Hard Light Productions Forums
Off-Topic Discussion => General Discussion => Topic started by: karajorma on July 10, 2014, 12:29:03 pm
-
http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2014/07/in-sexting-case-virginia-prosecutors-want-to-photo-teens-genitalia/
A Virginia teen is facing felony charges for allegedly sexting his girlfriend a video of his penis, and the authorities want to photograph his erect genitalia to bolster their case, according to news reports.
If found guilty, the 17-year-old boy, whose name Ars is withholding, could be jailed until his 21st birthday and be forced to register as a sex offender.
The boy's attorney said that Prince William County prosecutors have obtained a warrant allowing them to photograph the boy's erect private parts, a development his attorney is fighting along with the accusations.
"The prosecutor's job is to seek justice,” the teen's lawyer, Jessica Harbeson Foster, told The Washington Post. “What is just about this? How does this advance the interest of the Commonwealth? This is a 17-year-old who goes to school every day, plays football, has never been in trouble with the law before. Now he’s saddled with two felonies and the implication that he’s a sexual predator. I don’t mind trying the case. My goal is to stop the search warrant. I don’t want him to go through that. Taking him down to the hospital so he can get an erection in front of all those cops, that’s traumatizing.”
Neither Foster nor Prince William County prosecutors immediately commented.
The boy is accused of distributing and manufacturing pornography and texting a video of it in January to his then-girlfriend, 15. Local broadcasts said a county judge signed off on the warrant Thursday to photograph the boy. A court hearing is set for next week.
"I think it’s effectively child abuse. That’s what it is from my perspective,” Carlos Flores Laboy, the boy's guardian, told NBC.
BTW the charge they have him up for is for making and distributing child porn. Funnily enough they apparently already have taken pictures of his dick but they weren't good enough and they want more. :rolleyes:
-
The whole situation is beyond ludicrous.
-
It's one thing to persecute adults for pedophilia, and it's another to persecute children for being attracted to people their age. The authorities still can't grasp the simple fact that kids do have sexual desires, too, and in many cases are fully aware of what they're doing. I hope the judge sees reason, most laws concerning sexuality in general are woefully behind the times. That's just a single case of what those laws can lead to, made worse by punishment for sexual crimes being very harsh (which is good when we're talking an actual crime).
-
I have two questions about this:
A Virginia teen is facing felony charges for allegedly sexting his girlfriend a video of his penis
How does one actually find out about stuff like this?
The boy's attorney said that Prince William County prosecutors have obtained a warrant allowing them to photograph the boy's erect private parts,
How is this even allowed 0_o.
-
This is bull****
-
I have two questions about this:
A Virginia teen is facing felony charges for allegedly sexting his girlfriend a video of his penis
How does one actually find out about stuff like this?
Another source indicates she was sending him naughty photos of herself, and he reciprocated... then her mom found out and called the cops.
The boy's attorney said that Prince William County prosecutors have obtained a warrant allowing them to photograph the boy's erect private parts,
How is this even allowed 0_o.
Welcome to the USA. The Constitution may say you have rights, but the local prosecutor and police didn't read it when they got hired.
-
Well, that was q uick reaction. Guess the prosecutor/police DO read the news: http://reason.com/blog/2014/07/10/update-virginia-cops-abandon-plan-to-coe
-
Now for someone to put them in jail for conspiracy.
-
The fact that a kid is being charged with child pornography for harmless sexting should be the main issue here and it is much worse travesty of justice than taking a photo of erection. These laws are utterly ridicoulous.
-
It's kind of ironic really that, as a 17 year old photographing your penis and sending that picture to your girlfriend is now legally worse than actually just getting it out in front of her and waving it around... And, of course, if that's caught on a CCTV somewhere, then where does that go legally?
As for wanting to photograph his penis to show to everyone in court, when he only sent the picture to his girlfriend, that seems to me to be more a case of the court enabling pedophilia, not dealing with it....
-
Yeah. It's a whole bunch of particularly silly laws, also including things as very young actors not being able to watch movies with their own nude scenes (movie is 18+, but the actress is 17...) and similar stuff. In this case, I think that actually showing his penis to his girlfriend could've qualified as straight-out pedophilia (she was 15, remember), but in general, this is an area in which law has a long history of being a complete and utter failure.
Well, that was q uick reaction. Guess the prosecutor/police DO read the news: http://reason.com/blog/2014/07/10/update-virginia-cops-abandon-plan-to-coe
Well, they realized just how sick and wrong the original plan was... Now to realize that this whole case is sick and wrong, drop it, then change the bloody law. I wonder who even thought that charging children like this is a good idea?
-
In most cases, children being charged for self-made child pornography are an unfortunate side-effect of the way the laws were originally written, not an actual intent of them. These laws came into being waaaay before sexting was ever a thing, and they just haven't been properly updated to adapt to modern trends. This particular case goes beyond antiquated laws into full-blown insanity, though.
-
Yeah. It's a whole bunch of particularly silly laws, also including things as very young actors not being able to watch movies with their own nude scenes (movie is 18+, but the actress is 17...) and similar stuff. In this case, I think that actually showing his penis to his girlfriend could've qualified as straight-out pedophilia (she was 15, remember), but in general, this is an area in which law has a long history of being a complete and utter failure.
Well, that was q uick reaction. Guess the prosecutor/police DO read the news: http://reason.com/blog/2014/07/10/update-virginia-cops-abandon-plan-to-coe
Well, they realized just how sick and wrong the original plan was... Now to realize that this whole case is sick and wrong, drop it, then change the bloody law. I wonder who even thought that charging children like this is a good idea?
You think that two years age difference is enough to call it pedophilia? He's a minor too, which makes it particularly absurd. God forbid teenagers **** each other. :rolleyes:
-
That's my state for ya, not long ago they forced trans-vaginal ultrasounds on any one seeking an abortion and now this. Personal opinion: the kid should be tried for indecent exposure or something similar at most not full on kiddie porn. I understand that sexting is becoming a problem with young people and there are those who want steps taken to stop it but this isn't the way to go about it. Now if the boy was distributing the pictures his girlfriend sent him to others that would be different.
-
Personal opinion: the kid should be tried for indecent exposure or something similar at most not full on kiddie porn.
Why just the guy? Given that the story does seem to suggest his girlfriend who was also underage had been sending pictures too.
The boy shouldn't be prosecuted at all. Neither should the girl. Taking a picture of yourself is NEVER production of child porn. It makes as much sense as prosecuting someone for attempted murder because of a failed suicide attempt.
In the (almost certainly much rarer) cases of someone doing it under duress, the person taking the picture still isn't a criminal. If anything they are the victim.
-
It makes as much sense as prosecuting someone for attempted murder because of a failed suicide attempt.
Instead, we just prosecute them for attempted suicide.
-
Taking a picture of yourself is NEVER production of child porn.
I don't actually disagree with you in any meaningful way. BUT... when one uses the word 'never', especially emphatically I wonder if they really have considered the full implications of the absoluteness of their declaration.
For instance, what if, at the age of 12 years old, someone takes a bunch of naked pictures/vids of them selves (maybe engaged in various activities, perhaps some of which involve inserting things in to assorted orifices.) and then sells said pics/vids online. I do not think that is really that far fetched a scenario, I'm pretty sure it would not be unreasonable for there to exist some kids as young as 8 who were able to figure out paypal and figure out how to work a camera and how to send email attachments so 12 seems a safe bet. and I am not making any proposals as to how the situation should be dealt with (any direction we go in this seems suboptimal), but I think the label "child porn" would not be entirely inaccurate of the end result material, and the hypothetical kid did produce and distribute it.
-
My post was in poor taste.
EDITED because apparently even my edit wasn't that clear.
-
dude, really?
[edit]oh, you edited your post[/edit]
[second-edit]I was just tagging my original response as pertaining to something that wasn't there anymore, not making an accusation[/second-edit]
-
I wish the Internet (and Government) would learn to stop calling it "child-" or "pedo-" when the people involved are past puberty.
Why do I have a feeling I need to be very careful how I phrase this in order to avoid a great deal of undue beratement?
But now you will say I'm being passive aggressive. I can't win.
Proposition:
If, when I was a teenager, other teenagers were good-looking, it was not because they were the same age as me, but because that's the time in our biological development when people are the most good-looking.
Reasonable y/n?
-
Let's put it this way, criminalizing teenagers who are sexually curious and want to see the target of their desire naked (or want to show themselves naked to their target of desire) is just going to result in an awful lot of criminalized teenagers.
The only weapon against curiosity is answers, not court cases, but there's such a high level of resistance to admitting that these humans we brand as still 'children' when they are 15 years old and above aren't nearly the children we imagine them to be.
It's because there's still a belief that this thing that happens to every human being on the planet, 'sexual awakening', puberty or whatever people wish to call it, is somehow dirty and taboo, and so children enter the entire realm unprepared, and then people wonder why they struggle to deal with it.
-
What this requires is finally letting go of the sex-as-a-sin paradigm. The whole thing kind of reminds me of the "she's a witch, we can prove it, she'll have the devils mark on her labia" of ages past.
-
For instance, what if, at the age of 12 years old, someone takes a bunch of naked pictures/vids of them selves (maybe engaged in various activities, perhaps some of which involve inserting things in to assorted orifices.) and then sells said pics/vids online.
The entire intent of underage porn laws is to protect the children. When the child porn is self made, it is victimless and there should be no charges against the kid. This is a no brainer. Additionaly, there should be a fat near age exception like with age of consent laws so that sexting among children themselves is decriminalised.
You cannot exploit yourself, lol.
-
@Mars:
I disagree. Not that "sex as a sin" is a stupid idea, but that it's what's important here, as you suggest.
@Mars, but also relevant to 666maslo666:
The stigma against so-called "child pornography" is not entirely illegitimate. Consider the "worst case": photographs or video of actual child molestation. That's what parents are afraid of, which got this stupid law enacted. Cops know people are terrified of child molesters, and they want to be able to say "look at all these child molesters we busted". Pedophile, child molester. People don't care that there's a difference.
Tangent: I read somewhere recently that (some place?) is considering legislature to define pedophilia (or was it child pornography?) as terrorism. To further water down the word "terrorism", and broaden the popular acceptance of the free suspension of habeas corpus that comes with its application.
-
Pedophile, child molester. People don't care that there's a difference.
I know I certainly don't care that there's a difference. The only way for everyone to know that you're a pedophile is for you to either announce it to the world (in which case you have only yourself to blame for the bad publicity), or act upon your urges... which would make you a child molester.
-
Does that make everyone who gave into their urges and looked at lolicon hentai a child molester in your book?
EDIT, as I neglected a response to Aardawolf:
I guess it seems like there's an element of these laws which isn't worried about protecting the children from external harm as much as it is trying to protect their purity. This may be coming entirely from some sort of bias I have though. I read somewhere that the original idea of statutory rape came from a Victorian paternalistic desire to protect a daughter's purity not her own personal protection, I have no idea if its true.
-
I guess it seems like there's an element of these laws which isn't worried about protecting the children from external harm as much as it is trying to protect their purity. This may be coming entirely from some sort of bias I have though. I read somewhere that the original idea of statutory rape came from a Victorian paternalistic desire to protect a daughter's purity not her own personal protection, I have no idea if its true.
I do think there is an undue cultural bias against sex crimes in our society, when compared to non-sexual offenses, which could stem from the "sex as a sin" cultural baggage. There is also bias against crimes involving children, when compared with crimes against adults. Child sex crimes is where these two intersect, which is one reason why moral panic tends to shut down any reasonable discussion and we get stupid laws leading to stuff like in the article.
-
Ironically it's this stigma about sex which contributes indirectly to a large number of child abuse cases. People tend to assume that molestation of 14 and 15 year olds is the same as with 5 or 6 year olds, working on fear and shame, and that simply isn't true. With the older children a lot of paedophiles method is to be the "cool uncle" or "cool auntie" who is willing to teach the kid about sex. Of course, a 14 year old is nowhere near mature enough to tell when they are being manipulated so as a result the kid becomes a willing accomplice in hiding the crime from their parents. Pretty much every case I've heard of a female teacher molesting teenage boys falls into this category.
The entire intent of underage porn laws is to protect the children. When the child porn is self made, it is victimless and there should be no charges against the kid. This is a no brainer. Additionaly, there should be a fat near age exception like with age of consent laws so that sexting among children themselves is decriminalised.
You cannot exploit yourself, lol.
That's basically the answer I was going to give to Bob. I assume he's picked up the wrong meaning of my sentence. I meant it is not production of child porn as a criminal offence, not that the resulting material isn't child porn. While you might wish to stop the distribution of such material, it's pretty hard to make the claim that the underaged person somehow is criminally liable for doing something voluntarily.
-
I'm so glad I don't live in Virginia anymore.
-
Pedophile, child molester. People don't care that there's a difference.
I know I certainly don't care that there's a difference. The only way for everyone to know that you're a pedophile is for you to either announce it to the world (in which case you have only yourself to blame for the bad publicity), or act upon your urges... which would make you a child molester.
People used to (and still do) say this about homosexuals. People don't choose their sexual orientation. People are not monsters unless they actually start to behave like monsters. Child molesters should be dealt with to the full extent of the law. Pedophiles should have avenues of support. As all people who have issues with sexual urges and other sexual problems should in order to curb those issues before they create real problems. I remember one case I read about where a convicted pedophile closing in on the end of his jail term begged and pleaded to be sterilised because he couldn't control his urges. There was no legal way to even do that, and he re-offended. How backwards is that, we can't even sterilise a man at his own insistence to prevent children being raped!
You don't choose your sexual orientation. I'm lucky, I'm straight and have no issues with sex drive or whatever. I can only imagine what it must be like to have to suppress what comes biologically natural to you your entire life and have to endure that struggle your entire life completely alone, and one mistake, which doesn't even have to be an offence, and you're branded a monster for life.
I would also be interested in seeing you answer Mars' question. Are Japanese men all a bunch of perverts because of their sexual culture? The Japanese are extremely law abiding.
-
Some mandatory reading on child pronography laws and 'sexting' in the US: http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-watch/wp/2014/07/11/we-must-destroy-the-children-in-order-to-save-them/
-
I wonder if any of the idiots who make those laws ever had their own kids... If they did, well, I pity those kids. Really, the archaic, Christian idea that sex is somehow "evil" and traumatizing should go and die a horrible death. So should equating nudity with sex, and especially the idea that even simple nudity is something "obscene". There's nothing wrong with being nude in itself, it's a perfectly good state to be in. It might be inappropriate in certain situations, but only in the same way being without a tuxedo might be inappropriate. It also can be unwise at times, in the same way going out without an overcoat might be unwise in some situations. But there's nothing wrong with being nude in general, even around other people, children and whatnot. There's nothing traumatic about seeing a naked human.
"Children are innocent" is a myth, especially if the term is applied to teenagers. Indeed, most of them are probably guilty of something by 14 or 15, and usually fully aware of their own sexuality. Technologh, especially internet helped with that, but it's hardly a new invention.
-
Clearly you haven't looked closely at the majority of other humans. :p
-
People don't choose their sexual orientation.
Are paraphilias and fetishes comparable to heterophilia or homophilia?1. I mean, paraphilias and fetishes are AFAICT entirely psychological. I used to think the same was true for sexual orientation, but I'm not sure. There are some gays who insist it's a pre-determined biological thing.
1Are those words? Red squiggly says no. W/e, use your brain.
-
People don't choose their sexual orientation.
Are paraphilias and fetishes comparable to heterophilia or homophilia?1. I mean, paraphilias and fetishes are AFAICT entirely psychological. I used to think the same was true for sexual orientation, but I'm not sure. There are some gays who insist it's a pre-determined biological thing.
The point is it's all predetermined. People do not get to pick and choose any of it.
-
"Being attracted to a group of people who cannot give consent" is not a sexual orientation; it is a mental disorder. Please stop making false equivalences with homosexuality; it is incredibly insulting.
Does that make everyone who gave into their urges and looked at lolicon hentai a child molester in your book?
You are aware that "lolicon hentai" is itself illegal in many countries?
Are Japanese men all a bunch of perverts because of their sexual culture?
Of course all Japanese men aren't perverts, but Japanese culture is deeply problematic.
-
"Being attracted to a group of people who cannot give consent" is not a sexual orientation; it is a mental disorder.
And they used to say that about homosexuals too. Do you see where I'm going with this?
Just because a consensual relationship is impossible doesn't change anything. Neither chose to be that way, they were just made that way. Besides that, they are normal. They will have jobs and lives and what have you and you can't tell them apart from anyone else. As long as they don't do anything wrong, they are normal.
The pedophile stigma has other damaging effects. People are afraid to interact with children, even clearly distressed or lost children, for fear of being branded a pedophile.
-
"Being attracted to a group of people who cannot give consent" is not a sexual orientation; it is a mental disorder.
And they used to say that about homosexuals too. Do you see where I'm going with this?
Just because a consensual relationship is impossible doesn't change anything. Neither chose to be that way, they were just made that way. Besides that, they are normal. They will have jobs and lives and what have you and you can't tell them apart from anyone else. As long as they don't do anything wrong, they are normal.
The pedophile stigma has other damaging effects. People are afraid to interact with children, even clearly distressed or lost children, for fear of being branded a pedophile.
This tangent stops now. No, Lorric, equating homosexuals (who can act on their desires with other likeminded people without committing a crime) and pedophiles (who can't) is not the conversational gambit you want to take. Equating the two because homosexuality used to be illegal is not the right way to argue your point, whatever the **** you think it is.
Yes, it's deplorable that due to pedophilia cases, there's a lot of adult/child interaction that is regulated. And a lot of those regulations come about due to hysteria. But it's very much better to be overly cautious than to be overly permissive.
-
You are aware that "lolicon hentai" is itself illegal in many countries?
Crimethink much?
-
Pedophile, child molester. People don't care that there's a difference.
I know I certainly don't care that there's a difference. The only way for everyone to know that you're a pedophile is for you to either announce it to the world (in which case you have only yourself to blame for the bad publicity), or act upon your urges... which would make you a child molester.
Wait, what? That doesn't make any sense. There's all kinds of ways (between staying in the closet, announcing it to the world and actually being a child molester) of how someone's sexual orientation can become known to you. And why should a pedophile not have the same freedom to announce their unchosen orientation to the world the same as everyone else anyway? After all, that seems like a clear sign they don't actually intend to molest children because being a known pedophile rather lowers the chance of people leaving their kids with them.
-
Of course all Japanese men aren't perverts, but Japanese culture is deeply problematic.
Japanese culture is incredibly sexually repressed. the reason its the ****ed-up-porn capitol of the world is because the porn they make there has to follow the letter of the law, and they have to get creative sometimes.
-
sexual orientation
"Being attracted to a group of people who cannot give consent" is not a sexual orientation; it is a mental disorder. Please stop making false equivalences with homosexuality; it is incredibly insulting.
-
sexual orientation
"Being attracted to a group of people who cannot give consent" is not a sexual orientation; it is a mental disorder. Please stop making false equivalences with homosexuality; it is incredibly insulting.
Ok, well, I don't think that weakens my point so I can go with that:
Pedophile, child molester. People don't care that there's a difference.
I know I certainly don't care that there's a difference. The only way for everyone to know that you're a pedophile is for you to either announce it to the world (in which case you have only yourself to blame for the bad publicity), or act upon your urges... which would make you a child molester.
Wait, what? That doesn't make any sense. There's all kinds of ways (between staying in the closet, announcing it to the world and actually being a child molester) of how someone's mental disorder can become known to you. And why should a pedophile not have the same freedom to announce their unchosen disorders to the world the same as everyone else anyway? After all, that seems like a clear sign they don't actually intend to molest children because being a known pedophile rather lowers the chance of people leaving their kids with them.
-
When I was in primary school, someone actually tried to talk me into getting into their car, fortunately, we'd had the lecture on 'stranger danger', and when the driver told me my parents had sent him, I asked him their names and he drove off very quickly. The response to that was simply to tell me I'd done the right thing, nowadays it would be all over the papers in full paranoid mode.
The problem is that 'think of the children' has become such a valuable Media/Political tool that the children actually no longer count, only the points that can be scored by 'protecting' them.
As for the homosexuality thing, there's two factors at work here, societies attitudes towards those involved and their own attitude towards themselves. It's a quandary, because what happens is a crime, there is a victim in child abuse whether the victim 'knows' it or not. But these people cannot get the help and support they need to overcome their condition if society has a similar attitude to the attitude they had towards homosexuals 40 years ago. That, to me, is that only real point where the two completely different forms of sexual behaviour have something in common.
-
There's all kinds of ways (between staying in the closet, announcing it to the world and actually being a child molester) of how someone's mental disorder can become known to you.
...So? If your point is just that my statement wasn't literally true, well, congratulations, but it wasn't meant to be. If this isn't just semantics, then I'm going to need you to expound upon your point there.
And why should a pedophile not have the same freedom to announce their unchosen disorders to the world the same as everyone else anyway?
They do have that freedom. In which case, as I already said (in the post you just quoted), "you have only yourself to blame for the bad publicity". Your freedom to announce your pedophilia to the world does not remove the freedom of the rest of the world to condemn you for being a pedophile.
-
sexual orientation
"Being attracted to a group of people who cannot give consent" is not a sexual orientation; it is a mental disorder. Please stop making false equivalences with homosexuality; it is incredibly insulting.
The problem is that "Being attracted to a group of people who cannot give consent" is not equivalent to pedophilia. Remember, in this case, it's the body of a child that is attractive, not it's inability to give consent. Being aroused by the very fact someone can't give consent is indeed a mental condition, but pedophilia is just being attracted to children before puberty. If someone looks the part, but are otherwise fully capable of giving consent, that's not going to be a problem for a pedophile (indeed, that would be the ideal solution of the problem). That's why it's quite a tragic situation to be in, too. Pedophilia is a sexual orientation, but one that can, like zoophilia (believe me, there's a movement in Germany that's trying to get that legalized...), has a problem of unavailability of consenting partners.
That's why "conventional" punishments or even psychological help rarely works in such cases. Actual pedophilia is not a mental disorder, though child molestation can also result from a number of psychological problems and is a wider issue than pedophilia itself.
Of course all Japanese men aren't perverts, but Japanese culture is deeply problematic.
Remember that from their point of view, we are weird. Japanese, as well as the other cultures in the region, are very, very different from us. So, the question is, can we judge them by our own values? Their view of sexuality, honor, heck, even of human life and it's value is fundamentally different from ours. Better or worse? Well, that's impossible to say, at least for a human. All culture is, by it's nature, highly subjective. Each of them is probably best suited wherever they evolved in. As such, trying to transplant a different culture in a place where there already is one is a very morally shaky endeavor, since it usually loses unique mechanisms used to better adapt to environment, and also brings it's own, often useless in the new environment. That has been known to do harm, though cultures are though to uproot and old elements trickle back in, sometimes even being transplanted back.
As such, the Japanese and their culture are probably best not messed with by outsiders. Their very way of thinking is almost completely alien to us. They can be understood, but it's hard, and pretty much requires spending a good chunk of life there.
Clearly you haven't looked closely at the majority of other humans. :p
Well, I'm not saying everybody is pleasant to look at. :) But that's somewhat irrelevant. Heck, some people can look traumatizing even in a full morning dress, which is an achievement considering how snazzy those look. :) But that's beside the point, on an average man (or woman), nudity is not that unpleasant to look at once you get rid of sexual connotations. Now, old people and people with various diseases might be worse, but they probably wouldn't want to go out naked anyway, for other reasons. Of course, a clothed person will usually look better than an unclothed one, if they're not wearing a potato sack, at least. Most of our clothes are, afterall, not only meant to cover our bodies, but also make us look good, mask imperfections and convey various messages. There are, of course, exceptions, but for most people finding clothing that they'll look worse in than if they were naked requires exceptional anti-talent.
Anyway, point is, there's nothing wrong with nakedness, and any traumatizing impact it might have (in most cases it doesn't) comes from it's sexual connotations, which are pretty pointless. Once you get over this, it's nothing bad or sinful in seeing other people naked, nor being seen naked yourself. Nudity should not be criminalized like it is now.
-
@AdmiralRalwood: Pedophilia, and paraphilias in general, are not inherently harmful to anyone. Things that are not inherently harmful to anyone should not be condemned (utilitarian ethics exist, regardless of the status quo).
-
Pedophilia [is] not inherently harmful to anyone.
We are never going to agree on that.
-
Consider a pedophile who suppresses his urges, either keeping it in his pants or keeping it in his wastebin. Who is he harming?
-
The problem is cyclic enabling, for every person that is looking at pictures of underage children on the Internet, it means there is a call for someone to take those photographs. So abuse is almost certainly happening at one point or another.
The problem is not the concept of 'mind crime', those who have pedophilic urges but supress them in every way are not criminals, I agree, though they may be making problems for themselves in later life if they do not address those urges, but someone who just looks at images, for example, are enabling, whether they realize it or not.
-
There's all kinds of ways (between staying in the closet, announcing it to the world and actually being a child molester) of how someone's mental disorder can become known to you.
...So? If your point is just that my statement wasn't literally true, well, congratulations, but it wasn't meant to be. If this isn't just semantics, then I'm going to need you to expound upon your point there.
Well, you said that you don't care about the difference between pedophile and child molester, and you said that in context of law enforcement making arrests or bringing charges against non-molesting pedophiles in order to seem like they're protecting children even when they're not. When you then also justify not caring by saying that if you know someone to be a pedophile, it's actually their own fault one way or another, it certainly seems like you don't mind people being in trouble simply for being pedophiles, regardless of whether they molest children or not.
That's what I was responding to, not just the semantics.
And why should a pedophile not have the same freedom to announce their unchosen disorders to the world the same as everyone else anyway?
They do have that freedom. In which case, as I already said (in the post you just quoted), "you have only yourself to blame for the bad publicity". Your freedom to announce your pedophilia to the world does not remove the freedom of the rest of the world to condemn you for being a pedophile.
Point was that condemning someone for something they didn't choose is bad. Wouldn't you agree with that?
EDIT:
The problem is cyclic enabling, for every person that is looking at pictures of underage children on the Internet, it means there is a call for someone to take those photographs. So abuse is almost certainly happening at one point or another.
The problem is not the concept of 'mind crime', those who have pedophilic urges but supress them in every way are not criminals, I agree, though they may be making problems for themselves in later life if they do not address those urges, but someone who just looks at images, for example, are enabling, whether they realize it or not.
Just looking isn't enabling in any meaningful sense of the word, though. If you pay for it, or for example click on ads associated with it, or otherwise signal demand (other than by just looking, that is) then certainly. Do child porn producers keep doing what they do just because they can tell someone keeps downloading what they upload? I don't see any reason to believe that. There has to be an actual financial or social connection between producer and consumer, a mere pageview counter doesn't really cut it.
-
Enabling... I hadn't thought of that. But it's still not inherent. Counterexamples: lolicon; people with good imaginations.
-
That's the problem with things like pedophile rings, one person obtains the pictures through whatever method and then shares them with the others in the group. In many cases those photos are actually of relatives of one of the members of that group and there's often no charge because by sharing them it means the original photographer feels 'justified' in what they are doing and may even be encouraged to do so by other members of the ring.
To me, at least, it's not really a question of whether money was made from the photograph or not, it's the fact that if there is a demand for such pictures, then there will be a supply of them, which means somewhere, someone is taking photographs of children for sexual gratification of themselves and others.
@Aardwolf, oddly enough, I don't have much of an issue with Japanese cartoons etc, animation is animation. I do think it's sick and perverse, but then, no-one is actually getting hurt, and no-one is forcing me to watch it. Mind Crime is not something I support, but when you get to real people, that's when my concerns begin.
-
This tangent stops now. No, Lorric, equating homosexuals (who can act on their desires with other likeminded people without committing a crime) and pedophiles (who can't) is not the conversational gambit you want to take. Equating the two because homosexuality used to be illegal is not the right way to argue your point, whatever the **** you think it is.
There are two reasons why this is an objectively terrible post.
First, the argument Lorric's making touches on a number of different things, hut one of its major components is basically an argument of moral absolutism vs. Cultural relativism; i.e., in the past,homosexuality was considered morally reprehensible, now it is not. Was itever objectively morally wrong? Can we apply the same questions to paedophilia?
Now, I'm not interested in the relative merits of the arguments either way on absolute vs. Culturally relative morality either way. But that debate has been going on in its current form for decades, and in one form or another for centuries. Both sides have strong adherents, and its vigorously debated. For you to come in and not only declare your absolutist position to be correct, but to also try to stifle any debate on such a massive issue is incredibly arrogant.
Worse than that, though, is your justification for that position. Deriving moral acceptability from legality is... mind blowingly simplistic, and probably offensive to some people. You're effectively saying that the only moral difference between consensual homosexual sex and "pseudoconsensual" (I don't know the right term for unforced sex with someone too young to give consent - I'm not sure if statutory rape applies?) sex with a 13 year old is that one is legal and one isn't. By your definition, they're otherwise morally equal. What about countries where that's reversed? In Afghanistan or Saudi Arabia, where a man can legally impregnate his 13 year old child bride, but death by stoning is the legally enforced punishment for sodomy? Is an Afghani homosexual the moral equivalent of an Australian/German/whatever child molester? You don't even need to leave the western world - was Alan Turing the moral equivalent of Rolf Harris because both broke UK law to fulfil their sexual desires?
More than that, consider what would happen if the law changed? Anti marijuana legalization advocates are always saying that the human brain doesn't fully stop developing until 25. What if the law changed and 25 became the age of consent? Would I then become the moral equivalent of a child molester if I had sex with a 22 year old? After all, I'd be committing a crime by acting on my desires, right?
All this, the moral absolutism and the legal basis for morality is made worse by the fact that you're posting it in a thread about how bad the legal system is at determining the morality of specific instances of sexual behaviour, and that inflexibly applying the letter of ge law is a terrible way to decide what is acceptable and what isn't.
My point here isn't to pretend that child rape is okay. It obviously isn't. But it's unacceptable not because it's illegal, but because it's morally wrong. I think you probably believe that too, E, so I'm confused about why you posted otherwise in the first place.
-
It's probably just saying the same thing as BW in a different way, but the false equivalency being presented doesn't have much to do with Lorric's original point. The conclusion that consenting adults should be able to freely engage in mutual sexual activity is for practical purposes completely separate from the status of homosexuality as a type of sexual orientation. (Indeed, one can engage in sexual activity with members of the same sex and yet not identify as a homosexual.) Similarly, the fact that a pedophile cannot engage in sexual activity with minors, because of the legal inability of the latter to given consent, is a separate issue from whether pedophilia is an ingrained preference. I took Lorric's point to mean that both homosexuality and pedophilia are inherent, non-chosen sexual preferences, and while that point is open for discussion based on the evidence at hand (honestly I'm not personally aware if there have been any conclusive studies about pedophilia), I don't see why the legality of acting on each preference should have any bearing on talking about it.
-
I find it amusing that we now have a full page and a half on alternate sexual attraction, in which people are arguing vigorously, and yet no one has apparently looked up any of the psychology and behavioural genetics research on the subject.
Last I looked, there was a pretty excellent body of research that shows sexual identity is biologically determined (genetic and developmental), sexual orientation (heterosexual, homosexual, bisexual) is a combination of congenital/developmental biology, and sexual preference (your various -philias and fetishes) is psychologically learned on an individual basis which is reinforced in brain neurological development, typically at a young age, in a concept my Abnormal Psychology professor liked to describe as a "love map."
However, there is no discernable inheritance pattern for either sexual orientation or preference; neither is genetically-determined. There is fairly strong evidence for a biological origin for sexual orientation, but virtually none (at least, as far as I'm aware) that says the same for preferences. All of which is a very long-winded way of saying that homosexuality and pedophilia are not remotely comparable in origin or behaviour. Practicing pedophiles often manage to convince themselves of a child's ability to give consent, or practice psychological manipulation on their victims. No such behaviour is evident in typical hetero- or homosexuals. Of note is that homosexuality is an orientation and pedophilia is a preferential attraction; they are not mutually exclusive. Finally, being sexually abused as a child is a correlative indicator of pedophilic interest, suggesting a learned connection that becomes ingrained in neurobiology through neurological development as the person ages.
Obligatory reading material to start with: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/24850896 http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23517571 http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23861406
More science, less bull****ting in here, please.
-
No one has looked at the body of research on that subject because nobody has been talking about that subject for the past 22 posts, aside from a general sense of "neither one is something you choose".
-
I tried to keep what I said inconclusive because I honestly know little to nothing about those particular fields, and I wasn't aware of how much had been established about the origins of pedophilic attractions, or indeed even that there was any fundamental difference between "orientation" and "preference." Thanks for providing some good info.
-
Just to point out, not that I have seen anything that requires any action, but that there were posts reported.
Not to step on any toes, I don't know what other moderators or administrators are going to do and I'm not going to presume or interfere with them on it, but I wanted to get some thoughts in here:
The subject matter of discussion HAS derailed some bit from what I interpreted the initial post as pertaining to, but it has remained topical and civilized and adult (from a perspective of "mature" rather than "crass but can get away with it") so I'd just like to acknowledge that and encourage keeping it civilized.
Bear in mind though, that allowing for discussion and/or participation of a discussion does not in any way equal enabling/ennoblement/tolerance, merely that there is an allowance for such a discussion to take place. Until such a time as it ends up directly devolving or violating the forum standards that is, which I'd rather hope it doesn't.
-
Well, the problem is delineating between 'perfect world' and 'real world' situations. To my mind, in a perfect world, someone could admit their attraction to children and receive understanding and support from society in general, but this is unlikely to happen in the real world.
I don't find those who are arguing that pedophilia is not inherently wrong purely by its' existence to be necessarily 'defending' it in any way, just stating that the desire to commit something that is defined as a crime is not in and of itself a crime. That is what I define as a 'perfect world' situation though, it's really re-stating the ideals that form the basis of a lot of legal systems.
However, the problem is that when these ideals meet the real world, it's a lot harder to trace the impact of even passive actions, it's a real test of the legal system to unravel this mess, and I do believe that currently the system is far too blunt in its approach, which is what leads to situations such as the original topic of this thread.
To my mind, sexual attraction to a child is not a crime in and of itself, however, unlike something like Homosexuality, which suffered wholly from external judgement of both people involved based on their activities, the situation when one of those people is a minor is far, far more complex and dangerous. That's not because the adult is inherently 'evil', it's because the other person is a minor and therefore not sexually mature or capable of making an informed decision on sexual activity.
For the main part, I've found the conversation very high-brow, whilst people may have said things that made people uncomfortable, nothing has really been said that I would consider offensive or simply trolling, just a clash of that perfect world and the real one.
-
well, if we are talking perfect worlds. I think an even more perfect world than what you describe would be one in which there was no group of people compelled to have sex with another group of people for which the general result of such an interaction would be massively grievous long lasting psychological (and often physical) trauma for the second party. Unfortunately as you say, reality is unlikely to match up with this any time soon as it seems a (probably largish) proportion of the population has this compulsion and there is no apparent environmental cause. It's a ****ty situation with no obvious good solution.
-
Desires and attractions are not a choice. This statement applies to everything from basic urges such as thirst, hunger, sexual orientation, pedophilia and other paraphilias, mental diseases in general. It is in this way that homosexuality and pedophilia are indeed equivalent. And it does not matter whether it is genetic or environmental.
So I think that until pedophiles act on their urges in a harmful way (and no, lolicon doesnt count), we should not judge them negatively for their attractions, since it is not their fault they are that way.
With regards to real child porn, the harm is indirect and debatable. However I think legalising it would lead to more exploitation and looking at child porn is also equivalent to voyeurism in some way. So I dont think it should be legal, but I do think the punishments are often over the top due to moral panic. When people can get similar punishment for merely looking at child porn than actually touching a child, something is wrong. It should be a minor offense, IMHO. Creation, buying and large scale distribution is a different matter, tough.
Also, snuff movies should be treated the same way for consistency.
-
I certainly didn't expect to come back to find myself in agreement with everything that's been said. :wtf: Odd.
-
Okay, I said I wasn't going to post in this thread again, but apparently my earlier statements were not being taken in the manner in which I was thinking when I posted them, so I just want to be absolutely clear here:
I do not think anybody should be condemned for seeking mental help. Holy ****, wow, that was not my intention at all. In my opinion, "seeking professional help" is exactly the right course of action for not only pedophiles, but anybody who has (or even thinks they might have; getting an opinion from somebody who doesn't share your brain is always a good idea) any kind of mental illness of any sort.
However, statements like this:
Consider a pedophile who suppresses his urges, either keeping it in his pants or keeping it in his wastebin. Who is he harming?
are in many ways actively harmful. First off, there's the point about enabling which was made earlier. Secondly, statements like this are themselves a form of enabling ("Hey, look, this person on the internet says I can suppress my urges and be totally fine. Whew! I guess it's all right, then!"). Thirdly, suppressing urges does not work. They absolutely need to be treated.
(As an aside, when it comes to treatment, aversion therapy really doesn't work. You know what does work? Treating it like an addiction, like being an alcoholic.)
And lastly, I really need to clear up something brought up on IRC:
<EatThePath> My honest impression from what you've said is that if you had a thought detector you'd at best imprison anyone who had a fleeting sexual thought about a minor.
It is very, very, very important that we draw a distinction between pedophilia (a sexual attraction to prepubescent minors) and ephebophilia (a sexual attraction to postpubescent minors). Both are illegal (well, ephebophilia is legal "sometimes", as if, for instance, a 20-year-old has consensual sex with a 17-year-old). Actual pedophiles love to conflate to two terms in an attempt to garner sympathy, which results in a lot of people not knowing that there is a difference, and it's important that we keep that in mind.
With that out of the way, I have no desire to lock people up for "impure thoughts". Firstly, I never said anything about arresting pedophiles (although apparently some people got that impression; I obviously could have been more clear in that regard); I think they need treatment, not punishment. Secondly, the whole point of my original statement about not caring about the difference is that we can't read minds; I don't know what you're thinking at any time, so if I know you're a pedophile, it's either because you've told me or you've acted like a pedophile, and since I am not a psychiatrist, you wouldn't be telling me because you want treatment. That is all that I meant by not caring about the difference.
To make this as crystal-clear as I can:
In the real world, if somebody confessed to me that they were in treatment for being a pedophile, I would applaud them, because seeking treatment is exactly what should happen.
If anything about my position is still unclear or seems objectionable in some way, somebody please tell me, because as I believe I just mentioned, I can't read minds.
-
I'm very relieved to see this post from you.
<EatThePath> My honest impression from what you've said is that if you had a thought detector you'd at best imprison anyone who had a fleeting sexual thought about a minor.
That is pretty much the exact impression I got too, so hopefully you can see what I was trying to do when I (and others) engaged your post. I wanted to help you.
As I said, I'm very relieved about this because I lost a tremendous amount of respect for you watching from the sidelines after The E kicked me out (WTF), and I was worried about interacting with you in WoD Forum Game 2 because I didn't want to ever speak to you again.
So one scenario I thought of is how would you react if a close friend confided in you they were a pedophile because they needed someone to talk to about the difficulties they were going through? That's where I would have gone next if The E hadn't kicked me out because I think you were getting hung up on some notion I was saying homosexuals are equal to pedophiles. So would you treat your friend as a monster, or as the same person you knew and respected?
Anyway, I'm happy this is all straightened out. :)
-
In the interest of maximum clarity, the reason my earlier statements were not being taken in the manner in which I was thinking when I posted them is not the fault of everyone reading them wrong, but the fault of me for not expressing my opinions clearly enough.
With that out of the way:
I think you were getting hung up on some notion I was saying homosexuals are equal to pedophiles.
Strange, I can't imagine where I got that impression...
People used to (and still do) say this about homosexuals.
The point is it's all predetermined. People do not get to pick and choose any of it.
And they used to say that about homosexuals too. Do you see where I'm going with this?
If you weren't actually intending to equate pedophilia to homosexuality, then you were being even less clear than I was in your argumentation.
So would you treat your friend as a monster, or as the same person you knew and respected?
Neither. Clearly they're not a monster, but neither are they the person I thought I knew. I'm not going to leave them unattended around minors, for instance.
-
Well to try and make it as clear as I can, what I was trying to do is say homosexuals used to be treated as monsters simply for being homosexual, even if they hadn't engaged in any actual homosexuality (as homosexuality was of course a crime.)
And so I was saying pedophiles shouldn't be treated as monsters either, if they haven't committed a crime. You're not a monster unless you actually start behaving like one.
As for the friend, well that's reasonable enough.
-
However, statements like this:
Consider a pedophile who suppresses his urges, either keeping it in his pants or keeping it in his wastebin. Who is he harming?
are in many ways actively harmful.
Well color me offended. No, me asking you to reexamine your beliefs is not "harmful".
Did you not get what the point of asking you that question was? It was in response to this:
Pedophilia [is] not inherently harmful to anyone.
We are never going to agree on that.
Your disagreement amounts to you saying "pedophilia is inherently harmful (to someone)". It only takes one example of a pedophile whose pedophilia never harmed anyone to disprove that. Do you really believe such a counterexample does not exist?
Do you know what it's called when you say "All <category of people> are <something bad>"? Prejudice.
-
Slight Devils Advocate here, but I can't stop a part of my brain thinking, "you know, I am sexually attracted to women, and yet can work in an environment with females and not sexually assault any of them".
Certainly, those with a record for child abuse should be kept away from children, but I can't help thinking that's not because they are pedophiles, it's because they are criminals.
Edit : I see an incurable Catch-22 raising its head here to be honest, after all, heterosexuals (and, indeed homosexuals) have access to sexual gratification online without any real stigma attached to it these days, the same cannot be said for pedophiles, for very obvious reasons. There's been evidence that access to porn has reduced sexual assaults (though it has also had other, negative effects such as unrealistic expectations), but you simply cannot apply that kind of thinking with regards to this particular issue, so I really don't know the solution to that problem.
-
Slight Devils Advocate here, but I can't stop a part of my brain thinking, "you know, I am sexually attracted to women, and yet can work in an environment with females and not sexually assault any of them".
Yeah, this is why I think it is plausible that there are lots of pedophiles out there, maybe even a few % of population, and those we uncover are largely an intersection between pedophiles and rapists/molesters, a small fraction of the total.
There's been evidence that access to porn has reduced sexual assaults (though it has also had other, negative effects such as unrealistic expectations), but you simply cannot apply that kind of thinking with regards to this particular issue, so I really don't know the solution to that problem.
There is some evidence that this applies to pedophiles, too.
http://phys.org/news/2010-11-legalizing-child-pornography-linked-sex.html
Maybe access to child porn under controlled conditions as therapeutic approach could be worthwile for those pedophiles who have problems keeping their urges in check otherwise.
-
I've heard that same argument used in favor of the legality of lolicon (i.e. completely fictional drawn) material, though I think in that case freedom of expression and anti-censorship are far stronger arguments.
-
However, statements like this:
Consider a pedophile who suppresses his urges, either keeping it in his pants or keeping it in his wastebin. Who is he harming?
are in many ways actively harmful.
Well color me offended. No, me asking you to reexamine your beliefs is not "harmful".
Wow, way to ignore the ways in which I enumerated how it was harmful, not one of which was "its asking me to reexamine my beliefs". Try again.
-
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-28282050
Not sure whether to post this as a new topic, but it's probably better to keep it all together considering the subject matter.
Basically, the pope says that about 1 in 50 Catholic priests are paedophiles, which is a pretty large number.
-
Slight Devils Advocate here, but I can't stop a part of my brain thinking, "you know, I am sexually attracted to women, and yet can work in an environment with females and not sexually assault any of them".
Yeah, this is why I think it is plausible that there are lots of pedophiles out there, maybe even a few % of population, and those we uncover are largely an intersection between pedophiles and rapists/molesters, a small fraction of the total.
That's what I think too. The majority of men, leave them alone with an attractive woman in a situation where they can 100% get away with raping her, they're not going to do it. Nor will they be overcome by urges or whatever.
I imagine the same is true with pedophiles, that a lot are quite capable of being left alone with children without harming them. Going back to homosexuality, look at how much more common homosexuality is than what it was thought to be once "coming out" was no longer seen as a bad thing (by most people.)
-
However, statements like this:
Consider a pedophile who suppresses his urges, either keeping it in his pants or keeping it in his wastebin. Who is he harming?
are in many ways actively harmful.
Well color me offended. No, me asking you to reexamine your beliefs is not "harmful".
Wow, way to ignore the ways in which I enumerated how it was harmful, not one of which was "its asking me to reexamine my beliefs". Try again.
So after the huge misunderstanding you have just created, you mock someone for a misunderstanding. Nice.
Why don't you just explain to the man what you mean?
-
So after the huge misunderstanding you have just created, you mock someone for a misunderstanding. Nice.
After I just spent that much effort correcting an unintentional misunderstanding, how much sympathy do you think I have for willfully ignoring half of what I said?
Why don't you just explain to the man what you mean?
I did, in the post he quoted, immediately after the part of my quote he cut off. Perhaps you should also try reading it.
-
Why don't you just explain to the man what you mean?
I did, in the post he quoted, immediately after the part of my quote he cut off. Perhaps you should also try reading it.
My mistake. I apologise. I was hasty because of reading what you put and getting annoyed by it.
However, when you just had a huge misunderstanding based on not being clear enough, I would be more cautious the next time you blow someone off because they didn't understand what you were saying. Friendly advice. I don't want to fall out with you. I personally never do that, I'll try to find out why my message didn't get through. People interpret information in different ways.
Again, sorry.
-
@AdmiralRalwood: I did not ignore the explanation. I was going to do a point-by-point rebuttal of the arguments, but I looked at what I had written and thought better of it, not because it was wrong but because it was unduly harsh. Well I guess I'll be writing that point-by-point rebuttal after all...
First off, there's the point about enabling which was made earlier.
...had already been rebutted. Again, lolicon. Also, people with "good imaginations".
Thirdly, suppressing urges does not work. They absolutely need to be treated.
...is wrong, as conveniently explained by Flipside here (albeit after your post)
Slight Devils Advocate here, but I can't stop a part of my brain thinking, "you know, I am sexually attracted to women, and yet can work in an environment with females and not sexually assault any of them".
Certainly, those with a record for child abuse should be kept away from children, but I can't help thinking that's not because they are pedophiles, it's because they are criminals.
Edit : I see an incurable Catch-22 raising its head here to be honest, after all, heterosexuals (and, indeed homosexuals) have access to sexual gratification online without any real stigma attached to it these days, the same cannot be said for pedophiles, for very obvious reasons. There's been evidence that access to porn has reduced sexual assaults (though it has also had other, negative effects such as unrealistic expectations), but you simply cannot apply that kind of thinking with regards to this particular issue, so I really don't know the solution to that problem.
Part of that quote stricken because, again, lolicon.
And finally
Secondly, statements like this are themselves a form of enabling ("Hey, look, this person on the internet says I can suppress my urges and be totally fine. Whew! I guess it's all right, then!").
...the part that takes your post from "wrong" to "offensive", because you're effectively telling me to not say what I want to say. And it's wrong. There have thus far been 890 views of this thread, many of them redundant. Of however many unique readers that is, I can say with 99.9% confidence that not one of those people is a pedophile who would have sought treatment, but changed their mind after reading my post.
-
I will say that we need to be careful not to blur the line between drawn images, with no specific human subject and photographic images which require somebody to actually physically be there to be photographed.
But on the other side of the coin, I'll also say that saying it's ok to suppress an urge is pretty much the opposite of enablement, it's dis-enablement, it's giving you permission to not do something. We all spend most of our lives suppressing one urge or another.
-
I will say that we need to be careful not to blur the line between drawn images, with no specific human subject and photographic images which require somebody to actually physically be there to be photographed.
But on the other side of the coin, I'll also say that saying it's ok to suppress an urge is pretty much the opposite of enablement, it's dis-enablement, it's giving you permission to not do something. We all spend most of our lives suppressing one urge or another.
There's also plenty of room in the middle for "innocent material". For instance, how many of you have looked at photos of people on a beach?
-
Well, that middle ground has become a minefield thanks to the rampant paranoia regarding pedophiles anyway.
I grew up in a Council house, and to save water when I was 1 and my brother was 3 (remember, we are talking 1973 here), we used to share the bathwater. My parents had photographs of use both in the bath together.
Nowadays, such photographs would potentially cause all kinds of trouble with the Police, because of the fact that we seem incapable of drawing a line between photographs of children while they are naked and indecent photographs of children.
-
First off, there's the point about enabling which was made earlier.
...had already been rebutted. Again, lolicon. Also, people with "good imaginations".
So you think looking at lolicon or "using your imagination" is sufficient to substitute for professional mental help?
Thirdly, suppressing urges does not work. They absolutely need to be treated.
...is wrong, as conveniently explained by Flipside here (albeit after your post)
Slight Devils Advocate here, but I can't stop a part of my brain thinking, "you know, I am sexually attracted to women, and yet can work in an environment with females and not sexually assault any of them".
Certainly, those with a record for child abuse should be kept away from children, but I can't help thinking that's not because they are pedophiles, it's because they are criminals.
Edit : I see an incurable Catch-22 raising its head here to be honest, after all, heterosexuals (and, indeed homosexuals) have access to sexual gratification online without any real stigma attached to it these days, the same cannot be said for pedophiles, for very obvious reasons. There's been evidence that access to porn has reduced sexual assaults (though it has also had other, negative effects such as unrealistic expectations), but you simply cannot apply that kind of thinking with regards to this particular issue, so I really don't know the solution to that problem.
This once again argues that pedophilia is a sexual orientation, which it is not, making more of those insulting false equivalences.
And finally
Secondly, statements like this are themselves a form of enabling ("Hey, look, this person on the internet says I can suppress my urges and be totally fine. Whew! I guess it's all right, then!").
...the part that takes your post from "wrong" to "offensive", because you're effectively telling me to not say what I want to say. And it's wrong. There have thus far been 890 views of this thread, many of them redundant. Of however many unique readers that is, I can say with 99.9% confidence that not one of those people is a pedophile who would have sought treatment, but changed their mind after reading my post.
Yes, I am telling you not to say that pedophilia can be dealt with entirely by just suppressing your urges. I'm not saying you can't say it; I'm saying you shouldn't, because it's wrong, and spreading misinformation is always harmful, and in this case the end harm could be child abuse, and I don't want that.
I certainly hope the percentage of people who read this thread that are "pedophiles who might have sought treatment, but decided not to" is 0%. I'm not saying your specific post is likely to be the cause of that... but it does contribute to a general atmosphere, perpetuating misinformation, which somebody might then perpetuate somewhere else, to be seen by someone else, who may or may not spread that idea further... the ultimate impact is impossible to know (and could very well be "none whatsoever"). However, one can guarantee no negative impact by not spreading misinformation in the first place, no?
-
It doesn't matter whether it's a sexual orientation or not.
All that matters is it is not a conscious decision. No one would consciously choose to be a paedophile, except maybe some sick and twisted individuals who don't care about hurting other people.
I also believe Aardwolf wasn't talking about abstention, but control. That's why he's talking about Lolicon and imagination. If a paedophile is jacking off to some Lolicon to get their fix, then that can help keep them under control. Most people don't go out raping people if they're starved of sex for a long time.
-
Take BDSM, it's not a sexual orientation, it's a sexual preference, but that doesn't mean that you can control whether you like a bit of light bondage or not. However, if even if you do like bondage, it doesn't mean that it is an absolute requirement for you to engage in sexual activity, you can choose not to engage in it if your partner does not wish to.
Hasn't it ever struck you as odd that a woman dressed up as a schoolgirl is a common sexual fantasy?
Sexual attraction is a lot, lot more complex than simple black and white situations.
-
If a paedophile is jacking off to some Lolicon to get their fix, then that can help keep them under control.
"I don't understand why this alcoholic went on a drinking binge! They had a glass of wine with dinner every day!"
-
I hate the very concept of people feeling guilty for sexual feelings, of any kind. It's beyond their control, they can't change how they feel. You're no less of a person for having feelings you didn't put there, no matter what they are. As long as you understand the difference between right and wrong, between fantasy and reality, between consent and no consent, you have nothing to be ashamed of. Thoughts aren't a crime. Actions can be.
If a paedophile is jacking off to some Lolicon to get their fix, then that can help keep them under control.
"I don't understand why this alcoholic went on a drinking binge! They had a glass of wine with dinner every day!"
Alcohol has addictive properties. Masturbation does not. Masturbation satiates sexual desire.
-
I hate the very concept of people feeling guilty for sexual feelings, of any kind. It's beyond their control, they can't change how they feel. You're no less of a person for having feelings you didn't put there, no matter what they are. As long as you understand the difference between right and wrong, between fantasy and reality, between consent and no consent, you have nothing to be ashamed of. Thoughts aren't a crime. Actions can be.
No, thoughts are not a crime... and there's no requirement that you feel guilty for stray thoughts going through your head. There's also nothing wrong with feeling shame if you happen to find yourself finding a prepubescent minor sexually attractive, and whether you feel any shame about it or not, if it happens on a regular basis, maybe you should think about seeing a professional.
If a paedophile is jacking off to some Lolicon to get their fix, then that can help keep them under control.
"I don't understand why this alcoholic went on a drinking binge! They had a glass of wine with dinner every day!"
Alcohol has addictive properties. Masturbation does not. Masturbation satiates sexual desire.
I wasn't talking about masturbation being addictive.
-
If a paedophile is jacking off to some Lolicon to get their fix, then that can help keep them under control.
"I don't understand why this alcoholic went on a drinking binge! They had a glass of wine with dinner every day!"
To be fair, an alcoholic is defined by a high consumption of alcohol, not a glass of wine each day. That's more the definition of a relapse, not a failure of those glasses of wine to 'do the job'.
I don't think anyone is pretending that something like that would be a 'cure all', just that we need to be very careful about blanketing any sexual activity into a set of predefined values. I would never, ever support the concept of pedophilia, and any active pedophile certainly should be dealt with and helped, but just as other 'dark' sexual mentalities, such as rape fantasy, do not, in the vast majority of cases, lead to actual rape, we shouldn't assume that the fantasy leads to the act.
That said, we also need a society that can, if that person feels they are getting too close to the line, accept that and be willing to help them, because if we don't, then there is a high likelihood that line will be crossed, which is too high a price to pay.
I have more to say, but I have company, and this is a delicate issue that needs time to word properly without coming across as some kind of apologist.
-
I wasn't talking about masturbation being addictive.
Then what is your point?
-
I think more to the question is what is anyone's point. The lines of debate are getting funny and you all appear to be saying more or less the same thing.
The facts are that pedophilia is considered a social violation in most human societies (where they usually differ is not concerning pre-pubescent, but rather post), it is a learned thought process that is involuntary and neurologically reinforced, and that having these thoughts is not considered a crime, but acting on them - whether through pornography or physical acts - is. And everyone in here seems OK with that status quo.
So what are you guys actually arguing about? I'll be damned if I can tell.
-
Me, I don't know what AdmiralRalwood's problem is. I am trying to work it out.
-
I think the main point of the argument here appears to be that if a Pedophile doesn't actually commit the act, then are they a pedophile, which is a bit of an 'if a tree falls in the forest...' question to be honest.
My main concern is to try and deter the concept that pedophilia is, at the most fundamental level only, different from any other sexual preference.
Of course, once the actual act and society itself gets involved, that's a whole different bag of marbles.
-
I think the main point of the argument here appears to be that if a Pedophile doesn't actually commit the act, then are they a pedophile, which is a bit of an 'if a tree falls in the forest...' question to be honest.
My main concern is to try and deter the concept that pedophilia is, at the most fundamental level only, different from any other sexual preference.
Of course, once the actual act and society itself gets involved, that's a whole different bag of marbles.
I'm kind of the same. Ralwood (as far as I can tell) seems to think anyone who has such attractions should report to the nearest medical facility at once. I say anyone who is perfectly in control shouldn't have to. That most of us, regardless of sexual leanings, are completely under control.
And I'm also going in on the stigma, which stops people from seeking help. Imagine if it was viewed as just another affliction. A serious one anyway. And people could actually be sympathetic about it, instead of treating people as monsters.
-
Ralwood (as far as I can tell) seems to think anyone who has such attractions should report to the nearest medical facility at once.
I said "if it happens on a regular basis", and I said "think about seeing a professional", not "report immediately for mind-cleansing".
I say anyone who is perfectly in control shouldn't have to. That most of us, regardless of sexual leanings, are completely under control.
Most of us do not have a mental illness in which we have urges to perform sexual acts on prepubescent minors, either. What applies to "most of us" isn't really relevant.
To be fair, an alcoholic is defined by a high consumption of alcohol, not a glass of wine each day. That's more the definition of a relapse, not a failure of those glasses of wine to 'do the job'.
Yes, that was... exactly my point. It does nothing to discourage a relapse, and may even help trigger one.
-
There are very good reasons why a recovering alcoholic doesn't have half a glass of wine every day, because half a glass can so very easily become the entire crate. That's why active alcoholics go for 100% abstention, but not everyone who drinks is an alcoholic, and they can have half a glass of wine every day and never, ever drink the entire crate.
I'm stretching the analogy a bit, I know, but I hope I get the point across.
-
Most of us do not have a mental illness in which we have urges to perform sexual acts on prepubescent minors, either. What applies to "most of us" isn't really relevant.
But it is. Most of us don't act out fantasies that would be wrong either. And there are a myriad of things beyond urges to perform sexual acts on prepubescent minors. How many times have you heard someone say something like "I'd love to rape her." or "Just give me five minutes alone with her..." do you think they actually would if they had the chance? They are just fantasising. There's nothing wrong with fantasy. Reality, then there is. Then most people know right from wrong. Then most people's conscience will come into play as well.
There are other fantasies as well. If you play this, are you a bad person? Do you want to actually do this stuff? Really? Of course you don't. Same as video games. It's all about acting out fantasies. Not reality.
http://www.whackit.co/whack_your_boss_30_ways.html
To be fair, an alcoholic is defined by a high consumption of alcohol, not a glass of wine each day. That's more the definition of a relapse, not a failure of those glasses of wine to 'do the job'.
Yes, that was... exactly my point. It does nothing to discourage a relapse, and may even help trigger one.
But masturbation does. It's a reliever. Put it this way, let's say a paedophile is going to be in charge of a child and has a sexual attraction toward that child. Do you think the urge will be as strong if they engage in masturbation and get it out of their system before that child arrives? And most of us don't even need such a thing in the presence of a sexually attractive person.
And the alcohol I say is still a bad example. Drinking alcohol can lead to drinking more alcohol due to the addictive properties. Masturbation is not addictive. And even if it was, leading to more masturbation wouldn't be a problem. Fantasising and doing are two completely different things.
-
How many times have you heard someone say something like "I'd love to rape her." or "Just give me five minutes alone with her..." do you think they actually would if they had the chance?
...I have never, ever heard someone say that, and if I did, I would be very, very worried about what they might do later. If your first instinct isn't to talk to that person about exactly why saying things like that is itself potentially harmful, perhaps you need to do some research on rape culture.
There are very good reasons why a recovering alcoholic doesn't have half a glass of wine every day, because half a glass can so very easily become the entire crate.
...Yes, which is why pedophiles shouldn't look at lolicon.
not everyone who drinks is an alcoholic
And not everyone who has a stray sexual thought about prepubescent minors is a pedophile. I'm glad we seem to understand each other.
I'm stretching the analogy a bit
No, you're not; that was the whole point of the analogy. The situations are actually very comparable.
-
How many times have you heard someone say something like "I'd love to rape her." or "Just give me five minutes alone with her..." do you think they actually would if they had the chance?
...I have never, ever heard someone say that, and if I did, I would be very, very worried about what they might do later. If your first instinct isn't to talk to that person about exactly why saying things like that is itself potentially harmful, perhaps you need to do some research on rape culture.
:eek2:
Really? Wow...
I've heard this kind of talk... uncountable times. First I want to be clear, I do not talk this way, I find it distasteful.
I've heard it a lot going through school, and also I've seen it plenty of times online. One place I can think of is the Betfair football forum. I don't gamble, but I'm a passionate football fan, and I sometimes like to watch the live football commentary. And particularly lately there have been match threads with pictures of the attractive female fans of various nationalities cropping up, which incite this kind of talk. I've seen it come up in Youtube commentary as well. I'm truly astonished that you've never come across such a thing.
-
I'm truly astonished that you've never come across such a thing.
Well, I meant that I don't hear it in real life, but I also don't watch videos like that, so I don't hear it at all very often.
First I want to be clear, I do not talk this way, I find it distasteful.
I'm sorry, what were (http://www.hard-light.net/forums/index.php?topic=71527.msg1578235#msg1578235) you lying? (http://www.hard-light.net/forums/index.php?topic=79967.0)
-
First off, there's the point about enabling which was made earlier.
...had already been rebutted. Again, lolicon. Also, people with "good imaginations".
So you think looking at lolicon or "using your imagination" is sufficient to substitute for professional mental help?
I selected those cases specifically to demonstrate that pedophilia is not always harmful. In those cases, no substitute is needed.
Thirdly, suppressing urges does not work. They absolutely need to be treated.
...is wrong, as conveniently explained by Flipside here (albeit after your post)
Slight Devils Advocate here, but I can't stop a part of my brain thinking, "you know, I am sexually attracted to women, and yet can work in an environment with females and not sexually assault any of them".
Certainly, those with a record for child abuse should be kept away from children, but I can't help thinking that's not because they are pedophiles, it's because they are criminals.
Edit : I see an incurable Catch-22 raising its head here to be honest, after all, heterosexuals (and, indeed homosexuals) have access to sexual gratification online without any real stigma attached to it these days, the same cannot be said for pedophiles, for very obvious reasons. There's been evidence that access to porn has reduced sexual assaults (though it has also had other, negative effects such as unrealistic expectations), but you simply cannot apply that kind of thinking with regards to this particular issue, so I really don't know the solution to that problem.
This once again argues that pedophilia is a sexual orientation, which it is not, making more of those insulting false equivalences.
I made no such claims. I don't care whether you want to call it "sexual orientations" or "things somebody might be attracted to"; regardless what name you give it
{ "women", "men", "children", "inanimate objects", . . . }
Any of them can be plugged into this template sentence
I am sexually attracted to <blank>, and yet can work in an environment with <blank> and not sexually assault any of them
And this one
People who find themselves sexually attracted to <blank> should not be prevented from accessing pornography of <blank>1, because doing so will lead to increased sexual assaults on <blank>.
1Provided it's something that isn't "enabling". In case I didn't state this explicitly enough earlier: lolicon is not "enabling".
Yes, I am telling you not to say that pedophilia can be dealt with entirely by just suppressing your urges. I'm not saying you can't say it; I'm saying you shouldn't, because it's wrong, and spreading misinformation is always harmful, and in this case the end harm could be child abuse, and I don't want that.
I certainly hope the percentage of people who read this thread that are "pedophiles who might have sought treatment, but decided not to" is 0%. I'm not saying your specific post is likely to be the cause of that... but it does contribute to a general atmosphere, perpetuating misinformation, which somebody might then perpetuate somewhere else, to be seen by someone else, who may or may not spread that idea further... the ultimate impact is impossible to know (and could very well be "none whatsoever"). However, one can guarantee no negative impact by not spreading misinformation in the first place, no?
It is not misinformation. There exist cases where pedophilia is not harmful to anyone. Those cases, those people, do not need "help".
-
First I want to be clear, I do not talk this way, I find it distasteful.
I'm sorry, what were (http://www.hard-light.net/forums/index.php?topic=71527.msg1578235#msg1578235) you lying? (http://www.hard-light.net/forums/index.php?topic=79967.0)
...I thought you might do that. Being a Wod guy and all.
That is the one and only time I've ever done it in my entire life, and I was out of character. Half role-playing, half-experimenting. It was a fictional character, and I was experimenting with the concept of talking to fictional characters, which was totally new to me.
With the differences in what we've seen in our lives, I imagine it might have been shocking to you, while to me it was tame and harmless. I could not understand what the problem was when I've seen worse uncountable times with no consequences.
-
Since last time I just walked away from this thread "bad things" happened, I thought I'd make an explicit post.
I'm done.
Here, have these:
Aardwolf: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/False_equivalence
Lorric: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rape_culture
-
Lorric: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rape_culture
You don't need to throw that at me. Lorric of 2+ years ago would have found it useful, but I have read this since then:
http://www.hard-light.net/forums/index.php?topic=80668.0 (Link edited, as it was on page 13, now on page 1. It gets good after the first few pages.)
Among other things. And I agree with it.
Also, the Yaiceca thing, was never about fantasies. I have no fantasies with Yaiceca. I wanted to pick a fight with Yaiceca. I thought it would be fun and amusing. I wasn't after a vicious fight, just a fun one, as no one would get hurt because Yaiceca is not real.
I hope you can at least feel better about that time.
-
There are very good reasons why a recovering alcoholic doesn't have half a glass of wine every day, because half a glass can so very easily become the entire crate.
...Yes, which is why pedophiles shouldn't look at lolicon.
That isn't the dangerous part of the question though, the dangerous part is 'is it possible to enjoy that kind of material without having that kind of sexual attraction?'.
Edit : And, whilst I understand there will be stuff said in here that isn't for the 'faint of heart' as it were, I think it's better to try to keep things abstract and not be too graphic.
-
Well I would contend that Lolicon isn't dangerous since Japan isn't a hotbed of child abuse.
Ralwood seems to think anything which would arouse a paedophile is dangerous, while I think it can be the opposite, a relief. A distraction.
We all know how well abstention works, don't we.
-
Gee thanks, I didn't know what false equivalence was.[/sarcasm]
Tell me how you think sexual attraction to children or inanimate objects is different from sexual attraction to men or women.
If your answer is...
- "it's unnatural/weird/gross": congrats you're a bigot.
- "it's not a sexual orientation": I never said it was.
- "it's harmful": as I have repeatedly demonstrated, not always. And probably not even often; you only hear about the bad ones; a recent study (g2g in a minute so can't dig up the source) suggests it may be very common. And no you cannot persecute that entire group of people "to be safe".
- "they're more lustful than us": probably false
Or just tell me what difference you think makes it wrong to complete those sentences with those words.
-
I guess I'll just say a couple of things seemingly in closing.
I'm fully with Flipside and Aardwolf.
I don't think we should be too hard on AdmiralRalwood. He hasn't been very nice, but I expect this thread hasn't been a very nice experience for him. After the misunderstanding, I imagine it has made him pretty defensive. And we're not going to get through to him if he's feeling defensive.
-
Well I would contend that Lolicon isn't dangerous since Japan isn't a hotbed of child abuse.
Japan *is* a hotbed of sexual advances toward teens under 18 by older men, however. Japan is also a country in which fetishes are fairly readily served and embraced. It's also difficult to discern just how much of a problem Japan has as the age of consent is 13, and unrestricted by "age gap" modifiers. Meaning it's quite legal for adults to have sex with persons who would literally be considered children incapable of consent in any other democratic country. Moreover, japan is served by its proximity to countries such as Thailand, which makes underage sex tourism relatively convenient for Japanese residents. I'd be VERY careful holding up Japan as an example of why certain practices aren't dangerous.
Gee thanks, I didn't know what false equivalence was.[/sarcasm]
Tell me how you think sexual attraction to children or inanimate objects is different from sexual attraction to men or women.
If your answer is...
"it's unnatural/weird/gross": congrats you're a bigot.
Not really. If we venture into clinical psychology, most paraphilias are a socially-inappropriate learned response to certain stimuli. Being abused as a child strongly correlates with peodphilia; it's a vicious cycle. While I hesitate to use the word 'unnatural' regularly, sexual attraction to inanimate objects (shoes, anyone?), animals, or pre-pubescent children is a case of faulty neurology in response to a stimulus; it is unnatural in the sense that they don't develop without a connection that by far the majority of the population never makes. It's harmless if the resulting behaviour does not impede your functioning in life or constitute a criminal act, which is true of most people with diagnosable paraphilias, but a number of them (pedophilia, zoophilia, necrophilia) are sufficiently taboo that satisfying those sexual desires is essentially impossible without committing a criminal act is impossible, and treatment is generally required.
To oversimplify, a learned response is not 'natural' simply because it is involuntary. Paraphilias don't just happen - there is a stimulus or stimuli in the person's life that lead to their development. John Money's research and discussion based on the concept of the 'love map' is a useful tool for understanding them.
Sexual attraction to children and inanimate objects is different from attraction to human adults because it develops as a result of a learned response to a stimulus that is well outside the range of what the general population receives. In that sense, it is both abnormal and unnatural, by the strict (non-baggage-carrying) definitions of those terms. All that said, of course, you can't criminalize or compel treatment on the basis of thoughts alone. It's impractical, unreasonable, and frankly unjust.
EDIT: And now everyone wave hello to the law enforcement reading this thread after I had to Google "japan sex tourism," "age of consent japan," "love map," and various searches relevant to pedophilia and paraphilias to refresh my memory while writing this post.
-
It's harmless if the resulting behaviour does not impede your functioning in life or constitute a criminal act, which is true of most people with diagnosable paraphilias, but a number of them (pedophilia, zoophilia, necrophilia) are sufficiently taboo that satisfying those sexual desires is essentially impossible without committing a criminal act is impossible, and treatment is generally required.
Depends on what you mean by "satisfying".
-
It's also difficult to discern just how much of a problem Japan has as the age of consent is 13, and unrestricted by "age gap" modifiers. Meaning it's quite legal for adults to have sex with persons who would literally be considered children incapable of consent in any other democratic country.
The nationally-established age of consent is 13, but individual prefectures are free to set stricter standards, and as far as I can determine the vast majority (if not all) have set it at 18.
-
Depends on what you mean by "satisfying".
yeah, you can scratch the itch without going quite as full bore as you might want to. I mean there are people who have sexual desires that are literally physically impossible and they still manage to make due.
-
It's harmless if the resulting behaviour does not impede your functioning in life or constitute a criminal act, which is true of most people with diagnosable paraphilias, but a number of them (pedophilia, zoophilia, necrophilia) are sufficiently taboo that satisfying those sexual desires is essentially impossible without committing a criminal act is impossible, and treatment is generally required.
Depends on what you mean by "satisfying".
Indeed. In this case, it means fully acting on the desires of the individual as if there were no barriers to it. While most people with paraphilias "make it work," the ones I've named off specifically are such that often even "making it work" may be an illegal act.
Part of the problem with discussions around pedophilia is that people often conflate the term to include post-pubescent children. True pedophilia is relatively rare, and is commonly associated with an abuse cycle, which is another reason why treatment is important.
I know some of you are trying to advocate that certain paraphilias, pedophilia included, are not different from any other form of sexual attraction at a purely academic level without action or a values judgement incorporation, but psychologically that just isn't true. Paraphilias develop differently than "normal" (again, not including a values component in the term) sexual attraction spectra; they are fundamentally different. Most are harmless; some are both an indication of harm, and an indicator of potential harm and are best dealt with by psychological treatment early on, rather than later after criminal intervention. But again, this can't be compelled by criminal law - rather, it would be preferable to have a system wherein these individuals are comfortably able to self-identify to seek treatment without the attached social and criminal stigmatization.
It's also difficult to discern just how much of a problem Japan has as the age of consent is 13, and unrestricted by "age gap" modifiers. Meaning it's quite legal for adults to have sex with persons who would literally be considered children incapable of consent in any other democratic country.
The nationally-established age of consent is 13, but individual prefectures are free to set stricter standards, and as far as I can determine the vast majority (if not all) have set it at 18.
That I didn't find - thanks. Of course, the popularity and prevalence of Enjo kyosai would suggest that either those standards don't work, or are subject to a different enforcement regime than federal law. I confess my familiarity with Japanese legal structure is approximately nil. Regardless - point stands concerning the use of Japan as an example of how certain practices around sex/sexuality aren't dangerous, as Lorric was stating.
-
Part of the problem with discussions around pedophilia is that people often conflate the term to include post-pubescent children. True pedophilia is relatively rare, and is commonly associated with an abuse cycle, which is another reason why treatment is important.
That's an interesting point, there seems to be a difference between the Medical and Legal definition of Paedophilia. Medical terms relate almost entirely to pre-pubescent children, however, legal terms tend to blanket in late- to post-pubescent as well because of the age bracket.
Going full circle to the original post though, I find it interesting that a 17-year old making sexual 'advances' in some form towards someone one year younger is a problem, but Peter Stringfellow making advances to women over 30 years younger is not. It's all, I think, down to maturity towards the act of sex, and that varies wildly on a person to person basis.
-
I know some of you are trying to advocate that certain paraphilias, pedophilia included, are not different from any other form of sexual attraction at a purely academic level without action or a values judgement incorporation, but psychologically that just isn't true. Paraphilias develop differently than "normal" (again, not including a values component in the term) sexual attraction spectra; they are fundamentally different.
They may be somehow different in etiology but the end result it pretty similar except that the object of attraction differs. So I dont think differentiating between sexual orientations and paraphilias is very important.
-
I'll leave some notes about what I've taken from this thread. There isn't anything I want to challenge. Like the Lolicon thing, I still believe it isn't inherently dangerous, but I can see that there is a need to be careful. We also don't know what it would be like introduced into a culture different from Japanese culture, which basically means any other culture. Japanese culture is very much designed to work for Japan and Japan only.
The child abuse producing paedophiles thing, I always thought that that would be a hereditary thing like so many other things, that paedophile parents would be more likely to produce paedophile children, not that abusive acts would produce such children. It's a sad cycle the abused can become abusers.
I guess what I've taken from this is simply feeling even more strongly than I already did that the paedophile stigma has to go. People with this condition need to be able to have ways to reach out and get help or information without being branded as monsters. You treat people like monsters and they might well start behaving like monsters. Some people might think why care about the World when the World doesn't care about you? The taboos have to go, referring to the fact that such things are not talked about, so it allows a lot of misinformation to spread. Like the difference between true paedophilia and being attracted to people who have hit puberty, and the idea that someone is a monster just because they have desires they have no control over. And then there's the whole being paranoid about strangers, when the strangers snatching children are quite rare compared to the people you know. We teach our children to beware of strangers, then we tell them to do whatever Uncle Whatsisname says when he comes over to babysit.
If anyone wants to start a discussion on how to break the stigma down I think that would be interesting, particularly MP-Ryan if he would like to. But all in all I think this has been productive and I've come out better than I came in.
-
It's harmless if the resulting behaviour does not impede your functioning in life or constitute a criminal act, which is true of most people with diagnosable paraphilias, but a number of them (pedophilia, zoophilia, necrophilia) are sufficiently taboo that satisfying those sexual desires is essentially impossible without committing a criminal act is impossible, and treatment is generally required.
Depends on what you mean by "satisfying".
Indeed. In this case, it means fully acting on the desires of the individual as if there were no barriers to it. While most people with paraphilias "make it work," the ones I've named off specifically are such that often even "making it work" may be an illegal act.
I meant masturbation :blah: Then again, surely some otherwise "normal" people have had isolated incidents of being aroused by something they saw from a child, and never acted upon it even to the extent of masturbation. Although I think for it to be a -philia it has to be more than just an isolated incident of arousal, right?
That's an interesting point, there seems to be a difference between the Medical and Legal definition of Paedophilia. Medical terms relate almost entirely to pre-pubescent children, however, legal terms tend to blanket in late- to post-pubescent as well because of the age bracket.
Yep. Pedophilia, hebophilia, and ephebophilia are different. And if I've got the definitions right, one of them, ephebophilia, is a lot more natural1 than the others; as I said in my first post in this discussion:
If, when I was a teenager, other teenagers were good-looking, it was not because they were the same age as me, but because that's the time in our biological development when people are the most good-looking.
1Aside: @MP-Ryan: when I used the word "unnatural" earlier, I meant it in the same sense that homophobes might use it to describe sodomy, which is really just an attempt to make "disgusting" sound like it isn't subjective. Here, though, I mean "natural" as in "reasonable to expect based on our knowledge of human behavior".
-
They may be somehow different in etiology but the end result it pretty similar except that the object of attraction differs. So I dont think differentiating between sexual orientations and paraphilias is very important.
It is in the sense that paraphilias are psychologically treatable (or at least manageable) whereas sexual orientation is an actual part of one's biological identity that is more-or-less static once formed.
I meant masturbation :blah: Then again, surely some otherwise "normal" people have had isolated incidents of being aroused by something they saw from a child, and never acted upon it even to the extent of masturbation. Although I think for it to be a -philia it has to be more than just an isolated incident of arousal, right?
Right. And by full satisfaction, I'm referring to the mental component, not the physical urge. There is an important distinction.
That's an interesting point, there seems to be a difference between the Medical and Legal definition of Paedophilia. Medical terms relate almost entirely to pre-pubescent children, however, legal terms tend to blanket in late- to post-pubescent as well because of the age bracket.
Yep. Pedophilia, hebophilia, and ephebophilia are different. And if I've got the definitions right, one of them, ephebophilia, is a lot more natural1 than the others; as I said in my first post in this discussion:[/quote]
Frankly, attraction to post-pubescent teens for anyone is the most biologically/evolutionarily natural thing in human sexuality; it is when the greatest chances of conception and viable reproduction occur in the human lifecycle. It was also not considered a paraphilia as little as 300 years ago, nor is it in many cultures today; historically, sexual maturity was considered adulthood. This has only changed significantly in Western culture following the Victorian-era when Western societies in particular began to think about children as fundamentally different from adults, rather than just adults in miniature. It coincides with changes in the way children are depicted in art, and the rise of laws specific to the protection of children and setting different criminal standards of behaviour (guess what MP-Ryan wrote a few papers on in his Youth Criminology classes way back when... :p). Our biology has not caught up with our social conceptions around what a child is.
This contrasts significantly with sexual attraction to pre-pubescent children which, as I've mentioned a few times, is often linked to a history of sexual abuse. It does not, ordinarily, occur spontaneously without an external stimulus trigger (which is why it is a true paraphilia akin to things like shoe fetishes and the like, where external factors have a role in the development of the paraphilia).
-
They may be somehow different in etiology but the end result it pretty similar except that the object of attraction differs. So I dont think differentiating between sexual orientations and paraphilias is very important.
It is in the sense that paraphilias are psychologically treatable (or at least manageable) whereas sexual orientation is an actual part of one's biological identity that is more-or-less static once formed.
I dont think so, both of them may be managed to reduce acting on it, but not cured. Gay people can abstain from gay sex (and often do in homophobic cultures) but they are still gay. The same is true with pedophiles, or celibate heterosexual people. And I dont think any therapy can really change that.
Although no cure has been found for pedophilia, various treatments are available that are aimed at reducing or preventing the expression of pedophilic behavior, reducing the prevalence of child sexual abuse.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pedophilia#Treatment
The "no cure" part is basically the same thing as why gay reparative therapy ultimately fails, too. Human sexual desires can be managed but they are very resistant to purposeful change, which holds true for both "sexual orientations" and "paraphilias" alike (which while not entirely unreasonable is quite an ad hoc distinction anyway).
-
You'll note that the word "cured" did not appear in my post; the choice of the term "treated" was deliberate. Pedophilia can be treated, to varying degrees of success. The degree of success and the extremity of the treatment depends on other psychological attributes; in the case of the most severe offenders, chemical castration is periodically required. That said, experimental programs such as the Phoenix program, based here in my own province, have had some remarkable successes treating repeat pedophiles and other sex offenders, even violent ones: http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1300/J076v23n01_09 The program is highly sought-after, has a waiting list, and is by referral only.
-
when you get to the point that chemical castration is the only 'treatment' for a sexual behavior, you are starting to get into the realm of things that are embedded right around the same place as things like homosexuality.
I mean... I have a real hard time buying the label of "treatment" applied to any form of castration.
-
You'll note that the word "cured" did not appear in my post; the choice of the term "treated" was deliberate. Pedophilia can be treated, to varying degrees of success. The degree of success and the extremity of the treatment depends on other psychological attributes; in the case of the most severe offenders, chemical castration is periodically required. That said, experimental programs such as the Phoenix program, based here in my own province, have had some remarkable successes treating repeat pedophiles and other sex offenders, even violent ones: http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1300/J076v23n01_09 The program is highly sought-after, has a waiting list, and is by referral only.
I dont dispute that recidivism can be reduced with treatment, what I dispute is this idea that the underlying attraction can be effectively reduced, and also that there is any real difference between pedophilia, paraphilias and "sexual orientations" in this.
To paraphrase you, pedophilia is an actual part of ones identity and more or less static once formed, and sexual orientations are psychologically treatable with varying results, too. We just dont treat them because there is no ethical reason to. If we had such fancy program for homosexuals or adulterers, and backed by the force of law and societal pressure, the results would be similar.
-
As the origins of paraphilias (including pedophilia) is fundamentally different than the origin of sexual orientation, and one is learned while the other appears to be biologically-derived, there is a much higher possibility that a paraphilia can be fundamentally treated (combinations of drugs and CBT are used to varying degrees of success) to manage the attraction, whereas the same is generally not true, nor desirable, for non-heterosexual orientations. Chemical castration is a matter of last resort for those who refuse are unable to manage their sexual impulse control; it's no coincidence that practicing pedophiles that come to the attention of the criminal justice system have mental disorder comorbidities, such as ASPD and ICD.
I'm not arguing that paraphilias can be eliminated by treatment; I'm arguing that they are fundamentally different from sexual orientation because they occur for different, learned reasons, and it is therefore desirable to treat the harmful forms, such as pedophilia, and it cannot be ethically/morally compared to the notion of treating sexual orientation, which is a fundamental matter of biological identity. Comparing non-criminally-active pedophiles to homosexuals, bisexuals, asexuals, transgendered, etc is a false equivalency for many reasons.
-
you have asserted that, yes. if you have posted some corroborating evidence forgive me, it's a 7 page topic at this point and I'm only half paying attention to it. but could you show some supporting evidence fort he learned aspect? Not that it can be learned, but that it is uniformly learned. that being learned is a diagnostic feature of pedophilia (etc).
-
you have asserted that, yes. if you have posted some corroborating evidence forgive me, it's a 7 page topic at this point and I'm only half paying attention to it. but could you show some supporting evidence fort he learned aspect? Not that it can be learned, but that it is uniformly learned. that being learned is a diagnostic feature of pedophilia (etc).
Diagnostic features of any psychological condition aren't based on origin, so what you're asking for does not exist. Moreover, like most psychological matters, definite cause-effect has not been (and likely will never be) ascertained.
That said, the evidence that pedophilia is learned, rather than an ingrained trait, is reasonable. It has a high correlation with childhood sexual abuse, it does not have discrete genetic markers (though it has weak genetic correlation as there is a higher incidence in MZ vs DZ twins, although non-shared environmental factors are also present), and most pedophiles report environmental factors (stress) as triggers. You'll have to forgive me for not citing specific links, as I'm summarizing a dozen plus journal article and three courses on abnormal psychology. If you want details, PubMed is your friend. If you're satisfied with a generic overview that covers at least some of what I've said, here's a good place to start reading (long): http://focus.psychiatryonline.org/article.aspx?articleid=53036 It's citation list links to a bunch of peer-reviewed work that covers the things I've touched on here.
-
I would actually be surprised if such a complex psychological condition could be anything but a learned condition. Sexual orientation, too. If it's as predetermined as some people have tried to convince me, then what is the determining factor?
-
I would actually be surprised if such a complex psychological condition could be anything but a learned condition. Sexual orientation, too. If it's as predetermined as some people have tried to convince me, then what is the determining factor?
Prenatal hormonal stuff affecting brain development would be one, I suppose. That's something I recall reading about as a determining factor, although I can't say I know/remember any of it.
-
I think sexual orientation is kind of like left-handedness and things like that, there's not really a marked reason for the body to choose to do everything with a different hand to the standard and it's possible, with practice, to become almost as dextrous with the right hand as the left, this went on in much of Europe until surprisingly recently, there's a reason left-handed is referred to as 'Sinister'.
I think sexual preference has a far more embedded cause in many cases, maybe a seed that is encouraged to grow, so you don't choose which gender you prefer to have sex with, but your life does have a say in what manner that sexual attraction plays itself out.
-
Oh man, the left handedness thing...
I've never heard of it being referred to as "sinister" but how far we've come. We've gone in about three generations from beating left-handedness out of children to being tolerant of all sexual orientations. And people say there's no hope for the human race and such... :)
-
Oh man, the left handedness thing...
I've never heard of it being referred to as "sinister"
'Sinister' is the Latin word for 'left.' It came to its English meaning later. It's still used in chemistry; the R/S system for explaining chirality refers to rectus (straight) and sinister (left).
-
Interesting. Thank you, MP-Ryan. :)
-
Really, rectus, not dexter? Then what's dexter?
-
Right.
-
Which?
Who's on first?