Pet Shop Boys Community

skyhigh wrote:

raggatwin wrote:
Calling someone a paedophile is a very serious accusation btw........

In who's world?

I'm not calling anyone a paedophile anyway. I'm reading things Scapa posts and thinking it sounds odd.

within the current milieu. Paedophilia isnt something that should be joked about in my opinion given the devestation it brings.

raggatwin wrote:

skyhigh wrote:

raggatwin wrote:
Calling someone a paedophile is a very serious accusation btw........

In who's world?

I'm not calling anyone a paedophile anyway. I'm reading things Scapa posts and thinking it sounds odd.

within the current milieu. Paedophilia isnt something that should be joked about in my opinion given the devestation it brings.

I agree with raggatwin on this point.

Now, to address your comment, skyhigh, I certainly am a deviant, I don't need any sort of justifications to cover that up. I'm not "normal" in many ways. These involve both more usual mental health issues, but also existential worries and a high degree of theoretical thought processes. Most people don't spend much time thinking about social constructions, but I do.

Please realize that a pedofile likes prepubescent children. That's generally 12 and under. There is the term ephebophile for those that like teenage girls, however, the inability of it to catch on (or create a moral panic as does pedofiles) perhaps points to the questionability of the label itself. Do I find some 16 year old girls sexually attractive? You better believe it. And in fact, in the UK, I'm pretty sure the age of consent is 16, no? Nor did I state that all the people I speak to online ARE 16 year old girls. I have a sociological curiosity and I speak to people of all ages. However, I am quite interested in the teenage mind.

So I think, given what I've written here in this thread, and even considering my other "deviance" in other threads, it's not quite right to bring up the label of pedofile with me, even if you did say I'm one "in the making". I should note, that I retain tons of respects for real pedofiles (those that are sexually attracted only to young children and no adults) who don't follow through on their urges. To me, it's the same thing as say, being born gay, but never allowing yourself to touch another man. But I also recognize that in our current society, you can't even speak about issues such as this without being labeled as a pedofile. Unless, of course, if you are a woman. I am also for much more freedom in child sexuality, as I've stated other places, but I did not say I advocate for 45 year old guys to have sex with 8 year old girls.

Hope this clears things up, and if it doesn't, it's alright, because I will be labeled as such again just as I have been before.

Oh, and outside the issue of the title of the thread, or my being a potential pedofile, I'd still love to hear about anyone with comment about pansexuality.

with young people becoming more sexual and dressing with more revealing fashions,the line between youth/adult is blurring cause I have to tell you, I see some 14/15/16 year old girls dressed provacatively and they look hot and have bodys just like older women you see at the night clubs and bars.

I agree with raggatwin on this point.

Now, to address your comment, skyhigh, I certainly am a deviant, I don't need any sort of justifications to cover that up. I'm not "normal" in many ways. These involve both more usual mental health issues, but also existential worries and a high degree of theoretical thought processes. Most people don't spend much time thinking about social constructions, but I do.

Please realize that a pedofile likes prepubescent children. That's generally 12 and under. There is the term ephebophile for those that like teenage girls, however, the inability of it to catch on (or create a moral panic as does pedofiles) perhaps points to the questionability of the label itself. Do I find some 16 year old girls sexually attractive? You better believe it. And in fact, in the UK, I'm pretty sure the age of consent is 16, no? Nor did I state that all the people I speak to online ARE 16 year old girls. I have a sociological curiosity and I speak to people of all ages. However, I am quite interested in the teenage mind.

So I think, given what I've written here in this thread, and even considering my other "deviance" in other threads, it's not quite right to bring up the label of pedofile with me, even if you did say I'm one "in the making". I should note, that I retain tons of respects for real pedofiles (those that are sexually attracted only to young children and no adults) who don't follow through on their urges. To me, it's the same thing as say, being born gay, but never allowing yourself to touch another man. But I also recognize that in our current society, you can't even speak about issues such as this without being labeled as a pedofile. Unless, of course, if you are a woman. I am also for much more freedom in child sexuality, as I've stated other places, but I did not say I advocate for 45 year old guys to have sex with 8 year old girls.

Hope this clears things up, and if it doesn't, it's alright, because I will be labeled as such again just as I have been before.[/quote]


I, too, am very interested in the idea od social contructionism but ultimately believe that there are objective truths. Re paedophilia. i would firstlly like to say that the idea of an adult havinig sex with a child absolutely disgists me, it is an abuse of power -which for me is what is about raher than the actual act of sex itself. Scapa is right though to apply the concept of social contructionism to sexuality - particuarly paedophilia. For those who dont know what what social constructionism is, it is a concept from philosophy and the social sciences - particularly sociology that seeks to explain how we come to think the way we do about particular issues. Social constructionists point out that in order to make sense of our social world we use discourse (language pretty much) to 'naturalise' things the way they are. For example gender; The idea that 'woman' is such because she wears dresses, make up wants chikdren is a social construction, we know that ideas of 'woman' or femeninity are constructed within the realms of discourse and are therefore relative, our concept of 'woman' will be different to the those living in the south pacific or parts of Africa, our concept is born out of 18th century enlightenment thinking. Discourse then is quite clearly linked to issues of power. If you want to know more about the idea of power and discourse put michel Foucault into wikipedia. So, attitudes to having sex with children we know are relative. So before peoplestart jumping up and down about muslims we need to remember that having sex with children was considered completely normal in Britain well into the nineteenth century, it was at this time that childhood was socially constructed, prior to this children were viewed as mini adults, dont forget teenagers didnt exist until the 1950s. however where I differ from social constructionists such as Foucault is that i believe there are objective truths -i think Foucault gives the exampe of the local weirdo (his words) who is sent ot jail for kissing a little girl in the village. Foucault suggests it is our reacton that brings trauma to the little girl, not the actual act itself - having sex with children is wrong, in the past we wwere not sophisticated enough to understand this and in those cultures where it is still the social norm (papua new guinea) there is some element of backwardness. So, whilst i agree with Scapa attitudes to sexuality are sociall constructed - having sex with a horse in ancient Greece was considered entirely normal - we can say that having sex with children is objectively wrong. do not forget however, as Freud reminds us, that kids are sexual, because our culture has changed in the last hundred years however we now shun this idea.

I, too, am very interested in the idea od social contructionism but ultimately believe that there are objective truths. Re paedophilia. i would firstlly like to say that the idea of an adult havinig sex with a child absolutely disgists me, it is an abuse of power -which for me is what is about raher than the actual act of sex itself. Scapa is right though to apply the concept of social contructionism to sexuality - particuarly paedophilia. For those who dont know what what social constructionism is, it is a concept from philosophy and the social sciences - particularly sociology that seeks to explain how we come to think the way we do about particular issues. Social constructionists point out that in order to make sense of our social world we use discourse (language pretty much) to 'naturalise' things the way they are. For example gender; The idea that 'woman' is such because she wears dresses, make up wants chikdren is a social construction, we know that ideas of 'woman' or femeninity are constructed within the realms of discourse and are therefore relative, our concept of 'woman' will be different to the those living in the south pacific or parts of Africa, our concept is born out of 18th century enlightenment thinking. Discourse then is quite clearly linked to issues of power. If you want to know more about the idea of power and discourse put michel Foucault into wikipedia. So, attitudes to having sex with children we know are relative. So before peoplestart jumping up and down about muslims we need to remember that having sex with children was considered completely normal in Britain well into the nineteenth century, it was at this time that childhood was socially constructed, prior to this children were viewed as mini adults, dont forget teenagers didnt exist until the 1950s. however where I differ from social constructionists such as Foucault is that i believe there are objective truths -i think Foucault gives the exampe of the local weirdo (his words) who is sent ot jail for kissing a little girl in the village. Foucault suggests it is our reacton that brings trauma to the little girl, not the actual act itself - having sex with children is wrong, in the past we wwere not sophisticated enough to understand this and in those cultures where it is still the social norm (papua new guinea) there is some element of backwardness. So, whilst i agree with Scapa attitudes to sexuality are sociall constructed - having sex with a horse in ancient Greece was considered entirely normal - we can say that having sex with children is objectively wrong. do not forget however, as Freud reminds us, that kids are sexual, because our culture has changed in the last hundred years however we now shun this idea.

As per the discussion about the construction of childhood, and more recently the teenager, please see my posts in the corporal punishment thread.

Many social constructionists do indeed find everything relative. However, Peter Berger, (one of the founding members of Social Construction) in his memoirs as a sociologist released this year, he states that he has no affliation with total deconstruction and believes in objective truths as well. As a person who applies constructionism myself, I don't deny ojective truths, I just ask how we can get hold of such epistomological certainty? Often, it seems nearly impossible.

To expand Foucalts idea about how our reaction is what brings trauma to the girl, a constructionist could claim that if in an isolated culture, the father rapes his daughter when she is 8, and this is a known tradition, that it would be perfectly acceptable and even function as a good institutional tradition and cultural milestone marker. In fact, the girl might be negatively affected only if she WASN'T raped. However, it could be claimed that some acts are never virtuous to human societies.

As ragga states, children ARE sexual creatures (unless forced into repression). And this is my main argument as to why they should have more sexual freedom (among themselves).

You can also take Mannheim's (an early sociologist in the Sociology of Knowledge) idea of relationism instead of relativism. In relationism, there is no objective truth necessarily, but there are better and worse truths in each social situation. And social situtations morph and change, obviously, over time. So, a relationist could say that a man having sex with a 12 year old boy in ancient Rome was ok then, but doing it today would be relationally wrong.

Good post Scapa. What is the name of Berger's memoirs? Is he a bit like Goffman then who admitted before he died that some people are objectively mentally ill?

Yes epistemological certainty is a problem for social scientists given the onset of postmodern theory over the last thirty years

I'd forgot about Karl Mannheim, will have to look into this.

The problem with discussing sociological/philosophical theory outside a 'specialist audience' is that it can and does upset people as it can rock their idea of who they are and what they are about. I quite like Foucaults concept of genealogy when looking at the past btw

Scapa Flow wrote:As ragga states, children ARE sexual creatures (unless forced into repression). And this is my main argument as to why they should have more sexual freedom (among themselves).

Sorry but a six-year-old is not a sexual creature in the same way that a fourteen-year-old is. And whilst social constructions obviously play their part in everything that we do, one's own moral code should tell one that the fourteen-year-old ingenue is off limits.

Are you on any registers, Firth?

Ragga, Berger's book is called Adventures of an Accidental Sociologist. Berger is unusual in that he subscribes (and added significantly to) the paradigm of the Sociology of Knowledge, yet he has written many books about faith and has always believed in an objective truth. In fact, when he wrote The Sacred Canopy in the late 60s, a book that applied construction to religion, so many took it at face value as advocating for athiesm that Berger followed it up with a book called A Rumour of Angels discussing how we may actually come to know signals of transcendence. These are all inductive reasoning arguments, but he still always believed that there was some objective truth.

I would hope that anyone who takes an Intro to Sociology course has their world rocked a little bit, but of course, it doesn't always happen.


An no, Patrick, I'm not on any registers, I'm assuming you mean databases of child offenders. It's probably because I don't have sex with children. A six year old is indeed not a sexual creature in the same was as a 14 year old. However, they do have a nascent sexual self, and if that self is explored in games such as "I'll show you mine if you show me yours" and other innocent play, I think there is nothing wrong with that. Of course, our own moral code is a social construction itself. Though certainly one could make the argument of a morality of virtue that can be discovered via inductive reasoning and experience, we will always disagree on "moral" issues. Two centuries ago, a 24 year old man and a 14 year old girl may have gotten married and started having children. I think the earlier we give sexual freedoms, the more mature children will be about sex.

Scapa Flow, between your avatar change and the turn this topic has taken, may I say you're a f****** creep.

And yeah, probably who we thought you were. Nicely done.

Deschanel wrote:Scapa Flow, between your avatar change and the turn this topic has taken, may I say you're a f*** ing creep.

And yeah, probably who we thought you were. Nicely done.

And you've been confirmed as who we thought you were.

First, to address this topic, what turn has it taken that has bothered you? Please do let us know.

Second, as to the avatar. The meaning of the Obama-as-joker is extremely open. Look for official explanations online and you will find mostly differing opinions. I put it as my avatar precisely because of it's arbitrary meaning. But of course you have made assumptions about it's meaning and my link to it. Who's the creep then?

Oh, and I thought it would also be a nice little tribute to our friend whateverman who as abandoned the forum.

Whatever, you sick f*** rotten troll.

I should note, that I retain tons of respects for real pedofiles (those that are sexually attracted only to young children and no adults) who don't follow through on their urges. To me, it's the same thing as say, being born gay, but never allowing yourself to touch another man.

Yeah, you have tons of respect for real paedophiles. Whom you compare to gay people.

Hey Scapa, it's the middle of the night now over there. So I will continue what I want to say tomorrow when the moderators are wide awake and alert, there might be some discussion! So, sleep on that, sweet dreams fvck0.

Deschanel wrote:Whatever, you sick f*** rotten troll.

I should note, that I retain tons of respects for real pedofiles (those that are sexually attracted only to young children and no adults) who don't follow through on their urges. To me, it's the same thing as say, being born gay, but never allowing yourself to touch another man.

Yeah, you have tons of respect for real paedophiles. Whom you compare to gay people.

Hey Scapa, it's the middle of the night now over there. So I will continue what I want to say tomorrow when the moderators are wide awake and alert, there might be some discussion! So, sleep on that, sweet dreams fvck0.

Well, at least you didn't misunderstand me. Yes, indeed, I do retain a respect for pedofiles who don't act on their urges, and I make a comparison to gays because I believe that both are likely to be born the way they are in most circumstances. Could there be gays or pedos who choose to be the way they are? Yes, but I believe a majority of it is in the genes. It's always funny to me when someone says something along the lines of "Yeah but, you can't compare pedos to _____ (fill in the blank), it's just a HUGE difference, cause they like KIDS". But I don't think there is a huge difference in the biology. Only in the morality. I DO have a (creepy?) foot fetish. I was born with it, this much I'm nearly certain. And a pedofile might be in the exact same situation. And especially because I discuss pedos who DONT act on their urges in my comparison, no one should feel some kind of shock or sight against gays. Unless, that is, you discriminate against pedofiles who don't act on their urges anyway. In which case I would have to ask, why would you?

I doubt you were born with a foot fetish. I think early in your development you saw something about a females foot that your brain turned into a sexual object. I think it happens so early that you dont remember it.

maybe psychological reason,like you saw something with a childhood friend or mother when you had a first glimmer of sexuality and it imprinted itself,or neurological reason, like your brain hardwiring fuses a body part with a sexual organ.

I say you cant be born with it cause theres people into shoe fetishes and I see no way your pre born brain can fetishize a shoe when it has no idea what a shoe is.now apply that to pretty much all fetishes and I think its just something very early in development psychologically or neurologically.