Paedophile comes out on DeviantArt

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

Moderators: Azrael, Prelates, Moderators General

Re: Paedophile comes out on DeviantArt

Postby scwizard » Sun Jan 11, 2009 6:22 pm UTC

@lordogreus:
If I am correct what you effectively said is "I'm pretty sure there is some environmental/psychological reason that I am attracted to children and not to adults. However I do not know what that reason is."

If that is the case wouldn't what you have here by a psychological problem? One that you say has been causing you to be depressed stressed etc. And if it is a psychological problem isn't the solution to figure out what's causing it and fix it? And if you can't do that have someone (a psychologist) figure out what's causing it and help you fix it?

Basically, if you believe that there is some psychological reason for your pedophilia (and that's it's not just "an orientation" as some pedophiles believe) then why haven't you tried to do anything about it thus far?
~= scwizard =~
scwizard
 
Posts: 519
Joined: Sun Mar 04, 2007 6:29 pm UTC
Location: New York City

Re: Paedophile comes out on DeviantArt

Postby lordogreus » Sun Jan 11, 2009 6:59 pm UTC

scwizard wrote:@lordogreus:
...

If that is the case wouldn't what you have here by a psychological problem? One that you say has been causing you to be depressed stressed etc. And if it is a psychological problem isn't the solution to figure out what's causing it and fix it? And if you can't do that have someone (a psychologist) figure out what's causing it and help you fix it?

Basically, if you believe that there is some psychological reason for your pedophilia (and that's it's not just "an orientation" as some pedophiles believe) then why haven't you tried to do anything about it thus far?


I do not have the expertise to identify the environmental impetus which caused these feelings, but I do believe I can say that what you suggested is too simplistic. What I meant to say was that, to my knowledge, there is no genetic factor which causes pedophilia, leaving only environmental factors to explain it. This is to say, it is likely that during my developmental years, either something caused me to change, or the absence of something stunted my psychological growth (I have heard the latter offered as one theory).

It is also important to note that, despite the existing possible means of dealing with convicted sex offenders (e.g. chemical castration, aversion therapy), they are evidently not very effective; or, if the technique is effectual, there's no guarantee that the subject will not relapse.

Correcting this problem is not merely a matter of identifying the causal factor and rectifying it; after a certain point, the damage is done and it's unlikely that it can be undone.
lordogreus
 
Posts: 12
Joined: Fri Jan 09, 2009 8:26 am UTC

Re: Paedophile comes out on DeviantArt

Postby scwizard » Sun Jan 11, 2009 7:29 pm UTC

lordogreus wrote:the damage is done and it's unlikely that it can be undone.

You don't know how likely or unlikely it is that it can be undone until you try...

I don't get your reasoning at all. If I had a problem this serious I would attempt to change it, only after trying and failing and trying and failing five times or so over would I give up on trying.
~= scwizard =~
scwizard
 
Posts: 519
Joined: Sun Mar 04, 2007 6:29 pm UTC
Location: New York City

Postby Bright Shadows » Sun Jan 11, 2009 11:58 pm UTC

I'd like to point out that at 5 psychologist sessions per attempt and 100 dollars an hour, your suggestion costs 3-5000 dollars*

For most people, that's a problem.

Also, counseling has some stigma around it, and is usually a last resort for some reason. Indeed, telling another person about your problems face to face can be pretty freaky, in addition to the stigma, so many people simply discount the option.


That said, getting counseling if you have serious emotional issues, particularly if privacy is something required, is almost always a good idea...

Use your words.

-Az
Image
Bright Shadows
 
Posts: 645
Joined: Mon Dec 15, 2008 2:56 pm UTC

Re: Paedophile comes out on DeviantArt

Postby Heuladru » Mon Jan 12, 2009 2:27 am UTC

I'm not ready to come out yet, so this account isn't traceable to me

I'm not lordogreus, but I think a different perspective on some of these questions might be useful. Unlike him, I'm not "exclusive": for me, the shift between "cute kid" and "sexually attractive" comes somewhere around the 5 to 8-year-old age range, and there's no upper age limit to attractiveness. For me, peak attractiveness falls somewhere right around the start of puberty.

There is no point in my life when I would say I "realized I was a pedophile": ever since girls went from "eww, cooties" to "hmmmmmm", I've been attracted to all ages. Rather, there are two significant points in my life: first in my late teens, when I figured out that most people don't find prepubescent girls to be sexually attractive, and a few years later, when I found out that there were other people like me, people who found children to be sexually attractive without being the "kidnap, rape, and murder" type.

Saurus33 wrote:Do you find loli and so on useful/relieving? Do they actually help with any urges you might have?


I can't say for sure if it's "helpful" or "harmful" (beyond the simple relief that mastubating to orgasm provides), but after discovering loli art, there was a shift in what I was looking for: instead of looking for "safe" child erotica ("high art", swimsuit ads, photos from countries with relaxed standards for nudity), most of my porn browsing time is spent sorting through the piles of drek in lolicon galleries. (When it comes to lolicon art, Sturgeon was an optimist: most artists don't seem to have ever seen a human being, much less studied anatomy. Hip joints don't bend like that!)

Bright Shadows wrote:If there was someone you could talk to about this, do you think you would have an easier time ignoring urges? Like, a group support system or something?


It would be helpful if there was someone I could trust to talk to about this. Because of the social stigma involved, the only thing keeping me from starting up a relationship with a socially-outcast 12-year-old (and there are no shortage of them on social-networking sites) is my self-control. I'd like to have something I could use to reinforce that self-control, to fall back on if I think it's slipping.

scwizard wrote:Which is more of an attraction to you? Prepubescent innocence or the prepubescent body?

People mainly attracted to the innocence aspect have the option of having a legal relationship that involves ageplay.


It's a package deal, combined with something of the lure of the forbidden.

If it's the body, then my second question is why do you think you find that attractive? Do you believe you have some of pedo gene or what?


I don't know if it's genetic or psychological, but unlike the other poster, I do have an idea about where it comes from.

From personal observation, I've found that most people have an unreasoning "yuck" reaction to certain sexual situations (sex with children, sex between siblings, sex between men, etc.). I don't have this reaction. Since it takes place at a level below that of conscious thought, it makes rational discussion of such subjects difficult. On the upside, this lets me engage in one of my favorite hobbies: squicking people out.

Bright Shadows wrote:That said, getting counseling if you have serious emotional issues, particularly if privacy is something required, is almost always a good idea...


The theory is sound, but in practice, counseling is not an option for me. Ever since reading about a case in Georgia (I think it was) where someone sought counseling for pedophilia and the psychologist instead used his session notes to get a restraining order keeping the guy away from any location where minors might gather, I haven't been able to trust people about this. Keeping it totally secret is safe; telling anybody at all runs the risk of ruining the rest of my life.
Heuladru
 
Posts: 6
Joined: Mon Jan 12, 2009 1:16 am UTC

Re: Paedophile comes out on DeviantArt

Postby Faranya » Mon Jan 12, 2009 3:36 am UTC

scwizard wrote:@lordogreus:
Which is more of an attraction to you? Prepubescent innocence or the prepubescent body?

People mainly attracted to the innocence aspect have the option of having a legal relationship that involves ageplay.

If it's the body, then my second question is why do you think you find that attractive? Do you believe you have some of pedo gene or what?


This would probably be an easier question to answer if there were actual definitive standard to hold it against.

For a heterosexual man, is he attracted to a woman's body, or to her femininity? Or does that vary between individuals?

For a homosexual man, is he attracted to a man's body, or to his masculinity? Or does it vary between individuals?

If you are in a relationship with someone, what exactly is it that you find sexually attractive about them? I don't know about you, but I wouldn't be able to give you a definitive answer.
Image
Faranya
 
Posts: 259
Joined: Tue Nov 18, 2008 3:10 am UTC

Re: Paedophile comes out on DeviantArt

Postby Pez Dispens3r » Mon Jan 12, 2009 5:18 am UTC

I doubt there is a 'pedo' gene, but that doesn't mean pedophilia isn't genetic. There isn't a 'homo' gene either. But in a study of 54 gay men who were fraternal twins, there were twelve whose twin was was also gay. Amoung fifty-six gay men who were identical twins, there were twenty-nine whose twin was also gay. This implies that genes account for about half of the tendency for men to be gay1.

The thing is that although there have been several promising leads in establishing a 'gay gene', none of them account for all gay men. Likewise, there are many straight men with the same gene. So it is more likely to be a combination of genes along with development in the womb. I find it more likely that pedophilia is genetic rather than environmental, but I would change my tune if I saw solid evidence to the contrary.

1J.M. Bailey & R.C. Pillard, "A genetic study of male sexual orientation", Archives of General Psychiatry 48 (1991): 1089-96; J. M. Bailey & R.C. Pillard, "Genetics of human sexual orientation", Annual Review of Sex Research 6 (1995): 126-50 cited in Matt Ridley, Genome: The Autobiography of a Species: 117.
Mighty Jalapeno wrote:I feel like you're probably an ocelot, and I feel like I want to eat you. Feeling is fun!
this isn't my cow
User avatar
Pez Dispens3r
is not a stick figure.
 
Posts: 2079
Joined: Thu Dec 04, 2008 3:08 am UTC
Location: Australia

Re: Paedophile comes out on DeviantArt

Postby Torvaun » Mon Jan 12, 2009 5:29 am UTC

While there might be a genetic disposition towards orientation, remember that most fraternal and identical twins will have remarkably similar environmental factors as well. It'd be more interesting to compare those numbers to numbers available for twins separated at birth, and at various other points in development.
Hawknc wrote:I don't know if you've never heard of trolling, or if you're just very good at it.
User avatar
Torvaun
 
Posts: 2615
Joined: Mon Aug 13, 2007 6:23 pm UTC
Location: 47°9′S, 126°43′W

Re: Paedophile comes out on DeviantArt

Postby Pez Dispens3r » Mon Jan 12, 2009 5:52 am UTC

The point is that it was more likely that both identical twins were gay than both fraternal twins. More than double the likelyhood. Fraternal twins will have the same environment as much as identical twins will. So this implies that something genetic is going on as opposed to something environmental.
Mighty Jalapeno wrote:I feel like you're probably an ocelot, and I feel like I want to eat you. Feeling is fun!
this isn't my cow
User avatar
Pez Dispens3r
is not a stick figure.
 
Posts: 2079
Joined: Thu Dec 04, 2008 3:08 am UTC
Location: Australia

Re: Paedophile comes out on DeviantArt

Postby lordogreus » Mon Jan 12, 2009 9:47 am UTC

scwizard wrote:You don't know how likely or unlikely it is that it can be undone until you try...

I don't get your reasoning at all. If I had a problem this serious I would attempt to change it, only after trying and failing and trying and failing five times or so over would I give up on trying.


As far as I know, there are no ways to 'undo' pedophilic urges, aside from eliminating the sex drive altogether. Furthermore, I don't know that such treatments are used preemptively: they are normally used to prevent further crimes from being committed once someone has been convicted.

Treatment was discussed a lot on pages 2 and 3, if you're interested in hearing others' opinions.

I am curious, though. You seem confident that it is at least worth a try. Have you come across any information which suggests that there is a way to undo this (viz., to return the subject to a 'normal' sexual attraction)?

A Clockwork Orange comes to mind.
lordogreus
 
Posts: 12
Joined: Fri Jan 09, 2009 8:26 am UTC

Re: Paedophile comes out on DeviantArt

Postby Mr. Smiles » Mon Jan 12, 2009 10:44 am UTC

Here are my questions on the topic (I've only read through page one and a bit after, and all of the most recent page, so if these have been discussed please redirect me):
From the arguments I've read, the majority of the justification for acceptance of homosexuality are based on the relationship being more than sex, beyond physical attraction, at least such that a relationship without sex would still prosper (even short-term, I'm not trying to bring up the argument of it being unable to last for years) at least as well as a heterosexual relationship without sex. With pedophilia, is such a relationship possible? It seems to me that without the possibility of such a relationship, pedophilia then is *just* sex, which means it is just the brain reacting positively to certain stimuli, which would force it to be judged by a different standard.

My other question is where should a line be drawn? Be it by society, psychology, or whatever, at what point are a person's predispositions, be they caused by one's genes or environment, considered to be beyond what should be allowable? What predispositions should be allowed to continue with no reaction from others if no action is taken by the predisposed? Is there any such point at which a person is "broken" and should be deemed incapable of living normally in the world without supervision, guidance, or help?

Edit: After reading more of this topic, I'm starting to realize something. Many people are asking how we should manage people with potentially dangerous or harmful urges (e.g. pedophilia), whether through forced treatment or optional treatment or whatnot. What I really believe is that, in many ways, that is the job of society as it is now. There are many ways in which society must enforce certain rules that the law cannot, because society has the ability to react on a case-by-case basis if enough decent people are involved. Many people argue that society just attacks people who are different. I would like to state that this is not so. Certainly, people will screw things up royally and attack those who are different just for that reason. We have thousands of years of anecdotal evidence to prove that. But many of the people arguing these things attempt to remove the authority from society entirely, while maintaining that there is still a responsibility, which then must be picked up by the law. What we need is not to say that society should never be able to say a pedophile is wrong for wanting to touch little kids in bad places, but to reform ourselves so that we look at these situations and see whether a person needs help, and to make sure that person gets the help they need.
Mr. Smiles
 
Posts: 13
Joined: Sat Dec 27, 2008 3:34 am UTC

Re: Paedophile comes out on DeviantArt

Postby Azrael » Mon Jan 12, 2009 1:34 pm UTC

lordogreus wrote:
scwizard wrote:You don't know how likely or unlikely it is that it can be undone until you try...

As far as I know, there are no ways to 'undo' pedophilic urges...


lordogreus wrote:Even if I were happy with her as a person, in terms of personality, etc., complications would inevitably arise. I have a fear of intimacy and an almost misogynistic attitude regarding women approximately my age -- things which would thwart any effort to have a sexual relationship with said person.


Your view of women certainly can be addressed via counseling. And since as of yet you [can't / won't / don't wish to] pinpoint a cause behind your sexual urges shifting towards female children, I'm going to suggest that the correlation between that significant of a fear of women your own age and pedophilia is too strong to outright ignore as being potentially causal.
User avatar
Azrael
Unintentionally Intoxicated
 
Posts: 6221
Joined: Thu Apr 26, 2007 1:16 am UTC
Location: Boston

Re: Paedophile comes out on DeviantArt

Postby scwizard » Mon Jan 12, 2009 3:38 pm UTC

lordogreus wrote:I am curious, though. You seem confident that it is at least worth a try. Have you come across any information which suggests that there is a way to undo this (viz., to return the subject to a 'normal' sexual attraction)?
From what I've observed there seems to a correlation between an attitude of "adult women are disgusting whores" and "little girls are so innocent, they'd make such a perfect girlfriend." I kind of wish I'd saved some quotes from investment banker threads on /r9k/ to provide something to back up this claim.

Also if you look at it, a relationship between a grown man and a little girl isn't a equal relationship. You would be in a huge position of power over her. She's innocent and your not, she's small and you're big, you could probably out think her or manipulate her emotions and beliefs (which is what grooming is all about after all).

So I think that like Azrael said, your view towards adult women could be addressed through counseling.
Also your desire for a relationship with such a power structure could be addressed through counseling as well.

So even if you can't stop yourself form fantasizing about prepubescent girls sexually, you can potentially stop yourself from fantasizing about the kind of fucked up shit a "romantic" relationship with a prepubescent girl would entail. And even if you can't bring yourself to be sexually attracted to an adult woman, you can potentially get over your aversion to them. I'm not saying you'd be able to have a romantic relationship or anything to a woman if you just aren't fundamentally attracted to them, but I know some gay guys have close female friends.
~= scwizard =~
scwizard
 
Posts: 519
Joined: Sun Mar 04, 2007 6:29 pm UTC
Location: New York City

Re: Paedophile comes out on DeviantArt

Postby Malice » Mon Jan 12, 2009 7:44 pm UTC

Mr. Smiles wrote:Here are my questions on the topic (I've only read through page one and a bit after, and all of the most recent page, so if these have been discussed please redirect me):
From the arguments I've read, the majority of the justification for acceptance of homosexuality are based on the relationship being more than sex, beyond physical attraction, at least such that a relationship without sex would still prosper (even short-term, I'm not trying to bring up the argument of it being unable to last for years) at least as well as a heterosexual relationship without sex. With pedophilia, is such a relationship possible? It seems to me that without the possibility of such a relationship, pedophilia then is *just* sex, which means it is just the brain reacting positively to certain stimuli, which would force it to be judged by a different standard.


I fail to see how that would matter, even if it were true. I doubt it is, though; considering our pedophiles have said "I'm attracted to both body and innocence", it's a good bet they could carry on a non-sexual relationship with a child and still get something out of it.

My other question is where should a line be drawn? Be it by society, psychology, or whatever, at what point are a person's predispositions, be they caused by one's genes or environment, considered to be beyond what should be allowable? What predispositions should be allowed to continue with no reaction from others if no action is taken by the predisposed? Is there any such point at which a person is "broken" and should be deemed incapable of living normally in the world without supervision, guidance, or help?


At the point where your predispositions translate into (harmful) action. Nobody should ever be deemed "broken" or "forbidden" or "incapable" just for having a potential. It's only once they've proven they're unable to control it, and that this has resulted in harm, that society can safely take steps to deal with their problem.

Edit: After reading more of this topic, I'm starting to realize something. Many people are asking how we should manage people with potentially dangerous or harmful urges (e.g. pedophilia), whether through forced treatment or optional treatment or whatnot. What I really believe is that, in many ways, that is the job of society as it is now. There are many ways in which society must enforce certain rules that the law cannot, because society has the ability to react on a case-by-case basis if enough decent people are involved. Many people argue that society just attacks people who are different. I would like to state that this is not so. Certainly, people will screw things up royally and attack those who are different just for that reason. We have thousands of years of anecdotal evidence to prove that. But many of the people arguing these things attempt to remove the authority from society entirely, while maintaining that there is still a responsibility, which then must be picked up by the law. What we need is not to say that society should never be able to say a pedophile is wrong for wanting to touch little kids in bad places, but to reform ourselves so that we look at these situations and see whether a person needs help, and to make sure that person gets the help they need.


The problem, of course, is that people who admit these desires are often singled out for attack (a few posts above there was the example of the person who went to a psychiatrist for help and ended up getting a restraining order instead) and ostracized, instead of helped.

scwizard wrote:I'm not saying you'd be able to have a romantic relationship or anything to a woman if you just aren't fundamentally attracted to them, but I know some gay guys have close female friends.


Really? You know people who have female friends, even though they have no desire to have sex with those women? How exotic. Tell me more about this strange idea. No, really. I mean, I know some straight guys who have close male friends even though they have no desire to sleep with them, but this, this is just beyond the pale.
Image
User avatar
Malice
 
Posts: 3894
Joined: Sat Jul 21, 2007 5:37 am UTC
Location: Los Angeles, CA

Re: Paedophile comes out on DeviantArt

Postby Mr. Smiles » Mon Jan 12, 2009 8:59 pm UTC

Malice wrote:
My other question is where should a line be drawn? Be it by society, psychology, or whatever, at what point are a person's predispositions, be they caused by one's genes or environment, considered to be beyond what should be allowable? What predispositions should be allowed to continue with no reaction from others if no action is taken by the predisposed? Is there any such point at which a person is "broken" and should be deemed incapable of living normally in the world without supervision, guidance, or help?


At the point where your predispositions translate into (harmful) action. Nobody should ever be deemed "broken" or "forbidden" or "incapable" just for having a potential. It's only once they've proven they're unable to control it, and that this has resulted in harm, that society can safely take steps to deal with their problem.



But how can society act in a way conducive to protecting the rights of all involved without being purely reactive in its countermeasures? I'm not saying that this is impossible, but as this discussion has brought up, some kind of resolution here is necessary.
Mr. Smiles
 
Posts: 13
Joined: Sat Dec 27, 2008 3:34 am UTC

Re: Paedophile comes out on DeviantArt

Postby Malice » Mon Jan 12, 2009 10:31 pm UTC

Mr. Smiles wrote:But how can society act in a way conducive to protecting the rights of all involved without being purely reactive in its countermeasures? I'm not saying that this is impossible, but as this discussion has brought up, some kind of resolution here is necessary.


The only way is to change the public perception so that pedophiles can safely seek help without fearing retaliation or legal consequences.
Image
User avatar
Malice
 
Posts: 3894
Joined: Sat Jul 21, 2007 5:37 am UTC
Location: Los Angeles, CA

Re: Paedophile comes out on DeviantArt

Postby mochafairy » Mon Jan 12, 2009 10:42 pm UTC

I am probably the last person who you'd thought would be defending, but...

scwizard wrote:Also if you look at it, a relationship between a grown man and a little girl isn't a equal relationship. You would be in a huge position of power over her. She's innocent and your not, she's small and you're big, you could probably out think her or manipulate her emotions and beliefs (which is what grooming is all about after all).

I'm 99% sure he knows that and that's at least part of the reason he hasn't acted.


So even if you can't stop yourself form fantasizing about prepubescent girls sexually, you can potentially stop yourself from fantasizing about the kind of fucked up shit a "romantic" relationship with a prepubescent girl would entail. And even if you can't bring yourself to be sexually attracted to an adult woman, you can potentially get over your aversion to them. I'm not saying you'd be able to have a romantic relationship or anything to a woman if you just aren't fundamentally attracted to them, but I know some gay guys have close female friends.


see, while I don't like the idea of anyone harming children, this is why people don't admit to having anything different about them. the "fucked up shit" that goes through their mind isn't healthy to pursue, but telling someone that their thoughts are "fucked up shit" isn't helping them. It's like telling someone who is suicidal that thinking about suicide is fucked up. They know that, but yelling at them only further pushes them away.

as for being friends with adult women, that is completely up to them. if they are perfectly happy spending time with guys, no girls, that's fine by me. it's their choice who they chose to hang out with. if they don't want to be my friend, that's their loss.

and while, yes, I think counseling would be a good idea, it's their choice. as long as they aren't hurting anyone and they are in control, why should we as outside lookers mess with something without full knowledge? throwing advice at them and telling them how disgusted you are only pushes them back into a hole where people can't help.
"YES. DO IT WITH CONFIDENCE" ~fortune cookie
User avatar
mochafairy
 
Posts: 1093
Joined: Tue Mar 25, 2008 11:27 pm UTC
Location: Ohio

Re: Paedophile comes out on DeviantArt

Postby lordogreus » Tue Jan 13, 2009 11:44 am UTC

Mr. Smiles:

I believe that it is about more than just sex. If we were to strip away all the superfluous behaviors, attitudes, and rituals that are part and parcel of modern courtship, the process would be reduced to mere physical attraction in order to initiate pair-bonding, the purpose of which dealing with maintaining the cohesion of a social unit and with more practical concerns such as survival and reproduction.

Even when an individual has developed a fixation on a certain kind of sexual partner other than that which is generally deemed to be the most appropriate for the propagation of the species, it does not necessarily follow that the other instincts are no longer intact.

Personally, I feel the same inherent need to love, protect, raise, and nurture a child; but I also possess the same need to love and feel loved by a female in a lasting, intimate, sexual relationship. What I think I am getting at is that I unconsciously desire to seek out a means to satisfy these needs, but that I am compelled to find them in a child.

As for your second question, I believe this addresses the issue of trust and maintaining a society in which its members are both free and safe, such that one's freedom does not infringe upon another's. This, as mentioned by others, is reminiscent of 'Thought Crimes' and the 'Thought Police.' Evidently, policies not too dissimilar from these dystopian concepts are already in place, designed to prevent harm from coming to one's self or to others.

Unfortunately, it is difficult to gauge one's level of predisposition, such that it can be determined conclusively whether they will act on them or not. Naturally, people equipped to do so watch for warning signs when they present themselves. But in the case of pedophilia, I think that people's reaction to the mere thought of a man lusting after children is unduly vehement when compared to some other questionable quirk a person might possess.

This is to say, it is possible for a man to remain celibate and to control his actions, but parents' inborn need to protect their young precipitates a more irrational response, such that preemptively seeking out risks to their children's well-being and eliminating them seem perfectly justifiable.

I do not see myself as a risk, so I am naturally disinclined to submit to any sort of 'treatment' or to being made known publicly as a potential child rapist. In a world with so many people, we have no choice but to accept that there are risks inherent to living. We will naturally do our best to make it as safe as possible for everyone, but unless we eliminate freedom altogether, society will never be completely rid of danger.

The obvious question now is whether pedophilia constitutes a tangible threat. That one is hard to answer, because we know that sexual assault against children does happen; but it is then important to note that not all of such cases are committed by actual pedophiles, causing one to conclude logically that virtually anyone can be considered a potential risk. No one sees it that way, of course, tending rather to blame pedophiles because of the stigma caused by the media and the specious reasoning that attraction to children inevitably leads to the rape of children.

Fortunately, we still seem to have a line, albeit a blurred one, which separates reasonable preventative action and the punishment of thought crimes. On the other hand, my faith in humanity is rather low, and it would not surprise me to see the status quo change for the worse.
lordogreus
 
Posts: 12
Joined: Fri Jan 09, 2009 8:26 am UTC

Re: Paedophile comes out on DeviantArt

Postby scwizard » Tue Jan 13, 2009 2:27 pm UTC

Malice wrote:Really? You know people who have female friends, even though they have no desire to have sex with those women? How exotic. Tell me more about this strange idea. No, really. I mean, I know some straight guys who have close male friends even though they have no desire to sleep with them, but this, this is just beyond the pale.

Cut it out, I know this. Obviously you can have close female companionship that's not romantic regardless of what your orientation is. I just wanted to empathize for lordogreus that your sexual likes and dislikes aren't any reason to flat out avoid women your own age, only misogyny is.

That its if he is avoiding women his own age. I don't know whether he is or not yet. Another purpose of that comment of mine was to bait the answer to that question.

mochafairy wrote:I'm 99% sure he knows that and that's at least part of the reason he hasn't acted.
Ya, I agree. There's pedophiles and there's rapists, and a rapist is probably more likely to hurt a child than a pedophile. The desire for a relationship built on top of control is a rapists desire, not necessarily a pedophile's desire.

But I believe that it's impossible to have a adult&child sexual/romantic relationship that's not built on control. So I was thinking that if lordogreus and Heuladru are pretty decent guys and didn't want that kind of relationship, they could realize on the mental level that therefore they also don't want a child&adult relationship. Right now due to quotes like:
Heuladru wrote:the only thing keeping me from starting up a relationship with a socially-outcast 12-year-old (and there are no shortage of them on social-networking sites) is my self-control
It seems that they do want a "relationship" with a child, not just sex. So what I was hoping is that if I could get them to think carefully about what such a "relationship" would entail then they might no longer desire it.

mochafairy wrote:but telling someone that their thoughts are "fucked up shit" isn't helping them

You're not the first person to complain about me being overharsh in this thread, I've gotten a complaint over PM to. I guess I should try and tone it down bit. I hope I'm not scaring people off.
~= scwizard =~
scwizard
 
Posts: 519
Joined: Sun Mar 04, 2007 6:29 pm UTC
Location: New York City

Re: Paedophile comes out on DeviantArt

Postby Malice » Tue Jan 13, 2009 8:45 pm UTC

scwizard wrote:
mochafairy wrote:I'm 99% sure he knows that and that's at least part of the reason he hasn't acted.
Ya, I agree. There's pedophiles and there's rapists, and a rapist is probably more likely to hurt a child than a pedophile. The desire for a relationship built on top of control is a rapists desire, not necessarily a pedophile's desire.

But I believe that it's impossible to have a adult&child sexual/romantic relationship that's not built on control. So I was thinking that if lordogreus and Heuladru are pretty decent guys and didn't want that kind of relationship, they could realize on the mental level that therefore they also don't want a child&adult relationship. Right now due to quotes like:
Heuladru wrote:the only thing keeping me from starting up a relationship with a socially-outcast 12-year-old (and there are no shortage of them on social-networking sites) is my self-control
It seems that they do want a "relationship" with a child, not just sex. So what I was hoping is that if I could get them to think carefully about what such a "relationship" would entail then they might no longer desire it.


It's not easy to base urges on intellectual issues. I mean, right now I want a big greasy cheeseburger. I know that that's probably a bad idea, because it's tremendously unhealthy, and I'd just hate myself afterwards. So I'm not going to eat one. But that doesn't change the desire.
Image
User avatar
Malice
 
Posts: 3894
Joined: Sat Jul 21, 2007 5:37 am UTC
Location: Los Angeles, CA

Re: Paedophile comes out on DeviantArt

Postby lordogreus » Wed Jan 14, 2009 9:24 am UTC

Azrael wrote:Your view of women certainly can be addressed via counseling. And since as of yet you [can't / won't / don't wish to] pinpoint a cause behind your sexual urges shifting towards female children, I'm going to suggest that the correlation between that significant of a fear of women your own age and pedophilia is too strong to outright ignore as being potentially causal.


I would be pleased to know how or why this happened to me. I have been hoping to find published texts regarding the subject, which I know are out there and available. I just need to choose one and obtain a copy.

Having talked about this a lot with numerous people (mostly online), I have come up with possible theories; but as I am not an expert on the subject, I could easily be missing things or even considering possibilities which might turn out to be irrelevant.

One official theory regarding the cause of this is that the person did not fully develop psychologically. Applying this to myself, it is conceivable that my complete lack of romantic experience was responsible for the change. At 24 years of age, I have never had a girlfriend, and I am still a virgin. It was not for a lack of trying; rather, none of the infatuations I had from elementary to high school were ever reciprocated.

Thanks to the behavior of a couple of them, my feelings turned into resentment. By the time I had entered college, I completely lost all interest in trying to form romantic relationships with my female peers. During a brief phase around that time, I nearly felt asexual.

But this only addresses part of the issue. When I gave this theory thought, it seemed inadequate to explain why I would then find children attractive. At this point in my life, it is easy to identify characteristics exclusive to children and somehow work them into an explanation. But while considering the subject, I am often reminded of the first time I consciously and unequivocally realized that it was prepubescent girls which sexually aroused me.

The specific details would not be very helpful at this juncture, so I'll skip that part. The important thing is, the realization was sudden and uncontrollable. My outlook on life up to that point had become very nihilistic: I was looking past the superficies of human activity and seeing our behavior as deterministic and ultimately pointless. I think that part of the process was this lack of interest in sexuality, which allowed me to cease to be caught up in all the things normal men do to attract women. I viewed their behavior as pathetic, because I was witnessing people going to great lengths to accomplish something which I did not find appealing myself.

I share this anecdote to try to illustrate how it felt for me suddenly to have my sexual appetite revitalized. It was a revelation that came out of the blue by happenstance. Perhaps it satisfied some need I had. Perhaps young girls represented a class of human females which did not intimidate me, though I tend to view this as specious and simplistic, but perhaps relevant.

Bottom line, the attraction is too strong to be explained simply as an alternative to female peers. And why is it that the onset of puberty makes the person suddenly undesirable? I might be able to explain away why I don't care for girls my age, but why children? Was it simply a chance fixation?

scwizard wrote:So even if you can't stop yourself form fantasizing about prepubescent girls sexually, you can potentially stop yourself from fantasizing about the kind of fucked up shit a "romantic" relationship with a prepubescent girl would entail. And even if you can't bring yourself to be sexually attracted to an adult woman, you can potentially get over your aversion to them.


I suppose you might be onto something there, though I'm not entirely sure what to make of it. The one thought which keeps coming to mind is that it is an unconscious fixation now over which I have no control. I agree that it must sound like I am resigning myself to this fate and that I am unwilling to change, but I don't know what to do. I don't find women sexually attractive, and I can't even bring myself to respect many of them (this applies to a lot of men, too, but it still makes it hard to form even platonic relationships). The attraction is so strong that seeing children in public, on TV, and in movies feels good, making it difficult to want to eliminate sexual desire altogether. Onanistic relief is one of the few things which helps me to cope from day to day.
lordogreus
 
Posts: 12
Joined: Fri Jan 09, 2009 8:26 am UTC

Re: Paedophile comes out on DeviantArt

Postby Azrael » Wed Jan 14, 2009 1:41 pm UTC

lordogreus wrote:I have a fear of intimacy and an almost misogynistic attitude regarding women approximately my age...
------------
... Thanks to the behavior of a couple of them, my feelings turned into resentment. By the time I had entered college, I completely lost all interest in trying to form romantic relationships with my female peers. During a brief phase around that time, I nearly felt asexual ...

... I viewed their behavior as pathetic, because I was witnessing people going to great lengths to accomplish something which I did not find appealing myself ...

... It was a revelation that came out of the blue by happenstance. Perhaps it satisfied some need I had. Perhaps young girls represented a class of human females which did not intimidate me, though I tend to view this as specious and simplistic, but perhaps relevant.

Bottom line, the attraction is too strong to be explained simply as an alternative to female peers. And why is it that the onset of puberty makes the person suddenly undesirable? I might be able to explain away why I don't care for girls my age, but why children? Was it simply a chance fixation?
------------
... and I can't even bring myself to respect many of them. (this applies to a lot of men, too, but it still makes it hard to form even platonic relationships)

Considering how strong your negative feels are towards sex-capable women (which starts at ... puberty), I think there is plenty enough reason to see a causal relationship. If we're playing the "Let's look for potentially causal relationships" game.

Regardless of dealing with the external circumstances that bring you to reveal these facts, I would suggest some form of counseling to address *those* issues. Socialization isn't the end all and be all, but being unable to relate to the rest of population without revulsion is a significant handicap.
User avatar
Azrael
Unintentionally Intoxicated
 
Posts: 6221
Joined: Thu Apr 26, 2007 1:16 am UTC
Location: Boston

Re: Paedophile comes out on DeviantArt

Postby pjcomer77 » Wed Jan 14, 2009 2:45 pm UTC

Responding 11 pages and 3 months late to a first page post is a pretty poor showing.

-Az


Spoiler:
Okay I won't bother then.

The marbles: They have been taken home.
Last edited by pjcomer77 on Fri Jan 16, 2009 9:43 am UTC, edited 1 time in total.
pjcomer77
 
Posts: 1
Joined: Wed Jan 14, 2009 1:59 pm UTC

Re: Paedophile comes out on DeviantArt

Postby lordogreus » Thu Jan 15, 2009 9:54 am UTC

Azrael wrote:Regardless of dealing with the external circumstances that bring you to reveal these facts, I would suggest some form of counseling to address *those* issues. Socialization isn't the end all and be all, but being unable to relate to the rest of population without revulsion is a significant handicap.


Perhaps you're right. I don't see how something like social ineptitude could be repaired, when it took a couple decades for me to become this way. The obvious response is, of course, that's why I should seek help. Thanks for the feedback.
lordogreus
 
Posts: 12
Joined: Fri Jan 09, 2009 8:26 am UTC

Re: Paedophile comes out on DeviantArt

Postby Dream » Fri Jan 16, 2009 3:23 am UTC

lordogreus wrote:I don't see how something like social ineptitude could be repaired, when it took a couple decades for me to become this way.
You're 24. You are not condemned to a life of social ineptitude. Many, many people are still growing up socially at your age. Some are lucky enough to be very socially able, some are not. But all are more likely to grow and change over the next few years than they are to stagnate. If you despair of ever changing, you won't change, but if you keep an open mind about it, it will likely happen. This, of course, is purely with reference to your social skills. Your sexuality is a thornier issue.
I knew a woman once, but she died soon after.
User avatar
Dream
WINNING
 
Posts: 4339
Joined: Tue Dec 04, 2007 7:20 pm UTC
Location: The Hollow Scene Epic

Re: Paedophile comes out on DeviantArt

Postby Onideus » Fri Jan 16, 2009 8:10 am UTC

*sigh* So much desire to lecture. Stop it. -Az

Pedophilia isn't directly a mental disorder, although it can certainly become one. Think of it liak this...you've probably got some sexual fantasies about some particular celebrity, right? But you're not out STALKING that celebrity, are you? And you're not deluding yourself with fantastic notions of actually getting together with them, right? Well congratulations, you're not a stalker and you don't have a mental disorder. This applies to pedophiles as well. It only becomes a mental disorder when the pedo starts interpreting a child's behavior as sexual in nature and starts deluding themselves with thoughts that the child actually enjoys it and wants it. At that point, yeah, you crossed over the line. The point is recognizing the difference between FANTASY and REALITY. If you can no longer discern between the two of those...then you've got a mental disorder.

Now, that said, pedophiles are certainly not without viable options as far as indulging in their interests without actually harming any real children. For one, there's dwarfism, which includes a whole variety of different types, some which actually completely halt the aging process in a child liak state, such as the congenital kidney disease that affects Gary Coleman. Another fun example I liak to use is Adam, who is well on into his 30s:
Image

Adam makes a small fortune by doing adult baby photo shoots, basically using his child like form for immense profit. And he's not the only one either. There are others who cater to pedophilia interests as well. So keep that in mind if you ever come across a picture of a supposed child in some kind of a sexual situation, as they might *NOT* actually be a child.

Further, since I brought it up, do not ever confuse adult babies with pedophiles. Adult babies are essentially anti-pedophiles, they are the exact polar opposites. Basically when an adult baby looks at a picture of a child in diapers they imagine themselves *AS* the child, where as a pedophile imagines themselves RAPING the child. Pedophilia is about the destruction of innocence, where as infantilism is about the embodiment innocence.

There is never any excuse for a pedophile to go after real children though, not with all the available outlets they have available to them that DON'T involve real children. It should also probably be noted that even here in the US the age of consent is as low as SIXTEEN in some states. And in some parts of the world it's as low as TWELVE. A lot of that has to do with the fact that in some countries, especially third world countries, life expectancy is fairly short, so it's important to get an early start if you have any interest in spawning a few selfish fucked up brats to replace yourself with. Nothing is ever black and white though and love often knows no boundaries, take the case with Mary Kay Letourneau and Vili Fualaau...is she a pedophile for falling in love, having children with and later marrying one of her students who is now no longer a "child"? Nothing is ever simple. You should be very careful about pointing fingers and making presumptuous judgments about anybody. If you really want to judge people, start with yourself.
User avatar
Onideus
 
Posts: 9
Joined: Fri Jan 16, 2009 7:20 am UTC

Re: Paedophile comes out on DeviantArt

Postby Gelsamel » Fri Jan 16, 2009 9:28 am UTC

I think those are two different things though, deluding yourself and interpreting innocence actions of a child as sexual is not really a pedophile thing, it's a crazy person thing, it just happens that that persons interests is a child.

Just like a normal heterosexual male could misinterpret a female's innocent actions as sexual when they're not, and thinking that they somehow enjoy you raping them in the street. That is just a fucked up mental disorder, it doesn't have any specific link to pedophilia at all.


Edit: What I mean to say is, in the case of a crazy pedophile/heterosexual/homosexual/etc it's the crazy part that is important and not the attraction. I think people just get a bit worked up over children though, so pedophilia takes most of it for the team.
Death is the final sorrowful parting from which there is no return. But hope is not yet lost, for there is a simple incantation, a spell of transmutation that brings about the reversal, that permits escape from the infinite well.

"I was here with you"

That is my golden truth.
User avatar
Gelsamel
Lame and emo
 
Posts: 8203
Joined: Thu Oct 05, 2006 10:49 am UTC
Location: Melbourne, Victoria, Australia

Re: Paedophile comes out on DeviantArt

Postby lordogreus » Fri Jan 16, 2009 9:50 am UTC

Dream wrote:You're 24. You are not condemned to a life of social ineptitude. Many, many people are still growing up socially at your age. [...]


I can't argue when you put it that way, I suppose. I think that what I meant to say was that, the bulk of my developmental years are over; the underlying framework which dictates what kind of person I am and will be is nearly set in stone. This is not to say that I won't change during the rest of my lifetime; rather, the things which a person learns during their developmental years play a significant role in the way they perceive their life and the whole of existence.

I might be able to learn how to interact with other people better through training and practice, but if I am shy and awkward around strangers or even people with whom I am somewhat acquainted, the fundamental reasons why I am that way might be difficult to alter. Then again, it sounds like I am embracing my shortcomings without even considering that they could be rectified.

Onideus:

I do believe your point about pedophilia not being a mental disorder in and of itself potentially has some merit, particularly when addressed in conjunction with a point another user made by citing a passage from the DSM-IV dealing with their criteria for labeling something as a "disorder."

Malice wrote:Pedophilia is not associated with present distress or disability (no more so than homosexuality, at least). It may or may not be a manifestation of behavioral, psychological, or biological dysfunction in the individual; I don't think anything of that sort has been proven either way yet. It is sexually deviant behavior, resulting from a conflict primarily between the individual and society; but again, it cannot be proven to be a symptom of dysfunction in the individual, any more than homosexuality can. Therefore, in my opinion, it cannot be described as a mental illness.


It stands to reason that sexual attraction to children is not inherently psychologically harmful to the pedophile; instead, it is the frustration of being denied sexuality, the social stigmatization, the difficulty of seeking help (sometimes), and being pigeonholed as contemptible perverts, which often result in distress.

One point of contention, however: I have no problem distinguishing fantasy from reality. In fact, I consider it to be one of my fortes. Nevertheless, I am often quite distressed. I have ways to cope, including legal outlets and a couple of very good friends, so it's not like I'm about to snap (though even a lack of wank fodder wouldn't make me hurt a child).
lordogreus
 
Posts: 12
Joined: Fri Jan 09, 2009 8:26 am UTC

Re: Paedophile comes out on DeviantArt

Postby Heuladru » Sat Jan 17, 2009 3:16 am UTC

Onideus wrote:Further, since I brought it up, do not ever confuse adult babies with pedophiles. Adult babies are essentially anti-pedophiles, they are the exact polar opposites. Basically when an adult baby looks at a picture of a child in diapers they imagine themselves *AS* the child, where as a pedophile imagines themselves RAPING the child. Pedophilia is about the destruction of innocence, where as infantilism is about the embodiment innocence.


So that you don't continue to accidentally offend some of the readers of this thread, there are four terms you should learn:

* Consent: agreement that something can be done involving the person giving consent. Anyone who is able to say "yes" or "no" is able to consent to something.

* Informed consent: A legal term meaning consent given with a full understanding of what is being agreed to. Since this is hard to determine, courts of law usually use other measures to determine if the "informed" part of informed consent is present, eg. a patient has been given all applicable information about a medical procedure, or a participant in a sexual encounter is over a given age.

* Rape: Sexual intercourse that takes place without the consent of at least one of those involved.

* Statutory rape: Sexual intercourse that takes place with the consent of all involved, but where at least one participant is legally unable to give informed consent.
Heuladru
 
Posts: 6
Joined: Mon Jan 12, 2009 1:16 am UTC

Re: Paedophile comes out on DeviantArt

Postby sweet_concorde » Sat Jan 17, 2009 5:16 am UTC

Heuladru wrote:* Consent: agreement that something can be done involving the person giving consent. Anyone who is able to say "yes" or "no" is able to consent to something.

* Informed consent: A legal term meaning consent given with a full understanding of what is being agreed to. Since this is hard to determine, courts of law usually use other measures to determine if the "informed" part of informed consent is present, eg. a patient has been given all applicable information about a medical procedure, or a participant in a sexual encounter is over a given age.

* Rape: Sexual intercourse that takes place without the consent of at least one of those involved.

* Statutory rape: Sexual intercourse that takes place with the consent of all involved, but where at least one participant is legally unable to give informed consent.


Informed consent is when someone has been fully informed, you have that right. However, consent isn't simply "yes" or "no".

Consent is an act of reason and deliberation. A person who possesses and exercises sufficient mental capacity to make an intelligent decision demonstrates consent by performing an act recommended by another. Consent assumes a physical power to act and a reflective, determined, and unencumbered exertion of these powers. It is an act unaffected by Fraud, duress, or sometimes even mistake when these factors are not the reason for the consent.


Just to be clear, because I wasn't sure what you were trying to get at with your definitions:

(This might depend on jurisdiction) if the minor involved is still a child - even if the person fully informs the child, and the child agrees - it isn't considered consensual sex and it is not treated as statutory rape. It is rape, or the sexual abuse of a child.

Even in cases where it can be proven that the minor victim was a willing participant, a sex act or improper touching is still a crime because children cannot legally consent to anything.


source: http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com

Thanks for clarifying your definitions, thread. Just makes sure this doesn't deviate too far from the topic.

~CM
sweet_concorde
 
Posts: 121
Joined: Wed Mar 19, 2008 4:15 am UTC
Location: midwest

Re: Paedophile comes out on DeviantArt

Postby ManaUser » Fri Jan 23, 2009 9:13 am UTC

Unfortunately words don't have only one meaning. In English, consent means "agreement", like Heuladru said. But in Legalese it means something more like "informed and competent agreement", but in any case it doesn't doesn't necessarily have much to do with the normal meaning of the word.

Statutory rape isn't really a legal term. It's just a common way to refer to any crime where sex is unlawful only because of the other person's age. You're right though that the term is not normally used when the other person is a child (in English, not Legalese), in which case it's more often called molestation or sexual abuse. That distinction roughly corresponds with different, more serious crime (which as you say, may be named rape, or sexual abuse) in many jurisdictions. In any case no amount of informing will make a difference, the law just assumes, or defines, that a minor cannot consent.

Anyway, in my opinion it's better stick to the English meanings unless you're talking about a specific case or jurisdiction because the legal definitions are not consistent. And if you do use the legal terms it's often helpful to specify (e.g. "legally consent") if there's any doubt, since the legal meaning often conflict, sometimes jarringly, with the English meanings.

Okay, back to the quote that started this digression, and hopefully back on topic:
Onideus wrote:Further, since I brought it up, do not ever confuse adult babies with pedophiles. Adult babies are essentially anti-pedophiles, they are the exact polar opposites. Basically when an adult baby looks at a picture of a child in diapers they imagine themselves *AS* the child, where as a pedophile imagines themselves RAPING the child. Pedophilia is about the destruction of innocence, where as infantilism is about the embodiment innocence.

That is at best a gross generalization. First of all many pedophiles wouldn't even be attracted to children of a diaper-wearing age, attraction to babies is called Nepiophilia. Second, in context I'm assuming you mean "raping", in the taking by force sense rather than a legal sense. (Correct me if I'm wrong.) Is that what you think pedophiles fantasize about? Granted there's no way I can know, but it sure doesn't mesh with what lordogreus said, or really anything I've ever learned about pedophiles outside of tabloids. A person who got off on destruction of innocence might well make children a target of their fantasies, but it doesn't follow that this is the only reason someone could be attracted to children. It might be somewhat more reasonable (though still a generalization) to say pedophiles are attracted to innocence, but to assume they want to destroy it is a whole 'nother logical leap.

Additionally being attracted to innocence is not mutually exclusive with wanting to be innocent, as you suggest. Indeed a fairly common theory about pedophiles (besides "they're evil") is that they, or their sexuality, is immature. If that's true (or for those whom it's true for) it would make sense if they wanted to interact with a child sexually, but in a childlike (innocent) way. I'm not suggesting that's going to work out very well in real life of course, we're talking about fantasies here. Finally, pedophiles aren't a monolithic group, that's probably the biggest mistake people make about any minority, try to avoid it.

And lordogreus, I apologize for going on talking about pedophiles as though there isn't one here. Of course "1" is a heck of a small sample size statistically, but one pedophile (who will admit) is more than most people ever hear from, so I really appreciate you coming here. I'm curious if you agree with what my thoughts above, and even more so if you don't.
User avatar
ManaUser
 
Posts: 225
Joined: Mon Jun 09, 2008 9:28 pm UTC

Re: Paedophile comes out on DeviantArt

Postby Thrice Great » Fri Jan 23, 2009 11:43 am UTC

User was banned from SB for this post.

-Az
User avatar
Thrice Great
 
Posts: 24
Joined: Tue Jan 13, 2009 11:12 pm UTC

Re: Paedophile comes out on DeviantArt

Postby sweet_concorde » Sat Jan 24, 2009 1:05 am UTC

A child will agree to a sexual relationship/encounter, but I don't think that should imply that a child wants it or is okay with it (or that they aren't harmed in a thousand different ways). Saying a child can consent - but just can't legally consent (due to age limits) - to me, downplays the fact that the child isn't really okay with it, even if they agree to it. I don't know what English word to use in this case.

I'm assuming I read way too far into Heuladru's post of terms, but I finished it worrying that he believed that a child could agree to a sexual relationship with an adult - but that it just wouldn't be legal. I don't know if Heuladru feels that way about it - I just read it that way.

As for other things I've read in this thread: I suppose I can agree that there isn't any actual damage that comes from simply desiring a child, but the horrific potential (ever slipping up, and harming a child in that way) is too much - and so it just isn't something I've been able to accept as being "okay".

I don't know how much control it takes to not molest a child.

For instance... not having sex with anyone but my spouse my whole life - not too difficult. I've been in situations where I easily could have, and didn't want to. But, if I had never married - and I tried not to have sex with anyone, ever... I don't know if I could do that. That would be very difficult. I don't think I could be abstinent my entire life. That wouldn't be like never eating a doughnut, or never robbing a bank, or never killing anyone - although these are things people fantasize about, it isn't the same thing. The need for a sexual relationship is a great need.

I don't know how much control it takes to stick to fantasy your entire life, but I'd assume it would be pretty difficult. I wouldn't be able to do it, but I'm not interested in children - so I don't know if it is the same kind of thing. When you say you have self-control, what does that mean? What amount of self-control are we talking about here? Would you be able to trust yourself as a daycare provider or a teacher, or do you have to keep out of those types of situations?
sweet_concorde
 
Posts: 121
Joined: Wed Mar 19, 2008 4:15 am UTC
Location: midwest

Re: Paedophile comes out on DeviantArt

Postby lordogreus » Sun Jan 25, 2009 11:11 pm UTC

ManaUser wrote:In any case no amount of informing will make a difference, the law just assumes, or defines, that a minor cannot consent.


I do have some thoughts regarding consent, but none of them are particularly relevant in a discussion about pedophilia, because I do not think that the age of consent should be lowered to include a child who has not yet hit puberty, or in other words, a child who would be of interest to a pedophile.

That being said, I do think that there is some wiggle room when it comes to the legal age of consent, but the problem is that some people might be capable of giving consent relatively early, while others might take longer. How one would go about determining whether someone is capable sounds tricky to me. My guess would be that lawmakers delineated the nebulous age group between prepubescence and adulthood, and chose a line which seemed to border the latter side more often than not.

ManaUser wrote:Second, in context I'm assuming you mean "raping", in the taking by force sense rather than a legal sense. (Correct me if I'm wrong.) Is that what you think pedophiles fantasize about? Granted there's no way I can know, but it sure doesn't mesh with what lordogreus said, or really anything I've ever learned about pedophiles outside of tabloids. A person who got off on destruction of innocence might well make children a target of their fantasies, but it doesn't follow that this is the only reason someone could be attracted to children. It might be somewhat more reasonable (though still a generalization) to say pedophiles are attracted to innocence, but to assume they want to destroy it is a whole 'nother logical leap.


It certainly would be difficult to come up with an objective and conclusive description of what goes on in a pedophile's mind, let alone anyone's for that matter. As for myself, I find the thought of rape unsettling, particularly when it is of a child. It might seem ironic that the most unsettling cases for myself are those that involve young girls, those to whom I would feel attracted. (I do not, however, mean to belittle the severity of other cases of rape.)

I think it would be best to set the characteristic of innocence aside when discussing the sexual aspects of pedophilia. It would be more apt to include it in a discussion about the emotional attraction that they (i.e. "we") feel, as distinct from the carnal drive.

ManaUser wrote:Indeed a fairly common theory about pedophiles (besides "they're evil") is that they, or their sexuality, is immature. If that's true (or for those whom it's true for) it would make sense if they wanted to interact with a child sexually, but in a childlike (innocent) way.


Again, this sounds like another statistic which would be difficult to determine, so -- once again -- I will simply use myself and at least one other user with whom I have spent a great deal of time conversing. There is an almost ineffable side to pedophilia that deals more so with the emotions associated with attraction to children. These feelings seem more paternal in nature: they constitute the need to love, raise, nurture, and protect a child. Neither I nor my aforementioned friend feel any of the darker emotions towards children which might result in abuse and rape. It seems that many people believe that attraction to children is somehow tantamount to possessing this latter set of emotions, and I suspect that whatever precipitated this erroneous belief is more related to knee-jerk reactions to child molesters depicted in the media than to an objective, calculated, rational assessment.

I have a vague mix of emotions regarding my attraction to children apart from sexuality. It strikes me as benign prima facie, and I have no reason to suspect otherwise. Virtually all of my thoughts and fantasies about young girls are gentle, not malevolent. They range from subtle hints in the back of my mind to offer a warm embrace when in their physical presence, to more carnal thoughts which either traverse the contours of their unclothed body or involve very standard intercourse.

The bottom line is, regardless of the nature of the thoughts and fantasies, they are not intrinsically distinct from those of other men (or women, as the case may be); there is no schism irrevocably separating those of one group from those of the other, just as the case would be between a man who prefers, say, the petite stature and dark hair and eyes of Asian women and a man who prefers the curvaceous figure and swarthiness of African-American women.

If it can be demonstrated that pedophiles have a greater tendency to derive satisfaction from harming a child, I would then consider two possible explanations. 1. Those feelings arose as a result of the way that they were treated: they were likely shunned by those who knew; they might have lost a job or they might have been turned down by a prospective employer because of it; they were likely tormented by being reminded constantly of what they were not permitted to have any time they saw a child; onanism might have become less satisfying; they might even have been the result of a general feeling of impuissance in the dystopian microcosm society has built for pedophiles. 2. The only sample examined was comprised of convicted child molesters, who do not represent all pedophiles, as you already pointed out. I think the fact that they acted on their feelings (referring to the 2 to 30% [depending on which source you consult] who meet the diagnostic criteria for pedophilia) says much about them, and I think that it distinguishes them from other pedophiles who choose not to harm a child. Naturally, however, there are pedophiles who have not committed a crime who might do so in the future, so I think one's criminal record should not be the only distinguishing characteristic.

ManaUser wrote:Finally, pedophiles aren't a monolithic group, that's probably the biggest mistake people make about any minority, try to avoid it.

And lordogreus, I apologize for going on talking about pedophiles as though there isn't one here. Of course "1" is a heck of a small sample size statistically, but one pedophile (who will admit) is more than most people ever hear from, so I really appreciate you coming here. I'm curious if you agree with what my thoughts above, and even more so if you don't.


I don't think that I had any points of contention. I appreciate your input.
lordogreus
 
Posts: 12
Joined: Fri Jan 09, 2009 8:26 am UTC

Re: Paedophile comes out on DeviantArt

Postby Faranya » Mon Jan 26, 2009 3:42 pm UTC

That being said, I do think that there is some wiggle room when it comes to the legal age of consent, but the problem is that some people might be capable of giving consent relatively early, while others might take longer. How one would go about determining whether someone is capable sounds tricky to me. My guess would be that lawmakers delineated the nebulous age group between prepubescence and adulthood, and chose a line which seemed to border the latter side more often than not.


Yes, that nebulous area was attempted to be addressed by the updated law here in Canada. Age of consent was raised from 14 to 16, but they included provisions for a 5 year buffer zone, essentially meaning that, while a 14 year old is not legally capable of consenting to sex with, say a 30 year old, they are able to consent to anyone up to five years older. So a 14 year old could consent to a 19 year old, a 15 year old with a 20 year old, and a sixteen year old with anyone. Personally, I thought it was a good addition to prevent the criminalization of teenage relationships (not that I think they should be having sex in the first place) It isn't perfect, but it is an attempt to gray the law in a gray area.

http://www.justice.gc.ca/eng/news-nouv/ ... 32273.html
Image
Faranya
 
Posts: 259
Joined: Tue Nov 18, 2008 3:10 am UTC

Re: Paedophile comes out on DeviantArt

Postby ManaUser » Wed Jan 28, 2009 9:07 am UTC

sweet_concorde wrote:A child will agree to a sexual relationship/encounter, but I don't think that should imply that a child wants it or is okay with it (or that they aren't harmed in a thousand different ways). Saying a child can consent - but just can't legally consent (due to age limits) - to me, downplays the fact that the child isn't really okay with it, even if they agree to it. I don't know what English word to use in this case.

I'm assuming I read way too far into Heuladru's post of terms, but I finished it worrying that he believed that a child could agree to a sexual relationship with an adult - but that it just wouldn't be legal. I don't know if Heuladru feels that way about it - I just read it that way.

I can't speak for Heuladru, but I do feel that way. Well, it's not just not legal, there are good reasons why it's not legal. And from a legal perspective it's convenient to treat a child's consent as no consent at all, I'm not sure this is the best way to handle it, but it's nice and simple. But outside of a courtroom I don't think there's any excuse for such laziness.

It seems obvious on the face of it that there's a huge difference between being forced into something by threat or violence Vs. reluctantly accepting something you don't really want Vs. doing something you actually do want, but may not fully understand. Surely that holds true for a person of any age. In other words, I do think the rape/statutory rape distinction is still relevant to young children, even though it's not normally called that and it may be harder to tell which is which.

That's probably a controversial opinion, but I don't know why it should be.
User avatar
ManaUser
 
Posts: 225
Joined: Mon Jun 09, 2008 9:28 pm UTC

Re: Paedophile comes out on DeviantArt

Postby lordogreus » Sun Feb 01, 2009 7:31 pm UTC

Faranya wrote:Yes, that nebulous area was attempted to be addressed by the updated law here in Canada. Age of consent was raised from 14 to 16, but they included provisions for a 5 year buffer zone, essentially meaning that, while a 14 year old is not legally capable of consenting to sex with, say a 30 year old, they are able to consent to anyone up to five years older.


What strikes me as odd in this case, is that it does not address the ability to consent; it circumvents the issue by implying that it is not the capacity to consent or the lack thereof, but rather the age difference which leads to whatever deleterious psychological effects might be inflicted in cases of sexual abuse. The one problem this might address is that of exploitation, insofar as a greater age disparity is proportionate to the extent of the exploitation. This implies that a 19-year-old would be less likely to take advantage of a 14-year-old than, say, a 20-year-old. The reasons for this elude me, but I suppose a line had to be drawn somewhere. Personally, I would prefer that a specific age be selected which represents the point where an individual is most likely to be fully able to grasp the ramifications of becoming sexually active. In regards to this Canadian law, it seems to state that an individual can consent to sex at a relatively young age, provided the partner is not so much older that there is a risk of exploitation.

So as not to stray too far from the topic at hand, I shall return to the subject of a prepubescent's ability to consent. I do not have the relevant information presently available, but I think that it is safe to say that children can be sexually curious; naturally, however, it does not necessarily follow that they understand the effects it can have on their minds and their bodies.

There is a tangential issue here: can children be prepared psychologically for sexual activity, even before they have matured to the proper age? If the issue is whether they grasp everything sexuality entails, could they not be informed of these things such that they could consent to sex? (I understand that, coming from me, this must sounds like I am advocating adult-child sexuality, but that is not the case; I am merely exploring the possibility.) The first obvious problems, I think, would deal with the physical effects: STDs, pregnancy (if possible, though the youngest girl to give birth, I have heard, was five), and other damage incurred. Even if the first two can be dismissed through the use of condoms, I don't see any way around the third, except that such damage can still occur at later ages; though, if I'm not mistaken, it tends not to be as severe. (My friend's ex-girlfriend was evidently sexually assaulted as a child; as a result, she is unable to have children, I believe.) For that reason, I now turn to the possibility of other forms of sexuality that do not involve phallic penetration.

Could there be a distinct set of laws dealing with non-coital sex play? This would be things such as fondling, fellatio and cunnilingus, and even simple kissing. I suppose there is still the risk of catching STDs, so why don't we strip it down to the bare minimum: touching and kissing? It seems conceivable to me that a child, at least after a certain age but before puberty, could agree to this. One problem which I would anticipate, however, is that once a child agrees to this level of sexuality, the issue becomes a slippery slope. If an adult and a child are already in such a situation without outside supervision, it would not be difficult to add more and more activities too soon.

I do agree that this is all a moot point, because I cannot imagine such a scenario becoming a reality. 1. I would not expect there to be many parents out there who would let their child become involved in such things (though that doesn't seem to stop teens). 2. The 'slippery slope' scenario seems likely. 3. There is a greater risk of exploitation. This brings us back to the beginning, where one must ask, at what point do these issue become sufficiently mitigated such that consent is permissible?
lordogreus
 
Posts: 12
Joined: Fri Jan 09, 2009 8:26 am UTC

Re: Paedophile comes out on DeviantArt

Postby ManaUser » Tue Feb 03, 2009 7:57 am UTC

lordogreus wrote:What strikes me as odd in this case, is that it does not address the ability to consent; it circumvents the issue by implying that it is not the capacity to consent or the lack thereof, but rather the age difference which leads to whatever deleterious psychological effects might be inflicted in cases of sexual abuse. The one problem this might address is that of exploitation, insofar as a greater age disparity is proportionate to the extent of the exploitation. This implies that a 19-year-old would be less likely to take advantage of a 14-year-old than, say, a 20-year-old. The reasons for this elude me, but I suppose a line had to be drawn somewhere. Personally, I would prefer that a specific age be selected which represents the point where an individual is most likely to be fully able to grasp the ramifications of becoming sexually active. In regards to this Canadian law, it seems to state that an individual can consent to sex at a relatively young age, provided the partner is not so much older that there is a risk of exploitation.

People usually talk about it in terms of a power imbalance. An older person has more power in the form of experience, strength, wealth and (ironically) legal rights, so they could too easily exploit the the younger person. So from that perspective the law could be justified by saying that less than five years would represent tolerable imbalance while a larger age gap would be unacceptable, but once they're both over 16 age makes less difference and they can do what they want.

But you're right that these laws conflate consent and this issue in a kind of odd way. Of course laws aren't written based on careful planning and rational thought. Probably what actually happened is they invented the age of consent to protect children deemed too young understand what they were doing, then raised it to address the other issue (power imbalance), and then realized they had to make an exception lest same-age teens experimenting be criminalized.

lordogreus wrote:So as not to stray too far from the topic at hand, I shall return to the subject of a prepubescent's ability to consent. I do not have the relevant information presently available, but I think that it is safe to say that children can be sexually curious; naturally, however, it does not necessarily follow that they understand the effects it can have on their minds and their bodies.

There is a tangential issue here: can children be prepared psychologically for sexual activity, even before they have matured to the proper age? If the issue is whether they grasp everything sexuality entails, could they not be informed of these things such that they could consent to sex?

I've wondered that myself. Well nearly, I wasn't thinking so much in terms of training kids to be ready for sex (which does sound kinda creepy) but whether some of the psychological harm from childhood sexual contact is cultural. (Which doesn't mean not it's real!) The alternative, that it really is an innate aspect of humans that we are damaged by this, is frankly a little hard for me to believe.

lordogreus wrote:The first obvious problems, I think, would deal with the physical effects: STDs, pregnancy (if possible, though the youngest girl to give birth, I have heard, was five), and other damage incurred. Even if the first two can be dismissed through the use of condoms, I don't see any way around the third, except that such damage can still occur at later ages; though, if I'm not mistaken, it tends not to be as severe. (My friend's ex-girlfriend was evidently sexually assaulted as a child; as a result, she is unable to have children, I believe.) For that reason, I now turn to the possibility of other forms of sexuality that do not involve phallic penetration.

I would think physical injury would be unlikely except from an assault. As long as both parties have the good sense to stop doing anything painful, lasting damage should be avoidable. By definition prepubescent children can't get pregnant (or cause pregnancy), though there could be a case where they're not prepubescent anymore but don't know it yet. That would leave STDs as the main physical effect to worry about, this includes the common yet cancer-causing HPV.

lordogreus wrote:Could there be a distinct set of laws dealing with non-coital sex play? This would be things such as fondling, fellatio and cunnilingus, and even simple kissing. I suppose there is still the risk of catching STDs, so why don't we strip it down to the bare minimum: touching and kissing? It seems conceivable to me that a child, at least after a certain age but before puberty, could agree to this. One problem which I would anticipate, however, is that once a child agrees to this level of sexuality, the issue becomes a slippery slope. If an adult and a child are already in such a situation without outside supervision, it would not be difficult to add more and more activities too soon.

Actually there are laws like that. I doubt any of them go into the prepubescent range but there can definitely be different ages of consent for different acts. Though bizarrely it's not necessarily lower for oral sex.

lordogreus wrote:I do agree that this is all a moot point, because I cannot imagine such a scenario becoming a reality. 1. I would not expect there to be many parents out there who would let their child become involved in such things (though that doesn't seem to stop teens). 2. The 'slippery slope' scenario seems likely. 3. There is a greater risk of exploitation. This brings us back to the beginning, where one must ask, at what point do these issue become sufficiently mitigated such that consent is permissible?

That's the big question huh. I have no idea, except that they current age (18 in my state) is unrealistically high. We don't have a close in age exception either, except that the punishment is less.
User avatar
ManaUser
 
Posts: 225
Joined: Mon Jun 09, 2008 9:28 pm UTC

Re: Paedophile comes out on DeviantArt

Postby Heuladru » Tue Feb 03, 2009 11:30 am UTC

ManaUser wrote:
lordogreus wrote:There is a tangential issue here: can children be prepared psychologically for sexual activity, even before they have matured to the proper age? If the issue is whether they grasp everything sexuality entails, could they not be informed of these things such that they could consent to sex?

I've wondered that myself. Well nearly, I wasn't thinking so much in terms of training kids to be ready for sex (which does sound kinda creepy) but whether some of the psychological harm from childhood sexual contact is cultural. (Which doesn't mean not it's real!) The alternative, that it really is an innate aspect of humans that we are damaged by this, is frankly a little hard for me to believe.

If coercion isn't involved, I believe the psychological harm is almost entirely cultural, stemming from engaging in an activity so far outside social norms. If you look back through history, there have been times and cultures where child marriage was normal, and no evidence of widespread problems resulting from it.
Heuladru
 
Posts: 6
Joined: Mon Jan 12, 2009 1:16 am UTC

Re: Paedophile comes out on DeviantArt

Postby sophyturtle » Tue Feb 03, 2009 4:43 pm UTC

The human brain does not fully develop until around 25. During puberty it has a large burst of growth. Before puberty the human mind is literally not physically developed enough to truly understand and consent. They do not have all the brain structures an adult does.
Also, sexuality at a young age (or any type of abuse) alters the development of a child. The reason crimes against children are so much more horrible than crimes against adults is because they do more damage to someone who is more vulnerable in multiple ways (physically, psychologically, and legally).
The idea that a child could be 'trained' for sex early is as accurate as saying someone could be 'trained' for slavery. They would think it was normal, but submitting is not consent.
/biological stand point

Psychologically speaking: Sexualizing children damages them. Bodily autonomy becomes something they have difficulty with. Safety becomes something they have difficulty with. Interpersonal relationships came suffer for the rest of their lives. The reason this was not an 'issue' when child marriages were more common was because the children being married off (normally female) were thought of as property.

I knew that Psychobiology degree would come in handy. My point, having sexual relations with children is damaging to them.
Last edited by sophyturtle on Tue Feb 03, 2009 5:10 pm UTC, edited 1 time in total.
I want to get to a place where I am neither conforming nor rebelling but simply being.
User avatar
sophyturtle
I'll go put my shirt back on for this kind of shock. No I won't. I'll get my purse.
 
Posts: 3462
Joined: Thu Mar 20, 2008 4:19 pm UTC
Location: it's turtles all the way down, even in the suburbs

PreviousNext

Return to Serious Business

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Rxnudamq and 1 guest