| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Sexual preferences do not, on their own, predicate any sort of behaviour, delusions or morality. It seems odd that so many today still think so. Heterosexual people do not automatically rape people of the opposite sex. Homosexuals do not automatically rape people of their own sex (this was a rather common viewpoint in the eighties...). Sexual preference is sexual preference, nothing more. Some people have it in them to rape others, but that is a result of a complex interplay of many factors of their personality, and as far as I have understood it, not tied to their sexual preferences.
That is why muddling the language of the field is dangerous and problematic.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
spectrophiliabrb buying an EMF meter and transfering OKCupid profile to Ouija format
If that works let me know. Maybe I'll have more luck than with the living.
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
No. Sleeping with anybody is not anythingphilia. Sexual preferences are just that, sexual preferences. The acts MAY certainly coincide. However, someone attracted to corpses might well feel that a vampire leaves him/her uninterested.
Right. Hence my use of the term 'possibly'. As in "Doing this might be an indication of necrophilia/pedophilia."
On the topic of pedophilia: It is not all that uncommon that someone committing sexual acts with a child is NOT an expression of pedophilia, but rather pathologic sadism. That person is looking for a victim, whether a child, an elderly, or someone weak or disabled that they can safely terrorize. The important part here is that such a person and a pedophile will likely react in different ways in future situations. Muddling the two is NOT a good idea.
True, but not necessarily relevant to the situation at hand.
My point was that someone who was sexually attracted to children might be satisfied with a halfling with the Childlike Feat as a sexual or romantic partner, the same way someone who was attracted to corpses might be satisfied with a ghoul or lich as a sexual or romantic partner. Or, in either case, they might not have that particular preference and be pursuing things for other reasons entirely. Or people with those preferences might not be satisfied with those potential partners.
And in neither case would the act be morally wrong (given that all participants are consenting adult sapient beings).
Sexual preferences do not, on their own, predicate any sort of behaviour, delusions or morality. It seems odd that so many today still think so. Heterosexual people do not automatically rape people of the opposite sex. Homosexuals do not automatically rape people of their own sex (this was a rather common viewpoint in the eighties...). Sexual preference is sexual preference, nothing more. Some people have it in them to rape others, but that is a result of a complex interplay of many factors of their personality, and as far as I have understood it, not tied to their sexual preferences.
That is why muddling the language of the field is dangerous and problematic.
Sadly, I'm pretty sure that the language is so muddled that this is not a losing battle, but one already lost. At least in terms of normal speech. The term 'necrophilia' and especially the term 'pedophilia' are inextricably linked with the acts of having sex with a corpse or a child, respectively. That's not proper clinical terminology, and you're absolutely right that someone can easily have those preferences and not commit those acts...but almost literally nobody is going to believe that anyone identified as a pedophile isn't a child-abusing monster at this point.
You'd be better served trying to work out new terminology than trying to rescue a term that's been so thoroughly popularized in another context. There's a reason the psychological community stopped using the terms 'psychopath' and 'sociopath' fairly recently...
i'm a petite and youthful female of 25 years who could pass for a 10 year old girl due to my petite frame and well preserved genetic features. my boyfriend i share this account with likes petite and cute things, but he would never touch a girl whom by legal standards was considered a child and sure as hell would never move to Australia. he has me to resolve his love for petite framed and youthful females, and despite us not being blood relatives, but rather childhood friends, my love for him is what a typical girl would call a warped brother complex. he would sleep with a fey creature like an elf, changeling or nymph, whom are known to look youthful for centuries, if not eternity. because he likes petite, lithe and cute frames, not children. my boyfriend is the same age as me down to the day, but he appears to be between 5 and 7 years older than me when he shaves.
so there is a difference between being attracted to children, and being attracted to a petite, youthful, lithe and delicate frame. preference are preferences, plus as a mute girl, the guy spoils me with whatever he can on his limited income when he saves enough. usually by cooking or sewing for me.
so not every male who happens to be wrongly accused of pedophilia is bad, and it was my petite frame he liked, not the fact that i looked like a little girl or anything. it is akin to dating a girl from japan or a similar country where appearance of youth is preserved far beyond it's natural course. there is a difference between "pint sized and adorable" and "little girl"
Obligatory GURPS: BioTech reference.
"I hate stunties."
Also another reason why I don't particularly approve of the cross-linking of attraction to halflings and gnomes to latent pedobear-ness.
Obligatory GURPS: BioTech reference.
"I hate stunties."
Also another reason why I don't particularly approve of the cross-linking of attraction to halflings and gnomes to latent pedobear-ness.
there is a difference between liking pint sized and youthful yet apparently vulnerable females because you want to be the protective and caring big brother figure and using specific sexual actions to torture a little girl because she is helpless and you are a sadist.
most people who abuse children like that, aren't truly pedophiles, they are simply sadists looking for a vulnerable target and what is more vulnerable than a lonely little girl? there is a difference between liking petite framed women, thinking little girls are cute, and torturing one of the most vulnerable victim types to sate your sick sadistic desires.
you can even like Anime Loligoth characters and feel no desire to put a real emotionally underdeveloped child under that level of suffering.
for example, i'm 5 feet tall and a little over 90 pounds. nearly my boyfriend's ideal size, just a few pounds under. even he has limits to how small or youthful he is willing to go. due to self control.
Exactly my point, without explicitly linking to the dwarven/gnomish strip club thread and a post that made for much enjoyment and unexpected awkwardness for some.
DMW: Regarding sociopath/psychopath, recent research treats psychopathy as a more severe form of antisocial personality disorder. It is by no means an abandoned term, it retains its original meaning. And making up a new term is just as meaningless, since it would instantly be conflated with the old one. Ask any environmental coordinator, hygiene technician or cleaner about this if you doubt me. It is also worth noting that homosexual and the synonyms thereof used to be used to mean "homosexual rapist" in common speech. Terms change. My point is, pedophilia is a clinical term, not something open to redefinition by anyone who feels like it, and typically wrongly used. The problem is that people are muddling the language, so stop doing so instead of defending the practice.
|
|
Also another reason why I don't particularly approve of the cross-linking of attraction to halflings and gnomes to latent pedobear-ness.
Which would be why I explicitly noted the Childlike Feat, which very specifically notes a much closer resemblance to a human child.
DMW: Regarding sociopath/psychopath, recent research treats psychopathy as a more severe form of antisocial personality disorder. It is by no means an abandoned term, it retains its original meaning.
Not as a clinical term it doesn't (which was my point). Do some research if you don't believe me.
And making up a new term is just as meaningless, since it would instantly be conflated with the old one. Ask any environmental coordinator, hygiene technician or cleaner about this if you doubt me.
Not necessarily. New terms get made up for what are seen as new things all the time, setting such things up can be tricky, but it is doable.
It is also worth noting that homosexual and the synonyms thereof used to be used to mean "homosexual rapist" in common speech. Terms change. My point is, pedophilia is a clinical term, not something open to redefinition by anyone who feels like it, and typically wrongly used.
Any term is subject to redefinition by people as a whole if in common usage. That's just how language works. Heck, check the dictionary definition of pedophilia...which includes both desires and activities. Necrophilia's definition is similar.
Now, redefining the terms is another matter entirely, and possible, but as I said, I suspect not a viable plan in this case. Homosexuality (and homosexual rape) may have been highly vilified, but it was never considered the gold standard of evil the way that the sexual abuse of children is in large portions of modern society. I really don't think there's any coming back for a term after being used for that.
Necrophilia is a bit more possible, I admit, but I'm still deeply skeptical given the legitimately unpleasant moral implications there are for actually indulging in the desire in question (an issue homosexuality doesn't have). This could theoretically change if society were to begin to consider having sex with corpses morally acceptable...but that seems highly unlikely.
The problem is that people are muddling the language, so stop doing so instead of defending the practice.
Again, I just think this is a lost battle. And, indeed,that using terms in this way (ignoring the usage of actually committing the acts in question) is potentially confusing to the other people having the conversation.
"sexual perversion in which children are the preferred object"? I would say it is quite debatable whether it deals with acts. A perversion, again, is an internal process.
What happened in the case of homosexuality was that society started considering sex with those of your own sex more acceptable, but that happened from a situation where doing so was considered utterly monstrous, punishable by execution in many countries, and always assumed to be linked to rape. And you know one thing that was important in this? More and more people started using proper language regarding it. I repeat, don't muddle the language involved.
there is a difference between liking pint sized and youthful yet apparently vulnerable females because you want to be the protective and caring big brother figure and using specific sexual actions to torture a little girl because she is helpless and you are a sadist.most people who abuse children like that, aren't truly pedophiles, they are simply sadists looking for a vulnerable target and what is more vulnerable than a lonely little girl?
I have some problems with this as it suggests sadists in more of a negative light than we already get. Sadism is not inherently bad. It's not victimizing someone unless it's specifically not wanted, and in certain lights could even be a blessing, such as a loving father who twists himself just that tiny bit so that he doesn't feel like a monster because he spanked his kid for doing something bad, (like knock over a shelf in the grocery store)
A Sadist can express himself in a loving and nurturing relationship without choosing a "victim"
edit: And no, I'm not a father, but I look at people wondering about the state the worlds in and think to myself, the world's going to hell in a handbasket and everybody wonders why, could it be because a bunch of social do-gooders have decided spanking is bad and thus kids are easily able to get their parents ARRESTED because they tried to curb their bad behavior. And I have had this threat made without laying a finger on a child because THEY KNOW IT TOO
there is a difference between liking pint sized and youthful yet apparently vulnerable females because you want to be the protective and caring big brother figure and using specific sexual actions to torture a little girl because she is helpless and you are a sadist.most people who abuse children like that, aren't truly pedophiles, they are simply sadists looking for a vulnerable target and what is more vulnerable than a lonely little girl?
I have some problems with this as it suggests sadists in more of a negative light than we already get. Sadism is not inherently bad. It's not victimizing someone unless it's specifically not wanted, and in certain lights could even be a blessing, such as a loving father who twists himself just that tiny bit so that he doesn't feel like a monster because he spanked his kid for doing something bad, (like knock over a shelf in the grocery store)
A Sadist can express himself in a loving and nurturing relationship without choosing a "victim"
edit: And no, I'm not a father, but I look at people wondering about the state the worlds in and think to myself, the world's going to hell in a handbasket and everybody wonders why, could it be because a bunch of social do-gooders have decided spanking is bad and thus kids are easily able to get their parents ARRESTED because they tried to curb their bad behavior. And I have had this threat made without laying a finger on a child because THEY KNOW IT TOO
there are many ways to discipline a child that don't involve physical contact, simply locking them in their room without a game console, computer, cell phone or other electronic device is quite a harsh enough punishment to work. if you enforce it and do it enough to keep them wary of the threat.
Pathological sadism! = sadism
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
If a PC has carnal relations with an undead, is it necrophilia?
It's grounds for earning a pretty good feat, I know that much!
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I'll be a little more specific. If a Druid fornicates with a vampire would it go against the natural order enough to revoke druid status?
Only if they were wearing the undead as armour or a shield.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
there are many ways to discipline a child that don't involve physical contact, simply locking them in their room without a game console, computer, cell phone or other electronic device is quite a harsh enough punishment to work. if you enforce it and do it enough to keep them wary of the threat.
Really? Because children don't tend to want to go to their rooms, which means that either you lay hands on them to get them there, which opens the doors back to the police threats, or they don't go. You can mouth off all you want, I've tried tons of ways to discipline my nephews and niece when they're misbehaving, the one consistent is they don't listen because they know they have the power to make my life a living hell thanks to people who think thousands of years of social evolution were wrong. I'll admit, there's a fine line between punishment and abuse, but that doesn't make punishment abuse. Our options are far more limited than they used to be, oh and locking a child in the bedroom, last I heard that was illegal because it's a fire hazard. I grew up getting spanked, you know what? I'm not some violent psychopath. I'm not a criminal. I'm an every day guy. I'm not saying spanking is the end all be all of punishment solutions, I'm saying we've created a society that gives kids too much power against adults.
Stop trying to discipline, and start trying to communicate
Pffffffffffffft~!
And what type of communication is gonna alter bad behavior, and I don't mean accidents, I mean willful vandalism of the neighbor's property?
I have talked to them till I'm blue in the face, so don't presume to know what I do. I have talked, I have rewarded good behavior I have threatened, I have punished, the fact is, The second you lay hands on a child, people like you cry foul, which is why I can't properly discipline them and get them acting like normal members of society, because I'm not allowed to correct it.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
By the way... do you happen to know what the fine is here in Cyrodiil for necrophilia? Just asking.
Find out what they want, try to tell them what you want, and why, and speak to them from a place of honesty and empathy.
This is good, solid advice, and I laud this format, but I wish to caveat that it (and how it is accomplished/taken/applied) depends heavily on the age, and the mental and emotional situation, not to mention the relationship between the authority figure and the child in question.
Discipline - punishment - is an effective deterrent if it's not the only thing you use. You need both deterrent and communication. Punishment is worthless if communication is never achieved. Similarly, however, just talking doesn't necessarily accomplish communication. Sometimes discipline - of all different sorts - is necessary.
Ultimately the form and style of discipline and response varies by child, situation, and authority figure.
Even during discipline, children need to know they are loved.
Even when they know they are loved, they need to know there consequences for actions.
Children with emotional problems are an interesting (and different) situation altogether. They have special needs beyond those of children without the same.
I, for one, am glad she's making such a difference!
Pedophilia, is not a topic that is treated lightly on these forums, my post will probably be deleted, but until it is
My opinion is that pedophilia is the delusion that sex with a child is not pathological sadism
As I understand it, pedophilia is the sexual attraction to prepubescent children. I suspect there are quite a few people who feel that attraction, but do not act on it because they are not pathological sadists.
And also don't ever let anyone know or seek help because of the likely consequences.In much the same way that someone can be necrophiliac and not actually have sex with corpses. Perhaps they deal with those issues through fantasy or roleplay. (Not the kind of fantasy and roleplay we do here, usually :)
I don't know whether their motivations are noble or if they simply want to preserve themselves (I imagine some of each), but there is a group calling itself Virtuous Pedophiles which has received some publicity in recent years. The members commit to doing no harm to children.
|
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I'll be a little more specific. If a Druid fornicates with a vampire would it go against the natural order enough to revoke druid status?Only if they were wearing the undead as armour or a shield.
So...hermit crabs go against the natural order? I KNEW IT! Those vile little perverts....
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Really? Because children don't tend to want to go to their rooms, which means that either you lay hands on them to get them there, which opens the doors back to the police threats, or they don't go. You can mouth off all you want, I've tried tons of ways to discipline my nephews and niece when they're misbehaving, the one consistent is they don't listen because they know they have the power to make my life a living hell thanks to people who think thousands of years of social evolution were wrong. I'll admit, there's a fine line between punishment and abuse, but that doesn't make punishment abuse. Our options are far more limited than they used to be, oh and locking a child in the bedroom, last I heard that was illegal because it's a fire hazard. I grew up getting spanked, you know what? I'm not some violent psychopath. I'm not a criminal. I'm an every day guy. I'm not saying spanking is the end all be all of punishment solutions, I'm saying we've created a society that gives kids too much power against adults.there are many ways to discipline a child that don't involve physical contact, simply locking them in their room without a game console, computer, cell phone or other electronic device is quite a harsh enough punishment to work. if you enforce it and do it enough to keep them wary of the threat.
You think you are normal and everyday. You do not even realise that your history of being abused as a form of punishment means that you now think striking a child is okay if they step out of line. If they are disobedient you think hurting them is an answer. It is not. It is vicious, primitive and out-dated.
In my work I deal with kids all the time, they can get rowdy, disobedient and cross the line with disrespect. I never hit them, I never need to, nor should I be doing it. You see, when I am teaching, helping or instructing them, hitting them is the furthest thing from what I should be doing. Hitting doesn't make them see anything except that violence keeps them in line. They can be communicated with in a way that doesn't resort to violence, and I have found if hitting is off the table, this promotes thinking, considering and yes communication. You don't have to hit kids to get them to listen and do what you require.
You do not get some magical right to beat your kids or those you are minding because you are their guardian or parent. This is illegal, and the children deserve better. There is so much research on the detrimental effects of physically punishing children via assault, and plenty of walking shuddering anxious individuals that show where this leads. You can read up on this at any time. Please seriously re-examine your practices that harm children to keep them in line.
"Corporal punishment has repeatedly been linked with nine other negative outcomes, including increased rates of aggression, delinquency, mental health problems, and problems in relationships with their parents."
http://www.ahaparenting.com/parenting-tools/positive-discipline/should-I-sp ank-my-child
Pffffffffffffft~!
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
what does disciplining a child have to do with having sex with a vampire in RPGs?
Excellent question, really.
Unless someone is a sadist and the child is undead... *whistles innocently*... Not much that I can see. Let's go back to discussing sex with corpses and life-hungering affronts to nature like we should.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
^
^
^
That.
Start a thread about raising kids on the advice or another section.
Or seek advice on community forums outside of paizo.
There's bound to be some people with similar stuff that have found a solution.
You think you are normal and everyday. You do not even realise that your history of being abused as a form of punishment means that you now think striking a child is okay if they step out of line.
You presume much sir. (Or ma'am) I got spanked as a kid when I did wrong, and you know what, I deserved it. I'm not saying it should be the first choice, but it damn well should be ONE.
But here, let's put a question to you, when a child, sets his little brothers hair on fire, do you A, Have a rational discussion with him, or B. Do you spank him and tell him no? Because I'll tell you what, if it had been a rational discussion, I'm pretty sure I'd be DEAD.
TOZ is correct.
So, let's ignore the side conversation and get back to topic, yes?
Yes. More sex with corpses. Less spanking of children. Now.
Cheeze it! The Fuzz is onto us!
I would say yes its necrophilia. I understand they might be Undead vs dead, dead. But to me it doesn't change the definition to me. Just because a Vampire or say Lich says yes and so does the living person doesn't change the fact its a dead/undead body your doing your panty party with.
I would have to say that the Druid wouldn't lose any powers or anything. Like people have said death is part of nature so sex with the dead is just a disgusting part of nature non the less. Now if we start talking about rapping the undead it might be a different story. But really why would you want to rape undead?
On my world i have a island full of undead and vampires so sex with the undead isn't unheard of. Plus you can find brothels around my world that offers the service of sex with the dead/undead for the right price. At least your less likely to get an STD. Tho i like the idea someone said about a cult that brings they dead back as undead to spend a few days with there loved ones while they wait for there finally decision for after life. I'll have to add that to my world so whom ever came up with that idea. Thank you a lots :)
Having seen Contracted and Dead Girl, any STD you get from the undead is way way way worse...
Anyway, not really sure if a real life Necrophiliac would be attracted to a vampire or other undead. I mean a vampire is basically, physical appearance wise, not much different from a human, except they are cold and don't breath. At least part of the appeal from Necrophilia I think is the fact you have a motionless cold lifeless corpse. Vampires might not fill that quality
In other words, I expect "people whose sexual fetish is vampires" would probably be a whole different fetish from Necrophiliacs.
| 6 people marked this as a favorite. |
We call them teenage girls, today. Twilight did horrible things to humanity.
Ok the way i see it as you got Necromancers who either love to play with the dead and raise them, or whom destroy the dead. So my question is.
If you got a Necromancer who raises dead. are they by default a necrophilia? Second question. If you lost your loved one and became a Necromancer to bring them back to life and the gods had no problem with you doing so. Would you be considered weird or a freak for doing it, or would you be accepted?
On a side note, They drop so many nasty and evil diseases and virus already. I wouldn't want to think of what kind of STD's they could drop on the world.
We call them teenage girls, today. Twilight did horrible things to humanity.
I have and will never watch it, but you know how the tales go around with details when you overhear said teenage girls.
Likewise, one can call the vampire a pedo-bat.
A 108 years old guy who fancies an underaged girl 91 years younger.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
*Basically arguing about the definition of pedophilia/necrophilia*
This thread aughta be called "Necromantic Romantic Semantics".
Huh? Scribd is a pirate site????
It's a long out of print book, I thought the link was legitimate.
Even if it's out of print, unless it's being distributed via legal channels, it's still not legal.
For example, a group I was with years ago that shared PDF scans of West End's Star Wars d6 game once directly asked West End if it was okay, and paraphrased, their answer was that while it didn't bother them since they were out of print, they must say that no it's not okay, because it very much does bother LucasFilm and Wizards of the Coast who now hold the license (and then to expand that to today, I'm sure Wizards of the Coast would say a similar thing, they might not care specifically if you pirated their Star Wars books being that they are all out of print, BUT they still have to say no, as now Fantasy Flight Games holds the new license)
In the end, unless it's become public domain, being out of print does not make sharing a book outside of approved channels okay.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Which is, frankly, batshit insane.