Hey there! Sign in to join this conversationNew here? Join for free
x Turn on thread page Beta

Is paedophilia a sexuality? watch

Announcements
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    Just curious to know people's views on whether a sexual attraction towards children or minors, paedophilia, is (or should be) considered a genuine sexuality? And also how this should be managed within society in regards to the protection of children.
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    I'm not sure if it is because paedophiles are still presumably heterosexual or homosexual, i.e. attracted to children of a certain gender.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    No. It is a psychiatric disorder.
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    There are people who have, unfortunately, are only attracted to prepubescent children, so yes it is a sexuality. It's referred to as a disorder however.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by hoping4Astars)
    No. It is a psychiatric disorder.
    Why is it? Is this to say that it is a psychiatric disorder if young teenage girls are sexually attracted to elderly men, just for example?
    Offline

    10
    ReputationRep:
    Extract from: http://www.theguardian.com/society/2...-desires-light

    tldr: points in bold
    "Debate still rages, too, about the clinical definition of paedophilia. Down the years, the American Psychiatric Association ... classified it as a sexual deviation, a sociopathic condition and a non-psychotic medical disorder... paedophiles' IQs are, on average, 10% lower than those of sex offenders who had abused adults, and that paedophiles are significantly less likely to be right-handed than the rest of the population, suggesting a link to brain development ...But there is a growing conviction, notably in Canada, that paedophilia should probably be classified as a distinct sexual orientation, like heterosexuality or homosexuality....Chris Wilson of Circles UK, which helps released offenders, also rejects the idea that paedophilia is a sexual orientation: "The roots of that desire for sex with a child lie in dysfunctional psychological issues to do with power, control, anger, emotional loneliness, isolation."...The reclassification of paedophilia as a sexual orientation would, however, play into what Goode calls "the sexual liberation discourse", which has existed since the 1970s. "There are a lot of people," she says, "who say: we outlawed homosexuality, and we were wrong. Perhaps we're wrong about paedophilia."Social perceptions do change. Child brides were once the norm; in the late 16th century the age of consent in England was 10 ... Tom O'Carroll, a former chairman of PIE and tireless paedophilia advocate with a conviction for distributing indecent photographs of children following a sting operation, that society's outrage at paedophilic relationships is essentially emotional, irrational, and not justified by science. "It is the quality of the relationship that matters," O'Carroll insists. "If there's no bullying, no coercion, no abuse of power, if the child enters into the relationship voluntarily … the evidence shows there need be no harm."... This is not, obviously, a widely held view. Mccartan uses O'Carroll's book Paedophilia: the Radical Case in his teaching as "it shows how sex offenders justify themselves". Findlater says the notion that a seven-year-old can make an informed choice for consensual sex with an adult is "just preposterous. It is adults exploiting children." Goode says simply: "Children are not developmentally ready for adult sexuality," adding that it is "intrusive behaviour that violates the child's emerging self-identity" and can be similar in long-term impact to adults experiencing domestic violence or torture... "
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by XcitingStuart)
    But sexual orientations can't overlap between themselves.
    That's a weak because bisexual people could be said to be both homosexual and heterosexual.
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by callum_law)
    That's a weak because bisexual people could be said to be both homosexual and heterosexual.
    No because they're said to be bisexual.

    And remember I said generally because these 'labels' are categories for a spectrum (just to keep in mind.)

    It'd be stupid to call a bisexual such, because if we broke down the words into "homo-" and "hetero-" etc. that would imply (generally) exclusive attractions to the same, or opposite sex.

    Sorry but there isn't an issue here.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by XcitingStuart)
    It'd be stupid to call a bisexual such, because if we broke down the words into "homo-" and "hetero-" etc. that would imply (generally) exclusive attractions to the same, or opposite sex.
    No, saying someone has a same-attraction (homosexuality) and saying someone has an opposite-attraction (heterosexuality) does not negate one another. Similarly, someone calling themselves an Anglophile does not preclude their being a Francophile concurrently. Bisexual is a much more suitable term, and avoids the superfluity of expressing both terms to describe someone, but that again does not reflect too much on the semantics of the terms.
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by callum_law)
    No, saying someone has a same-attraction (homosexuality) and saying someone has an opposite-attraction (heterosexuality) does not negate one another. Similarly, someone calling themselves an Anglophile does not preclude their being a Francophile concurrently. Bisexual is a much more suitable term, and avoids the superfluity of expressing both terms to describe someone, but that again does not reflect too much on the semantics of the terms.
    Saying someone has a same-sex attraction and an opposite-sex attraction doesn't negate each other.
    Saying someone is homosexual and is heterosexual does, because there's for a start a more apt term, bisexual, and you can make homosexual and heterosexual exclusive.

    Of course, you've completely forgotten my previous point.
    I did say that (para)philias (para- in the context of sexual attractions, but let's extend it to philias as well, as I hadn't thought of philias because of its irrelevance) can generally overlap. (The exception I know of currently being paedohebephilia with paedophilia or hebephilia, as paedophilia is a more apt term and the new category.)

    Recapping, I did say that paraphilias can overlap, and so can paraphilias with sexual orientations (can have multiple paraphilias with a sexual orientation), but you generally can't have two sexual orientations overlapping (I'll clarify, in terms of categories/labels.) The only exception really is the conflation of bisexuality and pansexuality (in all the predominant sexual orientations I know off the top of my head.)
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by callum_law)
    That's a weak because bisexual people could be said to be both homosexual and heterosexual.
    This is all in the context of categories and labels, not actually base sexual attractions.

    That's the easiest thing to say.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by XcitingStuart)
    Saying someone has a same-sex attraction and an opposite-sex attraction doesn't negate each other.Saying someone is homosexual and is heterosexual does, because there's for a start a more apt term, bisexual, and you can make homosexual and heterosexual exclusive.
    You have already said that.

    (Original post by XcitingStuart)
    Of course, you've completely forgotten my previous point.
    I omitted all mention of paraphilia in quoting you. That might have suggested to you that I did not want to discuss it because I agreed with you, rather than my attempting to have a selective memory. Lessen your tone, maybe; you come off as petulant.
    Offline

    12
    ReputationRep:
    I think so, yes. After all I don't think they choose their thoughts or control their thoughts. Thoughts, people can't help but they can control their actions. It's when they turn thoughts into actions that are the problem, not the fact they have these thoughts
    Offline

    17
    ReputationRep:
    It's a disease and pedos have no place in our society
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by kristen2)
    I think so, yes. After all I don't think they choose their thoughts or control their thoughts. Thoughts, people can't help but they can control their actions. It's when they turn thoughts into actions that are the problem, not the fact they have these thoughts
    Well, you could say it's both, because if they didn't have those fantasies and desires, they wouldn't do those actions.

    In some (probably many) cases, offenders are themselves victims of childhood abuse, since people have some tendency to act out things that hurt, where the original memory is not easy to access, because it is painful.
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by alexschmalex)
    It's a disease and pedos have no place in our society
    Please, "paedos", stick to the British spelling alright?

    Also I don't think it can be called a disease, so much as something that has been pathologised and stigmatised, understandably so. I just don't think disease can be used in this context.

    Perhaps mental disorder is a more apt term?

    (Original post by callum_law)
    You have already said that.



    I omitted all mention of paraphilia in quoting you. That might have suggested to you that I did not want to discuss it because I agreed with you, rather than my attempting to have a selective memory. Lessen your tone, maybe; you come off as petulant.
    When I said "of course", I meant that referring to "similarly, someone calling themselves an Anglophile does not preclude their being a Francophile concurrently." then "you've completely forgotten my previous point" was referring to my comment about paraphilias can overlap.

    Not "Of course, you've completely forgotten my previous point" all in one. That's probably why I came across as petulant, and I should have made that clear.
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Fullofsurprises)
    Well, you could say it's both, because if they didn't have those fantasies and desires, they wouldn't do those actions.

    In some (probably many) cases, offenders are themselves victims of childhood abuse, since people have some tendency to act out things that hurt, where the original memory is not easy to access, because it is painful.
    Apparently (though I haven't done any formal research on this) many/most child molesters are actually opportunists. Other reasons I've heard of are things like manipulation, power plays, etc. etc.
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    No it is a paraphilia (a "dangerous fetish" per se), not a sexuality. One can still be heterosexual whilst at the meantime having a sexual interest in children.
    Offline

    17
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by XcitingStuart)
    Please, "paedos", stick to the British spelling alright?

    Also I don't think it can be called a disease, so much as something that has been pathologised and stigmatised, understandably so. I just don't think disease can be used in this context.

    Perhaps mental disorder is a more apt term?
    I'm not British so I'll stick with American spelling

    I don't care for the wording, to me it's sick to look at children/teenagers that way. Wouldn't call it a mental disorder though because they usually function as normal people except they just have those sick urges, and calling it a disease would be rude to people that actually have diseases. Either way it's definitely wrong, unnatural, and disgusting (sorry, is my bias and disdain showing?)
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by alexschmalex)
    I'm not British so I'll stick with American spelling

    I don't care for the wording, to me it's sick to look at children/teenagers that way. Wouldn't call it a mental disorder though because they usually function as normal people except they just have those sick urges, and calling it a disease would be rude to people that actually have diseases. Either way it's definitely wrong, unnatural, and disgusting (sorry, is my bias and disdain showing?)
    Regardless we're on a UK student forum.

    It's not wrong, as such, as opposed to it's not right. Emphasis.
    It is not unnatural; it is natural, because it occurs without human interference. Semantics.
    Yes your bias and disdain is showing.

    (I'm a semantic person.)
 
 
 
Poll
Do you like carrot cake?
Useful resources

The Student Room, Get Revising and Marked by Teachers are trading names of The Student Room Group Ltd.

Register Number: 04666380 (England and Wales), VAT No. 806 8067 22 Registered Office: International House, Queens Road, Brighton, BN1 3XE

Write a reply...
Reply
Hide
Reputation gems: You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.