Tolerance and Acceptance has its limits

[Chimeric]

18 minutes ago, thegrayace said:

Doctors categorize diseases. That is how we know what to treat.

Yes, but we have to be careful what sort of language we're internalizing, lest we ostracize people who need our help. Disease categorization is important, but after a point it becomes academic, and focusing on semantics impedes our ability to be good doctors.

 

27 minutes ago, thegrayace said:

The only acceptance I will do is to accept that pedophilia is a mental disease that must be treated. Also, again, once more, accepting that pedophilia is a sexual orientation gives a lead to normalization, and potential tolerance.

And also, again, once more, I ask - sort of for the sake of playing devil's advocate, since I haven't wholly determined where I stand on this point, myself - do you think normalization will contribute to a system that improves diagnosis of and treatment for these individuals? Do you think that would improve their quality of life while protecting the public? Do you think society is capable of drawing the lines between normalization and tolerance? I'm curious, mostly.

 

33 minutes ago, thegrayace said:

I never unify biology with the ethics. But to say we must accept something because it's in nature is ignorant.

Right, that was exactly my point. Infanticide is, in fact, normal, but it isn't acceptable.

[thedemiace]

2 hours ago, Chimeric said:

Yes, but we have to be careful what sort of language we're internalizing, lest we ostracize people who need our help. Disease categorization is important, but after a point it becomes academic, and focusing on semantics impedes our ability to be good doctors.

My ostracizing pedophiles from sexual orientation, and putting them in a mental health issue. Putting them in a mental health issue puts an effort for more research, and even the creation of better treatment.

 

3 hours ago, Chimeric said:

do you think normalization will contribute to a system that improves diagnosis of and treatment for these individuals?

Normalization of pedophilia does the opposite, and would even create a form of sick tolerance. The acceptance that it's a mental health issue is the recognition of the problem. Let's use another mental health issue as an example. OCD is a true mental health issue that has been normalized to a certain degree. This becomes hurtful to those who truly have it by discarding treatments that these people need from family members and friends.  

3 hours ago, Chimeric said:

Do you think that would improve their quality of life while protecting the public? 

Hmmm... Duh... While it creates a bigger safety toward children, it also helps the adult to eliminates those urges he or she has. It lowers rape, child abuse, and help us understand more mental health issues.

3 hours ago, Chimeric said:

Do you think society is capable of drawing the lines between normalization and tolerance?

Normalization leads to tolerance. For instance, homosexuality has been normalize, and is now more tolerable in societies. Normalization leads to ignore what was once a problem because a) it's no longer seen as unethical; or b) because people don't realize the problem.

 

3 hours ago, Chimeric said:

Right, that was exactly my point. Infanticide is, in fact, normal, but it isn't acceptable.

Normal is NOT equal to natural.

[Alejandrogynous]

19 hours ago, Polygon said:

Side note that might piss people off: I think there's a tendency to automatically conflate anyone with those terrible urges with the abusers. The former does not necessarily mean they're the latter. Personally I wouldn't consider a pedophile a bad person by default unless they acted on it, and there are a lot of studies and ongoing research about treatment that could reduce the instances of abuse. 

 

I've been made to feel very unwelcome in places because of this very opinion. Apparently seeing the difference between pedophilia and child abuse, and feeling that pedophiles deserve help in order to not become child abusers, makes people think you're a pedophile (and thus, a child abuser) yourself. It's great. (sarcasm)

[Alejandrogynous]

I have mixed feelings. No, I don't the pedophilia should be included in the LGBT+ community in any way, and I don't think it makes much sense for it to be, regardless. Only being attracted to dudes over sixty doesn't make you queer either, why would only being attracted to prepubescent children? If anything, I'd say it has more in common with the fetish community (not that I want to see it included in that either, for the record), in that it's simply a sexual attraction to something that one cannot help.

As for normalizing and accepting pedophilia, I support that in the way that we also seek to normalize and accept depression and eating disorders. We don't accept these things by letting them go untreated, or say 'welp, you were born this way so you'll suffer and then probably die young - good luck!'. We offer therapy and medication. What we are normalizing isn't for them to go unchecked, but that these are conditions that people have, they don't make you a bad person, and you can ask for help. Which is the sort of acceptance that pedophilia desperately needs. 

 

But yeah, trying to do it by adding them to LGBT+ is very misguided.

[Chimeric]

16 minutes ago, thegrayace said:

Normalization of pedophilia does the opposite, and would even create a form of sick tolerance. The acceptance that it's a mental health issue is the recognition of the problem

With "pedophilia" being the mental health issue, and not the actual action, which is what a few people have tried to say in this thread already. Yes. Right. Exactly.

 

16 minutes ago, thegrayace said:

OCD is a true mental health issue that has been normalized to a certain degree. This becomes hurtful to those who truly have it by discarding treatments that these people need from family members and friends.  

I'm sorry, I'm struggling to understand this. Could you clarify?

 

16 minutes ago, thegrayace said:

Normal is NOT equal to natural.

Again - I think we're crossing wires, here, and it isn't a big deal anyway, so I'm just gonna drop it.

 

13 minutes ago, Alejandrogynous said:

What we are normalizing isn't for them to go unchecked, but that these are conditions that people have, they don't make you a bad person, and you can ask for help.

This bit.

[thedemiace]

23 hours ago, Chimeric said:

With "pedophilia" being the mental health issue, and not the actual action, which is what a few people have tried to say in this thread already.

You do realize this is not an overnight action. These people have thoughts! And this thoughts were pedophile ones! 

 

23 hours ago, Chimeric said:

I'm sorry, I'm struggling to understand this. Could you clarify?

When someone who is organize say: "Lol! I have so much OCD", it's an ignorant comment, and undermine the real mental disease. I have met people with OCD, and have encounter the issue that friends and family have said: "Oh! That's just OCD, don't worry much", or "Why do you need treatment for that, it's not big deal". They don't know how difficult it can be for an OCD people to handle his or her disease because it has been normalize. Normalization leads to insignificance.

 

23 hours ago, Chimeric said:

Again - I think we're crossing wires, here, and it isn't a big deal anyway, so I'm just gonna drop it.

I want you, personally, to tell that to victims that were victims of a pedophile.

 

23 hours ago, Chimeric said:

This bit.

Again, I want these people to be treated so they don't go to the action.

[Evil]

@thegrayaceI think you are misconstruing what @Chimeric is saying, not once have they condoned pedophilia. "it isn't a big deal" was clearly towards the continued crossed wires. 

 

[Sally]

On 12/16/2017 at 6:25 PM, thegrayace said:

 It has been proved that it can be change via intense therapy. 

No, that hasn't been proven.  I live in an area that has an institution that has done research for decades on how to treat male pedophiles who have been imprisoned for sexually assaulting children -- very young children, not teens.  No variety of treatment has extinguished the desire in these men to have sex with children.  

[Skycaptain]

@thegrayace, @Sally

 

I think the operative word is CAN. This does not mean that it will in all cases, or even a majority of cases. Just that it is possible. 

As an example of the variability of response to treatment I just searched "pubmed" the medical research online library using the enquiry "eunuch sexual arousal", and discovered research which suggests that the response to castration ranged from complete loss of libido/arousal to an increase. 

 

The problem is that whether having the desire to have sexual activities with persons below the age of consent depends on the honesty of the patient, and subsequently, would a community take the risk of having such a person in their midst 

[Garion]

Before I get to the meat of this post a few things.

 

1: Adults having sex with children is morally abhorrent and rightly illegal.

2: Child pornography is child abuse and rightly illegal.

 

Here are the definitions of terms I will use.

 

Teliophilia: A sexual orientation towards age-appropriate partners.

Pedophilia: A sexual orientation (explained below) towards children. Unless getting specific, I will be using this term as an umbrella for nepiophilia (attraction to babies) pedophilia (attraction to prepubescent children) and hebephilia (attraction to pubescent children).

Pedophile: A person with pedophilia.

Child molester: A person who has abused a child in a sexual manner.

 

I will also mention in advance that I will be drawing comparisons between pedophilia and both hetero and homosexual orientations. These comparisons are not meant to correlate the various sexual orientations with pedophilia or vice versa, but to use examples that are more relatable and therefore ease understanding of the subject.

 

So on the question of whether or not pedophilia is a sexual orientation.

I will define a sexual orientation as an unchosen, long-term set of sexual attraction to a particular group. When it comes to the unchosen aspect, the self-reporting of many pedophiles holds that pedophilia is unchosen. In addition to that their self-reports also hold that the attraction is a long-term attraction as opposed to a phase. Pedophiles do not choose to have sexual attraction towards children and it is stable over time, hence pedophilia is rightly defined as a sexual orientation. Some pedophiles notice something is different about them before puberty and finally come to the pedophilic conclusion in puberty. Others find out about their pedophilia later in puberty when the people they're attracted to aren't aging. (A 12 year old being attracted to a 12 year old is normal. But an 18 year old still attracted 12 year olds will at the very least be wondering why.) Just like other sexual orientations, different pedophiles discover their pedophilia differently.

Where pedophilia takes a branch off from teliophilic orientations is that a child cannot provide meaningful consent and while adults are able to process sexual encounters, children cannot. So while a teliophilic heterosexual can find a partner to marry and have conjugal relations with, a pedophile can never morally do so with their preferred partner.

And before I get off the topic of whether or not pedophilia is a sexual orientation, I will also not that there are pedophiles who, while predominantly attracted to children, still have a teliophilic component to their orientation. This is kind of like how a bisexual may have a majority sexual attraction to one gender while still being attracted to both. (So that means that some pedophiles can find age-appropriate partners, though that isn't the case for an exclusive pedophile.)

 

Now on to the question of whether or not pedophilia can be cured.

For this I will point out that conversion therapy is bunk science. The extensive abuse of homosexuals in this manner has shown time and time again that conversion therapies are not effective at their goal. Instead of changing sexual orientations, which recall are both unchosen and stable over time, they are more likely to induce severe guilt when the attractions do not go away. In addition to inheriting gay conversion's flawed techniques, pedophilic conversion also inherited the flawed scoring techniques.

One thing the early gay conversionists pointed to when saying they were having successful orientation changes were actions, not attractions. That is they measured the success of whether or not the people they 'converted' had de-homosexualized by whether or not they engaged in a same-sex relationship. If measuring the changing of innate feelings by whether or not they were acted upon seems flawed to you, you would be right. To bring that to pedophiles, the 'success' stories have measured whether or not the pedophiles acted upon their attractions, not if the attractions were actually gone. In addition, as the pedophiles most likely to have undergone these 'therapies' were convicted of child abuse, they had an active motive to say they were cured. And as it's quite plausible that not even a majority of pedophiles have abused children (more on that later) and there are more humane and effective therapies for those at risk of abusing children (more on that too) I find it cruel and unusual to subject pedophiles to torture as that is what conversion therapies are.

 

Now for the question of whether or not pedophilia is a mental disorder.

While the DSM currently classifies pedophilia as a mental disorder, I'll point out that until recently is classified homosexuality as a mental disorder. While it is true that many pedophiles experience depression and similar mental health issues related to their sexual orientation, just as many homosexuals do in regards to their orientation, it is not the orientation itself that's a cause of distress, but surrounding factors such as fear of people finding and internalizing society's disgust at the orientation. (That can apply in both cases.)

And the question of whether or not pedophilia changes behavior is also valid when looking at the question. While pedophilia certainly means a person will have sexual thoughts towards children, a pedophile is still in control of their actions. Just as a teliophile doesn't have uncontrollable urges when they find an adult attractive, pedophiles can also control themselves. Men don't uncontrollably rape women and pedophiles don't uncontrollably abuse children. While some may seek therapy as an exclusive pedophile realizing they'll never have intercourse with their preferred partner may experience some frustration at that emotionally, at the end of the day they are still fully in control of their actions.

 

In the vein of urges, I feel it's also important to mention some statistics on child abuse to break some pre-conceptions before the next section. Of child molesters, only 27-40% (depending on how strict the criteria), not even a majority, are pedophiles.

Source for that statistic: http://journals.sagepub.com/doi/abs/10.1177/107906320101300103

That sounds counter-intuitive for sure, but it means that the majority of child abusers are teliophiles, not pedophiles. Just like one homoerotic experience doesn't make you gay or a sexual encounter doesn't make you non-asexual, sexually abusing a child doesn't necessitate that you're a pedophile.  Most child molesters are situational offenders. So a molester may turn to children when adults are unavailable or for other reasons even though their preferred partner is an adult. Combine this with estimates ranging from 1-20% of the population being pedophiles (I personally would lean closer to the 1%) and it gives an interesting idea. While we have no solid data on what portion of the population is, if we assume even the small percent and then look at what percent of child molesters are pedophiles we can come to a conclusion: The child abuse rate, even when counting the unreported cases, would be much higher if most pedophiles were child molesters. So it's very plausible that most pedophiles do not abuse children. While there are no solid facts to support that statement, would seem logical. (Which again brings up why I believe pedophile conversion therapy to be cruel as it would abuse a person and most likely not even prevent a child from being abused.)

 

Now on to the question of therapy.

It's natural that some pedophiles would benefit from therapy if they're having a hard time dealing with their attraction or a mental illness such as depression caused by stress from dealing with their orientation. But this brings up some issues when it comes to pedophiles and therapy. Mandatory reporting laws mean that if a pedophile is currently abusing a child, they won't seek therapy even if they know they should because it would land them in prison. And if a pedophile has not abused a child, they risk a therapist believing they might be risk which can lead to a police investigation causing severe detriments to their life even though they never did anything wrong. In essence, those most in need of therapy are often the ones most likely to be negatively impacted by it.

So far the only notable program without mandatory reporting laws (so a pedophile can seek help to stop abusing a child without fearing their therapist will inform on them) is Germany's Dunkfeld project which started in 2011. Right now I will say I do know for sure what should be done about mandatory reporting laws, though I will admit a certain logic to the idea of prevention as opposed to punishment, but I will definitely say I will be interested in whether or not the Dunkfeld project is successful in the long-run.

I will also point out that there have been groups of pedophiles, feeling that they have been failed, that are anti-contact (as in they aren't wanting to make sex with children legal) such as VirPed (short for Virtuous Pedophiles) that are support groups for pedophiles much like Alcoholics Anonymous for pedophiles to encourage each other in chastity. And these groups have been cited as life-savers in the testimonials of some pedophiles.

 

So looking at this, we can come to the question of whether or not pedophilia should be accepted. While acting on it can never be accepted, I do believe we should be able to talk about it without labeling pedophiles monsters for their unchosen sexual orientation. In the lens of at least understanding, I certainly would say tolerance is important as pedophiles discovering their pedophilia certainly need to hear a message other than the erroneous "you're a monster doomed to abuse children" and start hearing that they are fully equal humans whose sexual orientation is valid, even though they'll never be able to morally act on it.

 

In essence, there's a lot more nuance to the question of pedophilia than you would initially think.

 

And for those interested in further reading.

 

The link below is to an article on Medium concerning pedophilia and some of the issues around how society has treated the issue in addition to personal stories of some teenaged pedophiles. I will mention in advance that one of the stories does involve someone who watched child pornography but neither I nor the article argue for that to be okay.

https://medium.com/matter/youre-16-youre-a-pedophile-you-dont-want-to-hurt-anyone-what-do-you-do-now-e11ce4b88bdb

 

And for a wide variety of articles, there's also a section on Medium called Pedophiles on Pedophilia with articles about pedophilia written by pedophiles. The articles do not advocate for legalizing child sex and they do not advocate for child porn either. The link I have provided is to collection of articles by one said pedophile by the screen name of Ender Wiggin as I've personally found his to be some of the more thought-provoking. He was a useful source for learning about much of what I typed above.

https://medium.com/@enderphile/latest

[Yatogami]

Pedophilia is a fetish, not an orientation, or mental illness. It can be controlled. And like all fetishes, the more you feed into it. The farther you will go. 

 

The pedophilias with mental illness though, are more than likely to act on their fetish IRL. It's a thing not exclusive to pedophiles. All fetishists think of enacting their fetish IRL. Some, have obsurd fetishes they can't legally, or physically do IRL either.

 

There are tons of pedophiles who would never touch a child, because they know it is wrong. Pedophiles can literally be anyone, not the creepy guy you imagine.

 

If it's legitimized, bestiality, and necrophilia would be next on the agenda.

 

I am, by the way, disgusted by the sheer notion of legitimizing pedophilia. I was molested when I was a child, and still to this day deal with the trauma it did to me. I cannot fathom anyone who thinks it's good idea.

 

Hopefully the Left doesn't accept it, like I think they will. Prove me wrong please.

[Sally]

Garion, I'm curious:  Are you an MD, or psychiatrist, or medical researcher?  

[Garion]

@Yato, First off, my greatest sympathy for your experiences. Second, just to understand your position better, how do you differentiate between a fetish and an orientation? 

 

@Sally, I am none of those. I'm someone that was curious one day and really got into reading about it. It's interesting to learn about people from the arguably most hated reviled group in the modern West. And to read the testimonials of those that experience pedophilia but don't abuse interested me.

[Yatogami]

.

[Garion]

For reference, the post I am responding to is found here:

 

@Yatagarasu 

One thing I want to clarify first the "!=" means not equal. So when I said, "pedophilia != child molestation" it means that "Pedophilia is not the same thing as child molestation." Again I'll mention that 5 posts up contains the long form of my position and clarifies how I'm using terminology.

 

Now, for clarification's sake, when you said, "They can't be with who they "love" because the kid isn't sexually and/or mentally ready to be in a mature relationship. This is just plain wrong.

If they can get help where they really get over it, then sure. Either way, I won't support it." did you mean which of the following options?

 

1: You won't condone adults having sexual relationships with children.

OR

2: You won't condone people having an attraction to children, regardless of whether or not they act on it.

 

If it's the first, we're in agreement. As you said, children lack the reasoning necessary to be able to be in a sexual relationship. If you meant the second, I'll point out that pedophilia is a sexual orientation. (Again, I go into more depth on that 5 posts up.) If neither of the options I mentioned reflect what you said, please explain.

 

And within that quote when you said "If they can get help where they really get over it, then sure." did you mean

1: You want pedophiles at risk of abusing a child to get help so that they don't abuse a child.

OR

2: You want pedophiles to get therapy to stop having attractions to children.

 

If you meant the first one, again I am with you there that if a pedophile is in need of therapy they should be able to get therapy to help not offend. But if you meant the second, I'll point out that pedophilia is, much like heterosexuality and all other orientations, an unchosen attraction and that trying to eradicate the pedophilic attractions is a futile as the infamous "gay conversion therapies." (Again, more on that 5 posts up.) And as before, if neither of the options I wrote are what you meant, please explain.

[Yatagarasu]

3 minutes ago, Garion said:

One thing I want to clarify first the "!=" means not equal. So when I said, "pedophilia != child molestation" it means that "Pedophilia is not the same thing as child molestation." Again I'll mention that 5 posts up contains the long form of my position and clarifies how I'm using terminology.

 

Now, for clarification's sake, when you said, "They can't be with who they "love" because the kid isn't sexually and/or mentally ready to be in a mature relationship. This is just plain wrong.

If they can get help where they really get over it, then sure. Either way, I won't support it." did you mean which of the following options?

 

1: You won't condone adults having sexual relationships with children.

OR

2: You won't condone people having an attraction to children, regardless of whether or not they act on it.

 

If it's the first, we're in agreement. As you said, children lack the reasoning necessary to be able to be in a sexual relationship. If you meant the second, I'll point out that pedophilia is a sexual orientation. (Again, I go into more depth on that 5 posts up.) If neither of the options I mentioned reflect what you said, please explain.

 

And within that quote when you said "If they can get help where they really get over it, then sure." did you mean

1: You want pedophiles at risk of abusing a child to get help so that they don't abuse a child.

OR

2: You want pedophiles to get therapy to stop having attractions to children.

 

If you meant the first one, again I am with you there that if a pedophile is in need of therapy they should be able to get therapy to help not offend. But if you meant the second, I'll point out that pedophilia is, much like heterosexuality and all other orientations, an unchosen attraction and that trying to eradicate the pedophilic attractions is a futile as the infamous "gay conversion therapies." (Again, more on that 5 posts up.) And as before, if neither of the options I wrote are what you meant, please explain.

First question: both

Second question: the latter

 

But

Wait a minute

How is pedophilia a sexual orientation? A young kid is not a gender. Orientation refers only to the gender/sex which one is attracted to. Pedophilia is, much like alcoholism, a disease.

[Garion]

23 minutes ago, Yatagarasu said:

Wait a minute

How is pedophilia a sexual orientation? A young kid is not a gender. Orientation refers only to the gender/sex which one is attracted to. Pedophilia is, much like alcoholism, a disease.

A sexual orientation is a sustained long-term set of attractions. As pedophiles experience their attractions to children, often discovered in the teen years depending on their age of attraction, it is a sexual orientation.

 

TNF 13 explains a bit more eloquently than I.

https://medium.com/pedophiles-about-pedophilia/is-pedophilia-a-sexual-orientation-ff00ae24edf7

And a relevant WebMD article that mentions pedophilia as sexual orientation

https://www.webmd.com/mental-health/features/explaining-pedophilia#1

And while the DSM-5 currently classifies pedophilia under pedophilic disorder (ie, it's a mental disorder ONLY if the person experiences distress), I'll point out that until recently, homosexuality was classified as a mental disorder.

 

And in regards to if pedophilia is a disease, the only thing that qualifies someone as a pedophile is if they are sexually attracted to children. Not if they have urges. Not if they're also psychopathic. Just as a heterosexual doesn't experience uncontrollable desires to rape, a pedophile doesn't experience uncontrollable desires to molest. The big difference really is whether or not it's moral to enact the attraction with the desired partner. In the pedophile's case, children cannot consent so that answer is no. And that's really the only difference. Ender Wiggin has a rather detailed and explanatory article on the matter.

https://medium.com/pedophiles-about-pedophilia/pedophilia-as-a-mental-disorder-65dff4bcbb7

[Yatagarasu]

16 minutes ago, Garion said:

A sexual orientation is a sustained long-term set of attractions. As pedophiles experience their attractions to children, often discovered in the teen years depending on their age of attraction, it is a sexual orientation.

 

TNF 13 explains a bit more eloquently than I.

https://medium.com/pedophiles-about-pedophilia/is-pedophilia-a-sexual-orientation-ff00ae24edf7

And a relevant WebMD article that mentions pedophilia as sexual orientation

https://www.webmd.com/mental-health/features/explaining-pedophilia#1

And while the DSM-5 currently classifies pedophilia under pedophilic disorder (ie, it's a mental disorder ONLY if the person experiences distress), I'll point out that until recently, homosexuality was classified as a mental disorder.

 

And in regards to if pedophilia is a disease, the only thing that qualifies someone as a pedophile is if they are sexually attracted to children. Not if they have urges. Not if they're also psychopathic. Just as a heterosexual doesn't experience uncontrollable desires to rape, a pedophile doesn't experience uncontrollable desires to molest. The big difference really is whether or not it's moral to enact the attraction with the desired partner. In the pedophile's case, children cannot consent so that answer is no. And that's really the only difference. Ender Wiggin has a rather detailed and explanatory article on the matter.

https://medium.com/pedophiles-about-pedophilia/pedophilia-as-a-mental-disorder-65dff4bcbb7

I wonder how they got such conclusions after claiming that a sexual orientation is an attraction to a particular gender.

Pedophilia is a sexual attraction to a kid, not an orientation per se. A pedophile may be attracted to either one or many genders. That would make them homosexual, heterosexual or something in between.

[Garion]

29 minutes ago, Yatagarasu said:

I wonder how they got such conclusions after claiming that a sexual orientation is an attraction to a particular gender.

Pedophilia is a sexual attraction to a kid, not an orientation per se. A pedophile may be attracted to either one or many genders. That would make them homosexual, heterosexual or something in between.

Well, again, because it's a long-term set of attractions. And I would say there's a difference in conventional usage of terms likes heterosexual or homosexual due to the common implied teliophilic component. I'd personally say that adding a component like heteropedisexual/pediheterosexual to also account for the age-range would lead to a greater accuracy. But that would be a case of our language lagging behind linguistic needs.

[Yatagarasu]

41 minutes ago, Garion said:

Well, again, because it's a long-term set of attractions. And I would say there's a difference in conventional usage of terms likes heterosexual or homosexual due to the common implied teliophilic component. I'd personally say that adding a component like heteropedisexual/pediheterosexual to also account for the age-range would lead to a greater accuracy. But that would be a case of our language lagging behind linguistic needs.

This "pedi" inclusion is but redundant. Claiming that pedophilia is a legitimate orientation is simply justifying something that does not happen in nature. 

[Garion]

2 minutes ago, Yatagarasu said:

52 minutes ago, Garion said:

 

This "pedi" inclusion is but redundant. Claiming that pedophilia is a legitimate orientation is simply justifying something that does not happen in nature. 

Um, whether or not something happens in nature or not is not a good basis, setting aside that humans are a part of nature and the presence of pedophilia in bonobos. I'll also point out again that pedophiles experience a long-term and stable attraction, which is the basis for an orientation. And if I may ask, is your objection to pedophilia being considered a sexual orientation linked to the next part of this post?

 

Setting aside whether or not pedophilia is an orientation, earlier in one posts you responded to which position you were stating and it was in reply to the post I have quoted under yours.

2 hours ago, Yatagarasu said:

First question: both

 

2 hours ago, Garion said:

1: You won't condone adults having sexual relationships with children.

OR

2: You won't condone people having an attraction to children, regardless of whether or not they act on it.

I suppose the big question is why you feel that, even when not acted upon, pedophilia is wrong. What is amoral about an unchosen attraction when not acted upon?

[Guest]

On 12/17/2017 at 3:25 PM, thegrayace said:

Wrong. It has been proved that it can be change via intense therapy. There is also some connection with culture, and even household experiences. However, if there is any genetic connection, it doesn't mean it should be normalize. There are other psychological diseases that are connected with genetics, like depression, bipolarity, schizophrenia, and psychopathy. However, while accepted, they are not normalized but treated. In other words, they must be treated.

Yeah I would say that if pedophilia is a mental disorder (as opposed to an innate sexual orientation) it can definitely be treated. I do personally think it's a mental disorder that needs intensive treatment, same with things like severe schizophrenia or bipolar disorder. Hopefully in the future we can find a really thorough, fast way to treat people who suffer from pedophilic urges so they can quickly begin living a normal life without being any risk of physical and/or emotional harm to any children they come in contact with (and that would make life easier for the pedophile as well).

[WoodwindWhistler]

On 1/13/2018 at 1:21 AM, Yato said:

Pedophilia is a fetish, not an orientation, or mental illness. It can be controlled. And like all fetishes, the more you feed into it. The farther you will go. 

Technically that is true for orientations. There are meditations that are designed to "feed into" NOT thinking about sexuality, and can reduce sex drive greatly. There is definitely such a thing as addiction to plain, vanilla sex. https://saa-recovery.org/

And varying degrees, where someone sees tangible benefits from going on hiatuses. So obviously even "orientation" is subject "the more you feed into it" and the opposite, deliberate reduction. 
 

So, you're going to have to go further in justifying that there is a significant difference between preoccupation, addiction, orientation, and the term you chose, "fetish." All fetish usually means is some non-mainstream facet of arousal or attraction. I'd even contend that since orientation is subject to some fluidity, there's not as much separating it from any certain interest as you'd like to believe. 

I'm not even sure I'm on board with orientation being linguistically limited to "what gender you're attracted to." That seems such an outdated and precariously myopic way of looking at sexuality, especially given the platform we are currently conversing on. 

Anyway, even if purists were to insist "orientation" be reserved only for homo, hetero, androphilia and gynophilia, it still reeks of the same resistance to inventing new terms for various types and dimensions of attractions, which as you know I eyeroll so hard at. Taken to its logical conclusion, "sensual attraction" and "aesthetic attraction," which asexuals have spent time developing into concepts hopefully for acceptance by the world at large, would come under fire.

[WoodwindWhistler]

5 hours ago, Yatagarasu said:

Claiming that pedophilia is a legitimate orientation is simply justifying something that does not happen in nature. 

To everyone on this thread: you do know human toddlers masturbate, right? 

Per what Garion said, Google "bonobos sexuality." And wouldn't you know it, they're even smart enough to refrain from attempting PIV with with a female that is too young. They know what they're doing. 

The "it's not natural" argument doesn't work for this any more than it did for stigmatizing LGBT folks. 

So by all means keep it illegal- personally I don't think people could handle the responsibility or imbalance of power- if we have to put a safety label on a Tide Pod not to eat it, then we are as a population definitely not fit to navigate this issue- but you're going to have to stick to that reasoning as a basis. 

We can't follow their example for a similar reason that they can piss in their drinking water and we can't- too many packed together. Strangers with little personal incentive to be respectful of and look out for each other.

[Garion]

2 hours ago, FictoVore. said:

Yeah I would say that if pedophilia is a mental disorder (as opposed to an innate sexual orientation) it can definitely be treated. I do personally think it's a mental disorder that needs intensive treatment, same with things like severe schizophrenia or bipolar disorder. Hopefully in the future we can find a really thorough, fast way to treat people who suffer from pedophilic urges so they can quickly begin living a normal life without being any risk of physical and/or emotional harm to any children they come in contact with (and that would make life easier for the pedophile as well).

Well, in my earlier post I mentioned my reasons as to why I hold pedophilia as a sexual orientation. But regardless of agreement on that point I will point out that there is no magic pill as of now. And conversion therapies are bunk science. And when it comes to modern therapy for pedophiles, it usually is geared toward helping them accept their orientation and having a plan. So when it comes to therapy, trying to change an orientation is detrimental. The traumas of gay conversion 'therapies' should tell us that. And when a person seeks these and it doesn't work, that adds another level of despair. Despair that can either lead to/deepen depression if they're already beating themselves up about it, or create a "well if I can't get rid of it, why not give into it" kind of attitude and no one wants that.

And when it comes to pedophiles, a decent number have gone without abusing a child without therapy. And the phrase "pedophilic urge" is rather erroneous. It's like talking about "heterosexual urges." Society, largely from sensationalist headlines, has conflated pedophilia with child molestation even though they don't go hand in hand. Yes, some pedophiles do those horrible acts, but not all of them, and there are ways to argue not even a majority. (And as a side note: roughly 2/3 of child sexual abusers are NOT pedophiles.) When the only pedophiles we hear about are those that have abused a child, it's easy to see how the association comes up, but that doesn't reflect reality.

In essence, my objection to saying pedophilia NEEDS a treatment is because it doesn't. Some pedophiles can benefit from therapy if they need help getting strategies to not offend or if they suffer depression related to not being able to accept their pedophilia and or stress from society's rather dismal view on non-offending pedophiles, or anything other matter.

 

And I would recommend Ender Wiggin's article discussing views in regards to this. I'm writing this post a bit before hitting the sack and I'm guessing I probably left at least on small tangent in those paragraphs.

https://medium.com/pedophiles-about-pedophilia/a-cure-for-pedophilia-20846b9c59bc

 

 

2 hours ago, WoodwindWhistler said:

The "it's not natural" argument doesn't work for this any more than it did for stigmatizing LGBT folks. 

So by all means keep it illegal- personally I don't think people could handle the responsibility or imbalance of power- if we have to put a safety label on a Tide Pod not to eat it, then we are as a population definitely not fit to navigate this issue- but you're going to have to stick to that reasoning as a basis. 

I'm guessing I'm misinterpreting what you're saying in those lines as my current reading of what you wrote is that you are in favor of legalizing adult-child sexual relations. But like I said, I'm assuming the way I'm reading what you wrote is wrong. I get the general idea that you're saying whether or not something occurs in nature is a bad  basis for arguing morality, but was there any argument beyond that?

[Sally]

4 hours ago, WoodwindWhistler said:

To everyone on this thread: you do know human toddlers masturbate, right? 
 

Yes, some of them do, but that has nothing to do with pedophilia, which is defined as an adult being sexually attracted to children.   The fact that a child can experience pleasure with their own body is something entirely different.  

[WoodwindWhistler]

13 hours ago, Garion said:

I'm guessing I'm misinterpreting what you're saying in those lines as my current reading of what you wrote is that you are in favor of legalizing adult-child sexual relations. But like I said, I'm assuming the way I'm reading what you wrote is wrong. I get the general idea that you're saying whether or not something occurs in nature is a bad  basis for arguing morality, but was there any argument beyond that?

I said twice- that we have to keep it illegal- and we can't go back- and explained why- so where are you getting that from?
 

12 hours ago, Sally said:

Yes, some of them do, but that has nothing to do with pedophilia, which is defined as an adult being sexually attracted to children.   The fact that a child can experience pleasure with their own body is something entirely different.  

It has to do with it, because one reason people stigmatize pedophilia so harshly that they don't seek treatment, is that they seem to think children are innocent, non-sexual beings. Which is just plainly not true. See also my reply on the thread Garion crosslinked:

"I also cannot put my hands on it at the moment, but a psychologist who works with many cases said that often the *reaction* people have to a child who has experienced this, the stigma or discomfort applied, has a way more damaging effect than the actual event. When we as a people cannot even hold in our minds what goes on behind closed doors, the victims suffer. Similar to the effect of LGBT people having higher incidence of mental problems, more due to society's treatment of them than anything to do with their identities. 

Bonobos involve their young in sexual activity with no apparent force or trauma.

. . .

I'm much more concerned about a child who is beaten than a child that is touched, quite frankly. It makes zero sense why we treat the less damaging one with more attention and hand-wringing than the other."

 

[Except of course that we have the same backwards attitude towards media- all the blood and gore and screaming is fine, but someone flashes a boob and OH MY GOD SCANDAL]

People freak out so completely about any sort of sexual contact with a child- even types with no force or cajoling- because they believe children are inherently un-sexual and 'uncorrupted,' and as a result end up hurting them even more. They instill a sense of shame or brokenness. Those families that do not have this reaction do better in raising well-adjusted kids afterwards. 

By and large, children are sexual. The sexual aspect is not what actually hurts the child. What destroys their mind is the abuse of power, forcing them to do something they don't choose to do, manipulations to keep them silent, and the resulting aftermath from the discovery. 

This cycle perpetuates itself by applying this pressure to keep it in the dark. 
 

[WoodwindWhistler]

Okay, attempting to splice from the other thread, sorry for the mess. 

"they start realizing something disgusting happened to them"

I wonder where this "disgusting" thought comes from . . . perhaps the idea that children are inherently innocent and therefore anything that happens to them is "disgusting" instead of just "sexual." 

I mean full-grown adults with "normal" sex lives struggle with culturally programmed sexual shame, you think it's different for children?

"like they had something very special (their first sexual experience) taken from them"

Assigning importance to the first sexual encounter is related to something that feminists have rightfully lambasted- virginity worship- which is tied into all sorts of terrible, terrible beliefs and practices, right down to ones we take for granted. 
 

"He spent many years in speech therapy trying to learn to talk properly"

 

He developed the stutter in response to trauma, so I fail to see how typical speech therapy for naturally arising impediments should be expected to work. Letting go of anger, sense of powerlessness, and shifting locus of control etc, that results should be the focus, not rearranging the chairs on a sinking Titanic. 

"that he never told any adults about."

Did he tell no adults because he was ashamed? Then he went for years prolonging his isolation and suffering and compounding the problem because he knew people would react badly. That is not a good control case for what I'm talking about, like families who are aware, calm, and supportive above. 

" A male bonobo can grab any female and start having sex with her and she often won't complain, but if a random guy grabbed a woman on the street and started having sex with her, that would be very, very different. Bonobos also lie around having sex in front of each other without any shame or concept of privacy or anything like that."

Bonobos do not have culturally constructed shame. You're right.

I think there's a balance we can strike between "everyone have sex on the streets" and "people absorbing that they are somehow abhorrently different from the 'normies' and should feel shame for stuff that is out of their control."

[Chimeric]

2 hours ago, WoodwindWhistler said:

It has to do with it, because one reason people stigmatize pedophilia so harshly that they don't seek treatment, is that they seem to think children are innocent, non-sexual beings. Which is just plainly not true. See also my reply on the thread Garion crosslinked:

Just so we're clear - do you still mean toddler-aged when you're talking about children?

 

19 hours ago, WoodwindWhistler said:

The "it's not natural" argument doesn't work for this any more than it did for stigmatizing LGBT folks. 

It's not natural.

 

If you can find me a paper that indicates in nature an instance where an animal sexually interacts exclusively with sexually immature members of its species - avoiding them once they've reached the age of sexual maturity - then I am more inclined to reconsider that. Instances of sexual interaction with members of a cohort including the young is not evidence in favor of pedophilia occurring in nature.

 

Edit - And for the record, it really does sound like you're trying to justify sex with children by virtue of the fact that they aren't as sexually innocent as we'd all like to believe. It's a little bit alarming, I'm not gonna lie.

[Evil]

1 hour ago, WoodwindWhistler said:

I think there's a balance we can strike between "everyone have sex on the streets" and "people absorbing that they are somehow abhorrently different from the 'normies' and should feel shame for stuff that is out of their control."

There is no middle ground when children are involved.