Pedophilia: A Disorder, Not a Crime According to a NY Times Columnist

AlphaRed

Pedophiles are just a misunderstood bunch of people. Really we should have sympathy for them. So goes the emotional new campaign for pedophiles. Because THEY WERE BORN THAT WAY BABY they shouldn't be criminalized.

Margo Kaplin a NY times columnist wants us to make a distinction between those who have a sexual attraction to children and those who act upon their attraction and so are child molesters. Compartmentalize compartmentalize compartmentalize until nothing makes sense anymore and you know who becomes acceptable.

Being a pedophile has a terrible effect on the life of the pedophile, they have to hide who they truly are from family and friends and risk losing educational and job opportunities if found out. Pedophiles have a terrible stigma to deal with so Kaplin believes the law should be changed so they are not criminalized because of all the stress it causes them.

Kaplin tries to justify decriminalizing pedophilia by saying we should have an emphases on prevention rather than punishment and this would be better for everyone. If pedophilia was decriminalized pedophiles would find it safer to seek out help without fearing getting into trouble.


http://www.nytimes.com/2014/10/06/opinion/pedophilia-a-disorder-not-a-crime.html?_r=0

Zamboni

Kaplin is a PC fvcktard.

suicide_circus

How right-on are you prepared to be?

FrStone

Is she on about paedophiles or pedophiles?

Thidp

Wait until one of her children be abused by a "misunderstood" person like that.

Then, ask her again what she thinks.

Cold War Kid

She's differentiating between those who just have the desire and those who have already committed the crime. What's this "compartmentalize" thing about? Of course there's a major difference between the two.

I think offering supports for those who are sexually attracted to children in order to help prevent them offending makes perfect sense.
It isn't a crime just to have the feelings either - it's a crime to act on them obviously.

arayess

AlphaRed wrote: »

Margo Kaplin a NY times columnist wants us to make a distinction between those who have a sexual attraction to children and those who act upon their attraction and so are child molesters. Compartmentalize compartmentalize compartmentalize until nothing makes sense anymore and you know who becomes acceptable.

I kinda agree with Margo - If somebody is attracted to kids and hasnt acted on it , I don't see the reason to hang them. I'd rather the state provided services and therpay to them. Tax cash well spent says me.

However I'd happily introduce the death penalty for child molesters.

The Diabolical Monocle

Think of the rights of the anti-pedo.

They were born that way. They can't help the natural urge nature naturally gives them to lock pedos in prisons.


Journalist is a fascist.

not that theres anything wrong with that, some people are born that way.

Podge_irl

It's not a question of decriminalization. Having pedophile urges without acting on them is already perfectly legal.

The societal issue of not being able to admit to those urges in order to try and control them is the problem.

MarkAnthony

So much better and more satisfying to get out the pitch forks and torches.

Did anyone really need telling that people with a sexual attraction to children is sick? The only question becomes what do you do with a sick person who seeks help?

You can round them up and burn them or you can try and treat them. It really comes down to what sort of society you want to live in really. It's not compartmentalizing to distinguish someone doesn;t act on a sick desire and someone who does, it's called having the ability to conduct rational thought. I'm sure there'll be plenty of example of people that can not following in due course.

Trudiha

I guess if there were a group of people who were exclusively sexually attracted to children and didn't act on those urged, I'd have a degree of sympathy. However, it seems that most child sex offenders also have normal enough sexual relationships with other adults at the same time as abusing children, so her preposition is flawed.

DareGod

Thidp wrote: »

Wait until one of her children be abused by a "misunderstood" person like that.

Then, ask her again what she thinks.

She's not talking about people who abuse children.

And I don't think any paedophile wants to be or chose to be a paedophile. They can't help what their brain wants naturally.

But yes, of course, any actions linked in any way to paedophilia should remain a highly punishable criminal offence.

The Backwards Man

Cold War Kid wrote: »

She's differentiating between those who just have the desire and those who have already committed the crime. What's this "compartmentalize" thing about? Of course there's a major difference between the two.

I think offering supports for those who are sexually attracted to children in order to help prevent them offending makes perfect sense.
It isn't a crime just to have the feelings either - it's a crime to act on them obviously.

You'd be terrible company on a witch hunt.

Are pedophiles not people who are attracted to feet?

MarkAnthony

Trudiha wrote: »

I guess if there were a group of people who were exclusively sexually attracted to children and didn't act on those urged, I'd have a degree of sympathy. However, it seems that most child sex offenders also have normal enough sexual relationships with other adults at the same time as abusing children, so her preposition is flawed.

Putting aside the ambiguous meaning for second; of course all sex offenders who abuse children are sex offenders. I don't see how the proposition is flawed at all. Sympathy is directed at the disorder not the act which should rightly be greeted with repulsion.

As for normal relationship with adults, I'm really not sure where you're going with that - you think it's fine as long as they confine themselves to kids? That's some pretty screwed up thinking.

As for someone with a sexual orientation, which I'm not suggesting this paraphilia is, having a seemingly 'normal' relationship... well there's no precedent for that at all is there.

LDN_Irish

I dunno Margo, I've been employing the tactic of sharing Britain First memes that say things like "Share if you want to bring back the death penalty for peados." I think this is an effective tactic and I don't see any contradiction with then sharing Tiocfaidh Ar La meme 5 minutes later.

Cold War Kid

LDN_Irish wrote: »

I dunno Margo, I've been employing the tactic of sharing Britain First memes that say things like "Share if you want to bring back the death penalty for peados." I think this is an effective tactic and I don't see any contradiction with then sharing Tiocfaidh Ar La meme 5 minutes later.

y r der peadoz in nice cushiy prisn wen anmlz r been testd on

LoonyLovegood

This American Life did an episode on people who were sexually attracted to children but weren't abusing them, and it was really interesting. In the US, and to an extent here, if you even confess a sexual attraction to children - REGARDLESS OF IF YOU'VE NEVER ACTED ON IT - you have to be reported to the police. So people who do have an attraction to children won't admit it to their therapist, because they know they'll be reported if they do. So instead they don't get any tools to help them get through daily life, because they can't ask for help.

I wouldn't wish it on anyone. The TAL episode is here: http://www.thisamericanlife.org/radio-archives/episode/522/tarred-and-feathered (it's Act 2)

I don't think it's a crime here either.

The crimes are rape or sexual assault or downloading certain images and so on. The law prohibits acts.

But not sure that being a paedophile is a crime.

Penny Tration

I agree with treating paedophiles to prevent them from offending. It seems a perfectly logical thing to do. If the man or woman admits to being attracted to children, but hasn't viewed child porn, or offended in any other way, why bring out the pitchforks? Treat them for it, help them so they contain their urges and don't offend.

Those that do offend, throw them in jail for a very long time.

LDN_Irish

Cold War Kid wrote: »

y r der peadoz in nice cushiy prisn wen anmlz r been testd on

Completely agree m9. Also

eviltwin

Deleted User wrote: »

I don't think it's a crime here either.

The crimes are rape or sexual assault or downloading certain images and so on. The law prohibits acts.

But not sure that being a paedophile is a crime.

Agree with this. We cannot control who we are attracted to, but what we can control is what we do about it. If those of us attracted to adults are able to control ourselves around those we are attracted to then so should those attracted to children. It's when they cross the line it becomes a crime.

LDN_Irish

eviltwin wrote: »

Agree with this. We cannot control who we are attracted to, but what we can control is what we do about it. If those of us attracted to adults are able to control ourselves around those we are attracted to then so should those attracted to children. It's when they cross the line it becomes a crime.

The problem is that they'll likely need almost lifelong support to prevent offending and the hang em high brigade and the NIMBYs will prevent anything progressive measures being brought in.

Trudiha

MarkAnthony wrote: »

As for normal relationship with adults, I'm really not sure where you're going with that - you think it's fine as long as they confine themselves to kids? That's some pretty screwed up thinking.

What I was trying to say is that I don't think that child sex offenders are exclusively attracted to children. There isn't some poor, unfortunate group who can only get off think thinking about children but who do the decent thing and lock themselves away. It's a crime of opportunity and power, like all rape.

AlphaRed

So a lot of posters here think it's ok to sexually fantasize about children so long as you don't go near them?

And you think parents are ok with their children being sexually fantasized about?

crockholm

I know I'll probably be e-crucified for this,but,maybe in there somewhere,there is a valid Point.I don't Think anyone would voluntarily want to be a Paedophile-it is probably the worst taboo out there.Every part of your conciousness would be telling you that what you are doing is un-natural and wrong.

That would in no way be to say that Court sentences should be shorter or lighter because of it being a "disease".

Certainly a subject we should be talking about where we leave the pitchforks outside.

LDN_Irish

AlphaRed wrote: »

So a lot of posters here think it's ok to sexually fantasize about children so long as you don't go near them?

And you think parents are ok with their children being sexually fantasized about?

I'm a father of 2 and I'd probably lose the head if someone told me they were fantasising about ny children. But that's irrelevant, we can either try to prevent these things happening through either supporting people who present themselves for support, we can prevent people from coming froward for support through imprisoning people who admit they are attracted to children or we can wait for them to offend and imprison them. I'd prefer option 1, because it seems like the most effective.

The Backwards Man

AlphaRed wrote: »

So a lot of posters here think it's ok to sexually fantasize about children so long as you don't go near them?

And you think parents are ok with their children being sexually fantasized about?

And you think it's OK to put words in people's mouths?

AlphaRed

AlphaRed wrote: »

So a lot of posters here think it's ok to sexually fantasize about children so long as you don't go near them?

And you think parents are ok with their children being sexually fantasized about?

Has someone said they were fine with it?

I didn't read that anywhere, could you link the post? Thanks.

I think a few have pointed out that, as a matter of fact and law, it is not a crime. And until we hire thought police, that will remain the position. Having murderous thoughts isn't a crime either, but I wouldn't advocate it.

AlphaRed

Deleted User wrote: »

Has someone said they were fine with it?

I didn't read that anywhere, could you link the post? Thanks.

I think a few have pointed out that, as a matter of fact and law, it is not a crime. And until we hire thought police, that will remain the position. Having murderous thoughts isn't a crime either, but I wouldn't advocate it.

We already have the thought police, it's called political correctness/liberal fascism.

One eyed Jack

The Americans With Disabilities Act of 1990 and Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973 prohibit discrimination against otherwise qualified individuals with mental disabilities, in areas such as employment, education and medical care. Congress, however, explicitly excluded pedophilia from protection under these two crucial laws.

There's a distinction between a mental disability, and a mental disorder, and I for one would be reluctant to classify pedophilia as a mental disorder. Pedophilia is a sexual attraction to children. I don't think society should have to, or ever will accept people who are sexually attracted to pre-pubescent children. The welfare of children should always be a priority over the welfare of adults IMO.

It’s time to revisit these categorical exclusions. Without legal protection, a pedophile cannot risk seeking treatment or disclosing his status to anyone for support. He could lose his job, and future job prospects, if he is seen at a group-therapy session, asks for a reasonable accommodation to take medication or see a psychiatrist, or requests a limit in his interaction with children. Isolating individuals from appropriate employment and treatment only increases their risk of committing a crime.

Reads to me like excusing their behaviour. I have absolutely no sympathy for people who are pedophiles whatsoever (also worth noting that the author consistently refers to male pedophiles, not once in her "comprehensive" opinion piece does she acknowledge the existence of female pedophiles, makes me think she cares less about the welfare of pedophiles, and more about producing a contrived article for controversy's sake).

There’s no question that the extension of civil rights protections to people with pedophilia must be weighed against the health and safety needs of others, especially kids. It stands to reason that a pedophile should not be hired as a grade-school teacher. But both the A.D.A. and the Rehabilitation Act contain exemptions for people who are “not otherwise qualified” for a job or who pose “a direct threat to the health and safety of others” that can’t be eliminated by a reasonable accommodation. (This is why employers don’t have to hire blind bus drivers or mentally unstable security guards.)

So... in an article attempting to destigmatise pedophilia, the author suggests that society show more tolerance and acceptance of pedophiles, but still she perpetuates stereotypes and suggests we discriminate against them in any careers working with children.

Erm... I think the author just disappeared up her own rear end with that statement, and missed the blind spot in her own prejudices.

A pedophile should be held responsible for his conduct — but not for the underlying attraction. Arguing for the rights of scorned and misunderstood groups is never popular, particularly when they are associated with real harm. But the fact that pedophilia is so despised is precisely why our responses to it, in criminal justice and mental health, have been so inconsistent and counterproductive. Acknowledging that pedophiles have a mental disorder, and removing the obstacles to their coming forward and seeking help, is not only the right thing to do, but it would also advance efforts to protect children from harm.

Most amazing spin on the "won't someone please think of the children" trope ever - "won't someone think of the pedophiles"...

Ehh, no. I have absolutely no interest whatsoever in putting the welfare of adults with sexual attraction to children ahead of adults with a sexual attraction to inanimate objects. At least those people with a sexual attraction to inanimate objects are only a risk to themselves, as opposed to pedophiles who I really don't care if they promise never to touch a child. I'd sooner put the welfare of a child over their word.

LDN_Irish

AlphaRed wrote: »

We already have the thought police, it's called political correctness/liberal fascism.

That awkward moment when you get annoyed with people for not policing thoughts and then moan about people policing other thoughts.

WeHaveToGoBack

Id agree with this article, and have thought the same for some time. A distinction needs to be drawn between someone who is attracted to children and someone who rapes children.

The former should receive help and support, and shouldn't be stigmatised for opening up.

bjork

Pediatricians are getting too accepted in society. They have signs up outside their houses now and everything

eviltwin

AlphaRed wrote: »

So a lot of posters here think it's ok to sexually fantasize about children so long as you don't go near them?

And you think parents are ok with their children being sexually fantasized about?

No one said that. I support the idea of preventing abuse, teaching therapies that help them control their urges. And I think it's better to do it before anyone gets hurt but with the hang em high attitude who would come forward ?

TheBeardedLady

AlphaRed wrote: »

We already have the thought police, it's called political correctness/liberal fascism.

Wait just one second! Aren't you the one who stated they get locked up for their thoughts???

AlphaRed

All the arguments about getting help and therapies for pedophiles are the same arguments that are applied to people with same sex attraction. Do you think that's right?

eviltwin

AlphaRed wrote: »

All the arguments about getting help and therapies for pedophiles are the same arguments that are applied to people with same sex attraction. Do you think that's right?

Oh for God's sake, there is a huge difference between the two namely consent. Children can't consent.

Cold War Kid

AlphaRed wrote: »

We already have the thought police, it's called political correctness/liberal fascism.

Well it doesn't exist, except in your head. But seeing as you're so adamant it exists, how come you're not ok with that form of thought police but you are ok with policing the thoughts of paedos?

Nobody said it was "ok" for adults to sexually fantasise about children - as you well know. People said you can't put people in jail for thoughts, only acts.

AlphaRed

AlphaRed wrote: »

All the arguments about getting help and therapies for pedophiles are the same arguments that are applied to people with same sex attraction. Do you think that's right?

It's like wave after wave of it.

I'm still laughing at your "bloody PC pinkos...mind you they should be hired to police thoughts alright" when you waded in with more material!

tritium

I'm not sure the OP really read/understood the article they linked to...



Just so we're really clear on this one, we don't really do thought crime in first world democracies (not officially anyway). While I'm not sold on eveeythong in the article I really don't understand how any society would object to helping people who want to avoid causing harm to wider society.

AlphaRed

AlphaRed wrote: »

All the arguments about getting help and therapies for pedophiles are the same arguments that are applied to people with same sex attraction. Do you think that's right?

So don't be afraid to let them show, your true colours......