Paedophile comes out on DeviantArt

For the serious discussion of weighty matters and worldly issues. No off-topic posts allowed.

Moderators: Azrael, Moderators General, Prelates

User avatar
mochafairy
Posts: 1098
Joined: Tue Mar 25, 2008 11:27 pm UTC
Location: Ohio

Re: Paedophile comes out on DeviantArt

Postby mochafairy » Tue Oct 14, 2008 5:04 am UTC

I'm not saying I hate them. I'm saying I don't trust them. I'm saying that I don't think I could handle talking to him.

I understand that he can't control his urges. I say more power to him for not acting on them. But I still have my fight or flight instinct from my experience. This is why I'm conflicted. He's done nothing wrong, but my gut says to run away.

As Belial said,
Belial wrote:This person is sick. They're not evil. Evil would be acting on their desires, and then intimidating the kid into keeping quiet. But right now, they're struggling with a mental illness, and it speaks well of them that (if they're to be believed) they're resisting.

That being said, if a person confesses to me that the voices in their head tell them to burn things, but that they're trying to resist.....I'll sympathize. It sucks to be schizophrenic. But I'm not letting them near my house until they've got some pretty thorough treatment going. I like my things not on fire. In fact, I have an inkling that my neighbors would prefer that their stuff not be on fire, either, so maybe I'm going to suggest this guy be kept somewhere safe until he's better. Someplace with padded walls and constant supervision.

Same concept: this guy is sick, but sick in a way that could be harmful to others. If he's serious about not wanting to harm anyone, he should get serious (likely inpatient) treatment, toute de suite.


The fact that everyone is jumping to this guy's defense is nice. He hasn't done any harm yet. Great. I'm not trying to be a pessimist, I'm trying to point out that realistically, most people can't resist their desires forever.
"YES. DO IT WITH CONFIDENCE" ~fortune cookie

User avatar
Noc
Put on her robe and wizard hat ALL NIGHT LONG
Posts: 1339
Joined: Tue Sep 16, 2008 7:36 pm UTC
Location: Within a 50 mile radius.
Contact:

Re: Paedophile comes out on DeviantArt

Postby Noc » Tue Oct 14, 2008 5:08 am UTC

Also, because now I've had more time to read over the mountain of posts that ninja'd mine:

What I'm trying to work out here is how the "moment of weakness" logic fits in with all of this. There's an overriding logic to the naysayers that goes like, "This guy has a predisposition towards molesting children. All he has to do is slip, and relax his self-control, and he'll molest a kid before he can stop himself."

Of course, slips DO happen. But people slip back INTO habits, not out of them; someone who's been a repeat offender has a very good chance of slipping back into his previous habits, but someone who has never offended is not going to molest someone in a slip of self control.

It's like . . . I don't smoke, but sometimes I sort of want to. For various reasons; I was thinking about this the other day, and one thing that smoking does is give you something to do with your hands when you're standing around. There are enough downsides, and I enjoy my fresh air enough that I'm not going to pick up smoking, but sometimes I think I want to.

But I'm not going to, if I'm tired and not paying attention and not exercising willpower, buy a pack of cigarettes and light up before I can stop myself. On the other hand, if I'd been smoking for years, then quit, I'm in definite danger of falling off the wagon in a moment of weakness. I know, nicotine is properly addictive, beyond the addiction of pure habit, but you guys can see what I'm saying.

. . .

Still, the argument of support is an odd one. Because the last thing you want to do is encourage pedophiles to relax their inhibitions, because that lowers the barriers between offending and not offending . . . but then again, repression often only goes so far, and you can't always make problems go away by pretending that they don't exist.
Have you given up?

Princess Marzipan
Posts: 7717
Joined: Sun May 27, 2007 5:28 am UTC
Location: neither a road, nor an island

Re: Paedophile comes out on DeviantArt

Postby Princess Marzipan » Tue Oct 14, 2008 5:10 am UTC

The attraction is necessary for the illegal act of sex with a child to occur.

The attraction is not SUFFICIENT for the illegal act of sex with a child occur.

I'm a lot less worried about this pedophile than I am about one who won't or can't admit his problem. Maybe the problem isn't the pedophiles; it's society for allowing an environment in which a person cannot be open about such an attraction, which forces it to be something that's almost impossible to deal with.

This guy should seek treatment, yes. That'd probably be for the best. I have a huge problem with a society that MANDATES treatment, though, when there's absolutely zero fucking evidence that he will ever actually be a problem.
"It's Saturday night. I've got no date, a two-liter of Shasta, and my all-Rush mixtape. Let's rock!"
"I am just about to be brilliant!"
General_Norris, on feminism, wrote:If you lose your six Pokémon, you lost.

User avatar
TheAmazingRando
Posts: 2308
Joined: Thu Jan 03, 2008 9:58 am UTC
Location: San Diego, CA

Re: Paedophile comes out on DeviantArt

Postby TheAmazingRando » Tue Oct 14, 2008 5:11 am UTC

Mane wrote:Here's the problem, Homosexuals don't have *just* sex, they have meaningful relationships with people of the same gender; pedophiles, on the other hand...
This guy, on the other hand, doesn't have any sex or meaningful relationships with children, whatsoever. He just has an attraction to them he can't help.
Mane wrote:But they're not attracted to certain people, they're attracted to certain attributes of people.
Um...says who? A pedophile doesn't necessarily find all children sexually attractive, anymore than I find beautiful women sexually attractive. A woman who was attractive 50 years ago, I might not still find attractive today. Beauty and surface-level sexual attractive is fleeting, and based on age no matter how you slice it. I'm not saying this man can have any sort of meaningful relationship, or that he should ever act on it.

I have no reason to believe that this man is a threat to children anymore than I am a threat to unconsenting women. I have self control, I'm not compelled to have sex with every woman I find attractive. I don't see any reason to believe that this person is any different, he hasn't shown any indication of a lack of self control.

Just so it isn't at all ambiguous, I think sex with children is absolutely terrible. But I don't think we should be locking up a person of sound mind just because unusual things make him sexually excited. It does no good to assume he lacks self control, when he's done nothing to show that.

Also, I agree pretty much 100% with Nougatrocity.

User avatar
qinwamascot
Posts: 688
Joined: Sat Oct 04, 2008 8:50 am UTC
Location: Oklahoma, U.S.A.

Re: Paedophile comes out on DeviantArt

Postby qinwamascot » Tue Oct 14, 2008 5:13 am UTC

Mane wrote:
TheAmazingRando wrote:Mane, I haven't heard many people say, with any amount of agreement, that the act of having sex with children is the same as homosexual sex.

Here's the problem, Homosexuals don't have *just* sex, they have meaningful relationships with people of the same gender; pedophiles, on the other hand...

You seem to be assuming that pedophiles *just* have sex. If so, I point you to the actual topic of the confession. This person has never had sex with children, and claims he never will. So he didn't even have sex. At least read the stuff before you post.

Rather, it's that, just like homosexual attraction, these people can't help the fact that they are sexually attracted to certain people, yet face severe social rejection by admitting that.

But they're not attracted to certain people, they're attracted to certain attributes of people.

This is not necessarily true. You don't know because he never said. Some pedophiles are attracted to specific children, while others are attracted to children in general. Just like some non-pedophiles are attracted to people based on personality, and others based on things like looks. Don't go assuming you know a person based on things he never said.

Call it an orientation or a fetish or a paraphilia or anything else, but you can't deny that it's involuntary state of affairs that it would be absolutely terrible to be caught in.

Yeah, and I don't deny the fact that crazy people are generally crazy for reasons they can't control, but that doesn't mean we shouldn't lock them up for their, and our, own good.


If you seriously think we should lock him up, you have issues and probably deserve to be locked up yourself. Why don't we start locking up everyone who might have impulses that are potentially dangerous? Perhaps because then we'd have locked up half the population. Justice is not preemptory either; if I know a baby will kill someone in 20 years, is it right to kill that baby? No, because that makes me worse than the person who I was targeting. Likewise, if anyone locks someone like this up to 'protect kids', they are probably more destructive to society.
And no one is claiming he should be allowed to go around and have sex with children; just that we shouldn't hate him because he has impulses to do so. So long as he doesn't act on these, I don't see any problem,

Really? you don't see the problem? Cause you know, every rapist just has urges he or she hasn't acted on run up until he or she goes out the brutially rapes and murders someone.


That doesn't make it right to do anything to that person before they commit any crimes. If a person has rapist or murderer impulses, I don't see any problem so long as they control them. This argument is so terrible that I fear I am misinterpreting it; if so please correct me.

and I think calling it a sexual orientation is probably the most accurate term.

Sexual orientations don't have 'urges' or 'impulses' to have sex with people of a different gender or same gender or such, people with sexual disorders have such things.
[/quote]

I don't know how you define an urge or an impulse, but by my definition pretty much everyone except asexual people have impulses to have sex. It's a biological necessity. You can go defining impulses and urges however you want, but then you're playing a semantics game.

edit: ninja'd again!
Quiznos>Subway

User avatar
Belial
A terrible sound heard from a distance
Posts: 30450
Joined: Sat Apr 15, 2006 4:04 am UTC
Contact:

Re: Paedophile comes out on DeviantArt

Postby Belial » Tue Oct 14, 2008 5:17 am UTC

Noc wrote:It's like . . . I don't smoke, but sometimes I sort of want to. For various reasons; I was thinking about this the other day, and one thing that smoking does is give you something to do with your hands when you're standing around. There are enough downsides, and I enjoy my fresh air enough that I'm not going to pick up smoking, but sometimes I think I want to.

But I'm not going to, if I'm tired and not paying attention and not exercising willpower, buy a pack of cigarettes and light up before I can stop myself. On the other hand, if I'd been smoking for years, then quit, I'm in definite danger of falling off the wagon in a moment of weakness.


Consider that, due to those fun hormone things we've got, you're already pretty "addicted" to sex. You don't need to have had it before to want it pretty badly. Witness virgin teenagers.

The moment of weakness logic has some pretty strong basis in at least anecdotal reality: many many many of the priests who were found molesting children claimed that they entered the clergy in the hopes that the priest's life of chastity (as well as faith and devotion) would help them escape urges they recognized as aberrant.

Nougatrocity wrote:This guy should seek treatment, yes. That'd probably be for the best. I have a huge problem with a society that MANDATES treatment, though, when there's absolutely zero fucking evidence that he will ever actually be a problem.


He has the urge to cause harm, when he logically doesn't want to. That is, last I checked, sufficient to have someone committed. It's a good reason from where I'm sitting.

Edit: And actually, funny story, the first cigarette I ever smoked, I smoked in a moment of weakness, after having a goddamn terrible, stressed out day, and needing desperately to uncoil a bit. Without really thinking about it, I bummed one off an acquaintance and lit up. Not that anecdotally disproving your analogy means anything. Just thought it was funny.
addams wrote:A drunk neighbor is better than a sober Belial.


They/them

Princess Marzipan
Posts: 7717
Joined: Sun May 27, 2007 5:28 am UTC
Location: neither a road, nor an island

Re: Paedophile comes out on DeviantArt

Postby Princess Marzipan » Tue Oct 14, 2008 5:26 am UTC

When your options are "keep quiet about it and don't pay it any attention and hopefully you won't a fuck a kid" or "come forward about this and be socially stigmatized and you don't have a choice whether or not 'we' commit you," I can't blame anyone for choosing the first.
"It's Saturday night. I've got no date, a two-liter of Shasta, and my all-Rush mixtape. Let's rock!"
"I am just about to be brilliant!"
General_Norris, on feminism, wrote:If you lose your six Pokémon, you lost.

User avatar
Belial
A terrible sound heard from a distance
Posts: 30450
Joined: Sat Apr 15, 2006 4:04 am UTC
Contact:

Re: Paedophile comes out on DeviantArt

Postby Belial » Tue Oct 14, 2008 5:29 am UTC

He's going to be socially stigmatized anyway. The best he can hope for is that he can be "fixed" in addition to that. And we should really give that to him.

But if he really wanted to go *without* the stigma, it probably would've been a better decision on his part to just have himself quietly committed.
addams wrote:A drunk neighbor is better than a sober Belial.


They/them

User avatar
qinwamascot
Posts: 688
Joined: Sat Oct 04, 2008 8:50 am UTC
Location: Oklahoma, U.S.A.

Re: Paedophile comes out on DeviantArt

Postby qinwamascot » Tue Oct 14, 2008 5:30 am UTC

Belial wrote:Consider that, due to those fun hormone things we've got, you're already pretty "addicted" to sex. You don't need to have had it before to want it pretty badly. Witness virgin teenagers.

The moment of weakness logic has some pretty strong basis in at least anecdotal reality: many many many of the priests who were found molesting children claimed that they entered the clergy in the hopes that the priest's life of chastity (as well as faith and devotion) would help them escape urges they recognized as aberrant.

...

He has the urge to cause harm, when he logically doesn't want to. That is, last I checked, sufficient to have someone committed. It's a good reason from where I'm sitting.


I respectfully disagree with this.

Perhaps he might have a moment of weakness in the future, but from where I'm sitting, that isn't enough to force him to have treatment. Should everyone with urges that society deems improper be forced to seek treatment on the chance that they have a moment of weakness? Freud would say that we'd have to commit everyone in the world because, on some level, everyone has such desires. We can't just arbitrarily say that he is more likely to act on these either; I'd argue he's less likely because he realizes they are bad consciously and is aware of them. Nor would we say that these desires are the most destructive either; there are plenty of people who have unconscious impulses to murder. This argument is based on a prejudice that pedophiles are more likely to act on their desires; as far as I can tell there is no evidence supporting this besides anecdotal evidence (which is poor at best) so it does not hold water.

edit: If he doesn't want to change, isn't "fixing" his impulses the same thing as brainwashing them? I don't think society should try to "fix" him or stigmatize him; just accept him. I realize this is idealistic, but I'm an idealist anyway.
Last edited by qinwamascot on Tue Oct 14, 2008 5:32 am UTC, edited 1 time in total.
Quiznos>Subway

User avatar
TheAmazingRando
Posts: 2308
Joined: Thu Jan 03, 2008 9:58 am UTC
Location: San Diego, CA

Re: Paedophile comes out on DeviantArt

Postby TheAmazingRando » Tue Oct 14, 2008 5:32 am UTC

Belial wrote:He has the urge to cause harm, when he logically doesn't want to. That is, last I checked, sufficient to have someone committed. It's a good reason from where I'm sitting.
This doesn't seem like a particularly accurate assessment of the situation, though. Sexual attraction to children doesn't necessarily equate an urge to rape them, any more than my sexual attraction to women does. When I see an uninterested woman and I find her sexually attractive, this isn't the same as an urge to harm her, even though any sex I would have with her would be rape. The only difference between me and him, in this circumstance, is that my situation has the potential to be appropriate, where his doesn't. Why should his sexual attraction necessarily be some special case where he can't resist rape, even though I can?

Mane
21th Century African?
Posts: 224
Joined: Thu Sep 04, 2008 6:56 pm UTC

Re: Paedophile comes out on DeviantArt

Postby Mane » Tue Oct 14, 2008 5:38 am UTC

Noc wrote:Which leads to conclusions like we have here: "Pedophilia is different from homosexuality because relationships built on pedophilia will not last for more than a decade."

As I said before; I am not, and no one here is, saying that pedophilism is not harmful. But . . . seriously. What kind of logic is it that says "It is wrong and unnatural to seek out relationships of this type because they won't be viable in a decade?" You might as well say that people who are looking for short-term relationships are in a class by themselves.


Lets say you go out, and seek out large breasted woman, because you have a breast fetish; you go have find such a woman and end up having a multi-year relationship, and you talk to your friends about how you 'love' this person and such not, until, one day, this Woman is in a car crash and has to have her breasts amputated (or, I guess, breast cancer). You show up the next day after the surgery, and realize you're not attracted to this person any more, perhaps, says I, you shouldn't have based your relationship on her looks.

The same goes for Pedophiles; they don't really love the child like they may trick themselves and others into thinking they do, the whole relationship is based on the age of the child, and once the child grows up, the pedophile won't be attracted to them any more.

On the other hand, for the adult we're talking about, it's not any different on the psychological level. Yes, it's a "psychological disorder," but until recently, so was homosexuality.


See, this is what I really hate, pedophiles attempting to paint themselves as the 'new gays' or some nonsense. I realize you're not pro-pedophile, but the people who are uses this argument all the time.

Honestly, I feel like starting to campaigning for the right to marry a nice rack.
He's realizing he has an illogical and wrong gut feeling, and specifically does not act on it.

Good for him, what's going to stop him from suddenly having a moment of weakness?

Um...says who?

So says the word. Look up fetish.


I have no reason to believe that this man is a threat to children anymore than I am a threat to unconsenting women. I have self control, I'm not compelled to have sex with every woman I find attractive. I don't see any reason to believe that this person is any different, he hasn't shown any indication of a lack of self control.

He (appearently) draws pictures of young females, god knows what he's drawn and not posted on dA.

Just so it isn't at all ambiguous, I think sex with children is absolutely terrible. But I don't think we should be locking up a person of sound mind just because unusual things make him sexually excited.

If they are of a truly sound mind they'd want to be locked up for the safety of the children.

You seem to be assuming that pedophiles *just* have sex. If so, I point you to the actual topic of the confession. This person has never had sex with children, and claims he never will. So he didn't even have sex. At least read the stuff before you post.

Yes Yes, see moment of weakness and such not. I mean, I claim I'll never have sex with another man, and I won't, run up until I do.

This is not necessarily true. You don't know because he never said. Some pedophiles are attracted to specific children, while others are attracted to children in general. Just like some non-pedophiles are attracted to people based on personality, and others based on things like looks. Don't go assuming you know a person based on things he never said.

I'm not talking about just this one pedophile, but in general, but, I suspect he's probably attracted to young girls.

Why don't we start locking up everyone who might have impulses that are potentially dangerous? Perhaps because then we'd have locked up half the population.


Why not indeed hmm? Perhaps school shooting would be prevented if the warning signs were paid more attention.

Justice is not preemptory either; if I know a baby will kill someone in 20 years, is it right to kill that baby? No, because that makes me worse than the person who I was targeting. Likewise, if anyone locks someone like this up to 'protect kids', they are probably more destructive to society.

How does that make you 'worse then the person you're targeting'? That's bull and you know it. If we could properly create people psychological profiles from afar we'd use it to prevent crimes before they happen.

If a person has rapist or murderer impulses, I don't see any problem so long as they control them.

Yes, and they always control these impulses until they act on them, that's the point.

See your logic is thus.
Person A has murderious impulses, but that's okay because they don't act on them.
However, I, and others, are saying:
Person A goes out one day and doesn't have the mental resolve to prevent themselves from acting on the impulse to kill, and they go and do it.

Your argument is fine, if we could, as humans, really resist vices, but we very, very often can't, even when we know what we're doing is wrong. The same applies here, this person, and other pedophiles, may not act, and may not want to act, on their impulses, but all it would take is for them to be a little weak one day, and the next thing you know you have some raped 5-year old.

I don't know how you define an urge or an impulse, but by my definition pretty much everyone except asexual people have impulses to have sex. It's a biological necessity. You can go defining impulses and urges however you want, but then you're playing a semantics game.

Impulses to have sex =/= sexual orientation.

Freud would say that we'd have to commit everyone in the world because, on some level, everyone has such desires.
Freud is also a discredited researcher from nearly a century ago; I'm not saying that he didn't contribute a great deal to psychology, but so did Aristotle (or was it that other guy) to science, and they are still mostly wrong on the science part.

User avatar
Belial
A terrible sound heard from a distance
Posts: 30450
Joined: Sat Apr 15, 2006 4:04 am UTC
Contact:

Re: Paedophile comes out on DeviantArt

Postby Belial » Tue Oct 14, 2008 5:41 am UTC

TheAmazingRando wrote:Why should his sexual attraction necessarily be some special case where he can't resist rape, even though I can?


Because adult women (and men for that matter) are somewhat more equipped to understand and resist your requests, or, if you force them, to report you and make you suffer for it.

Meanwhile, it is somewhat easier to talk a child into what seems like consensual activity, and convince them to stay quiet afterwards (at least until way later).

So. Ease. Appearance of consent. Reasonable expectation of not being caught.

It's kindof like if the qinwa's hypothetical person with murder urges were born with a knife in one hand and a gravedigging shovel in the other. It's a lot of temptation.

qinwamascot wrote:edit: If he doesn't want to change, isn't "fixing" his impulses the same thing as brainwashing them?


More or less. We do it all the time, with people who are dangerously mentally ill. There's a reason straight-jackets buckle up the back: at the time, dude does not want to be treated.
addams wrote:A drunk neighbor is better than a sober Belial.


They/them

Gallus
Posts: 19
Joined: Sun Aug 10, 2008 4:20 am UTC

Re: Paedophile comes out on DeviantArt

Postby Gallus » Tue Oct 14, 2008 5:46 am UTC

Mane wrote:
Just so it isn't at all ambiguous, I think sex with children is absolutely terrible. But I don't think we should be locking up a person of sound mind just because unusual things make him sexually excited.

If they are of a truly sound mind they'd want to be locked up for the safety of the children.

This sounds a lot like a Catch 22 to me; if they're sane then they should want to be locked up, but if they don't then they're obviously crazy and should be locked up.

User avatar
TheAmazingRando
Posts: 2308
Joined: Thu Jan 03, 2008 9:58 am UTC
Location: San Diego, CA

Re: Paedophile comes out on DeviantArt

Postby TheAmazingRando » Tue Oct 14, 2008 5:47 am UTC

Mane wrote:So says the word. Look up fetish.
Nobody but you has said definitively that "fetish" is the wholly accurate word to describe pedophilia.
Belial wrote: So. Ease. Appearance of consent. Reasonable expectation of not being caught.
Even if all of these applied, I still would not rape a woman. So, again, why must he be necessarily different than me in that regard?

Princess Marzipan
Posts: 7717
Joined: Sun May 27, 2007 5:28 am UTC
Location: neither a road, nor an island

Re: Paedophile comes out on DeviantArt

Postby Princess Marzipan » Tue Oct 14, 2008 5:51 am UTC

Mane wrote:Lets say you go out, and seek out large breasted woman, because you have a breast fetish; you go have find such a woman and end up having a multi-year relationship, and you talk to your friends about how you 'love' this person and such not, until, one day, this Woman is in a car crash and has to have her breasts amputated (or, I guess, breast cancer). You show up the next day after the surgery, and realize you're not attracted to this person any more, perhaps, says I, you shouldn't have based your relationship on her looks.

The same goes for Pedophiles; they don't really love the child like they may trick themselves and others into thinking they do, the whole relationship is based on the age of the child, and once the child grows up, the pedophile won't be attracted to them any more.

I don't think the person in question wants relationships with children. He is just sexually attracted to all or some of them.


See, this is what I really hate, pedophiles attempting to paint themselves as the 'new gays' or some nonsense. I realize you're not pro-pedophile, but the people who are uses this argument all the time.

No one's painting them as 'new gays'; that's asinine and you should realize it. It is simply drawing a parallel to how society previously viewed another sexual attraction. It was once an illness; now it is to an extent normal and acceptable. Engaging in pedophilia cannot and should not reach such a point, but we should be able to reach the point where we don't demonize people with the proclivity just for having the proclivity.

Good for him, what's going to stop him from suddenly having a moment of weakness?

What's to say he IS going to have a 'moment of weakness'?

He (appearently) draws pictures of young females, god knows what he's drawn and not posted on dA.

So what? Who is harmed by something this man DRAWS!? Seriously.

If they are of a truly sound mind they'd want to be locked up for the safety of the children.

This is so patently ridiculous I cannot formulate an actual response to it.

Why not indeed hmm? Perhaps school shooting would be prevented if the warning signs were paid more attention.

Any time you want to stop with the red herrings, buddy.

If a person has rapist or murderer impulses, I don't see any problem so long as they control them.
Yes, and they always control these impulses until they act on them, that's the point.

...yeah, that IS the point, actually. You are not a criminal until you have committed a crime. You are not a murderer until you kill; you are not a child rapist until you rape a child.
"It's Saturday night. I've got no date, a two-liter of Shasta, and my all-Rush mixtape. Let's rock!"
"I am just about to be brilliant!"
General_Norris, on feminism, wrote:If you lose your six Pokémon, you lost.

User avatar
Belial
A terrible sound heard from a distance
Posts: 30450
Joined: Sat Apr 15, 2006 4:04 am UTC
Contact:

Re: Paedophile comes out on DeviantArt

Postby Belial » Tue Oct 14, 2008 5:52 am UTC

TheAmazingRando wrote:Even if all of these applied, I still would not rape a woman. So, again, why must he be necessarily different than me in that regard?


Okay. What if:

A) You could not *ever* have sex with anyone you were attracted to without it being rape. Ever. You will die a virgin or a rapist.

and

B) It wouldn't seem like rape at the time. If you wanted to engage in some denial, you could pretend it wasn't. Maybe forever.

Are you beginning to see why temptation and weakness become a serious issue?

Nougatrocity wrote:..yeah, that IS the point, actually. You are not a criminal until you have committed a crime. You are not a murderer until you kill; you are not a child rapist until you rape a child.


Right. Which is why no one is advocating putting him in jail.
addams wrote:A drunk neighbor is better than a sober Belial.


They/them

Mane
21th Century African?
Posts: 224
Joined: Thu Sep 04, 2008 6:56 pm UTC

Re: Paedophile comes out on DeviantArt

Postby Mane » Tue Oct 14, 2008 5:56 am UTC

TheAmazingRando wrote:Nobody but you has said definitively that "fetish" is the wholly accurate word to describe pedophilia.

Well appearently it is, because you just used that word, pedophilia. Fetishes are philias, and pedophilia, having the suffix, must be one also you see. :roll:

User avatar
Noc
Put on her robe and wizard hat ALL NIGHT LONG
Posts: 1339
Joined: Tue Sep 16, 2008 7:36 pm UTC
Location: Within a 50 mile radius.
Contact:

Re: Paedophile comes out on DeviantArt

Postby Noc » Tue Oct 14, 2008 6:00 am UTC

That's the other side of the issue, too. Social stigma against admitting the problem tends to be pretty strong, so even the act of having gone to see a shrink about this is sort of a step out into the open that people might be afraid to take. I know there are confidentiality laws surrounding psychological treatment that serve to mitigate this somewhat, but it's still tricky.

Since we want to relax the stigma so that people won't be afraid to seek treatment . . . but we don't want to relax the stigma because we don't want to encourage people to pursue this.

But a big part of this involves how we as a society think about psychological disorders, anyways. As I said in my first post, we use them as a way of saying that "Those people are different." Which is why you get reactions like those in the thread: "This man is sick. I do not want to be around this man, because I'm afraid of him, because he's a monster/ticking time bomb/icky/et cetera." Which is clearly not an environment that's conducive to helping someone seek aid.

But on the other hand, there are psychological disorders that we've de-stigmatized. And what happens then is that we just consider them personality traits . . . and, consequentially, excuses. I'm looking at you, ADD. When you get rid of the stigma, people don't mind having it, and since diagnosis leads to a perception of "It's not your fault, you've just got this disorder," then you end up with loads of self-diagnosis and excuse making. And then you've got things that are in the middle, with a little bit of stigma attached. Say, clinical depression. And then you throw medication into the mix, and things get really complicated.

And then you get victim reactions, which are less about stigma and more about nasty behavioral triggers, which complicate things further.

. . .

This whole process would be easier if it weren't for all the people.

[Edit:

Belial wrote:Consider that, due to those fun hormone things we've got, you're already pretty "addicted" to sex. You don't need to have had it before to want it pretty badly. Witness virgin teenagers.

The moment of weakness logic has some pretty strong basis in at least anecdotal reality: many many many of the priests who were found molesting children claimed that they entered the clergy in the hopes that the priest's life of chastity (as well as faith and devotion) would help them escape urges they recognized as aberrant.

That's the question, then, of why people start. I mean, we all have "urges" to "cause harm." I mean, when's the last time you've wanted to punch out someone who was being a huge ass to you? And sometimes this does, in fact, lead to people being punched out.

But it's the question of that first offense that's still bothering me. I mean, we don't treat everyone we meet as ticking time bombs, who will physically attack us given a slip of self-control. Or rather, we don't treat everyone we annoy this way; the level of provocation at which we consider violent retaliation reasonable or expected is pretty high. We do treat some people as violent time-bombs . . . but these tend to be the people who have (or who we've judged to have) made violent acts habitual. We steer clear of people who we know to be violent, but at the same time we don't begrudge people for shaking their fists and venting that they totally wanted to punch that guy a minute ago.

Clearly the first offense happens when the urge overpowers the inhibitions. But inhibitions tend to be pretty strong, especially when breaking routine is involved. There are exceptions; with the smoking thing, for instance, you were (I assume) surrounded by friends who smoked, and weren't subject to a particular amount of censure. For other people, social pressures can be relaxed simply by virtue of not being socially active; if there's no one around, they aren't applying any pressure, and you can act as if you're, well, in privacy. People who are more socially active tend to have the inhibitions and taboos of their culture more ingrained, and retreats from society tend to loosen those.

The problem here is that someone who outs themselves as a pedophile are likely to be shunned, by the logic you state at the very least. Without social involvement, the social pressures ease, and the first offense gets easier. With more social involvement, the pressures cement themselves better, and the first offense gets less likely.

And even then, there's the internal intention. Is the guy constantly wishing for this? Is he constantly wishing he could find a way to do this, where he'd be able to get away with it? Or is he firm in his resolve that this would hurt children, and in his resolve not to hurt them? With the former, a solitary life can exacerbate that, and give him more time to dwell and to plan . . . while with the latter, that resolve can be strengthened by social pressure. When these things conflict - when you get someone firm in resolve who's spending a lot of time by himself and can't stop dwelling, or when you've got someone who sees nothing wrong with it but is among people who find the idea abhorrent - then you get cognitive dissonance, which they then try to resolve. Outing one's self is one way, among many, less constructive options.

. . .

But this still doesn't really solve the issue of the first offense. Of how this fellow is, or isn't a ticking time bomb of molestation, in the same way that you or I may or may not be ticking time bombs of going absolutely batshit postal on someone who pisses us off enough. It's not entirely the same thing, I agree; you and I (I assume) don't send our free moments dwelling on the idea of hurting people. [Edit: but whether the urge is momentary or lingering, you've still got the issue of that moment when it becomes overpowering versus all the times it doesn't.] But it's still the problem of that first offense, and what can cause that, and how someone can convince those around them - and make sure of, for themselves - that they aren't in danger of doing something awful at any given moment. Because clearly some people do, and some people don't . . . and the crux of this matter, I suspect, is what the difference is.
Have you given up?

User avatar
Griffin
Posts: 1363
Joined: Sun Apr 08, 2007 7:46 am UTC

Re: Paedophile comes out on DeviantArt

Postby Griffin » Tue Oct 14, 2008 6:03 am UTC

He (appearently) draws pictures of young females, god knows what he's drawn and not posted on dA.


I know lots of people who draw pictures of naked attractive people. I'm not entirely sure this is a warning sign of anything, especially if he's someone on dA, which is generally composed of people who, you know, draw.

Still, with the discussion of how easy it would be to justify and give into temptation - it would probably be best if we kept an eye on him. Preferably without discriminating against him on unrelated issues. Just like a woman might not assume a man she just met is a rapist but still think it might not be a good idea to put herself in a situation where it would be easy for a rape to occur. This would be significantly easier if we let people be honest about such feelings without hating them for it.

Actually this extends to pretty much ALL mental disorders and their ilk. The social stigma is so severe people avoid treatment and end up hurting society because of it.
Bdthemag: "I don't always GM, but when I do I prefer to put my player's in situations that include pain and torture. Stay creative my friends."

Bayobeasts - the Pokemon: Orthoclase project.

User avatar
TheAmazingRando
Posts: 2308
Joined: Thu Jan 03, 2008 9:58 am UTC
Location: San Diego, CA

Re: Paedophile comes out on DeviantArt

Postby TheAmazingRando » Tue Oct 14, 2008 6:06 am UTC

I'm not saying such a person absolutely won't fall into temptation. I just don't think it's fair to assume he will, mostly because we don't have any statistics on how many unannounced pedophiles are out there that haven't raped children. The only ones we hear about have, so statistics side towards pedophiles succumbing.

Anyway, A would not be sufficient cause for me to rape, and I can't imagine B happening without some further mental illness. Unless you could prove that B was bound to happen eventually, it wouldn't be fair to consider me a danger to women in that circumstance.

Mane wrote:Well appearently it is, because you just used that word, pedophilia. Fetishes are philias, and pedophilia, having the suffix, must be one also you see.
Wrong. Fetishism is one particular type of paraphilia. The -philia suffix is common among all fetishes, but in no way necessarily denotes one. It isn't even necessarily sexual.

EDIT: and just in case I need to clear it up any further, the DSM holds that pedophilia and fetishes are separate phenomena. I think thats the most definitive answer you're going to get on the subject, unless you're keen on contradicting the APA.
Last edited by TheAmazingRando on Tue Oct 14, 2008 6:11 am UTC, edited 2 times in total.

tetromino
Posts: 114
Joined: Wed May 02, 2007 11:31 pm UTC

Re: Paedophile comes out on DeviantArt

Postby tetromino » Tue Oct 14, 2008 6:08 am UTC

Belial wrote:
TheAmazingRando wrote:Why should his sexual attraction necessarily be some special case where he can't resist rape, even though I can?


Because adult women (and men for that matter) are somewhat more equipped to understand and resist your requests, or, if you force them, to report you and make you suffer for it.

Meanwhile, it is somewhat easier to talk a child into what seems like consensual activity, and convince them to stay quiet afterwards (at least until way later).

So. Ease. Appearance of consent. Reasonable expectation of not being caught.

So, essentially, you are saying that the major reason why TheAmazongRando is not a serial rapist is that he's afraid of getting maced in the face or arrested. Seems to be a pretty dismal way to view your fellow man.

Let me offer a hypothetical scenario. You discover a sexually attractive and helpless woman in a situation where she is not in a position to ever seek help from authorities - say, a prisoner on the run who is trapped and injured. Will you rape her, even though most likely no-one will ever know? I don't think you would. I know I wouldn't. To be honest, I trust that the participants in this thread won't.

Yet for some reason, no-one ever extends such trust to a man with pedophilic tendencies...

Mane
21th Century African?
Posts: 224
Joined: Thu Sep 04, 2008 6:56 pm UTC

Re: Paedophile comes out on DeviantArt

Postby Mane » Tue Oct 14, 2008 6:13 am UTC

Nougatrocity wrote:
No one's painting them as 'new gays'; that's asinine and you should realize it. It is simply drawing a parallel to how society previously viewed another sexual attraction. It was once an illness; now it is to an extent normal and acceptable. Engaging in pedophilia cannot and should not reach such a point, but we should be able to reach the point where we don't demonize people with the proclivity just for having the proclivity.

Yes, a parallel which is more or less, "well look at x, it use to be y, but now it's w" with an implied "Z is y now, but one day it'll be w also."


What's to say he IS going to have a 'moment of weakness'?


Who's to say he will never have one? Humans are humans, and humans tend to have such moments of weaknesses.


Any time you want to stop with the red herrings, buddy.

It's not suppose to be a red herring, my point is, if we had programs were we actively looked for the warning signs, so we could perhaps prementively help these people, then we should do so; the same thing with Pedophiles; if we can prevent them from raping children, before they do so, we should do so.


...yeah, that IS the point, actually. You are not a criminal until you have committed a crime. You are not a murderer until you kill; you are not a child rapist until you rape a child.

Why wait until the do so, if you can pick these people out based on their behaviors.

Still, with the discussion of how easy it would be to justify and give into temptation - it would probably be best if we kept an eye on him. Preferably without discriminating against him on unrelated issues. Just like a woman might not assume a man she just met is a rapist but still think it might not be a good idea to put herself in a situation where it would be easy for a rape to occur. This would be significantly easier if we let people be honest about such feelings without hating them for it.

Exactly; there is many ways one can be 'locked up' he could wear a tracking device, for example, if he feels he maybe too temped, etc.

User avatar
qinwamascot
Posts: 688
Joined: Sat Oct 04, 2008 8:50 am UTC
Location: Oklahoma, U.S.A.

Re: Paedophile comes out on DeviantArt

Postby qinwamascot » Tue Oct 14, 2008 6:15 am UTC

Belial wrote:
TheAmazingRando wrote:Even if all of these applied, I still would not rape a woman. So, again, why must he be necessarily different than me in that regard?


Okay. What if:

A) You could not *ever* have sex with anyone you were attracted to without it being rape. Ever. You will die a virgin or a rapist.

and

B) It wouldn't seem like rape at the time. If you wanted to engage in some denial, you could pretend it wasn't. Maybe forever.

Are you beginning to see why temptation and weakness become a serious issue?

Nougatrocity wrote:..yeah, that IS the point, actually. You are not a criminal until you have committed a crime. You are not a murderer until you kill; you are not a child rapist until you rape a child.


Right. Which is why no one is advocating putting him in jail.


Personally I would never rape anyone, regardless of my desire. Even if I would die a virgin. I don't think this is a problem for people with willpower. It is a problem for someone who lacks willpower. However, classifying him as such a person is sort of biased.If he has the willpower to go forward to the community, I'd guess he is unlikely to rape small children. Just like I have never had sex and probably won't for quite a while will because I don't care about physical appearance. Even if I knew that I wouldn't be caught, I wouldn't rape someone. By your logic, perhaps we should also brainwash all the people who are so physically unattractive as to be unlikely to ever have sex. They might give in to temptation. It's just as great. And regardless of demographic group, only a very small percentage of rapes ever get reported, and an even smaller number lead to convictions (evidence is hard to find). So this argument seems poor. I still don't think temptation is a serious issue (any more than it is for something like drugs, but we don't counsel people for that until they've actually become addicted).

It seems to me that Mane is advocating putting him in jail. I don't feel like debating him because he sounds insane, but just fyi.
Quiznos>Subway

User avatar
Noc
Put on her robe and wizard hat ALL NIGHT LONG
Posts: 1339
Joined: Tue Sep 16, 2008 7:36 pm UTC
Location: Within a 50 mile radius.
Contact:

Re: Paedophile comes out on DeviantArt

Postby Noc » Tue Oct 14, 2008 6:17 am UTC

tetromino wrote:
Belial wrote:
TheAmazingRando wrote:Why should his sexual attraction necessarily be some special case where he can't resist rape, even though I can?


Because adult women (and men for that matter) are somewhat more equipped to understand and resist your requests, or, if you force them, to report you and make you suffer for it.

Meanwhile, it is somewhat easier to talk a child into what seems like consensual activity, and convince them to stay quiet afterwards (at least until way later).

So. Ease. Appearance of consent. Reasonable expectation of not being caught.

So, essentially, you are saying that the major reason why TheAmazongRando is not a serial rapist is that he's afraid of getting maced in the face or arrested. Seems to be a pretty dismal way to view your fellow man.

Let me offer a hypothetical scenario. You discover a sexually attractive and helpless woman in a situation where she is not in a position to ever seek help from authorities - say, a prisoner on the run who is trapped and injured. Will you rape her, even though most likely no-one will ever know? I don't think you would. I know I wouldn't. To be honest, I trust that the participants in this thread won't.

Yet for some reason, no-one ever extends such trust to a man with pedophilic tendencies...

It's not a matter of fear of reprisal; there's already plenty of that with pedophilia. But look at it this way: adults, when you try and do something to them that they don't want you to do, protest. Loudly, vociferously, and violently. Rape is an act of extended and personal malice and sadism, which most people have a difficult time, you know, doing. Whatever their sexual inclinations.

If you want to amend that: say an attractive woman is drunk, or otherwise not in full possession of her faculties. And she comes on to you, and offers sexual favors. She's not in a state of mind where she's capable of giving proper consent, but she's not protesting and may even be advancing things onwards. Yet, technically, it would be rape, because she can't give consent when she's mindless.

Given this, I am willing to bet that a significantly larger quantity of men would be willing to have sex with a drunk woman, despite the fact that she can't give proper consent.
Have you given up?

Mane
21th Century African?
Posts: 224
Joined: Thu Sep 04, 2008 6:56 pm UTC

Re: Paedophile comes out on DeviantArt

Postby Mane » Tue Oct 14, 2008 6:18 am UTC

TheAmazingRando wrote:
Mane wrote:Well appearently it is, because you just used that word, pedophilia. Fetishes are philias, and pedophilia, having the suffix, must be one also you see.
Wrong. Fetishism is one particular type of paraphilia. The -philia suffix is common among all fetishes, but in no way necessarily denotes one. It isn't even necessarily sexual.

EDIT: and just in case I need to clear it up any further, the DSM holds that pedophilia and fetishes are separate phenomena. I think thats the most definitive answer you're going to get on the subject, unless you're keen on contradicting the APA.

Yeah, I've gone and confugled my terms, I was referring to paraphilia "(in Greek para παρά = besides and -philia φιλία = love)" but saying fetish. :oops:

This why I shouldn't post late at night

User avatar
qinwamascot
Posts: 688
Joined: Sat Oct 04, 2008 8:50 am UTC
Location: Oklahoma, U.S.A.

Re: Paedophile comes out on DeviantArt

Postby qinwamascot » Tue Oct 14, 2008 6:29 am UTC

This might be seen as controversial, but if I had children, I would not object to such a person babysitting for them. No more than I would object to going out with a gay guy. It's possible that the gay guy might try to rape me, but unlikely. Most gay guys realize that straight people have no desire for sex, and don't really try to attract straight people. It would be weird if they did. The gay guy might get me drunk to the point I can't tell what's happening, then rape me (hopefully not since I'm under 21 and don't drink) but this would be a fringe case and extremely unlikely.

Likewise, a pedophile who is a reasonable person would realize that the children don't love him back in the same way, and thus would not try to have sex with them. The urges are always there, but they're suppressed. Sure, the pedophile might take advantage of the children, but this would not be the norm (or even close) for reasonable people.
Quiznos>Subway

tetromino
Posts: 114
Joined: Wed May 02, 2007 11:31 pm UTC

Re: Paedophile comes out on DeviantArt

Postby tetromino » Tue Oct 14, 2008 6:40 am UTC

Noc wrote:
tetromino wrote:So, essentially, you are saying that the major reason why TheAmazongRando is not a serial rapist is that he's afraid of getting maced in the face or arrested. Seems to be a pretty dismal way to view your fellow man.

Let me offer a hypothetical scenario. You discover a sexually attractive and helpless woman in a situation where she is not in a position to ever seek help from authorities - say, a prisoner on the run who is trapped and injured. Will you rape her, even though most likely no-one will ever know? I don't think you would. I know I wouldn't. To be honest, I trust that the participants in this thread won't.

Yet for some reason, no-one ever extends such trust to a man with pedophilic tendencies...

It's not a matter of fear of reprisal; there's already plenty of that with pedophilia. But look at it this way: adults, when you try and do something to them that they don't want you to do, protest. Loudly, vociferously, and violently. Rape is an act of extended and personal malice and sadism, which most people have a difficult time, you know, doing. Whatever their sexual inclinations.

If you want to amend that: say an attractive woman is drunk, or otherwise not in full possession of her faculties. And she comes on to you, and offers sexual favors. She's not in a state of mind where she's capable of giving proper consent, but she's not protesting and may even be advancing things onwards. Yet, technically, it would be rape, because she can't give consent when she's mindless.

Given this, I am willing to bet that a significantly larger quantity of men would be willing to have sex with a drunk woman, despite the fact that she can't give proper consent.

And the reason is that a drunk woman would fall into a totally different category. Most people in the world, at many points in their lives, have gotten drunk or otherwise wasted with the explicit goal of having sex. As a result, having sex with a drunken partner - while perhaps not 100% ethical and not 100% legal - is often considered socially acceptable, as long as it's within some some reasonable bounds (e.g. both parties are conscious).

Raping a sober but helpless woman, on the other hand, is an completely different ballgame, and something that our society considers entirely evil - just like having sex with a child. That's why I felt the scenario I had proposed was an appropriate one.
Last edited by tetromino on Tue Oct 14, 2008 6:41 am UTC, edited 1 time in total.

Princess Marzipan
Posts: 7717
Joined: Sun May 27, 2007 5:28 am UTC
Location: neither a road, nor an island

Re: Paedophile comes out on DeviantArt

Postby Princess Marzipan » Tue Oct 14, 2008 6:40 am UTC

Noc wrote:If you want to amend that: say an attractive woman is drunk, or otherwise not in full possession of her faculties. And she comes on to you, and offers sexual favors. She's not in a state of mind where she's capable of giving proper consent, but she's not protesting and may even be advancing things onwards. Yet, technically, it would be rape, because she can't give consent when she's mindless.

Given this, I am willing to bet that a significantly larger quantity of men would be willing to have sex with a drunk woman, despite the fact that she can't give proper consent.


At the risk of going slightly off topic, (edit: Oh look I've been ninja'd into mootness and yet I digress with this aside and continue) but toward the end of nipping this comparison in the bud -

I'm of the mind that if you get drunk and have sex and regret it, it's really your own damn fault. It is in that case only "technically" rape. There is no "technically" child rape.
"It's Saturday night. I've got no date, a two-liter of Shasta, and my all-Rush mixtape. Let's rock!"
"I am just about to be brilliant!"
General_Norris, on feminism, wrote:If you lose your six Pokémon, you lost.

User avatar
Malice
Posts: 3894
Joined: Sat Jul 21, 2007 5:37 am UTC
Location: Los Angeles, CA
Contact:

Re: Paedophile comes out on DeviantArt

Postby Malice » Tue Oct 14, 2008 6:46 am UTC

Mane wrote:
...yeah, that IS the point, actually. You are not a criminal until you have committed a crime. You are not a murderer until you kill; you are not a child rapist until you rape a child.

Why wait until the do so, if you can pick these people out based on their behaviors.


You're not picking him out based on his behavior, because he hasn't done anything. You're picking him out based on his thoughts and desires. That's wrong.
Image

User avatar
qinwamascot
Posts: 688
Joined: Sat Oct 04, 2008 8:50 am UTC
Location: Oklahoma, U.S.A.

Re: Paedophile comes out on DeviantArt

Postby qinwamascot » Tue Oct 14, 2008 6:52 am UTC

Noc wrote:If you want to amend that: say an attractive woman is drunk, or otherwise not in full possession of her faculties. And she comes on to you, and offers sexual favors. She's not in a state of mind where she's capable of giving proper consent, but she's not protesting and may even be advancing things onwards. Yet, technically, it would be rape, because she can't give consent when she's mindless.

Given this, I am willing to bet that a significantly larger quantity of men would be willing to have sex with a drunk woman, despite the fact that she can't give proper consent.


There are already several posts about this, but I have a slightly different opinion. If the woman consents to sex before getting drunk it is not rape. Numerous court cases have agreed with this. In fact, if there was ever any sexual activity before, and the woman gets drunk, the default is consent to anything that has previously been consented to unless specified otherwise. The same is true for men.

On the other hand, if a man would take advantage of a woman drunk enough to not be able to consent, and with no advances on her part, that would be rape. For instance, if I am at a bar and there is a woman so drunk as to barely even be conscious, then I go have sex with her without her even knowing, that is rape. This is more analogous to the case of a pedophile than an arbitrary drunk person. I'd argue that the man is just as guilty in this case (ie he never even knew the woman before she was too drunk to consent) than a traditional rapist. Even if more men would do it, this is just because the situation is easier to take advantage of. Likewise, a pedophile has an easier time taking advantage of children, but that doesn't mean a reasonable one will.
Quiznos>Subway

Kachi
Publicly Posts Private Messages
Posts: 781
Joined: Fri Apr 04, 2008 2:53 pm UTC
Location: Everywhere except SB.

Re: Paedophile comes out on DeviantArt

Postby Kachi » Tue Oct 14, 2008 7:08 am UTC

What really yanks my chain is when pro-pedophiles start going on about how it's just like being homosexual; let me be very, very clear on this; Pedophiles are NOT anything like an orientation because the person is attracted to the child because of the person's age. Do you honestly expect me to believe that pedophiles can have loving, meaningful relationships with children, when that child will grow 'out of' the pedophile's attractions in 10 or so years?


I should point out, that a very large percentage of pedophiles are not ONLY attracted to children, much like many homosexuals are not ONLY attracted to the opposite sex (bisexuals, anyone?) The implications should be obvious, that yes, many pedophiles could, hypothetically, have lifelong meaningful relationships. Not that, as other people have already pointed out, it should really matter.


He has the urge to cause harm, when he logically doesn't want to. That is, last I checked, sufficient to have someone committed. It's a good reason from where I'm sitting.


Again, this is no different from people with rape fantasies, or bankrobbing fantasies, even fantasies of murder. An urge is not sufficient reason to strip away someone's freedoms. I frequently have violent urges that I never act on. Should I be committed, on the chance that I may one day fly off the handle and assault someone?

The dark dirty secret that most people can't seem to face, is that we are all only a bad day away from being ruthless criminals. It's just a question of how likely and how bad a day it needs to be. Everyone has some weakness to sinister temptation. I blame no one for being skeptical, cynical, just plain distrusting of other human beings, but I'll be damned if that makes it acceptable to launch a preemptive strike. Being afraid is no damn excuse.

But I guess you can always take solace in the fact that once you pass puberty, they'll no longer be interested in you. Anymore so than any other adult, at least.

If they are of a truly sound mind they'd want to be locked up for the safety of the children.


That is possibly the most ridiculous thing I've ever heard. "Hey, I have absolutely no intention of committing a crime, but you never know, so go ahead and lock me up."

Put it to you this way: Based on what you've expressed here, I could just as reasonably fear that you'd assault or murder someone who you found out was a pedophile. Oh, you might not have any intention to, but in a momentary lapse of judgment, a fit of rage, who knows? Better lock you up because you clearly don't value human rights the way some of us do. I mean hell, if you were sane, you'd WANT to be locked up just to make sure you don't go off on any pedophiles.

Right. Which is why no one is advocating putting him in jail.


Just taking his freedoms away. Minced words if you ask me.

I'm opposed to treating pedophilia like a special mental illness, personally. The issue here is people who are unable to restrain their urges and delay gratification, and they come in all shapes and sizes. Many people have similar problems with other unchecked emotions. Ever heard of anger management? "I don't want to hurt people, I just can't control my anger." Depression? "I have no reason to be sad, but I just can't help it." It's the inability to show restraint, not the urge itself, that is the culprit in all of these cases and many more.

If you want to amend that: say an attractive woman is drunk, or otherwise not in full possession of her faculties. And she comes on to you, and offers sexual favors. She's not in a state of mind where she's capable of giving proper consent, but she's not protesting and may even be advancing things onwards. Yet, technically, it would be rape, because she can't give consent when she's mindless.


This is a separate argument, but I feel the need to address it. Personally, I think the consensual nature of the intoxication precludes any claim to victimization in non-consensual sexual advances. That's not to say that I think it's ok to rape drunk women, but if you're so drunk that you're initiating sex or possibly even not refusing it, that's a state you consensually put yourself in. If you're going to consensually toss aside your better judgment, that's your consent, in my opinion. Neverminding that you can't really expect a guy to whip out a breathalyzer when a woman is throwing herself at him, and let's face it-- odds are good that that's the entire reason he showed up to the party.

Yes, I'm aware that this is often not consistent with state laws, but it's a non-issue for me. I hate bars, clubs, and drinking in general.



Anyway, I'll say again. No, I'm not pro-pedophilia, but pedophilia is very much a sexual orientation. Not an acceptable one to act on, like homosexuality, but an orientation nonetheless. People have been having sex with children since the dawn of man, and never has it been successfully treated. People need to stop kidding themselves into thinking that this world was somehow designed at our own convenience, and we can just treat or lock up any kind of problem. We were not created to be pillars of morality. We all shit, and it stinks.

The absolute worst thing you can do is allow others to make you sad, angry, or afraid.

User avatar
Belial
A terrible sound heard from a distance
Posts: 30450
Joined: Sat Apr 15, 2006 4:04 am UTC
Contact:

Re: Paedophile comes out on DeviantArt

Postby Belial » Tue Oct 14, 2008 8:14 am UTC

I'm too tired (being as it is 4am) to continue arguing the main point in this thread, so I'm just popping in to say this: This is not a thread about whether or not it's okay to have-sex-with/rape apparently-consenting drunk people.

It won't be had.

Desist.
addams wrote:A drunk neighbor is better than a sober Belial.


They/them

User avatar
seladore
Posts: 586
Joined: Thu Mar 20, 2008 8:17 pm UTC
Location: Tumbolia

Re: Paedophile comes out on DeviantArt

Postby seladore » Tue Oct 14, 2008 9:42 am UTC

A thought experiment.

Consider a highly unattractive heterosexual male - so unattractive, in fact, that no woman he comes into contact with during his life will be attracted to him. So, he has sexual desires that cannot be realised with consent from other partner; in Belial's words, he will either die a rapist, or a virgin.

Should this individual be locked up, in order to avoid a 'moment of weakness' (as Mane put it)?

This, to me, seems a better analogy for the pedophiliac disposition than relating it to 'homosexuality 50 years ago'. In the case of homosexuals, the sexual feelings can be reciprocated (even if society disapproves), whereas the sexual desires our of hypothetical unattractive man can never be reciprocated.

I think this example also serves to highlight that the man here (and also paedophiles) don't want to cause harm - paedophilia isn't automatically associated with sadism. The harm is a side effect. This doesn't mean that it is any less harmful - I'm well aware that being sexually abused is one of the most traumatic experiences anyone can go through, and anyone who does that to someone is a criminal, and should be punished as such. But being a paedophile doesn't make you a raping sadist any more than being straight, gay, or anything else does.

User avatar
Gelsamel
Lame and emo
Posts: 8237
Joined: Thu Oct 05, 2006 10:49 am UTC
Location: Melbourne, Victoria, Australia

Re: Paedophile comes out on DeviantArt

Postby Gelsamel » Tue Oct 14, 2008 9:46 am UTC

In general I like short, thin, cute and small breasted or flat-chested girls.
"Give up here?"
- > No
"Do you accept defeat?"
- > No
"Do you think games are silly little things?"
- > No
"Is it all pointless?"
- > No
"Do you admit there is no meaning to this world?"
- > No

User avatar
jessebob
Posts: 64
Joined: Sat Sep 01, 2007 9:53 pm UTC
Location: Singapore, Singapore, Singapore

Re: Paedophile comes out on DeviantArt

Postby jessebob » Tue Oct 14, 2008 9:56 am UTC

TheStranger wrote:
Nevertheless, I wish it did not have to be this way. I wish it were no different than admitting to being homosexual, in light of the increasing amount of tolerance thereof.


This isn't an orientation... it is a psychological disorder. It's not 'coming out' its 'admitting that I have a problem.'


I have met many who think homosexuality is a disorder that can be cured.
Huh? Did you say something? I couldn't hear you all the way over here!

There is a monkey in your pyjamas! Be Careful!

User avatar
TheStranger
Posts: 896
Joined: Wed Jun 20, 2007 9:39 pm UTC
Location: The Void which Binds

Re: Paedophile comes out on DeviantArt

Postby TheStranger » Tue Oct 14, 2008 11:03 am UTC

jessebob wrote:I have met many who think homosexuality is a disorder that can be cured.


How would you classify paedofilia? Because it strikes me as a good candidate for a psychological disorder.

Jailing this guy would be going way to far in my book, as he has yet (apparently) to have broken any laws.

What this should be seen is the first step in getting treatment for his disorder.... some sort of AA for paedophiles or at least a good long chat with a therapist about the origins of his desires.
"To bow before the pressure of the ignorant is weakness."
Azalin Rex, Wizard-King of Darkon

psyck0
Posts: 1651
Joined: Wed Mar 19, 2008 5:58 pm UTC
Contact:

Re: Paedophile comes out on DeviantArt

Postby psyck0 » Tue Oct 14, 2008 11:50 am UTC

TheStranger wrote:This isn't an orientation... it is a psychological disorder. It's not 'coming out' its 'admitting that I have a problem.'


Let's go over the criteria for a mental disorder, shall we?

1) Causes significant distress and/or impairment in social or occupational functioning. Usually it causes both, like depression, but there are exceptions. Some people can manage to hold their jobs and social lives together while feeling clinically depressed, and some manic people feel absolutely great, but can't function at all.

2) Is not considered a normal response in society. For example, grieving is not depression because it is considered normal by society. Religious ecstasy is not considered psychotic or manic because it's normal for society.

3) The illness is beyond the person's control, i.e. they aren't faking it

4) It's not caused by an underlying physiological condition like thyroid problems or a brain tumour.

Now, let's compare homosexuality and pedophile.

Before it was accepted by society as relatively "normal", homosexuality caused many, many people a hell of a lot of trauma and anxiety as they came to terms with their own sexual desires, so it fit 1). We just said it fit 2) at that point in time. Except for a few idiots, everyone knows homosexuality is clearly 3), and is most certainly 4).

Pedophilia causes its sufferers significant mental trauma and impairment in functioning as they come to terms with the fact that their sex drive is towards children, so it fits 1) (Hey! Just like homosexuality used to!) It is not considered normal at all by society (Hey! Just like homosexuality used to be considered deviant!) I think it's pretty clear that sexuality is something that is hard-wired, and the inability of pedophiles to reform should make it obvious that their sexuality is beyond their control (Hey! Just like gays!) Finally, you'd have to be an idiot to think that pedophilia was due to a brain tumour or something like that (Look at that! It's the same AGAIN!)

The moral? Padophilia today is almost EXACTLY like homosexuality was in the 50s and 60s when it was considered a mental disorder. There is absolutely no difference in essence, except that we now accept homosexuality, so it doesn't cause people as much trauma as it used to when they had to repress it and live in fear. I deeply pity pedophiles, because it is very, very obvious it is almost like being gay (AND BEING STRAIGHT, DAMNIT!) except that the objects of their sexual desire can never consent.

User avatar
cypherspace
Posts: 2733
Joined: Thu Jan 10, 2008 9:48 pm UTC
Location: Londonia

Re: Paedophile comes out on DeviantArt

Postby cypherspace » Tue Oct 14, 2008 12:16 pm UTC

TheStranger wrote:
jessebob wrote:I have met many who think homosexuality is a disorder that can be cured.


How would you classify paedofilia? Because it strikes me as a good candidate for a psychological disorder.

Would being attracted to fat people be a psychological disorder? How about 18-year-old girls? How young do you have to go before it stops being natural attraction and becomes a disorder? It is currently defined as a psychological disorder because society deems it unacceptable, and it has been mentioned many times already that homosexuality was viewed in exactly the same way.
"It was like five in the morning and he said he'd show me his hamster"

User avatar
seladore
Posts: 586
Joined: Thu Mar 20, 2008 8:17 pm UTC
Location: Tumbolia

Re: Paedophile comes out on DeviantArt

Postby seladore » Tue Oct 14, 2008 1:08 pm UTC

cypherspace wrote:
TheStranger wrote:
jessebob wrote:I have met many who think homosexuality is a disorder that can be cured.


How would you classify paedofilia? Because it strikes me as a good candidate for a psychological disorder.

Would being attracted to fat people be a psychological disorder? How about 18-year-old girls? How young do you have to go before it stops being natural attraction and becomes a disorder? It is currently defined as a psychological disorder because society deems it unacceptable, and it has been mentioned many times already that homosexuality was viewed in exactly the same way.


Surely logically this point comes when the object of desire is not capable of having children. So attraction to a 16 year old is a natural attraction with a sound biological basis. Sexual attraction to an 8 year old, who is incapable of breeding, is a disorder.

User avatar
qinwamascot
Posts: 688
Joined: Sat Oct 04, 2008 8:50 am UTC
Location: Oklahoma, U.S.A.

Re: Paedophile comes out on DeviantArt

Postby qinwamascot » Tue Oct 14, 2008 1:19 pm UTC

seladore wrote:
cypherspace wrote:
TheStranger wrote:
jessebob wrote:I have met many who think homosexuality is a disorder that can be cured.


How would you classify paedofilia? Because it strikes me as a good candidate for a psychological disorder.

Would being attracted to fat people be a psychological disorder? How about 18-year-old girls? How young do you have to go before it stops being natural attraction and becomes a disorder? It is currently defined as a psychological disorder because society deems it unacceptable, and it has been mentioned many times already that homosexuality was viewed in exactly the same way.


Surely logically this point comes when the object of desire is not capable of having children. So attraction to a 16 year old is a natural attraction with a sound biological basis. Sexual attraction to an 8 year old, who is incapable of breeding, is a disorder.


So then gays, who are not biologically naturally capable of having children, have a disorder? Or what about attraction to people who are infertile? Are these also mental/psychological disorders? If not, what makes pedophilia different?
Quiznos>Subway


Return to “Serious Business”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 8 guests