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

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 1:50 pm UTC

qinwamascot wrote:
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?


The DSM criteria for a mental disorder, along with the reason pedophilia qualifies as one, are in my post about 3 above this, for all those people who are still asking about it after my post.

Pedophilia IS a legitimate mental disorder, just as homosexuality WAS a legitimate mental disorder back in the day. The term "mental disorder" does NOT HAVE ANY FUCKING NEGATIVE CONNOTATIONS. There is absolutely NOTHING inherently wrong with having a mental disorder, and saying homosexuality was a mental disorder just means that it caused the people concerned a hell of a lot of trauma, NOT THAT THERE WAS ANYTHING WRONG WITH BEING GAY.

I absolutely despise the amount of stigma there is around mental illness. People automatically assume that if it's a mental illness, it's "bad" or "unnatural" or one of 50 other negative associations. EDUCATE YOUR-FUCKING-SELVES.

This rant was not directed at anyone specifically, least of all qinwamascot. (He?) just happened to have the post closest to the post reply button for me to quote.

grendelkhan
Posts: 34
Joined: Tue Aug 21, 2007 12:25 am UTC
Contact:

Re: Paedophile comes out on DeviantArt

Postby grendelkhan » Tue Oct 14, 2008 1:56 pm UTC

I'm kind of fuzzy on why anyone should care so darn much about the difference between an "orientation" and a "disorder", particularly as these are subjective categories which have moved their borders within our lifetimes. It's quibbling over something which doesn't have any real bearing on the question at hand; if you want to argue that it's wrong to expect to change someone's desires, even if those desires are destructive, then just do that and be done with it. It's a distraction, and now it's made at least one person increase their font size, which should indicate something.
Artemisia wrote:Some paedophiles are under the impression that children are not harmed when the sex is performed in a friendly, non-pushing way.
Quoted for truth. With this in mind, consider the results of the publication of Rind et al. combined with the internet's ability to bring people with unpopular beliefs together into self-reinforcing echo chambers, and it's enough to make one quite nervous.
Minchandre wrote:Furthermore, I think that the vast majority of such interactions are, in fact, neither enjoyable nor positive for the junior member, and I think that because this is the case, it's worth it to ban all statutory rape, because the one okay occasion does not balance out the 999 bad ones (indeed, a single bad one would outweigh 999 good ones).
You've just argued for the banning of pretty much all interaction between men and women with this one-in-a-thousand test. If you're a lesbian-separatist, this is all well and good for you, but you'd be much better off arguing that whether or not the child thinks they're okay with it, they're not able to make that decision for themselves and the situation is inherently abusive, just as any relationship between a slave and their owner would be.
mochafairy wrote:Before you go trying to say what's best for children and children who have been abused, you should try talking to them and trying to see their side of the story. While this guy hasn't done anything wrong, more power to him, I keep thinking "When is he going to screw up?"
Indeed; I'm sure the same thing has gone through his head, that the best thing he can do with his life is to keep himself from committing a terrible crime. For a moral person, it seems like voluntary exile and suicide are pretty much the only viable options.

(Washington State has gone with the first option; the Special Commitment Center is essentially permanent warehousing for untreatable sex offenders.)

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 2:32 pm UTC

psyck0 wrote:
qinwamascot wrote:
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?


The DSM criteria for a mental disorder, along with the reason pedophilia qualifies as one, are in my post about 3 above this, for all those people who are still asking about it after my post.

Pedophilia IS a legitimate mental disorder, just as homosexuality WAS a legitimate mental disorder back in the day. The term "mental disorder" does NOT HAVE ANY FUCKING NEGATIVE CONNOTATIONS. There is absolutely NOTHING inherently wrong with having a mental disorder, and saying homosexuality was a mental disorder just means that it caused the people concerned a hell of a lot of trauma, NOT THAT THERE WAS ANYTHING WRONG WITH BEING GAY.

I absolutely despise the amount of stigma there is around mental illness. People automatically assume that if it's a mental illness, it's "bad" or "unnatural" or one of 50 other negative associations. EDUCATE YOUR-FUCKING-SELVES.

This rant was not directed at anyone specifically, least of all qinwamascot. (He?) just happened to have the post closest to the post reply button for me to quote.


I pretty much agree with this, as I posted above. But other people seem to be using it negatively, so the argument was framed in that context. But lol, no need for size 150 text. And yes, I'm a guy.

grendelkhan wrote:I'm kind of fuzzy on why anyone should care so darn much about the difference between an "orientation" and a "disorder", particularly as these are subjective categories which have moved their borders within our lifetimes. It's quibbling over something which doesn't have any real bearing on the question at hand; if you want to argue that it's wrong to expect to change someone's desires, even if those desires are destructive, then just do that and be done with it. It's a distraction, and now it's made at least one person increase their font size, which should indicate something.


Yeah...it really doesn't matter at all whether it's a disorder or orientation; it's just semantics at best.

Artemisia wrote:Some paedophiles are under the impression that children are not harmed when the sex is performed in a friendly, non-pushing way.
Quoted for truth. With this in mind, consider the results of the publication of Rind et al. combined with the internet's ability to bring people with unpopular beliefs together into self-reinforcing echo chambers, and it's enough to make one quite nervous.


This is true, but how is it relevant (I'm not trying to attack it; I really just want to know). This person specifically hasn't ever had sex with children, whether or not it was abuse.

Minchandre wrote:Furthermore, I think that the vast majority of such interactions are, in fact, neither enjoyable nor positive for the junior member, and I think that because this is the case, it's worth it to ban all statutory rape, because the one okay occasion does not balance out the 999 bad ones (indeed, a single bad one would outweigh 999 good ones).
You've just argued for the banning of pretty much all interaction between men and women with this one-in-a-thousand test. If you're a lesbian-separatist, this is all well and good for you, but you'd be much better off arguing that whether or not the child thinks they're okay with it, they're not able to make that decision for themselves and the situation is inherently abusive, just as any relationship between a slave and their owner would be.
mochafairy wrote:Before you go trying to say what's best for children and children who have been abused, you should try talking to them and trying to see their side of the story. While this guy hasn't done anything wrong, more power to him, I keep thinking "When is he going to screw up?"
Indeed; I'm sure the same thing has gone through his head, that the best thing he can do with his life is to keep himself from committing a terrible crime. For a moral person, it seems like voluntary exile and suicide are pretty much the only viable options.

(Washington State has gone with the first option; the Special Commitment Center is essentially permanent warehousing for untreatable sex offenders.)


Whether or not he is constantly worried about screwing up, and whether we should be, are two different things. I'm sure he's always worried about giving in, but that doesn't mean he will. If he has enough determination and willpower to come out and say this, I think he probably also has enough resolve to avoid abusing children. We should be commending him, not wondering "when is he going to screw up?" Or perhaps we should wonder this about everyone with any desires that are unacceptable, but I'd guess that a majority of the population (or at least a large minority) fit into this category.

:shock: That last website is pretty extreme. It's classified as a full confinement center, yet used 'after [they] have completed their prison sentences'. After that, they can petition for a "Less Restrictive Alternative" and only after that can they be released. It looks like they're basically trying to isolate sexual offenders from everyone else and never give them freedom again. Treatment is good, but this is over-the-top.

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


So, what's that got to do with anything? It's legal in the US to draw pictures of naked people, even ones that look underage. It's even legal to post them online. What's illegal is photographs. I honestly see no problem with this; if someone does could they explain?
Quiznos>Subway

grendelkhan
Posts: 34
Joined: Tue Aug 21, 2007 12:25 am UTC
Contact:

Re: Paedophile comes out on DeviantArt

Postby grendelkhan » Tue Oct 14, 2008 3:44 pm UTC

qinwamascot wrote:
grendelkhan wrote:Consider the results of the publication of Rind et al. combined with the internet's ability to bring people with unpopular beliefs together into self-reinforcing echo chambers, and it's enough to make one quite nervous.
This is true, but how is it relevant (I'm not trying to attack it; I really just want to know). This person specifically hasn't ever had sex with children, whether or not it was abuse.
I was pointing out factors in convincing pedophiles that they're not actually doing anything wrong; it's a kind of self-deception that's not nearly as easy to pull off when the victim is a full-grown adult. (I suppose this goes some way toward explaining the proportion of rapes which don't involve violent beatings or knife threats, which the rapists are real sure were consensual.)
qinwamascot wrote:Whether or not he is constantly worried about screwing up, and whether we should be, are two different things. I'm sure he's always worried about giving in, but that doesn't mean he will. If he has enough determination and willpower to come out and say this, I think he probably also has enough resolve to avoid abusing children.
You think that. How comforting. I doubt it'll be terribly comforting if he ever convinces himself that some little girl has seduced him, and he just did what she wanted. Why are you willing to make that bet? Where does your faith come from, given the depressingly ready availability of people on any given forum (this one, for instance) who'll explain that the pedophile in their case happened to, as you put it, "give in".
qinwamascot wrote:We should be commending him, not wondering "when is he going to screw up?" Or perhaps we should wonder this about everyone with any desires that are unacceptable, but I'd guess that a majority of the population (or at least a large minority) fit into this category.
I'm sure he'd get enough internet handjobbery from the online pedophile community, who'll no doubt hail him as yet another martyr yet to receive his due rights as just another oppressed sexual minority. I don't think managing to not molest anyone is worthy of particular praise.
qinwamascot wrote::shock: That last website is pretty extreme. It's classified as a full confinement center, yet used 'after [they] have completed their prison sentences'. After that, they can petition for a "Less Restrictive Alternative" and only after that can they be released. It looks like they're basically trying to isolate sexual offenders from everyone else and never give them freedom again. Treatment is good, but this is over-the-top.
Why? If these people can't be released into society without being likely to re-offend, why shouldn't they be exiled to a pedophile island somewhere?
qinwamascot wrote:It's legal in the US to draw pictures of naked people, even ones that look underage. It's even legal to post them online. What's illegal is photographs. I honestly see no problem with this; if someone does could they explain?
Yeah, tell that to Mike Diana, to Karen Fletcher, and to anyone who was drawing lolicon between 1996 and 2002.

mrandrewv
Posts: 97
Joined: Wed May 16, 2007 2:30 pm UTC
Location: Cape Town, South Africa

Re: Paedophile comes out on DeviantArt

Postby mrandrewv » Tue Oct 14, 2008 4:02 pm UTC

Here is a reply to those who feel he should be locked up or committed (since by committed I assume you mean "not allowed freedom of movement by confinement in a psychiatric institution instead of a prison").

So if someone has constant fantasies about murder we don't lock them up until they have actually acted on it.
But if someone has fantasies of child rape we do?

Wtf guys? Do you really think that rape is significantly worse than MURDER to justify this additional level of special treatment?

Foolishness.

And the fact that the issue is so inflamatory means that it is impossible to develope a dialogue on it.

And the fact is that the US has gone completely overboard with it's treatment of sex offences.

Behold: http://www.reformsexoffenderlaws.org/statement.php

Now I don't agree with everythign that group says, but I do agree that the laws need to be rexamined.

And this strikes kinda close to home because my own country (South Africa) recently introcued a set of regulations that were for the most part good, but also had unwanted side-effects, like classifying kissing under the age of 18 as sexual assault.

I mean come on.

And according to the link some children as young as 8 have been placed on sex offender registries. I have a hard time thinking that is alright.
It's all very interesting...

Game_boy
Posts: 1314
Joined: Tue Mar 04, 2008 7:33 pm UTC

Re: Paedophile comes out on DeviantArt

Postby Game_boy » Tue Oct 14, 2008 4:06 pm UTC

The best thing to do is start from an everything-permitted perspective and then specifically stop things that are evidently harmful. If you do it the other way around, your conclusion is likely to be influenced by cultural norms and personal prejudice.

So, obviously having sex with children (defined as: people who are too young to understand the meaning and consequences of sex) is not permitted. Neither is CP, which indirectly causes the exploitation of children. The attraction seems built-in and subconscious, so it cannot be consciously or forcefully 'cured' without damaging personality, nor is it right to classify it as a mental disorder when the person is perfectly able to behave responsibly and legally. Punishing people for their thoughts is wrong too.

So, while it is unfortunate that this is the case, we should not be prejudiced against him or protest that he should be locked up or something.

My definition of 'child' above doesn't seem to correlate with the current age of consent though - perhaps it could be lowered? Some studies need to be done, at least.
The Reaper wrote:Evolution is a really really really long run-on sentence.

User avatar
jestingrabbit
Factoids are just Datas that haven't grown up yet
Posts: 5967
Joined: Tue Nov 28, 2006 9:50 pm UTC
Location: Sydney

Re: Paedophile comes out on DeviantArt

Postby jestingrabbit » Tue Oct 14, 2008 4:55 pm UTC

qinwamascot wrote: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.


So you don't see any difference between an adult (I'm assuming you're an adult) taking a risk upon themselves, and forcing a risk upon your own children? 'Here kid, get this knife to your mother in garden, but you better run!' I mean, shit. This has gotta be the dumbest post in this thread.

----

As for what this individual should do, I think they should seek professional help. Every pedophile who acts on their urges was at one time a pedophile who did not act on their urges and you have acted too late if you wait for harmful behaviours to develop before getting help.

As for the idea that there is no treatment available: that's nonsense. Read this.
ameretrifle wrote:Magic space feudalism is therefore a viable idea.

User avatar
(╯°□°)╯︵ ┻━┻
As the Arbiter of Everything, Everything Sucks
Posts: 8314
Joined: Mon Jun 18, 2007 6:17 pm UTC
Location: I FUCKING MOVED TO THE WOODS

Re: Paedophile comes out on DeviantArt

Postby (╯°□°)╯︵ ┻━┻ » Tue Oct 14, 2008 5:05 pm UTC

grendelkhan wrote:
mochafairy wrote:Before you go trying to say what's best for children and children who have been abused, you should try talking to them and trying to see their side of the story. While this guy hasn't done anything wrong, more power to him, I keep thinking "When is he going to screw up?"
Indeed; I'm sure the same thing has gone through his head, that the best thing he can do with his life is to keep himself from committing a terrible crime. For a moral person, it seems like voluntary exile and suicide are pretty much the only viable options.

(Washington State has gone with the first option; the Special Commitment Center is essentially permanent warehousing for untreatable sex offenders.)

...Are you really saying that, despite the fact that this person has done nothing wrong, and nothing at all short of make a few drawings and accept a label of 'paedophile', that for someone like him, the only moral thing to do with one's life is end it, or spend it in exile?
That can't be seriously what you're saying. Because that link you've posted is of course for untreatable sex offenders, and well, there's a pretty big difference between someone who's never offended and has no intention of offending, and repeat offenders of crimes against children. There are those who are incurable predators, and they should be restricted from access to children. This is not the same as admitting you have an attraction or fantasy that is generally distasteful, and do not wish to act upon it. Very, very different.
It is tremendously unfair to assume that because a person has an urge in one direction, he will act upon it. Then we're entering Thought Police territory, and I don't know about any of you, but I don't really want to go there, and I also don't think we have the right to.

Sometimes I really just want to kill a lot of people. Will everyone insisting that this person can't possibly exercise self control for the duration of his life say the same for me?
Heyyy baby wanna kill all humans?

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 5:15 pm UTC

Meaux_Pas wrote:Sometimes I really just want to kill a lot of people. Will everyone insisting that this person can't possibly exercise self control for the duration of his life say the same for me?


If your drive to kill a lot of people is similar in duration and intensity as your desire to have sex, and you found it equally easy to rationalize, I'd suggest psychological treatment ASAP, yes.

But I imagine it's just short term, intermittent, and not as strong.

Likewise, it would be a lot harder to engage in some rationalization to make it okay in your head when you started murdering folk.

So you're probably okay.

Of course, it's always possible that, despite all that, this dude is a pillar of willpower and he'll be fine forever. But I prefer to assume most people are of average willpower, and that therefore this guy will slip up.
addams wrote:A drunk neighbor is better than a sober Belial.


They/them

Game_boy
Posts: 1314
Joined: Tue Mar 04, 2008 7:33 pm UTC

Re: Paedophile comes out on DeviantArt

Postby Game_boy » Tue Oct 14, 2008 5:16 pm UTC

You want to punish people for thinking the wrong thing? How is that different from 1984?
The Reaper wrote:Evolution is a really really really long run-on sentence.

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 5:19 pm UTC

Treatment is not punishment. Treatment is treatment. If you get typhoid or get run over by a car, you're not being *punished* when we take you to the hospital and hold you there until you're better, all the while using medicine and medical procedures on you to facilitate the process. You're being treated.
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 5:43 pm UTC

Society can mandate that an individual receive psychological treatment if it is proven that that individual is at serious risk of harming himself or others.

Before mandating treatment, I'd like to see studies on how likely you are to rape children just from having the attraction at all. If we say "you have no choice but to seek treatment for this," it's not fair - those who admit their problem are forced into something, and those who hide it remain completely under the radar.

And yes, treatment is not punishment - but it is expensive, I'm sure. Is the burden on the pedophile to pay for his treatment, even though he has done no wrong?

Show me proof that simply being a pedophile IS sufficient cause to believe that one will rape children in the absence of treatment, and show me a society that does not look upon it as a punishment and is willing to provide for it. I'm willing to pay taxes for pedophiles to get this help - it results in a freer AND safer society. But society needs work to get to that point.
"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
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 5:49 pm UTC

grendelkhan wrote:
qinwamascot wrote:
grendelkhan wrote:Consider the results of the publication of Rind et al. combined with the internet's ability to bring people with unpopular beliefs together into self-reinforcing echo chambers, and it's enough to make one quite nervous.
This is true, but how is it relevant (I'm not trying to attack it; I really just want to know). This person specifically hasn't ever had sex with children, whether or not it was abuse.
I was pointing out factors in convincing pedophiles that they're not actually doing anything wrong; it's a kind of self-deception that's not nearly as easy to pull off when the victim is a full-grown adult. (I suppose this goes some way toward explaining the proportion of rapes which don't involve violent beatings or knife threats, which the rapists are real sure were consensual.)

Yes, but in this case, he isn't deceiving himself, nor can you say that in general people are. Some pedophiles do deceive themselves and rape children. But then again, some rapists deceive themselves and rape adults. Arguing that a larger percentage of pedophiles are convinced of something like that is ludicrous and unfounded; I have seen no statistical information supporting such a claim.
qinwamascot wrote:Whether or not he is constantly worried about screwing up, and whether we should be, are two different things. I'm sure he's always worried about giving in, but that doesn't mean he will. If he has enough determination and willpower to come out and say this, I think he probably also has enough resolve to avoid abusing children.
You think that. How comforting. I doubt it'll be terribly comforting if he ever convinces himself that some little girl has seduced him, and he just did what she wanted. Why are you willing to make that bet? Where does your faith come from, given the depressingly ready availability of people on any given forum (this one, for instance) who'll explain that the pedophile in their case happened to, as you put it, "give in".

You have misinterpreted my tone. The emphasis was on "I", and it was written in a somewhat presumptuous tone, as in "I think x" implying that x must be true. This is just a semantical point though.

As for your actual argument, perhaps he will break down at some point and rape someone. We can disagree over the likelihood of this. But if we are going to punish him for it, should we not also punish everyone who ever has any desires to do anything bad? I know that I personally would find it extremely amusing to take an axe and break through my door. I don't know why. I have always wanted to do so with this particular door. However, I won't, because doing so would be harmful. Likewise, he would like to rape children, but won't because doing so would be harmful. I realize the desires are very different, but assuming (or even predicting) that one will give into desire is false.

As for what happens if he does give in, which I believe is highly unlikely, that would certainly be a bad thing. However, even if we knew that beforehand, it wouldn't justify forcing him to go to therapy or anything like that. Justice is, at best, reactionary. Also, the legal principle that it's "better to let 10 criminals walk free than put one innocent man in prison" applies here. So while it *might* help to reduce the possibility of a child getting raped, forcing him to go to prison or therapy or anything like that would be a much greater evil.
qinwamascot wrote:We should be commending him, not wondering "when is he going to screw up?" Or perhaps we should wonder this about everyone with any desires that are unacceptable, but I'd guess that a majority of the population (or at least a large minority) fit into this category.
I'm sure he'd get enough internet handjobbery from the online pedophile community, who'll no doubt hail him as yet another martyr yet to receive his due rights as just another oppressed sexual minority. I don't think managing to not molest anyone is worthy of particular praise.


It's not about managing not to molest someone; if you really think that you aren't looking at this objectively. It's about coming out and telling people that he is a pedophile. That in itself takes tremendous willpower because people will come out strongly against it. By doing so anyways, he is strengthening his commitment to not rape anyone. Any psychiatrist will tell you that by doing so, he puts himself in by far the least likely category to commit any crimes of this nature. It's not managing to not molest people; it's coming out with his story.

qinwamascot wrote::shock: That last website is pretty extreme. It's classified as a full confinement center, yet used 'after [they] have completed their prison sentences'. After that, they can petition for a "Less Restrictive Alternative" and only after that can they be released. It looks like they're basically trying to isolate sexual offenders from everyone else and never give them freedom again. Treatment is good, but this is over-the-top.
Why? If these people can't be released into society without being likely to re-offend, why shouldn't they be exiled to a pedophile island somewhere?


because this goes against the rule of law. Sure, we can treat people who are convicted. That is not problematic. But exiling them implies they can never return, which is exactly the problem here. The goal of legal consequences should be to get people back into society as productive individuals and correct misbehaviors, not just punish them. The former is proven successful while the latter fails in every major study on criminal justice.

qinwamascot wrote:It's legal in the US to draw pictures of naked people, even ones that look underage. It's even legal to post them online. What's illegal is photographs. I honestly see no problem with this; if someone does could they explain?
Yeah, tell that to Mike Diana, to Karen Fletcher, and to anyone who was drawing lolicon between 1996 and 2002.


It's not illegal now, and it was never illegal to draw, only to distribute. The court struck down the old restrictions as unconstitutional abridgments of freedom of speech, and the people . You didn't address my question as to why this is at all wrong though.

jestingrabbit wrote:
qinwamascot wrote: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.


So you don't see any difference between an adult (I'm assuming you're an adult) taking a risk upon themselves, and forcing a risk upon your own children? 'Here kid, get this knife to your mother in garden, but you better run!' I mean, shit.


As I said, I don't see it as a significant risk. If you do, explain please, because so far every argument (including yours below) that has said there is a significant risk (relative to an average person) has been fallacious at best, and discriminatory at worst. Your analogy here is ludicrous. Getting a child to carry a knife is a large risk, but what I suggested is a tiny one.

I don't see a lot of difference between the two. Because, as I said, there really isn't a significant risk.

As for what this individual should do, I think they should seek professional help. Every pedophile who acts on their urges was at one time a pedophile who did not act on their urges and you have acted too late if you wait for harmful behaviours to develop before getting help.

As for the idea that there is no treatment available: that's nonsense. Read this.


I agree that if he has urges that are uncontrollable, he should seek treatment. However, forcing it on him is absolutely wrong.

Your argument here that every pedophile who acts on their urges at one point wasn't is true. But it doesn't contribute anything at all to the debate. From this we can not make any conclusions about how likely it is that he will at some point give in. To do so would be affirming the consequent.

To show how this logic fails, I'll take another example. Everyone who is a murderer at one point was born. Thus, to reduce the number of murders, we should kill all the newborn babies. This will accomplish said goal, but it assumes that the converse of the statement is true. In reality, we have no way of telling the small percentage of people who will become murderers from the much larger set of people who are born. Just like we have no way of telling the small number of people who will rape children relative to the larger number who have urges to do so.

So in short, this argument absolutely fails in formal logic. The premise is true, but the steps to get to the conclusion are invalid, so the conclusion is not valid.

This has gotta be the dumbest post in this thread.


Except possibly your own :P

edit:
Show me proof that simply being a pedophile IS sufficient cause to believe that one will rape children in the absence of treatment
This is basically what I said, but far more succinctly.

edited 3 more times to fix typos :x
Last edited by qinwamascot on Tue Oct 14, 2008 5:55 pm UTC, edited 4 times in total.
Quiznos>Subway

Game_boy
Posts: 1314
Joined: Tue Mar 04, 2008 7:33 pm UTC

Re: Paedophile comes out on DeviantArt

Postby Game_boy » Tue Oct 14, 2008 5:52 pm UTC

Belial wrote:Treatment is not punishment. Treatment is treatment. If you get typhoid or get run over by a car, you're not being *punished* when we take you to the hospital and hold you there until you're better, all the while using medicine and medical procedures on you to facilitate the process. You're being treated.


To Bold: It is if, as a rational person, you cannot say no to the treatment.

I doubt it can be treated - homosexuality certainly can't be.
The Reaper wrote:Evolution is a really really really long run-on sentence.

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 6:04 pm UTC

Belial wrote:Treatment is not punishment. Treatment is treatment. If you get typhoid or get run over by a car, you're not being *punished* when we take you to the hospital and hold you there until you're better, all the while using medicine and medical procedures on you to facilitate the process. You're being treated.


If you can get up and walk out of the hospital on your own, they can not hold you. It is illegal for them to do so. If we are talking about voluntary treatment, then I'm not opposed at all. But when we "ship them away to some island" that they can't voluntarily leave from then it is punishment.
Quiznos>Subway

User avatar
jestingrabbit
Factoids are just Datas that haven't grown up yet
Posts: 5967
Joined: Tue Nov 28, 2006 9:50 pm UTC
Location: Sydney

Re: Paedophile comes out on DeviantArt

Postby jestingrabbit » Tue Oct 14, 2008 6:45 pm UTC

qinwamascot wrote:
jestingrabbit wrote:
qinwamascot wrote: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.


So you don't see any difference between an adult (I'm assuming you're an adult) taking a risk upon themselves, and forcing a risk upon your own children? 'Here kid, get this knife to your mother in garden, but you better run!' I mean, shit.


As I said, I don't see it as a significant risk. If you do, explain please, because so far every argument (including yours below) that has said there is a significant risk (relative to an average person) has been fallacious at best, and discriminatory at worst. Your analogy here is ludicrous. Getting a child to carry a knife is a large risk, but what I suggested is a tiny one. I don't see a lot of difference between the two. Because, as I said, there really isn't a significant risk.


If its a tiny risk why is it that

here wrote:Conservative estimates indicate that 20% of all females and 10% of all males have been molested prior to age 18 years.


That's a pretty significant portion of the populus. Moreover, its a very negative thing for a child to be sexually abused. It can lead to serious problems throughout the rest of the child's life. Finally, its not a risk that you are taking upon yourself, it is a risk that you are forcing upon your children. Its a pretty significant social rule that parents should protect their children, and to walk away from that, to see something which can be severly debilitating, that occurs to something like 15% of children, as a small risk is incredibly stupid.

qinwamascot wrote:
jestingrabbit wrote:As for what this individual should do, I think they should seek professional help. Every pedophile who acts on their urges was at one time a pedophile who did not act on their urges and you have acted too late if you wait for harmful behaviours to develop before getting help.

As for the idea that there is no treatment available: that's nonsense. Read this.


I agree that if he has urges that are uncontrollable, he should seek treatment. However, forcing it on him is absolutely wrong.


If someone is suicidal, the state doesn't wait until those thoughts are uncontrollable. It intervenes before then if possible, and I think the state should do the same in this case. The usual requirement (we are all probably coming from different jurisdictions, so this will vary) for detaining someone against their will for psychiatric treatment is that they are a danger to themselves or others. Why should that standard be varied in the case of pedophilia?

qinwamascot wrote:Your argument here that every pedophile who acts on their urges at one point wasn't is true. But it doesn't contribute anything at all to the debate. From this we can not make any conclusions about how likely it is that he will at some point give in. To do so would be affirming the consequent.


You're correct that we can't make a statistical judgement of how dangerous any given individual non-offending pedophile is, though you seem quite comfortable claiming that they present a tiny risk, despite the fact that child sexual abuse is widely recognised as being highly detrimental, and without any supporting data, supporting you claims with repeated appeals to willpower.

But regardless of what the actual probability is, considering the possible harm that could be done, that individual has a moral duty to persue actions that minimise that probability. They should get psychiatric or psychological help.

qinwamascot wrote:To show how this logic fails, I'll take another example. Everyone who is a murderer at one point was born. Thus, to reduce the number of murders, we should kill all the newborn babies. This will accomplish said goal, but it assumes that the converse of the statement is true. In reality, we have no way of telling the small percentage of people who will become murderers from the much larger set of people who are born. Just like we have no way of telling the small number of people who will rape children relative to the larger number who have urges to do so.


If someone was regularly fantasizing about killing people, I would think that person needed help too. Beyond that, your analogy is completely specious.

qinwamascot wrote:So in short, this argument absolutely fails in formal logic. The premise is true, but the steps to get to the conclusion are invalid, so the conclusion is not valid.


Given that I wasn't trying to formally prove anything, I am comfortable with this. But you should realise that formal logic has its limits, and that your own argument is riddled with assumptions that seem to have no basis in fact.

Edit:
qinwamascot wrote:
Belial wrote:Treatment is not punishment. Treatment is treatment. If you get typhoid or get run over by a car, you're not being *punished* when we take you to the hospital and hold you there until you're better, all the while using medicine and medical procedures on you to facilitate the process. You're being treated.


If you can get up and walk out of the hospital on your own, they can not hold you. It is illegal for them to do so. If we are talking about voluntary treatment, then I'm not opposed at all. But when we "ship them away to some island" that they can't voluntarily leave from then it is punishment.


In Oklahoma there is a thing called involuntary detention. You can read about it here.

http://www.odmhsas.org/43A/2006-43A.pdf
ameretrifle wrote:Magic space feudalism is therefore a viable idea.

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 7:05 pm UTC

You could probably make a strong case for the mandatory detention and treatment of pedophiles under the mental health act if you wanted to. The biggest obstacle, as I see it, would be in proving that they are a threat to others, which is generally a requirement of whatever mental health act you're under. With a person who is actively suicidal, they are very clearly a threat to themselves. With a person who is aggressively psychotic, they are clearly a threat to others. With a person who is a pedophile, though... what if they swear never to molest a child? Can you prove, beyond reasonable doubt, that they are a threat to others? Psychotics lack the rational capacity to swear to something like that, but pedophiles don't. Can you prove beyond reasonable doubt that the pedophile is lying?

I don't think you can.

Besides, there is no effective treatment for pedophilia anyway.

User avatar
jestingrabbit
Factoids are just Datas that haven't grown up yet
Posts: 5967
Joined: Tue Nov 28, 2006 9:50 pm UTC
Location: Sydney

Re: Paedophile comes out on DeviantArt

Postby jestingrabbit » Tue Oct 14, 2008 7:54 pm UTC

psyck0 wrote:You could probably make a strong case for the mandatory detention and treatment of pedophiles under the mental health act if you wanted to. The biggest obstacle, as I see it, would be in proving that they are a threat to others, which is generally a requirement of whatever mental health act you're under. With a person who is actively suicidal, they are very clearly a threat to themselves. With a person who is aggressively psychotic, they are clearly a threat to others. With a person who is a pedophile, though... what if they swear never to molest a child? Can you prove, beyond reasonable doubt, that they are a threat to others? Psychotics lack the rational capacity to swear to something like that, but pedophiles don't. Can you prove beyond reasonable doubt that the pedophile is lying?

I don't think you can.


I doubt that that is the standard of proof that's required. Much more likely balance of probabilities, and I think given the risk to the populus they could represent you might be able to swing it. But who knows if this sort of thing goes on.

psyck0 wrote:Besides, there is no effective treatment for pedophilia anyway.


That's not true.

http://www.health.am/sex/more/pedophilia/
ameretrifle wrote:Magic space feudalism is therefore a viable idea.

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 8:33 pm UTC

jestingrabbit wrote:
qinwamascot wrote:
jestingrabbit wrote:
qinwamascot wrote: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.


So you don't see any difference between an adult (I'm assuming you're an adult) taking a risk upon themselves, and forcing a risk upon your own children? 'Here kid, get this knife to your mother in garden, but you better run!' I mean, shit.


As I said, I don't see it as a significant risk. If you do, explain please, because so far every argument (including yours below) that has said there is a significant risk (relative to an average person) has been fallacious at best, and discriminatory at worst. Your analogy here is ludicrous. Getting a child to carry a knife is a large risk, but what I suggested is a tiny one. I don't see a lot of difference between the two. Because, as I said, there really isn't a significant risk.


If its a tiny risk why is it that

here wrote:Conservative estimates indicate that 20% of all females and 10% of all males have been molested prior to age 18 years.


That's a pretty significant portion of the populus. Moreover, its a very negative thing for a child to be sexually abused. It can lead to serious problems throughout the rest of the child's life. Finally, its not a risk that you are taking upon yourself, it is a risk that you are forcing upon your children. Its a pretty significant social rule that parents should protect their children, and to walk away from that, to see something which can be severly debilitating, that occurs to something like 15% of children, as a small risk is incredibly stupid.


The reason I think it is a relatively small risk is this: the person is openly a pedophile.

Allow me to explain. I'm assuming that the person knows that I know that they are a pedophile. Thus, I'd likely set up security systems (i.e. cameras, telling my kids about sexual abuse, etc) and have ways to check. Personally, I have security cameras set up in my dorm room 24/7 in case some one steals something. I'd likely do the same for my house. Also, my kids will be adequately prepared, and in the worst case scenario that one of them gets abused, I would know about it. The person who would knowingly accept these restrictions and be willing to babysit anyways would be constantly aware of the consequences and that I am adequately prepared.

On the other hand, an ordinary pedophile will think they can get away with something. It's not hard to get away with if the person isn't prepared. It's much harder if the person is. Perhaps I should qualify here that I was talking about children who are at least 10-11 years old and know about sex and abuse. I wouldn't particularly trust anyone outside my immediate family with children younger than that.

As for it occurring to 15% of the population, this is unfortunately true. However, the number of offenders is questionable, and is probably much smaller than that. Furthermore, most of the people it occurs to were not prepared for this to happen. While there is a small risk, and I'd like to minimize risks, I don't think it's any larger than using someone else. In fact, it could be more safe.

qinwamascot wrote:
jestingrabbit wrote:As for what this individual should do, I think they should seek professional help. Every pedophile who acts on their urges was at one time a pedophile who did not act on their urges and you have acted too late if you wait for harmful behaviours to develop before getting help.

As for the idea that there is no treatment available: that's nonsense. Read this.


I agree that if he has urges that are uncontrollable, he should seek treatment. However, forcing it on him is absolutely wrong.


If someone is suicidal, the state doesn't wait until those thoughts are uncontrollable. It intervenes before then if possible, and I think the state should do the same in this case. The usual requirement (we are all probably coming from different jurisdictions, so this will vary) for detaining someone against their will for psychiatric treatment is that they are a danger to themselves or others. Why should that standard be varied in the case of pedophilia?


I don't want to get into a suicide debate here, I have another topic for that. Suffice it to say I'm not in favor of the current restrictions. I think a better restriction is immediate danger to others.

qinwamascot wrote:Your argument here that every pedophile who acts on their urges at one point wasn't is true. But it doesn't contribute anything at all to the debate. From this we can not make any conclusions about how likely it is that he will at some point give in. To do so would be affirming the consequent.


You're correct that we can't make a statistical judgement of how dangerous any given individual non-offending pedophile is, though you seem quite comfortable claiming that they present a tiny risk, despite the fact that child sexual abuse is widely recognised as being highly detrimental, and without any supporting data, supporting you claims with repeated appeals to willpower.

But regardless of what the actual probability is, considering the possible harm that could be done, that individual has a moral duty to persue actions that minimise that probability. They should get psychiatric or psychological help.


But you're forgetting the other side of the equation. Putting non-offending pedophiles who will never offend into prison/treatment against their own will is also a negative. You have to balance this with the negative of harm to children. I agree that they should get help, but not that we should force them to.

qinwamascot wrote:To show how this logic fails, I'll take another example. Everyone who is a murderer at one point was born. Thus, to reduce the number of murders, we should kill all the newborn babies. This will accomplish said goal, but it assumes that the converse of the statement is true. In reality, we have no way of telling the small percentage of people who will become murderers from the much larger set of people who are born. Just like we have no way of telling the small number of people who will rape children relative to the larger number who have urges to do so.


If someone was regularly fantasizing about killing people, I would think that person needed help too. Beyond that, your analogy is completely specious.


Such a person should seek help, but the difference is whether or not the government should force them to get it. I don't think so, but it ultimately isn't very relevant to this topic. I don't see the problem with the analogy. Unless you're using the older, obsolete meaning of specious (showy), in which case admittedly it is.
qinwamascot wrote:So in short, this argument absolutely fails in formal logic. The premise is true, but the steps to get to the conclusion are invalid, so the conclusion is not valid.


Given that I wasn't trying to formally prove anything, I am comfortable with this. But you should realise that formal logic has its limits, and that your own argument is riddled with assumptions that seem to have no basis in fact.


The point is that if an argument fails in formal logic, it doesn't make sense. My argument may be based on faulty premisses, but it is logically consistent within these premisses. So in short, neither argument is necessarily correct. However, if my (admittedly unresearched) premisses are correct, then the conclusion follows. For yours, the premisses don't imply the conclusion as written.

Edit:
qinwamascot wrote:
Belial wrote:Treatment is not punishment. Treatment is treatment. If you get typhoid or get run over by a car, you're not being *punished* when we take you to the hospital and hold you there until you're better, all the while using medicine and medical procedures on you to facilitate the process. You're being treated.


If you can get up and walk out of the hospital on your own, they can not hold you. It is illegal for them to do so. If we are talking about voluntary treatment, then I'm not opposed at all. But when we "ship them away to some island" that they can't voluntarily leave from then it is punishment.


In Oklahoma there is a thing called involuntary detention. You can read about it here.

http://www.odmhsas.org/43A/2006-43A.pdf


I don't agree with Oklahoma state policy on a lot of things, but there isn't a lot I can do about it since I vote in New Jersey. But the policy you mentioned dealt with people with mental illnesses which obstructed decision-making ability. I'd argue that this doesn't fall into such a category since the person in question knows what the right decision is.
Quiznos>Subway

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 8:37 pm UTC

Does that 20% of women/10% of men statistic mean ACTUAL abuse, or does it include instances where it's only a crime because the law dictates it? (For example, if a 17 year old has consensual sex with an 18 year old in state where 18 is the age of consent, does that technically illegal act constitute sexual abuse?)
"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
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 10:38 pm UTC

Nougatrocity wrote:Does that 20% of women/10% of men statistic mean ACTUAL abuse, or does it include instances where it's only a crime because the law dictates it? (For example, if a 17 year old has consensual sex with an 18 year old in state where 18 is the age of consent, does that technically illegal act constitute sexual abuse?)


The source that is being cited reads as follows:

Pedophilia is the most common paraphiliac act involving the touching of a victim against his or her will or who is unable to give consent. Conservative estimates indicate that 20% of all females and 10% of all males have been molested prior to age 18 years (Finkelhor et al. 1986).


This seems a bit hard to interpret. All that is required are 1) touching the victim and 2) victim unable to give consent. So my parents, who touched me when I was a baby, are pedophiles by this wording. I don't know how to fix it. If I find a copy of that study I will try to locate the exact definition used because this is a poor definition overall.

There is another way to read it, that "involving" is operative and not qualifying, meaning this isn't even a definition at all. In that case they haven't offered a better one.

I think this probably answers your question though, even if it is poorly worded. So yes, it would, assuming it was reported.
Quiznos>Subway

User avatar
Virtual_Aardvark
Posts: 882
Joined: Fri Jun 20, 2008 8:27 pm UTC
Location: The Final Frontier
Contact:

Re: Paedophile comes out on DeviantArt

Postby Virtual_Aardvark » Tue Oct 14, 2008 11:49 pm UTC

Something that's not being addressed is that we don't know what form this individual's pedophilia takes. He could be solely attracted to children, or it could be a simple fetish. I am very much into bondage, but I can get off without it.

It is unfair to assume anyone with an attraction is liable to act on it. I have a close friend who has frequently fantasized about raping women. I know I fit into the type of chick he's attracted to. I also know that I could in no way resist him if it ever came down to that. This in no way prevents me from being comfortable around him.

I am not a strong individual and I am and have been easily coerced into sex with no consequences for the other person. I am STILL completely comfortable being not just around, but even touching friends who I know are attracted to me. Why? because they know it would be wrong to force me to have sex with them and I have no reason to think they would ever succumb to "a moment of weakness"

I firmly believe that a child (or anyone) should NEVER be raped or molested but at the same time I see no reason to doubt the restraint of someone specifically because of the form their fetish, or even full fledged attraction takes.
"imaginary gardens with real toads in them"
Mighty Jalapeno wrote:An actual cloud... full of lesbians.

User avatar
Intercept
Posts: 717
Joined: Wed Jul 09, 2008 4:15 am UTC
Location: An blue governed Missouri.

Re: Paedophile comes out on DeviantArt

Postby Intercept » Tue Oct 14, 2008 11:52 pm UTC

Belial wrote:
Meaux_Pas wrote:Sometimes I really just want to kill a lot of people. Will everyone insisting that this person can't possibly exercise self control for the duration of his life say the same for me?


If your drive to kill a lot of people is similar in duration and intensity as your desire to have sex, and you found it equally easy to rationalize, I'd suggest psychological treatment ASAP, yes.

But I imagine it's just short term, intermittent, and not as strong.

Likewise, it would be a lot harder to engage in some rationalization to make it okay in your head when you started murdering folk.

So you're probably okay.

Of course, it's always possible that, despite all that, this dude is a pillar of willpower and he'll be fine forever. But I prefer to assume most people are of average willpower, and that therefore this guy will slip up.


As many people who have contemplated/committed murder or genocide will tell you, it's not that hard to rationalize.

Belial wrote:Treatment is not punishment. Treatment is treatment. If you get typhoid or get run over by a car, you're not being *punished* when we take you to the hospital and hold you there until you're better, all the while using medicine and medical procedures on you to facilitate the process. You're being treated.


The semantics and uses of a statement like this scare the shit out of me. You're saying that taking away a person who is in a medical condition that likely makes them unconscious or near death is being taken prisoner when they're being treated to have their lives saved. You're then saying that preemptively locking someone up, which, by the way, is what you're doing, for some illegal desire or thing they have contemplated is equivalent. Forced treatment and prison aren't all that different. The worst part about prison? Losing your own freedom. I believe forced treatment also has that problem.
"I've always supported pudding, even when it was politically unpopular to do so."-Bill Nye Video

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 » Wed Oct 15, 2008 12:07 am UTC

Well, better lock me up now, because I'm experiencing some strong urges to physically assault some of the posters here, or worse.

And obviously it's only a matter of time before I act on them.

The level of ignorance and intolerance some of you are displaying disgusts me in much the same way I'm sure you find pedophiles disgusting.

Considering the "I feel like hitting people, how is that different" argument has been gone over 10 or 15 times, do you have another point, or was this post just a delivery mechanism for a childish "If this were real life I would totally beat you up" internet threat?

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 » Wed Oct 15, 2008 12:16 am UTC

VirtualAardvark wrote:It is unfair to assume anyone with an attraction is liable to act on it. I have a close friend who has frequently fantasized about raping women. I know I fit into the type of chick he's attracted to. I also know that I could in no way resist him if it ever came down to that. This in no way prevents me from being comfortable around him.


I hope that works out for you. If I were a woman, knowing that 1 in 3 women are raped or sexually assaulted, most of them by someone they know, I wouldn't hang out alone with the big guy with the rape fantasies and the unrequited attraction to me. But that's your risk to take. You're deciding to take it, knowing the odds.*

Unfortunately, all a repressed pedophile has to do is go to a further-away playground to find some kids who don't know the odds or the factors, and put them at risk without that decision. By deciding we're okay with that, we're kindof making that choice for everyone.

Intercept wrote:As many people who have contemplated/committed murder or genocide will tell you, it's not that hard to rationalize.


Harder than pedophilia. As evidenced by the fact that 10% of our population hasn't been murdered in cold blood. And I'll wager that quite a few more people have considered killing people than have considered fucking 10 year olds.

You're then saying that preemptively locking someone up, which, by the way, is what you're doing, for some illegal desire or thing they have contemplated is equivalent. Forced treatment and prison aren't all that different. The worst part about prison? Losing your own freedom. I believe forced treatment also has that problem.


Not really. Did you read the link JestingRabbit posted vis-a-vis treatment regimens for pedophilia? Most of it is outpatient. But the point is that someone is keeping an eye on this person, monitoring their condition, and working them toward either replacing or nullifying those urges.

*Which is not to say in any sense that it will be your fault if you get raped. That will rest squarely on him. I am merely contrasting with the lack of choice offered to unsuspecting children in a similar scenario.
addams wrote:A drunk neighbor is better than a sober Belial.


They/them

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 » Wed Oct 15, 2008 12:35 am UTC

Considering the "I feel like hitting people, how is that different" argument has been gone over 10 or 15 times, do you have another point, or was this post just a delivery mechanism for a childish "If this were real life I would totally beat you up" internet threat?


It was meant to illustrate just how many people we'd have to lock up who make posts exactly like that in entirely less relevant and pointed ways. Are we going to lock up everyone who makes internet threats because it's only a matter of time?

I'll thank you for limiting your obvious disagreement to your own posts, though. If you're going to moderate, moderate.


Not really. Did you read the link JestingRabbit posted vis-a-vis treatment regimens for pedophilia? Most of it is outpatient. But the point is that someone is keeping an eye on this person, monitoring their condition, and working them toward either replacing or nullifying those urges.


There are certainly treatment regimens, but they have never cured anyone and are largely unsuccessful.

Unfortunately, all a repressed pedophile has to do is go to a further-away playground to find some kids who don't know the odds or the factors, and put them at risk without that decision. By deciding we're okay with that, we're kindof making that choice for everyone.


I think we can do without the paranoia mongering. Hey, your average male high school teacher is going to find some of his female students attractive, yet he manages not to sleep with them, often times even when they're consenting and willing to keep it secret. I guess he's just not tempted? Pfft. And I'm hard pressed to believe there's any difference between those teachers and the elementary school teacher who may have similar issues. (Note that in most high schools, it's grounds for termination to even plan to have a relationship with a student after their graduation.)

User avatar
If Chickens Were Purple...
Posts: 38
Joined: Fri Aug 08, 2008 9:51 pm UTC

Re: Paedophile comes out on DeviantArt

Postby If Chickens Were Purple... » Wed Oct 15, 2008 12:41 am UTC

I think if I were attracted to children, I'd be less likely to act on it without medical/psychiatric intervention. Obviously I don't know that. But I'm guessing, if I kept it to myself I'd have the whole 'society has deemed this the most shameful thing you can ever possibly do' thing to keep me in check, whereas if some doctor was telling me "you're sick! I sure hope we can treat you sucessfully, you poor thing", I'd be more likely to accept raping children as a part of who I am, and I'd be able to justify it by thinking in terms of the treatment failing.

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

Re: Paedophile comes out on DeviantArt

Postby Mane » Wed Oct 15, 2008 1:08 am UTC

qinwamascot wrote:Yeah...it really doesn't matter at all whether it's a disorder or orientation; it's just semantics at best.

You may be trying to make it 'just semantics', but it's really not, and you're showing just how deep your misunderstanding of what a paraphilia or other sexual disorder is in relation to a sexual orientation really is.

Homosexuality may have been classified as a mental disorder, but it was never classified as a paraphilia (as far as I know). There is a great deal of difference between 'orientation' and a mental disorder.

qinwamascot wrote:and in the worst case scenario that one of them gets abused, I would know about it.

Child sex abuse is a very tramatic event in a child's life it's not merely 'oh well I'll know about it, it's okay' that's sort of like saying 'oh it's okay to have a serial killer over for babysitting, cause if he beheads one of my kids I'll know.'

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 » Wed Oct 15, 2008 1:10 am UTC

Kachi wrote:I'll thank you for limiting your obvious disagreement to your own posts, though. If you're going to moderate, moderate.


I was attempting to determine whether to delete an apparently value-free post, which is rather apart from the argument itself. If you're making some kind of point, it can stay, if you're just trying to impress us with how angry you are, it doesn't belong in SB.

And don't let the fact that I'm answering you give you the idea that we're having a discussion about this.

There are certainly treatment regimens, but they have never cured anyone and are largely unsuccessful.


Reference?

And "cure" is one thing. "Management" is another.

think we can do without the paranoia mongering. Hey, your average male high school teacher is going to find some of his female students attractive, yet he manages not to sleep with them, often times even when they're consenting and willing to keep it secret. I guess he's just not tempted?


Or he's capable of having sex with someone with similar attributes without it being a massive ethics violation.

Assuming we're talking about a full-on, not-interested-in-adults pedophile, we're basically asking someone to shut down or suppress their entire sex drive indefinitely, and just assuming that they can do that with no help. That's not quite the same as refraining from punching someone at work, or refraining from having sex *right now* with *that specific person*. Kindof like a giant squid is not quite a cuttlefish.

I'm not quite sure how many more ways I can say that, so I'm going to stop, and just assume that anyone who ignores it and makes a "I really want to eat 500 twinkies should they put me in the hospital against my will" argument rather than addressing it is impenetrable.
addams wrote:A drunk neighbor is better than a sober Belial.


They/them

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 » Wed Oct 15, 2008 1:14 am UTC

Kachi wrote:I think we can do without the paranoia mongering. Hey, your average male high school teacher is going to find some of his female students attractive, yet he manages not to sleep with them, often times even when they're consenting and willing to keep it secret. I guess he's just not tempted? Pfft. And I'm hard pressed to believe there's any difference between those teachers and the elementary school teacher who may have similar issues. (Note that in most high schools, it's grounds for termination to even plan to have a relationship with a student after their graduation.)


But a teacher is not, by definition, attracted to their students... and has other outlets for their desires (they are only restricted from relationships with their students, not others of legal age). A paedophile, by definition, has no such outlets.

Imprisonment, for someone who has not actually committed a crime is obviously incorrect... but I don't see why this guy shouldn't seek professional help to deal with 'this'.
"To bow before the pressure of the ignorant is weakness."
Azalin Rex, Wizard-King of Darkon

User avatar
GhostWolfe
Broken wings and scattered feathers
Posts: 3892
Joined: Fri May 11, 2007 11:56 am UTC
Location: Brisbane, Aust
Contact:

Re: Paedophile comes out on DeviantArt

Postby GhostWolfe » Wed Oct 15, 2008 1:16 am UTC

Belial wrote:Assuming we're talking about a full-on, not-interested-in-adults pedophile.
But why are we assuming this? I'm all for this guy signing himself up for therapy to help him manage his urges; but I don't think that we should assume that just because it's kiddies he's into (rather than some other potentially repulsive attraction), that his urges/desires are going to be all-consuming and overpowering.

/angell
Linguistic Anarchist
Hawknc: ANGELL IS SERIOUS BUSINESS :-[
lesliesage: Animals dunked in crude oil: sad. Animals dunked in boiling oil: tasty.
Belial: I was in your mom's room all night committing to a series of extended military actions.

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 » Wed Oct 15, 2008 1:25 am UTC

Well, if for no other reason than because it isn't technically pedophilia unless it's overriding or preferential.

The situation does change somewhat if it's just "In addition to my more healthy urges, I also am turned on by little girls", but do we know which is the case?

And even if we don't in this specific case, the different assumptions are worth talking through.
addams wrote:A drunk neighbor is better than a sober Belial.


They/them

User avatar
GhostWolfe
Broken wings and scattered feathers
Posts: 3892
Joined: Fri May 11, 2007 11:56 am UTC
Location: Brisbane, Aust
Contact:

Re: Paedophile comes out on DeviantArt

Postby GhostWolfe » Wed Oct 15, 2008 1:30 am UTC

Belial wrote:And even if we don't in this specific case, the different assumptions are worth talking through.
Indeed, I'm just not keen on the idea of the extreme being the default assumption is all.

/angell
Linguistic Anarchist
Hawknc: ANGELL IS SERIOUS BUSINESS :-[
lesliesage: Animals dunked in crude oil: sad. Animals dunked in boiling oil: tasty.
Belial: I was in your mom's room all night committing to a series of extended military actions.

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 » Wed Oct 15, 2008 1:32 am UTC

I'll say this again: before society says "this is something you need to be treated for," it also needs to stop saying "this makes you a disgusting and terrible person and we need to fix fix fix it!"

I know that that's not what you're saying, Belial, but our society is full of people that are judgmental assholes about these sorts of things. I honestly think if we got to the point where society could be justified in demanding treatment, that society wouldn't have to demand it - there would be no negatives in seeking it.
"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
jestingrabbit
Factoids are just Datas that haven't grown up yet
Posts: 5967
Joined: Tue Nov 28, 2006 9:50 pm UTC
Location: Sydney

Re: Paedophile comes out on DeviantArt

Postby jestingrabbit » Wed Oct 15, 2008 1:48 am UTC

qinwamascot wrote:
jestingrabbit wrote:If its a tiny risk why is it that

here wrote:Conservative estimates indicate that 20% of all females and 10% of all males have been molested prior to age 18 years.


That's a pretty significant portion of the populus. Moreover, its a very negative thing for a child to be sexually abused. It can lead to serious problems throughout the rest of the child's life. Finally, its not a risk that you are taking upon yourself, it is a risk that you are forcing upon your children. Its a pretty significant social rule that parents should protect their children, and to walk away from that, to see something which can be severly debilitating, that occurs to something like 15% of children, as a small risk is incredibly stupid.


The reason I think it is a relatively small risk is this: the person is openly a pedophile.

Allow me to explain. I'm assuming that the person knows that I know that they are a pedophile. Thus, I'd likely set up security systems (i.e. cameras, telling my kids about sexual abuse, etc) and have ways to check. Personally, I have security cameras set up in my dorm room 24/7 in case some one steals something. I'd likely do the same for my house. Also, my kids will be adequately prepared, and in the worst case scenario that one of them gets abused, I would know about it. The person who would knowingly accept these restrictions and be willing to babysit anyways would be constantly aware of the consequences and that I am adequately prepared.

On the other hand, an ordinary pedophile will think they can get away with something. It's not hard to get away with if the person isn't prepared. It's much harder if the person is. Perhaps I should qualify here that I was talking about children who are at least 10-11 years old and know about sex and abuse. I wouldn't particularly trust anyone outside my immediate family with children younger than that.


So its not simply because of the openness of the pedophile, its the fact that you would have that person under surveillance, prepare your children, and only subject children who are older than 10 to this risk.

To put it another way: you don't trust that a pedophile who is open about it wont offend, you trust that there are steps that you can take to minimise a risk that your hypothetical actions demonstrate you are well aware of.

But even this position is incredibly stupid. A lot of the work that pedophiles undertake on the way to actually abusing a child is called grooming, a process which is all about creating a relationship of trust between the pedophile and a prospective victim. You're basically putting someone in a position where the job that they're doing requires that they undertake actions that bring them closer to hurting people. The sort of treatment that's out there is all about stopping this sort of thing from happening, but you'd be fine with it. That's stupid.

btw, there is nothing to suggest that the dA poster is open about their pedophilia in their day to day life. They are at pains to not pay for things using their own accounts for instance. They felt that they were free to talk about it because they could not be identified via their account.

qinwamascot wrote:
jestingrabbit wrote:
qinwamascot wrote:
jestingrabbit wrote:As for what this individual should do, I think they should seek professional help. Every pedophile who acts on their urges was at one time a pedophile who did not act on their urges and you have acted too late if you wait for harmful behaviours to develop before getting help.

As for the idea that there is no treatment available: that's nonsense. Read this.


I agree that if he has urges that are uncontrollable, he should seek treatment. However, forcing it on him is absolutely wrong.


If someone is suicidal, the state doesn't wait until those thoughts are uncontrollable. It intervenes before then if possible, and I think the state should do the same in this case. The usual requirement (we are all probably coming from different jurisdictions, so this will vary) for detaining someone against their will for psychiatric treatment is that they are a danger to themselves or others. Why should that standard be varied in the case of pedophilia?


I don't want to get into a suicide debate here, I have another topic for that. Suffice it to say I'm not in favor of the current restrictions. I think a better restriction is immediate danger to others.


Fine, lets not discuss suicide.

Under the rule that you suggest, if a pedophile were to report that they were befriending a child and had had sexual fantasies regarding that child and was contemplating abusing that child, it seems like the right thing to do, on the basis of your rule, would be to restrict that person's freedom, yes? So there are cases where you can acknowledge that a pedophile should have their freedoms restricted for the safety of others and so that they can get psychiatric help, before they have offended, yes?

I realise that this is not the case for the specific individual being discussed here, but your discussion of babysitting was equally not about this individual.

qinwamascot wrote:
jestingrabbit wrote:
qinwamascot wrote:Your argument here that every pedophile who acts on their urges at one point wasn't is true. But it doesn't contribute anything at all to the debate. From this we can not make any conclusions about how likely it is that he will at some point give in. To do so would be affirming the consequent.


You're correct that we can't make a statistical judgement of how dangerous any given individual non-offending pedophile is, though you seem quite comfortable claiming that they present a tiny risk, despite the fact that child sexual abuse is widely recognised as being highly detrimental, and without any supporting data, supporting you claims with repeated appeals to willpower.

But regardless of what the actual probability is, considering the possible harm that could be done, that individual has a moral duty to persue actions that minimise that probability. They should get psychiatric or psychological help.


But you're forgetting the other side of the equation. Putting non-offending pedophiles who will never offend into prison/treatment against their own will is also a negative. You have to balance this with the negative of harm to children. I agree that they should get help, but not that we should force them to.


Someone who isn't in the process of grooming a particular victim, and has never done so, shouldn't be forced into treatment imo. But someone who is undertaking this process should be stopped. As they haven't committed a crime, they can't be stopped by the police. Given that they are a risk to someone else, though, they can be detained due to their mental illness, and I think it is the right thing to do.

qinwamascot wrote:
jestingrabbit wrote:
qinwamascot wrote:To show how this logic fails, I'll take another example. Everyone who is a murderer at one point was born. Thus, to reduce the number of murders, we should kill all the newborn babies. This will accomplish said goal, but it assumes that the converse of the statement is true. In reality, we have no way of telling the small percentage of people who will become murderers from the much larger set of people who are born. Just like we have no way of telling the small number of people who will rape children relative to the larger number who have urges to do so.


If someone was regularly fantasizing about killing people, I would think that person needed help too. Beyond that, your analogy is completely specious.


Such a person should seek help, but the difference is whether or not the government should force them to get it. I don't think so, but it ultimately isn't very relevant to this topic. I don't see the problem with the analogy. Unless you're using the older, obsolete meaning of specious (showy), in which case admittedly it is.
jestingrabbit wrote:
qinwamascot wrote:So in short, this argument absolutely fails in formal logic. The premise is true, but the steps to get to the conclusion are invalid, so the conclusion is not valid.


Given that I wasn't trying to formally prove anything, I am comfortable with this. But you should realise that formal logic has its limits, and that your own argument is riddled with assumptions that seem to have no basis in fact.


The point is that if an argument fails in formal logic, it doesn't make sense. My argument may be based on faulty premisses, but it is logically consistent within these premisses. So in short, neither argument is necessarily correct. However, if my (admittedly unresearched) premisses are correct, then the conclusion follows. For yours, the premisses don't imply the conclusion as written.


Here's my argument presented in a formal Baysian framework with some standard syllogisms

X="Some individual adult"
D="X is a pedophile"
M="X is a child molester"
T="X is undergoing psychiatric or psychological treatment for pedophilia"

P(M | X and (not D)) = P(M | X and (not D) and T) = P(M | X and (not D) and (not T)) < P(M | X and D and T) < P(M | X and D and (not T))

This, coupled with the assumptions that "Someone who can reduce the chance that they will molest children without gross imposition should do so" and "Psychiatric treatment is not a gross imposition" leads to the conclusion that "Pedophiles should undergo psychiatric or psychological treatment for pedophilia".

But hey, why don't we stick to english. You claim that an analogy that has death being substituted for psychiatric treatment is a reasonable analogy. I claim that its specious bullshit, in the sense of specious where I mean that you are pulling stuff from your arse and claiming that it is the crown jewels of the king of rationality.

I mean, you have an analogy where you've got (child abuse, pedophile, treatment)~(murder, human, death). That's a really bad analogy.

qinwamascot wrote:I don't agree with Oklahoma state policy on a lot of things, but there isn't a lot I can do about it since I vote in New Jersey. But the policy you mentioned dealt with people with mental illnesses which obstructed decision-making ability. I'd argue that this doesn't fall into such a category since the person in question knows what the right decision is.


Fine. New Jersey it is.

New Jersey Mental Health Law wrote:m. "In need of involuntary commitment" means that an adult who is mentally ill, whose mental illness causes the person to be dangerous to self or dangerous to others or property and who is unwilling to be admitted to a facility voluntarily for care, and who needs care at a short-term care, psychiatric facility or special psychiatric hospital because other services are not appropriate or available to meet the person's mental health care needs.


qinwamascot wrote:
Nougatrocity wrote:Does that 20% of women/10% of men statistic mean ACTUAL abuse, or does it include instances where it's only a crime because the law dictates it? (For example, if a 17 year old has consensual sex with an 18 year old in state where 18 is the age of consent, does that technically illegal act constitute sexual abuse?)


The source that is being cited reads as follows:

Pedophilia is the most common paraphiliac act involving the touching of a victim against his or her will or who is unable to give consent. Conservative estimates indicate that 20% of all females and 10% of all males have been molested prior to age 18 years (Finkelhor et al. 1986).


This seems a bit hard to interpret. All that is required are 1) touching the victim and 2) victim unable to give consent. So my parents, who touched me when I was a baby, are pedophiles by this wording. I don't know how to fix it. If I find a copy of that study I will try to locate the exact definition used because this is a poor definition overall.

There is another way to read it, that "involving" is operative and not qualifying, meaning this isn't even a definition at all. In that case they haven't offered a better one.

I think this probably answers your question though, even if it is poorly worded. So yes, it would, assuming it was reported.


Why don't you, instead of trying to read the tealeaves of a pair of sentences, read the excerpt from the book that amazon provides?

If you'd done that, you'd realise that that figure is the distilled wisdom of the entire first chapter of "A Sourcebook on Child Sexual Abuse". A range of studies are cited, with figures as low as 6% and 3% and as high as 62% and 31% for females and males respectively. The 20%/10% figures are a best, low ball, guess taking into account all the data.

Later work by Finkelhor is summarised in an abstract for a paper.

Finkelhor, D. (1994). The international epidemiology of child sexual abuse. Child Abuse & Neglect, 18, 409-417. wrote:Abstract: "Surveys of child sexual abuse in large nonclinical populations of adults have been conducted in at least 19 countries in addition to the United States and Canada, including 10 national probability samples. All studies have found rates in line with comparable North American research, ranging from 7% to 36% for women and 3% to 29% for men. Most studies found females to be abused at 1.5 to 3 times the rate for males. Few comparisons among countries are possible because of methodological and definitional differences. However, they clearly confirm sexual abuse to be an international problem."


Even if we take the low numbers here, they are pretty big numbers. They're considerably larger than 1 in 100, more like 1 in 20. That's a pretty significant part of the population.
ameretrifle wrote:Magic space feudalism is therefore a viable idea.

User avatar
Intercept
Posts: 717
Joined: Wed Jul 09, 2008 4:15 am UTC
Location: An blue governed Missouri.

Re: Paedophile comes out on DeviantArt

Postby Intercept » Wed Oct 15, 2008 1:53 am UTC

Belial wrote:
Kachi wrote:I'll thank you for limiting your obvious disagreement to your own posts, though. If you're going to moderate, moderate.


I was attempting to determine whether to delete an apparently value-free post, which is rather apart from the argument itself. If you're making some kind of point, it can stay, if you're just trying to impress us with how angry you are, it doesn't belong in SB.

And don't let the fact that I'm answering you give you the idea that we're having a discussion about this.

There are certainly treatment regimens, but they have never cured anyone and are largely unsuccessful.


Reference?

And "cure" is one thing. "Management" is another.


Reference? Whether it's a disorder or an orientation, neither of those things get cured often. As you've said they get managed. What you seem to be suggesting however is that we force management on people who are already open about their condition, and have supposedly never done anything. Managing the people who are already managed? That sounds just as bad as arresting people for crimes they haven't yet committed.
"I've always supported pudding, even when it was politically unpopular to do so."-Bill Nye Video

User avatar
jestingrabbit
Factoids are just Datas that haven't grown up yet
Posts: 5967
Joined: Tue Nov 28, 2006 9:50 pm UTC
Location: Sydney

Re: Paedophile comes out on DeviantArt

Postby jestingrabbit » Wed Oct 15, 2008 2:05 am UTC

Intercept wrote:Reference?


Right here

http://www.health.am/sex/more/pedophilia/

Intercept wrote:Whether it's a disorder or an orientation, neither of those things get cured often. As you've said they get managed. What you seem to be suggesting however is that we force management on people who are already open about their condition, and have supposedly never done anything. Managing the people who are already managed? That sounds just as bad as arresting people for crimes they haven't yet committed.


The idea that the poster on dA is open is wrong. They're open in that setting, but they talk about "maintaining anonymity" and say "I am afraid to have my personal information associated with this account". That doesn't sound like someone who is open about their sexual desires in their meatspace life. Now, this fear of being hounded in meatspace is entirely rational, and in his position I wouldn't be open either, but lets be clear about what the situation is.

The possibility of people with experience helping this person work out how to make sure that they wont offend doesn't seem like a threat of punishment to me. I mean, would you prefer to undertake your own medical care for some other long term, incurable illness, like asthma or diabetes, or would you seek medical help to manage your illness?
ameretrifle wrote:Magic space feudalism is therefore a viable idea.

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 » Wed Oct 15, 2008 2:23 am UTC

Gelsamel wrote:In general I like short, thin, cute and small breasted or flat-chested girls.


Maybe I should elaborate.

Those traits that I like are usually associated with children or prepubescence. Under the definition of paedophilia you're using, would I be a paedophile?

I don't think we can discuss this until we agree on a definition to use for the discussion.
"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
Intercept
Posts: 717
Joined: Wed Jul 09, 2008 4:15 am UTC
Location: An blue governed Missouri.

Re: Paedophile comes out on DeviantArt

Postby Intercept » Wed Oct 15, 2008 3:47 am UTC

jestingrabbit wrote:
Intercept wrote:Reference?


Right here

http://www.health.am/sex/more/pedophilia/

Intercept wrote:Whether it's a disorder or an orientation, neither of those things get cured often. As you've said they get managed. What you seem to be suggesting however is that we force management on people who are already open about their condition, and have supposedly never done anything. Managing the people who are already managed? That sounds just as bad as arresting people for crimes they haven't yet committed.


The idea that the poster on dA is open is wrong. They're open in that setting, but they talk about "maintaining anonymity" and say "I am afraid to have my personal information associated with this account". That doesn't sound like someone who is open about their sexual desires in their meatspace life. Now, this fear of being hounded in meatspace is entirely rational, and in his position I wouldn't be open either, but lets be clear about what the situation is.

The possibility of people with experience helping this person work out how to make sure that they wont offend doesn't seem like a threat of punishment to me. I mean, would you prefer to undertake your own medical care for some other long term, incurable illness, like asthma or diabetes, or would you seek medical help to manage your illness?


I wasn't asking for a reference, I was questioning the fact that Belial was even asking for a reference.

Also, we've somewhat moved on from this specific pedophile and moved on to the discussion of open pedophiles in general, so I don't really need to be corrected. Also, comparing medical and psychological sciences is, to an extent, asinine. Yes, they're both sciences. However, people have the potential to be the ultimate driving forces in their lives. In the medical field doctors rarely do things that make common conditions worse, because they're fairly static between people. This is not true with psychology. As has been pointed out, treatment could make things worse. Not saying that it would in all or even most cases, but it certainly could. If you force people who will never do anything to get treatment the only possible outcome is for things to get worse.

If pedophiles fear they will do something and come out, they will likely seek treatment on their own.

If pedophiles believe they will not do anything and come out, they came out because they do not see themselves as a real threat.

Anytime you force someone to do something they don't want to, it IS punishment. Punishment is generally not a good incentive.
"I've always supported pudding, even when it was politically unpopular to do so."-Bill Nye Video

User avatar
jestingrabbit
Factoids are just Datas that haven't grown up yet
Posts: 5967
Joined: Tue Nov 28, 2006 9:50 pm UTC
Location: Sydney

Re: Paedophile comes out on DeviantArt

Postby jestingrabbit » Wed Oct 15, 2008 4:11 am UTC

Intercept wrote:I wasn't asking for a reference, I was questioning the fact that Belial was even asking for a reference.


You made a claim, that treatment doesn't work. Either you have a study to back that up, or its just your opinion, and isn't worth that much. I'm not suggesting that treatment can change the sexual desires in 100% of subjects, but I do believe that it can help a significant proportion manage their illness.

Intercept wrote:Also, we've somewhat moved on from this specific pedophile and moved on to the discussion of open pedophiles in general, so I don't really need to be corrected. Also, comparing medical and psychological sciences is, to an extent, asinine. Yes, they're both sciences. However, people have the potential to be the ultimate driving forces in their lives. In the medical field doctors rarely do things that make common conditions worse, because they're fairly static between people. This is not true with psychology. As has been pointed out, treatment could make things worse. Not saying that it would in all or even most cases, but it certainly could. If you force people who will never do anything to get treatment the only possible outcome is for things to get worse.


I don't see how the sort of treatment that I linked to could possibly make things worse. The only person who suggested it might was 'if chickens are purple', and the sort of treatment that I linked to isn't anything like the sort of thing that she was describing.

Also, even if someone doesn't offend, that doesn't mean that its been easy to deal with their urges. It could be the case that treatment would assist someone to manage their illness and improve their quality of life, even if that person was never going to offend.

If I ruled the world I would only force someone to get treatment if they were in the process of grooming a child to be a victim, or had already perpetrated child abuse. But if a friend said to me that they had these sort of thoughts, I would ask them to get help, even if they thought they weren't a danger.

Intercept wrote:If pedophiles fear they will do something and come out, they will likely seek treatment on their own.

If pedophiles believe they will not do anything and come out, they came out because they do not see themselves as a real threat.

Anytime you force someone to do something they don't want to, it IS punishment. Punishment is generally not a good incentive.


So, by your account, every nation or state or what have you that mandates that some people should have psychiatric treatment forced upon them are all about punishing people with mental illness. Is that what you're saying?
ameretrifle wrote:Magic space feudalism is therefore a viable idea.


Return to “Serious Business”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 12 guests