Freethought & Rationalism Archive

Pat Kelly · 06-20-2003, 06:35 PM

Is pedophilia a psychological abnormality? The American Psychiatric Association (APA) rejected the recommendation of some psychiatrists at an APA symposium held in San Francisco on May 19 that pedophilia be removed from its Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders. Now I am no doctor nor do I have a wall of degrees somewhere so you will have to take what I say here for what it is; only an opinion.

I think it is safe to conclude there is something wrong with the presently accepted view of human sexuality that paints same age heterosexuality as the only real version of normal sex. It is true that homosexuality has recently been removed from the list of abnormalities but this view has yet to filter down to the general public. To begin with this view is in direct opposition to what we know is true about species near us one the evolutionary scale. It also contradicts much of our own behavior we know exists unless one is willing to accept there is some mass sickness or abnormality affecting a rather large segment of humanity.

I think the main problem with our understandings of how sex is supposed to work is we basically have it backwards. In the case of pedophilia for example, there is nothing really abnormal about finding children sexually attractive. After all, we were all once children and at some stage in our development, everyone finds the bodies and minds of other children sexually stimulating. However, I think the real problem arises not out of whom we find ourselves sexually attracted to but whom we do not find ourselves sexually attracted to. In other words, there is nothing really wrong with finding a child sexually stimulating unless that is the only class of people one perceives as sexually attractive.

It seems to me that human sexuality in it most natural form is supposed to consist of a wide range of sexual attractions, all existing at the same time with or without varying degrees of intensity. Some people may naturally be 40% heterosexual, 30% homosexual, 25% pedophile and 5% fetish. The percentages can vary from individual to individual or from time to time within a particular individual.

Looking at sex from this perspective one could conclude that strong social influences have thrown almost all of us out of sync with the way nature intended us to behave sexually. Society says it is so morally wrong to be sexually attracted to someone younger that the far majority of people who see themselves as exclusively heterosexual are not even consciously aware that their interest in and glance towards a young girl or boy had a sexual component attached to it. It seems to me that all the labels we have attached to sex such as homosexual, heterosexual, pedophile and so on, only have real relevance in the fact everyone has some element of each within them. Diversity has always held a dominate position within evolution. There is no logical reason to assume nature intended human sexual attractions to be void of diversity and only consist of a single attraction. All the evidence surely points in the other direction.

Again, I would have to say there is absolutely nothing abnormal in anyone we find ourselves sexually attracted to. The abnormality lies in our inability to recognize the sexual attractiveness that exists in every class of human no matter what their stage of development.

AquaVita · 06-20-2003, 06:43 PM

/mod cap on backwards, for effect:

If this thread does not keep to the subject at hand, it will meet the same fate as the last one.

Again...

1. No sexual fantasies or overly explicit(as defined by me and the other mods and admins) anectdotes or scenarios involving children(defined as anyone under 18 years of age)

2. No personal attacks, flames, or non-sequiturs.

3. Stay calm. I realize this is a subject many of us hold disdain for...but as I've said before, that does not mean we cannot debunk arguments in a calm, collected manner.

Fo shizzle.

Aqua-MD Mod in the hizzle.

Anachronix · 06-20-2003, 07:17 PM

A few points:

1) Our current social structure and lives are far more complicated than when sexual acts were for procreative purposes only.

2) We have far more abstract concepts ingrained in our everyday lives than when we were in a 'breed or die' era.

3) Children need to spend much longer learning how society and people work before they can make educated and reasonable decisions on how they want to live their lives and what decisions they want to make.

4) Paedophilia (when turned into a physical act) takes advantage of people who, in the vast majority of cases, do not have the necessary theoretical knowledge and life experience to make an informed decision about whether they wish to engage in sexual acts

Paedophilia takes advantage of the mostly blind trust that a child puts in all adults that 'they know best'. I'm sure someone will introduce the theoretical example of when the victim gives their apparent consent. When this occurs, it is not a consensual act but merely superficial consent made under duress caused by the victim's expectation that they are require to 'do as they're told'.

HelenM · 06-20-2003, 08:27 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Pat Kelly
the far majority of people who see themselves as exclusively heterosexual are not even consciously aware that their interest in and glance towards a young girl or boy had a sexual component attached to it.

Maybe that's because it didn't.

Helen

AquaVita · 06-20-2003, 08:45 PM

It has been determined that this discussion belongs in S&S.

Same rules apply.

Pat Kelly · 06-20-2003, 09:04 PM

I know you will accuse me of staging this or something but that is not the case. I just received a post from a girl named Hannah at my website that directly opposes Anachronix's views of how children experience sex. This is a woman writing about her personal firsthand experiences of sex. It is not someone moralizing or theorizing about his or her perceived notions of how others experience sex. There is a big difference.

Every once in a great while you get a post that stands out way above the rest. I would have to say this is probably the best post I have ever read. Ever!

I spend a lot of time trying to figure out how to say things in a way that can break through all the perceived notions we seem to have about sex. However, it is difficult for me to get beyond the idea many people have that there is some devious ulterior motive behind my views. Then this woman comes along and says something I could never equal in its clarity, truth and common sense.

Now many people will find what she has to say directly opposes what they have learned from the media and elsewhere. The truth is we only ever get one side of this story from the media because no one is allowed to print the other side. Well Hannah posted the other side and it is a side the whole world needs to hear. You will have to deal with reconciling the difference between her side and the side you are used to hearing. The easiest way will be to simply say this is all a lie and Hannah does not even really exist. Something tells me she not only exists but there are many, many Hannahs out there.

I would re-post her story here but I think your admin might frown on that. If I am wrong they only need inform me and I will be happy to post it. This is about the exchange of ideas in an open and free society where each individual has the right to assess for themselves the validity of particular views without someone else making that decision for them first. Some might even say it has something to do with a much-underused term called "freethinking".

God Fearing Atheist · 06-20-2003, 09:19 PM

Im just curious:

How many times has Pat started a thread related to this topic? A dozen? Two?

-GFA

Anti-Materialist · 06-20-2003, 10:02 PM

A few years ago I produced a one-hour documentary about child molestors for CNN. It was titled "Thieves of Childhood"

I spent about a year and a half working on that project, on and off, and I got to know many child molesters during that time.

Thus, I have quite a few opinions on the topic.

But, bascially, I feel it comes down to this. Sexuality is very complicated. It is fraught with serious emotional pitfalls. The only people who should engage in sexual behaviors are those people who are fully prepared to handle all the consequences of sexual behavior.

I know that some molestors, and some children who were molested, claim to have positive memories from the experience. But that is the key issue - only some of them do. There is no way to determine ahead of time who will be burned by such an experience and wont be. And, when people are burned by such experiences, they are burned really badly.

People who have been molested bear horrible psychological wounds. Given the fact that there is no safe way to have sex with a child, and be reasonably certain it wont result in serious harm to that child, the only responsible decision is to not have sex with children.

This is really hard on pedophiles. Pedophiles, that is, people who are sexually attracted to children, do not choose to be pedophiles. They are that way through no fault of their own. As long as they choose not to act on their feelings, no punishment will come their way.

However, once a pedophile does choose to act on his feelings, he becomes a child molester. He is engaging in behavior that may well cause serious psychological harm to a person who is not intellectually or emotionally equipped to defend his or her self.

I feel genuine sympathy for pedophiles. It is a terrible state to be in. Nevertheless, they must control their behavior. I personally feel that if a person commits a single offense, they have proven they are dangerous. At that point they need to be permanently removed from any contact with children.

Life in prison is the easiest way to accomplish this. It seems a bit harsh to me. I think it would be better for society to build special prisons specifically for child molestors. They would be like little fenced in townships where the inhabitants can lead somewhat meaningful lives. They can have their own homes - work to support themselves - all of that. They simply will never be allowed contact with children.

It's harsh, but life is harsh. It would be a practical solution to an otherwise very disturbing problem.

Jeremy Pallant · 06-21-2003, 12:15 AM

I think AquaVita's number 1 condition has been nominally, if not explicitly, violated by Pat Kelley's last response. It is also off-topic and arguably a blatant attempt to redirect the subject in a direction not suitable for this forum.

I am closing this thread. Anyone who objects to my decision is welcome to take their objections to Bugs, Problems & Complaints.

06-20-2003, 06:35 PM	#1
Pat Kelly Regular Member Join Date: Apr 2003 Location: California Posts: 134	Is Pedophilia a Psychological Abnormality? Is pedophilia a psychological abnormality? The American Psychiatric Association (APA) rejected the recommendation of some psychiatrists at an APA symposium held in San Francisco on May 19 that pedophilia be removed from its Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders. Now I am no doctor nor do I have a wall of degrees somewhere so you will have to take what I say here for what it is; only an opinion. I think it is safe to conclude there is something wrong with the presently accepted view of human sexuality that paints same age heterosexuality as the only real version of normal sex. It is true that homosexuality has recently been removed from the list of abnormalities but this view has yet to filter down to the general public. To begin with this view is in direct opposition to what we know is true about species near us one the evolutionary scale. It also contradicts much of our own behavior we know exists unless one is willing to accept there is some mass sickness or abnormality affecting a rather large segment of humanity. I think the main problem with our understandings of how sex is supposed to work is we basically have it backwards. In the case of pedophilia for example, there is nothing really abnormal about finding children sexually attractive. After all, we were all once children and at some stage in our development, everyone finds the bodies and minds of other children sexually stimulating. However, I think the real problem arises not out of whom we find ourselves sexually attracted to but whom we do not find ourselves sexually attracted to. In other words, there is nothing really wrong with finding a child sexually stimulating unless that is the only class of people one perceives as sexually attractive. It seems to me that human sexuality in it most natural form is supposed to consist of a wide range of sexual attractions, all existing at the same time with or without varying degrees of intensity. Some people may naturally be 40% heterosexual, 30% homosexual, 25% pedophile and 5% fetish. The percentages can vary from individual to individual or from time to time within a particular individual. Looking at sex from this perspective one could conclude that strong social influences have thrown almost all of us out of sync with the way nature intended us to behave sexually. Society says it is so morally wrong to be sexually attracted to someone younger that the far majority of people who see themselves as exclusively heterosexual are not even consciously aware that their interest in and glance towards a young girl or boy had a sexual component attached to it. It seems to me that all the labels we have attached to sex such as homosexual, heterosexual, pedophile and so on, only have real relevance in the fact everyone has some element of each within them. Diversity has always held a dominate position within evolution. There is no logical reason to assume nature intended human sexual attractions to be void of diversity and only consist of a single attraction. All the evidence surely points in the other direction. Again, I would have to say there is absolutely nothing abnormal in anyone we find ourselves sexually attracted to. The abnormality lies in our inability to recognize the sexual attractiveness that exists in every class of human no matter what their stage of development.

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

06-20-2003, 06:43 PM	#2
AquaVita Veteran Member Join Date: Jan 2003 Location: Dallas Posts: 4,351	/mod cap on backwards, for effect: If this thread does not keep to the subject at hand, it will meet the same fate as the last one. Again... 1. No sexual fantasies or overly explicit(as defined by me and the other mods and admins) anectdotes or scenarios involving children(defined as anyone under 18 years of age) 2. No personal attacks, flames, or non-sequiturs. 3. Stay calm. I realize this is a subject many of us hold disdain for...but as I've said before, that does not mean we cannot debunk arguments in a calm, collected manner. Fo shizzle. Aqua-MD Mod in the hizzle.

06-20-2003, 07:17 PM	#3
Anachronix Regular Member Join Date: May 2003 Location: Adelaide, Australia Posts: 112	A few points: 1) Our current social structure and lives are far more complicated than when sexual acts were for procreative purposes only. 2) We have far more abstract concepts ingrained in our everyday lives than when we were in a 'breed or die' era. 3) Children need to spend much longer learning how society and people work before they can make educated and reasonable decisions on how they want to live their lives and what decisions they want to make. 4) Paedophilia (when turned into a physical act) takes advantage of people who, in the vast majority of cases, do not have the necessary theoretical knowledge and life experience to make an informed decision about whether they wish to engage in sexual acts Paedophilia takes advantage of the mostly blind trust that a child puts in all adults that 'they know best'. I'm sure someone will introduce the theoretical example of when the victim gives their apparent consent. When this occurs, it is not a consensual act but merely superficial consent made under duress caused by the victim's expectation that they are require to 'do as they're told'.

06-20-2003, 08:45 PM	#5
AquaVita Veteran Member Join Date: Jan 2003 Location: Dallas Posts: 4,351	It has been determined that this discussion belongs in S&S. Same rules apply.

06-20-2003, 09:04 PM	#6
Pat Kelly Regular Member Join Date: Apr 2003 Location: California Posts: 134	I know you will accuse me of staging this or something but that is not the case. I just received a post from a girl named Hannah at my website that directly opposes Anachronix's views of how children experience sex. This is a woman writing about her personal firsthand experiences of sex. It is not someone moralizing or theorizing about his or her perceived notions of how others experience sex. There is a big difference. Every once in a great while you get a post that stands out way above the rest. I would have to say this is probably the best post I have ever read. Ever! I spend a lot of time trying to figure out how to say things in a way that can break through all the perceived notions we seem to have about sex. However, it is difficult for me to get beyond the idea many people have that there is some devious ulterior motive behind my views. Then this woman comes along and says something I could never equal in its clarity, truth and common sense. Now many people will find what she has to say directly opposes what they have learned from the media and elsewhere. The truth is we only ever get one side of this story from the media because no one is allowed to print the other side. Well Hannah posted the other side and it is a side the whole world needs to hear. You will have to deal with reconciling the difference between her side and the side you are used to hearing. The easiest way will be to simply say this is all a lie and Hannah does not even really exist. Something tells me she not only exists but there are many, many Hannahs out there. I would re-post her story here but I think your admin might frown on that. If I am wrong they only need inform me and I will be happy to post it. This is about the exchange of ideas in an open and free society where each individual has the right to assess for themselves the validity of particular views without someone else making that decision for them first. Some might even say it has something to do with a much-underused term called "freethinking".

06-20-2003, 09:19 PM	#7
God Fearing Atheist Veteran Member Join Date: Sep 2000 Location: Massachusetts, USA -- Let's Go Red Sox! Posts: 1,500	Im just curious: How many times has Pat started a thread related to this topic? A dozen? Two? -GFA

06-20-2003, 10:02 PM	#8
Anti-Materialist Junior Member Join Date: Jun 2003 Location: Georgia Posts: 87	A few years ago I produced a one-hour documentary about child molestors for CNN. It was titled "Thieves of Childhood" I spent about a year and a half working on that project, on and off, and I got to know many child molesters during that time. Thus, I have quite a few opinions on the topic. But, bascially, I feel it comes down to this. Sexuality is very complicated. It is fraught with serious emotional pitfalls. The only people who should engage in sexual behaviors are those people who are fully prepared to handle all the consequences of sexual behavior. I know that some molestors, and some children who were molested, claim to have positive memories from the experience. But that is the key issue - only some of them do. There is no way to determine ahead of time who will be burned by such an experience and wont be. And, when people are burned by such experiences, they are burned really badly. People who have been molested bear horrible psychological wounds. Given the fact that there is no safe way to have sex with a child, and be reasonably certain it wont result in serious harm to that child, the only responsible decision is to not have sex with children. This is really hard on pedophiles. Pedophiles, that is, people who are sexually attracted to children, do not choose to be pedophiles. They are that way through no fault of their own. As long as they choose not to act on their feelings, no punishment will come their way. However, once a pedophile does choose to act on his feelings, he becomes a child molester. He is engaging in behavior that may well cause serious psychological harm to a person who is not intellectually or emotionally equipped to defend his or her self. I feel genuine sympathy for pedophiles. It is a terrible state to be in. Nevertheless, they must control their behavior. I personally feel that if a person commits a single offense, they have proven they are dangerous. At that point they need to be permanently removed from any contact with children. Life in prison is the easiest way to accomplish this. It seems a bit harsh to me. I think it would be better for society to build special prisons specifically for child molestors. They would be like little fenced in townships where the inhabitants can lead somewhat meaningful lives. They can have their own homes - work to support themselves - all of that. They simply will never be allowed contact with children. It's harsh, but life is harsh. It would be a practical solution to an otherwise very disturbing problem.

06-21-2003, 12:15 AM	#9
Jeremy Pallant Veteran Member Join Date: Dec 2000 Location: Tucson, Arizona, USA Posts: 1,242	I think AquaVita's number 1 condition has been nominally, if not explicitly, violated by Pat Kelley's last response. It is also off-topic and arguably a blatant attempt to redirect the subject in a direction not suitable for this forum. I am closing this thread. Anyone who objects to my decision is welcome to take their objections to Bugs, Problems & Complaints.

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.