Quote:
Originally Posted by Flystripper
I know I was just being as ridiculous as Tick.
|
It is an intellectual discussion which nobody wishes to have, because using "pedophile" is akin to drawing an analogy to somebody's actions being like unto "Hitler."
However, some sexual activities are socially acceptable, and some are not. Why?
I remember one of those shows, silly as it was, which involved vampires, who tried to suppress his instincts speaking to an administrative vampire. The bureaucrat pointed out that there were some things which even vampires wouldn't tolerate and the he was relating was how he killed a favorite daughter because she wanted to throw off the last taboo and engage in incest.
Distinctions are already apparent, so making them for me, would assist in the analysis and I'm aware of the Hitler scorched earth policy, but unlike the taboo of incest, aberrant sexuality, and I use "aberrant" referring to statistical incidence not with the usual negative connotations, might be rooted in genetic conditions.
Let's look at those with genetic components. Homosexuality, probably. Bisexuality? Dunno. Pedophilia? Dunno, are there enough studies? Bestiality?
Gay advocates intelligently seek to distinguish their group from the others because they are aware little sympathy exists for persons conducting such activities. So normalizers tend to use "consent" as the distinguishing factor in making the judgment. It sounds reasonable but will society ever eradicate that distinction?