Acerac
Banned
I noticed it, it was rather brave of him I thought.
I was just curious how pedophiles would be noticed were we to make outing oneself have serious lasting consequences. I sincerely doubt he'd have said anything had this been the case.
-
Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.
LA Times: 'Many researchers taking a different view of pedophilia'
- Thread starter Protein
- Start date
- Status
I noticed it, it was rather brave of him I thought.
I was just curious how pedophiles would be noticed were we to make outing oneself have serious lasting consequences. I sincerely doubt he'd have said anything had this been the case.
The article in the OP suggests that between 1 and 5 percent of men in America could be pedophiles. To give the roughest of estimates, taking the US population as 300 million and assuming that half of them are men, that would give us, at the high end, 7.5 million people who are sexually attracted to prepubescents. The estimate's low bound would come in at 1.5 million.
Even if we could effortlessly screen the entire country, I don't see how it would be cost-effective or useful to monitor every single one of those people to see if they cross some line of acceptable behavior beyond which they become a threat.
Even if we could effortlessly screen the entire country, I don't see how it would be cost-effective or useful to monitor every single one of those people to see if they cross some line of acceptable behavior beyond which they become a threat.
Nightstick11
Banned
You don't have to be curious, because we have real-life parallels that provide answers. Suspected gang members, suspected terrorists, suspected drug-dealers etc. all don't "out" themselves voluntarily. Doesn't fucking matter; we have ways of outing them.
Acerac
Banned
As to not worry you about selective quoting, I'll respond to each point one by one. 
ALSO
People can be pedophiles all by themselves.
One that would be feasibly performed on all of America's students and condoned by this country? Yes. Absolutely. The very fact that you think Americans would agree to have the entire population screened for sexual deviancy is absurd.
ALSO
lolNightstick11 said:
Assuming that 1/250 people are a pedophile (an extremely conservative estimate) you are saying we should monitor a million+ americans. This is not feasible. I don't think I should have to explain why?
Well you were coming up with entirely theoretical numbers, so of course I wasn't familiar with them. I am sorry, but you are an enigma to me so sometimes I misunderstand your position. Once again, my apologies for any confusion.
I've read and responded to your points. I just don't think you're realistic.
Wanna know something all those things have in common? You can't do them without interacting with others.
People can be pedophiles all by themselves.
Nightstick11
Banned
As to not worry you about selective quoting, I'll respond to each point one by one.
They take standardized testing, and that is "condoned" and "feasibly performed". There are routine vaccinations in some schools as well. Sell it under the banner of "having to take mental health seriously" and "preventing school shootings" and "Lester wants to stick his dick in junior".
What is there to "agree" on? Do we vote on our federal laws or something?
Have the Legislature pass it.
If someone wants to sue on it, the Supreme Court or Circuits could decline to hear it.
Did I say screen 300 million people or something?
Explain.
Explain why this is any more difficult keeping a database handy is more infeasible than blacklisted people, gang members, college students, felons, people in prison, real property records etc. etc. etc.
It's common sense to be able to plug in hypothetical penalties into hypothetical scenarios.
These sentences don't even make any sense. You can do all of those things without interacting with others. Or are you suggesting that just because pedophiles can live in a cabin in a mountain by themselves, the others can't?
Do you have any knowledge of what it is to be all or any of the categories listed, or other similar categories?
Uhm, if the article in the OP is right, how does the genetic (instead of cultural) factor plays in, with the various cultures (ancient Greeks, some Arab and Indian tribes etc) that had sexual intercourse with kids as a more common practice? I always assumed those were deviances developed culturally, i mean it wouldn't make sense for them to be genetic, given the low percentage of pedophiles into a population proposed in the article.
Wow, this thread certainly turned into something other than what I expected when I clicked on it. Pistols at 10 paces, Gentlemen?
Well, biological doesn't always mean genetic, and genetic doesn't always mean evenly distributed.
Well, biological doesn't always mean genetic, and genetic doesn't always mean evenly distributed.
Acerac
Banned
*Shrug*
I guess there is no more debate to be had, as we have fundamental differences on the way we think governments should work. I guess I'm rather conservative when it comes to these issues, as I find your methods, well-intentioned as they are, heavy handed and overly intrusive to the average American citizen going through high school, not to mention the pedophiles themselves. I suppose this is one of the rare instances I am glad this country isn't very liberal in some aspects.
It was a fun debate, but I think I'll call it a night. Thanks for the interesting discussion.
I guess there is no more debate to be had, as we have fundamental differences on the way we think governments should work. I guess I'm rather conservative when it comes to these issues, as I find your methods, well-intentioned as they are, heavy handed and overly intrusive to the average American citizen going through high school, not to mention the pedophiles themselves. I suppose this is one of the rare instances I am glad this country isn't very liberal in some aspects.
It was a fun debate, but I think I'll call it a night. Thanks for the interesting discussion.
Being more clear?
The article talks about differences in brain structure, these don't need to be genetic in casue to exist, they may be environmental damage pre or post birth. Additionally genetic sequences are not distributed evenly or everyone would be the same. It is the same as any other biological attribute. Recessive characteristics may be dormant for several generations then one poor fuckers gets a double dose and ends up attracted to kids.
Ah, now i got it, thanks.
On that level - "These are both things where people are attracted to something and face (or faced) moral condemnation for their attraction" - sure.
But my point was that I thought people were looking at it with too much emphasis on abstract level without remembering that one of these involves sexual relations between adults capable of consent and the other involves children which (naturally) do not possess the ability to consent, so naturally there shouldn't be any irrational fears about pedophilia following that pathway to normalization that began with medicalization. It's utterly irrational.
Doesn't seem that strange. Could be some natural maternal/paternal instincts that kick in when we think of kids and/or the such a strong cultural bias against pedophiles. Sounds like there could be some interesting research behind this.
Zyrusticae
Banned
Well, I understand the legal part of it just fine!
It's the reasoning behind that aspect of the law that I'm questioning. Kids, while vulnerable, are not as vulnerable as an unconscious person, someone in a coma, someone on severe narcotics, or someone who is mentally retarded. That's what I don't get about it. Kids can actually resist, they can say 'no' (though many won't to an authority figure, I know), they can tell others about what happened (though many won't believe or listen to them, again, I know)... that's a lot more than someone who's unconscious or in a coma can manage!
It feels to me like people are heavily exaggerating the helplessness of kids to justify extreme measures to protect them.
Preeettyyy much. It's the internet, and I'm not actually admitting to any crimes, so I can say as much.
One nice thing about being at the bottom of the 'freak' totem pole is that it makes it very easy for me to see others in a sympathetic light... even people others find it natural to completely abhor.
I would much rather see people try to approach abnormality (even as extreme as my own) from the perspective of understanding rather than hatred and blind ignorance.
Oh, yes. Definitely. Hell, I even feel that myself. Though I am attracted to children in a manner that is distinctly uncool, I also have the instinct to want to protect them as much as anyone else.
The problem is that I don't really see sex as a terrible, 'oh my god that kid is RUINED FOREVER' sort of thing like other people do. Rape? Awful. Physical abuse? Awful. Emotional/verbal abuse? Yep, awful. Meanwhile 'sex' is in one of those grey areas in my brain that says 'could be awful... could be okay... could be somewhere in-between'.
But it's okay, because first of all, I don't work with children (and I would never willingly put myself in that position anyway, don't be absurd!), and secondly, I have self-control. Plus I have the foresight to realize any kid I'd do something with would probably tell someone about it at some point and get me killed. I mean outright killed, I doubt I'd even survive a trial process with how fragile my psyche can be.
By the way, since I'm here... ask me anything? Heh. I mean it's pretty clear to me that there's a lot of people who don't understand the condition at all, so I may as well answer some questions and try to clear some things up.
And hopefully I don't get shit on for being what I am. That is distinctly uncool and I'll just go back to hiding in my shell if that happens.
But I did! You offered what you believed to be legal precedence without actually showing how pedophilia was equivalent. The specific case said that a person must be diagnosed with a mental disorder as well as being deemed, by a medical professional, to be a danger to himself or others. You can't do that for all pedophiles and the only argument you offer is nonsense about how all pedophiles desire something illegal therefore they're a danger therefor it meets the standard. It's an unsupported illogical assertion.
You would need to certify each individual as not only being a pedophile but also being dangerous. I say all because than any pedophile who didn't meet this standard wouldn't make it onto your list or the line to be castrated, which breaks your proposal.
Should we be able to tap someone's phone because they have some hypothetical mental condition that predisposes them to money laundering? Your only source of suspicion is the mental condition, not any expressed feelings or past activities. It's thought crime plain and simple.
What is wrong with you?
Desiring sex is a very base human characteristic. It does not take into account additional factors that lead a society to deem something rape. The desire is not formed under the rules of law so they have no impact.
I thought the example I have made it clear enough. I can desire that piece of pie, but I also know that if I eat it I'll break my New Year's resolution, which is something I desire to preserve. I simultaneously want the pie and also want to not break my resolution. I can decide which desire I value more. Or we can keep going with the sex. Lets say I like a girl and I desire to have sex with her. She gets wasted and I take her home and tuck her into bed all gentlemanly. I don't stop wanting to have sex with her, I just also don't want anything to do with committing a moral and legal wrong by taking advantage of her current state. I simultaneously want to have sex with her but don't want to break those rules. Desire does not mean acceptance!
I see no difference here. A pedophile wants to have a sexual relationship with a child, but that does not prevent them from feeling that rape is wrong. They are two separate, discrete thoughts inside the human brain. The argument that in any civilized society you cannot have sex with a child without it being rape doesn't change this fact.
This has nothing to do with strict liability or age of consent or the definition of statutory rape. If you think it does that should be a sign to yourself you still do not comprehend the argument.
To my knowledge, these ancient practices were still with pubescent individuals which is where the term ephebophilia came from.
Stolen directly from wikipedia: "The term has been described by Frenchman Félix Buffière in 1980[12] and Pakistani scholar Tariq Rahman,[13] who argued that "ephebophilia" should be used in preference to "homosexuality" when describing the aesthetic and erotic interest of adult men in adolescent boys in classical Persian, Turkish or Urdu literature."
So, those cultural elements still weren't technically the pedophilia we're discussing here. It's unfortunate that in the modern parlance the classification for pedophilia has been expanded to include the modern teenager as well. The age classification of teenager is a very recent phenomenon and most ancient civilizations would typically classify anyone that had reached sexual maturity as an adult.
Even currently we are prone to curious theoretical models that are influenced by the current philosophical paradigms of our times. This makes historical observations a tricky matter since we're applying an ofttimes wholly different perspective on practices that can skew our analysis and understanding. So, things like arranged marriages and pederasty will be used or examined in conversations where they really aren't applicable.
Mr. B Natural
Member
We fix people's depression by turning them into, essentially, zombies, but we don't fix people's sexuality by giving then pills that would destroy their sex drive.
I don't really have a point to this post, I just find modern medicine ethics weird. It's okay to manipulate ourselves entirely, or it's not okay (or it's okay to accept "who we are" or it's okay to completely tranform "who we are") and it all seems very arbitrary to me.
I don't really have a point to this post, I just find modern medicine ethics weird. It's okay to manipulate ourselves entirely, or it's not okay (or it's okay to accept "who we are" or it's okay to completely tranform "who we are") and it all seems very arbitrary to me.
No, we don't. Anti depressants don't do that. We fix peoples psychoses by turning them into zombies. Antipsychotics are the nasty ones.
GraveHorizon
poop meter feature creep
Do you require some sort of outlet for your desires, or do you suck it up and keep it inside? Do you have an attraction to every kid you see, or do you have a sense of taste depending on each individual child? How young/old are you attracted to, including adults?
Zyrusticae
Banned
Interesting questions.
I have outlets. Comics and games from Japan most prominently (they have some of the weirdest shit coming out of that country, lemme tell ya...). There's also lots of written stuff out there, some of it surprisingly competent.
I don't have an attraction every kid I see - much like any adult, there are certain qualities that I find more desirable (some of which are completely unrealistic, which is another thing that keeps the desires in check).
The odd thing about 'age' is that I'm not really attracted to a certain age group as much as I am attracted to a certain look. Adult women, for example, can serve in a pinch provided they are flat-chested, possess neotenous features, are relatively short, are clean-shaven, and have a cute voice. (Amusingly enough, these particular features are enough to qualify a pornographic work as "simulated child pornography" which is also illegal in some parts of the world.)
In fact, I don't actually enjoy the personality traits of most children, whom I frequently find to be insufferable. You could say I'm attracted to the bodies of children, but prefer the attitude and behavior of adults... again, completely unrealistic and a factor in why I'm not imprisoned.
Brian Griffin
Member
I agree with you here and I don't really think it's always a problem to look at it that way. Kids have feelings, thoughts and opinions like everyone else and if an adult has sex with them that doesn't involve any violence or mental abuse their feelings about the experience might be neutral or even positive in some cases.
They should understand that it's not ok for adults to have sex with kids but if they don't actually feel like a victim then I don't see how it benefits them to be convinced that they are one. Something that society is so eager to do.
Thanks for posting here about yourself. Even on the internet, outing yourself as a pedophile is pretty brave.
Do you have any attraction to adults at all to the point where you could find a partner and have a relationship or is it only kids?
Nightstick11
Banned
Are you serious with this? How is a six-year old child any different from a mentally retarded adult? As someone on severe narcotics? Is a six year old fully cognizant of what it means to consent to sex?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Glen_Ridge_rape
This was a gangrape by jocks of a mentally retarded girl who had the mental capacity of a ten year old. Read the transcripts of the court proceedings. They promised her she would get to go on a date with her crush if she let them put bottles and bats in her vagina.
"I just wanted them to like me. I know they don't care, but I consider them my friends."
Are you actually serious with your line of reasoning?
Where have you ever explained why it is unconstitutional.
I offered what is legal precedence. There is no question about that. You sound dense because you keep arguing with your opinion and feelings and pixie dust; I am arguing with legal principles that form the foundation of our society today.
Let me break it down to "babby understands lawz".
Fundamental Liberty Interest: An individual in the United States has a fundamental liberty interest, which are the "inalienable" rights listed in the Constitution. These include the right to Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness. Registering pedophiles and would-be kiddy diddlers into a database would infringe on these rights, as would monitoring them and chemically castrating them.
Unfortunately for me, you were too dense to realize that me citing Korematsu and Guantanamo Bay was showing you that pedophiles are not a protected suspect class, but EVEN IF THEY WERE, it wouldn't necessarily kill my proposal.
In Korematsu and Guantanamo Bay, the court used the strictest standard to judge the case (because the people harmed by those policies were being discriminated against by race) and STILL said it was okay to lock them up indefinitely.
How do you not see the connection between the three?
(1) It must be a compelling governmental interest (protecting kids/country/war time)
(2) It must be narrowly tailored to achieve that goal (registration system/ship prison/registration and concentration camp)
(3) There must not be less restrictive means to achieve that goal.
Do you know how to read? I sketched this in one of my first posts. I said all a hotshot lawyer needs to do is argue that protecting children from pedophiles is a compelling governmental interest.
My proposal doesn't even require the strict scrutiny standard.
I gave you a handicap, yet you still can't string together a coherent argument. Once again, my proposal doesn't even require strict scrutiny standard, it just needs the rational basis standard: " the government has a legitimate reason for a law or regulation that is rationally linked to it."
Jesus Christ. Explain and give precedents as to why it is de facto unconstitutional, or concede the point. Not. Hard.
P.S. Addington was not a strict-scrutiny standard case.
Where in American jurisprudence does it say that in order to establish a registration or database system logging a category of persons, we must prove beyond a reasonable doubt that they belong on the database or registration system. And not the fucking dicta or dissenting opinions. I want majority or concurring opinions, or statutes.
If you're using Addington as the basis, all I would have to do is show by the "clear and convincing evidence" standard that that pedophile could be dangerous. Not is. COULD BE.
Is pedophilia a hypothetical mental condition?
How is money laundering, a crime of moral turpitude vs. property, the same as rape, a crime of moral turpitude vs. humans?
How is tapping someone's phone the equivalent of registrating suspected pedophiles?
Is giving a cheek-swab the same violation of privacy as an outsider invasively listening to conversations which are held under a reasonable assumption of privacy?
If your answer is yes, please cite precedents.
Why would you respond with such a flimsy, drooling, poorly thought-out argument?
Red herring. Irrelevant. No need for me to comment.
Oh wait. "additional factors that lead a society to deem something rape." I am now very curious on how you view rape, since there are clear discrepancies between society's view of rape and your pet definition that you supply in the next paragraph.
It's not that I don't comprehend the argument, it's that the argument is fatally flawed, poorly thought-out, and makes no sense on its face.
Having sex with a child is rape. It doesn't matter if you pin the child down, it doesn't matter if you bribe them with cookies, it doesn't matter if the 5 year old says "yes". It is Rape. Period. End of. By definition.
This has everything to do with strict liability and age of consent. If you want to have sex with a child, you want to commit rape. That's all there is to it. There's really no other angles to look at it. You can sugar-coat it all you want, which is what you're doing, but we'll see how well that holds up in a court of law.
Or are you one of those Republican types that are "hurrr welll it isn't really rape" types? In which case, wow.
Your pie example and sex example is clearly indicative of your utter juvenile failure at grasping concepts.
Eating pie does not affect anyone else.
New Year's Resolution is not a law.
Pie example is irrelevant, and discarded.
Having sex with an intoxicated or sober girl is not prima facie rape.
Having sex with an intoxicated girlfriend turns on several factors, including whether or not she gave you explicit permission to have sex with her while drunk.
Sex example is irrelevant, and discarded.
Pedophile has three choices:
(1) He can not desire to have sex with a child ===> He can not desire to rape
(2) He can desire to have sex wit ha child ====> He can desire to rape
(3) He can have these feelings simultaneously.
But let's not sugar coat it; what he wants to do is rape. Unless he was sedated.
Acerac
Banned
Funny, the same thing happened to me with being gay in a Evangelical Christian household. Felt bad for a few years, then I realized the people who were making me feel that way were the ones who were wrong. Ever since it has upset me when a group of people gets mercilessly spit on.
Oh yeah and the whole furry/pony fan thing. Those are not the top notches on the internet cool kids pole
Zyrusticae
Banned
It really shouldn't be necessary, though, to have to go through that kind of experience to just have the ability to feel and empathize with other human beings.
At some point, people will just have to learn to let live, especially when the quality they're hating on is completely harmless.
Yeah, that's something that's bothered me about the whole 'pedo-witch-hunt' thing we have going. Just how much more harm to kids are people doing by trying to make them into victims instead of trying to understand what was actually done to them?
And then there's the whole thing about post-pubescent kids from 12-17 being put under the exact same banner as prepubescent kids... come on, really?
Thanks. Yeah, I just felt like being dishonest or just keeping quiet isn't very helpful when so much of the problem is just sheer ignorance about what the condition actually entails.
As far as finding an adult partner goes... um, well, it's complicated. I'm a terrible mess of sex-related disorders (I may actually also be transsexual, which, on top of the pedophilia, is not a good place to be in), so I don't really know if I could actually get intimate with someone without suffering from some intense dysphoria. I think I could settle if it was just the pedophilia, as, as I mentioned, there are adult women who fit into my view of what is attractive. However, as it'd also have to be someone who's cool with my hobbies, it's extremely unlikely to happen.
Acerac
Banned
It shouldn't be, but I suppose getting that lesson of "Wow that really sucked and there was nothing I could do to change it" has a way of enlightening people.
The major issue is the witch hunt going on at the moment. I linked this earlier but I feel it's worth repasting. Nobody is benefiting from the current situation, not the children, not the pedophiles, not anyone. The only people who seem to enjoy it are those who seem to prioritize punishment over protection, and I think that's a horrible shame.
You're not a monster, and pedophiles that don't harm children aren't either. You're all just people trying to live your lives. I wish more people could understand that.
MidnightCowboy
Member
I think if one acts on pedophilia, that is sick and disgusting. I think entertaining certain thoughts can also be sick and disgusting, but I'm not here to regulate one's thoughts. I feel like I can kind of sympathize with this article in that I'm 20 and I have been struggling with the fact that I find a lot of girls that are like 14-18 really hot. I hope I'm not experiencing early onset pedophilia or something like that, I'm not a monster :/
What is this I don't even...
A sexual experience before sexual maturity is sure to mess you up because is completely incomprehensible, penetration can't be only seen as a very violent act... other sexual acts while less violent are just as confusing. Sex isn't just a casual thing no matter how much society wants to sell that idea, it touches your core, your most basic instincts. The disparity, both physical and psychological, makes any kid a victim.
And even after sexual maturity, the experience is sure to completely change you. While an abstinence only education is completely dumb, dealing with teenage sex with only condoms and no guidance whatsoever is one of the biggest travesties of modern society. Porn is the only thing educating us sexually, which couldn't be more sad and worrisome.
Zyrusticae
Banned
I'm curious about that, actually.
There's no doubt in my mind that penetration at a pre-pubescent age is extremely irresponsible, but frankly it sits pretty close to the realm of 'rape' in my mind to begin with.
Beyond that, though, again, as someone who was exposed from a young age, this doesn't really make much sense to me. There was nothing 'confusing' about it, it just made me curious and want to know more. And for many people sex IS a casual thing (though it varies greatly from person to person, naturally). Lack of exposure and experience will certainly grant it a lot of power, however.
Are you speaking from experience? From second-hand accounts? Or are you just making inferences based on what you know?
My friend was able to experience sexual pleasure with another girl when she was nine, I dunno if there was any penetration, but she didn't grow up to have some deep psychological issues. I know a number of people who had sexual encounters as adolescents and turned out just find. Every kid isnt as fragile or innocent as you think.
Nightstick11
Banned
What. the. fuck.
Child-abuse apologists, wow. Pre-pubescent children, especially. Jesus fucking christ.
The only things we need to focus on are (1) protecting the kids from sickos and (2) getting the sickos some help.
Brian Griffin
Member
Penetration could be harmful yes and they are certainly still victims. My point was everyone immediately goes "OMG holy shit kill this guy NOW! That poor kid, how will they EVER recover?" without regard to how the victim actually feels about it. Maybe whatever happened did feel good. Kids' parts work just as well as adults.
Young kids tend to take things at face value so if something feels good then whatever is causing it is good in their eyes. If they did experience pleasure then teaching them that what happened to them was actually a terrible and horrible thing could have adverse affects on their ideas of sexual pleasure later in life.
Is this actually surprising to you? It's well established that kids can be sexual from very early on. My wife has been masturbating since she was 3 and most kids play doctor or "show me yours I show you mine" at some point.
And no one is apologizing for child abusers, come on. We are just questioning society's reaction to and handling of the situations when they occur.
I talked with my shrink a lot about it. it varies lot from kid to kid, so it is a very sensible topic, some kids won't bat an eye while others will be horrified, sex is a very aggressive act, with a very distinct passive aggressive dynamic. He told me one time some movement in Europe thought it would be a good idea for parents to have sex in front of their kids, afterall there was nothing wrong with it, it was something natural and good, however some kids developed problems.
It does make sense, without context sex is a pretty terrifying act, how could a child not see it as his dad almost killing his mom? as I said, it varies, but sex is rarely neutral and rational, it is a very raw act.
I'm sure there's tons of literature out there as well.
lol there's nothing wrong with you.
Addington was not strict scrutiny based but still raised the standard of proof necessary to commit someone against their will. How can that be if all the prosecutor has to argue is they could maybe be dangerous? Also notice nowhere is it suggested you can just assign potential for harm to a label and simply declare someone is a pedophile and therefore dangerous in order to satisfy that.
We haven't even talked about HIPAA or traditional doctor patient confidentiality. Courts hold that any duty to report arises when a doctor believes a patient presents an imminent danger of harming himself or others. Not some generality that the person could potentially maybe harm someone.
The registry is a violation of privacy. There's no cheek swabbing, it's a registry based entirely on private medical information protected by, again, doctor patient confidentiality and HIPAA.
You don't recognize it's relevance because you aren't comprehending the argument on any level.
My pet definition? What?
You are still not understanding. You can desire something and simultaneously not desire the consequences of acting on that initial desire. Does that make it clearer? I don't know what form of the explanation is going to sink in for you. A person can want something but at the same time not want the consequences. This is otherwise known as a choice. You seem to be trying to frame my argument as if I'm saying the pedophile doesn't consider it rape or know that it's rape but that has nothing to do with what I'm saying. A pedophile can know that sex with a child is rape, which can lead them to not want to rape. The desire for a sexual relationship is still there but that desire to not rape anyone compels them to refrain. This is the basis for the hypothesis that a similar percentage of pedophiles and heterosexuals rape people.
Your whole position relies on the assertion that pedophiles must present a danger. If an individual pedophile didn't, they wouldn't even meet the level of evidence detailed in Addington and it certainly wouldn't justify the release of medical information.
The rest of your post is based on your initial misconceptions. Well, your entire premise is based on misconceptions but we'll just focus on those above.
Brian Griffin
Member
You are a male who is attracted to young and fertile females of your own species.
Our biology was laid out WAAAAAY before our system of laws.
You're fine.
oneils
Member
My own impression is you don't sound like someone who is confused about societal norms or someone that is questioning social taboos. Instead its almost like you are trying to rationalise your desires.
Sex with children is rape. Period. Just because you experienced sexual activity at a young age and were not necessarily traumatised by it does not mean you were not raped.
Nightstick11
Banned
Yes, from preponderance of the evidence to clear and convincing. And? That's still not a high standard of evidence.
You clearly do not understand the way common-law works. Classify pedophilia as a mental illness ---> Argue individual pedophile is in danger of harming himself and to others ---> Involuntary commitment. Where are you getting the "pedophile=automatically dangerous", or even any need for anyone to prove that? That's just a red herring argument that only bolds your lack of understanding of the issues relevant.
Attempting to mis-apply Tarasoff v. UC regents AND stupidly mischaracterizing my argument in the same paragraph, I see.
First of all, Tarasoff does not apply at all to my proposal, either as to set a legal precedent or refute anything I said.
Second, by compulsory monitoring of a pedophile, the doctor could believe patient presents an imminent danger of harming others. Who's talking in generalities? Bonus question: Is registration/DNA database related to doctor-patient privilege at all? If you attempt to say yes, is a patient's medical illness privileged when that illness is the very issue to be decided?
How is it a violation of privacy? Is it a violation of privacy to give a cheek-swab in order to get fines off from an infraction or misdemeanor? Is it a violation of privacy to do a background check? Cheek-swab on illegal immigrants? Government employees? Convicted felons? Insurance policy applicants?
Are we proposing setting up a DNA database or demanding compulsory, public disclosures of irrelevant medical information?
Your argument isn't making any sense, and it isn't relevant to my proposal. Protip: the issue isn't whether or not pedophiles are allowed to have sexual desires for kids, the issue is that society must never allow pedophiles to act on these. Now that this is finally cleared up for you, you can discard that argument next to the other useless ones.
Once again, you can't explain how it's relevant. Because it's not. I asked you for case law, statutes, opinions. You provide... your feelings.
Again, I repeat, I understand just fine, it's your argument itself that is speciously constructed.
It's not sinking in for you. You seem to want to sugarcoat and handwave rape away. If a pedophile wants sex with a kid, he wants to rape. He might not like the consequences of that rape. As I pointed out a while ago, it is possible to not want to rape and rape at the same time, but that isn't the issue here.
It's not a "desire for a sexual relationship", it's a desire to rape. 100% of pedophiles who act on their sexual desires are committing rape. They don't "want a relationship", they don't "want to make love" to a 5 year old, they want to rape them. Stop sugarcoating it.
I clearly have no misconceptions. This whole exchange has gone long as it has because you fail to understand basic, legal concepts.
Pedophiles present a danger to children.
If pedophilia is a mental illness and an individual pedophile didn't present a danger, under Addington they'd only need prove it under the clear-and-convincing evidence standard. If they can't prove it, they'll be institutionalized. Your faulty and awkward attempt at citing Tarasoff is flaccid, as pointed out above.
Once again, though, I ask the questions you've failed to answer for the last 3 or so replies:
(1) How is my proposal unconstitutional
(2) On what basis do you claim pedophiles deserve the sweeping legal protections you claim they do
I was referring to Mitsurugi, who was talking about his friend who may or may not have penetrated a 9 year old, and who hand-waved it as "no harm, no foul" because she didn't show any discernible psychological problems in the eyes of an untutored layman.
Brian Griffin
Member
His friend was 9 and he didn't specify if the other girl was of similar age but I assume she was. If that's the case then there was no abuse, just some kids exploring.
Nightstick11
Banned
He didn't give his age, but he specifically said she was nine. Unless his friend was a girl, I guess.
Zyrusticae
Banned
I... guess?
It doesn't really make sense to me, though. Shouldn't we be focusing on whether or not there is harm, and not whether or not something happened?
Nightstick11
Banned
What if the "something happened" IS the harm, according to prevailing mental health research?
Brian Griffin
Member
Let me help you.
He is not a part of this. He is telling a story about his friend and some other girl.
His friend (who is a girl and was 9 at the time) did sexy stuff with another girl. We do not know the age of the other girl but I assume she was probably around 9 as well.
While we're confessing things, I'm going to tell you about my experience, so you know why you're just not right here. This isn't easy for me to say, but I think it's important for you to understand.
When I was four years old, at some kind of holiday ceremony at my synagogue, a stranger took me aside because he wanted to show me something that would "feel good". I wasn't sure what that meant, but it sounded okay, so I agreed. Then he took me into the unattended back rooms of the building and touched my penis.
There is no way at that time that I could have knowingly consented to that. I had no idea what was going on. "Does it feel good?" he asked. Uh, I guess? He was an adult, so I wanted to reply honestly, even though the whole thing made me deeply uncomfortable. I'm sure he wanted me to enjoy what was happening, but he was still taking advantage of how little I understood about what he was doing. Even had he explained it to me, I couldn't have understood it.
At some point I don't remember, it ended, I wound up outside, my mom found me, and it was filed in my memories for a long time as, "Don't go with strangers because it made mom upset." Was there any way that I could have told her what happened at that time? I barely had the vocabulary, and I didn't have any real idea what the events that occurred represented. It took me ten years before thinking about it by chance caused me to realize what had actually occurred. And it disturbed me, it ate at me, and it still eats at me. I can't know how much it damaged me, because I've had to live almost my entire life with this experience without realizing it. I've hardly told anyone about it, because I'd rather leave it deep in the past. It's not like I can do anything about what happened.
If we're talking about prepubescent kids here, it's the same as if they're mentally retarded. In terms of impact, what happened to me is the same as if it happened while I was asleep and it took me ages to piece the evidence together. It's fucked up in the worst kind of way, and I would hate for someone to go through what I went through because someone else didn't understand how violating and damaging it was.
How can you continue to assert I haven't argued how your proposal is unconstitutional? The whole lynchpin of your position is that all pedophiles present a danger to children because all pedophiles actively want to rape children. Everything we're discussing stems from this basic premise and that premise is entirely false. You go ahead and find a pedophile who, in the opinion of an expert, lacks the ability or willingness to refrain from acting on his sexual desires and presents an immediate threat and I 100 percent support that person being referred to any and all appropriate agencies. Simply diagnosing them as a pedophile does not and cannot logically satisfy these conditions, which means placing them on some list and forcing them to be committed or monitored or castrated contradicts the precedent you've cited.
Brian Griffin
Member
I'm sorry to hear that but thanks for sharing.
Zyrusticae
Banned
I see. This is starting to make sense to me now. Thanks for sharing.
This post here really seems to get the right of it:
My experience was completely different from yours. It really does vary a lot from person to person, and I can definitely see that it's better to play it safe than to ever take the risk of screwing someone up... possibly for life.
oneils
Member
In this society, its pretty much assumed that there is harm. So I don't really think the discussion is worth having.
If pedophiles want a shot at integrating into society, they are probably best served by not questioning why its assumed that sex with children is harmful. That line of argument/discussion will not end well for them.
My own suggestion to them would be to continue with their therapy and work on controlling the desire.
Raonak
Banned
I always wonder if pedophillia is the new homosexuality.... granted it's different, because of conscent and the power dynamic.
but I wonder if stuff like... future child-like sex robots, and photorealistic CGI "childporn" (but with no real human children involvement) will work? I mean, no children are getting harmed in the process. It's just another fetish, like moe.
plus it would essentially kill, or minimise real child abuse and whatnot. because now they can actually have child porn, without actually having any kids involved in the process.
It seems weird in my mind, but I've been conditioned to think being attracted to prepublecent children is wrong.... But am I that different to old people who've been conditioned to think being attracted to the same sex is wrong...?
but I wonder if stuff like... future child-like sex robots, and photorealistic CGI "childporn" (but with no real human children involvement) will work? I mean, no children are getting harmed in the process. It's just another fetish, like moe.
plus it would essentially kill, or minimise real child abuse and whatnot. because now they can actually have child porn, without actually having any kids involved in the process.
It seems weird in my mind, but I've been conditioned to think being attracted to prepublecent children is wrong.... But am I that different to old people who've been conditioned to think being attracted to the same sex is wrong...?
Ah, that would also make sense.
--
Also, interesting thread, i thought it would've gone to shit early on (as that seems to happen on Gaf, sometimes), instead people are really acting mature about such a controversial subject matter.
I was gonna say one thing about the Homosexuality / Pedophilia comparisons.
I know why they are made here, like it has been said, because of the social stigma in the past etc etc and there isn't even need to mention the obvious differences between the two, BUT i think it's very clever how in these researches, they usually compare (pedophilia) to heterosexuality.
As i understand it, the comparison is just as fine, since it's still an innate orientation, but socially speaking forces people to reconsider it as something closer, and not to immediately reject any discussion, lumping it as something innatural and different from what's "normal".
I think it's an important "trick" to use and frame the discussion from the start, in a different light: "there's this problem and you HAVE to deal with it somehow, because it's something that people are born with, whether you want it or not".
(i used your post just as an excuse to make a point, btw)
- Status