Jump to content

Tolerance and Acceptance has its limits


thedemiace

Recommended Posts

WoodwindWhistler

Now, I should mention that this "acceptance" does have its own limit. People who run captive child prostitution rings and turn out child porn, I believe, *should* be harshly punished for feeding this addiction, just as drug dealers should face much steeper penalties for profiting from and reinforcing their customers' problems. That to me is a separate issue from people acting solo. 

I don't hate them, as it does nothing to assist, but it is heinous and shows a clear and calculated lack of empathy where other situations must be sussed out on an individual basis, measured against motivations and pressures.

Their money is reason enough for them to try to keep things secret- no societal attitude of helping would make a dent in that. 
 

3 hours ago, Chimeric said:

It is unnatural. 

 

The papers you cite are monkeys touching monkeys of all ages, including the young. Pedophilia is specifically attraction to the young. Those aren't comparable. Find a paper telling me otherwise and I'll concede it's natural, but until then I cannot believe that sexual attraction specifically to sexually immature individuals is natural.

 

I'm glad you maintain relationships with people of all walks of life. For the record, I am in favor of showing compassion to non-offending pedophiles in an effort to get them help and recovery. The second they harm a child, they have crossed into absolutely unforgivable territory. Those of us who draw that line in the sand are not lesser for having done so. 

 

You are making a distinction between the (1) targeted attraction and (2) the action, and you're free to do so, but people typically conflate them both. And use such (non-reasoning) to fuel policy and shape counseling.


(I don't know why this next part has bolded, and I can't seem to make it turn off :/)
 

Is the first unnatural and the second natural, then? In that case whether the attraction was *there* or not wouldn't even matter in whichever scenarios. But anyway, we've already established that naturalness is not a basis for morality. Only a potential basis for reducing harm.

 

So, are you subscribing to Yato's idea, that it is some sort of fetish? (he never really elaborated on what that distinction was). What do you think causes non-teliophilic pedophiles? You are looking more and more to feed into the idea that pedophilia or molestation is wholesale *caused* by something unnatural or societal . . . like the suffering I mentioned.

 

Specifically, extreme feelings of lack of control over life often define the desire to rape, too. (and I could get into a big tangent on that, like how economic downturns cause higher rates of domestic violence, while income inequality allows billionaires to ride around on their yachts, but maybe you don't want to get into that whole other topic concerning the psychological and physical roots of large-scale violence)

 

Ficto has attempted to muddy the waters before based on something like "well SOME people are abused and don't become pedophiles," as if that negates any involvement of experience and environment whatsoever. Some people burn in prolonged sunlight and some don't- are we going to withhold cancer treatment and just sit there tutting at them if they get it and the other doesn't?

 

Moreover, how do we "measure" damage done to a person? We don't really know if someone suffering *more* results in their reproducing trauma more often than someone who suffers less . . . but if that were the case, we're headed in an even screwier direction than I originally even posited. You can argue that individual character is the only relevant factor, but especially since none of us have been there (I hope? Yato said he was, but he hasn't been on the thread in a while), I think that'd be pretty arrogant to make assumptions.

 

As an aside, I wonder if the tone of Ficto's quote about the fiddle in her tagline more closely mirrors the mournful lament of lack of control over life, or if it is mindfully embracing and accepting lack of control over things we cannot personally change, over things that have happened, and things we cannot foresee. Could you shed some light on that, Ficto?

 

2 hours ago, Sally said:

Wow.

 

"LGBT folks" are adults, capable of consent.   Children are not.  

That has nothing to do with whether it's natural or not. (see post: rape is natural, does not excuse it) nor the complex ways we are discussing discouragement and damage control.  

So have you caught up and reflected on any of this, or are you just in here to skim or randomly snipe again?

This surface level reaction is to no apparent end other than to maybe reassure yourself that you're doing something against some big bad wolf. 

Even Ficto, who maybe absolutely hates my guys by now, has put in the time to give nuanced and thought-provoking responses. You're just the peanut gallery, parroting things you no doubt know I've heard a million times before from other people. People on this particular thread, even. Does it make you feel better, though?






 

Link to post
Share on other sites
26 minutes ago, WoodwindWhistler said:

Even Ficto, who maybe absolutely hates my guys by now, has put in the time to give nuanced and thought-provoking responses. You're just the peanut gallery, parroting things you no doubt know I've heard a million times before from other people. People on this particular thread, even. Does it make you feel better, though?

I think your tone is unhelpful.

Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, Chimeric said:

It is unnatural. 

 

The papers you cite are monkeys touching monkeys of all ages, including the young. Pedophilia is specifically attraction to the young. Those aren't comparable. Find a paper telling me otherwise and I'll concede it's natural, but until then I cannot believe that sexual attraction specifically to sexually immature individuals is natural.

 

I'm glad you maintain relationships with people of all walks of life. For the record, I am in favor of showing compassion to non-offending pedophiles in an effort to get them help and recovery. The second they harm a child, they have crossed into absolutely unforgivable territory. Those of us who draw that line in the sand are not lesser for having done so. 

 

For reference, what would change in regards to your opinion if you were shown evidence that convinced you pedophilia is natural? I'm trying to get an understanding what importance something being natural to you has.

 

And when you mention getting pedophileshelp and recovery, given you mention that only for non-offenders, are you talking about attempts to 'cure' someone of having attractions to children? I want to double check before I reply.

 

 

 

5 hours ago, Sally said:

Wow.

 

"LGBT folks" are adults, capable of consent.   Children are not.  

In terms of stigmas due to an attraction it's actually a fair comparison. I'll grant an adult LGB can consent to a same-sex sexual act whereas an adult-child sex act cannot be consensual, but in both cases the attractions are unchosen. (And because I know some people in past have tried linking homosexuality with pedophilia, I'll explicitly say I'm not trying to link them. The reason I do a comparison like this is due to making a an understandable comparison.) Non-hetero orientations have been shown violence for their incident attractions.

And there are some similarities we can draw between a teen (I'll call him Grant) in an Evangelical Christian home finding out he's gay and a teen (I'll call him Peter) in a home that views the mere attraction to children wrong finding out he's a pedophile. 

 

Grant will have been told that the mere attraction to the same sex is wrong. Even if he doesn't act on his attractions, his parents will still consider him to be immoral because of his unchosen attractions. If he tells his parents, he faces potential abuse, ostracization, or 'conversion' of his orientation. As he's in an Evangelical home, odds are he doesn't know any gay people to be a role model.

 

Peter will have been told merely being attracted to children makes someone a sicko. Even if he doesn't act on his attractions his parents will consider him monstrous for his unchosen attractions. If he tells his parents, he will be seen as immoral by them and faces potential abuse, ostracization (especially from any family gatherings), or 'conversion' of his orientation. And with news stories only ever mentioning pedophiles in terms of child sexual offenders, he may very well not even know any pedophile role modelse he can follow.

 

These are some of the similarities we can draw between pedophilia and the LGBT community in terms of stigma for unchosen attractions. Imagine for me that you find out you're a pedophile. Who will you tell? Will they look at you the same way ever again? Can you actually tell them? It's something to consider. And for pedophiles that do find someone they can tell, having that person's support can be a major influence for them. But while there's a huge stigma, how many people would risk it? 

Link to post
Share on other sites

 

3 hours ago, WoodwindWhistler said:

You are making a distinction between the (1) targeted attraction and (2) the action, and you're free to do so, but people typically conflate them both. And use such (non-reasoning) to fuel policy and shape counseling.

I'm following the same logic you used. There's no chemical or biological way to measure "attraction" in any species (ethology generally focuses on signs of arousal), so we have to rely on behavior.

 

Again - all I'm saying is it's unnatural, based on the lack of corollary in nature. That was my statement, that's it. Either show me proof that it does, or we can keep on calling it unnatural.

 

3 hours ago, WoodwindWhistler said:

So, are you subscribing to Yato's idea, that it is some sort of fetish?

No. I'm sure pedophiles are compelled by something stronger than a fetish (though I'm not entirely sure what constitutes a fetish). I am loathe to call it a "sexual orientation" for two reasons, the first being that it makes no sense to me that someone finds another individual attractive based on a factor (age) that absolutely will change, and the second being that I'm sure it's borne of a disorder somewhere in the pedophile and I am hugely uncomfortable even inviting the comparison between pedophilia and other sexual orientations. But, I recognize that it is a compulsion and it is not something within them over which they have any control.

 

3 hours ago, WoodwindWhistler said:

Ficto has attempted to muddy the waters before based on something like "well SOME people are abused and don't become pedophiles," as if that negates any involvement of experience and environment whatsoever.

Nothing about this is operating on a black/white basis - the water was muddy to begin with. It's a factual observation, regardless. 

 

3 hours ago, WoodwindWhistler said:

Some people burn in prolonged sunlight and some don't- are we going to withhold cancer treatment and just sit there tutting at them if they get it and the other doesn't?

People battling cancer aren't putting others at risk by having cancer.

 

3 hours ago, WoodwindWhistler said:

Moreover, how do we "measure" damage done to a person? We don't really know if someone suffering *more* results in their reproducing trauma more often than someone who suffers less

23 hours ago, WoodwindWhistler said:

What type of abuse is the "right" kind? Better to just address them equally. 

3 hours ago, WoodwindWhistler said:

but especially since none of us have been there [...] I think that'd be pretty arrogant to make assumptions.

 

On 2/13/2018 at 7:39 AM, Evil said:

For the record, I think it would be safer if you didn't assume we all come from a position of ignorance on this subject.

 Seems we agree. 

 

12 minutes ago, Garion said:

For reference, what would change in regards to your opinion if you were shown evidence that convinced you pedophilia is natural? I'm trying to get an understanding what importance something being natural to you has.

 

And when you mention getting pedophileshelp and recovery, given you mention that only for non-offenders, are you talking about attempts to 'cure' someone of having attractions to children? I want to double check before I reply.

I would concede it is a natural thing, and I'd be pleased we would have a non-human model to study the development of pedophilia. 

I don't know if it's possible to "cure" pedophilia, but given that it is a distinct, sexual attraction to sexually immature individuals that doesn't apparently have a natural analogy elsewhere, I'm confident that it's a disordered state, and disordered states can be managed. I think pedophiles ought to feel comfortable to approach people in positions that can get them the help that they need, whatever shape that help comes in. I also adamantly disagree that telling people "oh, children are sexual, so it's okay for an adult to touch them" is the right way to go about doing that.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I can't eat popcorn to this.

Link to post
Share on other sites
11 hours ago, WoodwindWhistler said:

who maybe absolutely hates my guys by now

I don't hate your guts. I do however think fuII castation (genitaIs removed pIus chemicaI castration) may IegitimateIy heIp pedophiIes who are struggIing with their desires, and shouId aIso be an automatic punishment for anyone who sexuaIIy moIests a chiId.

Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, FictoVore. said:

I don't hate your guts. I do however think fuII castation (genitaIs removed pIus chemicaI castration) may IegitimateIy heIp pedophiIes who are struggIing with their desires, and shouId aIso be an automatic punishment for anyone who sexuaIIy moIests a chiId.

We're still talking about people. Also recall 2/3 of child molesters are not pedophiles. And we don't cut off the hands of murderers. 

 

Recidivism of child molesters is around 35% ( https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/misunderstood-crimes/ ) compared to the rate amongst all crimes at 77% ( https://www.cbsnews.com/news/once-a-criminal-always-a-criminal/ ). And non-narrating therapies are already helping lower recidivism rates for child molesters. 

 

The media has conflated child molestation (an act) with pedophilia (an attraction) already. So if there's any way to drive the stigma up, castration is pretty high on that list. And driving people to the shadows is not useful. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, Garion said:

We're still talking about people. Also recall 2/3 of child molesters are not pedophiles. And we don't cut off the hands of murderers. 

 

Recidivism of child molesters is around 35% ( https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/misunderstood-crimes/ ) compared to the rate amongst all crimes at 77% ( https://www.cbsnews.com/news/once-a-criminal-always-a-criminal/ ). And non-narrating therapies are already helping lower recidivism rates for child molesters. 

 

The media has conflated child molestation (an act) with pedophilia (an attraction) already. So if there's any way to drive the stigma up, castration is pretty high on that list. And driving people to the shadows is not useful. 

If you knew you were going to get your dick cut off for molesting a child (well, for raping anyone for that matter) you'd be far less likely to do it in the first place. I'm one of those weird people who cares more about preventing people from becoming victims in the first place than ensuring perpetrators get a nice cushy life while the pain of rape and molestation will *never* leave a victim. A victim will be harmed psychologically (and sometimes physically damaged too, and also can be seriously messed up sexually - unable to enjoy it etc) for the rest of their life. I'd rather prevent that from happening to innocent children (and any rape victim) than give a rapist a nice pat on the back, that's the limit of my tolerance and acceptance. 

 

(And yes, maybe someone would think harder about killing someone if they knew they were going to lose their hands with no anaesthetic. I don't actually see why that's so bad - they've literally taken someone's *life* and left pain in the life of many other people - their victims' family and friends etc - that will last forever. Getting their hands cut off is minor compared to that, but suitably bad enough that it may prevent the crime from happening in the first place. Same with drunk driving.. if you know you'll go to prison for the rest of your life for driving drunk, you'll be far less likely to do it.)

 

Edit: also I was referring to child molesters regardless of whether or not they're pedophiles. But if a non-offending pedophile is struggling with their desires, chemical castration at the very least should be an option available to them. If they truly don't want to hurt a kid I think they may actually quite happily accept chemical castration.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Honestly, castration isn't a bad suggestion. You could probably do it chemically so that everything else remains intact, as it were. It would offer real relief to people who are driven to have sex with children, but who don't want to do that. 

 

Edit - Sorry, Ficto, I skimmed your post... I didn't mean to reiterate the exact same thing you said. :lol:

 

Some people do it to their dogs just to keep them from humping their legs, the only thing preventing us from really exploring that as an option for humans is social stigma.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Castration (and it's usually chemical;  no one has their parts actually cut off) has not proven to prevent rape.  That's the result of long-term trials in my state on men committed to prison for sexual assaults of minor.

 

No one commits what they know is a crime thinking they will be caught.  Being caught and punished is simply not on their minds at the time.  That's also a result of the research mentioned above.  

Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, Sally said:

Castration (and it's usually chemical;  no one has their parts actually cut off) has not proven to prevent rape.

Wait - rape in general, or recidivism of the individual rapist?

 

There are a number of countries that currently institute chemical castration for offending pedophiles (or as a preventive option for non-offending pedophiles). I haven't rooted up the studies yet, but I did find reference to one from Scandinavia that indicates reoffense dropped from 40% to 5%. 

 

If we're saying that pedophiles suffer from this uncontrollable attraction to young children, wouldn't a treatment option that lessens that attraction be the best thing we can implement? They can carry on living their normal lives, society need not worry about them offending, and - most importantly - there would be no children suffering at the hands of pedophiles - directly (via offending pedophiles) or indirectly ("non-offending" pedophiles that still feed into the demand for child pornography...).

 

Granted, I don't think this would work for women pedophiles.

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Sally said:

Castration (and it's usually chemical;  no one has their parts actually cut off) has not proven to prevent rape. 

That's exactly why they need to try the same study with all the parts removed as well. If both male and female repeat sex-offenders had literally all the pleasure organs sliced away, as well as total chemical castration, they'd have a hard time re-offending. Some may re-offend if their crimes weren't necessarily sexually motivated to begin with, but the vast majority would no longer be able to get any pleasure from rape and if the chemical castration has worked, they should have less emotional/hormonal drive as well one would hope. Some people might say that's a violation of their human rights, but they forfeited their entitlement to human rights when they took the rights of their victims away and left their lives shattered. That's all there is to it as far as I am concerned.

 

1 hour ago, Chimeric said:

Wait - rape in general, or recidivism of the individual rapist?

 

There are a number of countries that currently institute chemical castration for offending pedophiles (or as a preventive option for non-offending pedophiles). I haven't rooted up the studies yet, but I did find reference to one from Scandinavia that indicates reoffense dropped from 40% to 5%. 

 

If we're saying that pedophiles suffer from this uncontrollable attraction to young children, wouldn't a treatment option that lessens that attraction be the best thing we can implement? They can carry on living their normal lives, society need not worry about them offending, and - most importantly - there would be no children suffering at the hands of pedophiles - directly (via offending pedophiles) or indirectly ("non-offending" pedophiles that still feed into the demand for child pornography...).

 

Granted, I don't think this would work for women pedophiles.

Even if the attraction is still there, one would think someone is much less likely to rape someone else if they have no sexual desire driving them to do that. If you've chemically castrated them effectively and check up on it every few years (so they are totally unable to feel desire) then yes, there would be less driving force behind a need to actually connect sexually with the object of attraction I'm sure? It would be interesting to see the stats on that!

 

Regarding the rest of the discussion

 

If a pedophile is truly struggling with their desire and wishing not to have those feelings (like the young guy in the article posted here recently struggling with his desire for little boys) then I do believe they'd welcome the chance to lessen the desire (and if that includes removing their genitals completely, I'd give them a high five if they opted for that! I'm all for preventing victims from being created in the first place. Being completely unable to rape someone, and unable to desire to rape them, is a great start!). For someone who has already offended, chemical castration plus total removal of the pleasure organs should be automatic, that will almost totally prevent any chance of re-offending. That includes both women and men of course.

 

I also notice that some people keep saying 'we're not talking about rape' but any sexual contact with a child is rape, and I have absolutely no tolerance or acceptance for someone who would take advantage of a child sexually (or any other rapist). I also saw previously that people were discussing the idea that if someone who was sexually abused as a child (and goes on to sexually abuse kids as an adult) should they maybe have a less harsh penalty (I think that's what was being said anyway?). The thing is though, if it's stopped in it's tracks, the cycle CAN'T continue once the current pedophiles and child molesters have been castrated. It's effectively removing it from the gene pool (if it's hereditary sometimes, no idea what the research says about that) and breaking the cycle of 'child being abused goes on to abuse other children'.

 

This next part might be TMI for some, some pedo stuff and young child self harming

 

More protection methods obviously need to be put in place as well.. I remember when I was growing up a male pedophile was released from prison and moved in with his adult son, his adult son's wife.. and their 7 year old daughter. How that's legal I have literally no idea but it happens quite a lot apparently. Mum didn't know there was a pedo in the house and let me stay there once when I was a kid. He put on kiddie porn of two little girls having sex with each other for me and my friend to watch Y_Y (fortunately he didn't touch us though.. My friend was really strange though and even though she was only 7 at the time, she put a dress-up bride dress on and put her lip into scissors, then knowingly (and very slowly) pushed the scissors closed to slice her lip deep open.. So I'm assuming there's a strong possibility that not very nice things were happening to her - little kids just don't self harm like that of their own volition. Very rarely anyway). It wasn't until years later that mum told me she realized the old guy there was a convicted pedophile. He'd clearly put the porn on for us hoping me and my friend would try the stuff we saw, sick bastard.. I remember just being super confused by it and knowing I wasn't meant to be watching that sort of thing (and the girl's mother was even there and knew we were watching it, wtf??). If that sort of shit was completely prevented from happening then kids would be safer, so the law has a lot to answer for here too by not doing a good enough job of keeping known offenders away from children, parks, schoolyards etc. They should have a walled commune they all have to live in to keep them away from kids, or like I keep saying, the best thing to do is total castration (both chemical and genital). The commune is a pretty good idea, so they can go about their own business without temptation, maybe living on a pension type thing or something with food being delivered in. Sounds good to me.

 

End of TMI part

 

I understand that my views are pretty strong, but like I keep saying, I just have no tolerance for, or acceptance of, people who molest children. I want to prevent pedophiles offending by whatever means necessary, and prevent re-offending of child molesters (whether pedophile or not) by even harsher forced methods.

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Chimeric said:

If we're saying that pedophiles suffer from this uncontrollable attraction to young children, wouldn't a treatment option that lessens that attraction be the best thing we can implement?

I believe I've addressed before how there isn't a "cure" for pedophilia.

 

Fictovore: I do view your view as extreme. I also am against the death penalty if that gives you a better understanding of my background. And I believe all people have an inherent dignity that still demands respect even when they don't respect others'. 

I've mentioned before that recidivism rates are already lowered by non-castrative therapies we already have. And when these morally unobjevtionable methods are available, we should use them as opposed to immoral ones. (And I do find mutilation overall as objectionable. [And I'm a the ends don't justify the means person.]) A lack of respect of the human dignity on a group is morally damaging to a society and will continue to deep through. I'd advocate for life imprisonment before castration. And in addition with castration, sometimes our law systems get things wrong. Prison sentences reversible. Castration is not. Our law system does good most of the time, but we can't deny innocent people get convicted at times. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
19 minutes ago, Garion said:

I also am against the death penalty if that gives you a better understanding of my background.

I am also against the death penalty but only because I believe it is far too kind. If someone has, for example, tortured many people to death, then death is too kind for that person. They should be put to forced labor or something where they can at least give something back to society (and earn their keep for the prison they will be kept in and the food they are fed in that prison), but never given the pleasure of freedom again for as long as they live. I have no idea why some people care more about the living perpetrators of violence than the innocent victims whose lives they brutally snatched away, leaving misery and broken hearts, and destroyed lives, in their wake.

 

23 minutes ago, Garion said:

but we can't deny innocent people get convicted at times. 

I agree with that, my mum was on a jury that convicted a possibly innocent young man of beating a child to death. My mum was the only juror who pleaded not guilty as it was very obvious there was a LOT of evidence pointing towards the mother of the child, and also pointing towards the possibility of an accidental fall (as opposed to direct violence) but the rest of the jury was white, middle class, and looked down on him as scum from the get-go (he was Maori, poor, tattoos etc). The majority of the jury had him pegged as guilty from the start and the evidence couldn't change their minds once they were made up. So yes, while I do believe much harsher penalties are required, I also believe everyone should have the right to a fair trial and competent legal representatives etc. The justice system is really messed up in many respects.

 

 

This is an amazing documentary about the miscarriage of justice in a trial against a white man in the 70's (which is SUPER unheard of because people saw a black man fleeing the scene).. Back then, the black guy usually would have got done even if he HADN'T been seen at the scene and had never even met the victim Y_Y, but that's just one of the things that makes this documentary so utterly bizarre and fascinating (and quite scary too).. it's not very good quality though, maybe you can find a clearer version! I definitely recommend it to anyone reading this thread, plus the original movie of 12 Angry Men (a whole movie about a jury debating whether or not a man is guilty of a crime, and examining the evidence etc. Fascinating movie, even though that one is fictional)

Link to post
Share on other sites

Just castrate paedophiles at the neck, then we know they'll never reoffend :P

Link to post
Share on other sites

The research that's been done in my state on  prisoners has been with their informed consent, and it's been drugs-only.  There is no way that research could legally be carried out through removing parts of their bodies, which castration requires.  Even talking about that is absurd.  

Link to post
Share on other sites
20 hours ago, Garion said:

I believe I've addressed before how there isn't a "cure" for pedophilia.

Yes, sorry, I was unclear - "treatment" methodologies can be curative or managing. I meant in terms of managing the urges, not curing them.

 

In terms of irreversibility, chemical castration is irreversible (surgical castration isn't, obviously :lol:). I still haven't scrounged up the studies yet, but my partner found an article today saying that recidivism of offending pedophiles who have undergone combination therapy with CBT + chemical castration in the UK have also dropped from 40% to 5%; so that's two countries with virtually identical attrition rates (40% to 4% for Scandinavia, 40% to 5% for the UK; I believe both countries offer chemical castration on a voluntary basis rather than as an enforced penalty, though I am not sure).

 

How is chemical castration unethical?

 

Approached voluntarily, it can help a non-offending pedophile manage their urges. As a penalty for offending pedophiles, studies show it has a vast impact on preventing the pedophile from re-offending. Let's not forget - the reason pedophiles are so scorned by society is because children ought to be protected (even if we decide they're "sexual" beings). Violating a child is unforgivable, whether one is compelled by irresistible biologic urges or not.

 

19 hours ago, FictoVore. said:

This is an amazing documentary about the miscarriage of justice in a trial against a white man in the 70's

Netflix is foaming at the mouth for this kind of stuff right now, ever since Making a Murderer dropped a few years ago. There's a whole series available in the US called The Confession Tapes that examines the meager evidence behind locking some people up for life (so far I haven't gotten to an episode involving the death penalty... hope I don't!).

 

16 hours ago, Sally said:

The research that's been done in my state on  prisoners has been with their informed consent, and it's been drugs-only.  There is no way that research could legally be carried out through removing parts of their bodies, which castration requires.  Even talking about that is absurd.  

Chemical castration doesn't.

 

If it offers real relief for someone suffering from these uncontrollable urges and protects a particularly vulnerable population, why is it absurd?

Link to post
Share on other sites
22 minutes ago, Chimeric said:

Netflix is foaming at the mouth for this kind of stuff right now, ever since Making a Murderer dropped a few years ago. There's a whole series available in the US called The Confession Tapes that examines the meager evidence behind locking some people up for life (so far I haven't gotten to an episode involving the death penalty... hope I don't!).

That particular documentary I linked stands out from many of the others I have seen (and I've seen a lot because I get to watch them for my job!) because something REALLY strange happens at the end of the case.. like almost paranormal seeming :o It's worth watching for the bizarre ending which I haven't seen happen in any other cases of this sort! I don't actually have netflix but would definitely consider getting it if it has lots of those sorts of reality crime shows that I haven't seen, because new documentaries (especially crime ones) equal $$$ for me!! *rubs hands together while laughing evilly*  :lol:

Link to post
Share on other sites
33 minutes ago, Chimeric said:

If it offers real relief for someone suffering from these uncontrollable urges and protects a particularly vulnerable population, why is it absurd?

I said that about physical, bodily castration, not chemical castration.  

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Sally said:

I said that about physical, bodily castration, not chemical castration.  

You're right.

 

Just out of curiosity though, would it be so absurd to suggest surgical castration for repeat offenders?

Link to post
Share on other sites

Since surgical castration has not proven to be effective, of course it would be.  Surgical castration cuts off bodily organs, and such an operation would never be approved to be done in an accredited doctor in an accredited hospital, and would  not be approved by a hospital's Institutional Review Board.  

Link to post
Share on other sites
44 minutes ago, Sally said:

Since surgical castration has not proven to be effective, of course it would be.  Surgical castration cuts off bodily organs, and such an operation would never be approved to be done in an accredited doctor in an accredited hospital, and would  not be approved by a hospital's Institutional Review Board.  

So there is no proof at all that a man having his penis and testes completely removed would stop him from sexually assaulting people? Or a woman having her clitoris completely removed? If you pair that with total chemical castration (so neither the desire nor the means is there), there isn't any way you couldn't drastically lower the recidivism rate for repeat offenders as far as I can see it. They took something irreplaceable from their victims, so having something irreplaceable taken from them isn't so bad if it will stop them from re-offending and creating more victims.

Link to post
Share on other sites

In reply to the above post 

 

Interfering with a minor doesn't necessarily involve the adults genitalia. Unless you cut off the arms and mouth of an offender they can still offend. Inappropriate touching, kissing etc for gratification is still a sexual assault against a minor 

Link to post
Share on other sites
On 2/17/2018 at 3:07 AM, Sally said:

Since surgical castration has not proven to be effective, of course it would be.  Surgical castration cuts off bodily organs, and such an operation would never be approved to be done in an accredited doctor in an accredited hospital, and would  not be approved by a hospital's Institutional Review Board.  

Are there studies looking at surgical castration? I guess I'm just trying to wrap my head around the scientific rationale behind why chemical castration would prove so efficacious in preventing reoffenders, but surgical castration wouldn't? As long as the testes are removed, the same chemical component would be gone in both surgical and chemical cases. And if they are equally efficacious, surgical castration would likely have more success over the longterm (no chance of forgetting to take your meds or building a tolerance to them). Plus, testicular castration is a super, super, super, super easy surgery, with minimal complications involved. (Sorry, guys - you just kinda leave them hanging out there, though :lol:).

 

Why wouldn't it ever be approved? Veterinarians castrate living creatures all the time. If it's morally justifiable to remove a bodily organ from a bothersome but otherwise harmless dog, how wouldn't it be morally justifiable to remove a bodily organ from a harmful person? Or, what if the person wasn't harmful yet, but was requesting the procedure? 

 

On 2/17/2018 at 4:12 AM, Skycaptain said:

In reply to the above post 

 

Interfering with a minor doesn't necessarily involve the adults genitalia. Unless you cut off the arms and mouth of an offender they can still offend. Inappropriate touching, kissing etc for gratification is still a sexual assault against a minor 

This is true.

 

I don't know what metrics the studies reporting drops in reoffense use to define "offense." 

Link to post
Share on other sites
45 minutes ago, Chimeric said:

Why wouldn't it ever be approved? Veterinarians castrate living creatures all the time. If it's morally justifiable to remove a bodily organ from a bothersome but otherwise harmless dog, how wouldn't it be morally justifiable to remove a bodily organ from a harmful person? Or, what if the person wasn't harmful yet, but was requesting the procedure? 

 

It wouldn't be approved because humans are treated differently in law from dogs and other non-human animals.  As far as a person requesting it, doctors in the US can't do that kind of operation because 1) they must carry liability insurance and those companies won't insure for that kind  of bodily alteration, since the person could come back later and say they were mutilated without their permission, and 2) doctors would need to do that operation in a hospital, and hospitals would not allow it because the IRB would not consider legal consent could be given, since there's no medical need for the operation.

 

Morals have nothing to do with legalities in the medical environment.  You may not like that, but it's the case, and rightfully so: your morals may not align with my morals.  

Link to post
Share on other sites
13 minutes ago, Sally said:

It wouldn't be approved because humans are treated differently in law from dogs and other non-human animals.  As far as a person requesting it, doctors in the US can't do that kind of operation because 1) they must carry liability insurance and those companies won't insure for that kind  of bodily alteration, since the person could come back later and say they were mutilated without their permission, and 2) doctors would need to do that operation in a hospital, and hospitals would not allow it because the IRB would not consider legal consent could be given, since there's no medical need for the operation.

 

Morals have nothing to do with legalities in the medical environment.  You may not like that, but it's the case, and rightfully so: your morals may not align with my morals.  

There is legal precedent for waivers prior to cosmetic surgical bodily alteration - and in the case of voluntary approach by a pedophile with scientific evidence suggesting castration may prove efficacious, this would constitute as surgical intervention in pursuit of managing a disorder. Weirder things have happened.

 

The IRB is a research entity. Its jurisdiction in hospitals extends as far as clinical trials.

 

Trust me, Sally, I am very familiar with morality and legality in a medical framework. :lol:

 

My questions at this point are mostly philosophical. If science continues to support castration as an effective means of curbing pedophilic (if that's a word) urges and prevent reoffense by pedophiles, what would really be stopping us, as a society, from considering that as a viable option? 

Link to post
Share on other sites

It's a disorder if it causes distress inherently, and pedophilia can never not cause distress, because a child cannot consent. It also has horrible effects on them, as is proven time and time again. It is natural, but it's still a disorder. Asexuality and other orientations are no longer considered a disorder because it was realized if we restructure our society to be more understanding, the distress is not inherent to the orientation itself. With trans people, being trans is not the disorder, it's the gender dysphoria that is the disorder, and the medicine is transitioning even if it never fully alleviates the dysphoria for everyone. I do think there is a push to normalize pedophilia by some people on the same grounds as LGBTQ, but it's important to know it's not a massive faction yet. 

 

Also if you go into any right wing forum (/pol/ specifically) you will find people who are pro-pedophilia there too. They don't even agree with homosexuality, but they believe that as soon as a young girl menstruates it's natural and obvious that you should be able to have sex with her..

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

I have not, and I am not, going to thread through this entire thread given its length, but as someone with a master's degree in sociology I can and will comment on the initial portion raised in the OP about postmodernism and its philosophical underpinnings.

 

I agree with that there is an aspect to postmodernist thought, especially in how it relates to existentialism, that is clearly nihilistic and even solipsist in nature, that is, we cannot truly tell what something is since it depends on the perspective in which we choose to see something through, and therefore trying to determine what it is becomes a meaningless endeavor. I think this is just a specific flair of postmodern thought, however, and does not by itself actually discredit postmodernism and all related theoretical disciplines associated with it e.g. constructionism and later deconstructionism, structuralism and discourse theory, power relations and so on.

 

With all that said, I also think it is fallacious to say that postmodernism outright rejects objectivity. While it is true that it is a subjective mode of thought, all that postmodernism asserts is that we cannot know the objective world in an objective way. Instead what we deem as objective can only be glanced through various perspectives and cultural beliefs. Furthermore, as a social/cultural anthropologist, I will say that while cultural relativism states that while a certain perspective or cultural belief may normalize a specific action of mode of thought within the confines of that culture, it does not mean that we cannot or should not condone said action/belief within a larger moral context. What it does however suggest is that it tries to create additional nuance to our understanding of such actions/beliefs where we inform ourselves as to the more complex nature of its existence and we begin to see that most issues are not black and white, but there is always a background story to first consider before we judge something.

 

In such a sense I would argue that cultural relativism promotes objectivity since it tries to understand why certain phenomena exist through all known perspectives of them, and within that you can develop a more essential understanding as to what it really is and isn't, while of course allowing a wide range of personal quirks that may fall outside that specific normative range. 

 

Now, in relation to the topic of pedophilia, I think that there is a difference in trying to understand the perspective of the pedophiliac as opposed to promoting its acceptance. We should not accept pedophilia as a valid form of sexual expression primarily because it cannot involve consent. This is why most, if not all countries, have legislated a national legal age for sexual consent, and if the sex act involves a minor below this age, it would be considered pedophilia. This is more in relation in terms of the law and whether someone would be charged with pedophilia vs. sexual assault/rape, which is relevant because it determines how long the offender will serve time in prison. 

 

Now, as an anthropologist and I don't want to intentionally ruffle feathers here but in relation what I wrote prior, I know of cultures where the sexual acts between the members of said society would be considered pedophilia in a different part of the world. Does this make these sexual actions wrong? I wouldn't say so, as long there is some form of consent among all parties and it does not actively harm the individuals involved. This does not mean that I am in favor of normalizing pedophilia in any way, but there certainly has to be more research done on the subject matter.

 

There is a correlation between abuse and pedophilia meaning that there is a correlation between mental health and pedophiliac tendencies, and this link has to be understood in relation to our biology and whether one can be born a pedophiliac or not. In a similar manner homosexuality and currently, transgender, has been seen as mental health issues as well, and all this tells me, without judging anyone or trying to intentionally ruffle feathers, is that we know woefully little about human sexuality and gender identity, especially in how they are developed in terms of culture and external events vis-a-vis our biological programming. Can pedophilia be something one is born to be? It's possible, as I've yet to read up on the subject and current research about it. If such is the case, then that would obviously complicate our current understanding as something socially taboo and prohibited. It does not mean that we cannot or should not continue to outlaw its practice, but I also do genuinely believe that pedophiles do not necessarily deserve the vehemence that are sometimes unjustly directed at them. 

 

Assuming we speak of someone who has acted on such urges, what they have done is definitely wrong, but I also don't think they deserve an entire society's hate because of it. That hate does in the very least do little to nothing in improving the current situation both in the sense that it cannot undo what has been done, nor does it necessarily prevent the individual from doing it again. Currently all people charged with pedophilia are given therapy, though I cannot remember the potential relapse rate right now. There are issues pertaining to the effectiveness of therapy, though, and if it would be determined to at least in part, be biological in nature, then what? Are we going to change people's genes or brains as to ensure it does not happen again? If so, what is the humanity in that?

 

I believe that there is a difference in tolerance and being tolerant. I can be tolerant towards people different from myself without having to tolerate why they are the way they are. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, Entropic said:

Currently all people charged with pedophilia are given therapy, though I cannot remember the potential relapse rate right now. There are issues pertaining to the effectiveness of therapy, though, and if it would be determined to at least in part, be biological in nature, then what? Are we going to change people's genes or brains as to ensure it does not happen again? If so, what is the humanity in that?

Your post is very well written, I just had a couple of comments regarding this bit. 

 

The reoffense rate is 40% currently. Almost half of the people who were charged with having molested a child and gone through the system are likely to do so again. To me, this indicates an immense failure of our current system of "therapy" and suggests that there is at least a degree of hardwiring in the perpetrator (and at this point, this is what they are), though I agree with you there is hardly any real research done yet into examining what makes a pedophile. If we determine the underlying cause is in fact chemical and therefore manipulatable (read: therapeutic), I strongly believe it is our moral responsibility to offer this as a treatment option for pedophiles. This is the basis for curative pharmacology. You take a drug, it interacts with chemical signals, it positively influences some cascades and negatively impacts others, and it alleviates the cause of the symptoms. In the meantime, until we know enough about the cause of pedophilia to have a specific molecular target around which to design a drug, we have treatment options that are (so far) demonstrated to vastly reduce the reoffense rate. To provide tangible relief for the pedophiliacs and to protect their potential victims, aren't we morally obligated to apply these methods? 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

×
×
  • Create New...