Posted on 08/20/2015 7:12:28 PM PDT by Yaelle
The article is the typical "these poor people are sick, they need help, we need funding to study pedos" BS. Skim it. But check out the (closed) comments section. Very interesting. Some of the commenters admit to being pedophiles. Also, commenters debate the differences between sexual interest in a mature LOOKING teen versus the prepubescent children. The article has one good point. Maybe we should allow pedophiles to get help from shrinks without them being forced to report directly, as long as the pedophile doesn't admit to actually touching a child. That is a good subject for debate - maybe some would be able to get help to keep them from touching and harming kids. Again, I am not sure if that is possible.
(Excerpt) Read more at washingtonpost.com ...
We understand all we need to understand about various sexual perversions.If you have contact with those of your own gender,or with people under a certain age or if you claim to be a gender that you’re not you’re a pig...a pervert...a worthless piece of ****.
Yes. We are talking about harming children. I think the penalties should stay tough and unforgiving (I wish they were harsher). Anyone’s sex drive can be stopped. If necessary then medically. We are not beasts who must be free to molest others.
To me, if you hurt a child deliberately, you have voted yourself off the planet.
The left thinks the stigma on being a pedophile needs to be lessened, hell it should be far worse by a factor of 1000X.
And I am not talking about zero tolerance laws branding a 18year old going out with a 17 year old in high school a sex offender for life.
I am talking about the 18 and older creeps doing anything sexual with someone who is younger than 16 years old.
I am thinking something like stocks and such and being sent to a colony of nothing but other pedos on a remote island up near canada where their only food is spam and no electronic devices.
Whenever the police bring in a suspected pedophile for an “interview” (interrogation), a standard question is: “What do you think should be done with child molesters?” The answer tells them whether they are guilty.
“Tie them down in the road, run over them with cars, burn the body and shoot the ashes out into space” = not guilty.
“They need counseling and treatment” = guilty.
I suspect the author of this piece is a pedophile.
The left does things planned out, step by step.
First faggots and lesbians must be accepted.
Then transvestites.
Now the time has arrived for them to sell pedophilia.
I’m sure this (pedophilia) or sex with animals will be the next thing they want to imagine into a civil right.
Eventually we’ll wind up with necrophilia and bestaility together.
Yep; sex with dead animals. Perfectly OK.
Well, I must admit that I found great pleasure delving into a perfectly cooked rack of ribs, and it was nearly orgasmic. Does that count?
Depends on the sauce.
However justified, experts say, the righteous revulsion we feel when we hear about crimes like those alleged against Fogle is making it harder to explain them and prevent them from happening.
This assertion was never proven in what followed. On the contrary, if the revulsion were sufficient, self-help and vigilante justice (not that I'm advocating either) would serve to prevent recurrent offenses.
“Right now, our society is more equipped to look at it as a moral problem than a medical or scientific problem,” psychiatrist Fred Berlin said. “But there is a biological basis for these cravings … and society is just giving lip service to that side of it.”
What's the biological basis? The rest of the article just speculates about that.
He added, “Nobody chooses to be attracted to children.”
I certainly hope he's right, but how does he know that?
He says that there’s a lot we still don’t know about the role that hormones, the brain and environment play in sexual attraction.
...in other words, whether there is in fact a biological basis.
“All of the attention is on known sex offenders and just heaping on the punishment,” Elizabeth Letourneau, a professor at the Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health who studies child sexual abuse, told Slate in 2012. “This is said to be due to an interest in prevention, but it’s really about retribution....”
Nonsense: As long as offenders are imprisoned, it keeps them from acting upon their impulse to harm children.
Rueful laugh. You could be right: the author himself might have a predilection.
But the people who think, oh heck, my grandmother married at 15 (mine did at 16) are missing the point. Grandpa asked for her father’s permission. Anyone committing sex with a young teen today KNOWS it’s wrong yet chose to indulge himself at her expense.
And the example I gave, very true and current, is that the lust for the forbidden youngster can GROW. Grow worse. Sex with a 14 year old can be a gateway to sex with a 9 year old. And on down the ages.
How old were those ribs? The age of consent is three hours smoked.
Excellent critique. You nailed it.
Did you read the comments, which get a bit scary? (I thought by now someone would have said, par for the course for WaPo subscribers.)
I am in favor of millstones and the depths of the sea.
At least some of them acknowledge that there is an actual moral issue here concerning how to keep vulnerable children from being harmed. Pseudo-scientific speculation (even if grant-funded by FedGov at household-name universities) does not address that.
You have it right, and with control of the media, pop culture, and education there’s no reason to think they will be any less successful than the were with homosexuals. After all these perverts were “born that way” cant help who ypu love,etc. Ad nauseum.
He’s going to be getting some footlongs in prison.
Man boy love is coming to America. And I am not happy saying it. We are on the downhill slide, and slouching to Gomorrah.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.