The Student Room Group

Scroll to see replies

Original post by konvictz0007
Update

There seems to be mixed opinion on the naturality of incest. How would one assess approval/disapproval of an incestuous homosexual relationship?

We homo sapiens are defined as a species. A definition for a species is:



If we are to again consider the case that homosexuality is not a choice then we assume there exists a gene of some sort that forces one to be attracted to only their own sex. This is directly contradicting the definition of the human species as it draws one to be sexually attracted to their own sex which therefore does not allow for breeding and production of fertile offspring with their chosen sexual partner.


1. Are you seriously suggesting that homosexuals aren't even of the human species?????!?!?!? :confused:

2. Just because homosexuality isn't a choice doesn't necessitate it being completely or even partially due to genetics.

3. Not allowing/not wanting to breed is not the same as being incapable of producing fertile offspring. Not to mention that your argument would imply that those who are infertile are somehow 'less human' or 'not human' than others. Which is absurd.

Hence, just like any other biological disorder inhibiting the definition of our species such as people born with dysfunctional sex organs or paralysis of certain body parts or cancers etc., it must be addressed by human biologists and medical researchers.


Even if you want to claim this it has been. By your own argument infertile people fall into the same category. Human biologists and medical researchers have found ways to allow for these people to reproduce. The same can be said of homosexuals.


Also what did any of this have to do with incestual relations?
Original post by konvictz0007
So this settles this particular argument. There is no conclusive evidence to suggest homosexuality is not a choice.

In the majority of cases, there is plenty of strong evidence. The simple number of people who say they have no choice essentially means that there are indeed a number of people who have no choice.

What I have been debating is that there may some minority who may on some level have some small amount of choice. What I have not been debating is that homosexuality as a whole is a choice. In fact, if you consider homosexuality as a whole, you could very easily argue it isn't a choice.
Original post by konvictz0007
Again you have no proof therefore your claim is strictly opinion rather than fact.

If you re read my original post I am not claiming if it is a choice or not, I feel the fair thing to do is examine both cases.

You however claimed it was not a choice therefore I simply asked for evidence to back up your a claim, you have provided none so your argument is invalid.

But he has provided a reasonable amount of evidence, such that it would be pretty foolish to say "Oh you have provided no PROOF!". Proof is something difficult to come across outside of Maths. In particular, there is a lack of proofs in Physics given the number of theorems and so on - current perspective is simply what we consider the most likely.

This is similar to homosexuality being a choice. Consider the phrase 'reasonable doubt'.
(edited 11 years ago)
Original post by Stefan1991
Being a paedophile/paedosexual does not harm anyone. Even acting on these natural impulses does not necessarily cause harm, so that argument is defunct anyway.

How exactly is homosexuality natural and paedosexuality not? :lolwut: That's obviously false. Paedosexuality is naturally occurring in the exact same way as any other sexual orientation is, not that it would make any difference to the argument.



Erm..... ALL words are made up. God didn't hand languages down on a tablet. :rolleyes: Paedosexuality refers to the romantic and sexual attraction to children, there is no other such word you can use accurately which refers to the same existing reality, people with a romantic/sexual orientation orientated towards children.


It does harm people if acted upon, you think coercing children into sex isn't harmful?

Sorry does pedophilia occur in the animal kingdom, that is what I meant by 'natural'.

Also, Paedosexuality, is not a real orientation, as it does not refer to gender, which a sexual orientation does.

And yes, I know that, but it is not an accredited term as I have told you many times, you got it from Urban Dictionary, which isn't a credible source. Thus it is a 'made up word', you can't just make up random words which have no professional recognition, and expect me to believe your argument. You can pretend it is all you want, but it is not a word, thus since your argument is based on a made up word found on Urban Dictionary, and pro-pedophilia websites, it holds no weight.
Reply 443
Original post by konvictz0007
Update

There seems to be mixed opinion on the naturality of incest. How would one assess approval/disapproval of an incestuous homosexual relationship?

We homo sapiens are defined as a species. A definition for a species is:



If we are to again consider the case that homosexuality is not a choice then we assume there exists a gene of some sort that forces one to be attracted to only their own sex. This is directly contradicting the definition of the human species as it draws one to be sexually attracted to their own sex which therefore does not allow for breeding and production of fertile offspring with their chosen sexual partner.

Hence, just like any other biological disorder inhibiting the definition of our species such as people born with dysfunctional sex organs or paralysis of certain body parts or cancers etc., it must be addressed by human biologists and medical researchers.


Does it even matter, the world is over populated and orphans need adoptive homes. I doute my sexuality is some form of biological disorder or mistake of nature but even if it was, so what, its not causing me or anyone else harm. Plus if I was straight I probably would be having children in the first place.
Reply 444
Original post by konvictz0007
Again you have no proof therefore your claim is strictly opinion rather than fact.

If you re read my original post I am not claiming if it is a choice or not, I feel the fair thing to do is examine both cases.

You however claimed it was not a choice therefore I simply asked for evidence to back up your a claim, you have provided none so your argument is invalid.


You're aware of the role that proof plays in the acquisition of scientific knowledge, right? None at all.
Reply 445
Original post by Reformed2010
Oh crying out loud. Of course there are cases where coercion crops up in homosexual relationships between two men and paedophilia relationships between am adult and child. But let's not pretend here, the vast majority of cases in paedophilia are of a result of coercion at best and rape at worst. Most children have no idea what they are being asked or forced to do. There is little chance of a two way relationship. Just do some research yourself. This is severely diminished between two adult males. Case studies after studies highlight the psychological damage children are left with after experiencing paedophilia. Don't for a second pretend this compares with homosexuality. Because it doesn't and if you think so, then heterosexuality must be in the frame too. :rolleyes:


You need to work on your terminology. There is no such thing as "victims of paedophilia". You are referring to child sexual stimulation by an adult.

Of course there are cases where coercion crops up. That can be said of any relationship. Power struggles can exist in every relationship, whether it be child over mother, or mother over child. Both sides have a potential to emotionally manipulate each other. However to say one type of relationship necessitates this is simply false, it can exist in every type of relationship.

Saying the "vast majority of adult-child relationships are coercive" is simply false. Scientific research has shown the vast majority of "victims" were willing participants in their "abuse" and many report positive experiences. The vast majority of positive experiences would go unreported, since the "victims" would see no need to report it. We cannot make gross generalisations over the nature of adult-child relationships when it is plain to see the conventional wisdom does not hold up to the facts.

Obviously coercive sexual activity has a potential to be harmful, but in many "child sexual abuse" cases this coercion has not occurred. In particular with children over the age of 13 who regularly "abuse themselves" since their bodies have become sexually active but society refuses to recognise this.
Reply 446
Original post by Stefan1991
Scientific research has shown the vast majority of "victims" were willing participants in their "abuse" and many report positive experiences.


Produce this research please.
Reply 447
No, I was referring to the fact that the APA (the association you so love :rolleyes:) published a study stating that child sexual "abuse" is not actually harmful and in many cases is beneficial.



The APA has never done that! They've never misrepresented fact! :rolleyes: The APA never claimed homosexuality was a severe mental illness. :rolleyes:


Hence why paedophilia is not a paraphilia, it is innate in the same way heterosexuality or homosexuality is. Do your research.


Wrong. In the literature CSA stands for "Child sexual abuse". Read the bits in bold.

Rind, Bruce, Tromovitch, Philip, and Bauserman, Robert (1998). "A Meta-Analytic Examination of Assumed Properties of Child Sexual Abuse Using College Samples," Psychological Bulletin, 124(1), 22-53
"Many lay persons and professionals believe that child sexual abuse (CSA) causes intense harm, regardless of gender, pervasively in the general population. The authors examined this belief by reviewing 59 studies based on college samples. Meta-analyses revealed that students with CSA were, on average, slightly less well adjusted than controls. However, this poorer adjustment could not be attributed to CSA because family environment (FE) was consistently confounded with CSA, FE explained considerably more adjustment variance than CSA, and CSA-adjustment relations generally became nonsignificant when studies controlled for FE. Self-reported reactions to and effects from CSA indicated that negative effects were neither pervasive nor typically intense, and that men reacted much less negatively than women. The college data were completely consistent with data from national samples. [...]
Fifteen studies presented data on participants' retrospectively recalled immediate reactions to their CSA experiences that were classifiable as positive, neutral, or negative. Overall, 72% of female experiences, but only 33% of male experiences, were reported to have been negative at the time. On the other hand, 37% of male experiences, but only 11% of female experiences, were reported as positive. [...] Seven female and three male samples contained reports of positive, neutral, and negative current reflections (i.e., current feelings) about CSA experiences. Results were similar to retrospectively recalled immediate reactions, with 59% of 514 female experiences being reported as negative compared with 26% of 118 male experiences. Conversely, 42% of current reflections of male experiences, but only 16% of female experiences, were reported as positive. [...] The overall picture that emerges from these self-reports is that (a) the vast majority of both men and women reported no negative sexual effects from their CSA experiences; (b) lasting general negative effects were uncommon for men and somewhat more common for women, although still comprising only a minority; and (c) temporary negative effects were more common, reported by a minority of men and a minority to a majority of women."

Oellerich, T.D. (1998). "Identifying and Dealing with 'Child Savers'", IPT Journal.
"Kilpatrick (1992) concluded that early child and adolescent sexual experiences, unless there was force or high pressure involved, had no influence on later adult functioning regardless of the type of partner involved (i.e., relative or non-relative) or the age differences. She reported that, when she discussed her findings with professionals, they closed their ears to them. They were most closed to those findings that indicated positive reactions to these early sexual experiences and to those findings that indicated that incestuous experiences did not cause irreparable harm."

Arreola, Sonya; Neilands, Torsten; Pollack, Lance; Paul, Jay; Catania, Joseph (2008). "Childhood Sexual Experiences and Adult Health Sequelae Among Gay and Bisexual Men: Defining Childhood Sexual Abuse," Journal of Sex Research, 45(3), pp. 246 - 252.
"Childhood sexual experience [minor-minor and adult-minor was included in this definition] was composed of three categories: None (no sex before age 18); consensual only (sex before age 18 that was NOT considered by the respondent to have been forced); and forced (having been "forced or frightened by someone into doing something sexually" at least once before age 18). [...] Interestingly, the forced sex group and the no sex group were statistically indistinguishable in their level of well-being, while the consensual sex group was significantly more likely to have a higher level of well-being than either of the other two groups. This suggests that consensual sex before 18 years of age may have a positive effect, perhaps as an adaptive milestone of adolescent sexual development. The emphasis in these data on pathology does not permit further exploration of this possibility. [...] There were no differences in rates of depression and suicidal ideation between the consensual- and no-sex groups. The consensual- and forced-sex groups had higher rates of substance use and transmission risk than the no-sex group. The forced-sex group, however, had significantly higher rates of frequent drug use and high-risk sex than the consensual group. Findings suggest that forced CSEs result in a higher-risk profile than consensual or no childhood sexual experiences, the kind of risk pattern differs between forced and consensual childhood sexual experiences, and the underlying mechanisms that maintain risk patterns may vary. It is important to clarify risk patterns and mechanisms that maintain them differentially for forced and consensual sex groups so that interventions may be tailored to the specific trajectories related to each experience."

Rind, Bruce (1995). "An Analysis of Human Sexuality Textbook Coverage of the Psychological Correlates of Adult - Nonadult Sex", Journal of Sex Research, 32(3), p. 219-233
"First, researchers using college samples who have investigated consequences of adult-nonadult sex have generally found either no effects on psychological adjustment attributable to this experience (e.g., Cole, 1987; Fromuth, 1986; Harter, Alexander, & Neimeyer, 1988; Hatfield, 1987; Higgins & McCabe, 1994; Hrabowy & Allgeier, 1987; Pallotta, 1991; Predieri, 1991; Silliman, 1993; Zetzer, 1990), or only a few effects out of many measures--effects that have been small in terms of effect size (e.g., Alexander & Lupfer, 1987; Bergdahl, 1982; Edwards & Alexander, 1992; Fromuth & Burkhart, 1987; Haggard & Emery, 1989; Sarbo, 1984; White & Strange, 1993). Thus, college students who have experienced sex with adults when they were younger do not, as a group, exhibit the kind of maladjustment that has been frequently reported in clinical studies (for reviews of clinical studies, see, e.g., Beitchman, Zucker, Hood, DaCosta, & Akman, 1991; Beitchman et al., 1992)."

Stanley, Jessica L., Bartholomew, Kim, and Oram, Doug (2004). "Gay and Bisexual Men's Age-Discrepant Childhood Sexual Experiences ", The Journal of Sex Research, 41(4), pp. 381-389
"This study examined childhood sexual abuse (CSA) in gay and bisexual men. We compared the conventional definition of CSA based on age difference with a modified definition of CSA based on perception to evaluate which definition best accounted for problems in adjustment. The sample consisted of 192 gay and bisexual men recruited from a randomly selected community sample. Men's descriptions of their CSA experiences were coded from taped interviews. Fifty men (26%) reported sexual experiences before age 17 with someone at least 5 years older, constituting CSA according to the age-based definition. Of these men, 24 (49%) perceived their sexual experiences as negative, coercive, and/or abusive and thus were categorized as perception-based CSA. Participants with perception-based CSA experiences reported higher levels of maladjustment than non-CSA participants. Participants with age-based CSA experiences who perceived their sexual experience as non-negative, noncoercive, and nonabusive were similar to non-CSA participants in their levels of adjustment. These findings suggest that a perception-based CSA definition more accurately represents harmful CSA experiences in gay and bisexual men than the conventional age-based definition. [...] no differences in adjustment were found between participants with CSE histories and participants who did not report an age-based CSA experience. Additionally, the perception-based definition predicted maladjustment in four areas of interpersonal difficulties over and above that predicted by the age-based criterion. [...] empirical evidence indicates that age-discrepant childhood sexual experiences are not necessarily harmful (e.g., Constantine, 1981; Rind et al., 1998; Steever et al., 2001). Therefore, it must be acknowledged that a violation of social norms, which is the basis for the age-based definition, does not necessarily result in harm. A definition of CSA based on social norm violations is further problematic for same-sex relations because same-sex sexual activity is considered a social norm violation by many. Some in the gay community believe that some sexual experiences involving mature adolescents and older partners may be beneficial (e.g., Sandfort, 1983; Savin-Williams, 1998). Several arguments can be made supporting this position. These sexual experiences may provide these adolescents with the opportunity to explore their sexuality and feel affirmed by the gay community. Gay youth often speak of feeling different from their childhood peers and unaccepted by the dominant culture. It may be less threatening for young gay males to seekout an older gay male than to risk rejection and possible humiliation from making sexual advances toward a peer (cf. Savin-Williams, 1998). A sexual advance toward a peer may be dangerous for a gay youth if it is responded to with physical aggression, outing to the larger group of peers, and/or social rejection (Fisher & Akman, 2002). Combining perception-based CSA experience with noncoercive, nonnegative, nonabusive experiences, as the age-based definition does, presents a misleading picture of childhood sexual abuse. An age-based CSA definition inflates prevalence rates of childhood sexual abuse and inaccurately suggests that the maladjustment associated with perception-based CSA experiences applies to all childhood age-discrepant sexual encounters. In contrast, these results suggest that gay men with histories of nonnegative, noncoercive child-hood sexual experiences with older people are as well adjusted as those without histories of age-discrepant childhood sexual experiences."

Rind, Bruce (2001). "Gay and Bisexual Adolescent Boys' Sexual Experiences With Men: An Empirical Examination of Psychological Correlates in a Nonclinical Sample", Archives of Sexual Behavior, 30(4), 345-368
"Over the last quarter century the incest model, with its image of helpless victims exploited and traumatized by powerful perpetrators, has come to dominate perceptions of virtually all forms of adult-minor sex. Thus, even willing sexual relations between gay or bisexual adolescent boys and adult men, which differ from father-daughter incest in many important ways, are generally seen by the lay public and professionals as traumatizing and psychologically injurious. This study assessed this common perception by examining a nonclinical, mostly college sample of gay and bisexual men. Of the 129 men in the study, 26 were identified as having had age-discrepant sexual relations (ADSRs) as adolescents between 12 and 17 years of age with adult males. Men with ADSR experiences were as well adjusted as controls in terms of self-esteem and having achieved a positive sexual identity. Reactions to the ADSRs were predominantly positive, and most ADSRs were willingly engaged in. Younger adolescents were just as willing and reacted at least as positively as older adolescents. Data on sexual identity development indicated that ADSRs played no role in creating same-sex sexual interests, contrary to the "seduction" hypothesis. Findings were inconsistent with the incest model. The incest model has come to act as a procrustean bed, narrowly dictating how adult-minor sexual relations quite different from incest are perceived."
Baurmann, Michael C. (1983). Sexuality, Violence and Psychological After-Effects: A Longitudinal Study of Cases of Sexual Assault which were Reported to the Police.
"The victimological analysis was based on a 4-year questionnaire study (1969 - 1972) of virtually all sexual victims known to the police in the German state of Lower Saxony (n = 8058). [...] To recapitulate, only half of the declared victims (51.8%) of indecent assault suffered from injuries or even severe trauma. The other 48.2% had no problems in connection with the experience. In most of these cases the sexual offense was relatively superficial and harmless and/or the "victim" consented to the offense (page 459). [...] Homosexual contacts played no important statistical or criminological role in this study. On the one hand, they composed only 10-15% of the cases, and on the other, the sexual contacts were described by the victims themselves as "harmless", almost exclusively without the use of violence by the suspect (page 287), and as a result, none of the male victims questioned felt themselves to have been injured. In addition no injury could be determined in these cases with the help of test procedures."

Steever, E. E., Follette, V. M., & Naugle, A. E. (2001). "The correlates of male adults' perceptions of their early sexual experiences," Journal of Traumatic Stress, 14(1), 189–204.
"Three groups of participants were assessed for this study: (1) men who report no history of childhood sexual experiences or report a history of consensual childhood and adolescent sexual experiences with peers (less than five years age difference; NSA), (2) men who do not identify themselves as survivors of childhood sexual abuse, but report a history of childhood or adolescent (before age eighteen) sexual experiences that were coercive/forced in nature, occurred with an individual at least 5 years older than the subject, or were incestuous in nature (involved an older family member), thus satisfying typical research definitions of child sexual abuse (ESE), and (3) men who report a history of childhood sexual experiences that they label as sexual abuse (CSA). [...] Analysis of variance between groups revealed that Group CSA (M = .71, SD = .42) reported significantly more distress than Group NSA (M = .40, SD = .36) or Group ESE did (M = .46, SD = .22). [...] Consistent with our hypotheses, participants in Group CSA were twice as likely to have participated in psychotherapy as participants in Group ESE. In fact, more than half of Group CSA reported that they had sought mental health treatment. [...] Participants in Group ESE, who by standard research criteria would be classified as "abused" did not seek out mental health counseling to a statistically greater degree than participants in Group NSA. Because the participants in Group ESE did not report higher levels of psychological distress than those in Group NSA, it seems likely that these men did not seek treatment because of lack of distress."

Finkelhor, David (1990). "Early and long-term effects of child sexual abuse: An update," Professional Psychology: Research and Practice, 21(5), pp. 325-330.
Using mostly clinical samples: "Almost every study of the impact of sexual abuse has found a substantial group of victims with little or no symptomatology. Runyon (personal communication, September 23, 1988) found one quarter to one third of the victims without symptoms on the study's major clinician-rated measure of trauma. Mannarino and Cohen (1986) found 31% to be symptom-free. Tong et al. (1987) noted 36% of the children within the normal range on the Child Behavior Checklist. Conte and Schuerman (1987), using an extensive list of symptoms that included such minor items as “fearful of abuse stimuli” or such global items as “emotional upset,” found that 21% of abused children had no symptoms whatsoever (see also Sirles, Smith, & Kusama, 1989). [...] Research shows that such asymptomatic children are more likely to have been abused for a shorter period of time, without force and violence or penetration, by someone who is not a father figure and to have gotten support from parents in the context of a relatively well-functioning family (Browne & Finkelhor, 1986)."

Rind, Bruce & Tromovitch, Philip (1997). "A meta-analytic review of findings from national samples on psychological correlates of child sexual abuse," Journal of Sex Research, 34, 237-255.
"The self-reported effects data contradict the conclusions or implications presented in previous literature reviews that harmful effects stemming from CSA are pervasive and intense in the population of persons with this experience. Baker and Duncan (1985) found that, although some respondents reported permanent harm stemming from their CSA experiences (4% of males and 13% of females), the overwhelming majority did not (96% of males and 87% of females). Severe or intense harm would be expected to linger into adulthood, but this did not occur for most respondents in this national sample, according to their self-reports, contradicting the conclusion or implication of intense harm stemming from CSA in the typical case. Meta-analyses of CSA-adjustment relations from the five national studies that reported results of adjustment measures revealed a consistent pattern: SA respondents were less well adjusted than control respondents. Importantly, however, the size of this difference (i.e., effect size) was consistently small in the case of both males and females. The unbiased effect size estimate for males and females combined was ru = .08, which indicates that CSA, assuming that it was responsible for the adjustment difference between SA and control respondents, did not produce intense problems on average."



Look above, I have provided numerous studies and in previous pages have already provided the testimony of expert psychologists. If you want to continue to ignore this scientific evidence and provide none refuting it, it's up to you.

You could also do with reading several books, such as
Harmful to Minors, (2002) a book written by Judith Levine which proposes that laws, programs and terminology aimed at "protecting children" from sex cause more damage than they prevent. The book cites a wide array of research in medical, psychological, historical, and criminological fields, along with many interviews to support its conclusions.

And also Susan Clancy's The Trauma Myth 2009, in which she suggests that child sexual abuse is rarely a traumatic experience for the victims at the time it occurs, and is instead described by victims as confusing. She argues that later in life, after the memories are processed, examined, and more fully understood, the experience becomes traumatic. Clancy writes in “The Trauma Myth” that when she arrived at Harvard in 1996, the trauma theory held that “a child will only participate in abuse if forced, threatened, or explicitly coerced” (p. 41). Then she interviewed victims and learned, “They did not fight it. It was not done against their will. They went along . . . only 5% tried to stop it” (p. 41). Clancy concludes that since sexual abuse of children is not violent per se, the millions of victims who did not experience their sex abuse as traumatic grapple with crippling thoughts of shame, embarrassment, and self-blame, thus compounding their suffering. She advocates for a refined understanding of the immediate effects of child sex abuse in order to better help those who are currently excluded from a clinical and popular culture that embraces the trauma model.



Ridiculous circular logic :rolleyes: It's like saying "homosexuality is against social norms, I know that I am homosexual, therefore I experience psychological distress from being a homosexual, therefore I have a mental illness :rolleyes::rolleyes:"
In one word. Stupid.


Yes. People like you are against intergenerational intimacy because of antiquated social standards and puritanical sexual phobias. It's simply prejudice, you ignore science and choose ignorance :lol:



I'm against causing harm, I am a firm believer in the Harm Principle as laid out by J.S. Mill. If you actually did your research, you'd know that what you are suggesting actually causes more harm. It's ironic and quite quite sad. Anyone know a treatment for denial?
Reply 448
Original post by Stefan1991
Ridiculous circular logic :rolleyes: It's like saying "homosexuality is against social norms, I know that I am homosexual, therefore I experience psychological distress from being a homosexual, therefore I have a mental illness :rolleyes::rolleyes:"
In one word. Stupid.


Precisely the condition you describe here is listed in the ICD :fyi:
Reply 449
Original post by AlmostChicGeek
It does harm people if acted upon, you think coercing children into sex isn't harmful?
No, of course coercive sex has the potential to be harmful. I'm saying that non-coercive sex isn't harmful. If you look up, I just posted the scientific evidence proving this.
Original post by AlmostChicGeek
Sorry does pedophilia occur in the animal kingdom, that is what I meant by 'natural'.
It does occur in the animal kingdom, e.g. in humans. It is an innate and naturally occurring human condition in the same way homosexuality is.
Original post by AlmostChicGeek
Also, Paedosexuality, is not a real orientation, as it does not refer to gender, which a sexual orientation does.
I don't believe sexual orientation should be restricted to gender, it is much more than that. Many academic sources define it as independent of gender, the sum of all our emotional/romantic/sexual attractions.

In the same way homosexuality was not a valid sexual orientation, paedosexuality is not now, because of the bias inherent in society.
Original post by AlmostChicGeek
And yes, I know that, but it is not an accredited term as I have told you many times, you got it from Urban Dictionary, which isn't a credible source. Thus it is a 'made up word', you can't just make up random words which have no professional recognition, and expect me to believe your argument. You can pretend it is all you want, but it is not a word, thus since your argument is based on a made up word found on Urban Dictionary, and pro-pedophilia websites, it holds no weight.

Paedoexuality refers to the sexual orientation of being attracted towards children. It is the romantic attraction and sexuality towards children. Not a "philia" which is just a friendly brotherly love of something.
Of course it is recognised.

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

http://english.wodc.nl/onderzoeksdatabase/aard-en-omvang-pedoseksuele-delicten.aspx

Paedosexual delinquency: A study into prevalence, circumstances and criminal justice interventions Leuw, E., Bijl, R.V., Daalder, WODC :The Hague (2004)
Reply 450
Original post by mmmpie
Precisely the condition you describe here is listed in the ICD :fyi:

What I described is the mental illness of society, not of the individual.

"It is no measure of health to be well adjusted to a profoundly sick society."
- Jiddu Krishnamurti
Reply 451
Original post by Stefan1991
In the same way homosexuality was not a valid sexual orientation, paedosexuality is not now, because of the bias inherent in society.


You're conflating social acceptability with psychosocial classification.

For all I know you have a point, but your insistence on non-standard terminology, your verbosity, your inability to respond to direct questions with simple answers, and frankly your lack of clarity and structure in what you're saying is doing a very good job of obscuring it.
Reply 452
Original post by Stefan1991
What I described is the mental illness of society, not of the individual.

"It is no measure of health to be well adjusted to a profoundly sick society."
- Jiddu Krishnamurti


Societies can be dysfunctional in many senses, but a society cannot have a mental illness.
Reply 453
:facepalm: You obviously don't know anything about the history of the gay rights movement. What you are suggesting never actually happened. No new evidence magically materialised which suggested homosexuality wasn't a mental illness. It was the changing of an opinion, a subjective point of view. Changed because of intense political pressure and demonstrations. Read your history, stop making it up :lol:

In the same way, there is NO scientific evidence suggesting paedosexuality is a mental illness like you say, or anything other than an innate sexual orientation.

Tromovitch, P. (2009). "Manufacturing Mental Disorder by Pathologizing Erotic Age Orientation: A Comment on Blanchard et al. (2008)," Archives of Sexual Behavior, 38(3), 328
"Like masturbation and homosexuality, pedophilia (informally: erotic attraction to prepubescent people) appears to have entered the DSM as a "mental disorder" without any scientific or rational basis."

Why don't you keep jacking off to authority like a little mindless sheep instead of thinking for yourself? :rolleyes:





:facepalm: You JUST said that paedophilia is a fetish (sexual attraction to an object) and that paraphilia is a learned behaviour. Children AREN'T objects and paedosexuality is innate, therefore it obviously can't be a paraphilia :rolleyes:
:rolleyes:

Here are some reasons why paedosexuality is not a "paraphilia"

Marshall, W. L., & Eccles, A. (1991). "Issues in clinical practice with sex offenders," Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 6, 69-70.
DSM III-R states that "people with a Paraphilia commonly suffer from several varieties: in clinical settings that specialize in the treatment of Paraphilias, people with these disorders have an average of from three to four different Paraphilias" (American Psychiatric Association, 1987, p. 280).

Fedora O., Reddon J. R., Morrison J. W., Fedora S. K., Pascoe, H., & Yeudall, L. T. (1992). "Sadism and other paraphilias in normal controls and sex offenders," Archives of Sexual Behavior, 21(1), 1-15.
"Pedophilia had a low incidence of co-occurrence with other paraphilias whereas sadism, transvestism, fetishism, and the courtship disorder paraphilias had a high incidence of co-occurrence. [...] These results suggest that pedophilia occurred alone much more frequently than did the other paraphilias." [Of subjects who responded most to children, 90.9% of non-offenders, 84.7% of sexually non-aggressive offenders, and 50% of sexually aggressive offenders showed no other paraphilia.]


Here are some reasons why paedosexuality is not a mental illness.

Green, R. (2002). "Is pedophilia a mental disorder?," Archives of Sexual Behavior, 31(6), 467-471.
"Sexual arousal patterns to children are subjectively reported and physiologically demonstrable in a substantial minority of “normal” people. Historically, they have been common and accepted in varying cultures at varying times. This does not mean that they must be accepted culturally and legally today. The question is: Do they constitute a mental illness? Not unless we declare a lot of people in many cultures and in much of the past to be mentally ill. And certainly not by the criteria of DSM."

Szasz, T. (2002). "Sins of the Fathers: Is child molestation a sickness or a crime?," Reason, Aug/Sep, 2002.
"Crimes are acts we commit. Diseases are biological processes that happen to our bodies. Mixing these two concepts by defining behaviors we disapprove of as diseases is a bottomless source of confusion and corruption. [...] Geoghan himself has been convicted of molestation in one case and faces trial in another. But if his behavior was caused by "the disease of pedophilia," a condition that not only compelled him to fondle boys but erased his memory of those "diseased acts," how can it be just to punish him? [...] Today virtually any unwanted behavior, from shopaholism and kleptomania to sexaholism and pedophilia, may be defined as a disease whose diagnosis and treatment belong in the province of the medical system. Disease-making thus has become similar to lawmaking. [...] The entire psychiatric literature on what used to be called "sexual perversions" is permeated by the unfounded idea -- always implied, sometimes asserted -- that "abnormal" sexual impulses are harder to resist than "normal" ones."

Haeberle, Erwin J. (2010). "Paraphilia - A Prescientific Concept," Magnus Hirschfeld Archive for Sexology.
"Anyone who uses a term like 'paraphilia' thereby indirectly claims to know what is right and wrong in human sexual behavior. [...] To us modern sexologists, however, it should be clear by now that the Natural Law doctrine has no place in science. It should therefore be equally clear that the term 'disorder' is no longer acceptable when it comes to something as complex as human sexual behavior. Scientists should leave such moral certainty (better: dogmatism) to the religious authorities. In conclusion: We in sexology should, once and for all, get rid of the moralistic, prescientific terms 'paraphilia' and 'disorder'."

Hinderliter, Andrew C. (2010). "Defining Paraphilia: Excluding Exclusion," Open Access Journal of Forensic Psychology, 2, 241–272.
The author challenges a number of common arguments for retaining pedophilia in the DSM. "This leaves only the issue of pedophilia. The arguments considered so far render highly tenuous the basis of retaining it in the DSM, but the issue is complicated because there is a legitimate treatment issue involved—people distressed about their attraction to children wanting clinical help in resisting these desires should have access to such help. Whether the current state of this diagnosis is effective for promoting such treatment, especially in non-correctional populations, and how (and if) it could be modified to better support such treatment are important questions deserving further research and consideration (for concerns that these have not been taken seriously in the DSM revision process, see B4U-ACT, 2010). Even if pedophilia is kept in the DSM on the basis of pragmatic arguments about facilitation of treatment, this still leaves serious doubt about whether it is an appropriate diagnosis on which to base indefinite civil commitment."

"Disorder" or "paraphilia" is a moralistic, subjective, non-medical term.



:facepalm: Luckily other people unlike you can read, so they'll know that everything I've bolded disproves your assertion that child-adult sexual contact is universally and inherently harmful, regardless of whether it's coercive or non-coercive.



Yes, continue in your denial. All these so called "victims" of child "abuse" all declare they are unharmed and feel positive about these experiences, therefore they are all lying. Good one :congrats:

I guess you'll just ignore all the other evidence that it caused no harm which wasn't self-reported (the majority) measured by independent objective tests. :rolleyes:
LOLOL except they don't! Because you haven't provided one expert or even one single study which agrees with you. Whereas I've now provided about 50. You are so ridiculously in denial :lol:

I justify things which according to scientific evidence is not harmful. Get over it.



LOL I hope anyone reading this finds it as funny as I do! He claims to know psychology yet can't provide ANYTHING to back up his statements. :rofl:
Wow... i think the number of neg reps you got shows what people think of your opinions. Well done though for presenting them in a structured manner, better than seeing horrific signs such as 'God hates fags'. I also hate when people use religion as an excuse for hatred so thanks for not going down that route!

Anyway, you also forget about people who simply don't want to have children? Why would nature make them do that?

My view is that we shouldn't mess with nature. If people are gay, or want to be gay then so be it. When you say it should be 'addressed by doctors', it reminds me of sick psychologists that attempt to change a person's sexual preferences. But think of the case of David Reimer, who's gender was reassigned to female, then reassigned back to male but he grew up just feeling wrong, suffered multiple problems and later commited suicide.

10% of people are said to be gay. That means 90% will still carry on the human race, so really from an evolutionary perspective it doesn't matter whether people are gay or not. It's not some disease that will start spreading.

Gay people can be very loving parents, they can care for others' children and adopt or foster. The human instinct to care for children is still present.

How you can even think of comparing paedophilia with homosexuality is beyond me. Pedophilia is a crime, it harms people, scars them for life. Being gay is not, it doesn't harm anyone, only those that can't get over their own bigotry. For paedophiles, there is an issue of right or wrong - what they are doing is wrong but they still do it. Being gay is not wrong, it's just a feeling, who you love, who you want to spend the rest of your life with.

Humans mostly follow their natural instinct, their gut feeling with things including who they are attracted to. When you ask a gay man or woman "how do you know you're gay?", the most likely answer you'll get it "I just know, I've always known" (my brother included). There are very few that will say "I chose to be".
Reply 455
Original post by mmmpie
You're conflating social acceptability with psychosocial classification.
I'M conflating them? They are one and the same thing according to the APA. Homosexuality is now socially acceptable? Now it's magically not a mental illness anymore. Thanks APA!

Original post by mmmpie
For all I know you have a point, but your insistence on non-standard terminology, your verbosity, your inability to respond to direct questions with simple answers, and frankly your lack of clarity and structure in what you're saying is doing a very good job of obscuring it.

I'm happy to clarify anything you wish, It's all pretty clear to me but I think people might be having problems thinking outside of their preconceived notions...
Reply 456
Original post by RowingGoose
How you can even think of comparing paedophilia with homosexuality is beyond me. Pedophilia is a crime, it harms people, scars them for life. Being gay is not, it doesn't harm anyone, only those that can't get over their own bigotry. For paedophiles, there is an issue of right or wrong - what they are doing is wrong but they still do it. Being gay is not wrong, it's just a feeling, who you love, who you want to spend the rest of your life with.


Paedophilia is not a crime, there is no law in the world against it. It exists solely in the mind. It cannot harm anyone.

Things are only wrong if they are scientifically proven to cause harm, whereas adult-child relationships are not harmful when there isn't an element of coercion according to scientific research.

Original post by RowingGoose
Humans mostly follow their natural instinct, their gut feeling with things including who they are attracted to. When you ask a gay man or woman "how do you know you're gay?", the most likely answer you'll get it "I just know, I've always known" (my brother included). There are very few that will say "I chose to be".

My view is that we shouldn't mess with nature. If people are gay, or want to be gay then so be it.

And why shouldn't the same apply to paedophiles who don't harm anyone?
Original post by Stefan1991
No, of course coercive sex has the potential to be harmful. I'm saying that non-coercive sex isn't harmful. If you look up, I just posted the scientific evidence proving this. It does occur in the animal kingdom, e.g. in humans. It is an innate and naturally occurring human condition in the same way homosexuality is. I don't believe sexual orientation should be restricted to gender, it is much more than that. Many academic sources define it as independent of gender, the sum of all our emotional/romantic/sexual attractions.

In the same way homosexuality was not a valid sexual orientation, paedosexuality is not now, because of the bias inherent in society.

Paedoexuality refers to the sexual orientation of being attracted towards children. It is the romantic attraction and sexuality towards children. Not a "philia" which is just a friendly brotherly love of something.
Of course it is recognised.

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

http://english.wodc.nl/onderzoeksdatabase/aard-en-omvang-pedoseksuele-delicten.aspx

Paedosexual delinquency: A study into prevalence, circumstances and criminal justice interventions Leuw, E., Bijl, R.V., Daalder, WODC :The Hague (2004)


You didn't prove anything whatsoever. Just because you believe it shouldn't be restricted to gender, doesn't mean that it shouldn't. You are confusing opinion with fact.

Your link takes me to an article to pedophilia. Link me an actual academic article on 'paedosexuality' several, from a respected expert, then we can talk.

It isn't officially recognised, you have given me a wiki article which doesn't actually refer to 'paedosexuality' and when I google it I get an Urban Dictionary entry, and pro-pedophilia website. What are you not getting about this? You have no CREDIBLE sources, even your wikipedia one goes to pedophilia.

I'm ending this conversation, you can't seem to come up with coherent arguments, and even claimed that pedophilia can be beneficial to a child, I have had enough of banging my head against the wall. Have a nice night.
Reply 458
Original post by Tommyjw
Homosexuality is natural, paedophilia isnt.

We are designed not to be 'partaking' in paedophilia thus showing it is a disorder, it is not the same for homosexuality.

There are no other reasons needed.

Seems people cant read a dictionary, bless (:


How can you say that, though? That's your opinion - in what way is homosexuality more natural than paedophilia.
Reply 459
Original post by AlmostChicGeek
You didn't prove anything whatsoever. Just because you believe it shouldn't be restricted to gender, doesn't mean that it shouldn't. You are confusing opinion with fact.


What is or isn't a "sexual orientation" is completely up to opinion. Same with the concept of a mental "disorder". They are subjective, moralistic terms with no basis in objective science.

Original post by AlmostChicGeek
Your link takes me to an article to pedophilia. Link me an actual academic article on 'paedosexuality' several, from a respected expert, then we can talk.
The link below it was an actual academic article on paedosexuality. It's the correct non-biased term for what you know as "paedophilia".

Original post by AlmostChicGeek
I'm ending this conversation, you can't seem to come up with coherent arguments, and even claimed that pedophilia can be beneficial to a child, I have had enough of banging my head against the wall. Have a nice night.

I provided several studies which claim child sexual activity is not necessarily harmful and can often be beneficial. Check the last two pages.

Latest