-
Hey Guest. Check out your NeoGAF Wrapped 2025 results here!
Maninthemirror gives a platform to a Pedophile via Salon
- Thread starter Maninthemirror
- Start date
- Status
First, paraphilias are not necessarily treatable. Again, the term is extremely broad, and essentially describes any atypical sexual behavior, scientifically speaking.
Second, I have already provided significant scientific evidence that pedophilia is not treatable. If you need more, please just ask. Do you have some evidence to the contrary? I already asked for this, but I'll ask again.
Mauricio_Magus
Banned
It doesn't matter if it's the moral thing to do, they won't do it, you can't expect people to give up their liberties, over something they didn't even choose to begin with.
I'm confused then. When you say inside that parenthetical that you don't agree, what do you not agree with? Just before that, you said I believe pedophilia cannot be treated, so I assumed that was the point to which your parenthetical referred.
Chainsawkitten
Member
The end game is allowing people to seek medically confidential professional help, which can be effective in preventing them from offending, like cognitive behaviour therapy or voluntary chemical castration. Like Prevention Project Dunkelfeld does. This leads to less abused children.
The mandatory reporting laws for past abuse have been a failure and have most likely led to more abused children.
And where would you live if you don't live near a school? I can't think of such a place, other than in a cabin out in the woods somewhere, or under a highway bridge.
Whether or not we concede that pedophilia is treatable with cognitive behavioral therapy will affect my solutions to the pedophile problem.
Up to this point I've argued based on Opiates belief that it is untreatable. If it is treatable via cognitive behavioral therapy (as I have said earlier in the thread and the last thread on this) then I don't think the limits of my original solution would be necessary indefinitely.
Up to this point I've argued based on Opiates belief that it is untreatable. If it is treatable via cognitive behavioral therapy (as I have said earlier in the thread and the last thread on this) then I don't think the limits of my original solution would be necessary indefinitely.
Wait what? There is literally no positive correlation in modern society with child rape. No one is seen as normal, dominate, or authoritative because they had sex with a child.
superseohyun
Member
What? The children being raped wont see the perpetrator as somewhat dominate and authoritative?
NoblesseOblige
Banned
Dominant is the word you want, not dominate. https://public.wsu.edu/~brians/errors/dominate.html
Sorry, it's a pet-peeve of mine since the mistake is common in some BDSM circles.
I don't understand what is confusing about this. Let's lay out my assertions explicitly:
1) Some people rape/have sex with others as a display of dominance or authority rather than as a consequence of sexual attraction. Do you disagree with this?
2) This behavior is not just perceptible in humans, but in other species as well, where sex is often used as a display of dominance. Do you disagree with that?
3) Being a dominant authority is seen as being powerful in our society. Do you disagree with that?
This is all it takes to establish my position. If you agree with the above, then yes, some men have sex with other men, some men have sex with women, some men have sex with children as a display of dominance and authority rather than as an expression of sexual interest.
dave is ok
aztek is ok
The author of the article refers to it as an orientation. Most people are taking issue with that because it isn't one.
NoblesseOblige
Banned
I don't agree with calling it a sexual orientation. But I would be inclined to agree with maybe calling it a paraphilia.
The scientific evidence has lead neurologists and behavior scientists in that direction. Many links have been offered through the thread, by me and others.
Among the many tell tale signs are that there are distinct genetic correlates to pedophilia. Low IQ and a tendency towards left handedness are examples. Based on our biological knowledge, it is typically true that something which has genetic correlates has a significant genetic component itself. For instance, we began to view autism as a genetic disease because it, too, correlates with left handedness, for example.
I am not a behavior psychologist or a neuroscientist myself; I am simply going by the scientific articles I am reading.
This is really an interesting debate for me personally, not because I'm suffer from this but am a transwoman and a mother.
The fact is less then five years ago it I would get called this in the streets and still often do by internet mongers, and like the people who suffer from this I have very little choice in the fact I view and and a woman.
Granted there is a major difference in that I have no I desire to touch a child, but the fear they face and the very real fact that the majority of these people would NEVER allow themselves to harm a child makes it very hard for me not sympathize with them on some level.
I don't like that we keep them hidden and force them to not get help, and then we want to shackle and brand them the first chance we get. Even as a mom I may be nervous about them being near my child, but people shouldn't be treated as guilty of a crime if they have not committed it.
The fact is less then five years ago it I would get called this in the streets and still often do by internet mongers, and like the people who suffer from this I have very little choice in the fact I view and and a woman.
Granted there is a major difference in that I have no I desire to touch a child, but the fear they face and the very real fact that the majority of these people would NEVER allow themselves to harm a child makes it very hard for me not sympathize with them on some level.
I don't like that we keep them hidden and force them to not get help, and then we want to shackle and brand them the first chance we get. Even as a mom I may be nervous about them being near my child, but people shouldn't be treated as guilty of a crime if they have not committed it.
Ziltoidia 9
Member
I'm glad we are at a point in society that we are talking more universally about an issue like this.
I think we need to have studies done that see:
1. How many of these people there really are and about what percentage of the population they are.
2. Determine % of actual offenders. If it turns out that only 5% of these people actually act on their preferences, then demonizing the group as a whole isn't needed.
3. Continue to be harsh on offenders, but open your mind to the possibility that this might be a more wide spread mental state that people hide out of embarrassment and fear. I believe in common decency from people and believe that most people aren't evil and want to be good.
4. Gay is not pedophile. I think we should stop this equating them during arguments. During the debate on gay marriage, the right used it and it was out-casted then and should be out-casted now.
I think we need to have studies done that see:
1. How many of these people there really are and about what percentage of the population they are.
2. Determine % of actual offenders. If it turns out that only 5% of these people actually act on their preferences, then demonizing the group as a whole isn't needed.
3. Continue to be harsh on offenders, but open your mind to the possibility that this might be a more wide spread mental state that people hide out of embarrassment and fear. I believe in common decency from people and believe that most people aren't evil and want to be good.
4. Gay is not pedophile. I think we should stop this equating them during arguments. During the debate on gay marriage, the right used it and it was out-casted then and should be out-casted now.
How could it not be paraphilia? Calling something a paraphilia is no different than calling something "an unusual sexual thing." Yes, it fits that description, because paraphilia is an extremely broad term, both colloquially and scientifically.
I can't quite understand why people are resisting this terminology so much. Does it bother people to refer to it as a sexual orientation? Does it upset people that pedophilia is not something people choose and which is instilled in them either from birth or a very young age? Because that's what the evidence shows us.
I'm honestly curious now: why does it bother people that this seems to be the case? Because, if true, I find it overwhelmingly relieving. Before, I hated pedophiles as people choosing to be evil and despicable. Now, I don't hate them -- I pity them, in the same way I pity an untreatable paranoid schizophrenic who shoots up a theater. Neither he nor a pedophile chose to be broken.
I now hate fewer people, and I am glad of that.
I'm glad this thread was made because I've been looking for a springboard to talk about this for a while now.
Being a pedophilia is the definition of unfair. There's just no getting around it. You're born into it. It can't be treated. You can't open up to anyone about it. It's like being doomed from the minute you were born.
For pretty much my entire life, even though I've had to wrestle with a host of problems, I've always, always had someone I could talk to about them (Close friends, younger sibling... hell GAF even) but pedophiles don't have that luxury. There's nobody you can talk to, no professional to assuage your fears... Not even the person closest to you would readily accept that, and that really saddens me. I can't imagine what it feels like to be one.
I realize that they have an abnormality that makes them a threat to children, and anything that threatens a child should be stamped out, but I don't think demonizing them is the best way to approach this sort of problem. Hypothetically speaking, I sure as hell wouldn't want to "come out" if I were pedophile in our current society. It's idealistic, but if were to get to a point where pedophilia is treated is a legitimate mental illness, we could get more pedophiles to come out and seek behavioral treatment. There's no cure, but I bet having someone say "it's going to get better" would do wonders for these people. It's way better than leaving out to dry and letting them indulge in their toxic abnormality.
So yeah, I definitely feel for Todd Nickerson. He didn't ask for this. Nobody asked to be a pedophile.
Being a pedophilia is the definition of unfair. There's just no getting around it. You're born into it. It can't be treated. You can't open up to anyone about it. It's like being doomed from the minute you were born.
For pretty much my entire life, even though I've had to wrestle with a host of problems, I've always, always had someone I could talk to about them (Close friends, younger sibling... hell GAF even) but pedophiles don't have that luxury. There's nobody you can talk to, no professional to assuage your fears... Not even the person closest to you would readily accept that, and that really saddens me. I can't imagine what it feels like to be one.
I realize that they have an abnormality that makes them a threat to children, and anything that threatens a child should be stamped out, but I don't think demonizing them is the best way to approach this sort of problem. Hypothetically speaking, I sure as hell wouldn't want to "come out" if I were pedophile in our current society. It's idealistic, but if were to get to a point where pedophilia is treated is a legitimate mental illness, we could get more pedophiles to come out and seek behavioral treatment. There's no cure, but I bet having someone say "it's going to get better" would do wonders for these people. It's way better than leaving out to dry and letting them indulge in their toxic abnormality.
So yeah, I definitely feel for Todd Nickerson. He didn't ask for this. Nobody asked to be a pedophile.
Chainsawkitten
Member
You can't turn a pedophile into a non-pedophile, at least not with any current treatment. What cognitive behavioural therapy can do is help them cope with that and teach them how to avoid behaviour and thinking that increases the risk of offending. We can do that without trying to change their sexuality. Then there is of course also treatment of depression that seems to be quite common in pedophiles.
For chemical castration (drugs that diminish your sex drive) the idea is that you take drugs so that you won't feel any sexual desires, toward children or otherwise, and thus you won't commit any offenses. Whether it actually works I'm not entirely certain of. Studies show that it has proved effective as voluntary treatment for sex offenders (not specifically child molesters), however, people who would voluntarily seek such treatment is a selected group of people who wish to stop offending and thus not comparable to sex offenders at large. Maybe the people who would apply for that would have done just as well without.
I don't know how effective these are and if those results would translate to pedophiles who have not offended. This is something we need to study more (as well as other treatments). Performing those studies, however, can only be done if pedophiles who have not offended are willing to come forward. That's something Project Dunkelfeld has been very successful in doing, very much due to the confidentiality.
Otherwise, all treatment and studies will have to be done on child molesters who have already offended. I can't accept a system which can do nothing to help until a child has already been molested.
NoblesseOblige
Banned
I personally consider it a paraphilia, however there are people who equate that to mental illness or something else with negative connotations. I'm into kinks and certain aspects of BDSM, which individually involves a lot of paraphilias, but I don't use the word in common vernacular because of the association.
And the reason I don't consider it a sexual orientation is because I limit orientation to the sex/gender aspect of human sexuality. Child isn't a sex/gender, and neither is adult. If you use orientation with a broader usage then that's okay, but is probably going to need to be iterated to people like me.
Also I don't hate pedophiles anymore than I hate sociopaths by default. I don't understand them, but as long as they keep their inclinations under control then I'm not going to commit enough of my emotion towards them to be described as hatred. It's the moment an individual's control is lost that I can grant any 'hate'.
dave is ok
aztek is ok
Presumably because it would allow pedophiles protection under a host of laws (like the EEOC). It's really kind of a non-issue because most pedophiles keep it secret anyway.
Morrigan Stark
Arrogant Smirk
[citation needed]
That might seem obvious to you, but I'm not so sure. Considering 1 out of 4 women gets sexually assaulted in her lifetime, and it's unclear what percentage of child molesters are actually pedophiles, well... it might not be that cut and dry.
"Pedo defenders"
Sigh....
The only thing this thread proves, is that some people care more about patting themselves on the back for their superior sense of morality by saying "destroy all pedos" than they care about actually protecting more kids.
I want fewer kids to be molested. If the method to accomplishing that is giving non-offending pedophiles the psychological or psychiatric help that they need, then this is what I want, even if it makes me feel icky. My feelings don't matter as much as the results.
It's like needle exchange programs, or Norwegian prisons. Am I upset that in Norway, murderers serve rather tame prison sentences and would I rather see murderers rot in prison forever or even get fried on the chair? Yes. But I can't argue with Norway's low criminality and higher rates of successful rehabilitation. My feelings of revenge matter far less than the well-being of society.
What exactly do you expect to happen in an amusement park? I probably wouldn't want a pedophile working there either just out of sheer precaution (kids do get lost there sometimes), but most kids in amusement parks are accompanied by their parents or older relatives and it's not like a child predator would have tons of opportunities working in an amusement park. Unless there's some evidence that suggests kids at amusement parks are particularly vulnerable and a target for predators, in which case I'll agree it's a bad idea. I'd be way more opposed to them being teachers, coaches, priests, etc.
Yeah not quite there yet, but there are still some people throwing around the words "pedo defenders" or "pedo defense force" though.
Really now. Do you think all prison rapists are gay?
Messofanego
Banned
People are too focused on a cure, and if there isn't one, give up altogether. We don't have cures for many mental illnesses, let alone pedophilia. We don't stop that from letting them seek help and socialise with people of the same condition in a safe space where more healthy behaviour can be learned than hanging out in the dangerous online space where they might be inclined to look up child pornography and be in possession of it.
I take issue with calling it an "orientation" based on a few things.
#1 - orientation specifically and only relates to gender you're attracted to and that's it. A person with pedophile tendencies can be heterosexual, homosexual or bisexual. The age of the person they're attracted to is irrelevant. That's the literal, actual definition of sexual orientation and it does not, at all, fit in with pedophilia, unless you want to consider children under 13 to be a separate gender.
#2 - "sexual orientation" is already stigmatized (though significantly less so than it used to be). By calling pedophilia a "sexual orientation", when that's not at all what it is, by definition, you're categorizing it on the same level as homosexuality (and heterosexuality too, of course) and, again, though gay people have come a very long way, that's not a stigma we still need attached to us. It took a long time for us to get rid of it in the first place.
I feel sorry for them. They feel like they can't help it - that they're these monsters that society hates and will never accept. I get that feeling on an intimate level. I just have a really really hard time understanding it. I feel like, OK, I've changed my preference for the type of men I like (but always men, I've never been attracted to women) - you're not changing the gender you're attracted to, just the features of that gender. (IE if the pedophile likes boys, then why don't they also like men even if they're 19 instead of 9?, etc)
Here's my question - why would a non-offending pedophile "come forward", regardless of society's stance on it being, say, a handicap? If the act is illegal, regardless of how society viewed me, I'm not going to come forward to say "I have these urges to do X illegal thing." No matter how much you all showered me with love and well-wishes, at the end of the day, what I want to do *is still illegal*. Even if I never ever ever felt I could actually be inappropriate with a kid and wouldn't offend, I'm still not going to tell anyone. In fact, if I really thought I would never touch a kid inappropriately no matter my feelings, I'm not going to tell anyone. What would that accomplish? I'd have to be in therapy for something I know I can't control/can't fix what I feel and I'm already never ever planning on doing something bad because my conscience wouldn't allow it - so why the fuck would I tell someone? No thanks - I'll just stay in my little closet and live my life until I die, taking my secret with me.
Additionally, if we treat it like, say, alcoholism, which has an incredibly low success rate, what makes us think that having these people socialize together is going to create a "safe space"? A former manager for the place my husband works for was just indicted and convicted of wanting to/possessing pornography of (hold onto your butts with this one) rape, torture, murder and eat children. Someone like that, I firmly don't believe will seek out "safe places" to not offend. In fact, I think they'd do exactly what he did - find "safe places" to scheme of ways to do these things. He was a very high level/ranking security officer within the government - he knew how to conceal his activities (luckily he got caught in a larger web and got busted. Thank god.) Why do you think these people are going to want to seek out safe spaces to not offend?
SpideySenses
Member
Absolutely. They might want to rationalise it away as circumstance but if your idea of holding power over someone is raping someone of your own gender (when non-sexual violence would suffice), then yes, you're gay.
So the possibility of someone having sex with a person they aren't attracted to just doesn't exist in your view?
Authority/Dominance aside, what if they just want pleasure and view the other party as a convenient source of that pleasure?
Edit: Also, it could be less about a person wanting to rape someone they're not attracted to and instead about knowing that that person does not want that.
Jack Remington
Banned
Can you please change your avatar? Please, for the love of Christ? That thing is not safe for work in the slightest.
Wait, it's an chibi belly dancer? Why should they have to change that. I don't get that, if that isn't SFW then how is any content on Gaf?
SpideySenses
Member
I believe there has to be some small measure of attraction at least, especially if it's outside of what you consider your sexual orientation, there's of course a million examples of people who "settle" for who they have sex with but there's a world of difference between sleeping with someone with below average looks of your sexual persuasion and sleeping with someone of the same sex but still considering yourself straight.
As for prison rape question, even in the example of wanting to torture someone with sexual violence, there are still ways to do it without actually taking pleasurable involvement in the act.
Not sure I agree with this argument that has to be some level of attraction.
We have porn stars who have sex with a gender they have no attraction to at all for work. I don't see what precludes a person who wants to show dominace doing something and having zero attraction to it other then dominating the person.
SpideySenses
Member
Porn is at it's essense acting though and even in that case, if a viewer was to call a porn star who has sex with both sexes bisexual, I don't think that's an invalid distinction even if they don't know what's happening in said persons brain.
And again, you can hold dominance over someone without it being sexual, you can inflict sexual violence on someone without taking a pleasurable involvement in the act. As much as I believe in the sexual spectrum, at the same time I think in these cases you need to call a spade a spade and let people's actions speak for themself.
And again, you can hold dominance over someone without it being sexual, you can inflict sexual violence on someone without taking a pleasurable involvement in the act. As much as I believe in the sexual spectrum, at the same time I think in these cases you need to call a spade a spade and let people's actions speak for themself.
Mauricio_Magus
Banned
There's nothing wrong with my avatar, you can browse GAF with no avatars like I do when I'm at work.
And this is why sexual assault victims barely any help from the general populace, because of patronizing bullshit like this fuckbasket just posted.
This idiotic idea that only people that haven't been raped can talk about rape sounds like a Republican committee on women's health that only has dudes on it. When you go through this shit, you can't get help because "oh, you're just being emotional", and you "can't be objective". Objective about what? A rape occurred. How in the world can anyone like the above poster think they have any right to tell a victim that they can't talk about assault because they were assaulted. From the same fucking poster that told women that they're asking for catcalls if they wear nice clothes. What's next, you're going to tell transpersons they can't talk about transitioning? Black posters can't talk about black issues because they're "emotionally involved?"
Somehow someone saw fit to make you a moderator when you try to assign 'objectivity' to an act meant to attack someone physically and emotionally. To make you feel used, less than whole. To put a cloud over you for the rest of your life, and even if you push the cloud away other people will put one over you mentally themselves.
And you have the fucking gall to tell someone in a discussion about child rape that they can't talk about child rape because they experienced it. Why you had to act like such a shitpickle to Fiction and why this discussion forum has gotten so damn anti-discussion I'll never know. Why you have to continually re-insert yourself in conversations where it's historically been made clear you lack the empathy to participate in them or the social experience to commentate on them, I'll never know, but please, for the love of god, fucking. stop.
Joe Molotov
Member
That's some hot fyre, but not undeserved.
The irony of this being said, in this very thread. Surely it can't be lost on you?
I'm glad someone said it. As soon as I read that post I was all "what the hell, Opiate?" I'm sorry, Opiate, but by definition "child rape" would be under the "pedophilia" umbrella. Telling Fiction who has experience under that umbrella to not discuss it because you feel she isn't being "rational" is a bit insulting to her and other people that have had to deal with someone much older than them preying on their innocence.
"But not all Pedophiles ra--"
I don't care, Opiate. We can sit here and nitpick the finer details of what constitutes the term "pedophile" for you. But for most everyone that would be having sex with a child with or without their consent. That means, Fictions experience can apply no matter how "irrational" you feel she is toward those people.
Fiction, I want you to know: I am extremely sorry you had to go through that experience for ten years and I hope you found peace and proper justice on your perpetrator. No child should have that experience.
343 started getting their shit together, this energy had to go somewhere.
PhoenixDark
Banned
The fact that you don't even see what's wrong with your avatar (especially in light of the multitude of posts you make on this subject) speaks louder than words.
ViewtifulJC
Banned
shit is getting too real in here
Y'all, if you cared about Fiction then you'd stop feeding the bonfire outside and let this thread die. Yea, Opiate fucked up, but the last thing Fiction wants is more people wanking on using her past as a bludgeon or getting banned for this shit. She's not posting in this thread anymore and if you want to let her know how you feel y'all know how to get in contact, so talk to her not the dude who put his foot so far into his mouth that he's tasting balls.
This is an unreasonable post.
Yes, some people can be too close to an issue -- too emotionally affected, too intimately connected -- to be able to objectively and rationally discuss it. Not because they're bad people; this happens to everyone. It's because our emotions often take over our thinking when we are so closely emotionally tied to an issue. As an example, it's the reason why people affected by violence are almost always removed from jury duty if the crime being persecuted is similar to what they have personally experienced; not because they don't care, or because they're bad people, but because they are unlikely to be able to observe the proceedings objectively and rationally.
I think you really need to step back and consider your behavior, FyreWulff.
This once again proves that GAF is not a place for difficult discussions like this.
I don't think either of you were following the discussion when that exchange occurred and have pulled it out of context. I see that some of Fiction's posts were edited out as well, so you have even less to go on.
Opiate's response was to Fiction's stated inability to feel any sympathy for those with this attraction. In regard to that, it's obvious why past experiences would influence her inability to approach that objectively. There was no demand that someone stop talking about something, it was just an observation that that perspective didn't lend itself to unbiased or objective consideration.
NeoGAF is a forum full of real people, not an imaginary world where dispassionate academic debate can take place and anything can be said without affecting others. We shouldn't be having threads like this inappropriate and pointless debate about pedophilia in the first place, and we will not from here on out, but while we can't control how someone reacts to the content of the site and whether they decide to leave, and we shouldn't coddle anyone for the sake of it, this thread has gone far, far beyond anything that can be described that way. We can at least be a little respectful to our fellow members when it comes to serious matters like personal experience with being the victim of child molestation/rape. Clearly a basic level of human decency hasn't been maintained and that will be addressed immediately.
Apologies to Fiction for everything that was said in this thread and how things played out overall.
Apologies to Fiction for everything that was said in this thread and how things played out overall.
- Status
Similar threads
- Poll