Inspired by a video that was around a while back called "if meat eaters acted like vegans", or something like that. It made fun of what veganism stands for. I believe that video was made in 'retaliation' to a video made by PETA entitled "If Vegans Said the Stuff Meat-Eaters Say".
: sexual perversion in which children are the preferred sexual object; specifically : a psychological disorder in which an adult has sexual fantasies about or engages in sexual acts with a prepubescent child
"There is no hope. Knowing that humans die untimely, by the millions, simply makes me feel a bit better. If more than, say, 2000 were killed in one go, I could smile. 20000? I might throw a party..."
That definition is wrong. Philia refers to sexual attraction and paedo to age set. That's why there is no law against paedophilia. It's a sexual attraction. You don't have to be a paedophile to sexually abuse children either.
"The International Classification of Diseases (ICD-10) defines it as a sexual preference for children of prepubertal or early pubertal age."
It's not a perversion or disorder. It's a sexual preference. The only problem is when it's acted on out via sexual abuse. Don't know where you get your definition but it's clearly written by someone who doesn't understand it.
Paedophilia is not rare. As a society we encourage our young females wear makeup, dress provocatively. Those hitting their teens or in early teens dress themselves up to make themselves look older than they are. Older women want to look younger. There is a fetish for schoolgirl uniforms. In the past girls were encouraged to marry young in order to further on the family line as life expectancy was low.
Also, biologically, when a female has started to have periods she is ready to procreate. She produces hormones when at most fertile that men pick up subconsciously. All women do. Regardless of age; as long as they are ovulating.
The stigma attached to underage sex and the nonsense that is "statutory rape" (rape requires no consent so a 14/15 etc can consent and still have the older person get accused of rape) seems to be quite a modern one. I very much doubt early humans cared so much about when girls and boys started fornicating.
"That definition is wrong. Philia refers to sexual attraction and paedo to age set." - That's exactly what the definition I gave states From the Merriam-Webster, and medical and legal dictionary, btw. Any sexual act that involves a minor and an adult is unlawful. You don't have to abuse children to be a pedophile, either. Not sure what point you're trying to make.
"It's not a perversion or disorder." Psychologists disagree. Having sex with non-humans could also be considered a "sexual preference". The issue is the distress and trauma such actions might and do cause; the "sexual abuse" you mention, which can present itself in many ways, and it is obviously what the post refers to, mostly (not to mention that it's supposed to be about carnists, not pedophiles).
About the biological part, that's what "pre-pubescent" means.
"I very much doubt early humans cared so much [...]" - The same can be said of them caring about being healthy, non-human suffering, or in fact anything besides survival. This all comes from brain development and our better understanding of ourselves and the world around us.
I honestly couldn't care less about laws or what is socially accepted. The post intended to create an analogy between what most people consider right or wrong, and the hypocrisy of those people.
The definition is a sign of who wrote it. Just like you are about the definition of vegan and other words (i.e gay) I am about paedophile.
Just like other philias refer to sexual attraction to such and such, the same for this. Having a sexual attraction to a certain age group does not mean you actually will have sex with that age group. Many paedophiles live relatively normal lives with standard "normal" relationships. Some even hate themselves for having the attraction.
It is no different from being sexually attracted to the same sex or objects or whatever. It is simply a attraction that some have.
Child/sexual abuse is what is illegal. Not paedophilia. And as I said a sexual abuser of children doesn't necessarily have to have a sexual attraction to children. So they can be a non paedophile and still sexually abuse children. Just like a non zoophile can sexually abuse an animal. Some of the sexual abuse of youngsters will simply be about the power it gives the abuser.
My point was the word used in the image is wrong. It should say child abuser/sexual abuser/molestor etc. Not paedophile which a lot erronously think goes hand in hand with child abuse.
It's attempt to vilify the thoughts of another and basically criminllalise something that does no harm. People can masterbate to whatever they want. They can be attracted to whatever they want. The only line that shouldn't be crossed is abuse and rape after a certain age. Or in the case of zoophiles, not abusing animals in a sexual manner.
Fair enough. Like I said, I really don't care. I don't mind pedophiles that much either way, so... I also don't care much about gays, either (I have a thing for words, it's all). Just in case: I also don't care about non-pedophiles or straight people.
In any case, the fact remains that, in many cases (most?), attraction entails an urge to see such desires satisfied. And it's a slippery slope (to put it mildly) to say that having sex with a 5 years old is perfectly fine and doesn't cause any physical or psychological trauma.
"It is no different from being sexually attracted to the same sex or objects or whatever." Erm, well, if you can't see how pedophilia has more potential for (and do cause more actual) damage than, say, being attracted to a chair, or even an adult, not much I can say about it =)
I am not saying that pedophilia is illegal, but any sexual act between and adult and a minor.
I agree with word usage when it comes to pedophilia in the post: I have used it to refer to the people who do act upon their desires (evidently, beyond masturbating to a picture of Heidi); although, again, I put no emphasis on pedophiles but the general moral standards and hypocrisy of the population. I did not attempt to criminalize or vilify the thoughts of those who find sexual pleasure in children, regardless my opinion on the matter, but to use the idea behind the word to stir the minds of carnists. That said, pedophilia does cause harm, albeit not in all cases. And, well, it is hard to draw the line and clearly see what abuse is, on occasion (particularly, perhaps, when it comes to beings whose level of awareness could be argued), that's why I tend to be an all black or white kinda person, when it comes to what could be considered abuse.
Likewise, I do not hold psychologists in any particular regard, no matter what I might think of homosexuality or any other subject.
Well, the fact of the matter is that, indeed, the wording is not wrong, since a pedophile can and does indulge in the actions I described. Sure, non-pedophiles also do, and not all pedophiles act that way, but that doesn't make the wording erroneous. Could it stigmatize pedophiles further? Sure. Although, well, that's something I'm not concerned about. Not because I hold any grudges, but because I simply cannot see how they are different from the rest of a species I despise anyway. Call me callous, if you will. Again, it was intended to stigmatize carnists, although I get that intention is of little use in views of actual accomplishments.
As for what desires pedophiles express, we go into the "what abuse is" area, specially when it comes to subjective, personal beliefs. Even if we were to take what people say at face value.
So, yeah, I reckon I could have used "child molester" or something similar instead, and avoid a lot of trouble =) Although, well, in comparing carnism as a belief system with the belief system of pedophiles (the belief that it's fine to be sexually attracted to children), I think the purpose of the post hits home when it comes to shock factor and involves not only action but thought. But, hm, I don't see why talking like this won't make us just go to the start of the conversation again.
Alas! No offense to pedophiles intended, even when I don't care if offense was caused.
NOTE- For those lost in the conversation, usernames: italics are Lomedin, the rest is Vegan
Press "Hide" to collapse shoutbox. "Show" to show it.
Lomedin: Learned by chance that Kat Von D is vegan. Didn't have a clue who she was before.
Dec 8, 2018 21:14:49 GMT
Vegan: I'm on an antinatilist group and only found out about her on that. Had no idea who she was before as never heard of her.
Dec 17, 2018 15:51:51 GMT
Lomedin: I guess they were roasting her for having a baby? Hahaha
Dec 17, 2018 16:10:29 GMT
Vegan: Yep. Apparently she used to be antinatilist.
Dec 17, 2018 17:49:49 GMT
Lomedin: Really??? Wow, talk about devolution.
Dec 24, 2018 17:07:58 GMT
discord: What happened to this forum? It used to be a lot more lively :<
Feb 8, 2019 17:47:42 GMT
Lomedin: You left.... =P
Feb 11, 2019 18:49:49 GMT
cybernaut: Well, it can be a little hard for me to come here sometimes because of how negative things can get here. I realize there's much to be negative about, but it's still hard for me all the same.
Feb 12, 2019 7:48:33 GMT
Lomedin: You can thank me with Bitcoin
Feb 15, 2019 13:00:43 GMT
Vegan: Which negative things you referring to?
Feb 17, 2019 0:00:29 GMT