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

[steveh_131]

IIRC failed USSC nominee Robert Bork predicted with the ever increasing liberalization of America that sex with minors would one day be allowed.

If this were true, we would see a correlation between increased acceptance of homosexuality and an increased acceptance of pedophilia.

The exact opposite has been demonstrated.

It seems that these predictions are proving to be false over and over again.

 

[BogWalker]

If this were true, we would see a correlation between increased acceptance of homosexuality and an increased acceptance of pedophilia.

The exact opposite has been demonstrated.

It seems that these predictions are proving to be false over and over again.

How has the opposite been demonstrated?

 

[steveh_131]

How has the opposite been demonstrated?

The socially acceptable (and legal) ages of consent have risen over the last century. Kids were commonly getting married at 12 and 13 in the earlier 1900's.

Statutory rape laws and prosecution have not wavered.

Can you demonstrate otherwise?

 

[Cameramonkey]

If you think that people who walk closely with Jesus also molest children then I don't know what else to say to you.

Point missed. My point was that "walking closely with Jesus" (and I dont know how much closer you can get than being a man of the cloth) does not automatically mean it will help. Using the premise I was responding to would mean the Catholic Sex Scandal wouldnt have happened, or at least not as widely as it did. I could see a couple guys worldwide simply due to statistics. But that was ridiculous.

I'm religious, so dont misunderstand; I'm not bashing religion. Its just not a panacea.

 

[BogWalker]

The socially acceptable (and legal) ages of consent have risen over the last century. Kids were commonly getting married at 12 and 13 in the earlier 1900's.

Statutory rape laws and prosecution have not wavered.

Can you demonstrate otherwise?

I was thinking of the last 10-20 years, but now I see your point.

I don't think there's a large movement towards acceptance of pedophilia. I certainly noticed some fringe chatter after Salon released that article by an admitted pedophile, but fringes gonna fringe so I don't hold that as any major evidence. No, but all major movements start as fringe movements, and the current LGBTQ group is going to keep looking for relevancy after it meets its current goals. I don't see pedophilia as one of their current goals, maybe not even anytime soon, but I see it as where they'll eventually end up. Kind of like how registrations eventually lead to confiscations. Don't have to, but that's the logical conclusion.

This is why I'm against talking of it like it's "just how they are". I don't think you're going to change them, but it's not just an unsociable facet of their sexuality. It's an illness.

I do agree with the original article that the best we can probably do is to just get them to not act on their urges.

 

[OakRiver]

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.

While it was missing an outright endorsement for this manner of deviant sexual attraction, which is not surprising given how it is viewed. Knowing this the author instead the next best thing - normalized it. He took what is by any objective measurement a deviant sexual practice that occurs between an adult and a minor who is unable to consent, and said that it was equivalent to traditional sexual practices and that pedophilia was the "same ingrained attraction that a heterosexual female may feel towards a male".

We have seen this before in Salon when they publish articles sympathetic to pedophiles, and then when the inevitable backlash occurred tried to cast pedophiles as the victims, and minimizing their role. Sympathy is the surest path to acceptance.

 

[Fargo]

The socially acceptable (and legal) ages of consent have risen over the last century. Kids were commonly getting married at 12 and 13 in the earlier 1900's.

Statutory rape laws and prosecution have not wavered.

Can you demonstrate otherwise?

Indiana has relaxed its sexual misconduct with a minor and child porn laws repeatedly in the last 10 years.

 

[DeadeyeChrista'sdad]

To quote a late ol' buddy of mine: "Git a rope. String him up."

 

[BigBoxaJunk]

I'm still confused s to how someone could read that article and believe that it was an attempt to condone, normalize, or diminish child predation.

 

[level.eleven]

Indiana has relaxed its sexual misconduct with a minor and child porn laws repeatedly in the last 10 years.

No it hasn't. This is a lie. Indiana has adjusted its laws to fit within modern findings.

Stop this lie. It is a sin. You are sinning.

 

[steveh_131]

Point missed. My point was that "walking closely with Jesus" (and I dont know how much closer you can get than being a man of the cloth) does not automatically mean it will help. Using the premise I was responding to would mean the Catholic Sex Scandal wouldnt have happened, or at least not as widely as it did. I could see a couple guys worldwide simply due to statistics. But that was ridiculous.

I'm religious, so dont misunderstand; I'm not bashing religion. Its just not a panacea.

I think we disagree too many of the underlying basics to even continue this discussion.

I was thinking of the last 10-20 years, but now I see your point.

Yeah, I guess I was looking at more long term changes.

While it was missing an outright endorsement for this manner of deviant sexual attraction, which is not surprising given how it is viewed. Knowing this the author instead the next best thing - normalized it. He took what is by any objective measurement a deviant sexual practice that occurs between an adult and a minor who is unable to consent, and said that it was equivalent to traditional sexual practices and that pedophilia was the "same ingrained attraction that a heterosexual female may feel towards a male".

That sentence isn't 'normalizing' anything. That sentence is pointing out that this attraction is a part of the person and isn't going to change any more than a heterosexual is going to change.

Indiana has relaxed its sexual misconduct with a minor and child porn laws repeatedly in the last 10 years.

Age of consent is still 16, last I checked. It's all still quite illegal. Legal finagling aside, nothing has really changed in this arena. Meanwhile, mainstream acceptance of homosexuality has peaked.

If the two had a causal link, I would think things would be different.

Pre-teens used to have kids and get married at 12. My wife's grandmother was 12 when she got married to a much older man. Nobody thought much of it, then.

 

[BehindBlueI's]

I'm still confused s to how someone could read that article and believe that it was an attempt to condone, normalize, or diminish child predation.

It's something of an assumption that people read the article, unfortunately.

 

[CTS]

Honestly if someone is struggling with those types of feelings, I think we should let them "come out of the closet" and deal with them with trained medical professionals instead of making them afraid to look for help. If they haven't gotten to the point where they're acting on the feelings and want help, where on earth would they turn? I'm betting there are a lot of them out there who would go for help tomorrow if they weren't afraid of being outed and investigated by the police just for asking for help.

 

[Dead Duck]

So-
Time to clean my shotguns again.

 

[GREEN607]

These arguments sound like artificial constructs made up to relegate a group to the shadows. It is my opinion that 'they'.... came out of the shadows, of perversion. We must accept everyone for who they are, even celebrate those differences. Your premise sounds an awful lot like the 'Charlie Manson Family' set of morals.

​Are you kidding me?!

 

[GREEN607]

Define "harm". You are defining it based upon your own bigoted morals.

And following your logic, we should still be able to own slaves. After all, those people born into southern families in the U.S in 1816. were born at a time when owning slaves (and abusing them) was 'acceptable', aka "the norm". It was harmful to people of color and was, in fact, immoral.

Just because a behavior was deemed acceptable somewhere in history.... doesn't make it so, today or ever, really.

 

[Expat]

​Are you kidding me?!

If we are going to embrace depravity, let's do it. In for a penny, in for a pound.

 

[Bill of Rights]

​Are you kidding me?!

And following your logic, we should still be able to own slaves. After all, those people born into southern families in the U.S in 1816. were born at a time when owning slaves (and abusing them) was 'acceptable', aka "the norm". It was harmful to people of color and was, in fact, immoral.

Just because a behavior was deemed acceptable somewhere in history.... doesn't make it so, today or ever, really.

Green, check your sarcasm meter... I think he was being ironically sarcastic in his posts. While it is an "INGO-ism" to color sarcastic text purple, not everyone does it. Some intentionally don't, making you find the sarcasm yourself, just like in face to face conversations. At any rate, you're coming off as (IMHO understandably) angry at what you're reading, but I think the anger is misplaced. Just my opinion. Take a step back and re-read his posts with that in mind.

It would be like me saying, "Oh yes, Hillary would make a wonderful president." Said with an excited, happy face, you'd believe I really thought that. Said with lowered eyebrows and a perhaps a sneer on my face, no way in hell.

Blessings,
Bill

 

[Bill of Rights]

I am perhaps the last one who should comment on this- (I have not read the article, and as to this post, I'm not Catholic)

That said, I think it's fair to say that just because someone jumps through the necessary hoops does not make him "close to God"... we need to remember that God is above ALL of mankind's religious traditions and practices; He does not care that Joe is a good Catholic or that Achmed is a good Muslim or that Bill is a good Jew. What He cares about is that you live your life in a way that would make a Father proud of His children. (Obviously, this part is my belief, but I doubt any of us can argue that religions were made by man for man's comfort and to increase his understanding of his Deity... and for some men to increase their control over multitudes of other men (and women, and children.))

With that in mind, the "man of the cloth" does a fine job of talking the talk, but as demonstrated multiple times throughout history, and IMHO, best illustrated by "the Rev." Al Sharpton and "the Rev." Jesse Jackson, holding the job does not mean that one walks the walk. The specific religious tradition in question is irrelevant.

Too, one could jump through lots of hoops if he knew that doing so would earn society's trust and give him unfettered access to children, esp. those who are vulnerable enough to be taken advantage of. It could also be that some approach the priesthood specifically because it disallows sexual behavior on the part of the priest, and perhaps the person is trying to treat himself by means of abstinence, and seeks the "external control" of religion to help him control his urges. (In fairness, ALL of these are my theories and mine alone, without any research to support them. They're only theories/hypotheses.)

Blessings,
Bill

Point missed. My point was that "walking closely with Jesus" (and I dont know how much closer you can get than being a man of the cloth) does not automatically mean it will help. Using the premise I was responding to would mean the Catholic Sex Scandal wouldnt have happened, or at least not as widely as it did. I could see a couple guys worldwide simply due to statistics. But that was ridiculous.

I'm religious, so dont misunderstand; I'm not bashing religion. Its just not a panacea.

 

[Fargo]

No it hasn't. This is a lie. Indiana has adjusted its laws to fit within modern findings.

Stop this lie. It is a sin. You are sinning.

18 year olds having sex with anyone under 16 used to be illegal. It now is legal down to 14 if the right hoops are jumped through.

It was illegal for 18 year olds to possess videos of sex acts by 14 year olds. It is now legal if the right hoops are jumped through.

That you agree with this change, doesn't mean it didn't happen.

You using the word "lie" directed at another is pretty rich.