Are These Grounds for Legalizing Pedophilia?

[Enai de a lukal]

Good grief. Did I say I know the psychology of all pedophiles? No. I am talking about pedophilia itself.

Yeah, pretty much the same thing. In any case, are there good reasons for wanting to understand the origin and nature of pedophilia? Obviously! But does the motivation or cause of pedophilia have any bearing on the legality or morality of sexual abuse towards children (and sex with children is always sexual abuse)? Not one bit.

 

[Saint Frankenstein]

You cannot expect society to approach a rapist or a pedophile with empathy and sympathy.

That can be YOUR job.

Whatever. I don't expect sanity from the masses, anyway.

 

[Alceste]

Whatever. I don't expect sanity from the masses, anyway.

I would expect the masses to be able to distinguish between an impulse and an act, though. I suppose that's too much to hope for.

 

[Saint Frankenstein]

I would expect the masses to be able to distinguish between an impulse and an act, though. I suppose that's too much to hope for.

Yes, it is. They prefer moral panics. Humans are irrational herd animals at the end of the day. Tsk tsk.

 

[dawny0826]

Whatever. I don't expect sanity from the masses, anyway.

It's rather good that you acknowledge that your expectations are moot. The masses will determine the type of stigmatization that sticks.

I have not denied that people should be treated with compassion and fairness and I have in fact, differentiated not once, but several times in this thread that there is a difference between someone who acts upon inclination and violates another vs. someone who acknowledges their inclination and deals with it through healthy channel.

It's quite natural to be disturbed by deplorable behavior.

The rape or molestation of a child is deplorable and most sane people identify and connect with the victim, not the culprit.

 

[Saint Frankenstein]

It's rather good that you acknowledge that your expectations are moot. The masses will determine the type of stigmatization that sticks.

Lol. Thanks for confirming my misanthropy.

It's quite natural to be disturbed by deplorable behavior.

The rape or molestation of a child is deplorable and most sane people identify and connect with the victim, not the culprit.

Are you implying that I don't think that rape and molestation is a horrible thing?

 

[Alceste]

It's rather good that you acknowledge that your expectations are moot. The masses will determine the type of stigmatization that sticks.

I have not denied that people should be treated with compassion and fairness and I have in fact, differentiated not once, but several times in this thread that there is a difference between someone who acts upon inclination and violates another vs. someone who acknowledges their inclination and deals with it through healthy channel.

It's quite natural to be disturbed by deplorable behavior.

The rape or molestation of a child is deplorable and most sane people identify and connect with the victim, not the culprit.

I have seen that you are trying to distinguish between pedophilia (the affliction of being sexually attracted to children) and child molestation (acting on that impulse). But you tend to shift focus to the act in every single post, even when you're replying to someone who is talking about the impulse.

I think we all agree that molesting children is terrible. Sexually assaulting anybody is a terrible thing to do, but especially the most vulnerable people in society. The question is, is it also terrible / evil / etc. to be sexually attracted to children, given that those who suffer from this affliction can not help it?

However, most pedophiles never act on their impulses. So it's a little misleading and unfair to bring up the sexual assault of children when the subject of discussion is pedophilia.

 

[dawny0826]

Are you implying that I don't think that rape and molestation is a horrible thing?

Not at all.

I've had a hard time following your logic, when you present the pedophile as somehow being unlike the rapist in psychology when they violate the rights of another.

 

[Saint Frankenstein]

Not at all.

I've had a hard time following your logic, when you present the pedophile as somehow being unlike the rapist in psychology when they violate the rights of another.

I was talking about the differences between the two urges. Then the conversation got bogged down into talking about behaviors, which isn't what I meant to talk about.

 

[dawny0826]

I have seen that you are trying to distinguish between pedophilia (the affliction of being sexually attracted to children) and child molestation (acting on that impulse). But you tend to shift focus to the act in every single post, even when you're replying to someone who is talking about the impulse.

I think we all agree that molesting children is terrible. Sexually assaulting anybody is a terrible thing to do, but especially the most vulnerable people in society. The question is, is it also terrible / evil / etc. to be sexually attracted to children, given that those who suffer from this affliction can not help it?

However, most pedophiles never act on their impulses. So it's a little misleading and unfair to bring up the sexual assault of children when the subject of discussion is pedophilia.

Then you clearly missed my argument with SF, which was specific to the psychology of a pedophile WHO rapes or molests in comparision to a rapists.

SF contends that a pedophile and rapist do not share commonalities from a psychological perspective and in direct terms, stated that rapists rape from a place of dominance but that pedophiles aren't into dominating children, which could very much be true.

However, pedophiles and rapists CAN share common psychological characteristics, paricularly if they violate another human being. SF and I do not agree on this.

Additionally, I presented that though I agree that pedophiles should be approached with compassion and understanding, it's going to be very challenging for society to detach negative connotation from the terminology.

 

[Father Heathen]

No kidding. It's so taboo and there's so much public hysteria around it,

You make it sound as if it's unreasonable to have a negative reaction toward the notion of children as sexual objects.

anybody who has a "thing" for kids but is otherwise completely normal is never going to admit to it in our society.

I don't think one can be "otherwise normal" when they're deeply disturbed with such a serious disorder.

 

[Alceste]

Not at all.

I've had a hard time following your logic, when you present the pedophile as somehow being unlike the rapist in psychology when they violate the rights of another.

He's actually right though. It's not "his logic". It's what research into the attitudes of convicted child molesters has found. There is some proportion of pedophiles that end up rationalizing molesting children. Generally speaking, they view their child molestation as a consensual, mutually rewarding romantic relationship. As far as they are concerned, their "love" of children is right but society is wrong.

It is not the same psychological profile as an adult raping another adult. There is some overlap, in that rapists also misread sexually inviting body language (or the lack of it), but pedophiles generally use charm and seduction, not threats and physical force.

Granted, there is a whole other category of child abusers, for whom sexual sadism is part of a whole spectrum of psychological and physical torture of children. For the sake of this discussion, I'm not talking about those ones. I'm talking about the "touchy feely priest" type of child molester, not the completely ****** up parent.

Also, to be completely clear, regardless of the unique psychological profile of any of the above examples, I certainly believe that they should all be in jail regardless of how their minds work.

 

[LuisDantas]

In that case, who'd seriously want to legalise acting on it?

No one. But Saint Frankenstein is making a relevant distinction between having the inclination and acting on it.

This is interesting, and reminds me of a news piece and a thread some time ago about criticisms that HBO was using actresses with a pornographic background in roles that involve naked scenes in the "Game of Thrones" TV series.

There seems to be a bit of all too human confusion about how to deal with people whose very existence disturbs one. It seems that pretty much everyone hopes deep down to convince not only society at large, but also the offending people themselves to pretty please avoid existing within one's field of perception already. Instinctively, we generally tend not to mind "foreigners", "outsiders" or even "weirdos" too much if they just "keep in their place", that being out of our personal existence for all practical purposes.

(That must be why so many of us lend so much significance to such completely artificial concepts as those of national borders. But I digress.)

Pedophily may be disgusting, but it is pretty involuntary far as I know. And yes, just admitting as much makes me worry if people will suspect me of being one.

The bottom line is the pedophiles exist, no doubt about it. While I assume that at least some of them sincerely find it strange that society does not accept their preferences, I must equally assume that hardly any of them is unaware that it definitely does not.

Established that, what follows? Just how far can unanymous (or very nearly so) repudiation of an inherent desire go? Very few pedophiles are also sadists that want to hurt people. They should of course be kept away from the opportunity to do so, but it seems that many people have a hard time accepting that society can't very well expect them to want to be arrested or worse.

I hear that these days there is a whole segment of the pornographic industry directed at satisfying pedophilic urges without actually involving contact with or exposition of underage people. While I am no expert, it is my understanding that it basically works, offering pedophiles a means of accepting themselves with a minimum of inner conflict and (hopefully) no actual harm to others.

Far as I can tell, that is the best anyone can hope for at the moment. Goals for the future regarding pedophily would be mainly the pair of finding some way of making the pedophilical tendency less likely to develop on people (so that the conflict diminishes at the root) as long as the means employed do not involve causing harm or suffering; and along with that (despite what I expect to be a whole lot of resistance and even straight rejection of it as a legitimate goal) also developing a measure of compassion and acceptance of pedophile as what they seem to be - actual people with a disturbing disease. Not (necessarily?) monsters to be rid of by any means available.

 

[lewisnotmiller]

Yeah, it's a odd one to mull over (and not pleasant). It's not at all easy or comfortable to compare lusting after kids to how we feel about the people we're attracted to. I'm sure what you're mainly into with women is women who are also into you, and that if your feelings are not reciprocated you somehow manage to avoid raping them. As do I, with men I'm attracted to that don't or can't reciprocate. Why would pedophiles be any different?

I'm not convinced they are different. They're probably not.
I'm not sure we understand enough about the causes of pedophilia to be sure though. Anywhoos, I think your assumption is logical. Just something I was mulling over.

They might get it out of their system with fantasy, wanking, or consensual role playing with other adults. We don't all get exactly what we want, sexually speaking. My husband looks nothing like Johnny Depp, but somehow we manage to muddle along.

Johnny Depp, huh? *chuckles*
Yep, understand your point.

I'm no expert in sexual matters. I blush far too easily. But I'm going to ramble on here anyway, in the hope you'll offer your opinion. Again, I'm really just thinking aloud. I'm playing fast and loose with the truth here, in the hope that you (or whomever else is reading along) can help me develop my point of view on this a little. It might come across as abstract, I dunno...I'm bad at judging that.

===================================

Majority of heterosexual males will, at some point in their life, have sex with a woman. It's loose, in terms of being a fact, but just run with it for a sec. It's also seen as 'normal' by the vast majority of society, including those who also see bisexual or homosexual behaviours as normal, right through to religious zealots.

Homosexual males will probably have sex with a male at some point, but my total unsubstantiated guess is that this will occur at a lower rate. Fear, shame, repression, etc, all play a role here, I would suspect.

The revulsion of society may play a role in this. So, perhaps (just perhaps...) societies that are particularly degrading towards homosexuals will in fact have slightly lower rates of homosexual activity. For me, this is not a positive thing, since I could give a crap what two consenting adults do. Or three. Or whatever.

But (loose association time), is there a risk that in 'normalising' pedophilia to any degree, we might slightly reduce the shame, fear and repression which may lower pedophilia activities? Or do you think this would be offset by a theoretical increase in the number of people with tendencies towards pedophilia who seek interventionist assistance?

My thoughts are that the very word 'pedophile' can lead to hysterical hatred at a level that 'murderer' does not. If we become more 'understanding' as a society, would you see the overall impact on acts of pedophilia as being decreased or increased?

I have no answer for the question incidentally.

 

[dawny0826]

I was talking about the differences between the two urges. Then the conversation got bogged down into talking about behaviors, which isn't what I meant to talk about.

Our convo navigated to discussion regarding behaviors when we discussed the psycholgy of rapists and pedophiles.

But, we also talked about necrophilia and how necrophiliacs have to go into the "underground" and sometimes get caught up in criminal circles because they can't find acceptable outlets for urges.

So, when applying this same concept to a pedophiles, what are acceptable outlets that would not violate the rights of others?

I fully understand that having urges can exist on a spectrum of sorts. And there is absolutely a difference between one who thinks and acknowledges inclination and does something wrongful.

 

[Father Heathen]

I would expect the masses to be able to distinguish between an impulse and an act, though. I suppose that's too much to hope for.

let's say you had someone who fantasized about kidnapping girls and torturing them in his basement, but never acted upon it. Sure, of course he wouldn't be as bad as someone who actually committed such an act, but surely you would still call his mental health into question.

 

[Alceste]

I don't think one can be "otherwise normal" when they're deeply disturbed with such a serious disorder.

Hm. Well, I don't think what kind of person (or object, or animal, or whatever) I happen to be sexually attracted to is all that significant a factor in the potpourri of characteristics that make me up. And I don't see why pedophiles would feel differently.

Basically, it doesn't really matter who you're attracted to. What matters is how you behave. I'm not "disturbed" by any of my own criminal impulses (there are a few politicians and dictators I'd like to poison), since I know I'm not going to act on any of them. It's just not that big a deal.

 

[dawny0826]

He's actually right though. It's not "his logic". It's what research into the attitudes of convicted child molesters has found. There is some proportion of pedophiles that end up rationalizing molesting children. Generally speaking, they view their child molestation as a consensual, mutually rewarding romantic relationship. As far as they are concerned, their "love" of children is right but society is wrong.

But, this isn't the mind of EVERY child molester, which was MY point. Many do have sociopathic tendencies. I was not using blanket label terminology.

It is not the same psychological profile as an adult raping another adult. There is some overlap, in that rapists also misread sexually inviting body language (or the lack of it), but pedophiles generally use charm and seduction, not threats and physical force.

I realize this.

Granted, there is a whole other category of child abusers, for whom sexual sadism is part of a whole spectrum of psychological and physical torture of children. For the sake of this discussion, I'm not talking about those ones. I'm talking about the "touchy feely priest" type of child molester, not the completely ****** up parent.

Yes. There's a spectrum, which was my point.

I do not blanket label and place groups of people like this in boxes as I understand the process of evaluation for an indvidiual person...patient.

Also, to be completely clear, regardless of the unique psychological profile of any of the above examples, I certainly believe that they should all be in jail regardless of how their minds work.

Exactly.

 

[Alceste]

let's say you had someone who fantasized about kidnapping girls and torturing the in his basement, but never acted upon it. Sure, of course he wouldn't be as bad as someone who actually committed such an act, but surely you would still call his mental health into question. Also, all such crimes started of as mere fantasies, but their sickness escalated.

I don't know. Lots of men and women fantasize about rape and sadomasochism. You need to get yourself into some Nancy Friday. It'll blow your mind what people fantasize about. Rape and sadism is not my thing, but it does seem to fall well within the spectrum of "normal" human sexual fantasy.

I don't believe having weird sexual fantasies "escalates" into criminal behavior. To most people, consent is everything. Even acting out a rape fantasy, people have safe words and such like.

 

[Father Heathen]

Hm. Well, I don't think what kind of person (or object, or animal, or whatever) I happen to be sexually attracted to is all that significant a factor in the potpourri of characteristics that make me up. And I don't see why pedophiles would feel differently.

Basically, it doesn't really matter who you're attracted to. What matters is how you behave. I'm not "disturbed" by any of my own criminal impulses (there are a few politicians and dictators I'd like to poison), since I know I'm not going to act on any of them. It's just not that big a deal.

Because our attractions, desires, fetishes, fantasies, etc. are not at all a window into aspects of our psychology, right?