Guess who has one hand, no friends, can't stop pissing pants and is a pedo?

The Something Awful Forums > Discussion > Debate & Discussion > Guess who has one hand, no friends, can't stop pissing pants and is a pedo?

unlimited shrimp: Aug 30, 2008

pedophilia isn't a choice, shitlord

e. Woops, this isn't GBS

But anyway, cases like this are where Social Justice logic starts to hit a brick wall for me. Every argument for queer rights could be deployed in this guy's favor -- the attraction (if not acted upon) is harmless to society, his attraction isn't a choice, persecuting this guy based on his benign attraction codifies bigotry, appeals to what is "natural" are a fallacy, this guy wouldn't necessarily be a bad parent or a danger to children, etc. Even if you want to remove the stigma of the attraction as PT6A said, how do you treat someone as an equal when their sexual orientation, if acted upon, is abhorrent? How do you check your microaggressions against someone you can't trust your children with? Should such an attraction be normalized, and if not, where is the red line for acceptable intolerance?

unlimited shrimp fucked around with this message at 14:37 on Sep 24, 2015

# ¿ Sep 24, 2015 14:24

Adbot: ADBOT LOVES YOU

# ¿ May 22, 2024 17:06

unlimited shrimp: Aug 30, 2008

Kajeesus posted:

The admittedly few self-admitted pedophiles I've encountered online have all been creepy goonlords that I wouldn't trust around children regardless of their attraction. If pedophilia were destigmatized and I knew a non-rapey pedophile, I'd probably trust them around children the same way I trust people to not commit rape in any other situation.

I was thinking about that earlier too and I guess it comes back to the fact that a pedophilia has no socially acceptable way to indulge or explore their sexuality whereas most other people are at least potentially able to without having to resort to rape. Trusting a pedophile to not rape a child is more like trusting a rapist to not commit rape.

# ¿ Sep 24, 2015 15:58

unlimited shrimp: Aug 30, 2008

Kajeesus posted:

Would you trust a gay man raised with the genuine belief that homosexuality is a sin to not rape you?

My point is that you can't compare pedophilia to sexualities that otherwise have healthy forms of expression or can otherwise be explored without necessarily creating a victim. A self-loathing gay person can deny their sexuality, can try to live a heteronormative life, or can eventually come to accept themselves and explore their sexuality in healthy and mutually enjoyable/mutually consenting ways.

Conversely, a pedophile only has options 1 and 2 available to them. There is no healthy way for them to explore or indulge their pedophilia. In that sense a pedophile more like a latent rapist who craves that specific power dynamic, than Joe Average who is technically capable of rape but does not desire it.

# ¿ Sep 24, 2015 17:26

unlimited shrimp: Aug 30, 2008

Again, my point is that there are no healthy, consenting ways for a pedophile to explore their pedophilia (except fantasizing I guess). This is not true of gay people, however self loathing. This is not true of a virgin looking at porn. This is not true of a basement dwelling goon afraid to talk to women. All of them have outlets to explore their sexuality that are either victimless (porn) or otherwise mutually consenting (prostitutes, hookups, whatever). A pedophile can fantasize, look at hentai/cartoon porn, or read erotic stories. The latter two may still be illegal in some jurisdictions, I don't know.

The only way for a pedophile to explore their sexuality with another human being is to victimize a child. If they are capable of living a normal life with an adult partner, or otherwise not indulging in their sexuality, then that's great. But their sexuality is categorically different than, say, a straight guy who is capable of rape but otherwise has no interest in it, or a self-loathing gay guy who could still healthily explore their sexuality if they overcame their demons.

# ¿ Sep 24, 2015 18:20

unlimited shrimp: Aug 30, 2008

ImpAtom posted:

I'm pretty sure there are extremely few Social Justice Warriors who think that pedophilia should be legitimized and protected. By and large the attitude is not "this is normal and healthy" but "the stigma against pedophilia is so extreme that it prevents people from seeking treatment." The fact that nothing exists between 'burn the witch' and 'this is perfectly normal and healthy' is a problem with a lot of things, not just this particular one. I'm sure there are extreme examples but extreme examples are not a usual mindset. (or at least shouldn't be.)

That said, 'every argument for queer rights' doesn't work here. A major issue here is that a gay person who is in a relationship with another gay person has entered into a consensual relationship with another adult. This is not a minor issue and it is where the "well, if we let gays marry we'll have to marry dogs and men too" argument falls too. Mature adults choosing to enter into a consensual relationship with one another is a very different matter from abuse of someone incapable of or unable to consent.

Trying to tie the two together is kind of gross because it ignores that very important fact. No comparison can or should get past the brick wall of "gay people have consensual adult relationships." You can't compare it to pedophilia or bestiality or whatever for that very important reason.

"Every" was hyperbole. But a lot do. I listed some. My criticism wasn't that Social Justice activists think pedophilia should be legitimized and protected, but that the same rhetoric used to liberate some oppressed groups can easily be abused in examples such as this (or, for example, conservative Christians on college campuses claiming to be triggered by queer lit.) Absent irrational principles, there's no reason this guy shouldn't be treated as completely normal and healthy as long as he doesn't act on his desires.

Tatum Girlparts posted:

It's almost like there's an inherent difference between a sexual attraction to other consenting adults and one to children regardless of past social paradigms.

Like, yea, at one time gays were called as bad as pedophiles, poo poo we still are a lot, that doesn't magically make us brothers in arms. At one time a black dude whistling at a white woman could get lynched, but if some dude wolf whistles my little cousin I'm pretty ok with him walking out of that with a busted jaw. Past bigotries being hosed up and wrong doesn't change basic poo poo like 'wanting to gently caress a child is probably objectively a wrong thing'.

There's no ellipsis to "homosexual desire is not a choice" that reads "but its okay because the desire is directed towards a party capable of consent." Arguments against the naturalistic fallacy vis a vis heteronormativity aren't prefaced with a note that pedophilia is in fact unnatural regardless of what follows. There is an inherent difference between attraction to a consenting adult and to children, but what does it matter if it's never acted upon?

# ¿ Sep 25, 2015 02:45

The Something Awful Forums > Discussion > Debate & Discussion > Guess who has one hand, no friends, can't stop pissing pants and is a pedo?