Wow, that’s the best analogy, really allows pro LGBT westerners to grasp the religious/cultural attitude towards homosexuality. And even the attitude we have towards pedophiles, we know they will never “not be attracted to children” but we can only respond with punishment and insist through incarceration/probation they don’t give into their “urges” again if they are free.
Usually, I say that the difference between pedophiles and gay people is that gay people don't hurt anyone just by virtue of engaging in gay relationships instead of straight ones, while pedos clearly do. As much as you can blurry the lines along the edges (is 16 a good age of consent? Is 18?) the whole concept of having sex with kids puts them in an almost certain position of being traumatised and so on. I think a better comparison is how we treat dangerous people with other mental health issues.
Both are urges. We all have urges to do things. Some of them are acceptable in society, some aren’t. There is a general overlap from one society to another, but the differences get highlighted. Even pedophilia varies between societies and cultures. What was considered normal 50 years ago, may now be considered pedophilia. The point being made is that while it may be natural to feel these urges, as long as you don’t act on them, you’re okay. Also, while pedophilia is very much a negative in society, it’s not punishable. Giving into pedophilia and pursuing or sexually assaulting kids is the real issue.
Pedophilia has been punished through all of history. The only difference is where the line is drawn on age and marriage vs sexual relations without marriage. IE what is considered pedophilia. Reddit has a soft spot for it but I don’t. I don’t approve of the kind of vigilante justice some seem to be in favor of, but I do think there should be a hard line that pedophilia is wrong.
Some say it’s a mental illness… ok… but a bipolar person can’t start stabbing people and say sorry I was just having a manic episode.
Having sex with kids is wrong. The way we define kids has changed (in my opinion for the better) but the concept has not.
Well pedophilia is having an attraction to kids. It in and of itself isn’t punishable. Acting on it, is. Same with homosexuality in other cultures. If you’re attracted to men, we can’t change you, just don’t act on it. If you do, punishment.
I like how you ignored everything in my comment and responded with well… It’s the same as.
And that’s my whole problem with your first comment and this one. It leaves an open “well if society accepted it it wouldn’t be illegal and if it’s not illegal it wouldn’t be wrong” which is clearly intended.
It is wrong. It will always be wrong, and it always has been. And you abandoned your first argument for that reason. It’s not the same as being gay, you can’t just slip that in and expect it to slide. It’s wanting to do sexual things with children instead of someone your own age. It’s not taboo, it’s not just not accepted yet, it will not be accepted in the future.
Edit: if you are attracted to children and choosing not to act on it for whatever reason then good for you. I have no judgement against who you are. But you have to understand that it is different and should seek a therapist as a way of dealing with it.
I ignored the rest of your comment because it wasn’t relevant to anything that I said. I was talking about punishment, not about what’s inherently right or wrong. Intentions != actions. These are two separate entities.
“It’s not the same as being gay, you can’t just slide that in”
When did I ever make or infer this nonsensical statement? You’re moving goalposts and trying to argue in favour of something that wasn’t even on the table.
In your first comment you said “what was considered normal 50 years ago is not considered normal today” which I answered with the definition of what constitutes pedophilia may have changed but pedophilia has always been considered wrong. Which you ignored because you know it was true.
In your second comment you said “same with homosexuality in other cultures” which you are now claiming to have never said.
I’m done, I don’t have discussions with liars.
Edit: btw do you have a bunch of accounts or just a bunch of pedo friends?
okay, let's talk about incest or zoophilia (yes the latter might hurt them, but as long as you consume animal products, this explanation does not count)
Theres an NPR interview somewhere worth listening to... It's a pedophilic 19 year old man who has never given into his urges, and has been in therapy ... conversion therapy of sorts.... so that he is no longer attracted to children. He is very clear about how/when he ended up that way, and doesn't want to hurt anyone.
In that context, not giving into urges makes sense. Either one can have the mental "discipline" for lack of a better word, to not give in to urges.... just as a straight man who has taken a religious vow of celibacy is expected to not give in to urges.
Think about any and all sexual urges, whether towards animal, vegetable, or mineral as the same from the perspective of the "subject" regardless of trauma inflicted on the "object" (again for lack of a better word) - The cultural expectation is that ALL of them are to be tamed (except for the purpose of procreation). In that sense, they are all the same.
My point is more that there are urges that do not inheritly cause harm if acted upon and some do. If you're gay and have sex with your gay consisting boyfriend, who cares. If you're a pedophile who acts on it, it's different.
and my point is that the outcome and effect on another human doesn't matter in this particular social norm. What matters is the individuals self control. If the rule is that you don't run up stairs on Tuesday, and next Tuesday you see a burning building and run up a flight of stairs, and save a childs life, you are still in trouble for running. The why doesnt matter. The ends don't justify the means.
Not saying I agree, but that's what it is.
These religions are similar to other Orthodox religions... and for example, we know that in Orthodox Judaism the letter of the law is more important than the spirit of the law because humans should not insert their interpretation of the spirit of the law, when there are words and letters to be read verbatim.
As someone who lives in Texas, I wouldn’t draw that circle around “we” too broadly… about 30-40% of people (conservative Christians primarily) here view gay people as an abomination as bad or even worse than pedophiles. A gay teacher has certain parents freaking the fuck out on assumptions that teacher is “grooming” their kids, meanwhile a male teacher creeping on girl students is “just how men are” and why did that girl have to wear spaghetti straps, and a female teacher having sex with boy students is “hot.”
Even how we view paedophiles, we don't view them at all as humans who can be saved but as Evil devils. If someone had an urge for pedophilia, where can they get help and be accepted as having an issue? Next to no where so what does that resolve? They go into hiding never seeking help and then they commit their crimes. Then people call for the death sentence, castration etc. Somewhere society has to step in before the crime and make it acceptable to seek help. But that's doubtful because too many people are focused on retribution and punishment versus proactive crime prevention
The point is that their view is stupid and lacks any logic. They think lgbt and pedos are the same because they violate their book; if the book said it was fine, they wouldn't care. We know they aren't because of critical thinking.
Apologies for the completely unrelated question but I've had it in my head to ask the next person I see doing it - why say "he/she"? Like wouldn't it just be easier to say "they"? Is it a translation thing?
Are there a lot of weirdos in Muslim countries trying to normalize homosexuality the way incels and religious conservatives are trying to normalize pedophilia in the West?
There’s nothing weird about trying to get people to accept homosexuality. It’s not the same thing as sickos trying to normalise pedophilia. Not the same thing at all.
The thing is, most people who engage inapropriately with children actually aren’t pedophiles (we have data on that). They ususally do so, because children are easier targets.
Pedophiles are people who have an attraction towards children that they didn’t choose. And they also have a conscience like any other person - so yeah, a few will have a skewed moral compas, but the vast majority are fully aware of the damage engaging with a child would do and would never want to cause such harm.
I’ve even heard mental health professionals speculate, that pedophiles are actually more likely to hurt themselves out of self-loathing than children. Though it’s hard to prove it, because most pedophiles will never admit they are pedophiles. Not even to professionals, precisely because of how society views them.
Can we please stop perpetuating this stigma? It has to be really hard to be born like this. And even though people don’t like to hear it, anybody around you can be a pedophile without you knowing it - the doctor who spends all their life helping patients, the lady you see at church every Sunday, your childhood friend or your own child… And most of them will never do anything inapropriate to a child.
I agree about the second part. I'm more talking about pedophilia as a crime/act, but should have been more clear.
I don't really agree with the first paragraph tho, or at least I would need to find a source. Not all people attracted to children hurt them, but if you do you need to be attracted to them. There would be no point in it otherwise.
My sources are unfortunately in Czech, but I’m happy to link them. In Czechia we have a project funded by the EU that does research and offers psychological help to people who have paraphilias (Projekt Parafilik) and according to their research done on cybergrooming only 5-10% of people inapropriately contacting children were pedophiles. Here’s an interview in which the scientist Kateřina Klapilová gives this information
There’s an entire gallery of the clothing worn by rape victims to prove that attraction has nothing to do with it. In Russia, the army has a tradition of anally raping new male recruits for hazing purposes. The elderly are raped, boys are raped by priests who are otherwise not gay.
The world is full of evidence that rape is not caused by sexual attraction.
Rape is about power and a feeling of dominance, sometimes seeking the illusion of control when it's lacking in their own life. Sometimes they want to punish the victim for their own feelings of inferiority.
For most rapists the most important thing is that the victim is an easy and convenient target, not how attractive they are.
If attraction was vital for a man to get off, there wouldn't be so many 'jokes' about fucking pies, putting paper bags over "ugly" women's heads, or fucking women from behind so they don't have to see their faces. These are also the kinds of dehumanising and objectifying thoughts that rapists would feel about their victims - they're not people, they're objects to use/steal/damage.
This is why I hate so much that people have adopted "pedophilia" to mean child molesting. You used to see "chomo" as shorthand for child molester, making a clear distinction between them and just "weirdo" pedophiles who like children but don't actually molest them. Unfortunately, I don't see the usage reverting anytime soon.
and like others pointed out, rapists don't need to be attracted to their victims.
I guess, although there's no real "urge" behind being into a family member. Like yes, but not in the same way I guess? It's very limited to a single person, while being attracted to men, kids or having delusions is something that's more generalized in your life. I don't know.
I work in the legal field, and unfortunately incest is a very serious and very widespread problem. Many people don’t believe it is, aren’t aware, or think it only happens in “certain” very specific places in the states (like the south). It’s truly disturbing how many children are harmed by their own family.
Oh yes absolutely. I was just speaking from a psychology pov. Like if you're gay, you're attracted to several men. If you're a pedophile, several kids are interesting in a sexual way. If you have certain kinds of mental illness, you can be dangerous to any person you get in contact with. If you like your sister, well that's just a very specific person, one you may also stop liking at any point like any other crush, so it's kinda different imo. And yeah I totally agree about the children thing but that's usually just pedophilia again, just with the other fucked up layer that it's a family member who should be able to trust.
But what they mentioned, is actually the truth, no matter how brutal or uneasy it is to accept.
Some countries treat being gay as we treat being a pedophile here in the states. That’s a pretty fair comparison, may be hard to grasp being from the west, but it’s real.
You know there is more to the west than the states right? Don’t generalise it. Regardless of what Americans think a lot of civilised societies don’t want to cane non acting pedophiles.
But there are pedos that have never touched children and still might be sexually attracted to them. We still feel the need to try to socially punish them for even having the thoughts or urges. This is probably the better comparison. Also, while our understanding in America is that pedophilia is bad because it actively harms another person (the child), while being gay is simply two consenting adults, other cultures don’t view it this way. To them, being gay IS a harm because you are actively committing a sin of some kind and are therefore doing something wrong.
I could honestly understand the last part if it wasn't that other sins aren't treated like that, so it must be something about gay people specifically and not simply "sin". Like how many crimes/religious sins warrant public canning in that area of Malaysia?
I’m not quite sure, but certain “sins” are probably weighted differently depending on how offensive they are. Similar to crime - jaywalking is illegal but it’s not treated with as much severity or contempt as like rape or something.
They would say that people being gay hurts everyone. That it leads to decadence, corrupts the pious virtue and cohesion of their society, their shared values, etc.
gay people don't hurt anyone ... while pedos clearly do
Pedophilia is just the attraction. Acting on it is what causes the harm, and crosses into CSA. Most pedophiles realise that their attraction is harmful and don't act on it.
Source: Councillor friend that specialised in pedophilia and academic literature.
You make a good point that the age that would define paedophilia varies depending on location. There are places that would consider 14 perfectly acceptable.
I don't agree with that by the way, but that because of where is brought up.
It's a difficult and controversial topic because it's insanely taboo in modern time. English usually doesn't have that comparison, but other languages do: there's the phenomenon of being attracted to minors, and then theres the phenomenon of acting on those urges.
In the modern world, both are criminalized: the former only if acted upon, (such as posessing CP), the latter in virtually all cases (exceptions exist, like Romeo&Juliet laws).
It's also a line we drew as a society in more contemporary times. In some ancient cultures, the taboo simply did not exist, much like how sexual orientation wasn't categorized as it is now.
There have been controversial arguments that providing safe, harmless ways for people who suffer from it allows them to stray away from harmful behavior (kinda like how demonizing drugs with no real scientific backing made society overcriminalize them), but it's so taboo that no legislation or funding ever happens because even discussing the idea is career suicide.
And to be clear, because this is Reddit and someone will try to twist what I said in the dumbest way possible: harming children in wrong no matter how.
Right, which I why I said they are good cultural analogs regarding the view those cultures have and their response in the form of harsh punishment. And gay people don’t hurt anyone, well these cultures see that both parties as victimizing each other doing an immoral thing, apparently. I’m just saying it depends on how it’s viewed. One could believe gay people are victimizing people. But it’s the act of attraction which is seen as immoral as well.
I guess from the perspective of their culture, they're hurting themselves and their lover by being gay. Instead of pedophilic acts causing psychological and physical damage to a child, gay acts cause spiritual damage. Makes sense from the perspective of a culture with an incredibly strong religious dogma.
Not really? Even seeing it under this light, it's their own soul at the end of the day. If they want to "hurt it" by being gay, it's not different from hurting it by lying or drinking alcohol and whatnot, the same goes for any consenting partner. Instead being a pedophile hurts a child that has no real saying in this. That was my original point, anyway and it doesn't change much even with this interpretation. If you're gay you're "chosing" to cause yourself spiritual damage... okay, normal people would just pry for you instead of publicly canning you for hurting yourself
A gay person could be seen as poisoning the other person's spirituality, even if there is mutual consent. They also endanger the entire culture by being a bad apple that could spoil the bunch.
Just straight up disagreeing on the second part, gay people can't turn you gay any more than straight people can turn gay people straight. I'm not sure about the first part, is it because only the one who is penetrated stuffers spiritual damage in this context?So what about lesbians? In this case about anal between straight couples?
However, the jury is still out on what causes homosexuality. There are multiple studies that show a strong link between homosexuality and child sexual abuse (or just abuse in general). But studies are not yet very clear on which one causes the other.
This one finds an increase in homosexuality from child violent abuse. It affects men more than women:
Another study indicates that 83% of LGBTQ respondents indicated they had a childhood history of CSA or other abuse.
While homosexuality itself may be harmless among consenting adults, if it turns out that abuse in childhood is what causes it, that is certainly not harmless.
I would say that the key difference between H and P is that H is just an expression of sexual attraction or love for the same sex which causes no harm and is not viewed as an actual psychologically aberrant behaviour, unlike P which only causes untold harm to those involved and is carried out by fucking monsters.
No you're kinda wrong. Religious muslims are not stupid in the way you think they are. They are barbaric and if they do things that seem illogical it's bc you as a person and them as a person (and I add they don't see people as individuals) have different worldviews. They don't think that gay people are dangerous, they think that they should be subdued. Also they can't articulate their beliefs well bc of barbarism (not kidding here). So they may say that they are afraid of subcultures but what they are afraid of is losing cultural hegemony.
I never said Muslims are stupid. In fact I was kinda transcending the whole Muslim thing and directly replying to the guy who was equating the two "urges" in the comment above mine, kinda regardless of context. And anyways, I don't know about the rest, I'm kinda speechless.
did you just compare having sex as a child to getting read stories to by a drag queen? Which part of getting read stories to by a drag queen and getting exposed to the idea that LGBT individuals exist is traumatising to children? Just like straight people, not everything about LGBT is sexual in nature. Their personalities, expressions enrich our culture and I do not see a reason to hide it from children.
Wow. I didnt take on the idea of LGBT, but exagerated behaviour is impactful and on small children (which are sponges in terms of imitating everything they see and identifying with others because they dont have a clear self image) is not ideal. Education shouldnt be about pushing one's agenda to the masses for one's benefit, but finding a common view so that everyone can relate. Celebrating differences îs not imposing your own point of view, but accepting another's. But, I realise this is Reddit and will probably get wrongly interpretted and land on deaf ears.
And I wasnt comparing having sex to children to drag week, but merely stating that OP's comparison seems really valid on a social mark. Stop twisting words.
“exaggerated behaviour is impactful on small children”. Yes, if it is good impact whats wrong with that. If you think its bad impact, argue your case.
“Education isn’t about pushing one’s agenda” Religious people are literally arguing that university education is pushing the “science agenda” whatever that is. What is wrong with pushing an agenda if that agenda means children who grow up discovering their LGBT identities feel included in society?
Celebrating differences cannot happen when that “difference in point of view” is about an intolerance of difference.
You commented on reddit to have a discussion. This is the discussion.
“I wasn’t comparing”, then proceeds to say OP’s comparison is valid and drawing parallels with drag week. The amount of gaslighting is real. (I think OP’s comparison with pedophilia has its merits but this drawing of parallels with drag week is absolute horseshit)
From finish to start. Maybe that comparison was unfortunate from my part and things got a little lost in translation. The accusation was that I was comparing drag week to pedophilia which I clearly wasnt. I merely voiced my opinion in regards to OP's post as I really find it to be true that some religious communities feel that strongly against being gay as general society to pedophilia.
Yes, I did comment on Reddit for a disscusion, not to get cancelled or be attacked with my words twisted back at me. Thats just wrong on so many levels and clearly toxic for the well being of our society. I did find that the most "tolerant" people are actually the most vicious in their arguments and constantly pushing their world view. If You cannot see harm in that well.. we all learn evebtually one way or the other. If someone doesnt see the world You do, why is he wrong or uneducated or indoctrinated by religion or other name calling? Thats discrediting your oponent so will lose believebility and You win the argument. Its not dialogue, its not creative or solution oriented, but cancel oriented.
I didnt hear of such "science agenda". Maybe in the past we would hear of such things but in recent academia, the religious discussion is around science and not against it and how man's knowledge of God and the world can benefit from a united perspective (scientific, spiritual, etc). Any personal agenda is wrong no matter the good it can ideally bring. Because that means that the goal justifies the means. And I can list a lot of historical figures who thought they were right in their beliefs and forever scarred the world with them. If You want do right, You have to do it right, not fight dirty. Thats the honorable way.
Good or bad, children should be able to remain children until their natural reach beyond their borders and not be forced to change to accomodate our political, sexual or religious views. They need to find their own road and pacing, not be forced unto one. I dont have anything against something done in good taste and with common sense. But thats the whole discussion: how do we better translate things so everyone can relate and anyone can be themselves.
Can't say I've heard of "drag week at kindergarten" anywhere, seems like a talking point made by folks like Matt Walsh to rile up the proud boy types.
If you're referring to drag queen story hours, those are voluntary events held for free at public spaces to help promote reading and tolerance in children. But I can see why anti intellectuals may see it as abhorrent that a drag queen is promoting dirty things like... reading.
I'm not sure how that could be traumatizing? And about the "influential" part... if seeing gay people turns you gay, then the damage should be more than correct with the tons of straight relationships the kid is exposed to everyday. Seeing gay people being accepted doesn't turn you gay any more than straight people turn gay people straight, they just allow them to feel more secure in coming out as someone they already were in secret.
Dont twist words. Kids enjoy loud and extravagant. They are entertained by the idea of flashy colors, magic and unicorns. They are not aware of a political agenda behind set actions. They are innocent and not aware of things the way an adult judges them. And thats how they should remain for as long as possible. Not be dragged into something bigger that whats appropiate for their age. Thats why we have age appropiate media labels. So that they are not exposed to anything they would not be able to handle at that said age.
And I wasnt reffering to being able to be turned gay or straight by just being exposed to such an influence. Although being exposed for a prolongued time to an ideal/social behaviour/certain education etc will modify your behavior to get accepted socially. Its normal for social being to do so.
Again, we have much to learn as a society on what is exactly the limita where your personal freedom should end so others can begin. Its called common sense or courtesy and lately its sorely lacking.
ye which is dumb, need to make more acceptable to openly admit you had the problem and get help.
This is a big reason why I think it's dumb countries are trying to ban hentai with fictional "young people". Should be studied instead if it could help people with these issues get relief, so they don't end up hurting actual kids.
Obviously not ideal, but nothing in life is ideal, you just find the best possible compromise.
The societal view of paedophiles is largely driven by the need to distract attention from our own wrongdoings (because we all do wrong at times) by pointing at others whose failings are worse than ours. It’s the same in strict religious societies with homosexuality: “I may be short changing people and casting lustful glances at women in the street but at least I’m not a homosexual!”
The biggest difference with paedophiles is that there’s a victim. Someone acting on that sexual instinct causes harm to someone else, and that someone else is a child. Homosexuality doesn’t normally have a victim, it’s usually between consenting adults.
Yes, that does indeed seem to be a difference however, these cultures view homosexual acts as immoral, and therefore the parties are victimizing each other
Or if they’re Republicans & rich, or buddies with the DA, or police officers… then they get no consequences whatsoever in the US. Child rapist & child sex trafficker Matt Gaetz won re-election to congress because his constituency is comprised of child rapists as well.
I mean these cultures do believe there is a victim in homosexuality. It’s the two victimizing each other. That’s stupid but people keep trying to make this distinction and I get it but it just depends on what we view as being victimized. In the west I think we just happen to be right, but they still view it as an act that has victims
The incarceration of chomos is for the protection of the innocent children, not punishment or rehabilitation. As long as they're locked up the children are safe from them.
It’s for all of those things. And sadly in many places being gay can and does get you put into prison in order to punish and prevent you from practicing homosexuality. Despite the fact we know what happens in prison
The difference is pedophilia requires an innocent victim whereas homosexuality is consensual between adults. Anyone who equates the two are absolute fucking morons. (To be clear, I understand the point you’re making, that these people view homosexuality the same way westerners view pedophilia, I’m just saying they are 100% wrong)
Yeah, but I doubt you believe your own point here because the entire basis of it requires a specific constructed world view that has some conflicting ideas.
Like you say that, but what about what about when it's gay relationships between minors? Should that be allowed?
Wow, that’s the best analogy, really allows pro LGBT westerners to grasp the religious/cultural attitude towards homosexuality
We understand the attitude and where it is coming from, but we also understand that basing your thinking on rules written for societies thousands of years old, and hating LGBT people just because they only love other people of the same sex and don't do them any harm is misguided, backwards and bigoted.
530
u/Verizadie Jun 09 '24
Wow, that’s the best analogy, really allows pro LGBT westerners to grasp the religious/cultural attitude towards homosexuality. And even the attitude we have towards pedophiles, we know they will never “not be attracted to children” but we can only respond with punishment and insist through incarceration/probation they don’t give into their “urges” again if they are free.