The Instigator
Pro (for)
0 Points
The Contender
Con (against)
3 Points

Just governments ought to provide legal protections for pedophiles

Do you like this debate?NoYes+2
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Post Voting Period
The voting period for this debate has ended.
after 1 vote the winner is...
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 7/3/2015 Category: Society
Updated: 3 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 1,110 times Debate No: 77039
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (10)
Votes (1)




*This debate is closed, please register your interest in the comments*


I am still working on this resolution, so details are liable to change. This debate is going to regard self-identifying/aware pedophiles, and that governemnts ought to provide protections for these people on grounds of:

Employment protection - A pedophile cannot be discriminated against in recruitment/firing on grounds of his pedophilic orientation, except on grounds where the pedophile will pose a significant increased risk (such as employment involving work with children).

Social Protection - A government ought to provide accommodations so that pedophiles may publicly self-identify as such without due harrassment or stigmatisation - such as allowing societies for pedophiles to exist (akin to homosexual societies and support groups, or mental illness support groups/communities).

Medical Accomodations - A government ought to provide optional medical care and treatment to self-identifying pedophiles for managment in a similar manner to other mental illnesses, such as anxiety or depression.

If there are other protections that I should add here, then please suggest them.

Pedophile - Someone who is sexually attracted to prepubescent children

3 Rounds, 72h


I will first start by stating I agree with medical accomodations. Pedophilia is a mental illness and needs to be treated as such. They should be allowed to get treatment under the patient confidentiality that any other patient would get. The easier it is for a pedophile to get help, the less children that will be harmed. I think everyone can agree that's a neccessity.

I'll be focusing on the other points in this debate on the assumption that these are pedophiles currently following the law (not looking at child porn, not sexually abusing children).

Pedophilia is a mental illness, not a sexual orientation.
In order to make my argument, we need to first establish that pedophilia is first and foremost a mental illness. There are studies that show there is something physically wrong with a pedophile's brain. It is clearly defined as a mental illness in the DSM-5 under paraphilia, as Pedophiliac Disorder. The DSM-5 did state the Pedophiliac Disorder was defined as "sexual orientation towards children", however that was an error that was meant to read "sexual interest".

"To be diagnosed with a paraphilic disorder, DSM-5 requires that people “feel personal distress” about their atypical sexual interest or have a desire or behavior that harms another person or involves “unwilling” persons or “persons unable to give legal consent." [1]

By that definition anyone with a sexual interest in children, has a mental illness. Currently the only thing keeping these legal pedophiles from breaking the law is strong impulse control.

Employment protection
Now that we've established that pedophilia is a mental illness, we need to understand why a pedophile would feel the need to identify himself in the first place. Typically when one discloses a mental illness it is to get reasonable workplace acconmodations in order to successfully do their job. There are no reasonable accomdations a pedophile would need outside of not being around children, and therefore no reason to disclose it as a mental illness. Another reason would be to get acceptance. Pedophiles need help, not people condoning their desires towards children.

Employers also have a responsibility towards their other employees. If a company knew someone was a pedophile and hired them anyway, it would be a company liability if they ever sexually abused a child. If not legally liable, it would be a PR nightmare that no company would want. However, even on the basis of it being a mental illness, an employer does have the ability to fire someone they do not feel is safe. Expressing an illegal desire that hinges upon a person's impulse control that day, is a liability to both the company and the company's families.

Social Protection
This is absolutely a terrible idea. Humans at their base instincts are herd animals, and it doesn't take much to influence their behavior. People will more often than not defer to the "social default" when forming an opinion. [2] When you put a bunch of pedophiles together in a community where they can live the social default becomes "desiring children". The only reason pedophiles thus far have not is because of strong impulse control. When you put them with a group of people who are like minded, it can result in lowering their impulse control or even justifying their actions. While most people want to believe that individuals are strong enough to make their own decisions, studies have shown the opposite. With psychology studies such as the Zimbardo experiment, human behavior shows time and time again that it will very quickly adapt to whatever label we give them. The guards not only became viscious, but the prisoners themselves believed their plight was hopeless [3]. If we were to put pedophiles together in a community, it would very quickly spiral out of control, and to absolutely no one's surprise we would find an increase of child sexual abuse cases, be it child porn or physical abuse to a child because "everyone else is doing it".

Debate Round No. 1


I am going to drop this debate for personal reasons. I am sorry for wacting Con's time in this debate. I do understand I have plenty of time to submit the round, the reason for FFing isn't due to lack of time.

Best wishes to Con, please vote for him.


It's cool. :)

You took a tough side on a tough subject.

Best of luck to you too.
Debate Round No. 2


Envisage forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 3


Envisage forfeited this round.


Sharku forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 4
10 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by Sharku 3 years ago
I get email alerts.
Posted by Envisage 3 years ago
That was quick.
Posted by Sharku 3 years ago
Except, we need to look at how pedophiles actually molest children. Typically, children are molested by friends of the family who have access to them. It has nothing to do with job or social status.

As for disclosing it, it does become a huge liability. If I hired someone who professed they were a serial killer (who also have someone wrong with their brains), and they did kill someone on the job or at a company event, I would be held liable for knowing I was hiring a killer and endangering my workers. If I hire a pedophile, and at a company event he molests a child or even on a business trip molests a child, again my company can be held liable if it comes to light I knew I was hiring a pedophile.

Why would you need to announce you're sexually attracted to children in the first place? Gay people do it for acceptance and because they have a *legal* relationship between consenting adults. Pedophiles will never have a legal relationship, and it should never be an accepted mindset in any society.
Posted by AndyHood 3 years ago
@Sharku, that sounds ominously like thought-police... "Hiring someone who has interest in illegal activity becomes a liability"; surely if somebody has self-identified as a paedophile and wishes NOT to harm any children, recognising that their sexual orientation is potentially harmful and therefore working hard to avoid any illegal, morally reprehensible and damaging actions should be entitled to our full support? Denying them the ability to get a good job seems to be unreasonable discrimination if you ask me! I'd even suggest that such unreasonable sanction would likely lead to anger, hatred, depression and a greater chance of a crime being committed.
Posted by Sharku 3 years ago
I disagree on everything but medical. They should be allowed to seek help without fear of the doctor breaking patient confidentiality. Their brains are physically wired to be different, so if there is help for them, it could prevent harm from coming to more children and I am all for that.

However, as far as discrimination, no. Hiring someone who has interest in illegal activity becomes a liability as does anything else that is basically condoning it.

I'd be willing to expand on those if you want me to debate with you.
Posted by whiteflame 3 years ago
And here, we agree. I'll be interested to see this debate go forward, though.
Posted by Nac 3 years ago
Oh. Thanks for the clarification.
Posted by Envisage 3 years ago
No, because not all pedophilic acts are performed by pedophiles (actually, only a minority are).

This debate isn't about mitigation of criminal hinderance - so the acts themselves are non-topical. A pedophile that has committed a criminal act (such a pedophilic act) wouldn't be exempt from employment hinderance, etc. - just as he wouldn't if he has committed assault, GBH, or anything else that entails a criminal record.

However everything would apply otherwise - thus convicted pedophiles ought to be able to form groups, have medical treatment made available to them, etc.
Posted by Nac 3 years ago
Does the resolution include those who engage in pedophilic acts? Because those are crimes in many countries if I recall correctly.
Posted by Wylted 3 years ago
Just governments should give me a blowjob.
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by tejretics 3 years ago
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:03 
Reasons for voting decision: Concession.