Pedophilia takes a cautious step forward toward respectability

I found out the other day we're already there. Using the p-word is already considered "not okay". Got dinged for hate speech somewhere else because, apparently, I should have referred to a specific assailant in a specific recent legal case as a MAP (the current politically correct term) instead.

Shades of ancient Rome.

Pedophilia is a disorder just like any other. The consequences of acting on it however can be more destructive to its victims than almost any other.

I'm not sure it's much different to seek a way to identify people who have the disorder instead of calling them pedophiles, than how the Church does not like calling people "homosexuals" but rather people who have same-sex attraction. They are people first, just as we all are despite our disorders, and we all have them. They have human dignity and should be treated as such.

That being said, "minor attracted people" seems an attempt to really minimize what's going on here. Pedophilia is an attracton to pre-pubescent children. "Sexually attracted to children" would be much more accurate.

Based on the article, they're talking about a rebadging of non-offending people who have the disorder. And would that people could seek treatment for that disorder without fear of being stigmatized. That could only be a good thing.

The author is correct though. We have hit a brick wall with the "logic" that has allowed all sexual disorders to be seen as simply orientations that are natural and should be encouraged to be expressed. Something has to give on this one. Let's hope it's in favor of the kids.

I don't think you are wrong. In fact, a decent, loving human being is tempted to think so.

The problem is we already know from experience that language manipulation such as this one has been used as an effective tool multiple times in service of goals that, themselves, cannot be accepted by decent, loving human beings.

It's sad, but we do have to shed some of our innocent naivete if we are to preserve any remains of our social order.

We're at a point in history now where society is trying to normalize raping and killing children, and it's at least 50% there. The way Christ speaks about kids in passages like Mark 10:13-16, it makes me wonder if this depravity is a sign his return is nigh.

talking about pedophilia, i think we all agree that it's wrong. But, i am surprise that the bible seems doesn't say the minimum age which a person can engage in marriage and sex, because the bible says we must married before we have sex

thejoshbro said:

talking about pedophilia, i think we all agree that it's wrong. But, i am surprise that the bible seems doesn't say the minimum age which a person can engage in marriage and sex, because the bible says we must married before we have sex

Click to expand...

Romans 13:1-2 says: "Obey the government, for God is the One who has put it there. There is no government anywhere that God has not placed in power. So those who refuse to obey the law of the land are refusing to obey God, and punishment will follow."

So if the age of consent is hypothetically 20 years-old* (as it is in Korea), the you must follow that rule. In my state, it is 18.

*I prefer being friends with people from 20 to 32 years old (I am 24). If dating, 20-32 would be a perfect range for me.

thejoshbro said:

talking about pedophilia, i think we all agree that it's wrong. But, i am surprise that the bible seems doesn't say the minimum age which a person can engage in marriage and sex, because the bible says we must married before we have sex

Click to expand...

The purpose of marriage was procreation. Those people understood very well that any female animal had to reach a certain level of maturity before it could be bred...too soon, and it would be ruined for breeding purposes. They understood the same was true of human women...remember the purpose of marriage was specifically procreation. The ancient Romans had a saying: "Wives are for legacy; concubines are for pleasure."

So, even though betrothal might be very early, they would have delayed marriage (that is, consummation) until the woman was physically mature enough to bear children. In 1 Corinthians 7:34-38, Paul is making a distinction between betrothal and consummation. By "marry" here he means consummation of a betrothal.

So, for a woman it would be some point soon after menarche. Up until the 1990s or so, most women had their first periods between 15 and 18. Even within my own memory, that was the case. Because of recent environmental factors, that has been pushed drastically downward in a very short time period.

Michie said:

The publication of a book advocating sympathetic treatment of people with pedophile impulses is an ominous sign.

I sometimes quietly thank my lucky stars that I am not growing up today. It all seems very complicated. The main thing is that boys are expected to be dexterous at video games and I am all thumbs. The last time I played “Resident Evil”, for instance, hardly had I entered the first portal before I was knocked off by squadrons of flesh-eating zombies. I certainly would have developed a devastating sense of inferiority.


Another technological hazard is the morally devastating rubbish dished up to high school kids on mobile phones and the internet.

Not that things were all that innocent in my day, mind you. The dirty book du jour was Lolita, a 1955 novel by Vladimir Nabokov. It is still kicking around. A memoir of Iranian repression called Reading Lolita in Teheran even spent 100 weeks on the New York Times best-seller list.

Looking back, the popularity of Lolita was and is shocking. For it is a novel about paedophilia in which a middle-aged literature professor strikes up a relationship with a 12-year-old girl. Stanley Kubrick turned it into a prize-winning film.

With all the fully justifiable outrage over sex abuse by scout masters and priests and swimming coaches, how was it possible for Time magazine to praise it not long ago as a “tragic, twisted epic”? The subsequent success of Reading Lolita in Teheran suggests that Lolita has become a symbol of intellectual freedom in some quarters.

Continued below.
Pedophilia takes a cautious step forward toward respectability » MercatorNet

Click to expand...

Respectability is of no importance. Whether matters, is whether it is good, or not. And it is not. The Apostles paid no attention to respectability. Lots of nonsense is respectable - that does not make it any less nonsensical. A lie accepted as true by the whole universe, would still be a lie, still be worthy only of rejection.

Sympathy for persons who are unhealthy in body, mind or spirit is one thing; approving of the unhealthiness, and helping it to spread, is something entirely different. All of us are sickly in various ways, so there is no place at all for scapegoating or persecuting others. But neither is there any place for approving of what is sickly & corrupt; whether in ourselves, or in others. There is a lot of value in the saying "Hate the sin, and love the sinner". If we love others, or ourselves, we will love them, and ourselves; but not the faults in them, or in us. Some evils can, and even, at times, should, be put up with (in other words, tolerated); but no evil should ever be approved.

Numbers and other quantities are no guide to moral values - idiocy like that is as dunder-headed as it would be to suggest that a man 6 foot tall must be more virtuous than a man 5 foot 6 inches, because there is more of him.

jamiec said:

Respectability is of no importance. Whether matters, is whether it is good, or not.

Click to expand...

Not to disagree with your position on pedophilia, but that assertion is ill-considered. Rules of respectability should be the social embodiment of what is good behavior.

jamiec said:

And it is not. The Apostles paid no attention to respectability.

Click to expand...

That's not true. Look at Paul's guidelines for selecting church leadership...community respectability is right up there. That's repeated in several places...the only area in which a Christian should appear "disrespectful" should be in support of the gospel.

RDKirk said:

The purpose of marriage was procreation. Those people understood very well that any female animal had to reach a certain level of maturity before it could be bred...too soon, and it would be ruined for breeding purposes. They understood the same was true of human women...remember the purpose of marriage was specifically procreation. The ancient Romans had a saying: "Wives are for legacy; concubines are for pleasure."

So, even though betrothal might be very early, they would have delayed marriage (that is, consummation) until the woman was physically mature enough to bear children. In 1 Corinthians 7:34-38, Paul is making a distinction between betrothal and consummation. By "marry" here he means consummation of a betrothal.

So, for a woman it would be some point soon after menarche. Up until the 1990s or so, most women had their first periods between 15 and 18. Even within my own memory, that was the case. Because of recent environmental factors, that has been pushed drastically downward in a very short time period.

Click to expand...

Is procreation mandatory for marriage?

thejoshbro said:

Is procreation mandatory for marriage?

Click to expand...

For people in the first century, there was no "marriage" until there was consummation. That's what "marriage" meant. Until then, it was "betrothal." Now, betrothals were also pretty legally and morally binding, but not so much as after the consummation--the marriage--had taken place.

And remember, there was no effective birth control (although there was abortion...which Christians were well-known to the Romans as opposing by the middle of the second century, so that happened pretty early).

To the Corinthians, Paul was explaining that it was okay for a betrothed couple not to consummate (Aquila and Pricilla might have been such a couple) in order to be more dedicated in promoting the gospel.