Support NeoGAF

[Uchip]

That's a contradiction. You are punishing the thought crime by subjecting a person to search and seizure.

no
if their thoughts manifest into confession, then there is a fair chance that they have things that nobody should on their pc
you cant possibly believe that they are just attracted to children and still masturbate to standard porn?

 

[Gaborn]

While that's true today, just in 1972 homosexuality was still in the list of paraphilias.

Sure. DSM-II was a land mark book that changed a ton of diagnoses to be much more science and evidence based than just "this seems abnormal so it is"

According to Wikipedia - paraphilia "is a biomedical term used to describe sexual arousal to objects, situations, or individuals that are not part of normative stimulation and that may cause distress or serious problems for the paraphiliac or persons associated with him or her." - Many could say that still appliesfor homosexuality. I mean, many homosexual suffer from much distress and problems due to their sexuality, and we're still far from the point at which homosexuality is normative (though we're getting there.)

It's not because of their sexuality, it's because of their upbringing and social stigmas that still exist with some people. You might as well say people that are in a relationship their family doesn't approve of experience distress and problems BECAUSE OF THEIR RELATIONSHIP. Which is untrue.

The real difference is that homosexuals have a way that is both legal and moral to achieve sexual gratification, while pedophiles usually don't (for a good reason - I am not preaching the legality of a relationship between child and adult.)

What? that's a VERY odd formulation. The difference is that gay relationships harm no one. Pedophiliac relations do. The difference has NOTHING to do purely with legal status, as if somehow if pedophilia was legal it would be on the same footing as homosexuality.

 

[Dead Man]

So... it could be both. A disordered orientation. If you cannot get consent from your desired other, it is obviously disordered if you pursue it.

 

[Casp0r]

This whole argument is why I don't like it when scientists try to isolate a 'gay' gene. (imo i don't think such a thing could possibly exist)

If there really is a 'gay' gene, then you'll no doubt find a 'paedo' gene ... then what? All these men that have knowingly raped a young child are doing it because of their genes?

 

[dude]

Sure. DSM-II was a land mark book that changed a ton of diagnoses to be much more science and evidence based than just "this seems abnormal so it is"

It's not because of their sexuality, it's because of their upbringing and social stigmas that still exist with some people. You might as well say people that are in a relationship their family doesn't approve of experience distress and problems BECAUSE OF THEIR RELATIONSHIP. Which is untrue.

Well, if people could have sex with children and people would be okay with it most of the problems and hardships of being a pedophile would disappear. The social stigmas and upbringing (translated sometimes into laws) is the only relevant thing in enduring hardships because of sexual orientation. What else could cause it? It's silly to say pedophilia inheretly cause "distress or serious problems", what causes these is the people around you.
What pedophilia do inheretly cause is a moral problem, which is not present in homosexuality, which is the reason for the much needed laws against sleeping with children as opposed to the uneeded laws against same sex activities, but it's still the laws and social response that cause pedophilia or whatever else to be a paraphilia.

What? that's a VERY odd formulation. The difference is that gay relationships harm no one. Pedophiliac relations do. The difference has NOTHING to do purely with legal status, as if somehow if pedophilia was legal it would be on the same footing as homosexuality.

If you read what I said again you'll see that I said that gay relationships have no moral drawbacks, as well as legal ones, as opposed to pedophile relationships . I never said pedophilia and homosexuality had the same moral footing.
If that's the difference between a "sexual orientation" and "disorder", then you could call pedophilia a "disorder".

So... it could be both. A disordered orientation. If you cannot get consent from your desired other, it is obviously disordered if you pursue it.

If you try and pursue it you're a criminal and it doesn't even matter what "orientaton" you have or whatever. That's a disorder of not knowing right from wrong.
We're talking about people who are merely attracted to children, not the ones who pursue it.

This whole argument is why I don't like it when scientists try to isolate a 'gay' gene. (imo i don't think such a thing could possibly exist)

If there really is a 'gay' gene, then you'll no doubt find a 'paedo' gene ... then what? All these men that have knowingly raped a young child are doing it because of their genes?

What about a criminal gene? Let's get all Minority Report up in here. We can stop crimes before they happen! It's all in the genes, man.

The gene probably do exist in some form - I mean, no one could possibly still believe in that all "tabula rasa" business. But I doubt we can isolate it exactly.

 

[Londa]

So gaf has a defense force for everthing.

 

[mre]

So gaf has a defense force for everthing.

Thankfully it appears as if the pedophilia defense force is beginning to be banned.

 

[moniker]

I would call a harmful psychological/behavioral pattern a disorder, which pedophilia definitely falls under. That doesn't apply to homosexuality on the other hand, so I don't regard that as a disorder.

 

[Gaborn]

This whole argument is why I don't like it when scientists try to isolate a 'gay' gene. (imo i don't think such a thing could possibly exist)

If there really is a 'gay' gene, then you'll no doubt find a 'paedo' gene ... then what? All these men that have knowingly raped a young child are doing it because of their genes?

Why does one follow from the other? They're not equivalent situations. Pedophilia is a dangerous paraphilia. Homosexuality is a sexual orientation exactly like heterosexuality.

Well, if people could have sex with children and people would be okay with it most of the problems and hardships of being a pedophile would disappear. The social stigmas and upbringing (translated sometimes into laws) is the only relevant thing in enduring hardships because of sexual orientation. What else could cause it? It's silly to say pedophilia inheretly cause "distress or serious problems", what causes these is the people around you.

Huh? I'm not talking about problems for the pedophile. I'm sure a lot of them already delude themselves into thinking they're "helping" the child or "loving" it. The CHILD is who is being harmed by pedophiles and THAT is the problem, pedophiles face scorn for the same reason murderers do - because they harm people.

[What pedophilia do inheretly cause is a moral problem, which is not present in homosexuality, which is the reason for the much needed laws against sleeping with children as opposed to the uneeded laws against same sex activities, but it's still the laws and social response that cause pedophilia or whatever else to be a paraphilia.

I wouldn't frame it as a moral issue precisely, it's more narrow than that. The problem is that pedophilia harms kids. End of story.

If you read what I said again you'll see that I said that gay relationships have no moral drawbacks, as well as legal ones, as opposed to pedophile relationships . I never said pedophilia and homosexuality had the same moral footing.

Ok, I still think it's an odd way of putting it. In plain English pedophilia harms people, homosexuality does not. I don't see why you need to make it more complex than that.

If that's the difference between a "sexual orientation" and "disorder", then you could call pedophilia a "disorder".

Pedophilia is ABSOLUTELY a disorder. It's NOT a sexual orientation in any way. The reason homosexuality was removed from the DSM for example was there was no distinguishable harm merely with being attracted to the same sex. That is, you could form healthy stable loving long term relationships with absolutely no sign of mental issues. The same is not true of pedophiles. Children abused by pedophiles suffer a wide array of symptoms that can affect them for the rest of their life. It's inherently harmful, so it's not an orientation.

 

[DonasaurusRex]

doesnt matter what it is, it shouldnt be accepted it requires a fucking child, and there doesnt seem to be a bottom , so it goes well past a young girl that has active sex organs.

 

[Orayn]

So gaf has a defense force for everthing.

Am I part of the PEDO DEFENSE FORCE for disagreeing with you about punishing thoughtcrime, Londa? I genuinely want to know.

 

[dude]

Why does one follow from the other? They're not equivalent situations. Pedophilia is a dangerous paraphilia. Homosexuality is a sexual orientation exactly like heterosexuality.

Because there's no essential difference between them besides what trying to pursue them may cause - which is what I'm tryin to say. If you're born gay and there's nothing you can do about it - why wouldn't that also apply to pedophilia? If you "become" a pedophile , why wouldn't that also apply to homosexuality?

Huh? I'm not talking about problems for the pedophile. I'm sure a lot of them already delude themselves into thinking they're "helping" the child or "loving" it. The CHILD is who is being harmed by pedophiles and THAT is the problem, pedophiles face scorn for the same reason murderers do - because they harm people.

Again, you're talking about pedophiles who choose to persue their sexual attraction. I don't see what there is to discuss about criminals, we all agree they're scums.

I wouldn't frame it as a moral issue precisely, it's more narrow than that. The problem is that pedophilia harms kids. End of story.

Which is a moral issue. it's immoral to harm children. End of istory.

Ok, I still think it's an odd way of putting it. In plain English pedophilia harms people, homosexuality does not. I don't see why you need to make it more complex than that.

Which is why presuing your homosexual attraction should be accepted and your pedophile attraction should not be. Which is why I said.

Pedophilia is ABSOLUTELY a disorder. It's NOT a sexual orientation in any way. The reason homosexuality was removed from the DSM for example was there was no distinguishable harm merely with being attracted to the same sex. That is, you could form healthy stable loving long term relationships with absolutely no sign of mental issues. The same is not true of pedophiles. Children abused by pedophiles suffer a wide array of symptoms that can affect them for the rest of their life. It's inherently harmful, so it's not an orientation.

There is no harm is being attracted to anything, the only thing that can cause harm is pursuing your attraction. I could fantasize about anything I want without it harming a single person. Being attracted to something does not mean you have to act on it or that you're immediately a threat to society. Being attracted to or thinking about something is never inheretly harmful.

 

[Uchip]

Again, you're talking about pedophiles who choose to persue their sexual attraction. I don't see what there is to discuss about criminals, we all agree they're scums.

its still a very dangerous trait
just like someone that can only get off on the thought of killing people
is there any proof that there are completely harmless pedophiles living in society?

 

[dude]

its still a very dangerous trait
just like someone that can only get off on the thought of killing people
is there any proof that there are completely harmless pedophiles living in society?

Yes:

As I said in some old thread on the subject - I have a few friends who used to be "pedophiles" - in the sense that they were attracted to children, not in the criminal sense (which is the only sense that word should exist though). They're both in a relationship right now - with adults. It's not that they're not attracted to children anymore - You can't just find something not attractive - but they've learned to find the stuff they find as attractive in adults.

BTW - some people would say wanting to kill stuff in video games is a"dangerous trait".

EDIT:

Just going to jump in quickly and say that paedophilia isn't a sexual orientation, it's a paraphilia. Meaning people who suffer from paedophilia can also be turned on by adults.

And now I'm bailing out of this shitty thread.

Um. From long, serious talks about this with people with experience - It's not that simple as "being also turned on by adults".

 

[Mechanical Snowman]

its still a very dangerous trait
just like someone that can only get off on the thought of killing people
is there any proof that there are completely harmless pedophiles living in society?

Just going to jump in quickly and say that paedophilia isn't a sexual orientation, it's a paraphilia. Meaning people who suffer from paedophilia can also be turned on by adults.

And now I'm bailing out of this shitty thread.

Um. From long, serious talks about this with people with experience - It's not that simple as "being also turned on by adults".

And it's also not as simple as being able to "only get off" on minors. What I said was correct, whether it's 'not as simple as' that isn't the debate.

 

[Gaborn]

Because there's no essential difference between them besides what they cause - which is what I'm tryin to say. If you're born gay and there's nothing you can do about it - why wouldn't that also apply to pedophilia? If you "become" a pedophile , why wouldn't that also apply for homosexuality?

Why should it? Seriously, why should it? There are numerous indications that a person that is sexually abused is significantly more likely to themselves become a pedophile. There is no such correlation for homosexuality precisely because gay relationships are voluntary.

Again, you're talking about pedophiles who choose to persue their sexual attraction. I don't see what there is to discuss about criminals, we all agree they're scums.


Which is a moral issue. it's immoral to harm children. End of istory.

Sure. But framing it as a moral issue is obscuring the problem and can be confusing. Let's not mince words.

Which is why presuing your homosexual attraction should be accepted and your pedophile attraction should not be. Which is why I said.

Right. So why are we talking about the comparison even? Why bring it up? I don't believe you would have gone down this rabbit hole if you substituted in heterosexual rather than homosexual.

There is no harm is being attracted to anything, the only thing that can cause harm is pursuing your attraction. I could fantasize about anything I want without it harming a single person. Being attracted to something does not mean you have to act on it or that you're immediately a threat to society.

Yes and no. I think Londa is wrong in saying we should punish people for merely THINKING depraved thoughts, but there is a reason pedophiles will sometimes seek therapy rather than either isolating themselves or abusing children. That is, they know they have a serious problem and are dealing with it. It's also true that in isolation harmful thoughts can build up over time and then cause you to suddenly start acting out when the pressures get to be too much. So you're right in that pedophiles are not always going to molest children but you're wrong in the sense that if you're repeatedly having disturbing thoughts you ARE a potential danger and you should seek treatment.

 

[Uchip]

Just going to jump in quickly and say that paedophilia isn't a sexual orientation, it's a paraphilia. Meaning people who suffer from paedophilia can also be turned on by adults.

And now I'm bailing out of this shitty thread.

you cant just make this statement and leave
"As a medical diagnosis, pedophilia (or paedophilia) is defined as a psychiatric disorder in adults or late adolescents (persons age 16 or older) typically characterized by a primary or exclusive sexual interest in prepubescent children"

there was nothing presumptuous about my statement
they are defined as people that either prefer, or exclusively interested in

 

[Scrow]

Pedophilia: sexual orientation or disorder?

undesirable mental condition in our society

 

[Mechanical Snowman]

you cant just make this statement and leave
"As a medical diagnosis, pedophilia (or paedophilia) is defined as a psychiatric disorder in adults or late adolescents (persons age 16 or older) typically characterized by a primary or exclusive sexual interest in prepubescent children"

there was nothing presumptuous about my statement
they are defined as people that either prefer, or exclusively interested in

Sorry I just don't want any shit to fly my way so I thought I'd offer up my opinion and then leave. I still agree with what I said, but I respect that you've made your point based on evidence (a quote / definition in your case) rather than ignorance like most people.

Um. From long, serious talks about this with people with experience - It's not that simple as "being also turned on by adults".

See my edit.

 

[Uchip]

Sorry I just don't want any shit to fly my way so I thought I'd offer up my opinion and then leave. I still agree with what I said, but I respect that you've made your point based on evidence (a quote / definition in your case) rather than ignorance like most people.

what you said isnt wrong
as it makes sense, it doesn't justify anything though so its kind of an obvious statement really

 

[Timedog]

"Sexual Orientation" is just some arbitrary term. A phrase. Pedophilia does not fit the definition of that term.

And if it did fit the definition, that would not necessarily legitimize pedophilia.

So many irrational people in this thread.

 

[SmokyDave]

If there's grass on the turf play ball

Hope this isn't a long ban. It's a very common (if slightly tasteless) joke. Besides, we all know that KP likes his women old enough to buy booze.

 

[OmegaDragon]

But I do think pedophilia is a disorder and probably stim's from childhood experiences/trauma. Or just the urge to do the taboo ect.

Pedophilia is something you are born with and is due to how your brain is developed.

Technically, all "sexual orientations" that are not vaginal sex for the porpuse of reproduction" are "disorders".

Why? The purpose of sex isn’t to just reproduce (actually scientists haven’t found conclusive proof why sex exist). Sex not aimed at reproduction occurs in nature.

Are pedophiles born this way? maybe, there are probably some genes that can certainly effect a person to be attracted to something.

It’s certainly something you are born with, plus genes aren’t the only thing that influence development.

Does that mean they can't resist those urges? I don't think so - Sexuallity is mostly mental, if you try hard enough you can direct your urges in a way that's different than what you're inclined to - most people just have no reason to do it.

As I said in some old thread on the subject - I have a few friends who used to be "pedophiles" - in the sense that they were attracted to children, not in the criminal sense (which is the only sense that word should exist though). They're both in a relationship right now - with adults. It's not that they're not attracted to children anymore - You can't just find something not attractive - but they've learned to find the stuff they find as attractive in adults.

I really doubt that is applicable to every pedophile or it would require some serious mindbending. I'm not sure how many pedophiles are also attracted to adults though.

This whole argument is why I don't like it when scientists try to isolate a 'gay' gene. (imo i don't think such a thing could possibly exist)

If there really is a 'gay' gene, then you'll no doubt find a 'paedo' gene ... then what? All these men that have knowingly raped a young child are doing it because of their genes?

Your sexuality is based on the development of your brain. Genetical and environmental factors play a role. I really doubt that the genetical component of sexuality can be traced back to a single gene. Otherwise it would have been found already.

 

[Timedog]

Pedophilia is something you are born with and is due to how your brain is developed.

Prove it.

 

[HeadlessRoland]

This whole argument is why I don't like it when scientists try to isolate a 'gay' gene. (imo i don't think such a thing could possibly exist)

Sexuality is an abstract, there is no single "gene" responsible for it. At best we will find several that all play a role in conjunction with environment. Just as we will find that those lacking said genes are still attracted to and want to have sex with the same sex.

And the only distinction with fucking children,goats,boys is the social context of these acts. In our culture fucking children is not acceptable so it is a disorder. Which is how homosexuality was perceived for a good many decades.

Which is the general baseline for just about any psychological condition one can think of.

 

[dude]

Why should it? Seriously, why should it? There are numerous indications that a person that is sexually abused is significantly more likely to themselves become a pedophile. There is no such correlation for homosexuality precisely because gay relationships are voluntary.

I could find many other issues that correlate with homosexuality. I don't think homosexuality is different than liking blonds, tall people, hairy people, bondage, children or having a foot fetish. While our sexuality is probably affected by out genes, I think it's much more affected by our experiences.

Right. So why are we talking about the comparison even? Why bring it up? I don't believe you would have gone down this rabbit hole if you substituted in heterosexual rather than homosexual.

That depends on what kind of "heterosexual" relationship your talking about. The only sexual inclination that is definitley inheritable is vaginal sex for the purpose of reproduction - comparing it to this certainly wouldn't work. But it could work for people with any sort of fetish, fixation or inclination other than that (with I think is about 99.9% of humanity). I could have just as easily made my point with "foot fetish" instead of homoseuality, I just rolled with homosexuality because it was brought up before.

Yes and no. I think Londa is wrong in saying we should punish people for merely THINKING depraved thoughts, but there is a reason pedophiles will sometimes seek therapy rather than either isolating themselves or abusing children. That is, they know they have a serious problem and are dealing with it. It's also true that in isolation harmful thoughts can build up over time and then cause you to suddenly start acting out when the pressures get to be too much. So you're right in that pedophiles are not always going to molest children but you're wrong in the sense that if you're repeatedly having disturbing thoughts you ARE a potential danger and you should seek treatment.

If you're implying they should be forced to go to therapy, I disagree.

And it's also not as simple as being able to "only get off" on minors. What I said was correct, whether it's 'not as simple as' that isn't the debate.

Sure. As I said, my friends are quite able to experience a fulfilling relationship with adults. But it took some work with themselves, and it's never as easy for them as for most other people.

 

[Gaborn]

Pedophilia is something you are born with and is due to how your brain is developed.

If this is true we wouldn't expect to see a substantial number of people who were sexually abused grow up to become abusers themselves.

Why? The purpose of sex isn’t to just reproduce (actually scientists haven’t found conclusive proof why sex exist). Sex not aimed at reproduction occurs in nature.

Here I agree with you. If I had seen that line earlier I could have just acknowledged where he was coming from sooner and it's OBVIOUSLY not the scientific consensus that heterosexuality and homosexuality are on EXACTLY the same level.

It’s certainly something you are born with, plus genes aren’t the only thing that influence development.

You're correct that genes are not the only thing to influence development. sometimes it's hormonal exposure in the womb, sometimes it's traumas suffered in upbringing. A lot can go into what we are in different ways. Just like women who were physically abused as children often grow up to marry men who abuse them and I don't think it's because those women are genetically equipped with a nose for abusers. It's a learned response. Very much I suspect like the majority of cases of pedophilia.

I really doubt that is applicable to every pedophile or it would require some serious mindbending. I'm not sure how many pedophiles are also attracted to adults though.

Yeah, seems odd.

Your sexuality is based on the development of your brain. Genetical and environmental factors play a role. I really doubt that the genetical component of sexuality can be traced back to a single gene. Otherwise it would have been found already.

Correct. Genes and hormones in the womb are generally considered to be what determines sexual orientation. Paraphilias like pedophila on the other hand...

 

[Gaborn]

I could find many other issues that correlate with homosexuality. I don't think homosexuality is different than liking blonds, tall people, hairy people, bondage, children or having a foot fetish. While our sexuality is probably affected by out genes, I think it's much more affected by our experiences.

the APA disagrees with you.

That depends on what kind of "heterosexual" relationship your talking about. The only sexual inclination that is definitley inheritable is vaginal sex for the purpose of reproduction - comparing it to this certainly wouldn't work. But it could work for people with any sort of fetish, fixation or inclination other than that (with I think is about 99.9% of humanity). I could have just as easily made my point with "foot fetish" instead of homoseuality, I just rolled with homosexuality because it was brought up before.

So... yeah. No. Just... no. This is a complete rejection of all the major psychological, psychiatric and medical organizations in the US. No.

If you're implying they should be forced to go to therapy, I disagree.

I didn't say that. all I'm saying is that pedophiles should seek therapy before an issue becomes a problem. Just like if a guy with a history of alcoholism in his family is spending a lot of time at the bar he should probably seek treatment. It's advice, not a requirement.

edit: damn, didn't mean to double post.

 

[dude]

You seem to think in very simplictic terms... It's not about "also being attracted to adults". With the example of my friends - until they did some work with themselves they were not attracted to adults in any way.

EDIT: Do you have any documnts or sources on the causes of various sexualities? Not that I'm trying to "call you out" or someting like that - I'm genuinly interested in the subject.

Sexuality is an abstract, there is no single "gene" responsible for it. At best we will find several that all play a role in conjunction with environment. Just as we will find that those lacking said genes are still attracted to and want to have sex with the same sex.

And the only distinction with fucking children,goats,boys is the social context of these acts. In our culture fucking children is not acceptable so it is a disorder. Which is how homosexuality was perceived for a good many decades.

Which is the general baseline for just about any psychological condition one can think of.

That's basically how I see it.

 

[Gaborn]

You seem to think in very simplictic terms... It's not about "also being attracted to adults". With the example of my friends - until they did some work with themselves they were not attracted to adults in any way.

EDIT: Do you have any documnts or sources on the causes of various sexualities? Not that I'm trying to "call you out" or someting like that - I'm genuinly interested in the subject.

PM Mumei, he can give you a bunch of links that will hook you up about homosexuality as an example.

Frankly though, your COMPLETE rejection of APA consensus - it's just ridiculous.

 

[dude]

PM Mumei, he can give you a bunch of links that will hook you up about homosexuality as an example.

Frankly though, your COMPLETE rejection of APA consensus - it's just ridiculous.

I'm not rejecting anything, I'm talking from my own experience and what I see around me. For the record, I'm bisexual - So this is not coming from any "homosexuals choose to be so!" mindset or something like that.

 

[HeadlessRoland]

If this is true we wouldn't expect to see a substantial number of people who were sexually abused grow up to become abusers themselves.

This is wrong, there would be no expectations of pedophiles being exclusive to the unabused. To say nothing of the fact the victims genetic predilections before being abused have not been substantiated.

You're correct that genes are not the only thing to influence development. sometimes it's hormonal exposure in the womb, sometimes it's traumas suffered in upbringing. A lot can go into what we are in different ways. Just like women who were physically abused as children often grow up to marry men who abuse them and I don't think it's because those women are genetically equipped with a nose for abusers. It's a learned response. Very much I suspect like the majority of cases of pedophilia.

You are simplifying to the point of nonsense. Women who are abused are most certainly going to "have a nose" for the traits they seek out. You likewise continually ignore "environment" which extends a bit beyond "trauma." And its not "sometimes" its almost always environment plays a significant role. The only things that I can readily think of is inherited genetic defects.

Correct. Genes and hormones in the womb are generally considered to be what determines sexual orientation. Paraphilias like pedophila on the other hand...

Anyone who discounts environment in describing sexuality (beyond hormonal environment) is invariably stupid. And don't use a term like "Paraphilia" as if its a concrete distinction from "homosexual." Homosexuality was viewed as a paraphilia for a few hundred years. The entire term is defined by being "socially unacceptable" and has absolutely nothing to do with what it is beyond that.

Frankly though, your COMPLETE rejection of APA consensus - it's just ridiculous.

Stop reiterating this as if it somehow bolsters your argument. Half the shit you keep asserting are complete fucking unknowns.

 

[besiktas1]

I think it's a madness. But I also think they should get the death penalty. But because I don't think mad people should be put to death, I've always had this conflicting mind frame... Idk

 

[Gaborn]

I'm not rejecting anything, I'm talking from my own experience and what I see around me. For the record, I'm bisexual - So this is not coming from any "homosexuals choose to be so!" mindset or something like that.

anecdotal experiences are fine - but you have to know there are limits.

As a bisexual you should understand that sexual orientation is generally believed to exist on a continuum. some people are exclusively gay, some bi, some straight and the degree to which you fall on one side of the continuum or the other can shift through a person's life to some extent although there is not good evidence for example of shifts from exclusively same sex attractions to opposite sex attractions or vice versa (not that I think you would expect there to be).

Homosexuality is considered on EXACTLY the same level as heterosexuality as is bisexuality. They're all normal, healthy valid sexual orientations. Comparing homosexuality to a fetish... it just is WRONG. I mean, I want to be nice about it but... no. it's simply not.

As the APA puts it:

Sexual orientation refers to an enduring pattern of emotional, romantic, and/or sexual attractions to men, women, or both sexes. Sexual orientation also refers to a person’s sense of identity based on those attractions, related behaviors, and membership in a community of others who share those attractions. Research over several decades has demonstrated that sexual orientation ranges along a continuum, from exclusive attraction to the other sex to exclusive attraction to the same sex. However, sexual orientation is usually discussed in terms of three categories: heterosexual (having emotional, romantic, or sexual attractions to members of the other sex), gay/lesbian (having emotional, romantic, or sexual attractions to members of one’s own sex), and bisexual (having emotional, romantic, or sexual attractions to both men and women). This range of behaviors and attractions has been described in various cultures and nations throughout the world. Many cultures use identity labels to describe people who express these attractions. In the United States the most frequent labels are lesbians (women attracted to women), gay men (men attracted to men), and bisexual people (men or women attracted to both sexes). However, some people may use different labels or none at all.

Sexual orientation is distinct from other components of sex and gender, including biological sex (the anatomical, physiological, and genetic characteristics associated with being male or female), gender identity (the psychological sense of being male or female),* and social gender role (the cultural norms that define feminine and masculine behavior).

Sexual orientation is commonly discussed as if it were solely a characteristic of an individual, like biological sex, gender identity, or age. This perspective is incomplete because sexual orientation is defined in terms of relationships with others. People express their sexual orientation through behaviors with others, including such simple actions as holding hands or kissing. Thus, sexual orientation is closely tied to the intimate personal relationships that meet deeply felt needs for love, attachment, and intimacy. In addition to sexual behaviors, these bonds include nonsexual physical affection between partners, shared goals and values, mutual support, and ongoing commitment. Therefore, sexual orientation is not merely a personal characteristic within an individual. Rather, one’s sexual orientation defines the group of people in which one is likely to find the satisfying and fulfilling romantic relationships that are an essential component of personal identity for many people.

 

[HeadlessRoland]

Homosexuality is considered on EXACTLY the same level as heterosexuality as is bisexuality. They're all normal, healthy valid sexual orientations. Comparing homosexuality to a fetish... it just is WRONG. I mean, I want to be nice about it but... no. it's simply not.

Uhhhh its now considered that due to societal norms. The distinction has jack fucking shit to do with anything beyond acceptance. Homosexuality was considered a legitimate mental illness until what 30 years ago? 20?

Just like fucking children has been socially acceptable in several civilizations and was not viewed as a "fetish." Your argument is horribly weak.

Your own source...

There is no consensus among scientists about the exact reasons that an individual develops a heterosexual, bisexual, gay, or lesbian orientation. Although much research has examined the possible genetic, hormonal, developmental, social, and cultural influences on sexual orientation, no findings have emerged that permit scientists to conclude that sexual orientation is determined by any particular factor or factors. Many think that nature and nurture both play complex roles; most people experience little or no sense of choice about their sexual orientation.

 

[Gaborn]

This is wrong, there would be no expectations of pedophiles being exclusive to the unabused. To say nothing of the fact the victims genetic predilections before being abused have not been substantiated.

I didn't say that. I said that you would not expect a pedophile to be MORE LIKELY to be sexually abused than a non-pedophile if we were dealing with a genetic predisposition. A pedophile can come from almost any walk of life but if you look at them nearly universally there has been some major trauma in their life that seemed to cause things to go wrong for them.

You are simplifying to the point of nonsense. Women who are abused are most certainly going to "have a nose" for the traits they seek out. You likewise continually ignore "environment" which extends a bit beyond "trauma." And its not "sometimes" its almost always environment plays a significant role. The only things that I can readily think of is inherited genetic defects.

That is not considered scientific consensus.

Anyone who discounts environment in describing sexuality (beyond hormonal environment) is invariably stupid.

So you agree with NARTH rather than the APA?

And don't use a term like "Paraphilia" as if its a concrete distinction from "homosexual."

It is.

Homosexuality was viewed as a paraphilia for a few hundred years. The entire term is defined by being "socially unacceptable" and has absolutely nothing to do with what it is beyond that.

And the earth was viewed as flat for several thousand years. The fact that scientific consensus is changed is not proof that the change is invalid.

Stop reiterating this as if it somehow bolsters your argument. Half the shit you keep asserting are complete fucking unknowns.

and pretty much everything you said was wrong.

 

[HeadlessRoland]

You keep saying APA consensus. This is APA consensus on the root cause of sexual orientation. So stop asserting unsubstantiated drivel that your own source contradicts. I am not even going to bother responding your one word inane replies.

There is no consensus among scientists about the exact reasons that an individual develops a heterosexual, bisexual, gay, or lesbian orientation. Although much research has examined the possible genetic, hormonal, developmental, social, and cultural influences on sexual orientation, no findings have emerged that permit scientists to conclude that sexual orientation is determined by any particular factor or factors. Many think that nature and nurture both play complex roles; most people experience little or no sense of choice about their sexual orientation.

This is what paraphilia means.

: a pattern of recurring sexually arousing mental imagery or behavior that involves unusual and especially socially unacceptable sexual practices (as sadism or pedophilia)

So when pedophilia is not considered unusual or socially unacceptable it thusly is not a paraphilia SINCE THAT IS WHAT DEFINES THE TERM.

Homosexuality was likewise classified as a paraphilia for fucking decades. What part of this are you not able to understand?

 

[bengraven]

NO! Sennorin can't be banned before I say: "at what point in your defending pedophiles so fervantly and sensitively do you finally just come out and tell us you're a pedophile?" I've been waiting weeks for that!

Oh well, he has an alt account.

 

[Gaborn]

You keep saying APA consensus. This is APA consensus on the root cause of sexual orientation. So stop asserting unsubstantiated drivel that your own source contradicts. I am not even going to bother responding your one word inane replies.

Right, and I don't see "environment" listed among their factors. I think culture does play a role. For example, we know in many parts of the black community it is EXTREMELY socially unacceptable to be gay and so there are many men that marry a woman, have kids, lead a relatively normal straight life... and have gay sex on the side. It's also probably true there are men and women in married relationships now who personally identify as gay, cannot for cultural reasons act on that, and will not divorce their spouse. Again, cultural. Scientific consensus is that it's not a choice and it IS a complex series of factors. Not some singular gay gene for example.

This is what paraphilia means.

: a pattern of recurring sexually arousing mental imagery or behavior that involves unusual and especially socially unacceptable sexual practices (as sadism or pedophilia)

So when pedophilia is not considered unusual or socially unacceptable it thusly is not a paraphilia SINCE THAT IS WHAT DEFINES THE TERM.

The dictionary is not the APA. It's another way of saying you're attracted to something you shouldn't be. Pedophilia is a paraphilia.

Homosexuality was likewise classified as a paraphilia for fucking decades. What part of this are you not able to understand?

Pluto was classified as a planet for 80 years. Now it's not and it would be improper for an astronomer to refer to it as such despite the length of time it was considered that.

 

[HeadlessRoland]

Right, and I don't see "environment" listed among their factors.

Wut?

Although much research has examined the possible genetic, hormonal, developmental, social, and cultural influences on sexual orientation

Social and cultural influences are environmental factors (developmental as well but I will stick to those two)... You have no idea what you are attempting to argue. But you sure do seem convinced you need to try.

Pluto was classified as a planet for 80 years.

Seriously?

 

[Gaborn]

Wut?



Social and cultural influences are environmental factors (developmental as well but I will stick to those two)... You have no idea what you are attempting to argue. But you sure do seem convinced you need to try.

And you continue to not have any argument at all.

 

[HeadlessRoland]

And you continue to not have any argument at all.

That your own source contradicts your nonsense? And every assertion I have made has been substantiated rationally and in comparison to your own "consensus." Well if you say so.

The dictionary is not the APA.

Homosexuality was classified medically as a paraphilia for decades. Why do you keep ignoring this?

 

[Gaborn]

That your own source contradicts your nonsense? And every assertion I have made has been substantiated rationally and in comparison to your own "consensus." Well if you say so.

You're a great joke character.

Homosexuality was classified medically as a paraphilia for decades. Why do you keep ignoring this?

I've actually addressed this repeatedly. It hasn't been classified as such in 40 years so I hardly see why that's relevant. It was removed and for sound reason - because it never should have been classified as a paraphilia in the first place.

 

[OmegaDragon]

Prove it.

I'll back-pedal and say my statement was a bit too enthusiastic. People have found structural differences in the brain in relation to pedophilia.

If this is true we wouldn't expect to see a substantial number of people who were sexually abused grow up to become abusers themselves.

I'm guessing that the experience of child abuse will impact your values on how to treat others. And since there's thought to be a genetic link, it's possible that the abuser was a pedophile and the abused child inherited it. However child abusers aren't necessarily pedophiles (though a large portion are I think) and not all pedophiles are child abusers.

 

[HeadlessRoland]

I've actually addressed this repeatedly. It hasn't been classified as such in 40 years so I hardly see why that's relevant. It was removed and for sound reason - because it never should have been classified as a paraphilia in the first place.

You have a dizzying intellect. So you argue that there is APA consensus on what causes homosexuality. Even to the point of reiterating the APA consensus on half a dozen occasions. We find out that your source directly contradicts everything you just got done saying, yet strangely enough 100% supports what I was saying.

And now you don't see the relevancy of the subjective nature of what constitutes a paraphilia when discussing the subjective nature of what a paraphilia is. A paraphilia is defined by a sexual predilection that causes emotional distress and or causes harm to others...thats it. There is no objective fucking criteria for the term, it is entirely subjective.

If you do not view pedophilia as some ultra evil debased action by deffinition alone it is not a paraphilia (on the societal level). You know since several civilizations have existed at various times where pedophilia was not considered an abhorrent paraphilia.

The social context ENTIRELY -100%- defines what is or what is not a paraphilia. Its ok to admit you were wrong...

 

[Typographenia]

Pluto was classified as a planet for 80 years.

You leave Pluto alone!
Some wounds never heal...

Spoiler

: (

 

[Londa]

I'll back-pedal and say my statement was a bit too enthusiastic. People have found structural differences in the brain in relation to pedophilia.



I'm guessing that the experience of child abuse will impact your values on how to treat others. And since there's thought to be a genetic link, it's possible that the abuser was a pedophile and the abused child inherited it. However child abusers aren't necessarily pedophiles (though a large portion are I think) and not all pedophiles are child abusers.

That's called a mental illness. I've read accounts of people with mental illnesses doing unthinkable sexual assault to child victims.

 

[Dresden]

NO! Sennorin can't be banned before I say: "at what point in your defending pedophiles so fervantly and sensitively do you finally just come out and tell us you're a pedophile?" I've been waiting weeks for that!

Oh well, he has an alt account.

Bro you can't just leave us hanging like that, who's the alt?

Spoiler

Londa

? Jekyll and Hyde shit over here man.

 

[Londa]

Am I part of the PEDO DEFENSE FORCE for disagreeing with you about punishing thoughtcrime, Londa? I genuinely want to know.

TBH, when I said that I was mainly thinking about dude. I can understand to some degree that being thrown in jail for just having very harmful thoughts is "unfair". But how many first time offenders are going to put children in harm. I think that if a person embrasses the thought to rape children and see nothing wrong in these thoughts they will adventually rape a child in their twisted "lovely" way.

Dresden: explain to me how I come off as a stealth pedo? Please. I'm thinking that if someone takes the time to point someone out as the atl their usually the alt account. Its funny how you haven't even been discussing anything in here until just now to point out who the alt is.

 

[freenudemacusers]

Bro you can't just leave us hanging like that, who's the alt?

Spoiler

Londa

? Jekyll and Hyde shit over here man.

There is a little bit of Sennorin in all of us.