Accused headmaster turned me into pedophile, says convicted cleric Peter Gilbert


A CLERGYMAN who allegedly raped boys at a north Queensland boarding school in the 1960s has claimed he was ordered to take female hormones by his headmaster, who encouraged the "romantic love" of children among staff.

Former Anglican brother Peter Gilbert - sentenced to seven years' jail in 2006 for the rape and indecent assault of children in the 1980s in South Australia - has blamed St Barnabas headmaster the late Robert Waddington for turning him into a pedophile.

http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/nation/accused-headmaster-turned-me-into-pedophile-says-convicted-cleric-peter-gilbert/story-e6frg6nf-1226639753814


Is pedophilia hereditary?
The truth is scientists don't know yet, said James Cantor, a psychologist with the Centre for Addiction and Mental Health.
But, he said, studies show that someone who is sexually attracted to children is biologically different from non-pedophiles.

"Over the past five years, we've been gaining more and more ... clues that this is the case," said Cantor, one of the few scientists in the country studying the issue.
In recent years, researchers have shown pedophiles are three times more likely to be left-handed and are "significantly" shorter than non-pedophiles.
Their IQs are typically 10 points below average and they more frequently suffered head injuries as children.
By this logic, it would seem nature, rather than nurture, is to blame.

http://www.thestar.com/news/gta/2009/07/17/is_pedophilia_a_product_of_nature_or_nurture.html


What creates Paedophilia, nature or nurture.

Maybe a bit of both. It seems that some children that were abused, go on to abuse, much like children raised in abusive households go on to marry or form relationships with abusive partners, not all, but a lot.

I wonder if those that join the clergy do so because they can hide behind the cloak, they are protected to a certain degree, or if they learn that behaviour after joining, the culture of the organisation.....who knows?

There doesn't seem to be any clear evidence as yet, I'm hoping with the Royal Commission into pedophilia within these organisations, more light will shine on the reasons behind the abuse, maybe then steps can be taken to prevent it.

So we shouldn't trust short, left handed idiots around children?

Quote:

What creates Paedophilia, nature or nurture.

Same as what creates other defects of sexual attraction, such as homosexuality.  I don't think it's a single cause.

freediver wrote on May 12^th, 2013 at 9:24am:

So we shouldn't trust short, left handed idiots around children?

I didn't know Pansi was short and left handed, the idiot part is common knowledge.

... wrote on May 12^th, 2013 at 9:33am:

Quote: What creates Paedophilia, nature or nurture. Same as what creates other defects of sexual attraction, such as homosexuality.  I don't think it's a single cause.

At what age does heterosexual attraction happen?

... wrote on May 12^th, 2013 at 9:33am:

Quote: What creates Paedophilia, nature or nurture. Same as what creates other defects of sexual attraction, such as homosexuality.  I don't think it's a single cause.

You just wanted to day defects of sexual attraction like hommersexuality. Getting one in for the team, eh Honky?

Marvellous stuff.

KJT1981 wrote on May 12^th, 2013 at 9:43am:

freediver wrote on May 12th, 2013 at 9:24am: So we shouldn't trust short, left handed idiots around children? I didn't know Pansi was short and left handed, the idiot part is common knowledge.

go away troll

SOB

____ wrote on May 12^th, 2013 at 9:53am:

... wrote on May 12th, 2013 at 9:33am: Quote: What creates Paedophilia, nature or nurture. Same as what creates other defects of sexual attraction, such as homosexuality.  I don't think it's a single cause. At what age does heterosexual attraction happen?

Probably the same age any other orientation 'happens'.  Why do you ask?

____ wrote on May 12^th, 2013 at 6:33am:

What creates Paedophilia, nature or nurture.

nature would not create something as diabolical as a paedo.....no way.they are just plain sick..

the same with anyone who abuses children..god we have enough of them..

I am sick of reading about the damage done to our kids...the law is too weak...think of yourself as a child in no position to get away from someone like that...dont blame anything but themselves...children are just an easy target.. they wouldnt get away with what they do with an adult..lock em up foreeeever

... wrote on May 12^th, 2013 at 11:28am:

____ wrote on May 12th, 2013 at 9:53am: ... wrote on May 12th, 2013 at 9:33am: Quote: What creates Paedophilia, nature or nurture. Same as what creates other defects of sexual attraction, such as homosexuality.  I don't think it's a single cause. At what age does heterosexual attraction happen? Probably the same age any other orientation 'happens'.  Why do you ask?

Being from the gay community, unsure of the non-gay community's sexual development.

So what aged did your personal sexual interest start?

I am guessing you are non-gay?

cods wrote on May 12^th, 2013 at 11:30am:

____ wrote on May 12th, 2013 at 6:33am: What creates Paedophilia, nature or nurture. nature would not create something as diabolical as a paedo.....no way.they are just plain sick.. the same with anyone who abuses children..god we have enough of them.. I am sick of reading about the damage done to our kids...the law is too weak...think of yourself as a child in no position to get away from someone like that...dont blame anything but themselves...children are just an easy target.. they wouldnt get away with what they do with an adult..lock em up foreeeever

Nature has created situations where parents eat their babies. Having sexual relations would not be as bad would it?

Sir Spot of Borg wrote on May 12^th, 2013 at 11:07am:

KJT1981 wrote on May 12th, 2013 at 9:43am: freediver wrote on May 12th, 2013 at 9:24am: So we shouldn't trust short, left handed idiots around children? I didn't know Pansi was short and left handed, the idiot part is common knowledge. go away troll SOB

Numberplate is having another low self esteem day, she needs to look in the mirror, or do a little soul searching, there must be something to like.

____ wrote on May 12^th, 2013 at 11:43am:

cods wrote on May 12th, 2013 at 11:30am: ____ wrote on May 12th, 2013 at 6:33am: What creates Paedophilia, nature or nurture. nature would not create something as diabolical as a paedo.....no way.they are just plain sick.. the same with anyone who abuses children..god we have enough of them.. I am sick of reading about the damage done to our kids...the law is too weak...think of yourself as a child in no position to get away from someone like that...dont blame anything but themselves...children are just an easy target.. they wouldnt get away with what they do with an adult..lock em up foreeeever Nature has created situations where parents eat their babies. Having sexual relations would not be as bad would it?

not in humans....and if that was the case... they would be declared insane..

and yes having sexual relations with a child would be as bad.. maybe not in you view but most certainly in mine... its up there with all the murder and torture some men put children through..

I would like just 5 minutes with them.... thats all.

____ wrote on May 12^th, 2013 at 6:33am:

Is pedophilia hereditary?The truth is scientists don't know yet, said James Cantor, a psychologist with the Centre for Addiction and Mental Health.But, he said, studies show that someone who is sexually attracted to children is biologically different from non-pedophiles."Over the past five years, we've been gaining more and more ... clues that this is the case," said Cantor, one of the few scientists in the country studying the issue.In recent years, researchers have shown pedophiles are three times more likely to be left-handed and are "significantly" shorter than non-pedophiles.Their IQs are typically 10 points below average and they more frequently suffered head injuries as children.By this logic, it would seem nature, rather than nurture, is to blame.

That's hardly logic. Firstly, hereditary means the biological passing of genetic traits from parents to their offspring. Secondly, correlation isn't causation. I'd like to see the research that backs up the dubious claims the Star is making.

The nature vs nurture debate will never be fully resolved - it presents a false dichotomy. In fact, it's hardly even a serious debate anymore because most experts accept that. For a start, behaviour is multiply-determined, which is why it's so difficult to predict. There are always influences that you can't measure. It's very difficult to identify any single psychological attribute or behaviour that can be attributed exclusively to either biological or environmental issues.

Whatever causes it will be relevant to discovering if there is treatment & prevention.
The main thing is we don't allow a discussion to develop along the line of it's a natural phenomenon and should be tolerated.

Quote:

What creates Paedophilia, nature or nurture.

Both

Studies show that pretty much all behaviours have a nature component and a nurture component. It is just the percentage of each that varies.

The problem with the Catholic church is that it looks for unmarried men that will have lots of contact with children. It is hardly surprising that Paedophiles are over-represented in this group.

bogarde73 wrote on May 12^th, 2013 at 11:54am:

Whatever causes it will be relevant to discovering if there is treatment & prevention. The main thing is we don't allow a discussion to develop along the line of it's a natural phenomenon and should be tolerated.

That's doubtful. If anything, paedophilia would be viewed as a mental illness and treated as such.

Ex Dame Pansi wrote on May 12^th, 2013 at 11:48am:

Sir Spot of Borg wrote on May 12th, 2013 at 11:07am: KJT1981 wrote on May 12th, 2013 at 9:43am: freediver wrote on May 12th, 2013 at 9:24am: So we shouldn't trust short, left handed idiots around children? I didn't know Pansi was short and left handed, the idiot part is common knowledge. go away troll SOB Numberplate is having another low self esteem day, she needs to look in the mirror, or do a little soul searching, there must be something to like.

Yep, there is plenty to like Pansi. Unlike you, everyday of mine is high esteem.

Must suck to be a cranky, hateful old woman like you.

Sir Spot of Borg wrote on May 12^th, 2013 at 11:07am:

KJT1981 wrote on May 12th, 2013 at 9:43am: freediver wrote on May 12th, 2013 at 9:24am: So we shouldn't trust short, left handed idiots around children? I didn't know Pansi was short and left handed, the idiot part is common knowledge. go away troll SOB

Hit a nerve Miss Borg? Are you short and left handed, as I said to Pansi, the idiot part is common knowledge.

Another interesting thread

If you argue that homosexuality is natural and therefore normal (I don't care either way) then perhaps the same case can be made for paedophilia.

It would be interesting to see if paedophillia rates were the same across many population groups, perhaps this shows a common recessive trait.

I cant see any society accepting paedophilia on any
grounds.

If its a natural tendency for them they are going to have some very unhappy lives. (unless they are in one of those many religious cults)

KJT and SOB, please just bugger off, for the rest of our sakes. It's impossible to have a proper discussion with your constant bitching at each other. If you can't refrain, create a different thread (or better yet a sub-board) and go for your lives. Just keep it away from everyone else who couldn't care less what your stupid beef with one another is.

Annie Anthrax wrote on May 12^th, 2013 at 12:34pm:

KJT and SOB, please just bugger off, for the rest of our sakes. It's impossible to have a proper discussion with your constant bitching at each other. If you can't refrain, create a different thread (or better yet a sub-board) and go for your lives. Just keep it away from everyone else who couldn't care less what your stupid beef with one another is.

I second that

Annie Anthrax wrote on May 12^th, 2013 at 11:53am:

____ wrote on May 12th, 2013 at 6:33am: Is pedophilia hereditary?The truth is scientists don't know yet, said James Cantor, a psychologist with the Centre for Addiction and Mental Health.But, he said, studies show that someone who is sexually attracted to children is biologically different from non-pedophiles."Over the past five years, we've been gaining more and more ... clues that this is the case," said Cantor, one of the few scientists in the country studying the issue.In recent years, researchers have shown pedophiles are three times more likely to be left-handed and are "significantly" shorter than non-pedophiles.Their IQs are typically 10 points below average and they more frequently suffered head injuries as children.By this logic, it would seem nature, rather than nurture, is to blame. That's hardly logic. Firstly, hereditary means the biological passing of genetic traits from parents to their offspring. Secondly, correlation isn't causation. I'd like to see the research that backs up the dubious claims the Star is making. The nature vs nurture debate will never be fully resolved - it presents a false dichotomy. In fact, it's hardly even a serious debate anymore because most experts accept that. For a start, behaviour is multiply-determined, which is why it's so difficult to predict. There are always influences that you can't measure. It's very difficult to identify any single psychological attribute or behaviour that can be attributed exclusively to either biological or environmental issues.

Sounds like your psychology degree is going well.

Ex Dame Pansi wrote on May 12^th, 2013 at 7:26am:

Maybe a bit of both. It seems that some children that were abused, go on to abuse, much like children raised in abusive households go on to marry or form relationships with abusive partners, not all, but a lot. I wonder if those that join the clergy do so because they can hide behind the cloak, they are protected to a certain degree, or if they learn that behaviour after joining, the culture of the organisation.....who knows? There doesn't seem to be any clear evidence as yet, I'm hoping with the Royal Commission into pedophilia within these organisations, more light will shine on the reasons behind the abuse, maybe then steps can be taken to prevent it.

Very good pansi, that maybe the very reason. After all, what other career choice actually 'bans' you from having a girlfriend/partner/spouse??

Annie Anthrax wrote on May 12^th, 2013 at 12:04pm:

bogarde73 wrote on May 12th, 2013 at 11:54am: Whatever causes it will be relevant to discovering if there is treatment & prevention. The main thing is we don't allow a discussion to develop along the line of it's a natural phenomenon and should be tolerated. That's doubtful. If anything, paedophilia would be viewed as a mental illness and treated as such.

Perhaps, but if it is, it's only as much of a mental illness as people who find err...mature people sexually attractive.  That is, IF we wanted to brand anyone with evolutionarily maladaptive sexual tendencies as mentally ill.  But I wouldn't expect greens_win to shake up that hornets nest. 

Postmodern Trendoid III wrote on May 12^th, 2013 at 1:17pm:

Annie Anthrax wrote on May 12th, 2013 at 11:53am: ____ wrote on May 12th, 2013 at 6:33am: Is pedophilia hereditary?The truth is scientists don't know yet, said James Cantor, a psychologist with the Centre for Addiction and Mental Health.But, he said, studies show that someone who is sexually attracted to children is biologically different from non-pedophiles."Over the past five years, we've been gaining more and more ... clues that this is the case," said Cantor, one of the few scientists in the country studying the issue.In recent years, researchers have shown pedophiles are three times more likely to be left-handed and are "significantly" shorter than non-pedophiles.Their IQs are typically 10 points below average and they more frequently suffered head injuries as children.By this logic, it would seem nature, rather than nurture, is to blame. That's hardly logic. Firstly, hereditary means the biological passing of genetic traits from parents to their offspring. Secondly, correlation isn't causation. I'd like to see the research that backs up the dubious claims the Star is making. The nature vs nurture debate will never be fully resolved - it presents a false dichotomy. In fact, it's hardly even a serious debate anymore because most experts accept that. For a start, behaviour is multiply-determined, which is why it's so difficult to predict. There are always influences that you can't measure. It's very difficult to identify any single psychological attribute or behaviour that can be attributed exclusively to either biological or environmental issues. Sounds like your psychology degree is going well.

It is, MM. I'm really enjoying it.

The advent of the internet and easily accessible child porn, or porn in general has resulted in an almost exponential rise in the number of pedophiles in  western society. There is no doubt in my mind that some such as those who get off on having power over children or mutilating and killing them whilst involved in sexual acts are indeed born that way. However, for those who are atrracted to children in a sexual non violent way, it is a case of nurture. Our society is currently providing the means for these people to reinforce these types of sexual behaviours. We are not providing approproate role models. We can blame the femo nazi brigade partially for this by promoting deliberate gender blurring.

... wrote on May 12^th, 2013 at 2:37pm:

Annie Anthrax wrote on May 12th, 2013 at 12:04pm: bogarde73 wrote on May 12th, 2013 at 11:54am: Whatever causes it will be relevant to discovering if there is treatment & prevention. The main thing is we don't allow a discussion to develop along the line of it's a natural phenomenon and should be tolerated. That's doubtful. If anything, paedophilia would be viewed as a mental illness and treated as such. Perhaps, but if it is, it's only as much of a mental illness as people who find err...mature people sexually attractive.  That is, IF we wanted to brand anyone with evolutionarily maladaptive sexual tendencies as mentally ill.  But I wouldn't expect greens_win to shake up that hornets nest.

Bad analogy. Finding older people sexually attractive and acting on fantasies in a consensual context isn't harming anyone. Preying on children who are aren't yet mentally mature enough to make informed decisions is obviously very different. Perhaps a more fitting analogy would be rape due to its devastating impact on the victim, the fact it is committed without consent and is a crime in our society.

ian wrote on May 12^th, 2013 at 2:50pm:

The advent of the internet and easily accessible child porn, or porn in general has resulted in an almost exponential rise in the number of pedophiles in  western society. There is no doubt in my mind that some such as those who get off on having power over children or mutilating and killing them whilst involved in sexual acts are indeed born that way. However, for those who are atrracted to children in a sexual non violent way, it is a case of nurture. Our society is currently providing the means for these people to reinforce these types of sexual behaviours. We are not providing approproate role models. We can blame the femo nazi brigade partially for this by promoting deliberate gender blurring.

Gender 'blurring'? How do you relate that to paedophilia?

Annie Anthrax wrote on May 12^th, 2013 at 2:54pm:

ian wrote on May 12th, 2013 at 2:50pm: The advent of the internet and easily accessible child porn, or porn in general has resulted in an almost exponential rise in the number of pedophiles in  western society. There is no doubt in my mind that some such as those who get off on having power over children or mutilating and killing them whilst involved in sexual acts are indeed born that way. However, for those who are atrracted to children in a sexual non violent way, it is a case of nurture. Our society is currently providing the means for these people to reinforce these types of sexual behaviours. We are not providing approproate role models. We can blame the femo nazi brigade partially for this by promoting deliberate gender blurring. Gender 'blurring'? How do you relate that to paedophilia?

Lack of sexual identity.

I would defy any man to claim there aren't times when he sees a nicely built young schoolgirl in the street and has a fleeting thought as to what he would like to do with her. But that's just fantasy.

What encourages a man to rape babies, toddlers and preteens I have no idea. It's said rape is about power, but who wants power over a baby?

Annie Anthrax wrote on May 12^th, 2013 at 2:52pm:

... wrote on May 12th, 2013 at 2:37pm: Annie Anthrax wrote on May 12th, 2013 at 12:04pm: bogarde73 wrote on May 12th, 2013 at 11:54am: Whatever causes it will be relevant to discovering if there is treatment & prevention. The main thing is we don't allow a discussion to develop along the line of it's a natural phenomenon and should be tolerated. That's doubtful. If anything, paedophilia would be viewed as a mental illness and treated as such. Perhaps, but if it is, it's only as much of a mental illness as people who find err...mature people sexually attractive.  That is, IF we wanted to brand anyone with evolutionarily maladaptive sexual tendencies as mentally ill.  But I wouldn't expect greens_win to shake up that hornets nest.  Bad analogy. Finding older people sexually attractive and acting on fantasies in a consensual context isn't harming anyone. Preying on children who are aren't yet mentally mature enough to make informed decisions is obviously very different. Perhaps a more fitting analogy would be rape due to its devastating impact on the victim, the fact it is committed without consent and is a crime in our society.

Whether or not harm is caused,  that is not what determines whether it is a "mental illness."

ian wrote on May 12^th, 2013 at 2:50pm:

The advent of the internet and easily accessible child porn, or porn in general has resulted in an almost exponential rise in the number of pedophiles in  western society.

I think the only exponential rise has been the hysteria levels about paedophilia, rather than the incidence of it. 
One could argue that since some other "bogeymen" have become protected species, people have just focused all their contempt towards a more socially acceptable object of hate.

... wrote on May 12^th, 2013 at 3:57pm:

Annie Anthrax wrote on May 12th, 2013 at 2:52pm: ... wrote on May 12th, 2013 at 2:37pm: Annie Anthrax wrote on May 12th, 2013 at 12:04pm: bogarde73 wrote on May 12th, 2013 at 11:54am: Whatever causes it will be relevant to discovering if there is treatment & prevention. The main thing is we don't allow a discussion to develop along the line of it's a natural phenomenon and should be tolerated. That's doubtful. If anything, paedophilia would be viewed as a mental illness and treated as such. Perhaps, but if it is, it's only as much of a mental illness as people who find err...mature people sexually attractive.  That is, IF we wanted to brand anyone with evolutionarily maladaptive sexual tendencies as mentally ill.  But I wouldn't expect greens_win to shake up that hornets nest.  Bad analogy. Finding older people sexually attractive and acting on fantasies in a consensual context isn't harming anyone. Preying on children who are aren't yet mentally mature enough to make informed decisions is obviously very different. Perhaps a more fitting analogy would be rape due to its devastating impact on the victim, the fact it is committed without consent and is a crime in our society. Whether or not harm is caused,  that is not what determines whether it is a "mental illness."

What do you consider determines mental illness.

____ wrote on May 12^th, 2013 at 5:05pm:

What do you consider determines mental illness.

People who like to stick their dicks where they don't belong. The age of the arse hole receiving the buggering only determines if it is a socially acceptable illness or a criminal one.

Quantum wrote on May 12^th, 2013 at 5:47pm:

____ wrote on May 12th, 2013 at 5:05pm: What do you consider determines mental illness. People who like to stick their dicks where they don't belong. The age of the arse hole receiving the buggering only determines if it is a socially acceptable illness or a criminal one.

So how many times did you try it so to come to that conclusion (that it didn't belong)

Quantum wrote on May 12^th, 2013 at 5:47pm:

____ wrote on May 12th, 2013 at 5:05pm: What do you consider determines mental illness. People who like to stick their dicks where they don't belong. The age of the arse hole receiving the buggering only determines if it is a socially acceptable illness or a criminal one.

And if you look at it truly objectively, the only place a dick belongs is in the vagina of a nubile female.  So, if they're being put anywhere else - a mouth, an arse, a post menopausal vagina - they're all as "mentally ill" as one another. 
So, if that sounds absurd, what principle differentiates the "mentally ill" paedophiles from the "mentally sound"  arse bandits or granny grabbers?

... wrote on May 12^th, 2013 at 5:56pm:

And if you look at it truly objectively, the only place a dick belongs is in the vagina of a nubile female.  So, if they're being put anywhere else - a mouth, an arse, a post menopausal vagina - they're all as "mentally ill" as one another.  So, if that sounds absurd, what principle differentiates the "mentally ill" paedophiles from the "mentally sound"  arse bandits or granny grabbers?

The "principle" is about whether it is between consenting adults.
Your example seems to infer that any sex that isn't procreational is "mentally ill". This is clearly a ridiculous statement in this age where 99.9% of sex by all people is recreational.

Unless you are a boring missionary position throw back to the Victorian era like RP then what ever happens between consenting adults is fine. That is one of the freedoms of the modern age. If you start forcing yourself on a non consenting adult or a child under the age of consent then that is where the problems start.

In regards to the initial question, I think it's possibly a combination of the two.

In some cases, I'd expect that a "switch" of sorts will be moved towards the dark side by bad nurture of a particular type. In other cases the switch may not exist, but maybe a different type of switch exists which will move somebody towards a different disorder.

Nevertheless, all of our behaviours fall somewhere within the bell curve of humanity, and most of them will be within the "normal" range.
However, none of us will fit the description of being on the peak of average for all counts. That would be very unusual in itself.

If too many people were on the extremities of what is considered "normal", it would obviously impact on what we consider the best chance for survival.
And we only exist in the way we do today because of the behavioural genes which have been passed down through the generations and have somewhat lessened the prevalence of those who aren't good for survival.
Of course it now only takes one barbarian with nuclear weapons to wipe out billions.

It's pretty average for men to not be attracted to children in a sexual way because it's innately felt that this is not helpful to human survival for the reason that young girls aren't equipped physically or mentally to become mothers.
By the same token, it's pretty average for men to feel that they should put their life on the line if needs be for the survival of women and children, as it only takes a few men to repopulate and women are a necessity to raise children. This still holds true today no matter what attitudes about equality dictate.

If we end up killing most of the planet and population through over-survival or a nuclear stuffup, then I suppose a "new normal" will eventually emerge.

Quantum wrote on May 12^th, 2013 at 5:47pm:

____ wrote on May 12th, 2013 at 5:05pm: What do you consider determines mental illness. People who like to stick their dicks where they don't belong. The age of the arse hole receiving the buggering only determines if it is a socially acceptable illness or a criminal one.

So screwing underage girls is okay then according to you?

SOB

... wrote on May 12^th, 2013 at 5:56pm:

Quantum wrote on May 12th, 2013 at 5:47pm: ____ wrote on May 12th, 2013 at 5:05pm: What do you consider determines mental illness. People who like to stick their dicks where they don't belong. The age of the arse hole receiving the buggering only determines if it is a socially acceptable illness or a criminal one. And if you look at it truly objectively, the only place a dick belongs is in the vagina of a nubile female.  So, if they're being put anywhere else - a mouth, an arse, a post menopausal vagina - they're all as "mentally ill" as one another.  So, if that sounds absurd, what principle differentiates the "mentally ill" paedophiles from the "mentally sound"  arse bandits or granny grabbers?

So now women past menopause shouldn't have sex? What kind of freak are you? And enjoy your divorce when you get to about 50 or so.

SOB

The_Barnacle wrote on May 12^th, 2013 at 11:00pm:

... wrote on May 12th, 2013 at 5:56pm: And if you look at it truly objectively, the only place a dick belongs is in the vagina of a nubile female.  So, if they're being put anywhere else - a mouth, an arse, a post menopausal vagina - they're all as "mentally ill" as one another.  So, if that sounds absurd, what principle differentiates the "mentally ill" paedophiles from the "mentally sound"  arse bandits or granny grabbers? The "principle" is about whether it is between consenting adults. Your example seems to infer that any sex that isn't procreational is "mentally ill". This is clearly a ridiculous statement in this age where 99.9% of sex by all people is recreational. Unless you are a boring missionary position throw back to the Victorian era like RP then what ever happens between consenting adults is fine. That is one of the freedoms of the modern age. If you start forcing yourself on a non consenting adult or a child under the age of consent then that is where the problems start.

Just taking the assertion someone else made, and running with it.  Such a silly assertion wasn't it?

But, since we're going there, I should point out that "consent" doesn't determine whether one is mentally ill or not.  Here's  the criteria for classification as a mental illlness - you won't find "consent" in there.

Sir Spot of Borg wrote on May 13^th, 2013 at 5:42am:

... wrote on May 12th, 2013 at 5:56pm: Quantum wrote on May 12th, 2013 at 5:47pm: ____ wrote on May 12th, 2013 at 5:05pm: What do you consider determines mental illness. People who like to stick their dicks where they don't belong. The age of the arse hole receiving the buggering only determines if it is a socially acceptable illness or a criminal one. And if you look at it truly objectively, the only place a dick belongs is in the vagina of a nubile female.  So, if they're being put anywhere else - a mouth, an arse, a post menopausal vagina - they're all as "mentally ill" as one another.  So, if that sounds absurd, what principle differentiates the "mentally ill" paedophiles from the "mentally sound"  arse bandits or granny grabbers? So now women past menopause shouldn't have sex? What kind of freak are you? And enjoy your divorce when you get to about 50 or so. SOB

There are no shoulds or should nots in an objective view.  They are moral judgements which have no place in the sort of scientific analysis which would be required to determine if something was a genuine mental illness.

Peter Freedman wrote on May 12^th, 2013 at 3:54pm:

I would defy any man to claim there aren't times when he sees a nicely built young schoolgirl in the street and has a fleeting thought as to what he would like to do with her. But that's just fantasy.

http://i.imgur.com/PiPMD7S.png

... wrote on May 12^th, 2013 at 2:37pm:

Annie Anthrax wrote on May 12th, 2013 at 12:04pm: bogarde73 wrote on May 12th, 2013 at 11:54am: Whatever causes it will be relevant to discovering if there is treatment & prevention. The main thing is we don't allow a discussion to develop along the line of it's a natural phenomenon and should be tolerated. That's doubtful. If anything, paedophilia would be viewed as a mental illness and treated as such. Perhaps, but if it is, it's only as much of a mental illness as people who find err...mature people sexually attractive.  That is, IF we wanted to brand anyone with evolutionarily maladaptive sexual tendencies as mentally ill.  But I wouldn't expect greens_win to shake up that hornets nest.

Quite right. He'd have the old boy's wife to contend with for starters.

Sorry - nurse. The old boy just thinks he’s the wife.

Why bother arguing?

the age of consent is 20 in Tunisia.  Would it be paedophilia to screw a 19 year old tunisian?

Definitely. If they had our laws, they could deport you back to Tunisia to face charges.

In Spain, the age of consent is 14. Does this mean you can be tried in Australia  for getting it off with a 14 year old in Spain?

You bet.

Wot about if you banged the 19 year old tunisian, while you were both on holiday in Spain?

The Tunisian Federal Police would find you and catch you.

There’s no statute of limitations on the sexual abuse of Tunisian minors, you know.

I see....

http://www.reactiongifs.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/11/hyperventilating.gif

No Tunisian ever called me black person.

... wrote on May 12^th, 2013 at 5:56pm:

Quantum wrote on May 12th, 2013 at 5:47pm: ____ wrote on May 12th, 2013 at 5:05pm: What do you consider determines mental illness. People who like to stick their dicks where they don't belong. The age of the arse hole receiving the buggering only determines if it is a socially acceptable illness or a criminal one. And if you look at it truly objectively, the only place a dick belongs is in the vagina of a nubile female.  So, if they're being put anywhere else - a mouth, an arse, a post menopausal vagina - they're all as "mentally ill" as one another.  So, if that sounds absurd, what principle differentiates the "mentally ill" paedophiles from the "mentally sound"  arse bandits or granny grabbers?

Oral sex can be a source of great enjoyment for any loving couple. It is an act in which the sole aim is to give your partner pleasure, what could possibly be wrong with that?

Who said there's anything wrong with it?

[/quote]I would like just 5 minutes with them.... thats all.[/quote]


5 minutes!!!!! your to kind................i'd like to have the first slow 24 hours with them, then you can have ya 5minutes