Scholar Calls Pedophilia 'An Unchangeable Sexual Orientation' that Should Be Accepted

Omackeral

WhiteMemento9 wrote: »

This will never get normalised. I understand it is something we need to address but what consenting adults do is a completely different thing to what we allow to go on between an adult and a child. Things may have changed in terms of how accepting we are in terms of sexuality but I don't see how we ever reach a point that this should or is acceptable. There are no parallels to be drawn.

I'm saying there's parallels to be drawn with mindsets and attitudes, in a general sense. If some bloke around 1950 came out and said "I identify as a woman" the community would have been gobsmacked. I reckon the thoughts of that being normalised and accepted in their lifetime would've been a stretch too. That's the point I'm making.

Ideas and thoughts from yesteryear that were unthinkable at the time are now gaining traction... or even just part of life now. Who's to say what will fly 50 years down the line. You could have people advocating that the pedophile identifies as something or other and people supporting it.

Ps definitely don't diddle the kids. Diddling kids is no good.

WhiteMemento9

Omackeral wrote: »

I'm saying there's parallels to be drawn with mindsets and attitudes, in a general sense. If some bloke around 1950 came out and said "I identify as a woman" they would have been gobsmacked. I reckon to the thoughts of that being normalised and accepted in their lifetime would've been a stretch too. That's the point I'm making.

Ideas and thoughts from yesteryear that were unthinkable at the time are now gaining traction... or even just part of life now. Who's to say what will fly 50 years down the line. You could have people advocating that the pedophile identifies as something or other and people supporting it.

Ps definitely don't diddle the kids. Diddling kids is no good.

They are all adults or personal decisions about ourselves as people though. In no way, is it even conceivable that an unformed person would ever be allowed to form a relationship with an adult that they clearly can't understand. I understand the point you are trying to make but think it is completely ill-conceived with regards to this issue.

Omackeral

WhiteMemento9 wrote: »

They are all adults or personal decisions about ourselves as people though. In no way, is it even conceivable that an unformed person would ever be allowed to form a relationship with an adult that they clearly can't understand. I understand the point you are trying to make but think it is completely ill-conceived with regards to this issue.

Yep I know. Children are minors. That's proper order that it's inconceivable. All I'm saying is I'm sure there were people thinking that a man becoming a woman was inconceivable 50 years ago too.

WhiteMemento9

Omackeral wrote: »

Fair enough. I'm sure there were people thinking that a man becoming a woman was inconceivable 50 years ago too though.

It probably wasn't but at least it is either a personal choice that doesn't affect other people directly or an adult choice. That was just bigotry. It was never something that impinged on someone else directly other than the idiots who get offended by personal choice. A sexuality that is based on minors who are mentally incapable of having a relationship on that level is a completely different thing.

DivingDuck

I don't believe changing times will see an acceptance of this unless there is a complete overhaul of all our thinking on a number of levels.

In the last few hundred years, there has been a slow (but rapidly accelerating in recent decades) shift in ideology away from an approach where "use" of others was prioritised towards an approach where the rights of the individual are prioritised.

Years ago, it was perfectly okay for a man to abuse his wife because men were the head of the family, and that's how it was. It wasn't okay for that man to decide to become a wife, because that was unnatural. Now, it's fine for a man to become a woman, because he's an adult and he has the right to decide what happens to his (to be properly correct: her) body and how he presents himself to the world. It's not fine for him to abuse his wife, because she also has the right to decide what happens to her body.

They're very different things, but they're both supported by the same underlying concept: you have the right to decide what happens to you, and nobody else has the right to take that from you.

Pedophilia can never be accepted because it goes against this shift, not unless there's a radical re-thinking of who we are and what we want as a society. Conflating pedophilia, bestiality, and other paraphilias that violate the concept of consent and bodily autonomy to issues like acceptance of gender dysphoria isn't useful at all— the things we didn't used to accept that we now do are all accepted for the same reason, and that reason absolutely precludes these paraphilias which violate the principle of informed consent.

To say you are a pedophile is to say your primary sexual orientation is towards rape. At its basest level, that is what pedophilia has to be. Children can't consent to having sex— and even if we were to say they were (which I don't believe, let me point out), the majority of pedophiles have no interest in their consent, anyway. Have you ever heard anyone who survived childhood sexual abuse say that they wanted it, or were glad it happened? Their consent is not a priority for people who are afflicted with this desire, even if it could be given.

I don't really know what the "best" way to deal with people who feel that way but haven't acted on it is— I'm not a doctor, so I don't know how successful treatment is in preventing offending, but I don't think I would ever be comfortable with one because children are bloody everywhere and the opportunities to offend are constant. It just doesn't bear thinking about.

We can't accept or normalise this. Ever.

Omackeral

WhiteMemento9 wrote: »

It probably wasn't but at least it is either a personal choice that doesn't affect other people directly or an adult choice. That was just bigotry. It was never something that impinged on someone else directly other than the idiots who get offended by personal choice.

Back in Wartime Europe, that progressive attitude would have landed someone steeply in the minority. That's my point entirely. You call people idiots for not recognising a man saying he's a woman. Back then, I reckon you'd have been looked at as the idiot. That's my solitary point here. That attitudes change extremely and sometimes absolutely. Nobody gave half as much a damn about "identifying" or "taking offence" in older times. You'd have been the outcast if that was the case.

silverharp

DivingDuck wrote: »

I don't believe changing times will see an acceptance of this unless there is a complete overhaul of all our thinking on a number of levels.

In the last few hundred years, there has been a slow (but rapidly accelerating in recent decades) shift in ideology away from an approach where "use" of others was prioritised towards an approach where the rights of the individual are prioritised.

Years ago, it was perfectly okay for a man to abuse his wife because men were the head of the family, and that's how it was. It wasn't okay for that man to decide to become a wife, because that was unnatural. Now, it's fine for a man to become a woman, because he's an adult and he has the right to decide what happens to his (to be properly correct: her) body and how he presents himself to the world. It's not fine for him to abuse his wife, because she also has the right to decide what happens to her body.

They're very different things, but they're both supported by the same underlying concept: you have the right to decide what happens to you, and nobody else has the right to take that from you.

Pedophilia can never be accepted because it goes against this shift, not unless there's a radical re-thinking of who we are and what we want as a society. Conflating pedophilia, bestiality, and other paraphilias that violate the concept of consent and bodily autonomy to issues like acceptance of gender dysphoria isn't useful at all— the things we didn't used to accept that we now do are all accepted for the same reason, and that reason absolutely precludes these paraphilias which violate the principle of informed consent.

To say you are a pedophile is to say your primary sexual orientation is towards rape. At its basest level, that is what pedophilia has to be. Children can't consent to having sex— and even if we were to say they were (which I don't believe, let me point out), the majority of pedophiles have no interest in their consent, anyway. Have you ever heard anyone who survived childhood sexual abuse say that they wanted it, or were glad it happened? Their consent is not a priority for people who are afflicted with this desire, even if it could be given.

I don't really know what the "best" way to deal with people who feel that way but haven't acted on it is— I'm not a doctor, so I don't know how successful treatment is in preventing offending, but I don't think I would ever be comfortable with one because children are bloody everywhere and the opportunities to offend are constant. It just doesn't bear thinking about.

We can't accept or normalise this. Ever.

you would think but if its trendy for a kid to consent to a sex change its not an atlantic ocean jump that they can consent to other fcked up stuff

BattleCorp

silverharp wrote: »

you would think but if its trendy for a kid to consent to a sex change its not an atlantic ocean jump that they can consent to other fcked up stuff

Good point.

i blame the parents

all of them, like

Cleopatra_

Well paedophiles can't help that they are attracted to children. I'm so glad I wasn't born with that attraction, knowing that if you ever act on it you'll be violating someone and also knowing you can't tell someone you have that attraction as you risk ostracism or worse. I have pity for paedophiles who don't act on their urges, it must be a lifelong battle.

Lollipops23

Cleopatra_ wrote: »

I have pity for paedophiles who don't act on their urges, it must be a lifelong battle.

I agree entirely. I have nothing but respect for someone struggling against these awful thoughts and urges, but seeks help and support in order to prevent them doing the unthinkable.

Society is going to need to have a grown up and unhysterical discourse about this sooner or later.

murpho999

jaxxx wrote: »

This is what happens when someone goes 'full retard'.

Seriously, I thought I heard it all but this f*cking takes the biscuit.

Did you actually read the article?

I think many here have not.

There is nothing controversial in what was said.

Basically saying that pedophiles should not be driven underground which makes them more likely to offend but they should not be isolated by society and helped.

She also states "Let me be very clear here. Abusing children is wrong without any doubt, but a pedophile who doesn't abuse children has done nothing wrong."

I really don't see anything controversial about that statement at all. Pedophilia is a problem that is simply not going to go away and it needs to be approached in a new way to prevent abuse imho.

Bandana boy

A few year back Germany changed its laws on treating people with Pedo tendencies .

the initial law had that any medical professional who had knowledge was required to report it to the police.
they changed the law meaning they could keep a patients confidentiality and opened clinics offering support and if requested Chemical treatment .
the amount of men availing of support was mindblowing ?
About 250K men sought treatment since program started , which is slightly over half of 1% of the population !!

These Men were of all ages and working in many fields and many were older men who had never offended.
The treatment gives them counselling on how to deal with the attraction without acting on it and in extreme cases offered Chemical castration to those who did not feel they could resist the temptation.

While there can be no quarter given to those who offend or fund pornography ,if a way of acknowledging the desires allows these men who are troubled to get help and avoid offending then we would be mad not to try.
Assuming there is not some massive difference between Ireland and Germany that would have over 20K men in Ireland struggling with this
At that rate its almost certainly somebody in your circle of friends and family

Malayalam

Whatever about there being some inborn predilection (nature) or perversion due to childhood trauma / abuse (nurture) how about the likelihood that such a desire is fueled by the massive increase in online child pornography? 70% of online child pornography is of abuse of children under 10. To view it is to ''buy'' it ie to feed the market that sells the abuse of children for profit. Yet less than 15% of people prosecuted for possession of child pornography receive a prison sentence, and if they do it is usually for less than one year. More serious cases go to the Circuit Court where they can receive a maximum of five years. To knowingly view or possess online child pornography should have very lengthy mandatory sentences. Given the incredible harm inherent in child pornography I have no idea why it already does not attract severe penalties, (or why sentences in incest cases can be so inconsequential.)

Bigbagofcans

I've read a few articles before where men are publicly outing themselves as 'non-offending paedophiles'.

Are they trying to normalise the condition while inevitably receiving a torrent of abuse from others?

suicide_circus

the last taboo

nozzferrahhtoo

Thoughtform wrote: »

So the headline is designed to shock

Pretty much that. Within the article itself they quote her position as:

"Let me be very clear here. Abusing children is wrong without any doubt, but a pedophile who doesn't abuse children has done nothing wrong"

and if that is her position then it is one I 100% agree with and see no problem with. Though Ulysses Gaze adds a useful caveat that under "abuse" we should include the facilitation of it by way of pornography use and so forth.

ceadaoin. wrote: »

I don't think it should be normalised by being accepted as just a harmless sexual orientation. It isn't. It's a paraphilia and any expression of it is extremely harmful to the victims and also to society.

I do not think accepting it or normalizing it by default means allowing expressions of it on actual victims. I doubt very much anyone is calling for that. The person the article is about certainly is not.

But take recent controversial research that suggests child sex dolls or CGI or otherwise simulated child porn actually reduces the tendency of such people to (re)offend. It is far from conclusive. But imagine it was shown to be true in the future.

Currently such porn and dolls are illegal. Such research would question whether that is the correct thing to do.

So one aspect of "normalizing" or "accepting" could potentially be, for example, accepting and building a market for such products.

Not saying IS, just using this as an example of the KIND of thing a process of acceptance could actually mean.

Grayson

ceadaoin. wrote: »

I don't think it should be normalised by being accepted as just a harmless sexual orientation. It isn't. It's a paraphilia and any expression of it is extremely harmful to the victims and also to society.

It seems like there is a push in the media lately to normalise pedophilia and not any other paraphilias like bestiality. You'd have to wonder who/what is behind it.

But there does seem to be different types.

For example there are some that are made. there are people who become abusers after being abused as a child. For many there's no sexual gratification from the abuse. Straight men who abuse boys for example. It had complicated motives involving power and pain.

There are others who appear to have a sexual attraction. Some will go on to abuse, some won't.

I do genuinely feel sorry for someone who feels that attraction but never acts on it. It's not something anyone would ever choose for themselves. I remember reading about a campaign in germany to get people like this to reach out for support. We should have something like that here.

ceadaoin.

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

But take recent controversial research that suggests child sex dolls or CGI or otherwise simulated child porn actually reduces the tendency of such people to (re)offend. It is far from conclusive. But imagine it was shown to be true in the future.

Currently such porn and dolls are illegal. Such research would question whether that is the correct thing to do.

So one aspect of "normalizing" or "accepting" could potentially be, for example, accepting and building a market for such products.

Not saying IS, just using this as an example of the KIND of thing a process of acceptance could actually mean.

What research was that? I thought it was inconclusive and there was also evidence that it could lead to offending? most of the men in the UK who were investigated for importing these dolls were also in possession of images of child abuse so personally, I feel that these dolls would be another escalation towards abuse for many and that would be unacceptable.

Malayalam

Sorry. ''Simulated child porn''. Does not compute.

Taytoland

My method of dealing with pedophiles would be too gruesome for this forum, so I'll keep it to myself.

batgoat

Malayalam wrote: »

Sorry. ''Simulated child porn''. Does not compute.

I'm definitely not typing that into Google. I do think the actual point of creating a situation that a person with such a predisposition putting themselves forward to allow for them to receive psychological supports to prevent them from acting out in any way is probably the way forward. It's not a matter of making it okay to act out, just to actively prevent acting out on such feelings. It's uncomfortable but it's for the sake of actively preventing harm.

WhiteMemento9

Omackeral wrote: »

Back in Wartime Europe, that progressive attitude would have landed someone steeply in the minority. That's my point entirely. You call people idiots for not recognising a man saying he's a woman. Back then, I reckon you'd have been looked at as the idiot. That's my solitary point here. That attitudes change extremely and sometimes absolutely. Nobody gave half as much a damn about "identifying" or "taking offence" in older times. You'd have been the outcast if that was the case.

You keep making the same counter argument without really understanding what I am saying. I know how outlandish many things we accept now would have been seen in times gone by. The argument here is outside of those parameters. A choice to be whatever way you want involves either a personal choice or consenting adults involved in a sexual relationship in whatever way they choose. They are ADULTS or people making a choice which doesn't involve another person. The ability for someone to act on this sexual impulse involves another person who is not an ADULT and for whom it is society's job to protect as minor until they can make properly informed decisions. That is just a moral imperative.

seamus

batgoat wrote: »

I'm definitely not typing that into Google. I do think the actual point of creating a situation that a person with such a predisposition putting themselves forward to allow for them to receive psychological supports to prevent them from acting out in any way is probably the way forward. It's not a matter of making it okay to act out, just to actively prevent acting out on such feelings. It's uncomfortable but it's for the sake of actively preventing harm.

The question is whether it works and to what extent.

The hysteria that porn leads to sexual violence or is a gateway to sexual violence, for example, is I believe completely without any foundation.

That being said however, I don't know if in a minority of mentally ill individuals, excessive exposure to porn or violent imagery creates a desire to re-enact what they see, in reality.

It leads to an ethical conundrum: If creating "virtual porn" reduces the incidence of child abuse among 99% of individuals, but the remaining 1% go on to commit more abuse than they would have, is that trade-off worth it?

WhiteMemento9

seamus wrote: »

It leads to an ethical conundrum: If creating "virtual porn" reduces the incidence of child abuse among 99% of individuals, but the remaining 1% go on to commit more abuse than they would have, is that trade-off worth it?

I don't really see an ethical dilemma here. It is a practical solution to a problem. How does the virtual porn hurt anyone other than the disgust it causes to people who can't understand what it is like to be the person using this service. It seems like a no-brainer if we cut down 99% on incidents of harm to children if indeed that was the eventual outcome. I think you would have others argue another case which might be correct. My thoughts are based on your assumption.

Terry

Chemical castration for the lot of them.

seamus

WhiteMemento9 wrote: »

I don't really see an ethical dilemma here.

It's a version of the trolley problem. By intervening you are saving more children at the expense of a few who would not have been hurt if you didn't intervene.

The trolley problem is easy from utilitarian perspective. But people don't like it from an humanitarian one.

HalloweenJack

Paedophiles that do no act on their urges, whether it be through child abuse or watching porn involving children, should be interacted with and helped, that's what I took from reading through that article and I think it's a good idea.

Whether we like it or not, there are people out there with these feelings. Those who act on it are disgusting but those who don't and yet have to put up with ostracisation should be reached out to.

I fear we're still quite some way away from that, though.

DEFTLEFTHAND

They're often products of paedophilic abuse themselves.

WhiteMemento9

seamus wrote: »

It's a version of the trolley problem. By intervening you are saving more children at the expense of a few who would not have been hurt if you didn't intervene.

The trolley problem is easy from utilitarian perspective. But people don't like it from an humanitarian one.

I know you were digging that direction. I am going with the least harm especially in a scenario where it reduces the number by 99%. All kinds of factors though I think would make it unworkable to implement as a huge amount of testing would need to be done on how effective or otherwise it was at reducing impulse etc. The current state of VR I would say would only deepen the depravity and the urge to act on the impulse for real.