Skip to content
  • Categories
  • Recent
  • Tags
  • Popular
  • Users
  • Groups
Skins
  • Light
  • Cerulean
  • Cosmo
  • Flatly
  • Journal
  • Litera
  • Lumen
  • Lux
  • Materia
  • Minty
  • Morph
  • Pulse
  • Sandstone
  • Simplex
  • Sketchy
  • Spacelab
  • United
  • Yeti
  • Zephyr
  • Dark
  • Cyborg
  • Darkly
  • Quartz
  • Slate
  • Solar
  • Superhero
  • Vapor

  • Default (No Skin)
  • No Skin
Collapse

Film Glance Forum

  1. Home
  2. The IMDb Archives
  3. Could pedophilia ever be listed as a sexual orientation?

Could pedophilia ever be listed as a sexual orientation?

Scheduled Pinned Locked Moved The IMDb Archives
33 Posts 1 Posters 0 Views
  • Oldest to Newest
  • Newest to Oldest
  • Most Votes
Log in to reply
This topic has been deleted. Only users with topic management privileges can see it.
  • F Offline
    F Offline
    fgadmin
    wrote on last edited by
    #5

    Blade_TillTheEnd — 9 years ago(December 30, 2016 07:27 PM)

    It's official, you can't get any creepier.
    I have no interest in refraining from my dishonesty and stupidity.
    -Cash

    1 Reply Last reply
    0
    • F Offline
      F Offline
      fgadmin
      wrote on last edited by
      #6

      gladoscake — 9 years ago(December 30, 2016 07:38 PM)

      It's official, you can't get any creepier.
      Irony.

      1 Reply Last reply
      0
      • F Offline
        F Offline
        fgadmin
        wrote on last edited by
        #7

        IMDb User

        This message has been deleted.

        1 Reply Last reply
        0
        • F Offline
          F Offline
          fgadmin
          wrote on last edited by
          #8

          Miscella — 9 years ago(December 31, 2016 06:31 PM)

          It would be irony if the statement itself made him creepy.

          1 Reply Last reply
          0
          • F Offline
            F Offline
            fgadmin
            wrote on last edited by
            #9

            martytamu27 — 9 years ago(December 30, 2016 07:30 PM)

            No. Because it isn't between two consenting adults.

            1 Reply Last reply
            0
            • F Offline
              F Offline
              fgadmin
              wrote on last edited by
              #10

              micCee — 9 years ago(December 30, 2016 08:47 PM)

              That has nothing to do with sexual orientation.
              The term 'paedophilia' doesn't even refer to an act, whether between two consenting participants or otherwise. You knee-jerk reactionaries are incredibly ignorant.
              It could be a balloon. It could be Franky. It could be very fresh and clean. It could be those ways.

              1 Reply Last reply
              0
              • F Offline
                F Offline
                fgadmin
                wrote on last edited by
                #11

                martytamu27 — 9 years ago(December 30, 2016 08:51 PM)

                Ok fine. Then It can be considered and aberrant deviant sick sexual orientation.
                Anyone that is sexually attracted to a pre pubescent individual is a sick individual and worse than a murderer if they act in their desires cause it totally beep up that person and then the cycle of lost lives expands from there.

                1 Reply Last reply
                0
                • F Offline
                  F Offline
                  fgadmin
                  wrote on last edited by
                  #12

                  micCee — 9 years ago(December 30, 2016 08:55 PM)

                  Ok fine. Then It can be considered and aberrant deviant sick sexual orientation.
                  It deviates from what is optimal under evolution, as does homosexuality. I don't know if it is objectively 'sick' just because it is socially unacceptable to fulfil those desires.
                  It could be a balloon. It could be Franky. It could be very fresh and clean. It could be those ways.

                  1 Reply Last reply
                  0
                  • F Offline
                    F Offline
                    fgadmin
                    wrote on last edited by
                    #13

                    martytamu27 — 9 years ago(December 30, 2016 09:09 PM)

                    I agree. As a genetic trait homosexuality should not be present. Cause in the wild those that are don't get to mate and that gene isn't passed on. Humans differ. And it is passed on. Where it differs in our civilized world is that homosexuality as an orientation is conducted between other consenting individuals. Pedophilia, as a sexual orientation, cannot be carried out between to individuals that consent because one of those individuals is incapable of giving consent. Therefore it is sick and destructive. Whereas other sexual orientations. As long as it's between consenting folks. Knock yourself out. Do whatever pleases you. That is the fundamental difference between pedophilia and homosexuality.

                    1 Reply Last reply
                    0
                    • F Offline
                      F Offline
                      fgadmin
                      wrote on last edited by
                      #14

                      gladoscake — 9 years ago(December 30, 2016 10:00 PM)

                      I agree. As a genetic trait homosexuality should not be present. Cause in the wild those that are don't get to mate and that gene isn't passed on. Humans differ. And it is passed on. Where it differs in our civilized world is that homosexuality as an orientation is conducted between other consenting individuals. Pedophilia, as a sexual orientation, cannot be carried out between to individuals that consent because one of those individuals is incapable of giving consent. Therefore it is sick and destructive. Whereas other sexual orientations. As long as it's between consenting folks. Knock yourself out. Do whatever pleases you. That is the fundamental difference between pedophilia and homosexuality.
                      Though there is the theory of population control

                      1 Reply Last reply
                      0
                      • F Offline
                        F Offline
                        fgadmin
                        wrote on last edited by
                        #15

                        martytamu27 — 9 years ago(December 30, 2016 10:03 PM)

                        It's not working. Nature may eventually come up with a virus to wipe 80% of us out to save earth, but I feel we will kill our selves off before that.

                        1 Reply Last reply
                        0
                        • F Offline
                          F Offline
                          fgadmin
                          wrote on last edited by
                          #16

                          Cademon — 9 years ago(January 01, 2017 09:07 AM)

                          Unless he's dating someone with breasts and a full beard (someone of an indeterminate gender), there isn't really anything pansexual covers that isn't covered by bisexuality.

                          1 Reply Last reply
                          0
                          • F Offline
                            F Offline
                            fgadmin
                            wrote on last edited by
                            #17

                            Cademon — 9 years ago(December 30, 2016 07:35 PM)

                            Sexual orientation relates specifically to gender: so hetero, homo, bi, and pan (for creepy chasers).
                            But language doesn't necessarily have to follow any rigid laws, so it's possible in the future it might.
                            Maybe a lot of stuff could fit under the kinksexual category.
                            http://www.mtv.co.uk/pride/news/lgbtq-acronym-guide

                            1 Reply Last reply
                            0
                            • F Offline
                              F Offline
                              fgadmin
                              wrote on last edited by
                              #18

                              micCee — 9 years ago(December 30, 2016 08:49 PM)

                              Cademon raises a valid point, in that paedophilia doesn't relate to gender, which is what usually designates something as an orientation.
                              It's certainly a natural sexual proclivity though. The fact that the manifestation of paedophilia is harmful does not mean that paedophilia isn't just as natural as homosexuality or heterosexuality.
                              It could be a balloon. It could be Franky. It could be very fresh and clean. It could be those ways.

                              1 Reply Last reply
                              0
                              • F Offline
                                F Offline
                                fgadmin
                                wrote on last edited by
                                #19

                                martytamu27 — 9 years ago(December 30, 2016 09:13 PM)

                                It is less natural because it is with a prepubescent individual. If you're a man attracted to a man you just have the genetic programmed desire that a female has. Whatever that basis is. And as long as they consent it's not destructive to society.
                                Now if you're programmed to be attracted to prepubescent children then it is destructive to society and a much more abnormal trait that causes great harm to the individual and society. How can you not see the difference?
                                Under no circumstance would sex between and adult and a child be consensual

                                1 Reply Last reply
                                0
                                • F Offline
                                  F Offline
                                  fgadmin
                                  wrote on last edited by
                                  #20

                                  micCee — 9 years ago(December 30, 2016 09:49 PM)

                                  Whether the act of paedophilic love making could be consensual is besides the point, because nature doesn't adhere strictly to the human construct of morality.
                                  Paedophilia occurs in nature as a deviant sexual proclivity, therefore it is natural.
                                  It could be a balloon. It could be Franky. It could be very fresh and clean. It could be those ways.

                                  1 Reply Last reply
                                  0
                                  • F Offline
                                    F Offline
                                    fgadmin
                                    wrote on last edited by
                                    #21

                                    martytamu27 — 9 years ago(December 30, 2016 10:00 PM)

                                    It isn't natural. It's a mutation. And an unfavorable mutation. And in the wild it wouldn't be passed on and those individuals wouldn't. E allowed to mate and would most likely be eaten by their moms at birth. Cause the mother knows which Cubs are carrying bad genes.
                                    Humans go against nature. We let everyone live. For the most part. We go against evolution and natural selection and every genetic pressure there is.
                                    So it isn't natural. There are more sociopaths psychopath. Pedophiles. What have you in the human race cause we don't kill our young and they are able to mate. Men with inferior genes are allowed to mate because they use money and power to get women that on their own merits wouldn't ever mate with them. So you can't say something is natural just because it exists in the human race. The human race itself is an aberration of nature. We are the only living thing that goes against nature in so many ways. We willfully destroy our own habitat for example. And it will eventually lead to our extinction. Sooner than later.

                                    1 Reply Last reply
                                    0
                                    • F Offline
                                      F Offline
                                      fgadmin
                                      wrote on last edited by
                                      #22

                                      micCee — 9 years ago(December 30, 2016 10:09 PM)

                                      It isn't natural. It's a mutation. And an unfavorable mutation. And in the wild it wouldn't be passed on and those individuals wouldn't. E allowed to mate and would most likely be eaten by their moms at birth. Cause the mother knows which Cubs are carrying bad genes.
                                      I'm not sure that it is a mutation, but in any case, mutation occurs in nature. That's how evolution happened. Do you believe that evolution is unnatural?
                                      So it isn't natural. There are more sociopaths psychopath. Pedophiles. What have you in the human race cause we don't kill our young and they are able to mate. Men with inferior genes are allowed to mate because they use money and power to get women that on their own merits wouldn't ever mate with them. So you can't say something is natural just because it exists in the human race. The human race itself is an aberration of nature. We are the only living thing that goes against nature in so many ways. We willfully destroy our own habitat for example. And it will eventually lead to our extinction. Sooner than later.
                                      All human behaviour is natural, including psychopathy, mental illness, criminality, parasitism, etc. We destroy the world because we are the most successful and intelligent species of parasite.
                                      It could be a balloon. It could be Franky. It could be very fresh and clean. It could be those ways.

                                      1 Reply Last reply
                                      0
                                      • F Offline
                                        F Offline
                                        fgadmin
                                        wrote on last edited by
                                        #23

                                        martytamu27 — 9 years ago(December 30, 2016 10:27 PM)

                                        Yiure just bringing up stuff to perpetuate the argument. Many pints I addressed already. Mutations are natural. But in humans the bad genes are allowed to perpetuate. As I explained earlier.

                                        1 Reply Last reply
                                        0
                                        • F Offline
                                          F Offline
                                          fgadmin
                                          wrote on last edited by
                                          #24

                                          martytamu27 — 9 years ago(December 30, 2016 10:28 PM)

                                          If we were a successful parasite we woudknt destroy our host. That is what an unsuccessful parasite does. A successful parasite doesn't kill its host

                                          1 Reply Last reply
                                          0

                                          • Login

                                          • Don't have an account? Register

                                          Powered by NodeBB Contributors
                                          • First post
                                            Last post
                                          0
                                          • Categories
                                          • Recent
                                          • Tags
                                          • Popular
                                          • Users
                                          • Groups