Psychologist: Paedophilia a 'sexual orientation - like being straight or gay'

[printcraft]

These arguments sound like artificial constructs made up to relegate a group to the shadows. We must accept everyone for who they are, even celebrate those differences.

True. They need to be allowed bathroom use in all preschools. It's only tolerant.

 

[phylodog]

That is where people predicted it would all go. Makes me sad for the future on my grandchildren.

Yep, I'm far from surprised. It'll take a few years but they'll be wanting to provide classes to kids in school on why this is ok.

 

[Lowe0]

So? Eating is natural, but we still ban cannibalism, because it causes harm to others. Whether it's naturally occurring or not is irrelevant.

 

[BogWalker]

If pedophilia were determined, in some way, to be an orientation (genetic or otherwise), it would not necessarily change anything morally...

...unless one's moral arguments were built on the premise that if I was "born this way", it must be morally right to fulfill the desires that go with that orientation.

If morality (and following on that, legality) is determined based upon the idea that "what feels right for me is right", then we have a problem.

This is exactly what I fear. Paraphilias are classified as a psychological disorder. Orientations are not. It's a small change in labeling that carries large weight in normalizing deviant behavior.

I point to the change in beliefs on homosexuality. At one time it was a disorder, and slowly it gained acceptance and is seen as merely normal but different now. I see pedophilia as being the next target for that path.

NOTE: That is not to say homosexuality should be classified as a disorder. As long as it's consensual it is the right of free people to do what they will with other adults.

 

[Spear Dane]

In terms of sociological behavior it might be normal but different. In terms of nature and biology it is forever unnatural and that is simply a fact of life.

 

[BehindBlueI's]

The idea that sexual attraction to children is an “orientation” is highly controversial as it suggests that offenders cannot change.

I find that hard to argue with, given the prevalence of repeat offenses and the fact that when talking to pedos they are often baffled as to why it's wrong. Oh, they may lip service it because they know that's what they are supposed to say, but they really don't understand why it's wrong when you get them talking.

As a layman, I can't and won't get in to what is proper terminology and where the line is drawn. I totally believe it's hardwired, though, and that these people really never change. The article talks about not trying to change their orientation but change their behavior, getting them to understand who can and can't give consent and then only acting when there's consent. I don't know how that approach works for recidivism rates, but true child molest or rape ought to be a death penalty eligible crime IMO, and I can figure how that would affect recidivism.

 

[Libertarian01]

It has always been my understanding that the majority of pedophiles were in fact abused themselves, thus simply continuing a chain of abuse. Sure, some were the "original" predators but the majority were copying a learned behavior for lack of a better phrasing.

I do find the historical context very ironic, reminding me of the "fish in the aquarium" thinking. In the middle ages through the renaissance https://chnm.gmu.edu/cyh/case-studies/230 the age of consent amongst mostly Christian western Europe varied from 10 - 12, then a little older.

Today those who would be appalled at such a low legal bar would defend their position somewhat by say, "Well, we have progressed. Our morality has moved forward. WE are better human beings than our medieval ancestors." And yet, when social progressives want to push other issues today well... they are going too far. It isn't the same thing to compare religion to social or business law. Really??? IF we're going to stand firm on anything shouldn't it be moral interpretation of religion? Shouldn't we move little in the way of religious doctrine and be less emotionally troubled by being liberally progressive on labor laws and social justice? After all, God isn't normally involved in those issues whereas the law regarding age of consent is somewhat alluded to in the bible at a much younger age than mans law allows today.

Don't get me wrong. I find that any non-consensual sexual activity should be legislated in some fashion. However, I do try to remember that I, as all of us in the 20th century, live in our own little fish tank. Sometimes it is interesting to jump outside of our tank and look inside as well as at all the other fishy tanks that are/were out there. The fact is our outrage is a product of our society and not some absolute morality.

Regards,

Doug

 

[BehindBlueI's]

It has always been my understanding that the majority of pedophiles were in fact abused themselves, thus simply continuing a chain of abuse. Sure, some were the "original" predators but the majority were copying a learned behavior for lack of a better phrasing.

I do find the historical context very ironic, reminding me of the "fish in the aquarium" thinking. In the middle ages through the renaissance https://chnm.gmu.edu/cyh/case-studies/230 the age of consent amongst mostly Christian western Europe varied from 10 - 12, then a little older.

Today those who would be appalled at such a low legal bar would defend their position somewhat by say, "Well, we have progressed. Our morality has moved forward. WE are better human beings than our medieval ancestors." And yet, when social progressives want to push other issues today well... they are going too far. It isn't the same thing to compare religion to social or business law. Really??? IF we're going to stand firm on anything shouldn't it be moral interpretation of religion? Shouldn't we move little in the way of religious doctrine and be less emotionally troubled by being liberally progressive on labor laws and social justice? After all, God isn't normally involved in those issues whereas the law regarding age of consent is somewhat alluded to in the bible at a much younger age than mans law allows today.

Don't get me wrong. I find that any non-consensual sexual activity should be legislated in some fashion. However, I do try to remember that I, as all of us in the 20th century, live in our own little fish tank. Sometimes it is interesting to jump outside of our tank and look inside as well as at all the other fishy tanks that are/were out there. The fact is our outrage is a product of our society and not some absolute morality.

Regards,

Doug

Lifespan was also roughly 30-41 years as well. Children became adults at puberty not due to moral issues but simply due to society being geared toward short lifespans, a simpler society with less specialization (so it takes less time to learn a craft and enter the work force as an adult) etc. We've not so much progressed morally as extended childhood because society is more complex, because lifespans are longer, less economic incentive to marry and produce children, etc. etc. Or, perhaps more accurately our morals have changed as has our view of when childhood ends due to the changes in lifespan, complexity, etc. etc.

We aren't discussing historical norms, though, nor really are we talking about post-puberty teens. Pedophilia is pre-pubescent. There's a different name for immediately post-pubescent but I can't recall it at the moment.

 

[GodFearinGunTotin]

These arguments sound like artificial constructs made up to relegate a group to the shadows. We must accept everyone for who they are, even celebrate those differences.

If we can't define a single orientation as "normal", how then can we limit the list to two orientations? Or three? Or whatever?

 

[BehindBlueI's]

If we can't define a single orientation as "normal", how then can we limit the list to two orientations? Or three? Or whatever?

The ol' slippery slope.

 

[GodFearinGunTotin]

The ol' slippery slope.

Nah...just logic.

 

[BehindBlueI's]

Nah...just logic.

If you accept two, you must accept three because you cannot make each additional choice as a separate one?

 

[GodFearinGunTotin]

If you accept two, you must accept three because you cannot make each additional choice as a separate one?

Under what basis? It can't have anything to do with a morality different than yours. It can't be because you find it "icky". It can't be because it might make you feel uncomfortable...that is, if we're going to be consistent.

 

[Expat]

If you accept two, you must accept three because you cannot make each additional choice as a separate one?

Not when the rejection of the choice is built upon the same faulty arguments. It comes back to you imposing your morality on others.

 

[GodFearinGunTotin]

Not when the rejection of the choice is built upon the same faulty arguments. It comes back to you imposing your morality on others.

If some people are born one way, some others are born another and we should embrace and honor that difference, logically speaking those born N-different ways must also be afforded the same tolerance and be inclusion. They just want to be accepted and be allowed to freely and openly live the lives they were born to live...if we're being consistent.

 

[BehindBlueI's]

Its not the fault of a rabid dog that it is rabid, but you don't let it play with the other dogs.

It is not difficult to draw the line at "causes harm to others" without worrying about fault, nature v nurture, etc.

 

[steveh_131]

If some people are born one way, some others are born another and we should embrace and honor that difference, logically speaking those born N-different ways must also be afforded the same tolerance and be inclusion. They just want to be accepted and be allowed to freely and openly live the lives they were born to live...if we're being consistent.

I saw nothing in the article about embracing or honoring. Nor did it suggest that such behavior should be allowed.

He was simply comparing it to sexual orientations in that these attractions and impulses are real and can't just be ignored. They have to learn to manage them in a way that they don't act on them.

Does anyone have an actual quote from this article that they disagree with? I'd like to discuss specifics, but it seems that we're stuck on generalities that we're afraid might happen, not things that have actually been said.

 

[Cameramonkey]

If you read the article, he didn't actually excuse or endorse the molestation of children. He was simply pointing out that once a person has those desires (whether by nature or nurture), that is sometimes just the way they are. They can't change those desires any more than a straight man could begin to desire gay men.

In my mind, the only real help for these people is a relationship with Jesus.

But from a secular standpoint, his tactic of teaching them not to act on those impulses seems like the next best option.

Not necessarily....

Child sexual abuse in the Roman Catholic Church - RationalWiki

 

[Leadeye]

I'm glad I've learned to manage my impulses or I would have bought everything on Gunbroker last night.

 

[steveh_131]

Not necessarily....

Child sexual abuse in the Roman Catholic Church - RationalWiki

Catholicism has its own set of problems, but a strong relationship with Jesus is not often one of them.