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

BattleCorp

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

One confounding factor is that many people who conduct criminal sexual behavior with children are not even pedophiles to start with.

Right, I'm going to show my ignorance here.

So if someone has sex with a child, they might not be a paedophile?

Thoughtform

BattleCorp wrote: »

Right, I'm going to show my ignorance here.

So if someone has sex with a child, they might not be a paedophile?

Think they mean cases where people don't fancy children but use sexual abuse as a means of violation, degradation and power wielding.

nozzferrahhtoo

BattleCorp wrote: »

Right, I'm going to show my ignorance here.
So if someone has sex with a child, they might not be a paedophile?

Pretty much, yes. Pedophilia, like all words that identify a sexual attraction, describe your attractions not your actions. It is possible to engage in actions that stem from other motivations other than your attractions.

Both David Finkelhor and sites like Practical Ethics write on this. Finkelhor is a professor of sociology and the director of the Crimes Against Children Research Center at the University of New Hampshire. He believes:

"It is very important for the public to understand that most child molesters are not pedophiles, [Many people] have the impression, when you talk about someone being a pedophile, that they have a permanent and unalterable sexual interest in children and, therefore, they are going to be dangerous under any circumstances and under any form of management—and that's not true," adding that pedophiles constitute a minority of those who sexually abuse children, or who are child molesters.

He states that the major reason a child gets abuse is access and opportunity rather than a specific attraction to children. I myself would also add that there are other motivations that can do it. Abuse or fetish for power being one. Needing victims and for them to be vulnerable is another. Another common one that gets discusses is people who were themselves abused perpetuate that abuse to normalize or deal with it.

The list goes on ad nauseum but in short there are loads of motivations and contexts that lead to sexual abuse of children that simply do not require the person doing so to themselves be a pedophile. And as Finkelhor says conflating child sex abuse with pedophilia as if they are 1:1 is not only not informative or useful, but could be positively harmful.

alpha21

Slippery slope, we are officially on it now.

seamus

nozz, I hope you never plan on running for public office in the future.

Because your dispassionate, rational, logic-based, fair and objective discussion of a highly emotive issue is exactly the kind of thing that hysteria merchants lose their mind over.

nozzferrahhtoo

I realized that on the abortion threads when I was not as moved by little fingers or tongue movements as people wanted me to be.

No one wants to see me in politics. Hell even I would vote for the other guy. There is a time and a place for a voice like mine, and that is not it.

gozunda

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

Pretty much, yes. Pedophilia, like all words that identify a sexual attraction, describe your attractions not your actions. It is possible to engage in actions that stem from other motivations other than your attractions.

Both David Finkelhor and sites like Practical Ethics write on this. Finkelhor is a professor of sociology and the director of the Crimes Against Children Research Center at the University of New Hampshire. He believes:

"It is very important for the public to understand that most child molesters are not pedophiles, [Many people] have the impression, when you talk about someone being a pedophile, that they have a permanent and unalterable sexual interest in children and, therefore, they are going to be dangerous under any circumstances and under any form of management—and that's not true," adding that pedophiles constitute a minority of those who sexually abuse children, or who are child molesters.

He states that the major reason a child gets abuse is access and opportunity rather than a specific attraction to children. I myself would also add that there are other motivations that can do it. Abuse or fetish for power being one. Needing victims and for them to be vulnerable is another. Another common one that gets discusses is people who were themselves abused perpetuate that abuse to normalize or deal with it.

The list goes on ad nauseum but in short there are loads of motivations and contexts that lead to sexual abuse of children that simply do not require the person doing so to themselves be a pedophile. And as Finkelhor says conflating child sex abuse with pedophilia as if they are 1:1 is not only not informative or useful, but could be positively harmful.

I find that type of commentary on the intricacies and minutiae of paedophilia et al to be divisive and deeply disturbing tbh.

Any attempt to intellectualise child abuse and paedophilia deliberatly derails the issue of sexual crimes against children. It remains that the issue is not the 'type' or 'reasoning' of the perpetrator - the issue is the perpetuation of crimes against children by adults whether defined as active paedophiles or otherwise.

nozzferrahhtoo

gozunda wrote: »

I find that type of commentary on the intricacies and minutiae of paedophilia et al to be divisive and deeply disturbing tbh.

Then we can celebrate the fact that no one on a Discussion Forum is compelled or forced to open, least of all read, any given thread.

That is not to say I do not find it emotionally problematic either. Do not mistake my EXTERNAL rational persona as being indicative of my INTERNAL one. The topic causes me all the same stresses it does anyone else.

But what makes us an adult and mature species is our ability to discuss even things abhorrent to us, if and when we believe doing so is for the over all good.

gozunda wrote: »

Any attempt to intellectualise child abuse and paedophilia deliberatly derails the issue of sexual crimes against children.

I do not think so. Nor do I think the issue of sex crimes against children is the only issue in play.

Rather I think we also have to worry about PREVENTION of such crimes...... which entails understanding the people who commit them......... REHABILITATION of the people who commit them........ again the same........... treatment of the victims of it........ and also the alleviation of the very real suffering non offending pedophiles endure.... as they are people too who have done nothing wrong and deserve our help treatment understanding and support every bit as much as any other innocent human being who suffers.

Also understanding WHY a crime was committed against a child is important too. As above we have reason to think many (even most?) people who commit such sex crimes on children are not even pedophiles. And that pedophiles make up a surprisingly smaller than expected proportion of perpetrators.

If we want to pretend we are working to prevent such crimes, let alone ACTUALLY do so...... then we are not going to achieve that by working against the people who are not actually committing the crimes, now are we?

gozunda

ceadaoin. wrote: »

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.

Sadly not just the UK ...


https://m.independent.ie/irish-news/child-sex-dolls-are-seized-by-garda-in-raids-across-state-37159581.html

BattleCorp

I saw mention of treatment for paedophiles earlier in the thread.

If gay conversion therapy doesn't work, why would paedophile conversion therapy work? I'm not equating being gay with paedophilia by the way. How do you change who you are sexually attracted to?

gozunda

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

Then we can celebrate the fact that no one on a Discussion Forum is compelled or forced to open, least of all read, any given thread.
That is not to say I do not find it emotionally problematic either. Do not mistake my EXTERNAL rational persona as being indicative of my INTERNAL one. The topic causes me all the same stresses it does anyone else.
But what makes us an adult and mature species is our ability to discuss even things abhorrent to us, if and when we believe doing so is for the over all good.
I do not think so. Nor do I think the issue of sex crimes against children is the only issue in play.
Rather I think we also have to worry about PREVENTION of such crimes...... which entails understanding the people who commit them......... REHABILITATION of the people who commit them........ again the same........... treatment of the victims of it........ and also the alleviation of the very real suffering non offending pedophiles endure.... as they are people too who have done nothing wrong and deserve our help treatment understanding and support every bit as much as any other innocent human being who suffers.
Also understanding WHY a crime was committed against a child is important too. As above we have reason to think many (even most?) people who commit such sex crimes on children are not even pedophiles. And that pedophiles make up a surprisingly smaller than expected proportion of perpetrators.
If we want to pretend we are working to prevent such crimes, let alone ACTUALLY do so...... then we are not going to achieve that by working against the people who are not actually committing the crimes, now are we?

Wow that's was quite a rapid response- unfortunately more of the same...

My previous points stand ...

nozzferrahhtoo

BattleCorp wrote: »

I saw mention of treatment for paedophiles earlier in the thread. If gay conversion therapy doesn't work, why would paedophile conversion therapy work? I'm not equating being gay with paedophilia by the way. How do you change who you are sexually attracted to?

I think that might be easy to answer.

As far as I understand it Gay Conversion Therapy actually claims to stop you being Gay. It changes who you are attracted to.

The kind of treatments for pedophilia I and others have mentioned however do not claim to do that. Rather they claim to help mediate, control, and temper those attraction and compulsions that arise from them..... find and offer outlets and so forth to deal with them.

Which, I think you will agree, are two VERY different things. I would be just as skeptical as you are if someone popped up claiming to be able to cure and change pedophilia.

gozunda wrote: »

Wow that's was quite a rapid response- unfortunately more of the same...

My previous points stand ...

I am not sure "Nu uh I cant hear you" really works as a response outside Primary School Yards however?

professore

This debate about whether child molesters are or aren't "real" paedophiles misses the point. To the child, it doesn't matter, they are still abused, and the perpetrators should be locked away for a long time breaking rocks with a diet of mouldy bread and water. But I digress.

I would see a lot of merit in helping people who are sexually attracted to children but have never acted on it. Not sure what form that would take, some form of hormonal treatment or CBT I imagine. We could probably learn a lot from it too. I think that's a first that I partially agree on something with nozzferrahhtoo.

nozzferrahhtoo

professore wrote: »

This debate about whether child molesters are or aren't "real" paedophiles misses the point. To the child, it doesn't matter, they are still abused

That is true yes. But as for missing the point, it depends WHICH point. The thread is about a talk that claimed we should be more accepting of pedophilia and pedophiles.... specifically the non-abusing ones.

And therefore the fact that the ranks of child abusers are made up of a surprisingly smaller than expected quantity of pedophiles is not missing the point.... it IS the point. The point being there is probably reason to think that pedophiles IN GENERAL are not actually statistically a threat to children.

But your "digression" in general is well taken. Absolutely true that when our concerns are for the child, whether the person abusing them is actually into children or not is not really relevant.

gozunda

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

I am not sure "Nu uh I cant hear you" really works as a response outside Primary School Yards however?

In that you seemed to completly gloss over the main points I made and I quote

I find that type of commentary on the intricacies and minutiae of paedophilia et al to be divisive and deeply disturbing tbh.

Any attempt to intellectualise child abuse and paedophilia deliberatly derails the issue of sexual crimes against children. It remains that the issue is not the 'type' or 'reasoning' of the perpetrator - the issue is the perpetuation of crimes against children by adults whether defined as active paedophiles or otherwise.

As you yourself said no one is obliged to either accept or read that which is posited as in pretence of logic or otherwise as comment ...

Thanks but no thanks

nozzferrahhtoo

I glossed over nothing, I replied DIRECTLY to that post and it's points. You just "nuh uhed" at the response and are acting now like I somehow dodged the discussion. Get real.

Grayson

gozunda wrote: »

I find that type of commentary on the intricacies and minutiae of paedophilia et al to be divisive and deeply disturbing tbh.

Any attempt to intellectualise child abuse and paedophilia deliberatly derails the issue of sexual crimes against children. It remains that the issue is not the 'type' or 'reasoning' of the perpetrator - the issue is the perpetuation of crimes against children by adults whether defined as active paedophiles or otherwise.

The thing is that abusing a child does not imply the perpetrator is a paedophile. And being a paedophile does not imply that the person is an abuser.

And I think the language you used is interesting "I find that type of commentary on the intricacies and minutiae of paedophilia et al to be divisive and deeply disturbing tbh."

You're right, it's a disturbing topic. Maybe that's why you find talking about the intricacies disturbing?

gozunda

Grayson wrote: »

The thing is that abusing a child does not imply the perpetrator is a paedophile. And being a paedophile does not imply that the person is an abuser.
And I think the language you used is interesting"I find that type of commentary on the intricacies and minutiae of paedophilia et al to be divisive and deeply disturbing tbh."You're right, it's a disturbing topic. Maybe that's why you find talking about the intricacies disturbing?

Lol - Ah the old psychologists trick of asking 'and how does that make you feel?'

Tbh that type of simplistic circular reasoning is irrelevant. However indeed you are correct in the point that child abuse is deeply disturbing - 'talking about it' as you put it imo is only disturbing when some appear to treat the issue as an intellectual pursuit and others who would qualify perpetrators on the basis of that they are somehow 'not understood' and manage to sideline the victims of such abuse.

:rolleyes:

nozzferrahhtoo

gozunda wrote: »

'talking about it' as you put it imo is only disturbing when some appear to treat the issue as an intellectual pursuit and others who would qualify perpetrators on the basis of that they are somehow 'not understood' and manage to sideline the victims of such abuse.

Thankfully no one IS sidelining the victims on this thread. Least of all me. If you think that is happening, then you are a rather active imagination in play.

Further just because someone enters willingly into an intellectual discussion of the subject tells you nothing more than they have entered an intellectual discussion on the subject.

How ELSE they treat the subject, or feel about it, or respond to it, is unknown to you. Entirely.

HERE however we have a thread in response to an academic studying the topic, and by that nature we can have an intellectual conversation about it. That you decry an intellectual investigation into the topic is disturbing. Why should we even want to avoid doing that at all? We hardly just want torch and pitchforks handed around and go and take care of the next pedophile we suspect we have found.

We NEED to understand these things. And we need it not to sideline victims but to protect them after, and where possible ideally before, the abuse happens.

But storming into a thread on a topic you have no interest in discussing, and lambasting people for discussing it is rather odd behavior. As pointless as bursting into a pub and complaining people there are having beers.

seamus

I would like to thank gozunda at this point for perfectly illustrating my point that some people are incapable of understanding that discussing an emotive topic in an objective manner does not mean that it's being trivialised, glorified or otherwise condoned.

A failure to use negative language in regards to paedophilia does not imply positive feelings towards the subject. Neither does it imply ambivalence or apathy.

nozzferrahhtoo

Yea I was thinking that was so perfectly timed it almost came across as staged

Grayson

gozunda wrote: »

Lol - Ah the old psychologists trick of asking 'and how does that make you feel?'

Tbh that type of simplistic circular reasoning is irrelevant. However indeed you are correct in the point that child abuse is deeply disturbing - 'talking about it' as you put it imo is only disturbing when some appear to treat the issue as an intellectual pursuit and others who would qualify perpetrators on the basis of that they are somehow 'not understood' and manage to sideline the victims of such abuse.

:rolleyes:

Its wasn't ment to be a psychologists trick. You said it was disturbing and i was wondering if it's because the whole topic is disturbing?

And I'm not sidelining victims. I made a point of saying that there are those who feel attraction but have never acted on it. So they have no victims.

If someone commits an offence they should be put on trial. I also believe that when serving their sentence they should be studied and given treatment. This is to help protect against further crimes. There are certain offenders who will never stop offending. They should be confined indefinitely.

I mentioned two groups. Those with attraction to children and those without. The ones without are actually quite likely to have been abused themselves when they were younger.

It's a horrible thing about abuse. Many of the victims become abusers and so it's a nasty condition that passes through generations. And it's the victims who become offenders. We have to figure out the best way to treat these people.

As for those that feel attraction but don't commit offenses, we need to help them to. I mentioned pages back that I feel sorry for them. It's not something anyone would choose. That means that if we had kids there's a slim chance it could happen to them.

So no, I don't want to sideline the victims. I just want a more nuanced approach to it. It might be a criminal issue but it's also a health issue, both for the victims and perpetrators and we need to approach it in such a way that we limit the harm future kids will have to suffer.

gozunda

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

Thankfully no one IS sidelining the victims on this thread. Least of all me. If you think that is happening, then you are a rather active imagination in play.

Further just because someone enters willingly into an intellectual discussion of the subject tells you nothing more than they have entered an intellectual discussion on the subject.

How ELSE they treat the subject, or feel about it, or respond to it, is unknown to you. Entirely.

HERE however we have a thread in response to an academic studying the topic, and by that nature we can have an intellectual conversation about it. That you decry an intellectual investigation into the topic is disturbing. Why should we even want to avoid doing that at all? We hardly just want torch and pitchforks handed around and go and take care of the next pedophile we suspect we have found.

We NEED to understand these things. And we need it not to sideline victims but to protect them after, and where possible ideally before, the abuse happens.

But storming into a thread on a topic you have no interest in discussing, and lambasting people for discussing it is rather odd behavior. As pointless as bursting into a pub and complaining people there are having beers.

Wrong. It is not either talking or 'intellectualising' the issue of child abuse per se - as pointed out - it is the evident sidelining of the issue of the victims of such abuse over and above the supposed nuances of those who have a predilection towards such abuse.

Btw your analogy equating beer drinking with sidelining of the issue of child abuse would be hillarious if this wasn't such a disturbing topic.

The only thing lambasted here (sic) were certain specific comments. Please don't take it personally.

nozzferrahhtoo

gozunda wrote: »

Wrong. It is not either talking or 'intellectualising' the issue of child abuse per se - as pointed out - it is the evident sidelining of the issue of the victims of such abuse over and above the supposed nuances of those who have a predilection towards such abuse.

Which, as I already said you but skipped over it, is NOT what is happening here on this thread.

Our wish to understand the condition and the people with it and more is the opposite of side lining the victims. It is a quest to build a knowledge base from which we can best protect them.

But this thread is not EVEN ABOUT the victims in the first place. Would you storm into a discussion specifically about football referees and complain they were sidelining the discussion about the players? Or would you recognize they were talking about what the thread is about?

That is what we are doing here. Nothing more. Nothing less. I would recommend designing a bridge, building it, and getting over it.

gozunda wrote: »

Btw your analogy equating beer drinking with sidelining of the issue of child abuse would be hillarious

Not what the analog was doing. The analogy was showing how ridiculous to storm into a place where X is most likely happening and then moaning that X is happening, especially since you have no interest in engaging with X yourself.

The thread from the opening post has been about pedophilia as a sexual orientation, and how we should treat it. And you have stormed in to complain that we are not talking about something else entirely. Which is a very odd move.

You want a discussion the victims of child abuse, GREAT. That is a useful and informative and beneficial discussion to have. Start a thread on it. But why derail this one?

gozunda wrote: »

Please don't take it personally.

I have near 7500 posts on the forum and in not one of them do I recall taking anything personally.

gozunda

Grayson wrote: »

Its wasn't ment to be a psychologists trick. You said it was disturbing and i was wondering if it's because the whole topic is disturbing?

And I'm not sidelining victims. I made a point of saying that there are those who feel attraction but have never acted on it. So they have no victims.

If someone commits an offence they should be put on trial. I also believe that when serving their sentence they should be studied and given treatment. This is to help protect against further crimes. There are certain offenders who will never stop offending. They should be confined indefinitely.

I mentioned two groups. Those with attraction to children and those without. The ones without are actually quite likely to have been abused themselves when they were younger.

It's a horrible thing about abuse. Many of the victims become abusers and so it's a nasty condition that passes through generations. And it's the victims who become offenders. We have to figure out the best way to treat these people.
As for those that feel attraction but don't commit offenses, we need to help them to. I mentioned pages back that I feel sorry for them. It's not something anyone would choose. That means that if we had kids there's a slim chance it could happen to them.
So no, I don't want to sideline the victims. I just want a more nuanced approach to it. It might be a criminal issue but it's also a health issue, both for the victims and perpetrators and we need to approach it in such a way that we limit the harm future kids will have to suffer.

Lol - It 'Is' a psychologist trick / meme used famously by Dr Phil and others lol. Sorry but it doesn't work.

I take it then that you believe that the issue of child abuse is only disturbing to some when being talked about?

'Nuanced aporoach' how are ya :rolleyes:

nozzferrahhtoo

"so what you're saying is....."

Grayson

gozunda wrote: »

Lol - It 'Is' a psychologist trick / meme used famously by Dr Phil and others lol. Sorry but it doesn't work.

I take it then that you believe that the issue of child abuse is only disturbing to some when being talked about?

'Nuanced aporoach' how are ya :rolleyes:

But you said that it's disturbing to analyse it in this way. You were the person who mentioned how you felt. I was just asking why.

And btw, how you "feel" about a topic doesn't make it rational or not. It just describes how you feel. I'm sure we could come up with loads of unpleasant things to talk about. That doesn't mean that they shouldn't be talked about or analysed.

You laughed (Or more precisely, rolled eyes) at the way I said nuanced. Do you have any problems with the approach I mentioned.

gozunda

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

Which, as I already said you but skipped over it, is NOT what is happening here on this thread. Our wish to understand the condition and the people with it and more is the opposite of side lining the victims. It is a quest to build a knowledge base from which we can best protect them.
But this thread is not EVEN ABOUT the victims in the first place. Would you storm into a discussion specifically about football referees and complain they were sidelining the discussion about the players? Or would you recognize they were talking about what the thread is about?
That is what we are doing here. Nothing more. Nothing less. I would recommend designing a bridge, building it, and getting over it.Not what the analog was doing. The analogy was showing how ridiculous to storm into a place where X is most likely happening and then moaning that X is happening, especially since you have no interest in engaging with X yourself.
The thread from the opening post has been about pedophilia as a sexual orientation, and how we should treat it. And you have stormed in to complain that we are not talking about something else entirely. Which is a very odd move. You want a discussion the victims of child abuse, GREAT. That is a useful and informative and beneficial discussion to have. Start a thread on it. But why derail this one?
I have near 7500 posts on the forum and in not one of them do I recall taking anything personally.

Who is this "we" you proclaim to be? In the first instance I replied to your comment. If you represent some group or otherwise then ok - I didn't know that was a thing on boards tbh!

Good to see you at least acknowledge what I postited from your comment that the victims of such abuse have no place in this thread. Moved from beer to football as an analogy - seriously?

However you do appear to have gone off topic with that rant. Just to repeat this was the point made in relation to your post.

Any attempt to intellectualise child abuse and paedophilia deliberatly derails the issue of sexual crimes against children. It remains that the issue is not the 'type' or 'reasoning' of the perpetrator - the issue is the perpetuation of crimes against children by adults whether defined as active paedophiles or otherwise.

That is my opinion and I stand by it.

As for you taking it personally - you said

But storming into a thread on a topic you have no interest in discussing, and lambasting people for discussing it is rather odd behavior. 

I find it interesting that you refer to yourself again in the plural and if you take a comment as "lambasting people' - that's certainly unusual ....

gozunda

Grayson wrote: »

But you said that it's disturbing to analyse it in this way. You were the person who mentioned how you felt. I was just asking why. And btw, how you "feel" about a topic doesn't make it rational or not. It just describes how you feel. I'm sure we could come up with loads of unpleasant things to talk about. That doesn't mean that they shouldn't be talked about or analysed. You laughed (Or more precisely, rolled eyes) at the way I said nuanced. Do you have any problems with the approach I mentioned.

Yeah keep going there - you're doing well! ditto seamus - dental plan ...

:rolleyes:

Grayson

gozunda wrote: »

Yeah keep going there - you're doing well! ditto seamus - dental plan ...

:rolleyes:

Seriously, if you think there's a flaw in what I'm saying, point it out. You can even stick a rolleyes at the end. But at least point out something.