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

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.

Tea Shock

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

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.

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 ...

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.

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:

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.

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.

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.

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...

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.

piplip87

In my job I deal with alot of this gender/sexuality stuff. There's like 47 different genders and as many sexualities now.

It's all a load of bollocks. The pedosexual movement is emerging from all of this while I don't think it will ever be accepted by the mainstream it has to be said that alot of this pansexual, demisexual crap is been picked up by 12-16 year olds and it may not take to much for this age group to start identifying as pedosexual and we could see an increase in 14 year olds in relationships with 6 or 7 year olds.

Grayson

Blaze Lemon Industry wrote: »

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.

I remember as an early teem my dad saying something about gay people along the lines of "you wouldn't leave one alone with your children". It was assumed by many people that gay people were paedophiles. It probably still is assumed by some. I know a lot of the stuff I see coming out of places like Russia or Uganda alludes to it.

Grayson

piplip87 wrote: »

In my job I deal with alot of this gender/sexuality stuff. There's like 47 different genders and as many sexualities now.

It's all a load of bollocks. The pedosexual movement is emerging from all of this while I don't think it will ever be accepted by the mainstream it has to be said that alot of this pansexual, demisexual crap is been picked up by 12-16 year olds and it may not take to much for this age group to start identifying as pedosexual and we could see an increase in 14 year olds in relationships with 6 or 7 year olds.

So you're saying that teenagers are being encouraged in some ways to be paedophiles?

seamus

Hector Savage wrote: »

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.

Part of that problem though is the hysteria around it; the assumption that someone with these urges will eventually succumb.

If you think about it logically it's like saying that your wife is in danger of being raped by the heterosexual man next door, and you should therefore be wary of ever letting him near her.

If the vast majority of human beings are capable of interacting with other human beings and not spontaneously raping them, then it stands to reason that the same holds true for paedophiles.

However disturbing it feels that someone could be looking at your kids and not just seeing them as kids, we can't nor should we police what's going on in peoples' heads.

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 ...

Probably their own kids tbh.

piplip87

Grayson wrote: »

So you're saying that teenagers are being encouraged in some ways to be paedophiles?

No not at all. I am saying the pedosexual movement is following the same trends that some of the other 50 or so sexualities are following.

A few Instagram influencers start mentioning it.
A few if Thier followers start advocating for it.
A few of Thier youngers followers start talking about it. Then what do you know there's kids already confused because of the pressures to chose a sexuality and gender by the age of 13 think it's the one that suits them best.

In my work I deal with alot if social media profiles and it's the trends I see. 12 and 13 year olds advocating for pansexual, demisexual and the like. I have already seen a trend towards the pedosexual movement. It's sinister and needs to be stopped

Princess Consuela Bananahammock

piplip87 wrote: »

Grayson wrote: »

So you're saying that teenagers are being encouraged in some ways to be paedophiles?

No not at all. I am saying the pedosexual movement is following the same trends that some of the other 50 or so sexualities are following.

A few Instagram influencers start mentioning it.
A few if Thier followers start advocating for it.
A few of Thier youngers followers start talking about it. Then what do you know there's kids already confused because of the pressures to chose a sexuality and gender by the age of 13 think it's the one that suits them best.

In my work I deal with alot if social media profiles and it's the trends I see. 12 and 13 year olds advocating for pansexual, demisexual and the like. I have already seen a trend towards the pedosexual movement. It's sinister and needs to be stopped

This is probably because there is still no adequate sexual education in Irish schools. Teenagers (and pre-teens, apparently) have to go online to find out more about their sexuality and we wind up here.

Grayson

piplip87 wrote: »

No not at all. I am saying the pedosexual movement is following the same trends that some of the other 50 or so sexualities are following.

A few Instagram influencers start mentioning it.
A few if Thier followers start advocating for it.
A few of Thier youngers followers start talking about it. Then what do you know there's kids already confused because of the pressures to chose a sexuality and gender by the age of 13 think it's the one that suits them best.

In my work I deal with alot if social media profiles and it's the trends I see. 12 and 13 year olds advocating for pansexual, demisexual and the like. I have already seen a trend towards the pedosexual movement. It's sinister and needs to be stopped

Not really though. All other sexualities etc only affect the person who's actually dealing with them and a potential consensual partner. That can't happen in this case. In all the other cases people attitudes are "well it doesn't hurt anyone so whatever rocks your boat". I'm fine with that. I think a lot of people are. That doesn't mean that you'd be ok with kids being abused.

It's not like we've seen a resurgence in Nambla recently.

pickarooney

gozunda wrote: »

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

My previous points stand ...

That is a dog-ignorant thing to do. By all means disagree with a poster but just drawing lines through someone else's civilly written post is a dick move.

ceadaoin.

Grayson wrote: »

It's not like we've seen a resurgence in Nambla recently.

I don't know. I think there's a definite push lately in the online world to a) push paedophilia as just another sexual orientation ie: normalisation b) downplay possession of images of child abuse c) portray it as safe and ok to indulge urges to abuse children through child sex dolls or animated porn

Read the comments on any article about child abuse and you'll see these themes constantly. Its like a playbook. Coupled with the movement to push the boundaries around children and consent when it comes to life changing medical interventions , it's not a stretch to think that we are seeing a resurgence of nambla like ideas in a different guise and using slightly more subtle methods.

Grayson

ceadaoin. wrote: »

I don't know. I think there's a definite push lately in the online world to a) push paedophilia as just another sexual orientation ie: normalisation b) downplay possession of images of child abuse c) portray it as safe and ok to indulge urges to abuse children through child sex dolls or animated porn

Read the comments on any article about child abuse and you'll see these themes constantly. Its like a playbook. Coupled with the movement to push the boundaries around children and consent when it comes to life changing medical interventions , it's not a stretch to think that we are seeing a resurgence of nambla like ideas in a different guise and using slightly more subtle methods.

I think it really is a stretch. I don't think it's possible to make it acceptable.

Edit: when you see stuff like people talking about animated porn or sex dolls it's seen as a method to help someone to control their urges. Plus neither actually involve real children. That's the red line for everyone on this thread. If a real child is involved at all, including in images, then it's a very big no.

As for the rest, I think people are trying to understand what's happening in the brain of a paedophile. We know some are actually made because if you are abused you are more likely to be an abuser. However we also know that the reasons and motivations for that are different to someone who's sexually attracted to kids.

Personally I've expressed sympathy for someone who has an attraction but never acts on it. It must be a horrible existence. There's zero chance of ever finding a relationship plus if you ever mentioned, even to your closest friend, you'd be shunned. I do think there are probably good people out there who have this affliction and need help. However if anyone ever acts on it, as I said that's a big red line.

farmchoice

piplip87 wrote: »

Grayson wrote: »

So you're saying that teenagers are being encouraged in some ways to be paedophiles?

No not at all. I am saying the pedosexual movement is following the same trends that some of the other 50 or so sexualities are following.

A few Instagram influencers start mentioning it.
A few if Thier followers start advocating for it.
A few of Thier youngers followers start talking about it. Then what do you know there's kids already confused because of the pressures to chose a sexuality and gender by the age of 13 think it's the one that suits them best.

In my work I deal with alot if social media profiles and it's the trends I see. 12 and 13 year olds advocating for pansexual, demisexual and the like. I have already seen a trend towards the pedosexual movement. It's sinister and needs to be stopped

what is pedosexual in relation to a 12 year old? finding another 12 year old attractive?

sbsquarepants

piplip87 wrote: »

In my work I deal with alot if social media profiles and it's the trends I see. 12 and 13 year olds advocating for pansexual, demisexual and the like. I have already seen a trend towards the pedosexual movement. It's sinister and needs to be stopped

What do you mean by those terms? I have never even heard the phrase demisexual used before?

Widdershins

I would be very wary of any attempt to normalise it.

Princess Consuela Bananahammock

Widdershins wrote: »

I would be very wary of any attempt to normalise it.

Well, normalisng wasn't the word - accepting is. And while I accept even that puts people off (bearing in mind: I'm assuming we're talking about people with the attraction but who have never acted on it) you have to wonder: how else are you going to make it a safer place?

Because our current MO is to wait until they abuse kids and then act and for the life of me, I can not understand how people find THIS acceptable.

Widdershins

Princess Consuela Bananahammock wrote: »

Well, normalisng wasn't the word - accepting is. And while I accept even that puts people off (bearing in mind: I'm assuming we're talking about people with the attraction but who have never acted on it) you have to wonder: how else are you going to make it a safer place?

Because our current MO is to wait until they abuse kids and then act and for the life of me, I can not understand how people find THIS acceptable.

They have group therapy for offenders, why not advertise that and try to get them to attend and deal with their compulsions before they might act, in a similar way to, and I'm sorry , I know this is not an ideal example, Alcoholics Anonymous is advertised.

I agree with the poster a few posts above and I think there are issues around socially enforced acceptance of things that run counter to instinct, especially for children and women. ''Acceptance without exception'' is a really problematic motto used by the UK charity Stonewall.

Princess Consuela Bananahammock

Widdershins wrote: »

They have group therapy for offenders, why not advertise that and try to get them to attend and deal with their compulsions before they might act, in a similar way to, and I'm sorry , I know this is not an ideal example, Alcoholics Anonymous is advertised.

The only one I know of - and I'm open to correction on this - was that you had to be convicted of an offence before you were legible to attend. There was also the Grenada Institute that provided counselling but Alan Shatter in his ultimate wisdom decided to shut down.

The other problem with therapy is that if any crimes are disclosed, the counsellor is legally required to report them to the police, which automatically creates a barrier to getting help.

wexie

Widdershins wrote: »

They have group therapy for offenders, why not advertise that and try to get them to attend and deal with their compulsions before they might act, in a similar way to, and I'm sorry , I know this is not an ideal example, Alcoholics Anonymous is advertised.

I'd imagine that those people out there that do have the compulsion but don't act on it don't want to be associated with the actual convicted offenders anymore than most of us do.

seamus

Widdershins wrote: »

They have group therapy for offenders, why not advertise that and try to get them to attend and deal with their compulsions before they might act, in a similar way to, and I'm sorry , I know this is not an ideal example, Alcoholics Anonymous is advertised.

It's a fraught issue.

Aside from, as mentioned above, a desire to not be associated with criminals, there may be statutory reporting obligations imposed on those running the therapy. That is, someone arrives in and says they are attracted to children, and the therapist may then be obliged to report that to Tusla and an investigation initiated.

So given the choice between voluntarily "outing" oneself and being instantly ostracised and investigated, or just trying to keep control of it yourself, it's understandable why people wouldn't come forward and seek help.

It would be one thing to say, "I'm feeling really angry, I keep feeling the urge to punch and stab people, and I'm afraid I'll lose control". People would be sympathetic and applaud you for having the courage to come forward.

Come out and say, "I feel attracted to children. I'm deeply ashamed, I hate myself. I would never do anything to harm a child, but I cannot make this go away. I need help coping", and you'll be lucky if someone doesn't corner you in an alley and beat you to death.

sbsquarepants

seamus wrote: »

It would be one thing to say, "I'm feeling really angry, I keep feeling the urge to punch and stab people, and I'm afraid I'll lose control". People would be sympathetic and applaud you for having the courage to come forward.
.

I think your possibly overestimating peoples compassion - they may well applaud you but you can be damn sure they'd then distance themselves.

There's no way I'm spending my time with someone I know is struggling to not stab me.

Sure - fair play to you for seeking help, but it's also very likely that we are done now buddy!