Okay, I have to ask, how can orchie "not take"?

Either you have your testicles removed or you don't. It's not like the doctor can miss one or something.

Chemical castration, usually through Depo-Provera administered either through shots or sub-dermal implant, does not work as advertised. Sure, it chemically neuters a guy but that in itself cannot suppress ingrained behaviour. All it can do is take out the sexual component of what in my opinion is essentially rape.

...and only with that particular appendage.

I wish more of them would choose option #5. I heard an NPR discussion on this topic yesterday and one of the guests stated they had one man who documented 35,000 cases of molestation that he was responsible for, he kept his own records. I don't have many nice words for these kinds of people.

I can only think of one - DIE!

I don't wish to ignore you so I'll just say it is not possible for me to respond to this with any kind of willingness to get to the meanings of what impulses can mean because we have lots of them and whether that constitutes any kind of orientation to anything I do not know. There are many problems with ethics and philosophizing just takes too much darn time.

impulses hum

On a lighter note.

I have impulses to eat lots of pastry. I do. I love donuts. I never met a donut I didn't love. I think that means I have an orientation to being a fatty. I try not to act on my natural inclinations more than every two weeks. :)

Replace impulse with compulsion.

Simply put: It's all about making choices. The RIGHT ones.
Everyone has impulses to to wrong things at times. There are different degrees of wrong, depending on multitudes of standards. Not being able to make the choice not to do these wrongs is, in my opinion, the definition of insanity. There are people who just can't make the right choice at a given time. I call them crazy motherfuckers.:crazy:

I'm sure I'm not the only one here that ignores laws that I deem stupid, AND I'm willing to take the risk of punishment.

Pedos do that too. These people don't feel it's wrong, they go by their own feelings of right and wrong. That's why law enforcement is critical in this instance.

Of course that's led to some stupid shit, like parents harassed for taking pictures of their kids naked in the kiddie pool. No matter how many laws they pass, parents are the ultimate protection for their kids.

it happens occasionally... Bruce has it nailed. I agree.

I think society generally accepts that most people are sexually attracted to people of the opposite sex, and generally prefer younger fitter specimens if given a choice, although females also are drawn to older more successful males. And this follows a biological urge to procreate and produce healthy offspring (young/fit) and to be able to protect them (success/wealth).

Most, but not all. Some like much older people. Some like unhealthy people. Some like people of the same sex. Some like people who are still children.

We probably all feel the same way about the type of people we are attracted to, until someone tells us it's wrong. The definition of wrong changes with time. (Think Turing)The main difference between pedophilia and all the other types of "wrong" are that the subjects of the lust are not old enough to give consent for sex. From the outside we all want pedophiles hung, drawn, castrated and quartered, but this questionis posed from the inside.. and from the inside I'd say the pedo feels pretty much like gays did way back when.....

True, dat.
Interesting angle: Most men who "we" consider normal, if they were completely honest want to have sex with younger women.If the legal age for consentual sex is 16, then lots of men would choose to sleep with a girl who is, say 16 years and 2 days old. I wonder if those same men would want to fuck a 15 year old if the legal age was changed to fifteen. Probably so.
We are all animals deep down. Most of us just have the ability to control our animal instincts. Some don't. Those individuals would be the pedophiles, or as afore mentioned, the crazy mofos.:eyebrow:
Personally, I have always been attracted to older women. But now that I'm in my mid fifties I seem to desire younger women. The older I get, the younger my fantasies wander. Perhaps that is a sign of waning sanity within itself. Something to ponder on....:eek:

I can bet capn that in your fantasy the 15 year old is developed sexually. There is no way I believe your fantasy girl looks anything like a child like 7 and and 9 year old.

To me any kind of attraction comes with a thought. In our fantasies I bet too that the object of our attraction is willing and responsive.

Young children are not willing or responsive or sexually mature. Does anyone want to do it with a child? and call it an orientation? The survival of the fittest? That does not mesh. Maybe pedo's are their own Darwin award candidates.

During the Victorian era, the legal age of consent for a girl was 12. There was a thriving industry of brothels catering to men who particularly wanted sex with young virgins: children in today's terms. Today those men would be considered paedophiles. Back then they were simply red-blooded men.

Context matters and is not a constant.

Sky: I understand your distaste for this subject. But it cannot in my mind be wrong to seek a greater understanding of these people.

France was even more sexually promiscuous. I know that context matters when it comes to complacency and complacency comes from social status in those eras. It depended upon your social circle and then like now a fall from a particular social circle was directly related to which sexual pursuit one partook in.(among other things of course)

I get the history of it. I think it would be better to understand the unwilling participant.

Well. I would posit that actually it would be most useful, societally speaking, to understand both. But in terms of attempting to tackle/prevent the problem of paedophilia, then understanding the perpetrators (what makes someone a paedophile/why they do what they do) might be most productive. By understanding the victim we can better help them cope after the fact. But if we want to reduce the number of paedophile victims, then really we need to understand the perpetrators.

Then again I see no conflict between the two. Why is it better to understand one and seek no understanding of the other? Seeking to understand the paedophile doesn't negate an ability to understand their victims.

Bullshit. If it were acceptable it wouldn't have been used as a terrorist tactic and punishment against foes. It was surely more common but it wasn't "acceptable."