I'm off to read the Wikipedia article!





I'm off to read the Wikipedia article!





I worry far more about those who have sexual fantasies about people who have not reached puberty then I do about the later. The later can be a problem due to the fact that people do become wiser as they age, and therefore more able to manipulate someone much younger, but I find it far less freaky if all it is is just harmless fantasy. If they act on it I am concerned of course.
Now fantasizing about pre-pubescent children I agree is abnormal and we need to protect children.
And I do understand that just as people don't become adults magically at 18, they don't magically become fully ready to consent at some other magic age either. It is a gray scale of preparedness, and some at 18 are also not ready. But we could never write laws to cover all of that.
Still, there is a lot of evidence that people being sexually turned on by post pubescent people is "normal" and wired into our multi hundred year old genes. I can only get so freaked about that.





Huh. This is hard to call insofar as at that level it is hard to distinguish "society" from individual relationships. Like that is not something I could hear and still be intimate (in a friendly way) with a person. Other people who have not led my particular life might be able to - there is some overlap in that situation.
As well - I'm not sure... like, you can't, on a social, or rather societal level control the content of people's conversations. So what we're discussing is a certain amount of normalization; of course we couple this with the fact that children and children's bodies are, in fact, sexualized, that the sexualization of children is already normal, and we compensate socially by elevating our disgust at crossing the thin line.... and I think you could be a little optimistic. Of course nobody has mentioned that we have fetishized extreme youth to the point that we have rationalizations like "Well some women look like that; it could be normal" and that maybe a sensible thing to do would be to, you know, stop that. Failing that, however, I don't know that I'm ready to give up shame yet.
I have taught that the sky in all its zones is mortal and its substance was formed by a process of birth
I think what you are trying to say, and it is not getting through I guess, is that when it comes to mental illness, either inherited at birth, or something that happens later in life, people don't have full control over themselves any more then they have the ability to stop cancer cells spreading through their body and leaving them in agony and unable to function as normally as someone who does not.
It is hard because people want a simple rule. Like People are 100% responsible for everything they do. It is hard when it comes to illnesses that tip the scales and make it fuzzy. When it comes to mental illness, as hard as it is to accept, the common belief among professionals is that it should be treated, and because it does effect the brain, we can't completely hold them accountable. Exactly how much? Hard to say.
The idea is simple. We can stop their bad behavior while at the same time, still having some compassion for their condition. They aren't mutually exclusive.





Understood. There are individual relationships in which such comments would be acceptable. I guess my point is that I believe that the vast majority of people have not a single person in their life in whom they could confide a sexual attraction to children.
No we can't, but there is a lot about society that influences individual relationships. I think, for starters, the ignorance of the difference between a pedophile and a child molester is dangerous. This is encouraged in society as I hear things such as "He is a convicted pedophile and serving 10 years." He is not going to jail because he gets a hard-on when he sees kids in bikinis. He is going to jail because he molested a child. Therefore, they should say "he is a convicted pedophile."
I'm not quite sure I understand your use of the word "normalization." Do you consider the change in attitude towards family sexual abuse to be a "normalization"?
Fair enough. The difference between real crime and thought crime is important, especially in contentious issues.
No, but I don't think we were trying to normalize it. Like I said - raising the confidence and knowledge of the victims is not the same as raising the confidence and knowledge of the offender (or potential offender). Like victims weren't being shamed so that we would discourage them from being victims, you know? We opened that discussion to strengthen the victim.I'm not quite sure I understand your use of the word "normalization." Do you consider the change in attitude towards family sexual abuse to be a "normalization"?
When I say "normalization" I mean because you can't really mandate the content of conversations on a societal level, what you are doing at a societal level is making it okay to talk about and discuss; I think I have a different idea of what will be done with that than you do.
As well - speaking of comparing discussion of family sexual abuse and pedophilia - I would hesitate to tell a child "it's normal and okay for him to look at you that way - it's just because he's sick; it's only bad to touch" wouldn't you?
I have taught that the sky in all its zones is mortal and its substance was formed by a process of birth
.........
Last edited by Lexi; 05-16-2020 at 07:26 PM.





I don't want our society to get to the point where pedophilia can be discussed casually. If that is what you mean by normalization, I think that is dangerous. If by normalization you mean accepting the fact that many people are attracted to children and this is a matter that needs to be addressed, then I agree with "normalization."
When I dealt with mental illness myself, it wasn't hard for me to distinguish between casual and harmful conversation (OMG I just tried these new diet pills and they are awesome!) and open and difficult conversation that was more a cry for help (I don't know why but I think I'm fat and I'm taking diet pills. I don't know what to do about this).
If a child is in any way aware that a person is sexually attracted to him, then I think he must be doing something wrong. At no time would I ever support an adult making their sexual attractions to a child known to that child.










I respect your opinion. I personally don't believe the issue has been researched fully for anyone to know the answer, but I'm not going to flame you.
I think it's safe to say that at this point, psychologists have no cure to pedophilia. That is not to say that with more research, one might be found. This is why I actively promote safe outlets. It's not an ideal situation, but I believe it's the best we have at the moment.
"Pedophilia is also a psychosexual disorder in which the fantasy or actual act of engaging in sexual activity with prepubertal children is the preferred or exclusive means of achieving sexual excitement and gratification. It may be directed toward children of the same sex or children of the other sex. Some pedophiles are attracted to both boys and girls. Some are attracted only to children, while others are attracted to adults as well as to children."
I don't think it makes a difference between exclusive and non exclusive. That is so silly to think that someone who fantasizes sexually about children is somehow less sick or potentially harmful if they are also attracted to people who are age-appropriate to them.





^^^Actually there is a huge difference.
It is a lot more healthy for a man to have a wife, a good marriage with her, and occasionally get a hard-on to a kid than for a man who can't date women and can only get it up when thinking about kids.
In a previous post, I compared it to the typical female fantasy of rape. If a woman has healthy, vanilla sex and occasionally fantasizes about being raped, I think it's a little quirky but I don't see a big problem. However, if she fantasizes about rape exclusively and cannot engage in sex that does not in some way imitate rape, then she has a huge problem.
I don't mean to come across as rude at all, but I find that your postings demonstrate ignorance in regards to pedophilia and I find that you are not reading all the postings and this makes is frustrating to discuss with you. I don't mean that to offend but rather to explain the slant I'm taking with my posts.





Actually I worked with many mentally ill people that were never cured and every time the bleeding hearts let them out, they committed the same crimes again (e.g., rape, pedophilia, assault).
Someone confused compassionate treatment with treating these people as if they are normal and can self regulate.
We don't yet have a cure for a lot of these problems, so if it is a choice of putting children at risk or the pedophile, I vote the pedophile needs supervision for life, or until we find a true cure. It can be done compassionately and we should search for a cure but we also do need to realize that yes, like you said, professionals don't have a cure yet.
Let me put it like this... if more professionals were held liable for letting a mentally ill person out on the streets, far fewer would "gamble" with the lives of others. But right now it's all too easy to confuse compassion with ego (i.e., the professional wanting to believe that they are doing a "good" deed or have cured the person).
OTOH it's hard because none of us would want to never be given another chance in life.
Sometimes you can't win.
I'm not sure we don't do that already. I mean we definitely know about pedophiles, consider it a serious issue and want to address it as a society. I'm not sure that I think pedophilia should be treated as benign as an eating disorder, if that is what you are suggesting.
And again - before advocating "safe outlets" I think we would need to establish a little more conclusively that these outlets are "safe". We all know that nobody - pedophile or not - molests and rapes as a result of sheer horniness. Nobody is like "dammit, I didn't jerk off today - guess I'll have to commit a rape" whether they are a child or adult rapist. Although - as I said, there is also no lack of outlets that exist for offenders.
I have taught that the sky in all its zones is mortal and its substance was formed by a process of birth
I find it offensive that someone would actually want to stand up for these people who have it in them to do things to children that will haunt them for the rest of their lives and affect them in ways one can never imagine unless it's happened to you.
Just because a guy is married doesn't mean he isn't going to act out his fantasies.
Someone having a problem with wanted to be sexually dominated is harmless is comparison to wanting to be the dominant one.





Again, let's not confuse pedophile with child molester/rapist.
If we are talking about someone who actually raped a child, I have very little compassion and I don't really care what we do as long as children are protected.
If we are talking about someone who struggles with attraction to children and has never touched a child, I can't agree. No one would seek help if they knew that talking to a psychologist would land them under supervision for life.
If we start locking up every guy who checks out a 12-year-olds butt, we need to start putting up prisons at every street corner.





I still don't get why you have put it upon yourself to stand up for people who are sexually attracted to children, whether they act out on it or not.
I think she is postulating that it is less likely. And again, she is not standing up for them. She is discussing management tactics. I get that it is unpalatable, but it's not like she has a pedophile straining on the end of a leash threatening you - you can relax and read the thread.
Wanting to be dominant in sex is not the same as wanting to rape someone. Same as with women - wanting to engage in role play is not the same as really wanting to do it. I think she is drawing the comparisons as a way of explaining the nature of the disorder - not arguing that the disorders are the same or equally bad.Someone having a problem with wanted to be sexually dominated is harmless is comparison to wanting to be the dominant one.
I have taught that the sky in all its zones is mortal and its substance was formed by a process of birth





I agree with you. It shocks me when people say things like "pedophilia can't be cured" not because I disagree but because we know very little about this disorder.
The reason I promote "safe outlets" is from anectdotal information. I don't want to get into how but I have talked with dozens of men who are attracted to children and the vast majority have told me that they would never dream of harming a child and that "safe outlets" are their way of coping with the attraction.
Bookmarks