nav[aria-label="Primary Navigation"] { padding: 0; & ul { list-style: none; width: 100%; display: flex; flex-direction: row; justify-content: start; align-items: start; gap: 30px; padding: 0; & li { margin: 0; } & ul li { list-style: none; } } }

Child Item

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

sexmag

http://www1.cbn.com/cbnnews/health/2018/july/scholar-says-pedophilia-is-an-unchangeable-sexual-orientation-and-should-be-accepted-by-society

Ehhhhhhh? We should accept diddlers now?

Find more posts tagged with

Quick Links

Comments

Malayalam

Where are people going with this?

There seems to be a confluence of ideas, some moderate and others quite radical. Encouraging people with pedophile urges to come forward to seek counselling is one thing. Devising CGI / simulated child porn is such an extreme adjunct to that idea that they are not even in the same ball park. I mean where does that idea stop? You get digital media creators to devise the animations

and what are the parameters? Like is this flat pack stuff being suggested,some stick people humanoids in situations suggestive of sex with children or can people make a creative niche out of it that is super realistic with exciting narratives? ffs. And this idea that there is some statistical evidence to prove harm alleviation? 99%? whatever percent? There is simply not anything like or even near to actual science to even begin to prove such a thing. I fail completely to comprehend how enabling people to watch and be excited by simulated child porn or have sex with child-sized dolls could actually ameliorate such a drive.
I'm going to stop there before I say something mad

WhiteMemento9

Malayalam wrote: »

Where are people going with this?

There seems to be a confluence of ideas, some moderate and others quite radical. Encouraging people with pedophile urges to come forward to seek counselling is one thing. Devising CGI / simulated child porn is such an extreme adjunct to that idea that they are not even in the same ball park. I mean where does that idea stop? You get digital media creators to devise the animations and what are the parameters? Like is this flat pack stuff being suggested,some stick people humanoids in situations suggestive of sex with children or can people make a creative niche out of it that is super realistic with exciting narratives? ffs. And this idea that there is some statistical evidence to prove harm alleviation? 99%? whatever percent? There is simply not anything like or even near to actual science to even begin to prove such a thing. I fail completely to comprehend how enabling people to watch and be excited by simulated child porn or have sex with child-sized dolls could actually ameliorate such a drive.
I'm going to stop there before I say something mad

You have gone off on a mad one here making up stuff to justify all sorts of indignation. Firstly no one suggested that there is statistical evidence to support VR being used. (Laughing so hard having to type that). It was a hypothetical about whether if we knew those where the facts would we be comfortable creating that media and letting people use it. All the rest of your post refers to all the reasons that I could see people pointing towards to make it unworkable.

Mrs OBumble

Malayalam wrote: »

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

Actually computers could be used to generate all sorts of images without actually involving any real children in process.

Interesting to see the reaction of the people who proclaim that a life without fúcking (eg as a celibate priest) is unhealthy, impossible etc. Clearly it is possible and for some people it's the best option.

Malayalam

WhiteMemento9 wrote: »

You have gone off on a mad one here making up stuff to justify all sorts of indignation. Firstly no one suggested that there is statistical evidence to support VR being used. (Laughing so hard having to type that). It was a hypothetical about whether if we knew those where the facts would we be comfortable creating that media and letting people use it. All the rest of your post refers to all the reasons that I could see people pointing towards to make it unworkable.

Yeah maybe I have misunderstood the posts

WhiteMemento9

Mrs OBumble wrote: »

Actually computers could be used to generate all sorts of images without actually involving any real children in process.

The difficulty is that it needs to be able to trick the brain into a proper 'Matrix' type scenario for it to even be considered. Our brains are incredibly smart and while current VR is incredibly good at tricking our brains initially it doesn't really last very long. Giving that kind of experience to someone and then taking it away would surely do far more harm than good.

nozzferrahhtoo

ceadaoin. wrote: »

What research was that? I thought it was inconclusive and there was also evidence that it could lead to offending?

That was why I said "controversial". Because it is not conclusive research at this time. But if you read my post again I said "IF" this turns out to true then this is the kind of thing that "normalizing" and "accepting" would involve.

However you are right in that I expect what the future research will find is that it does lead to offending. AND leads to reduced offending. And I would hate to be the person in the chair who has to call a policy on that kind of finding.

Imagine what you would do in that place. Everyone I know goes one way or the other on it. But both are valid. Imagine if you were given the following figures.

Current offending rate: 100,000 children per year abused.

Offending rate if we enact our new policy: 60,000 per year abused.

Breakdown of this: 50,000 less children will be abused who otherwise would have been. 10,000 children will be abused who otherwise would not have been but due to our policy.

How would YOU call it. With the policy you would reduce the number of children abused by 40,000 over all. But 10,000 of those abused would ONLY be abused because of policy you enacted.

I have seen people call it both ways and then claim it was a no brainer and it is the obvious and only moral position. I would hate to have to actually make that call myself. But my feeling is I would go WITH the policy. I think.

ceadaoin. wrote: »

most of the men in the UK who were investigated for importing these dolls were also in possession of images

Well yes because both are currently illegal. So that is a statistic I would expect by default because if you have a propensity to break the law to obtain one, I would not be surprised by a propensity to break the law and obtain the other.

That somewhat stacks the statistical deck a little and I would be wary to imply too much from such a statistic. Even if the statistic is accurate (I have not seen it myself).

Malayalam wrote: »

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

batgoat wrote: »

I'm definitely not typing that into Google.

Allow me

http://openjournals.maastrichtuniversity.nl/Marble/article/viewFile/374/317

https://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/2012/11/20/virtual-child-pornography-paedophiles_n_2163908.html

It is by no means conclusive or certain or decided or anything. There have just been SOME findings that suggest this is an avenue of research that warrants further investigation.

Malayalam

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

Allow me

http://openjournals.maastrichtuniversity.nl/Marble/article/viewFile/374/317

https://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/2012/11/20/virtual-child-pornography-paedophiles_n_2163908.html

It is by no means conclusive or certain or decided or anything. There have just been SOME findings that suggest this is an avenue of research that warrants further investigation.

That Huffpost article is mostly covering detractors from the ''theory''. It is so completely a-scientific at the moment that I cannot give it any credibility. And I return to my question regarding the actual making or devising of this simulated child porn. What a horrific task for a digital creative.

I keep writing sentences and deleting as I just cannot express myself on this one properly.

Surely there are many other forms of therapy that should be explored long long before society considers facilitating pedophilic pleasure via CGI?

nozzferrahhtoo

^ That is why I included that link, to show the detractors too. At this point I only take it seriously enough to say it warrants further investigation. Nothing more, nothing less.

The point of my mentioning it was never to defend the idea however. I was answering the question about what would actually be involved in accepting and normalizing pedophilia and I think this potentially COULD be the KIND of thing it would involve.

Another thing it would involve is in confronting and de-normalizing the kind of speech we see on threads on this subject on boards where the innocent....... people who have never harmed anyone ever and never would........... are described as if they should be rounded up, locked up, castrated, slapped in tracking ankle bracelets and more. Even outright murdered has been suggested on a couple of threads.

Yet another thing is fostering an environment where non-offenders feel safe and welcome to come forward and offer themselves for study. We need that badly as currently the vast majority of study we do on such people are of convicted offenders, because we know who THEY are.

But that means we have a very incomplete data set. To the point we can only vaguely estimate how many people in our species even ARE pedophiles in the first place. That is how bad our knowledge is at the moment. We want to pretend we understand or study them, and we can not even guess how many of them there even are.

Malayalam

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

^ That is why I included that link, to show the detractors too. At this point I only take it seriously enough to say it warrants further investigation. Nothing more, nothing less.

The point of my mentioning it was never to defend the idea however. I was answering the question about what would actually be involved in accepting and normalizing pedophilia and I think this potentially COULD be the KIND of thing it would involve.

Another thing it would involve is in confronting and de-normalizing the kind of speech we see on threads on this subject on boards where the innocent....... people who have never harmed anyone ever and never would........... are described as if they should be rounded up, locked up, castrated, slapped in tracking ankle bracelets and more. Even outright murdered has been suggested on a couple of threads.

Yet another thing is fostering an environment where non-offenders feel safe and welcome to come forward and offer themselves for study. We need that badly as currently the vast majority of study we do on such people are of convicted offenders, because we know who THEY are.

But that means we have a very incomplete data set. To the point we can only vaguely estimate how many people in our species even ARE pedophiles in the first place. That is how bad our knowledge is at the moment. We want to pretend we understand or study them, and we can not even guess how many of them there even are.

I agree with you on the whole.

I have not advocated for the harm of people with unexpressed pedophilic tendencies.

Having said that, castration and ankle bracelets are not comparable. Perhaps people who could irreparably harm children should be monitored?

The line between sympathising with people having pedophilic desires that are unexpressed and normalising pedophilia is a very thin one. I think that line is blurred when therapy is proposed that seeks to satisfy the sexual desire. We are not automatons helplessly enslaved by our drives.

Encouraging people to come forward for counselling and to furnish our data sets is another thing. A reasonable person would see the rationale in that.

nozzferrahhtoo

Malayalam wrote: »

Having said that, castration and ankle bracelets are not comparable. Perhaps people who could irreparably harm children should be monitored?

The issue there is as I said we want to foster an environment where nonoffenders feel more prone to make themselves known to us. If we make policy changes where we start slapping monitoring equipment on them as soon as they do then we make it LESS likely they will come forward than they already do (read: dont) now.

So while I can see the intention behind such a suggestion, and the intention is pure, I think it is exactly the wrong way to go. More harm than good. We want to treat these people but we do not even know them or understand them. So the treatments we would currently suggest for the non-offenders are likely to be the same ones we currently have for offenders.

And their epistemology is likely very different. It would be like finding an anti viral that cures specific symptoms and then automatically prescribing it to people with a bacterial infection that causes the same symptoms. It would do absolutely NOTHING to help them and could potentially make THEIR condition worse.

And the people we are most likely to end up monitoring are likely to be the people we LEAST likely want to. As the more likely a person is to be the kind of person to put themselves forward for it.... the less likely they are to be the kind of person we are concerned with in the first place.

Malayalam wrote: »

The line between sympathising with people having pedophilic desires that are unexpressed and normalising pedophilia is a very thin one.

Agreed. But I think that is more a problem of language than a problem of pedophilia. We like to have little simple words to label what we mean. Like "normalization". And likely people then using that word have a WEALTH of nuance and meaning behind what they intend by that. Which is wholly lost by the word itself.

So I fear that, again with pure and good intentions, we would then likely end up more obsessing about what a single word means than all the nuance and perfectly valid intentions that lie behind it.

Malayalam wrote: »

I think that line is blurred when therapy is proposed that seeks to satisfy the sexual desire. We are not automatons helplessly enslaved by our drives.

I would not be proposing anything at this time myself. Just that there ARE findings there that warrant further investigation. But IF such therapy proves itself helpful, I would hate to discount it merely because allowing mail order products makes non-pedophiles feel ikky. Which is likely, alas, to be exactly the battle we would have to fight.

What I do not expect however is that any such therapy would exist in isolation and be the SOLE method employed to help any given individual. Rather I think it would be one aspect on a multi-channel approach to aiding them.

Galwayguy35

Seemingly some company I think in Japan were making dolls that looked like kids that were ordered online by paedophiles and I don't think I need to go into any more details as to what they wanted them for.

There was uproar about it but I think if we are to believe what people say that they are born like this is it not better that they act out their urges on something that isn't real like the doll.

Galwayguy35

Terry wrote: »

Chemical castration for the lot of them.

So what do we do with the female paedos?

nozzferrahhtoo

Galwayguy35 wrote: »

if we are to believe what people say that they are born like this is it not better that they act out their urges on something that isn't real like the doll.

That is certainly the thinking behind the research I was referring to.

The obvious response to it too however is that people will see it as a "gate way drug" which will be a stepping stone to want to go further, do more, and with real people.

Both are valid at this time and both should be researched. As I said above my biggest fear is the most likely conclusion is BOTH are true. And that the policy we would end up considering would BOTH reduce the overall number of abuses in our society but ALSO cause abuses that would not have happened otherwise.

And then, as Seamus put it, we have the Trolley Problem. A moral situation where we reduce the overall harm in the world, but cause harm to people who otherwise would not have been harmed. And unfortunately people tend to be on one end of that moral intuition or the other, and not in the middle. So it will be a hard conversation to have, if we ever have to have it.

Malayalam

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

The issue there is as I said we want to foster an environment where nonoffenders feel more prone to make themselves known to us. If we make policy changes where we start slapping monitoring equipment on them as soon as they do then we make it LESS likely they will come forward than they already do (read: dont) now.

So while I can see the intention behind such a suggestion, and the intention is pure, I think it is exactly the wrong way to go. More harm than good. We want to treat these people but we do not even know them or understand them. So the treatments we would currently suggest for the non-offenders are likely to be the same ones we currently have for offenders.

And their epistemology is likely very different. It would be like finding an anti viral that cures specific symptoms and then automatically prescribing it to people with a bacterial infection that causes the same symptoms. It would do absolutely NOTHING to help them and could potentially make THEIR condition worse.

And the people we are most likely to end up monitoring are likely to be the people we LEAST likely want to. As the more likely a person is to be the kind of person to put themselves forward for it.... the less likely they are to be the kind of person we are concerned with in the first place.

Agreed. But I think that is more a problem of language than a problem of pedophilia. We like to have little simple words to label what we mean. Like "normalization". And likely people then using that word have a WEALTH of nuance and meaning behind what they intend by that. Which is wholly lost by the word itself.

So I fear that, again with pure and good intentions, we would then likely end up more obsessing about what a single word means than all the nuance and perfectly valid intentions that lie behind it.

I would not be proposing anything at this time myself. Just that there ARE findings there that warrant further investigation. But IF such therapy proves itself helpful, I would hate to discount it merely because allowing mail order products makes non-pedophiles feel ikky. Which is likely, alas, to be exactly the battle we would have to fight.

What I do not expect however is that any such therapy would exist in isolation and be the SOLE method employed to help any given individual. Rather I think it would be one aspect on a multi-channel approach to aiding them.

I can appreciate your points of view. There is a part of me however that can't discuss this objectively so I can't respond well.

Monitoring may evolve anyway in a digital society, it does not require hardware.

It's not just about ikky, the disgust response. It's about our human essence and not delving to the lowest for solutions....but that's a big area.

Thanks for your clarifications and the chat. Gonna leave this thread now as it upsets me.

nozzferrahhtoo

Those of us working in science, and often things like medicine and the like, have to be objective. It is like a muscle you get make stronger the more you use it.

I never try to abandon emotion entirely, nor should we. But you can get good at stepping back from it and letting it inform your judgement rather than control it.

But yes it is an emotive topic and it would be a shame if genuine solutions are found and then resisted solely on emotional basis. I do not look forward to that. It was bad enough the level of that we had to combat in the recent abortion referendum.

JJJJNR

death1234567 wrote: »

Yeah she's right to some extent. By branding those people as evil and sick you send their behaviour underground and ensure that they are socially isolated and more likely to act on their bizarre desires. By allowing them to be monitored but live openly (while undergoing appropriate therapy/counselling) you are much more likely to reduce the chance of them offending. Also alot of paedo's were themselves abused as kids so by stopping them abusing you also stop a new generation of paedo's.

Of course rabble rabble rabble pitchforks, burn them all, rabble rabble rabble.

They are evil and sick there's no branding, no second chances and on their part no remorse for the sick and depraved acts they commit. A sexual orientation towards having an orgasm in a tiny human is not normal.

nozzferrahhtoo

JJJJNR wrote: »

They are evil and sick there's no branding

Depends who you are talking about. She is talking about someone who has never, and likely will never, offend. What is "evil" about them exactly? Nothing I can see!

Whether they are "sick" or not is a matter of definitions. They certainly have attributes we want to treat and help them mediate.

JJJJNR wrote: »

no second chances and on their part no remorse for the sick and depraved acts they commit.

But she, and the user you are replying to, are not talking about people who have committed ANY act. You are replying to something no one has actually said.

JJJJNR wrote: »

A sexual orientation towards having an orgasm in a tiny human is not normal.

What do you mean "normal" however? Right now we have very incomplete statistics on how many such people exist. We have estimates and they vary wildly.

However the estimates are not random guesses, they are based on SOME data, usually criminal prosecutions and the like.

And the estimates put pedophile numbers on a par with, maybe even wildly exceeding that of, homosexuals for example. And we consider them pretty "normal" at this point.

"Normal" is a very subjective term and means many different things to many different people. There are many ways in which pedophilia could potentially be considered "normal". But I find the term not useful even when accurate. Many things are "normal" which we consider very bad. Many things are abnormal which we think are great or good. Normality is, I feel, entirely irrelevant.

YFlyer

Omackeral wrote: »

Not for one minute am I legitimising or advocating it. What I will say is that people said the exact same for interracial marriage 50 years ago, homosexuality 25 years ago and some still say it about transgender people now. Those previously unthinkable things have become the normalised now.

Who knows where we'll be down the line with pressure groups and -phobic tags and everything else.

Again, I'm stating I've nothing against interracial marriage or LGBT folks at all, only drawing a parrellel with conversations and mindsets changing as time goes on.

They lack frontal cortex development.

s7ryf3925pivug

They should be celebrated for their courage were they to come forward and volunteering for mechanical or chemical castration.

Priests should also do this, as testament to their vow of chastity.

It could also be a condition of being provided free housing in rent pressure areas.

...People who make false insurance claims ...Anti vaxxers. Lop the bollocks off the lot of them.

Thoughtform

JJJJNR wrote: »

They are evil and sick there's no branding, no second chances and on their part no remorse for the sick and depraved acts they commit. A sexual orientation towards having an orgasm in a tiny human is not normal.

Sick is I think a fair word for those who fancy children. Evil seems suitable for those who commit acts based on this predisposition. Obviously prison for them.

But the people being referred to are those who have the predisposition but have not and would not like to do anything about it. The argument is that it's more beneficial all round that they be given professional treatment to help quell those desires.

d'Oracle

sexmag wrote: »

http://www1.cbn.com/cbnnews/health/2018/july/scholar-says-pedophilia-is-an-unchangeable-sexual-orientation-and-should-be-accepted-by-society

Ehhhhhhh? We should accept diddlers now?

"German Medical student says" ........ "We should accept diddlers now"

Its a bit of a big leap from some kid saying something in a TEDx talk to imposing a change in social order on you.

nozzferrahhtoo

Thoughtform wrote: »

Sick is I think a fair word for those who fancy children. Evil seems suitable for those who commit acts based on this predisposition. Obviously prison for them.

One confounding factor is that many people who conduct criminal sexual behavior with children are not even pedophiles to start with. So not only do these criminals give innocent non-offending pedophiles an unjustifiable bad name...... they in some ways give pedophilia itself a bad name by having their actions ascribed to something that never motivated them in the first place.

I think the point of the Ted Talk in question is that pedophilia could be something as naturally occurring as homosexuality. In that while it is not the norm statistically..... like homosexuality is not the norm.......... it is simply another variance that is no more a "sickness" or "evil" than homosexuality is.

However ACTING on it for good moral reason is less accepted and welcome. But that does not make the attractions in and of themselves a "sickness". Because we would then be defining "sickness" based not on a condition but on visible symptoms. Which we should not be doing. We define an infection sickness by the bacteria you are infected with, not by the snotty nose it gives you for example.

So if one variance in sexual attraction is not considered a sickness (like homosexuality) but another one is (like pedophilia) then clearly we are basing out definitions not on the variance itself, but on whether expressions of it are welcome or not to us. Which makes me question the use of the word "sick" even though it certainly is.... as you said..... "fairer" than one like "evil".

What I suspect is my concern, and that of the Ted Talker, is that these non-offending people............. much like the many of us who have fantasized about taking a baseball bad to our bosses knees............ have no intention or desire to ACTUALLY act on their feelings. And therefore they suffer needlessly. They think they are sick. Hated (especially in threads like this where people want to castrate them, lock them up, kill them, or ostracize them entirely). Evil. Wrong. Despicable. Abhorrent. Awful.

So they feel hated or hate themselves. And for no good reason. They have not done, and likely will not do, anything wrong. There is no reason for their self hatred or suffering. And I think one concern of the Ted Talk is that if we accept this variance in sexuality as "normal" to some degree, even if acting on it we do not accept, we would potentially alleviate the suffering of who knows how many people.

Hitman3000

Finley Hollow Tomcat wrote:

...People who make false insurance claims ...Anti vaxxers. Lop the bollocks off the lot of them.

What would you lop off the women?

ceadaoin.

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

Well yes because both are currently illegal. So that is a statistic I would expect by default because if you have a propensity to break the law to obtain one, I would not be surprised by a propensity to break the law and obtain the other.

That somewhat stacks the statistical deck a little and I would be wary to imply too much from such a statistic. Even if the statistic is accurate (I have not seen it myself). .

Yes images of real children being raped and abused are illegal, and not just "currently". Why do you use that term, like it's going to change at any stage?

So most of the people (6 out of 7 men charged) who were caught ordering these dolls were in possession of illegal images. They had already contributed to the abuse of children. Seems they then wanted to further indulge their desires by acting them out with an inaminate object. It's not much of a stretch to think that eventually the dolls will not be enough , just like the images weren't. IMO, indulging this in anyway, even in ways where children are not harmed, will lead to an escalation in harmful behaviour.

Johnnycanyon

Cut their balls off ....

s7ryf3925pivug

Hitman3000 wrote: »

What would you lop off the women?

Pervert

Hitman3000

Finley Hollow Tomcat wrote:

Pervert

Women do all those things you are suggesting should attract a debollicking so surely there must be a part of a woman you'd lop off. All in the interests of equality . Don't want to upset the feminists.

s7ryf3925pivug

Hitman3000 wrote: »

Women do all those things you are suggesting should attract a debollicking so surely there must be a part of a woman you'd lop off. All in the interests of equality . Don't want to upset the feminists.

Have you pondered the idea that I might not have been serious?

Hitman3000

Finley Hollow Tomcat wrote:

Have you pondered the idea that I might not have been serious?

Of course, I just wanted to see how inventive you are.

nozzferrahhtoo

ceadaoin. wrote: »

Yes images of real children being raped and abused are illegal, and not just "currently". Why do you use that term, like it's going to change at any stage?

Because BOTH are currently illegal and I suspect that BOTH will not always be illegal.

Give the word "both" puts two things in play there, it is interesting that you jumped on one and assumed it was the legality of THAT one I was suggesting might change in the future. Without, seemingly, considering it might be the OTHER one I meant. (clue: it was).

ceadaoin. wrote: »

So most of the people (6 out of 7 men charged) who were caught ordering these dolls were in possession of illegal images.

I have not seen the source of that statistic at all, but I will assume it is 100% correct for now. I think this is a self selecting statistic, which is a bad but common statistical error to make.

Both are illegal. Therefore someone ordering such a doll is someone who is already inclined to break the law. It is therefore increasingly likely we will find they have broken OTHER laws as well.

If the dolls were fully legal however, the statistic on how many people buy one of them but also access illegal child pornography, would become much more skewed. Because people with no propensity to break the law will seek one and not the other.

So the statistic you offer, in and of itself, is not one that is informative.

ceadaoin. wrote: »

It's not much of a stretch to think that eventually the dolls will not be enough

That is the open question where more research is needed. SOME findings suggest there MAY be a negative correlation and access to such dolls, and simulated not real child porn, actually reduces a propensity to offend against real people.

But right now, we simply do not know. I for one want to find out. Some people do not, for reasons that are not always clear to me. Or to them.