NationStates Jolt Archive

So, I was looking over my Abormal Psych book, and I noticed that the DSM-IV (Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorder) has Pedophilia listed as a Mental Disorder. I'm sorry, but I'm having a hard time seeing Pedophilia as a mental disorder.

For one thing, in order for anything to be a mental disorder, it has to have severe impact on your daily routine. It has to disrupt your daily life to an extent that you can't function day to day. That's why things like Multipule Personality Disorder, Bi-Polar, Schizophrenia, are all mental disorders. But I have yet to meet a pedophile who couldn't function day to day. Hell I know one that can provide for his wife and son without any problems.

Now I originally thought that Pedophiles would be able to use the Insanity defense if they knew that Pedophilia was listed as a mental disorder in the DSM-IV, but Wikipedia explains that the Insanity Defense differentiate on Insane (at the time of the alleged crime) and mentally ill. So, a pedophile won't be able to use the Insanity defense.

My last reasoning is really more of my own opinion. If Pedophilia is a mental disorder, then what's to stop pedophiles from claiming that they shouldn't be held responsible for their actions? What's to stop them from saying "Hey, I can't help it, I have a mental problem." If we start saying that pedophilia is a mental disorder, then why should the pedophile take responsibility for their actions? To me, at least, this just makes it easier to absolve them of all responsibility for their crimes.

Well didn't homosexuality also used to be listed as a mental disorder by the American Institute of Psychologists? Or whatever they call themselves.

Wilgrove, I swear, you have some sort of a phobia of Pedophilia. Anything that has to do with anyone under 18, you condemn. I can understand that to a point, but when you make comments like the one you made with the whole Miley Cyrus deal came out (You said they all deserved to be locked up, and it wasn't even a nude shot. ALL IT SHOWED WAS HER BACK WRAPPED IN A TOWEL!), it borders on a psychological disorder in itself.

Just drop it Wilgrove. please, just drop it.

How many pedo threads are you going to start?

Well didn't homosexuality also used to be listed as a mental disorder by the American Institute of Psychologists? Or whatever they call themselves.

Yea, it was removed in 1970 I think....but yea Homosexuality used to be a "mental disorder".

I smell insanity in this thread... *Grins*

Wilgrove, I swear, you have some sort of a phobia of Pedophilia. Anything that has to do with anyone under 18, you condemn. I can understand that to a point, but when you make comments like the one you made with the whole Miley Cyrus deal came out (You said they all deserved to be locked up, and it wasn't even a nude shot. ALL IT SHOWED WAS HER BACK WRAPPED IN A TOWEL!), it borders on a psychological disorder in itself.

Just drop it Wilgrove. please, just drop it.

How many pedo threads are you going to start?

Hmm...I see no gun....no one forcing you to click on my threads....hmm strange.

*walks away*

Being sexually attracted to children is no more or less a disorder as being sexually attracted to feet, leather or watermelons. Obsession is a disorder. Being controlled by one's sexual desire instead of vice-versa is a disorder. Pedophilia is to sexual molestation as a leather fetish is to breaking into people's houses and humping their couches.

Hmm...I see no gun....no one forcing you to click on my threads....hmm strange.

*walks away*

We're just wondering where this obsession comes from. Is it interfering with your daily life? Do you feel anxious when you think about it? Do you feel a sense of impending doom if you don't get to discuss it for hours and hours and hours on end?

Hmm...I see no gun....no one forcing you to click on my threads....hmm strange.

*walks away*
Wilgrove, we're CRITICIZING YOU! There is a difference between"Zomg, y00 should stop dese threadz cause we dont like dem!!11!" and "Wilgrove, you do realize that you're going over the top on this subject, right?"

Wilgrove, at one time I respected and admired you. Now, all of that is gone. Almost every day, you mention how the evil pedophiles are going to get off scot-free, or if not, you mention how horrible your life is.

Wilgrove, I'm going to stop posting in this thread before I say something that could be construed as flaming. I might've crossed the line, but right now, I'm too pissed to tell. If you'll excuse me, I'm going to go calm myself down.

Wilgrove, I swear, you have some sort of a phobia of Pedophilia. Anything that has to do with anyone under 18, you condemn. I can understand that to a point, but when you make comments like the one you made with the whole Miley Cyrus deal came out (You said they all deserved to be locked up, and it wasn't even a nude shot. ALL IT SHOWED WAS HER BACK WRAPPED IN A TOWEL!), it borders on a psychological disorder in itself.

Just drop it Wilgrove. please, just drop it.

I don't understand, how is he attacking Paedophilia? He seems to be defending it by stating that just because you're a paedophile, doesn't mean you're insane.

But I have yet to meet a pedophile who couldn't function day to day. Hell I know one that can provide for his wife and son without any problems.

If that were me, I'd be at least a little concerned about what it was exactly he was providing for his son.

As for the rest, I think you'd have to be fucked up in the head to want to diddle little kids(which does not absolve them of responsibility for their evil deeds), and as for your own question re: the legalities of insanity, I think you answered your own question there.

Wilgrove, obsess much? Sometimes I think you're hiding something...

I'm too pissed to tell. If you'll excuse me, I'm going to go calm myself down.

Really? 'cuz I think you're just being a drama queen.

Being sexually attracted to children is no more or less a disorder as being sexually attracted to feet, leather or watermelons. Obsession is a disorder. Being controlled by one's sexual desire instead of vice-versa is a disorder. Pedophilia is to sexual molestation as a leather fetish is to breaking into people's houses and humping their couches.

Indeed. For example on NSG, some people are obcessed with posting about how Muslims/Christians/Jews are evil every chance they get. And some people like to post about how pedophilia is evil, whether or not the afflicted actually committed sexual assault on a minor.

in order for anything to be a mental disorder, it has to have severe impact on your daily routine.

Source?

Wilgrove, obsess much? Sometimes I think you're hiding something...

If Wilgrove was a Republican ranting about the evils of homosexuality, then the answer to that question would be pretty obvious. But here? Dunno.

I don't understand, how is he attacking Paedophilia? He seems to be defending it by stating that just because you're a paedophile, doesn't mean you're insane.

Fine, I'll post once more.

My last reasoning is really more of my own opinion. If Pedophilia is a mental disorder, then what's to stop pedophiles from claiming that they shouldn't be held responsible for their actions? What's to stop them from saying "Hey, I can't help it, I have a mental problem." If we start saying that pedophilia is a mental disorder, then why should the pedophile take responsibility for their actions? To me, at least, this just makes it easier to absolve them of all responsibility for their crimes.

Source?

http://tendrils.files.wordpress.com/2008/02/ketchup.jpg

:D Sorry, could not resist.

Fine, I'll post once more.

That's a legitimate question. Also, did you not notice this? "Hell I know one that can provide for his wife and son without any problems."

http://tendrils.files.wordpress.com/2008/02/ketchup.jpg

:D Sorry, could not resist.

So this is how you got 600 posts in 2 weeks. Random spam.

That's a legitimate question. Also, did you not notice this? "Hell I know one that can provide for his wife and son without any problems."
Read his other posts on Pedophilia. It's like a racist saying "I have this many black friends!" In an effort to prove to others he isn't a racist.

So this is how you got 600 posts in 2 weeks. Random spam.

Not ALL of it, just some. I actually talk seriously sometimes. ;)

Read his other posts on Pedophilia. It's like a racist saying "I have this many black friends!" In an effort to prove to others he isn't a racist.

Wilgrove makes it clear he considers all pedophiles as if they've all ready committed child molestation whether or not they actually have done so.

So, I was looking over my Abormal Psych book, and I noticed that the DSM-IV (Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorder) has Pedophilia listed as a Mental Disorder. I'm sorry, but I'm having a hard time seeing Pedophilia as a mental disorder.

For one thing, in order for anything to be a mental disorder, it has to have severe impact on your daily routine. It has to disrupt your daily life to an extent that you can't function day to day. That's why things like Multipule Personality Disorder, Bi-Polar, Schizophrenia, are all mental disorders. But I have yet to meet a pedophile who couldn't function day to day. Hell I know one that can provide for his wife and son without any problems.

Not to put to fine a point on it, but it's not entirely accurate to say that in order for a set of behaviors or thoughts to be considered a "disorder" they must disrupt day to day function. EDIT: In fact, there are many disorders that do not necessarily disturb the individual who has the disorder.

The two generally accepted criteria are that 1) the behavior or pattern of thoughts is considered maladaptive (either for the individual or for others), and that 2) the behavior or pattern of thoughts is not under the individual's control.

Pedophilia fits both of these criteria in that 1) the behavior endangers others, and 2) the individual is unable to control their attraction.

Pedophiles have been arguing for years to have pedophilia removed from the DSM, on the grounds that the behavior need not be considered maladaptive (consensual relationships, I suppose...). You can argue that point if you want, and I'm sure that's the direction this thread will take, but until you can show that pedophilia isn't a danger to others, it will stay in the DSM.

EDIT: Also, legal insanity is completely separate from mental disorders. Psychologists do not refer to or classify individuals as being "insane" (at least not anymore!). Legal insanity refers to, as you said, the comprehension that your actions are illegal/wrong, or a temporary state in which the individual simply cannot distinguish between the two or is for some other reason not to be held responsible for their actions. For example, every profile of a serial killer that I have ever read matches up quite nicely with the diagnostic criteria for Antisocial Personality Disorder. However, even though these men have ASPD, they are not legally insane, as evidenced by the efforts they make to avoid being caught by the police (they knew it was wrong).

Pedophilia is such a massive black hole. On one hand, it is weird to be attracted to pre-pubescent children. At the same time, humans are biological wired to be attracted to females who have entered puberty.

Make of that what you will.

Pedophilia is such a massive black hole. On one hand, it is weird to be attracted to pre-pubescent children. At the same time, humans are biological wired to be attracted to females who have entered puberty.

Make of that what you will.

Pedophiles have been arguing for years to have pedophilia removed from the DSM, on the grounds that the behavior need not be considered maladaptive (consensual relationships, I suppose...). You can argue that point if you want, and I'm sure that's the direction this thread will take, but until you can show that pedophilia isn't a danger to others, it will stay in the DSM.

And thus Wilgrove faces a Catch-22. The DSM considers pedophilia maladaptive, but if he wants them to be held criminally accountable for their thought patterns, it would require pedophilia being removed from the DSM.

Pedophilia is such a massive black hole. On one hand, it is weird to be attracted to pre-pubescent children. At the same time, humans are biological wired to be attracted to females who have entered puberty.

Make of that what you will.

Ephebophilia holds much less of a social stigma than pedophilia by comparison, and at times it's made rather lightly of in this modern age.

Ephebophilia holds much less of a social stigma than pedophilia by comparison, and at times it's made rather lightly of in this modern age.

Depending on age, it can just be lumped in with pedophilia. The media tends to.

For one thing, in order for anything to be a mental disorder, it has to have severe impact on your daily routine. It has to disrupt your daily life to an extent that you can't function day to day. That's why things like Multipule Personality Disorder, Bi-Polar, Schizophrenia, are all mental disorders.

Yeah, sorry, that's total crap. I have Aspergers, and while I can generally function day-to-day, who would actually deny that I have a mental disorder?

Yeah, sorry, that's total crap. I have Aspergers, and while I can generally function day-to-day, who would actually deny that I have a mental disorder?

I would. I have it, and it's not a disorder at all. It's just a different way of thinking, like dyslexia.

http://tendrils.files.wordpress.com/2008/02/ketchup.jpg

:D Sorry, could not resist.

That's ketchup fool.

This is sauce.

http://www.diabetes.org.nz/_media/images/tomato_sauce.jpg

Ephebophilia holds much less of a social stigma than pedophilia by comparison, and at times it's made rather lightly of in this modern age.

Ephebophila used to be expected. Considering it's no longer acceptable for a 40 year old man to marry a 12 year old (like Samuel Champlain...) I'd say we take it more seriously in this modern age. ;)

I would. I have it, and it's not a disorder at all. It's just a different way of thinking, like dyslexia.

Are you fucking serious? It really isn't. It's not like you can just decide to turn it off and think "normally". It's built in mentally, it's a biological defect, just like it's close relative autism.

You might want to research your definition of "mental disorder" a bit more thouroughly...

Are you fucking serious? It really isn't. It's not like you can just decide to turn it off and think "normally". It's built in mentally, it's a biological defect, just like it's close relative autism.

You can't turn off dyslexia, but that isn't called a mental disorder. Asperger's syndrome really isn't a disorder.

You can't turn off dyslexia, but that isn't called a mental disorder. Asperger's syndrome really isn't a disorder.

It really is. I don't know how you can have it, and say that is isn't. It's very closely related to autism; the only reason I'm here talking to is because I'm lucky, mine is high functioning. My cousin wasn't so lucky.

My last reasoning is really more of my own opinion. If Pedophilia is a mental disorder, then what's to stop pedophiles from claiming that they shouldn't be held responsible for their actions? What's to stop them from saying "Hey, I can't help it, I have a mental problem." If we start saying that pedophilia is a mental disorder, then why should the pedophile take responsibility for their actions? To me, at least, this just makes it easier to absolve them of all responsibility for their crimes.

As someone with a mental disorder - two, actually - this is a complete load of crap. I have never in my life argued that I am not responsible for my own actions. Your analysis has nothing to do with the reality of mental illness, and is deeply offensive.

And by the way? I strongly suggest not saying that having any mental disorder makes one "insane" around actual physically present human beings, as there is a strong possibility that you will get punched in the mouth.

Thank you Poli. As someone with a mental disorder (and personally, I suspect, two), I salute you. You don't have to walk around looking like a total freak to have a mental disability.

mental disability.

How is Asperger's a disability? You are still able to do everything a "normal" person can do, it's just that Asperger's makes you less socially adept.

As someone with a mental disorder - two, actually - this is a complete load of crap. I have never in my life argued that I am not responsible for my own actions. Your analysis has nothing to do with the reality of mental illness, and is deeply offensive.

And by the way? I strongly suggest not saying that having any mental disorder makes one "insane" around actual physically present human beings, as there is a strong possibility that you will get punched in the mouth.

This.

How is Asperger's a disability? You are still able to do everything a "normal" person can do, it's just that Asperger's makes you less socially able.

Yeah, but it's variable! Some get lucky and can sort of lie their way through life. Some aren't so lucky and can't lead a real, full life.

This.

See, your problem is that you're on the exact opposite fringe from Wilgrove; you say that if it doesn't impact you enough, it's not an issue. When it really is.

Yeah, but it's variable! Some get lucky and can sort of lie their way through life. Some aren't so lucky and can't lead a real, full life.

So I'm laying my way through life? That's ridiculous.

So I'm laying my way through life? That's ridiculous.

Well, I don't know how much Aspergers you have. Like I said, my cousin basically gets the kid gloves treatment; she has a menial job, she'll probably never get married or have kids. I'm really grateful that I was lucky enough to be able to pass as normal. But Aspergers is a very real disorder. It is a problem. It's a problem that may be solved. I don't know yet if I want it to be solved, it's a part of me. But it is as much of a mental disorder as schizophrenia, autism, and DID.

And again, I don't know how bad your Aspergers is, but I know that mine has made me very charismatic and a very good liar. I can pass as a normal (albeit annoying) person because of these qualities. I can't speak for you.

For one thing, in order for anything to be a mental disorder, it has to have severe impact on your daily routine.

By whose definition?

Now I originally thought that Pedophiles would be able to use the Insanity defense if they knew that Pedophilia was listed as a mental disorder in the DSM-IV, but Wikipedia explains that the Insanity Defense differentiate on Insane (at the time of the alleged crime) and mentally ill. So, a pedophile won't be able to use the Insanity defense.

Um, thanks for that?

My last reasoning is really more of my own opinion. If Pedophilia is a mental disorder, then what's to stop pedophiles from claiming that they shouldn't be held responsible for their actions?

Um...the law? As you already noted pedophilia doesn't meet the standard for a not guilty plea by reason of mental disease or defect. You seem to have answered your own question.

A perversion is a sexual indulgence not condoned by society (i.e. "doubleplusungood sex"). With pedophiles, it is not the physical attraction that is morally incorrect, it is the mental state of the object of desire if subjected to erotic wishes, which is (in my fallible opinion) unsuitable. A difficulty arises concerning the arbitrary nature of this problem: at what age does the object become suitable?

Aside: pedophilia is not a mental disorder anymore than enjoyment of killing is; they are simply both vices with are generally rejected as proper for an human being.

As a personal footnote, I think you are too obsessed with sex, Wilgrove, especially strange sex. You need to separate it from nudity.

Well, I don't know how much Aspergers you have. Like I said, my cousin basically gets the kid gloves treatment; she has a menial job, she'll probably never get married or have kids. That sounds like Autism to me.

I'm really grateful that I was lucky enough to be able to pass as normal.
Most people with Asperger's syndrome do, or at least a slightly annoying not great at social skills one.


it's a part of me.
Exactly. Why would you consider that bad or want to change it. You must have some skills, talents or interests due to Asperger's, I know I do.

and DID
What's that?

How is Asperger's a disability?

Asperger's makes you less...able.

Um. :tongue:

That sounds like Autism to me.

Was diagnosed as AS, so I'm taking it as it is. Three members of my family have AS, so that's how I see it.

Most people with Asperger's syndrome do, or at least a slightly annoying not great at social skills one.

We have talents, but we have setbacks.

Exactly. Why would you consider that bad or want to change it. You must have some skills, talents or interests due to Asperger's, I know I do.

I dunno, I'm just borderline enough to wish I was normal.

What's that?

The new term for Multiple Personality Disorder.

Um. :tongue:

By able I mean adept. I'll change that.

By able I mean adept. I'll change that.

Bullcrap. I'm in goddamn TAFE now. If I wasn't such a good code monkey, I'd be on my ass.

Bullcrap. I'm in goddamn TAFE now. If I wasn't such a good code monkey, I'd be on my ass.

What?

It's hard to explain. I don't know any country that has a setup similar to Australia's TAFEs. It's like a more hands-on version of university.

It's hard to explain. I don't know any country that has a setup similar to Australia's TAFEs. It's like a more hands-on version of university.

Right. Also when I said adept/able I was talking socially, not anything else.

Right. Also when I said adept/able I was talking socially, not anything else.

Even so. I'm so borderline, that I annoy myself. My Aspergers part annoys my normal part. And I hate it.

On the internet everybody has Asperger's...

Lol. I've never been diagonosed, but my cousin was, and I have the same problems as her except milder; if I went to be tested and they told me I was normal, I'd be extremely surprised.

On the internet everybody has Asperger's...

I don't....

All pedo's, murderers, and sex offenders should be shot, or tortured to death. The end, as far as I'm concerned.

Is god a pedophile because he loves all his children?

All pedo's, murderers, and sex offenders should be shot, or tortured to death. The end, as far as I'm concerned.

What if we torture them to death via shooting?

What if we torture them to death via shooting?

Still too quick. The point of torture is never to kill the victim; killing can be done later once they've been utterly destroyed as a person.

Still too quick. The point of torture is never to kill the victim; killing can be done later once they've been utterly destroyed as a person.

Well, I was thinking first we could shoot them in the shoulders and knees, then the hands and feet, then the ears...

This would have to be done at fairly close range, so as not to hit any vital organs.

Is god a pedophile because he loves all his children?

But not physically. So no.

All pedo's, murderers, and sex offenders should be shot, or tortured to death. The end, as far as I'm concerned.

Even paedos who haven't committed a crime? Even sex offenders who only touched someone's tits? What if they were found guilty wrongly?

I don't....

You don't think you have Asperger's? On the internet? That sounds like a symptom of Asperger's to me.

Also, since DID came up, I figure there's nothing wrong with two perfectly sane people sharing a body, aye? Hypothetically.

All pedo's, murderers, and sex offenders should be shot, or tortured to death. The end, as far as I'm concerned.

Aww, thanks. You've really furthered the conservative cause with that post. :rolleyes:

Uhm, Wilgrove, is your knowledge about the DSM IV really this limited? Axis I is used to report not just various clinical disorders or conditions, but also notes other conditions that may be a focus of clinical attention. That's why paraphilias end up under its "Sexual and Gender Identity Disorders" heading.

It is defined as:

"1. Over a period of at least 6 months, recurrent, intense sexually arousing fantasies, sexual urges, or behaviors involving sexual activity with a prepubescent child or children (generally age 13 years or younger);

2. The person has acted on these sexual urges, or the sexual urges or fantasies cause marked distress or interpersonal difficulty;

3. The person is at least age 16 years and at least 5 years older than the child or children in Criterion A."

There is no usual separate demand that "the symptoms cause clinically significant distress or impairment in social, occupational, or other important areas of functioning", but it is not alone in this.

So, I was looking over my Abormal Psych book, and I noticed that the DSM-IV (Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorder) has Pedophilia listed as a Mental Disorder. I'm sorry, but I'm having a hard time seeing Pedophilia as a mental disorder.

For one thing, in order for anything to be a mental disorder, it has to have severe impact on your daily routine. It has to disrupt your daily life to an extent that you can't function day to day. That's why things like Multipule Personality Disorder, Bi-Polar, Schizophrenia, are all mental disorders. But I have yet to meet a pedophile who couldn't function day to day. Hell I know one that can provide for his wife and son without any problems.

Um. I haven't read the rest of this thread, but did you actually read the DSM-IV criteria for pedophilia:

The American Psychiatric Association Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, Fourth Edition Text Revision (DSM-IV-TR) criteria for Pedophilia (302.2) are:


Over a period of at least 6 months, recurrent, intense sexually arousing fantasies, sexual urges, or behaviors involving sexual activity with a prepubescent child or children (generally age 13 years or younger);


The person has acted on these sexual urges, or the sexual urges or fantasies cause marked distress or interpersonal difficulty;


The person is at least age 16 years and at least 5 years older than the child or children in Criterion A.
link (http://www.medem.com/MedLB/article_detaillb.cfm?article_ID=ZZZUZRUZGLC&sub_cat=355)

Either the pedophile has raped a child or his/her urges cause "marked distress or interpersonal difficulty." That answers your concern, right?

Now I originally thought that Pedophiles would be able to use the Insanity defense if they knew that Pedophilia was listed as a mental disorder in the DSM-IV, but Wikipedia explains that the Insanity Defense differentiate on Insane (at the time of the alleged crime) and mentally ill. So, a pedophile won't be able to use the Insanity defense.

My last reasoning is really more of my own opinion. If Pedophilia is a mental disorder, then what's to stop pedophiles from claiming that they shouldn't be held responsible for their actions? What's to stop them from saying "Hey, I can't help it, I have a mental problem." If we start saying that pedophilia is a mental disorder, then why should the pedophile take responsibility for their actions? To me, at least, this just makes it easier to absolve them of all responsibility for their crimes.

First, your first paragraph explains why the fears of your second paragraph are unfounded. We don't absolve people of responsibility for their actions merely because they have a mental disorder.

Second, we didn't just start saying pedophilia is a mental disorder and--guess what, chicken little?--we still enforce laws against child molestation.

We don't absolve people of responsibility for their actions merely because they have a mental disorder.

I honestly don't understand why this is so hard for people to grasp. Just because you have a disorder does not mean that your ability to distinguish right from wrong, or acceptable or not acceptable, is diminished. For some reason people seem to read "psychosis" when they see "disorder". Kooky.

having a mental disorder does not exempt you from criminal responsibility. the only way it even mitigates things is if you were seeking help before the crime took place. and even then one can expect a jail sentence with continued treatment in and out of prison.

Oh, thanks, that makes me feel so much better.

Jerkass.

who would actually deny that I have a mental disorder?

No-one who has read your posts?
;)

Source?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_Assessment_of_Functioning

This is Axis V of the DSM.

All pedo's, murderers, and sex offenders should be shot, or tortured to death. The end, as far as I'm concerned.
How very democratic and mindful of every human rights convention ever.

...Or, you know, we could simply remove those who pose a threat of harming others from the rest of community, and both protect the safety of the innocent while still showing a modicum of respect for human life and dignity.

So, I was looking over my Abormal Psych book, and I noticed that the DSM-IV (Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorder) has Pedophilia listed as a Mental Disorder. I'm sorry, but I'm having a hard time seeing Pedophilia as a mental disorder.
Perhaps because you're a layman and don't understand the criteria?

There are degrees and degrees. Just because your friend can make it work doesn't mean everyone else can. Some people are so obsessed they can't cope.
On the internet everybody has Asperger's...
I don't.

If that were me, I'd be at least a little concerned about what it was exactly he was providing for his son.
Why? Do you worry about a father and his adult daughter?

Yeah, but it's variable! Some get lucky and can sort of lie their way through life. Some aren't so lucky and can't lead a real, full life.
Which is no doubt why "disorder" is a more apt term than "disability"
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_Assessment_of_Functioning

This is Axis V of the DSM.

The DSM-IV-TR states that, because it is produced for the completion of Federal legislative mandates, its use by people without clinical training can lead to inappropriate application of its contents. Appropriate use of the diagnostic criteria is said to require extensive clinical training, and its contents “cannot simply be applied in a cookbook fashion”.[15] The APA notes that diagnostic labels are primarily for use as a “convenient shorthand” among professionals. The DSM advises that laypersons should consult the DSM only to obtain information, not to make diagnoses, and that people who may have a mental disorder should be referred to psychiatric counseling or treatment. Further, a shared diagnosis/label may have different etiologies (causes) or require different treatments; the DSM contains no information regarding treatment or cause for this reason. The range of the DSM represents an extensive scope of psychiatric and psychological issues or conditions, and it is not exclusive to what may be considered “illnesses”.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DSM_IV#Cautions

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_Assessment_of_Functioning

This is Axis V of the DSM.

And this is a carrot. (http://i.pbase.com/u9/dannysmythe/large/4319077.Carrot.jpg)

Has as much relevance in the matter as Axis V has to the question you were asked.

How very democratic and mindful of every human rights convention ever.

...Or, you know, we could simply remove those who pose a threat of harming others from the rest of community, and both protect the safety of the innocent while still showing a modicum of respect for human life and dignity.

Well, define "threat of harming others," because last I checked, every single individual is a potential threat to harming others. Of course, you're probably focusing your reply on the three provided in the post you were quoting - pedophiles, murderers and sex offenders. By the way, I just want to mention--if you've removed sex offenders, then would that not leave pedophiles who do not offend sexually? And if that's the case, then what have they done to deserve removal from the rest of community? And considering that most pedophiles do not sexually offend, I do not see any reason whatsoever to have any more concern about them than about those attracted to women, those attracted to men, those attracted to dogs, those attracted to corpses, et cetera. If the goal is to protect society from those who would do harm, then learn the enemy here; rape, sex offense, murder. And seeing as there are rapists, sex offenders and murderers in pretty much any orientation, targeting pedophilia (and ephebophilia as society seems to have done as well) is as foolish as targeting homosexuality, necrophilia or even heterosexuality.

On a side note to the posters who said that pedophiles, rapists and murderers should be "shot" and "killed," would that not make you murderers for intentionally taking the life of another without the other's consent? So would that not make it right to murder you, which would in turn make it right to murder your murderer, and continue this chain until the only people left in the world are decent human beings who wouldn't murder? While that may have a beneficial side effect, it is certainly not the way I would go about tackling this problem.

First main point: learn the enemy. Stop targeting an entire orientation simply because a few of that orientation are bad apples. You wouldn't see the same thing proposed for heterosexuality, would you? Yet there are plenty of heterosexual rapists and sex offenders in the world. The only reason heterosexuality isn't targeted is society accepts it. Homosexuals had the problem of acceptance for a long time (and in many ways still do). And considering that society also used to accept that women were the property of men, dark-skinned humans were born to be slaves, Religion X (replace with almost any belief system) had to be destroyed, the world was flat, et cetera, I cannot agree that social acceptance is the best crutch to fall on when determining right and wrong. Second main point: persecution is never the answer.

All pedo's, murderers, and sex offenders should be shot, or tortured to death. The end, as far as I'm concerned.
Now this seems like a mental illness. They may be misguided and/or maldeveloped (and I would certainly argue that if they act on their urges, correction is a valid approach), but they're still human beings.

Stop targeting an entire orientation simply because a few of that orientation are bad apples.

Does anyone have numbers about how "few" the bad apples are?

I imagine many if not most will get pretty frustrated by having to hide their feelings, and because of that will sooner or later end up doing something they shouldn't.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_Assessment_of_Functioning

This is Axis V of the DSM.

And Axis V is meant to just be that, a global summary of how that person functions in life. It has very little relevance to your current argument.

The DSM IV is meant to provide comprehensive assessment. Axis I deals with clinical disorder and learning/developmental disabilities, this is why you get not only disorders like schizophrenia, ocd, anxiety disorders, depression on this axis but also aspergers spectrum disorders, all the way to reading disorders and yes they also have sexual paraphilias and gender identity issues in there. Axis II is personality disorders. Axis III medical disorders/physical problems. Axis IV environmental and psychosocial factors and Axis V is meant to then be a summary of functioning. The axis are guidelines for the diagnosing clinician.

Now I'll admit I have distinct issues with the DSM based on it's overly medical view of mental disorders and in particular how it deals with personality disorders but one thing to remember, a disorder/disability being in the DSM does not equate to insanity. Unless you want to consider that someone who is depressed is insane?

Does anyone have numbers about how "few" the bad apples are?

I imagine many if not most will get pretty frustrated by having to hide their feelings, and because of that will sooner or later end up doing something they shouldn't.

And I imagine that following that logic, many if not most people will get pretty frustrated by having to hide any socially unacceptable feelings, and because of that will sooner or later end up doing something society says they shouldn't.

Speaking of logic, my stating that there are a few bad apples comes with reasoning rather than specific numbers. Considering that they are people as well, and that of those who are forced between a rock and a hard place, few resort to extreme measures--few compared to the whole--logically one would assume the same applies for pedophiles. Also, I have read about a few studies attempting to determine the likelihood of pedophiles to sexually offend, and I have read of these few studies returning that most pedophiles (in the studies) are actually gentile and sympathetic to the maturation process of a child. Most (in the studies) have stated that they would never make a move on their partner if exclusive, informed consent was not made. I did not bookmark the source, so I'll see if I can locate it again. The reason I specify "in the studies" is because of the few studies made and thus a small sample group. The reason so few studies have been made is quite obvious; the subject is highly shunned by society and heavily biased against; and in a time of persecution when few pedophiles would very much like a high profile, I can imagine how many of the total would step forward to be studied. The result is society sees only the actions they deem unacceptable because being "caught" throws out the ability to keep a low profile.

Another thing I want to point out is that you're basically saying that the cause of their doing "something they shouldn't" (by that I assume you refer to sexual offense) is their need to hide their feelings. If this is true, then are you suggesting that the freedom and acknowledgment of their orientation, along with some educational reform, would solve the problem and promote healthy, happy inter-generational relationships?

Why? Do you worry about a father and his adult daughter?

If the father was a sex offender and the daughter was living in his house and dependent on him, then yes, I would worry about her.

*snip*

Although you are right to be offended by and opposed to the "kill them all" mentality, I can't tell if you are also objecting to labeling pedophilia a mental illness. It seems that you are, but I may be misreading you.

It has already been explained that actual pedophilia requires having "recurrent, intense sexually arousing fantasies, sexual urges, or behaviors involving sexual activity with a prepubescent child or children" AND either having acted on these urges or suffering from "marked distress or interpersonal difficulty" due to these urges. Given those criteria, it seems more than reasonable to categorize such a sufferer as ill, rather than just someone with an orientation.

I don't.

Sorry, no exceptions. :tongue:

WARNING - open hearted and rational reply ahead

And I imagine that following that logic, many if not most people will get pretty frustrated by having to hide any socially unacceptable feelings, and because of that will sooner or later end up doing something society says they shouldn't.

Even fantasies about mass murder are FAR more socially acceptable than fantasies about sex with an underage partner (this difference is quite sick when you think about it in a rational way, but hey, society isn't rational), so I wouldn't expect the average person to do bad stuff.

Most (in the studies) have stated that they would never make a move on their partner if exclusive, informed consent was not made.

Someone below the age of consent is not to be considered capable of informed consent. So, either they will not make any moves at all, or they are fooling themselves into thinking the mind of a child is more mature than it really is. Considering what they would like to do with the child, I would guess it's the latter.

Another thing I want to point out is that you're basically saying that the cause of their doing "something they shouldn't" (by that I assume you refer to sexual offense) is their need to hide their feelings.

A contributing cause, not the single cause. The main cause is of course that they're having the feelings in the first place.

And I don't mean only sexual offense. Touching children in a nonsexual/legal way is NOT okay if it gives one sexual feelings. (It's not okay with adults either without their (implied?) consent.)

If this is true, then are you suggesting that the freedom and acknowledgment of their orientation, along with some educational reform, would solve the problem

From my own childhood I remember this guy who did apparently admit being a pedophile, but wouldn't do anything improper to a child because of his strong faith in God. Some parents trusted him around their children (I'm not sure what my parents attitude towards him was, but if it would have been total distrust I would have remembered).
I have unrelated issues with the God thing, but I guess this could be called a semi-solved problem?

and promote healthy, happy inter-generational relationships

healthy - I don't know
happy - I don't think that guy was very happy

As for sexual relationships, I guess they might appear healthy and happy at the time, but the results a few years later aren't likely to be happy at all.

Being one of those people who actually remember what they were like in their childhood, I think I would probably have accepted sex before I understood at all what it is, if someone had asked me nicely. I'd be seriously *********** about it now if that had happened, and guess it wouldn't have been good for my already existing lack of sanity either.

And yes, I do know (some?) children have sexual feelings too (you figure out how I know that). That doesn't mean they're capable of consenting.

Also, I have read about a few studies attempting to determine the likelihood of pedophiles to sexually offend, and I have read of these few studies returning that most pedophiles (in the studies) are actually gentile and sympathetic to the maturation process of a child. Most (in the studies) have stated that they would never make a move on their partner if exclusive, informed consent was not made. I did not bookmark the source, so I'll see if I can locate it again.

1. Please find this source. It should make for interesting reading as it seems to contradict most information on the subject.

2. For a number of reasons, the percentage of pedophiles that are child molestors is difficult to assess and there is little information on that point. In part, it is because it is unknown how many pedophiles there are and also because only about 1 in 20 child molestations is reported or identified. What is known is that: "an estimated 88% of child molesters and 95% of molestations (one person, multiple acts) are committed by individuals who now or in the future will also meet criteria for pedophilia." link (http://www.mayoclinicproceedings.com/pdf%2F8204%2F8204sa.pdf) (pdf).

3. There can be no such thing as "informed consent" by a child, so your argument that pedophiles would get such consent is ridiculous on its face.

Pedophiles are the new terrorists.

Pedophiles are the new terrorists.

My best guess is that you mean pedophiles are used as bogeymen. If it wasn't for the little FACTS that pedophiles account for most known child molestations and child molestation is a significant problem, you'd have a point.

What is disturbing is the tendency of people to think of pedophiles as obvious knuckle-dragging droolers easily identified as weird "strangers" when child molestors are often known and trusted by their victims.

All right, I'm going to tackle the replies by both The Free Priesthood and The Cat-Tribe in this post. I figure it's cleaner and more efficient to simply reply completely in one post than to break it into several posts.

Although you are right to be offended by and opposed to the "kill them all" mentality, I can't tell if you are also objecting to labeling pedophilia a mental illness. It seems that you are, but I may be misreading you.

It has already been explained that actual pedophilia requires having "recurrent, intense sexually arousing fantasies, sexual urges, or behaviors involving sexual activity with a prepubescent child or children" AND either having acted on these urges or suffering from "marked distress or interpersonal difficulty" due to these urges. Given those criteria, it seems more than reasonable to categorize such a sufferer as ill, rather than just someone with an orientation.

And I'm saying that those criteria sound like they would result from deprivation of any desire--especially one so closely linked to sexuality. What you're calling "actual pedophilia" is not actual pedophilia; pedophilia is the primary and/or exclusive attraction to prepubescent individuals. It is nothing more than that, like homosexuality is nothing more than the primary and/or exclusive attraction to same-sex individuals. What you call "actual pedophilia" is a state of mind caused by deprivation of natural needs.

Consider the following scenario: heterosexual (man-woman) sexuality has been banned in the name of whatever reason society deems fit. The government has decided to stick with test-tube baby production methods. Heterosexuality has entered the directories as a mental disorder. Now we must use reason. Would humans, who are a sexual species, of the heterosexual orientation be able to cope without sexual relations with a member of the opposite sex their entire lives? If you are heterosexual, then I suppose the question is--would you be able to cope without sexual relations with a member of the opposite sex your entire life? For some, this may be no problem; some do not even desire sex. For most, the illegality and new social morality would probably cause "marked distress or interpersonal difficulty." Some would fail to uphold the law and copulate with a partner. In fact, I can imagine underground brothels forming in this case.

The point I'm trying to make is simply that the oppression of the pedophilia orientation is precisely the cause of the factors considered signs of the "mental illness" pedophilia. Deprive a man of food for too long, and he may begin to see you as a tasty meal. While it may be difficult to relate to the situation if you yourself are not of this orientation, try to sympathise with the people who suffer from this oppression by putting your own orientation into question.


Someone below the age of consent is not to be considered capable of informed consent.

Explain why someone below the age of consent is not to be considered capable of informed consent. And why should anyone take the age of consent seriously when it ranges between 9 years and 20 years based on location? So obviously the problem is not a biological age, but rather the social views imposed onto children. Growing up in a world that claims children under a certain age are incapable of making informed consent would quite reasonably cause children to believe it. When the only thing they're allowed to hear about sexuality is that it's bad or that they're too young to understand and have to be older, they grow to believe it. It is this very thing that causes children under the age of consent to be incapable of consent.

Another example would be the rights of women. Throughout history, the woman in many societies was considered sub-man and had only the duties to raise the family and serve the man. The question now is--were women capable of anything more? The answer: no. When the then tiny feminist movement began, few women supported the cause, and even fewer men. It was considered a fringe movement, looked down upon by most of society. Most women were raised to believe they had no right to consider themselves equal to men. Because of this belief, they did not dare consider the possibility. But now, after educational and social reform to grant them this freedom, are they capable? Quite.


And I don't mean only sexual offense. Touching children in a nonsexual/legal way is NOT okay if it gives one sexual feelings.

Do give me an example of legal touching between an adult and a child that arouses sexual feelings. The only one I can think of is kissing. Are you saying children should not be kissed anymore? Poor kids.


From my own childhood I remember this guy who did apparently admit being a pedophile, but wouldn't do anything improper to a child because of his strong faith in God ... I have unrelated issues with the God thing, but I guess this could be called a semi-solved problem?

So now we should consider bringing religion into this? Only those pedophiles who are faithful to God should be trusted? I'll let you think about that a bit longer before considering it a "semi-solved problem," which, by the way, is not a solution. A problem is not solved until it is solved. "Semi-solving" a problem is like saying 1 + 1 = 3. Well, 3 is higher than 1, and it's close to 2, so it's "semi-solving" the problem, right?


As for sexual relationships, I guess they might appear healthy and happy at the time, but the results a few years later aren't likely to be happy at all.

And this can be caused by two reasons I can think of off the top of my head. Firstly, society finds inter-generational sexual relationships to be abhorrent. A child growing up in a world that says what he or she had done was absolutely wrong, sick and terrible I imagine would end up not being very happy. Second reason I can imagine is that the child would regret something in the relationship. This, however, is not limited to childhood. Regret for a relationship is so common I cannot begin to describe how normal it is. Relationships sometimes don't work out. All right--understandable. But that's part of being human and learning through experience. Mistakes are made, lessons are learned, and experience is applied to future relationships. The key here, however, is relationships "sometimes" don't work out. That doesn't mean we should ban these relationships.


And yes, I do know (some?) children have sexual feelings too (you figure out how I know that). That doesn't mean they're capable of consenting.

From my perspective, there are two requirements for informed consent; having desire and being informed. You admit that children have desire (if, of course, sexual feelings are pleasurable to the individual). Now all that stands in their way is the information. Informed decisions are made by being informed. This is reasonable. This goes back to what I was saying about children being indoctrinated into a society that teaches them it is wrong and that they should not desire. It is a cyclical pattern that takes but one belief to start; the belief that adult-child sex is wrong. Following this belief, adults feel they must protect children from sex, which causes a need for parentalism, which causes a child's lack of sexual knowledge and freedom, which increases the child's inability to consent, which makes adult-child sex even more wrong. Unless educational and social reform are made, this cycle will continue indefinitely until the only "sensible" means of protecting children from sexuality would be to lock them up in solitary confinement until adulthood.


1. Please find this source. It should make for interesting reading as it seems to contradict most information on the subject.

2. For a number of reasons, the percentage of pedophiles that are child molestors is difficult to assess and there is little information on that point. In part, it is because it is unknown how many pedophiles there are and also because only about 1 in 20 child molestations is reported or identified. What is known is that: "an estimated 88% of child molesters and 95% of molestations (one person, multiple acts) are committed by individuals who now or in the future will also meet criteria for pedophilia." link (http://www.mayoclinicproceedings.com/pdf%2F8204%2F8204sa.pdf) (pdf).

After reading those findings, I'll be sure to take extra measures to find the source(s) to cite. I want to say that those percentages are mostly based on terminology and sample groups, but until I'm able to cite my sources I probably should refrain from arguing against the content of that source.

If the father was a sex offender and the daughter was living in his house and dependent on him, then yes, I would worry about her.
But paedophiles aren't sex offenders. Well, technically under the DSM IV definition they are, but in the layman's sense of a paedophile being someone who is attracted to prepubescent children, then they aren't. In that sense a paedophile is no more a child molester than you or I are rapists.
Pedophiles are the new terrorists.

New? Shit, even the ancient Greeks and Romans had paedophiles.

That's right,but the obsession with the fear of these people, justifying all sorts of nastiness, just like THE TerraIST thrEAT.

Wilgrove, I swear, you have some sort of a phobia of Pedophilia. Anything that has to do with anyone under 18, you condemn. I can understand that to a point, but when you make comments like the one you made with the whole Miley Cyrus deal came out (You said they all deserved to be locked up, and it wasn't even a nude shot. ALL IT SHOWED WAS HER BACK WRAPPED IN A TOWEL!), it borders on a psychological disorder in itself.

Just drop it Wilgrove. please, just drop it.

Perhaps Wil´s a pedophobe, if that´s even a phobia.

But paedophiles aren't sex offenders. Well, technically under the DSM IV definition they are, but in the layman's sense of a paedophile being someone who is attracted to prepubescent children, then they aren't. In that sense a paedophile is no more a child molester than you or I are rapists.

You missed half the DSM definition: "The person has acted on these sexual urges, or the sexual urges or fantasies cause marked distress or interpersonal difficulty"

Perhaps Wil´s a pedophobe, if that´s even a phobia.

I believe that means "fear of children".

Or possibly "fear of feet". But I think that's podophobia.

I don't understand, how is he attacking Paedophilia? He seems to be defending it by stating that just because you're a paedophile, doesn't mean you're insane.

Seems more like he's only objecting to it because he thinks it'll let them get off the hook.

All pedo's, murderers, and sex offenders should be shot, or tortured to death. The end, as far as I'm concerned.

Yeah, become what you hate the most in order to kill it, right? Good for you.

Does anyone have numbers about how "few" the bad apples are?

I imagine many if not most will get pretty frustrated by having to hide their feelings, and because of that will sooner or later end up doing something they shouldn't.

Imagine = Fact?

I believe that means "fear of children".

Or possibly "fear of feet". But I think that's podophobia.

Pedohiliaphobia?

Explain why someone below the age of consent is not to be considered capable of informed consent.

For the youngest ones (say 6 and under) it's very obvious: they're not capable of being informed, even if you tell them everything there is to know about sexuality (and tell them in a neutral way of course).

Older ones may be capable of being informed, but they're still not capable of proper consent. They may understand what sex is, but their ability to understand all the implications and effects isn't developed far enough yet.
If you disagree, perhaps you also think kids should be allowed to drink alcohol, drive cars, and should be treated the same way as adults are if they commit a crime?

And why should anyone take the age of consent seriously when it ranges between 9 years and 20 years based on location?

Just because some countries get the age wrong doesn't mean the concept of age of consent is a bad idea.

When the only thing they're allowed to hear about sexuality is that it's bad or that they're too young to understand and have to be older, they grow to believe it.

Interestingly enough I was never told any such thing by anyone whose opinion mattered to me.

Another example would be the rights of women.

The difference here is that women have fully developed brains.

Do give me an example of legal touching between an adult and a child that arouses sexual feelings. The only one I can think of is kissing. Are you saying children should not be kissed anymore? Poor kids.

Some people get a kick out of giving backrubs.

I'm saying children should not be kissed or touched if it gives the adult doing that sexual feelings. I don't mind that having those feelings is legal (actually, making types of feelings illegal opens a big can of very ugly worms), but it's only decent to keep your sexuality and people who do not or cannot agree to your feelings about them away from each other.

So now we should consider bringing religion into this?

NO! Do not be confused by my name. Shifting moral responsibility to God is a very dangerous thing to do, and I distrust people who do it. What if they lose their faith?

I called the problem semi-solved because at least nothing bad was happening to the children.

Second reason I can imagine is that the child would regret something in the relationship. This, however, is not limited to childhood. Regret for a relationship is so common I cannot begin to describe how normal it is. Relationships sometimes don't work out. All right--understandable. But that's part of being human and learning through experience. Mistakes are made, lessons are learned, and experience is applied to future relationships. The key here, however, is relationships "sometimes" don't work out. That doesn't mean we should ban these relationships.

"Inter-generational" relations cannot work out.

I'll tell you something funny about myself. When I'm half asleep (make that 80% asleep) and someone talks to me, I will say "yes". If someone were to ask me if I wanted to have sex with them, and then, encouraged by this sleepy "yes" would proceed to try it, I would consider that rape.

Sleepy me is not capable of understanding what is agreed to.
Child-me is not capable of understanding what it might have agreed to.
Conclusion: if child-me had agreed to have sex with someone, that would have been rape. You can probably understand I wouldn't be happy to know to have been raped. What the rest of society thinks of it has nothing to do with it.

I should add that I have nothing against children experimenting with each other. When no threats or violence are involved, and both parties don't understand what they're doing, you can't consider one to be forcing the other now can you?

Unless educational and social reform are made, this cycle will continue indefinitely until the only "sensible" means of protecting children from sexuality would be to lock them up in solitary confinement until adulthood.

The best thing for children is to make all information they might need available to them, and to tell them sexuality is a positive and valuable thing. In addition to that, one should protect them from relationships with inequal power (and knowledge and understanding are power!) until they are mentally strong enough to protect themselves.

Imagine = Fact?


Imagine = expect. When someone claims something different from my expectations and own observations, I want to see the numbers and methods.

For the youngest ones (say 6 and under) it's very obvious: they're not capable of being informed, even if you tell them everything there is to know about sexuality (and tell them in a neutral way of course).

Older ones may be capable of being informed, but they're still not capable of proper consent. They may understand what sex is, but their ability to understand all the implications and effects isn't developed far enough yet.
If you disagree, perhaps you also think kids should be allowed to drink alcohol, drive cars, and should be treated the same way as adults are if they commit a crime?
...
The difference here is that women have fully developed brains.

While I prefer going in order, I felt the need to bunch those together. So the ellipses should not be taken as though I'm now answering everything in between, but rather I'm skipping that for after this part.

What you're basing this entire argument on is not age. You're basing it on cognitive ability. You've gone beyond information to say that, even well informed, they cannot make the call. However, when comparing children to women, you have revealed the true base of your argument - cognitive abilities. So let's take this for what it is; you're saying that individuals who are not cognitively capable of making the call should not by law be allowed to make the call.

This calls the whole concept of "age of consent" into question because cognitive development is not the same for every individual. So who can make the call and say that a person X years old has become cognitively capable? Hell, let's take this a step further. Can those with "low intelligence" (define it as you will) possibly make the call? If an individual has "low intelligence," then would he or she experience more of a problem with lacking comprehension? Let's go further. What of those with disorders that cause a retardation in cognitive development? So would it not be sensible to reform the "age of consent" to more of a "capability of consent?" In such a case, perhaps a test should be administered to determine whether or not an individual is capable of consent.

And besides, in the case of sex specifically, I don't see how there's much to understand beyond the scope of what can be taught in formal education. Beyond the knowledge of the possible dangers, benefits and results, the rest is intuitive and natural. We are born sexual creatures. The very existence of the child's genitalia and the very feelings they 'can' feel prove that they are capable of sexual feeling. Beyond feeling and knowledge, I cannot see much "understanding." Sexual activity is a carnal trait like eating or drinking. Does a person really need to understand what it means to eat? Drink? Sleep? Sexual activity, for a sexual animal, is a natural trait. Humans are sexual animals. They are born sexual, they mature sexual, and they die sexual. Whether or not the body is ready for childbirth is beyond the fact that human children are humans, humans are sexual, and thus human children are sexual. It is carnal; it is in their very nature. So I really do fail to see how they can lack the capability to "understand" beyond the scope of the abilities to learn and feel.


Just because some countries get the age wrong doesn't mean the concept of age of consent is a bad idea.

Not to be rude, but that's a pretty weak argument. "I'm right; they're different; so they're wrong." Who's to say that your state got it right? Hell, throughout history the marriageable age in many societies has been in early adolescence. Were all those cultures wrong as well? Is the only society who got it right yours?


Interestingly enough I was never told any such thing by anyone whose opinion mattered to me.

I'm glad the flames didn't burn you. That doesn't change the fact that it's spread everywhere. I can tell you I've experienced countless times when the idea of how "sick" and "wrong" it is has gotten brought up in casual conversation, and I'm not a very sociable person (you have no idea how rarely I post in forums like this). Many of my friends have also commented about how they hear it all the time. One friend of mine, in fact, saw an advertisement on television taking a very anti-pedophilia stance (and it wasn't even a commercial advertisement for a product). We hear it on the news (more frequently lately than before), we hear it in the home ... to deny that the message is being spread is to say that you really haven't been keeping eyes or ears open around; or you're one of the fortunate ones who haven't been hit by this as badly as others.


Some people get a kick out of giving backrubs.

I'm saying children should not be kissed or touched if it gives the adult doing that sexual feelings. I don't mind that having those feelings is legal (actually, making types of feelings illegal opens a big can of very ugly worms), but it's only decent to keep your sexuality and people who do not or cannot agree to your feelings about them away from each other.

That's just plain ridiculous. What results from that? The child does not receive the affection, and the adult does not receive the sexual pleasure. That benefits no one. If an adult enjoys stroking a child's hair or embracing a child—affectionate activities--and it just so happens to please the adult sexually, then I see absolutely no reason to say the adult should "in decency" avoid that. Hell, even if I was against child-adult sex, I'd completely encourage that. Both are pleased without resorting to sex. Wonderful.


NO! Do not be confused by my name. Shifting moral responsibility to God is a very dangerous thing to do, and I distrust people who do it. What if they lose their faith?

I was not in any way referring to your name. I was referring to your tale of how the pedophile in question was somewhat an exception because he “had faith in God.”


I called the problem semi-solved because at least nothing bad was happening to the children.

Actually, it was an improvement now that I think of it. All he had to do to gain the trust of the people was tell them the truth about how he wouldn't harm them? I thought that wouldn't work on most people. Interesting....


"Inter-generational" relations cannot work out.

Why didn't I continue this obviously incomplete quote? Because you didn't give anything more for me to continue with. I really don't mean to offend or seemingly mock, but saying they cannot work out and providing nothing about it--ending it at that—seems rather like you're doing nothing more than reciting a line from a script. I'd love to give you a constructive counter-argument, but there's no constructive argument to counter.


I'll tell you something funny about myself. When I'm half asleep (make that 80% asleep) and someone talks to me, I will say "yes". If someone were to ask me if I wanted to have sex with them, and then, encouraged by this sleepy "yes" would proceed to try it, I would consider that rape.

Sleepy me is not capable of understanding what is agreed to.
Child-me is not capable of understanding what it might have agreed to.
Conclusion: if child-me had agreed to have sex with someone, that would have been rape. You can probably understand I wouldn't be happy to know to have been raped. What the rest of society thinks of it has nothing to do with it.

OK, whoa, hold on. You went from describing being mostly asleep (which means lacking full conscious judgment) to being a child so abruptly. You're saying that because, from your perspective, both a child and a sleepy person lack capability to consent using fully conscious judgment, then automatically whatever relates to sleepy relates to child.

So what you're saying is not even directly linked to children. What you're saying is that anyone who at any moment is not in full conscious judgment mode or has full focus should be considered incapable of consent? So in other words, you could be stressed out from work, come home late, have sex with your partner (legal sex in this case; not referring to the already illegal sex with a child partner), and then wake up in the Morning and take her to court on the charges of rape? That may sound extreme, but I'm basing it off your supporting factor of less-than complete capability to consciously judge being the link between children and your sleepy self.


I should add that I have nothing against children experimenting with each other. When no threats or violence are involved, and both parties don't understand what they're doing, you can't consider one to be forcing the other now can you?

That is also ridiculous. So in other words, if a child is gaining sexual pleasure from another child, then it's perfectly fine since the other child is possibly more ignorant than an adult? The only difference here is that with an adult, there's at least one partner with experience and the other not. To say that just because one has experience and the other does not means there's forcing involved is to be very narrow-sighted. The one does not automatically mean the other. I can give you two easy examples of your assumptions flipped around. On one hand, a girl may crush on a boy, and if the boy wants to experiment, then guess what the girl is likely to do. Even if the girl isn't attracted to the boy as in the example, friends could cause peer pressure. On the other hand, an adult may give the child the dominant part of the relationship so that it moves at the child's pace. And in this example, the only forcing possible would be done by the child. All it takes is a bit of seduction to get what they want, and that's a skill that can be gained with little more than observation and learning.

Besides, when one partner has more experience, would it not be reasonable to assume that the more experienced partner would be able to provide a more fulfilling experience to an individual than a lesser experienced partner would? And of course this puts aside other factors in the fulfillment of the experience, such as whether or not the partners in question have a loving bond. What you seem to be neglecting is that the sexual experience is itself experience, and so individuals would gain experience from the activity.

But of course, some individuals would prefer the lesser experienced for whatever reason. The problem we have is that children aren't being given the chance to make preference. Not all children would be attracted to an adult. Healthy, happy relationships work two ways, and an adult attracted to children should respect this. I proclaim that many would--not because of what has already happened (even though quite a handful of healthy, happy relationships have occurred already and have been spoken of positively on both sides), but primarily because of reason. Just as most members of any other orientation would believe, also they would believe relationships work two ways, and that there should be a deeper bond than simply sexuality involved; a bond of love and affection.

The best thing for children is to make all information they might need available to them, and to tell them sexuality is a positive and valuable thing. In addition to that, one should protect them from relationships with inequal power (and knowledge and understanding are power!) until they are mentally strong enough to protect themselves.

So then you agree with me that we need educational reform to improve sexual education for children? Well, that's just great. About the unequal power issue, I have to say it's slightly more complicated now that we've come to the agreement that children need to learn sexuality instead of being hidden from it. By the way, I agree that knowledge is power. So to bring children up to equality, we need to give them the knowledge. That's what I was saying. You add "and understanding." This along with your argument that we need to protect them from those who do not fit in their tier of knowledge (and understanding) further supports what I said at the top; that age isn't the issue here, but cognitive ability is.

I'm serious when I say that a step in the right direction would be to administer a test to determine the cognitive ability of the individual, and base more on that than on age. We could then protect the incapable while freeing the capable, and it would actually allow for better representation of individuals' capabilities in everyday life. And of course the sacrifice would be total freedom of choice, but as it is right now, that freedom doesn't exist for at least those under an age. If we're going to start dividing people by abilities, then let's start doing it rather than making wacky claims that people magically gain abilities at a specific age.

What you're basing this entire argument on is not age. You're basing it on cognitive ability.

True. However, below a certain age (I'm no expert on what age that should be, but AFAIK the age of consent is more or less the same in most countries, so 16/17/18 might be about right) there simply aren't ANY children with sufficient cognitive ability not only to understand what they're doing but also to resist manipulation. That's why having an age of consent makes sense.

Can those with "low intelligence" (define it as you will) possibly make the call? If an individual has "low intelligence," then would he or she experience more of a problem with lacking comprehension? Let's go further. What of those with disorders that cause a retardation in cognitive development?

Sexual abuse of these people is a very real problem.

So would it not be sensible to reform the "age of consent" to more of a "capability of consent?"

We already have "capability of consent" next to "age of consent". The latter is a special case of the first.

In such a case, perhaps a test should be administered to determine whether or not an individual is capable of consent.

You can't let them take the test when they're suing their "partner" (because their cognitive abilities for sure will have grown in the meantime), so what do you want to do? Let every child take this test every year until they pass just so the pedos can have their fun? Or let them take it right before having sex with someone? Or do you see a different way that would actually make sense in the real world?

And besides, in the case of sex specifically, I don't see how there's much to understand beyond the scope of what can be taught in formal education. Beyond the knowledge of the possible dangers, benefits and results, the rest is intuitive and natural.

I don't think sexuality is intuitive. Sure, the basics of the physical side are pretty easy to figure out, but the emotional side with the weird attachments and angst and conflicting needs and whatnot... that's not intuitive. And the ability to resist manipulation? I can't even begin to imagine how that could possibly be intuitive.

to deny that the message is being spread is to say that you really haven't been keeping eyes or ears open around; or you're one of the fortunate ones who haven't been hit by this as badly as others.

We obviously live in different places.


That's just plain ridiculous. What results from that? The child does not receive the affection, and the adult does not receive the sexual pleasure. That benefits no one. If an adult enjoys stroking a child's hair or embracing a child—affectionate activities--and it just so happens to please the adult sexually, then I see absolutely no reason to say the adult should "in decency" avoid that. Hell, even if I was against child-adult sex, I'd completely encourage that. Both are pleased without resorting to sex. Wonderful.


If the child is aware there's something odd about the affection it receives, that's not good. And even if it's not aware but figures things out later and gets really grossed out... How could you say there is no harm done?

I was not in any way referring to your name. I was referring to your tale of how the pedophile in question was somewhat an exception because he “had faith in God.”

He was an exception because some people trusted his promise not to do anything remotely sexual with children.


Actually, it was an improvement now that I think of it. All he had to do to gain the trust of the people was tell them the truth about how he wouldn't harm them? I thought that wouldn't work on most people. Interesting....


A different time (my god we used rotary phones!) and a highly tolerant subculture (nudism), which I guess has grown extremely intolerant of pedophilia by now. I would hope so anyway.

Why didn't I continue this obviously incomplete quote? Because you didn't give anything more for me to continue with. I really don't mean to offend or seemingly mock, but saying they cannot work out and providing nothing about it--ending it at that—seems rather like you're doing nothing more than reciting a line from a script.

I think most of what I've said can be used as arguments for my statement that such relationships cannot work. Abuse of a minor and a working relationship are very different things.

So in other words, you could be stressed out from work, come home late, have sex with your partner (legal sex in this case; not referring to the already illegal sex with a child partner), and then wake up in the Morning and take her to court on the charges of rape?

Abuse of my automatism of saying "yes" while near-unconscious is not the same thing as having sex with someone who is awake but tired.

As you may be aware children of a certain age will say "yes" to any question they don't understand, if it's asked in a positive tone. With older ones one would need to use a more subtle method of manipulation, but in essence it's still the same thing.

To say that just because one has experience and the other does not means there's forcing involved is to be very narrow-sighted. The one does not automatically mean the other. I can give you two easy examples of your assumptions flipped around. On one hand, a girl may crush on a boy, and if the boy wants to experiment, then guess what the girl is likely to do. Even if the girl isn't attracted to the boy as in the example, friends could cause peer pressure. On the other hand, an adult may give the child the dominant part of the relationship so that it moves at the child's pace. And in this example, the only forcing possible would be done by the child. All it takes is a bit of seduction to get what they want, and that's a skill that can be gained with little more than observation and learning.

Children who seduce adults? On what planet? That's a delusion, and that in turn makes an argument for pedophilia being in the DSM-IV.

But never mind that. Peer pressure and manipulations by other children are way easier to resist than manipulations by adults. And of course we should help them learn to defend against both.

And even if the child does get the dominant role - how can you be so sure it really isn't doing anything it doesn't want or doesn't understand?

Besides, when one partner has more experience, would it not be reasonable to assume that the more experienced partner would be able to provide a more fulfilling experience to an individual than a lesser experienced partner would?

What does the amount of fun the adult deludes himself about the child having have to do with anything?

Not all children would be attracted to an adult. Healthy, happy relationships work two ways, and an adult attracted to children should respect this.

I agree. And of the few pedophiles I have met, none did (being afraid of hell doesn't count as respecting children, and the others did cross the line). So excuse me for having doubts about the amount of realism in your opinions.
Of course, there might be some, or even a lot (who knows? did you find your article yet?) who do respect children and do not get noticed because of that.

I proclaim that many would--not because of what has already happened (even though quite a handful of healthy, happy relationships have occurred already and have been spoken of positively on both sides), but primarily because of reason. Just as most members of any other orientation would believe, also they would believe relationships work two ways, and that there should be a deeper bond than simply sexuality involved; a bond of love and affection.

You know, there are a lot of men who claim to believe in love and affection just because it gets them sex. Perhaps the low number of female pedophiles tells us something (I can think of only one, and she was world news, far away)...

*snip* What you're calling "actual pedophilia" is not actual pedophilia; pedophilia is the primary and/or exclusive attraction to prepubescent individuals. It is nothing more than that, like homosexuality is nothing more than the primary and/or exclusive attraction to same-sex individuals. What you call "actual pedophilia" is a state of mind caused by deprivation of natural needs.

*snip*The point I'm trying to make is simply that the oppression of the pedophilia orientation is precisely the cause of the factors considered signs of the "mental illness" pedophilia. Deprive a man of food for too long, and he may begin to see you as a tasty meal. *snip*

Explain why someone below the age of consent is not to be considered capable of informed consent. And why should anyone take the age of consent seriously when it ranges between 9 years and 20 years based on location? *snip*

And this can be caused by two reasons I can think of off the top of my head. Firstly, society finds inter-generational sexual relationships to be abhorrent. A child growing up in a world that says what he or she had done was absolutely wrong, sick and terrible I imagine would end up not being very happy. Second reason I can imagine is that the child would regret something in the relationship. This, however, is not limited to childhood. Regret for a relationship is so common I cannot begin to describe how normal it is. Relationships sometimes don't work out. All right--understandable. But that's part of being human and learning through experience. Mistakes are made, lessons are learned, and experience is applied to future relationships. The key here, however, is relationships "sometimes" don't work out. That doesn't mean we should ban these relationships.



*snip* So let's take this for what it is; you're saying that individuals who are not cognitively capable of making the call should not by law be allowed to make the call.

*snip*

And besides, in the case of sex specifically, I don't see how there's much to understand beyond the scope of what can be taught in formal education. Beyond the knowledge of the possible dangers, benefits and results, the rest is intuitive and natural. We are born sexual creatures. The very existence of the child's genitalia and the very feelings they 'can' feel prove that they are capable of sexual feeling. Beyond feeling and knowledge, I cannot see much "understanding." *snip*

I'm serious when I say that a step in the right direction would be to administer a test to determine the cognitive ability of the individual, and base more on that than on age. We could then protect the incapable while freeing the capable, and it would actually allow for better representation of individuals' capabilities in everyday life. And of course the sacrifice would be total freedom of choice, but as it is right now, that freedom doesn't exist for at least those under an age. If we're going to start dividing people by abilities, then let's start doing it rather than making wacky claims that people magically gain abilities at a specific age.

OK, I'm going to try to control both my outrage and my naseau at some of the arguments you are making. Rather than respond point-by-point, I'll make a few observations.

1. Still waiting on those studies that show pedophiles are cute and cuddly.

2. Adults having sex with children harms children. The evidence of this is overwhelming. See, e.g., link (http://archpsyc.ama-assn.org/cgi/content/full/57/10/953), link (http://www.childtrauma.org/ctamaterials/sexual_abuse.asp), link (http://www.aacap.org/cs/root/facts_for_families/child_sexual_abuse). I defy you to prove otherwise. In the meantime, from the Mayo Clinic source I cited earlier:

The specific long-term effects on abused children as they grow into adulthood are difficult to predict. Some individuals adapt and have a higher degree of resilience, whereas others are profoundly and negatively changed. Studies have found that the children abused by pedophiles have higher measures of trauma, depression, and neurosis on standardized psychometric testing. Individuals who experience long-term abuse are significantly more likely to have affective illness (eg, depression), anxiety disorders (eg, generalized anxiety disorders, posttraumatic stress disorder, panic attacks), eating disorders (anorexia in females), substance abuse, personality disorders, and/or adjustment disorders and to make suicidal gestures or actually engage in serious suicide attempts than those who are not abused. These children often have problems with long-term intimacy and feelings of guilt and shame over their role in the incident. 84 In addition, sexually abused children have lower levels of education and a higher frequency of unemployment.

3. Variability in the legal age of consent between jurisdictions does not invalidate the concept of the age of consent any more than variations in the definitions of rape, murder, or theft mean that rape, murder, and theft are acceptable. Moreover, even pursuant to your own argument, there appears to be a consensus that (although children over the age of puberty may sometimes be considered adults) prepubescents are pretty uniformly considered unable to consent to sex.

4. The cognitive abilities of children is simply not the same as that of adults. See, e.g., link (http://www.childdevelopmentinfo.com/development/piaget.shtml) For example, we do not hold children criminally responsible for their actions in the same way as adults--even with older teens. See, e.g., Roper v. Simmons (http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=US&vol=000&invol=03-633), 543 U.S. 551 (2005) (holding that the Constitution forbids imposition of the death penalty on offenders who were under the age of 18 when their crimes were committed); Thompson v. Oklahoma (http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/cgi-bin/getcase.pl?navby=case&court=US&vol=487&invol=815), 487 U. S. 815 (1988) (plurality opinion) (holding that that our standards of decency do not permit the execution of any offender under the age of 16 at the time of the crime).

5. You contradict yourself and play games with definitions. For example, you insisted earlier that "actual" pedophiles ordinarily refrain from sex with children, but then you compare depriving pedophiles of sex with children as the equivalent of depriving "a man of food." Similarly, your complaint that "actual pedophilia" is just an orientation contradicts your own argument that such orientation "naturally" results in sex between children and adults.

Indeed. For example on NSG, some people are obcessed with posting about how Muslims/Christians/Jews are evil every chance they get. And some people like to post about how pedophilia is evil, whether or not the afflicted actually committed sexual assault on a minor.

Also don't forget those that like to remind us of the inherent malevolence of Russians, the Chinese and/or clowns whenever they've had another bad day in their dreary existence and need to vent steam.

First main point: learn the enemy. Stop targeting an entire orientation simply because a few of that orientation are bad apples.

Sexual attraction towards children isn't an "orientation." A sexual orientation is about the gender of the sex(es) you are attracted to in relation to your own. There can therefore be homosexual pedophiles, heterosexual pedophiles - the two are not mutually exclusive and thus not the same kind of classification.

You wouldn't see the same thing proposed for heterosexuality, would you? Yet there are plenty of heterosexual rapists and sex offenders in the world. The only reason heterosexuality isn't targeted is society accepts it. Homosexuals had the problem of acceptance for a long time (and in many ways still do).

Again, you attempt to portray pedophilia as a sexual orientation when it isn't, and so your comparisons to sexual orientations are flawed. They are furthermore completely outrageous because there is no way for a pedophile to act upon his/her sexual desires without committing sexual assault upon and harming another individual. Unlike with homosexuality or heterosexuality, which when acted upon do not necessitate violent crime.

The reason heterosexuality isn't targeted is indeed because society accepts it, but that doesn't mean the only reason pedophilia is 'targeted' is because society doesn't.


In short: Pedophilia is targeted because it is a desire to fuck children, and that's wrong psychologically (trauma), physically (abuse), ethically (children cannot consent), spiritually (if that matters to you), and of course legally. Very very much unlike mere sexual orientation.

On the other hand, an adult may give the child the dominant part of the relationship so that it moves at the child's pace.
Yeah, I imagine that works well for the pedo, you know, because after 6 months of a completely sex-less relationship, they'd be pretty pissed off.

*news flash*
Children get led into having sex with adults, not the other way around, this isn't an even relationship, and you know it, or should; if you don't you're suffering from some pretty high-end delusions.

Again, you attempt to portray pedophilia as a sexual orientation when it isn't, and so your comparisons to sexual orientations are flawed.Pro-pedophiles would very much like to have people believe that they're serious mental illness is nothing more then an 'unaccepted sexual orientation' so they can continue to practice their perversions uninhibited.