Posted: Dec 14, 2016 8:35 am
Again, for emphasis, the following is a genuine response to your post, as it reads to me.
Here it seems to me you're implying heterosexuals will always act on their attraction.
When in fact the fast majority of time they don't as the woman isn't interested, already married, or for some other reason not available.
So, taking that into account why do you seem to think paedophiles, who are aware that sex with children is harmful and illegal, will try to have sex with children?
See, this only reinforces the impression that you think all heterosexual people will try to have sex with any and all people they find attractive. Otherwise why are you wondering what's to stop people from trying?
What's to stop people from trying: lack of consent, the person being already married. The person not being of legal age, etc, etc.
You know, mostly similar things that will prevent paedophiles from actually having sex with children.
And unless I am mistaken, neither you, nor I, nor most other people, try to have sex with each and every other person we're attracted to.
Now we come to the crux of the matter and what seemed to me to be an involunatery admission of rape. (Which I don't actually believe you would do, but that is what this reads like)
What you're saying here is that the only thing that's stopping heterosexual people and paedophiles from having sex with people is oppurtunity.
Not lack of consent and empathy.
In essence you're saying, as it seems to me, that the only reason you're not having sex with women beside your wife, with women who wouldn't necesarrily want to have sex with you, is the lack of oppurtunity.
The second statement is either a direct contradiction to the first, or makes no sense.
Especially since your response to me pointing this out to you, was to re-emphasize the oppurtunity part:
Now, if I am somehow misunderstanding you, please do explain what you actually mean, but don't just wave it away with 'you're wrong!'.
The_Metatron wrote:Thomas Eshuis wrote:The_Metatron wrote:
Nor can that business thrive unless those people who did the business, thinking it was an acceptable thing to do, decide to do it again.
Still does not change the fact that paedophelia =/= thinking child pornography is normal or acceptable.
You're still conflating individual instances of actions with a sexual attraction.
Because the one so rarely leads to the other, is that what you're claiming?
If I assume you are a typical heterosexual, are you going to tell me you aren't going to act on that attraction?
Here it seems to me you're implying heterosexuals will always act on their attraction.
When in fact the fast majority of time they don't as the woman isn't interested, already married, or for some other reason not available.
So, taking that into account why do you seem to think paedophiles, who are aware that sex with children is harmful and illegal, will try to have sex with children?
The_Metatron wrote: In fact, what could possibly stop you from trying?
See, this only reinforces the impression that you think all heterosexual people will try to have sex with any and all people they find attractive. Otherwise why are you wondering what's to stop people from trying?
What's to stop people from trying: lack of consent, the person being already married. The person not being of legal age, etc, etc.
You know, mostly similar things that will prevent paedophiles from actually having sex with children.
The_Metatron wrote: Unless I'm missing something here, sex is pretty much one of the two main motivators for pleasure. The other is eating. Biological imperative, and all that.
And unless I am mistaken, neither you, nor I, nor most other people, try to have sex with each and every other person we're attracted to.
Now we come to the crux of the matter and what seemed to me to be an involunatery admission of rape. (Which I don't actually believe you would do, but that is what this reads like)
The_Metatron wrote:If I judge a pedophile's sexual attraction to have anywhere near the same imperative as my sexual attraction to adult females, there is almost no way they are going to fail to act on it, given the opportunity to do so. As with others, some will take an opportunity to do so.
What you're saying here is that the only thing that's stopping heterosexual people and paedophiles from having sex with people is oppurtunity.
Not lack of consent and empathy.
In essence you're saying, as it seems to me, that the only reason you're not having sex with women beside your wife, with women who wouldn't necesarrily want to have sex with you, is the lack of oppurtunity.
The second statement is either a direct contradiction to the first, or makes no sense.
Especially since your response to me pointing this out to you, was to re-emphasize the oppurtunity part:
The_Metatron wrote:Thomas Eshuis wrote:...If I judge a pedophile's sexual attraction to have anywhere near the same imperative as my sexual attraction to adult females, there is almost no way they are going to fail to act on it, given the opportunity to do so.
Again, unless you've just openly declared yourself to be a rapist that forces himself on any and all women he finds attractive, you're talking horseshit.
...
Take a hard look at that part I highlighted. You see, that's the conditional part of the sentence. The part that must also be met for the action to occur.
Now, if I am somehow misunderstanding you, please do explain what you actually mean, but don't just wave it away with 'you're wrong!'.