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

m5ex9oqjawdg2i

If you replace pedophilia with homosexual and read the comments, it's eerily similar to what people thought 30+ years ago.

Before you get up on your high horse, I am not saying that they are the same thing.

J_E

Guy:Incognito wrote: »

Accept that they feel this way and treat them/ monitor them, or accept that they are the way they are and allow them to have sex with pre pubescent children? 2 very different things there.

Heine argued. "The difference between pedophilia and other sexual orientations is that living out this sexual orientation will end in a disaster."

People don't read past the headline...

Grayson

sbsquarepants wrote: »

I'm not too sure about that - I heard a very interesting interview on the radio a while back with a woman who was an "objectum sexual" as in she was attracted to objects, not people (specifically technology in her case, calculators, computer programs and so on)

She said that it is officially recognised as an orientation, not a fetish. No gender involved with calculators! Although she did actually say that in all the relationships she'd had with these objects, she viewed them all as male.

That's kind of of an example of what I'm saying above - she can't change that - but she's lucky in that people might think it's odd, but no one really cares if you're banging you're phone or tossing off to iTunes. If that was kids however she's in a world of trouble.

In that case she would be an innocent victim, but so what - it's better that the person with the problem suffers the effects of it than some innocent kid.

There's a huge school of thought in philosophy about language. Wittgenstein said something along the lines of problems in philosophy are actually problems in language.

I think that's the case here. the semantics about fetish/orientation. I think that main difference between the two is that one is changeable and the other isn't. A gay person doesn't become attracted to women, not men, over time. Whereas fetishes can change. Besides that the language doesn't matter as much.

The other thing is, as many have pointed out, that there isn't a single type of paedophile. there are many types. It may be that for some it is indeed a fetish. For others it is an orientation. Some people may be born with this attraction and it will never change. Others may develop it over time. And the nature of attraction will be different for both. And so the treatment that's offered needs to differ depending on the person we're dealing with.

Princess Consuela Bananahammock

sbsquarepants wrote: »

Princess Consuela Bananahammock wrote: »

Firstly, it is, by definition a fetish, not an orientation. Orientation refers to gender. Not really the crux of thevsrgument though.

.

I'm not too sure about that - I heard a very interesting interview on the radio a while back with a woman who was an "objectum sexual" as in she was attracted to objects, not people (specifically technology in her case, calculators, computer programs and so on)

She said that it is officially recognised as an orientation, not a fetish. No gender involved with calculators! Although she did actually say that in all the relationships she'd had with these objects, she viewed them all as male.

That's kind of of an example of what I'm saying above - she can't change that - but she's lucky in that people might think it's odd, but no one really cares if you're banging you're phone or tossing off to iTunes. If that was kids however she's in a world of trouble.

In that case she would be an innocent victim, but so what - it's better that the person with the problem suffers the effects of it than some innocent kid.

This is my point: the children become objects, thus it's a fetish.

Again though, not the debate and not the part of post I wish to debate.

sbsquarepants

Princess Consuela Bananahammock wrote: »

Firstly, it is, by definition a fetish, not an orientation. Orientation refers to gender. Not really the crux of thevsrgument though.

.

I'm not too sure about that - I heard a very interesting interview on the radio a while back with a woman who was an "objectum sexual" as in she was attracted to objects, not people (specifically technology in her case, calculators, computer programs and so on)

She said that it is officially recognised as an orientation, not a fetish. No gender involved with calculators! Although she did actually say that in all the relationships she'd had with these objects, she viewed them all as male.

That's kind of of an example of what I'm saying above - she can't change that - but she's lucky in that people might think it's odd, but no one really cares if you're banging you're phone or tossing off to iTunes. If that was kids however she's in a world of trouble.

In that case she would be an innocent victim, but so what - it's better that the person with the problem suffers the effects of it than some innocent kid.

sbsquarepants

My 2 cents is you can not change or influence what ever the hell it is happens to float your boat, be that men, women, donkeys or children. For me it's always been redheads, it's not an issue because it's socially acceptable (well to a certain extent anyway!:D)

The problem is if that was a complete social taboo -I know for certain I'd be powerless to do anything about it. For that reason I just don't believe anything can be done to "help" paedophiles.

Does that mean we should accept them - fúck no. It's unfortunate that you get your kicks from kiddies, it's not your fault, but so what - that's life for you, the kiddies are more important. It's not your fault if you're a violent psycopath, doesn't mean you should be let of the leash to do whatever the hell you feel like.

Accept them - we should burn them!:mad:

Princess Consuela Bananahammock

Firstly, it is, by definition a fetish, not an orientation. Orientation refers to gender. Not really the crux of thevsrgument though.

Secondly; of course it should be studied and understood. How are you going to make children safer if you don't understand - or even want to understand - exactly what pedophilia is or what causes it...?

I'd also wonder how many people seem to know exactly how pedophiles think and what causes them to act they way they do. Not just on this thread, but journalists and researchers like the one in the OP.

Either people know someone or they're guessing.

Hector Savage

Scary thing is, and I'm not being like a typical Sun article "PAEDO ON THE LOSE" sensationalizing here - but I do think there are lot more pedophiles out there then we'd like to believe.

Over the last few years I have seen lots of men taking photos of kids in beaches/parks - and they've been so fecking brazen about it too ...

seamus

DEFTLEFTHAND wrote: »

Does the conversion therapy paedophiles receive at treatment centres while incarcerated have any affect?

From what I've read on it, the effectiveness of various treatments can vary quite markedly. Even full-on castration or testosterone blockers isn't always foolproof.

What motivates paedophilia isn't exactly clear, but it does appear that it's not consistent across all sufferers and offenders. Some are psychopaths who don't feel any specific sexual desire for children, but rather get a kick out of the scenario..blegh..I can't even type it out. This kick doesn't necessarily have to be sexual in nature, it can be an adrenaline rush.

For others it's a genuine feeling of lust, sexual desire.

From what I can tell, the biggest indicator of success of any treatment is the willingness of the participant, and their understanding of the moralities around it. There's a good chance that the majority of paedophiles go about their business completely unknown to society because they have the self-awareness to suppress and ignore the urges without outside assistance. Those we know about are those who can't help themselves.

Though the internet has quite a bit to answer for in dragging people into the spotlight. It's too easy to disconnect oneself from the humanity of what's on the screen. So someone who might otherwise never, ever dream of harming a child or even acting strangely towards them, could be tempted by images online because it's easy to not consider the suffering that was caused in order to make these images.

Tea Shock

Would have been decent if the OP had listened to what the "scholar" actually said before ridiculing her!

Ken.

Mod- gozunda and nozzferrahhtoo. Do not post in this thread again. Reason- Ye are never going to agree with each other and ye are wrecking the thread with yere pigheadedness. Take it to pm, get a room. Whatever ye need to do just do it elsewhere.

gozunda

[Deleted User] wrote: »

I think fear keeps a lot of paedophiles from acting on their desires. Fear of physical harm as well as fear of the justice system.

Quite rightly the idea of sex with children is so taboo, so disgusting in society that it keeps some paedophiles from "doing the deed". I fear that if this becomes "de-stigmatised" then it could lead to more child abuse. I could be wrong on this and it could go the other way, but there's no doubt that this is the next battle in the culture wars, along with the drive to normalise polyamorous relationships.

I believe you may have hit the nail on the head at least in relation to the detail of the OPs post. The other question raised which is evident in its absence here - are those paedophiles who make such claims or others claim don't 'harm' anyone. Herein lies the problem with such deliberatly obtuse thinking. Whose definitions of harm are they using? Their own? Child abuse is often indirect through porn and other forms of exploitation. And then there is the problem of those that do but dont get caught. Again there is a noticeable absence of any mention of those who are most at risk here - children. But then its frequently those who scream the loudest who believe they should be listened to for any other reason that they can ...

DEFTLEFTHAND

Does the conversion therapy paedophiles receive at treatment centres while incarcerated have any affect?

nozzferrahhtoo

Billy86 wrote: »

Bit of a thought experiment that seems to throw up a lot of different answers: if a pedophile goes through their entire life never acting on their urges in any way (so no abuse, child porn, etc) are they a disgusting piece of filth all he same for having those urges, or highly honorable for denying themselves one of the most primal urges any human gets for their enire life so as not to harm others?

I do not see why it needs to be either myself. Though certainly some level of respect for their resisting their urges is warranted.

For example I am a heterosexual male. I am in a relationship. However there are other women in the world and some of them are tempting. And I am far from the only heterosexual male that notices that. And many of us resist those temptations because it is the right thing to do.

Or if you are in work and someone you are in some form of "competition" with makes an error you could save them by pointing out the error. But there is temptation to let the error slide, so that it causes problems and they are reprimanded or fired for it later. I still choose to save them, and help them spot and fix their error.

Having those temptations does not make me a bad person. Resisting them does not make me some kind of paragon of honor. It is, to my mind, the absolute baseline at which I should be operating.

I have a lot of sympathy for people who have compulsions or urges they do not want or understand. And I think we should help them as best we can.

And I do respect them for resisting them. But I do not see it as "highly" honorable. In much the same way as when an alcoholic stay off the beer for a few years. We can offer them congratulations and respect. But lets not over do it either.

gozunda wrote: »

This detail that you missed whilst you were being so trigger happy with the flowing walls of text ..

Ehh

1) I did not miss it I replied DIRECTLY to it, check post #145 again as it is exactly what I was reply to in that post. How can I miss it when I replied specifically and solely to it? Are you even trying to make sense anymore?

and

2) that is an example of a detail you added AFTER I replied to your post in this constant tactic you are using to pretend people missed things that were not in fact even there when they replied to you.

gozunda wrote: »

And now I suggest you take a read of previous posts to save waste of any further white space ...

I replied to all previous posts, much of which you have ignored since. So no need to read them again, as my rebuttals of them stand unaddressed. And seemingly will continue to do so.

gozunda

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

What detail? You are claiming to disagree with my position, but refuse to even remotely answers questions about what the disagreement is, where it lies, and what form it takes. And then acting like somehow it is the fault of my posts that you are unable to understand, or engage, with the issue.Also waiting until people have replied to you, and then editing your post minutes later, is not helping. Putting things into your post AFTER I reply to them and then pretending I missed or ignored it..... is not my failing here. If you can explain what you disagree with and why I can work with that. If you just shout "disagree" at things, then not so much.

This detail that you missed whilst you were being so trigger happy with the flowing walls of text ..

To recap I've noted your ideas on paedophilia and paedophiles- I don't agree with any of them.

And now I suggest you take a read of previous posts to save waste of any further white space ...

nozzferrahhtoo

What detail? You are claiming to disagree with my position, but refuse to even remotely answers questions about what the disagreement is, where it lies, and what form it takes. And then acting like somehow it is the fault of my posts that you are unable to understand, or engage, with the issue.

Also waiting until people have replied to you, and then editing your post minutes later, is not helping. Putting things into your post AFTER I reply to them and then pretending I missed or ignored it..... is not my failing here.

If you can explain what you disagree with and why I can work with that. If you just shout "disagree" at things, then not so much.

gozunda

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

Again since you have decided to edit your post AFTER I replied to it, I will deal with the new material in a separate post. That is abundantly clear. What is not clear, because you run away every time I rebut you, is what you do not agree to exactly and more importantly WHY. Just asserting disagreement reveals nothing. In post #141 above I detailed a summary of my position on this thread. You have replied to NONE of it. Since you struggle with longer than twitter text I can frame this as bullet points for you to help you along. What exactly do you not agree with?
That pedophilia is a naturally and probably unchangeable orientation?

That we need to understand it in order to treat it?

That there is good reason to want to alleviate the suffering of people who have done no wrong?

That we actually want to help and treat pedophiles?

That we should investigate treatments even if the treatment itself is distasteful to us?

You must have not read my comment again - if you missed the detail lol.

Nope. Your doing it again :rolleyes: see above ...

nozzferrahhtoo

Again since you have decided to edit your post AFTER I replied to it, I will deal with the new material in a separate post.

gozunda wrote: »

To recap I've noted your ideas on paedophilia and paedophiles- I don't agree with any of them

That is abundantly clear. What is not clear, because you run away every time I rebut you, is what you do not agree to exactly and more importantly WHY. Just asserting disagreement reveals nothing.

In post #141 above I detailed a summary of my position on this thread. You have replied to NONE of it.

Since you struggle with longer than twitter text I can frame this as bullet points for you to help you along. What exactly do you not agree with?

That pedophilia is a naturally and probably unchangeable orientation?
That we need to understand it in order to treat it?
That there is good reason to want to alleviate the suffering of people who have done no wrong?
That we actually want to help and treat pedophiles?
That we should investigate treatments even if the treatment itself is distasteful to us?

gozunda

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

Theres nothing there to reply to. Again. Just personal comments about me. Again.You are just dodging the thread, the content, and my points. If you want to return to any of it at any time, I am here for you.

Comments about content are not 'personal' btw. But do try and realise that barrage style. argument never works. 'here for you' - ya you do that lol ...

nozzferrahhtoo

Theres nothing there to reply to. Again. Just personal comments about me. Again.

You are just dodging the thread, the content, and my points. If you want to return to any of it at any time, I am here for you.

gozunda

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

I will reply to your ninja edit separately....
.

'Necro' and now 'Ninja' comments lol ...

Perhaps if you were not so trigger happy with the walls of text - then it wouldn't be necessary no? Back to the issue detailed previously re. the verbage of your comments being all over the place and vacuously absent of any beginning middle or end.

Frankly I've detailed my responses to the main points you have kept making ad nauseum and without reflection. There is little if any reason why I would keep having to go over the same ground with you because either you don't or can't understand what has been said.

To recap I've noted your ideas on paedophilia and paedophiles- I don't agree with any of them

Go ahead and get another wall of text in another brave effort at lastcomnentitus if you want or better even you could save time and I'll just read the previous one twice ....

nozzferrahhtoo

I will reply to your ninja edit separately....

gozunda wrote: »

Just becaude you believe you are 'the' authority here is irrelevant even if that was true. Thankfully it's not. I just love the inference above that no one understands you lol. My point stands.

Again there is no point TO stand. Nor have I claimed at any point that I am the authority on the issue. I am however more than informed on it. I certainly do not think "no one understands" me. I purely think YOU do not understand the subject.

As I said though, if you do not want to engage with the actual topic of the thread that is fine. But do not pretend that that is somehow my fault of failing. It is all on you. And rather than derail this thread any further I am happy to turn it over to moderator consideration rather if that is required.

To return to the topic of the thread however, you could perhaps try and articulate what it is you do not understand. What makes no sense? The speaker referenced in the OP is basically suggesting we stop thinking of pedophilia as some crazy anomaly that is somehow "other". But is in fact an entirely normal thing. That does not make it a GOOD thing, or one we want to welcome into our society. But it means we should treat it for what it is, not for what we want it to be.

I think we can all agree that we want to treat and help pedophiles as best we can. Especially those who have never, and will never, harm anyone. And the way to do that is to understand who and what they are, and why. And investigate all methods, even ones distasteful to us, of treating and helping them.

What part of that does not make sense? I genuinely do not see how it could be clearer or more straight forward.

gozunda

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

I reply to anyone who writes anything to me. That is what I have done since my first day on boards.ie and is likely to what I continue doing until I leave the forum.

And yet you would deny the same to other posters lol. And I note others are on necro watch but you get 'alerts'. Lots like a bad case of lastcommentitus tbh.

Perhaps some of us have a better use of time than sniping and minutely watching threads. As detailed my point stands. I would suggest you return to the comments previously posted. I know you've variously replied but obviously not read or understood them ...

nozzferrahhtoo

seamus wrote: »

One thing that would probably surprise people are the amount of people wandering around suppressing thoughts and tendencies that would cause massive harm.

Not just intrusive thoughts - these are a normal part of how the brain operates - but active, and ongoing awareness of a desire to be violent, but suppressing it because they know the harm it would cause is wrong.

Yea, one common one I have heard in life is the one of wanting to hit your boss. Seemingly this is a common desire or compulsion. But very few people seem to act on it.

Violence based approaches to child discipline is another one. Many people seem to move away from that approach to correcting children. Yet I think we would be safe to assume they are damn tempted at times. I know I have never lifted a hand to my own children, even though there have been occasions where you really think they deserve it.

So it seems to me the onus of evidence lies ENTIRELY on someone who wants to take one compulsion, desire, temptation out of the set of all compulsions, desires, and temptations and automatically assume peoples reasoning for suppressing it is different to the rest.

I suspect the majority of pedophiles who do not in any way engage sexually with children do so for no other shocking reason than they know it is the right thing to do. There is no need to invent extra narratives of fear of violence to explain it.

But even if we do invent such a narrative there is no reason to limit it to pedophilia either. There are many cases where many people do not engage in bad activity solely because of their fear of reprisal or fear of the law. Take the Canadian Riots for example. The police go on strike, and suddenly there is looting and violence everywhere.

nozzferrahhtoo

gozunda wrote: »

If that's your logic - why bother replying to the comment? You appear to have been on the watch either way lol. The walls of text are back I see ...

I reply to anyone who writes anything to me. That is what I have done since my first day on boards.ie and is likely to what I continue doing until I leave the forum.

As for being "on watch" perhaps you do not use it, but I use the feature on boards.ie where when you reply to a thread it "subscribes" you to that thread. So if at any point a new reply appears on a thread, I am instantly altered to this fact.

Which is a much different thing than having a dead and inactive thread fester inside my head for weeks to the point that weeks later I suddenly have to rush back into it and revive it to say precisely nothing except personal attacks on another poster. That is.... weird.... behavior and at this point if you do not want to engage with the topic of the thread and wish to instead make it about me I will have to step away and let the moderators take care of it.

gozunda wrote: »

My point stands.

You have not made one, that is the point. How a point that has not been made "stands" is beyond me.

gozunda

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

Quite the opposite that is my point. I had entirely forgotten about it and moved on. Clearly it was festering for you to the point you had to revive the thread to derail it even more than before. Which is.... just a strange thing to do to my mind.

If that's your logic - why bother replying to the comment? You appear to have been on the watch either way lol. The walls of text are back I see ...:rolleyes:

Just because you believe you are 'the' authority here is irrelevant even if that was true. Thankfully it's not. I just love the inference above that no one understands you lol. My point stands.

nozzferrahhtoo

gozunda wrote: »

Well if you are counting the days in anticipation

Quite the opposite that is my point. I had entirely forgotten about it and moved on. Clearly it was festering for you to the point you had to revive the thread to derail it even more than before. Which is.... just a strange thing to do to my mind.

gozunda wrote: »

It's the walls of inane and loosely connected dialogue that's the thing.

Except you have not shown it to be any such thing. Unless you are referring to your own posts which have been not EVEN loosely connected to the thread. They have been entirely avoiding the content of the thread.

But suffice to say....

gozunda wrote: »

Little if any makes any sense tbh.

YOU not seeing connections and YOU not understanding things.... does not mean the connections are not there, or that it does not make sense. Rather than throw out petty insults and disinterest therefore you might try something revolutionary like.... oh I dunno..... ask questions.

I can not even imagine what is not making sense to you though. Either in what I have said, or what the original speaker the thread is about has said. It makes clear sense to me to the point I can not even identify a single data point where your confusion is likely to lie. And you do not appear inclined to discuss the topic so that it can be identified.

If you change that dynamic and engage with the topic more maturely, and actually ask questions, point out what exactly does not make sense to you, or offer counter points..... rather than this off behavior of investing time in the thread only to tell us how little time you want to invest in the thread..... some progress is likely to be made.

gozunda wrote: »

The redirection comment is deserving of kindergarten btw.

Exactly, because I can only work with the material I am given. And if you throw kindergarten level stuff out, then you will get kindergarten level responses. The fault however lies with you in that equation.

gozunda wrote: »

Conflating either paedophilia or child abuse with 'everyday temptations' shows how low down on a morality scale such comments are - Truely deeply darkly worrying...

Yet no one here is actually doing that. Least of all me. Rather what I am doing is comparing, not conflating, our RESPONSES to temptations. Comparing a response to X, and a response to Y, is not the same as comparing X and Y. You might think it is the same, but you would simply be wrong.

All of us, as Seamus points out above too, have temptations and urges and compulsions. Some not very insidious, some more so. But we often find genuine good reasons NOT to pander to them. Reasons of personal health. Reasons of morality. Reasons of compassion. Reasons of altruism. And so on.

So GIVEN that human dynamic, if you wanted to create a narrative that distinguishes pedophile urges from all the rest and declares it to be entirely different..... you would need more than mere assertion to do so.

Billy86

Bit of a thought experiment that seems to throw up a lot of different answers: if a pedophile goes through their entire life never acting on their urges in any way (so no abuse, child porn, etc) are they a disgusting piece of filth all he same for having those urges, or highly honorable for denying themselves one of the most primal urges any human gets for their enire life so as not to harm others?

gozunda

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

Not entirely sure why you waited weeks to necro-thread this and say precisely nothing? The waffle is not coming from me here. This is all on you.
Would you like to return to the subject of the thread at any point or did you revive the thread to do precisely the opposite?

Well if you are counting the days in anticipation - what can I say? Re. 'returning to the subject' - It's the walls of inane and loosely connected dialogue in the comments that's the thing. Little if any makes any sense tbh.The redirection comment is deserving of kindergarten btw.

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

... I suspect also basic morality keeps them from doing it too. I suspect we are all confronted with temptations every day that we resist because we know it is the right thing to do. Why suspect this is any different

Conflating either paedophilia or child abuse with 'everyday temptations' shows how low down on a morality scale such comments are - Truely deeply darkly worrying...

seamus

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

I dunno. I suspect also basic morality keeps them from doing it too. I suspect we are all confronted with temptations every day that we resist because we know it is the right thing to do. Why suspect this is any different?

One thing that would probably surprise people are the amount of people wandering around suppressing thoughts and tendencies that would cause massive harm.

Not just intrusive thoughts - these are a normal part of how the brain operates - but active, and ongoing awareness of a desire to be violent, but suppressing it because they know the harm it would cause is wrong.

We all even do more mundane stuff; spot money on the ground that the guy in front of me dropped, do I pick it up for myself or give it to him? I can cheat this line of traffic by driving up the bus lane, but I won't because that's not fair. Mightn't seem like "suppression", but it is - you recognise a course of action with high personal gain, but that will result in "harm" to another. So you suppress the desire for personal gain.