Pedophilia: sexual orientation or disorder?
- Thread starter Prez
- Start date
- Status
ClovingWestbrook
Banned
Sennorin said:
What age do you believe should be the age of consent in the U.S.?
WrathOfOtaibah
Banned
harSon said:
As I've said before, it isn't. claiming pedophilia is a sexual orientation would mean that children are there own gender. If anything it would be more comparable to a fetish, I would call it a disorder though mainly cause there's no proof to pedophilia being apart of natural sexual arousal. The reason homosexuality is natural is that attraction to the sexually developed male/female form is sound despite what your genitalia looks like. But attraction to the child form which is not only not meant for sexual pleasure but in no way pursues to the degree post puberty humans do.
It isn't exactly a disorder, more like an attraction to the younger form of the sexually matured, as they give consent and take pleasure from it. Since yes teens do have sex with each other and seek it, it is looked down upon from a social view due to many natural reasons(so that other fertile women don't go wasted with no children, the teens not being able to make those decisions at times, the need for the younger generation to focus more on education so that they can provide for the future, etc.). But you never see 6 year old children seeking each other out to have intercourse, thinking about it constantly and pursuing it.
Acerac
Banned
I'm aware of such studies, but they are rather general in nature, and I'd be more interested in ones that specifically relate to sexual desires. With masturbation used as my key example, the vast majority of the population is at least somewhat sated on their desires for sex immediately afterwards. Hitting a punching bag with your a picture of your boss taped to the front of it wouldn't leave you spent in the same manner.ClovingSteam said:
If the hypothesis in the second part of your post is true, then I admit my main argument is faulty. However I have found that despite enjoying porn of my more... unusual fetishes, I am no more likely to try to perform them in real life, especially ones that are obviously unhealthy. Worst case scenario, art or computer generated porn reduces the demand for actual child porn, which I think we can all agree is a very good thing.
I saw it and it was a valid point, perhaps negating my entire thesis. Are there studies on these therapies in a more sexual situation? I'm not saying the results would be different, but there certainly is the possibility that they may be so.Obsessed said:
davepoobond
you can't put a price on sparks
sfedai0 said:
homosexuality can "be treated" too.
doesn't mean that makes it a disorder.
also, it can't be a sexual orientation in and of itself because boys and girls are not of the same sex. i would classify a pedophile who is into little girls as straight. he just has the disorder of being a pedophile.
notworksafe
Member
For the purposes of this it's sorta irrelevant. By definition pedophiles can only rape. Violent or not it's still messed up.Sennorin said:
Amibguous Cad
Member
Sennorin said:
I'm going to take a historical response to this one. I think it's common to view the development of thought about sexuality in Western societies recently in terms of being more permissive- homosexuality became morally acceptable, heterosexuals could have sex outside of marriage, contraception is permissible, etc. What people tend to forget is that at the same time, stigma against certain other sexual acts were greatly increased. The moral opprobrium which attaches to pedophilia today is much greater than in the 50s, and is significantly greater than when child brides were the norm. Understandings of rape and related offenses were expanded considerably; no longer simply an example of a stranger jumping someone in a deserted alley, we condemn sexual harassment, date rape, etc. In fact, many behaviors which were once simply seen as normal courting behaviors became redefined as invasive of a girl's ability to consent.
The reasons for both the increase of some taboos and elimination of other taboos are the same. We moved from an ethic that emphasized cleanliness, self-restraint, and normality to one that emphasized consent and autonomy. As a result, sexual practices that do not pose greater questions of consent than "normal" sexual behavior lost most of their stigma. But at the same time, offenses that were ostensibly normal or embedded in traditional gender roles came under much greater scrutiny because of our new focus on consent. Pedophilia is one of those categories of offenses that received greater scrutiny, justifiably so.
So I really don't think historical forces are pointing toward greater acceptance for pedophilia. The ideology that brought acceptance for gay people has more of a reason, not less of a reason, to find pedophilia problematic.
cutmeamango
Banned
Sennorin said:
16 with parents consent and we have a deal.
CornBurrito
Member
Londa said:pedophiles no matter if they will act or it or not. Should not be around children what so ever.
GOAL POST SHIFT ACTIVATE!!!!!
Acerac said:
Yeah, more studies need to be done to see if the catharsis effect holds true with sexual desires and porn consumption.
And if we're presenting anecdotal evidence, I am almost positive that the fetish porn I watch is making the desire to do it in "real life" stronger.
Devolution
Member
Londa said:
Let's just lock up all men, since we have no idea who is going to rape a woman or not. Prevention. Lock up all female teachers too, especially ones in Britain.
Lionheart1337
Member
Acerac said:
nVidiot_Whore
Banned
Londa said:
You guys are using the wrong analogies to discuss this.
Pedophilia is an attraction to children. There is a difference between "attractions" and "I want to have sex with that child right there."
So using the example of some guy walking up and saying he wants to have sex with you, or worse.. rape you.. doesn't really apply.
An attraction in the general sense isn't much different than "wanting to have sex".. but in the LITERAL sense, "wanting to have sex" with someone comes with a lot of baggage.
Am I physically attracted to some of my friends girlfriends? Sure. Do I "want to have sex with them"? No. Because that would cause me much drama, and be crossing moral lines of my loyalty to my friend.
Now I'm also physically attracted to some girls that I have no moral qualms with.. so I'm both attracted to them, AND I "want" to have sex with them. If they don't want it from me? Then no, I do not want to have sex with them within the confines of the reality of the situation.. as that would be rape.
For a pedophile, the difference is there is no moral situation where it's not "wrong" to have sex with those they are attracted to (in the sense of their pedophilia, I imagine like many other attractions most pedophiles can be aroused by adults). So the state of "being a pedophile" is not the same as the state of "wanting to have sex with children."
Because if you actually WANT to have sex with children.. you are a sociopath. Just like if you want to have sex with women who have no interest in you.
Pedophilia would be an unfortunate attraction to have.. but I don't see how it wouldn't be as likely to be controllable as any other attraction.. other than the fact you could NEVER morally act on this attraction, which might cause some pressure.
Which is why I'd guess there are so many stories of old men acting on pedophilia.. probably have always had such attractions.. but during their normal adult life they avoided acting on them.. probably had many other outlets, including adult women.. but with age and probably a lack of opportunity to have sex with attractive women, they resort to becoming amoral and manipulate children instead.
Devolution
Member
YoungHav said:
The comparisons to consensual adult relationships usually get the thread bursting at the seams.
CornBurrito
Member
Uchip said:
Unless I'm mistaken Londa shifted from "JAIL THEM" to "THEY SHOULDNT BE ALLOWED NEAR KIDS, DO YOU SERIOUSLY THINK THAT?" which is a clear shift in the posts.
cutmeamango
Banned
Obsessed said:
What place doesn't have kids? Jails.
Devolution
Member
Obsessed said:
She always moves the goal post, not backward or forward, or even in the same coliseum. I don't even know why I'm responding to her. She's a troll, not necessarily self-aware either but discussing anything with her is like pulling teeth. Always has been.
nVidiot_Whore said:
its more the type of people that are/become pedophiles, than the attraction itself
often presented with a case of mental illness or a troubled past, yes it most certainly would be a lot harder for them to control than a standard adult attraction
Obsessed said:
as long as theyre still playing the same game, its no less relevant
CornBurrito
Member
cutmeamango said:What place doesn't have kids? Jails.
Woah. Could have sworn there wasn't a "
" face before I quoted.Anyway while you are joking (I think), this is the one case where I don't think the slippery slope argument is a logical fallacy. Thought crime territory for "risk prevention" is a pretty murky area.
nVidiot_Whore
Banned
And there are a lot of people raped as children who don't become pedophiles.
And a lot of pedophiles who were never raped as children.
I'd guess that a pedophile, aka, someone attracted to children.. is more likely to act on that pedophilia if they were raped as a child.. but simply being raped as a child? COULD warp your sense of sex.. but not necessarily cause you to become attracted to children.
And a lot of pedophiles who were never raped as children.
I'd guess that a pedophile, aka, someone attracted to children.. is more likely to act on that pedophilia if they were raped as a child.. but simply being raped as a child? COULD warp your sense of sex.. but not necessarily cause you to become attracted to children.
Souldriver
Member
My gut says it's a sexual orientation. Having this sexual orientation must suck like hell though, since acting on your urges is simply not possible/allowed. If you do, you're a criminal and should be punished.
So if a pedophile that hasn't acted on his urges tries to find help, I personally think society should really support him (or her?) instead of asking for death by stoning.
All in all, I think society really doesn't treat pedophilia just and sensible at all.
So if a pedophile that hasn't acted on his urges tries to find help, I personally think society should really support him (or her?) instead of asking for death by stoning.
All in all, I think society really doesn't treat pedophilia just and sensible at all.
nVidiot_Whore
Banned
Uchip said:
Again, you are likely discussing people who have already acted upon pedophilia.
You could say the same thing about murderers or rapists or other sociopaths.. they will very likely have a troubled past.
This point seems difficult to get across.. people associate "pedophilia" with "someone who wants to rape children".. and the point that is trying to be made is that isn't necessarily true. It's VERY likely that there are a lot of "pedophiles" out there not acting on it whatsoever.
CornBurrito
Member
Londa said:
Not sure if you understand what goal post shifting means. Your argument wasn't initially "they should be jailed so they are nowhere near kids." You added the second part afterwards, thus shifting the goal posts.
And to be quite honest, I think your thinking is probably far more dangerous than pedophilia ever could be. Jailing people for thought crimes as a "risk prevention" technique is seriously abusable shit. I fear for the personal freedom of millions if your way of thinking ever became popular.
Acerac
Banned
I mean it's what you said, after all.Londa said:
Londa said:
Oh in that case you might want to check out the bunch of people telling you that jailing people for thought crimes is an absurd notion. You might have missed it. Not sure how, since a lot of people called you out, but I suppose it happens, this is a very quick moving thread after all.
narcosis219
Member
nVidiot_Whore said:
BUT THEY'RE PEDOPHILES! THINK OF THE CHILDREN
@Amibguous Cad:
Good posting, but I´d argue, again, that history is likely to evolve, just as it did in the past. You describe how homosexuals became accepted while pedophiles didn´t. I think it´s pretentious (not trying to offend you) to assume that we´ve already reached the be-all, perfect circumstances that will exist on for all of eternity.
Everyone will agree with you here. Even I will. But I´d hope that you´d understand that this isn´t the way it is out of logic. Because there is no logic behind this sentiment. A pedophile is not a rapist. Therefore, leaving your kids in custody of a pedophile doesn´t out them in more danger than leaving a woman in man´s custody (maybe a little less dangerous, because yes, a woman has better chances at defending herself than a kid. Still, I´d assume that most rapists would have it go their way if they wanted to).
The whole assumption that all pedophiles are dangerous to kids comes from the absurd assumption #2 that pedophiles know no restraints, have no will power to decide against raping kids. I think you´d agree with me that this isn´t a concept of logic, don´t you.
Good posting, but I´d argue, again, that history is likely to evolve, just as it did in the past. You describe how homosexuals became accepted while pedophiles didn´t. I think it´s pretentious (not trying to offend you) to assume that we´ve already reached the be-all, perfect circumstances that will exist on for all of eternity.
Londa said:
Everyone will agree with you here. Even I will. But I´d hope that you´d understand that this isn´t the way it is out of logic. Because there is no logic behind this sentiment. A pedophile is not a rapist. Therefore, leaving your kids in custody of a pedophile doesn´t out them in more danger than leaving a woman in man´s custody (maybe a little less dangerous, because yes, a woman has better chances at defending herself than a kid. Still, I´d assume that most rapists would have it go their way if they wanted to).
The whole assumption that all pedophiles are dangerous to kids comes from the absurd assumption #2 that pedophiles know no restraints, have no will power to decide against raping kids. I think you´d agree with me that this isn´t a concept of logic, don´t you.
Psychotext
Member
Depends on the country... and if you go back 40 or 50 years that statement would likely be completely wrong for most of the world.Uchip said:
"In 1973 the American Psychiatric Association's Board of Trustees removed homosexuality from its official diagnostic manual, The Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, Second Edition (DSM II)."
Obsessed said:
So because I didn't say everything on my mind in my first post in a topic, I am goal shifting? Please...
Also, let me know what goal am I working towards? I'm kind of confuse. This is a discussion not a debate. Well.... lets just say that I don't feel as if I'm in a debate.
Pedophiles can be jailed for having child porn downloaded on their hard drives. So, yes I do believe that they should be jailed for feeling sexual aroused by child even tho they have never touched a child before.
In Romeo and Juliet, Juliet is 13. Shakespeare and his audience did not consider this to be a problem.
There are still a number of countries which have an age of consent lower than 16.
So, its worth bearing in mind that paedophilia does not have a universal definition. What would be considered disgusting at one time and place, could be acceptable at another time and place.
This doesn't invalidate people's disgust of paedophilia but I do think it's worthy of mention.
There are still a number of countries which have an age of consent lower than 16.
So, its worth bearing in mind that paedophilia does not have a universal definition. What would be considered disgusting at one time and place, could be acceptable at another time and place.
This doesn't invalidate people's disgust of paedophilia but I do think it's worthy of mention.
For the purpose of this thread I'm going to assume pedophile means someone attracted to small children and not underage teens as that complicates matters.
On one hand many pedophiles seem to be outcasts. Very lonely yet creepy people. I've always wondered if it was this ostracisation which caused them to start looking at children in that way. Like maybe they couldn't get anything any other way and so their mind switched to smaller and more vulnerable targets. Then again you sometimes read about these family men or well respected police officers caught downloading images of children.
I mean it's hard to say. A lot of gay people come out of the closet in their late teens these days. You don't hear about many teen pedophiles when compared to the number of men aged 40+. Now is that because they don't find children attractive yet? - in which case it would be a disorder. Or is it because they don't have the guts to go after a child yet? in which case it would be some strange form of orientation.
I see where your friend is coming from. It doesn't make any biological sense for men/women to be gay either. Now obviously there's a difference between two consensual adults and children before any smartass tries to pounce on this sentance but still....some things don't fit in with how life works but it happens anyway.
At the end of the day I think it's hard to answer without knowing how many closet pedophiles there are out there. There are billions of straight men out there that think about sticking it in any good looking woman that crosses their path. Now, how many actually act upon that urge? a small minority. We only know that people are pedophiles when they get caught either commiting rape or downloading pornography. So the question is how many are secretly attracted to children but don't act upon it? are pedophiles more likely to act on their urges than straight men? or is this a violent minority?
Is there any serious research into this? like psychologists interviewing and studying a large number of convicted pedophiles and finding out exactly what made them the way they are?
On one hand many pedophiles seem to be outcasts. Very lonely yet creepy people. I've always wondered if it was this ostracisation which caused them to start looking at children in that way. Like maybe they couldn't get anything any other way and so their mind switched to smaller and more vulnerable targets. Then again you sometimes read about these family men or well respected police officers caught downloading images of children.
I mean it's hard to say. A lot of gay people come out of the closet in their late teens these days. You don't hear about many teen pedophiles when compared to the number of men aged 40+. Now is that because they don't find children attractive yet? - in which case it would be a disorder. Or is it because they don't have the guts to go after a child yet? in which case it would be some strange form of orientation.
I see where your friend is coming from. It doesn't make any biological sense for men/women to be gay either. Now obviously there's a difference between two consensual adults and children before any smartass tries to pounce on this sentance but still....some things don't fit in with how life works but it happens anyway.
At the end of the day I think it's hard to answer without knowing how many closet pedophiles there are out there. There are billions of straight men out there that think about sticking it in any good looking woman that crosses their path. Now, how many actually act upon that urge? a small minority. We only know that people are pedophiles when they get caught either commiting rape or downloading pornography. So the question is how many are secretly attracted to children but don't act upon it? are pedophiles more likely to act on their urges than straight men? or is this a violent minority?
Is there any serious research into this? like psychologists interviewing and studying a large number of convicted pedophiles and finding out exactly what made them the way they are?
nVidiot_Whore said:
1 in 5 violent offenders serving time in a state prison reported having victimized a child.
-BJS Survey of State Prison Inmates, 1991.
2/3 of all prisoners convicted of rape or sexual assault had committed their crime against a child.
-BJS Survey of State Prison Inmates, 1991.
3/4 of sexual predators are younger than 35. About 80% are of normal intelligence or above.
-Profiles from the FBI Academy and the National Center for Missing & Exploited Children.
Like rape, child molestation is one of the most underreported crimes: only 1-10% are ever disclosed.
-FBI Law Enforcement Bulletin.
now im not sure how accurate this is, but it seems like a far too large number to be taken lightly by way of "probably wont act on it"
especially the unreported rate
cutmeamango
Banned
Obsessed said:Woah. Could have sworn there wasn't a "
Anyway while you are joking (I think), this is the one case where I don't think the slippery slope argument is a logical fallacy. Thought crime territory for "risk prevention" is a pretty murky area.
Ninja edit to denote it was a joke.
There are only two ways to know if someone is a pedophile: caught acting or himself seeking help.
So it is either thankfully soon, or too late.
A person with said disorder could stand on the middle ground, but I find it difficult. In a normal life, contact with children is daily, so that would be daily trials for him. How long can one stand?
---
While on the subject, there is a great movie with Kevin Bacon, the woodsman.
narcosis219
Member
Sneds said:
I think we can all agree that having sex with a 0-8/9/10 year old is wrong in any culture/time period.
Why? Because children of that age haven't developed sexually yet.
At 13, a girl would have had her period already, which is a sign of fertility. Is she fully developed? No, but she is capable of bearing children.
Before anyone jumps on me, I prefer my little girls fully developed and mature.
Zaraki_Kenpachi
Member
Londa said:
What does having child porn have to do with being jailed solely for being sexually aroused?
Black-Wind
Member
This.akira28 said:
I think both are disorders ... BUT that does not mean both are the same nor does it mean both should be treated the same of viewed the same. There are TONS of behavioral disorders that are accepted and tons that are NOT and are harmful.
So yeah, one is an accepted disorder that results in attraction to members of your own gender and the other is a harmful behavior disorder that causes attraction to children.
nVidiot_Whore
Banned
Londa said:
And.. not all pedophiles would look at CP.. because it's morally wrong (as it promotes the abuse the photos depict.) So again, you are categorizing pedophiles as people who already have committed a crime.
I'd imagine it's somewhere near:
XXXXXXXXXXXXX - All pedophiles, people capable of sexual attraction to childrens.
XXXXXXXXXX - Pedophiles who have sought out CP at least once, or would like to.
XXXXXXX - Pedophiles who regularly seek out CP.
XX - Pedophiles who would EVER even entertain the idea of having sex with a child.
X - Pedophiles who have molested children.
That's just simple logic.. based on the fact that sexual images involving children are far more rampant than actual child rape... and based on the fact that I don't think people have much self control when it comes to porn.. and it's easy to pretend looking at CP is a victimless crime.
The amount of pedophiles who will actually go through with molestation is limited thankfully by the overall morality of society. Most people will never rape, despite being horny.. most people will never murder, despite becoming violently angry at times.. and most pedophiles are unlikely to molest, despite their attractions.
I don't disagree with you.. if I knew someone was attracted to children, I'd not take the risk of leaving my children with them.. I'm just discussing the reality of the situation.. that there are likely a lot of stealth pedos out there who die with their secret.
Ninja Pedos.
Zaraki_Kenpachi
Member
Uchip said:
I have no idea the stats but only using data of those who HAVE acted on it makes no logical sense.
- Status