helps them accept who they are and what they need out of life. It's that ol' catch more bees with honey thing.

If discussion is to remain open and promoting education about such a charged subject the mud slinging just doesn't get us anywhere. Antagonism and disgust are probably part of the reason we don't have people posting to this thread who actually know a lot about or have practiced bestiality. A few folks are playing devils advocate, but without some experts we really can't pin down the motivation or boundaries (safety, impact, etc.) of bestiality.

Now for everyone...I have a question. Do you think bestiality only includes human-animal contact or can it also encompass anything that causes sexual arousal related to animals? For example I've seen animals mate while growing up and raising livestock. I recall being maybe 9 or 10 and feeling intrigued by the visual of a ram mounting a ewe and her response. This summer I saw a dog actually get stuck to a bitch while they were mating. She tried to run away after he finished, but there is a physiologic effect that keeps them joined to promote impregnation and it took some minutes of her dragging him down the beach wailing before they popped apart. That was just painful to see. Oddly enough I think their mating in front of us was more traumatizing for us beachgoers than two humans mating in front of that pair would have been. Also, is looking at porn that involves human-animal contact considered bestiality? Where is that line drawn in the sand for you?

 

[Homburg]

As for bibunny and homburg, as far as I am concerned I am just responding to a flow of posts. I have no direct experience of pedophilia, and no obsession with it but as a parent of 3 kids (9, 6 and 3) the existence of these people is on my radar and I do feel very strongly about it. I fail to see how that justifies suspicion (of what I am not sure) or wisecracks. We had a particularly evil child sex serial offender living temporarily about 1 kilometer from our house when he was released from jail not so long ago. It's not a nice feeling.

Wisecracks are going to happen, brother. It's a part of life. Frankly, I'm a parent of four young kids, and this is why I've not substantively joined this portion of the dicussion.

But, honestly, how can you take what I said seriously? I mentioned rice beer!

 

[unpredictablebijou]

*minor threadjack*

This gets the award for Most Excellent Typo of the Week.

And if it wasn't a typo, I love you even more.

***

If fireplay isn't for me, if infantilism and CBT isn't for me, then I draw a line in the sane and allow it to exist with others who enjoy it..

***

interesting discussion.

*end minor threadjack*

bj

 

[Ganyeka]

Wisecracks are going to happen, brother. It's a part of life. Frankly, I'm a parent of four young kids, and this is why I've not substantively joined this portion of the dicussion.

But, honestly, how can you take what I said seriously? I mentioned rice beer!

Good point. If you had mentioned a Pale Ale maybe I would have been justified.

 

[Homburg]

Good point. If you had mentioned a Pale Ale maybe I would have been justified.

Whoa, I wouldn't do that. Gotta draw the line somewhere!

 

[YourCaptor]

The studies show that pedophilic attraction pretty much inevitably leads to the commission of crimes, such as production or consumption of child pornography, grooming children for sex, sexual abuse etc. And your contention that the majority of pedophiles are flawed but noble beings who are self aware and self limiting to the best of their abilities is hopelessly flawed, unsupported by the evidence and studies and completely at odds with all of the anecdotal evidence presented by things such as the extensive web-enabled child pornography and pedophile rings that exist globally.

Interviews with pedophiles saying they are grateful for the laws because they protect the world from themselves are a drop in the ocean, and only get a run in the media because they a) rate and cause controversy, and b) are so the antithesis of your "average" pedophile. Some may try to limit their activities, but the overwhelming preponderence of evidence shows that even these examples commit crimes, and their risk of high impact crimes, like child sexual abuse, is extremely high. At best they propogate and perpetuate the abuse involved in the production of child pornography and participate in a community of like minded pedophiles thereby expanding and encouraging it's existence and the harm it causes.

You see, I DO judge someone by what attracts them. It is difficult to say this without looking harsh, but if you find that images of small children turn you on, then you are fundamentally mentally unwell. There are all sorts of psychological studies and papers written on the topic and NONE of them say "Oh, this pedophilia, it's OK, nothing really wrong there." There are a variety of causes postulated for this fundamental defect in psychological development, but regardless of what the cause, it is a disorder. And a dangerous one. So on that basis, I judge anyone who would be classed as a pedophile as mentally defective and dangerous. It might not be their fault, but sorry, I don't give a shit. No-one would have a problem with that type of reasoning if I applied it to a Pit Bull with a known propensity to bite and an aggressive personality disorder.

And I agree that Beastiality is not on the same order as Pedophilia, but the fundamental psychological background - ie that it is a disorder - isn't entirely dissimilar.

And who do you reckon are the main group in prison who refuse to get psychological treatment for the mental issue that gave rise to the crime that saw them locked up?

You are right, mental health is tricky stuff, and views change over time - hopefully as we learn more and evolve as a civilisation. We learn, we change and we hopefully modify our laws, culture and behaviours to remove or control things and attitudes that this process has revealed to be harmful, or unenlightened. Just because human sacrifice was seen as a legitimate way to get better crops for the Mayans, that doesn't mean we should have sacrifical alters operatin on sheep stations in Queensland.

A deviation from a theoretical "norm" is one thing - like homosexuality, the poo players or BDSM. These aren't even now "mainstream" (and some of the more devout BDSM'ers would, if the general public knew what was really involved, probably be considered pretty damn wierd, and as for the joy of excrement, well, a dirty nappy can have me dry reaching) but they also aren't considered dangerous or necessarily harmful (although anything taken to excess and extremes can be harmful, including normality).

Saying it's really "all your perception" is a little broad. If I perceive that it's ok to have a relationship with a 12 year old is that some kind of excuse?

Ok, so say I go with the whole, some people are inherently evil, then what? If they are inherently evil how about we go do some good old fashion gene pool cleansing.

Sound good?

The alternative:

What you need to do is first stop fearing, put your bias aside, research pedophilia, meet pedophiles, understand that they don’t wake up one morning and think to themselves “today I am going to abuse a helpless child”. These are people who experience an urge that for whatever reason has become part of the human. Instead of declaring them evil, wrong, or bad, why not reach out and help them where they need help most. Help them create levels of control so that they can live as your neighbor without any culturally problems occurring.

And don’t knock the Mayans, they took human sacrifice to a level we will never comprehend. You know a major factors in Cortez’s easy conquest over the Mayan nation was that the Mayans upon declaring war sacrificed all their strongest warriors to the gods.

 

[Ganyeka]

Ok, so say I go with the whole, some people are inherently evil, then what? If they are inherently evil how about we go do some good old fashion gene pool cleansing.

Sound good?

The alternative:

What you need to do is first stop fearing, put your bias aside, research pedophilia, meet pedophiles, understand that they don’t wake up one morning and think to themselves “today I am going to abuse a helpless child”. These are people who experience an urge that for whatever reason has become part of the human. Instead of declaring them evil, wrong, or bad, why not reach out and help them where they need help most. Help them create levels of control so that they can live as your neighbor without any culturally problems occurring.

And don’t knock the Mayans, they took human sacrifice to a level we will never comprehend. You know a major factors in Cortez’s easy conquest over the Mayan nation was that the Mayans upon declaring war sacrificed all their strongest warriors to the gods.

I made reference to the one unrepentant convicted child abuser and rapist who was up the road from me as evil. And this character WAS evil. I said that pedophiles have a mental disorder. They have failed in some way to develop properly. That is well accepted I think from a psychological standpoint. And it is not an urge that is "part of the human". It is an aberrent malfunction that occurs. Don't make it sound so innocuous. It isn't. And while they all may not be evil, they are all deeply troubled, at the very least. They have a mental illness, pure and simple. I believe they do all need help, but that help needs to be administered by trained and quailified professionals. It is also help that is available, but how many seek it voluntarily? But in addition to help I believe they need, at the least, monitoring. As with the current sexual offenders database and the restrictions that flow from that.

The sad truth is that most of these people do not rehabilitate, and the vast majority re-offend. They are dangerous time bombs, sorry, those are the facts, and you tell me, with 3 kids, to meet them and try to understand them and put aside my prejudices etc. All nice sounding, but I am not prejudiced. That implies an irrational fear. I have very good reason based on objective data to believe these people are dangerous to my family and the children of others.

That isn't prejudice, it's common sense.

 

[YourCaptor]

I made reference to the one unrepentant convicted child abuser and rapist who was up the road from me as evil. And this character WAS evil. I said that pedophiles have a mental disorder. They have failed in some way to develop properly. That is well accepted I think from a psychological standpoint. And it is not an urge that is "part of the human". It is an aberrent malfunction that occurs. Don't make it sound so innocuous. It isn't. And while they all may not be evil, they are all deeply troubled, at the very least. They have a mental illness, pure and simple. I believe they do all need help, but that help needs to be administered by trained and quailified professionals. It is also help that is available, but how many seek it voluntarily? But in addition to help I believe they need, at the least, monitoring. As with the current sexual offenders database and the restrictions that flow from that.

The sad truth is that most of these people do not rehabilitate, and the vast majority re-offend. They are dangerous time bombs, sorry, those are the facts, and you tell me, with 3 kids, to meet them and try to understand them and put aside my prejudices etc. All nice sounding, but I am not prejudiced. That implies an irrational fear. I have very good reason based on objective data to believe these people are dangerous to my family and the children of others.

That isn't prejudice, it's common sense.

Question, what makes you think you are normal, what makes you so special as to be a correct human being?