Well, I don't mean acceptance that they have a problem, I mean acceptance of their condition.
You misuse "acceptance", I think. What you seem to mean is that they will embrace their condition, which I am not at all convinced is correct. Many paedophiles who have actually molested children are not entirely at ease with themselves- some of the Catholic priests caught up in the child abuse scandal were discovered because they actually confessed their crime to another priest. On top of which, the assumption that embracing the condition would lead one to become a child molester, or an endorser of child molestation, is also highly questionable. I am sexually attracted to adults- teleiophilia- but I do not commit sexual abuse or consume images of this, and not simply because there are other, legal alternative available.
The sexual use of children is wrong, and shota is the sexual use of children. Not the use of actual, living, children, but the use of children as a concept. In the same way that, for example, sexual attraction is not involved with actual people on the basic level. People are attracted to idealized types of men or women, not specific individuals (well, they are, but that's just the manifestation of their basic attraction). Pedophilia cannot be compared to racism, but sexualized children can.
Even then, it's a very, very loose comparison. Shota does not necessarily suggest that children be harmed, while racist material carries the inherent implication of advocating behaviour which harms ethnic minorities. Aside from anything else, I'm such that most paedophiles prefer fantasies in which the sex is consensual and enjoyed by both parties; a paedophile is no more necessarily prone to rape fantasies than I am.
If nothing else, I feel that you need to rather more conclusive evidence your assertion that sexualised images of pre-adolescents is inherently immoral, given that they produce, in themselves, no harm. I, at least, fail to see that something which harms nobody can be wrong simply because it is distasteful. I cannot help but feel that you attempt to rationalise your emotional disgust, however valid that may be, rather than actually consider the issue from an objective standpoint.
The State as far as I'm concerned is irrelevant to this discussion. I don't think I've ever meant to say that governments should enforce their own morality even if no crimes are being committed. When I say shota is wrong, I mean on a personal level, because the sexualized use of children is wrong. Same for our beaten-down racism analogy. People should have some internal responsibility for themselves, some soul searching, some questioning, some feeling that, "this is wrong".
Fair enough.
You are not quite right: homosexuality was once considered as an illness and still as such or as another but abnormal condition by many (f.e. - most of world religions). A striking example is history of Alan Turing who had to undergo through hormone treatment.
Granted, although that was essentially a rationalisation of existing social prejudices, rather than a valid scientific judgement. Today paedophilia is considered a mental illness, while ephebophilia is not (hebephilia, I believe, is debated), despite the two sharing similar levels of social prejudice; indeed, in the popular imagination there is little distinction between the three.
The question of pedophilia may also depend on community and time: for example Muhammad (famous Islamic prophet
) married Aisha when she were nine and he was about fifty. By modern standards he was outrageous pedophile but by standards of his community and time it was acceptable.
It's probably worth noting that the Aisha thing was unusual even for the time; it was a political marriage- her father being among Muhammad's chief supporters- which was not consummated until Aisha was an adolescent. Even if adolescents have often been considered fair game in more primitive societies, few, if any societies have considered paedophilia acceptable.
Also, as I have said, paedophilia refers very specifically to a psychological condition, rather than to simply engaging in sexual intercourse with minors. It's best not to misuse it.
But pedophilia and homosexuality are completely different! I don't know about mental illnesses, but there are, and were, different reasons why child sexualization and homosexual acts were considered wrong. Anti-homosexuality is essentially a knee-jerk reaction, but anti-pedophilia is rooted to actual crimes: the trauma and rape of children which will inevitably result from the expression of pedophilic urges.
Actually, it's at least in part because paedophillia is a mental disorder, which homosexuality is not. The criminal at of child molestation is an altogether different thing, even if they do intersect at times. (Let's remember, the majority of cases involving the sexual abuse of a minor do not involve paedophiles, but hebephiles and ephebophiles.)
Also, isn't this entire discussion drawn from a particular expressionf of paedophillic urges which does no harm?
.
