Your are viewing a read-only archive of the old DiS boards. Please hit the Community button above to engage with the DiS !
vindictive monsters or tortured souls?
Their just guys who suckle kids. It's a sport.
no really, if you had to choose?
See? Against the grain, yeah.
Maybe I will this weekend
and forced my girlfriend and housemate to watch it for the first time. Best film ever IMO
that I've never seen anything that matches it
that has yet to be 'recognised' as such due to social taboo and the general publics' retardedness.
but, they're still responsible for their ACTIONS e.g. if they raped a kid or what not
Let's all just agree that kids are sexy little flirts and end this thread.
maybe if it were easier, and more widely understood that it was a mental problem more 'pedophiles' would seek treatment [or in fact treatments could be developed] or just help, rather than hiding in the woodworks - which is much more likely to make them offend - fearing renegade 'retribution' or social rejection.
if so, are all different forms of sexuality treatable?
they cues would be miles long
that's flat out untrue. Even without rehabilitation programmes, sexual offenders (I don't know about peadophiles specifically) have one of the lowest rates of recidivism. Much lower than, say, robbers and shoplifters. And they are, in general, more responisve than other classes of offender to rehabilitation. That is not to say that there isn't a hard core of sexual offenders who present a permanent and intolerable risk to society - there are, and they need to be dealt with accordingly. But the lock em up and throw away the key approach, though it may be the most viscerally appealing, doesn't work.
the truely dangerous ones need to be kept apart from society until we can be confident they no longer pose a risk. And if that point never comes, they ought never to be released. It's the other ones, the ones who are potentially ameanable to rehabilitation and reform, for whom "lock em up and throw away the key" is innappropriate.
I suppose ultimately it comes down to what you consider the aims of criminal justice to be - retribution or rehabilitation. Ideally, it's a finely balanced mix of the two. That balance is of course hard to find.
doesn't mean making people never have fucked up desires- it means helping them deal with and not act upon them, in the same way that any type of therapy helps you deal with and reject your unwanted desi
recovering alcoholics still want to drink after rehab, probably will for the rest of their lives, but therapy helps them deal with that. If it ultimately means fewer people will re-offend, ad hence that society is safer, it can only be a good thing. But like I said before, it's got to be a balance of retribution and rehab etc.
I also think you might have just made up anything that follows that phrase.
Because it's pretty much all nonsense.
and I was so hoping this thread would wither and die.
You will never be me
This really unsettles me.
no really, some things are beyond humour
What I mean is is it nature or nurture, or some weird quirk thats controllable vs something that just IS in the way of being.
Is the idea of making love to an underage female any less natural than the idea of making love to a male through his backside?
one unacceptable for several reasons.
they're the only two things I can think of that are beyond humour
I'll make a note of that
Can I not take offence?
and complaining about its existence/demanding it be removed - very different things.
I'm not demanding it's removal. My view is completely tainted by having a 3 year old daughter.
as its aim would be to reproduce, as opposed to it being to gain thrills.
it's less natural to have sex for pleasure/an expression of intimacy than for reproduction, which I'd dispute. As both are 100% natural. As is any kind of human behaviour which is repeated throughout history. Or indeed any human behaviour at all.
because informed consent cannot be give, the other not so. Naturalness doesn't figure at all, morally speaking.
people do things differently, but to deny that certain things are meant for certain reasons and not for others is a bit unrealistic.
The question was which is more natural. Both are natural. Otherwise, why would people keep having sex with children? Just because I'm saying it's natural, doesn't mean I'm defending it. It's natural to murder strangers too.
Now answer the question.
I think its quite possible for girls to conceive at least three years pre-that.
Stop scoffing young broads. Seriously though...girls are only sexually mature at 23.
I would know...I've seen loads of them on the telly.
therefore is it natural?
as is animals including humans having same sex sex
Is that natural? Didn't think so, fag! (<<<<<< I'm establishing myself as a John Hughes jock stereotype in University...to no avail. Jocks don't have the arms of a St.Trinnians school girl.