Thread: Paedophilia as an orientation Board: Oblivion / Ship of Fools.
To visit this thread, use this URL:
http://forum.ship-of-fools.com/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=70;t=030649
Posted by Ender's Shadow (# 2272) on
:
Given the shredding I got recently for paralleling homosexuality and paedophilia, I find it ironic to find that this is a view gaining increasing academic respectability. From the article:
quote:
Like many forms of sexual deviance, pedophilia once was thought to stem from psychological influences early in life. Now, many experts view it as a sexual orientation as immutable as heterosexuality or homosexuality. It is a deep-rooted predisposition — limited almost entirely to men — that becomes clear during puberty and does not change.
Posted by tclune (# 7959) on
:
Find it ironic in DH where it belongs.
--Tom Clune, Purgatory Host
Posted by Siegfried (# 29) on
:
(Wow--typed my post in Purgatory only to have the thread move under me! I'm dizzy!)
One ethics blog (which, if you look at the "about" section) does not increasing academic respectability make.
Posted by Imersge Canfield (# 17431) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Ender's Shadow:
Given the shredding I got recently for paralleling homosexuality and paedophilia, I find it ironic to find that this is a view gaining increasing academic respectability. From the article:
quote:
Like many forms of sexual deviance, pedophilia once was thought to stem from psychological influences early in life. Now, many experts view it as a sexual orientation as immutable as heterosexuality or homosexuality. It is a deep-rooted predisposition — limited almost entirely to men — that becomes clear during puberty and does not change.
'as a sexual orientation as immutable as heterosexuality'
You werent shredded but your views were challanged, a rather different matter, I would have thought.
Looking forward to another edifying and godly thread.
On a more personal note, may I inquire into what make of shuvel you employ on these occasions ?
Posted by Jade Constable (# 17175) on
:
Newsflash - people find comparing the sexual abuse of children to sex between consenting adults offensive.
Mental illness isn't chosen either, but nobody would say that same-gender attraction is a mental illness - or rather, they couldn't say it and expect to get away with it. Not everything that's sex-related and not chosen counts as an orientation comparable to homosexual, bisexual etc.
Posted by Doublethink (# 1984) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Ender's Shadow:
Given the shredding I got recently for paralleling homosexuality and paedophilia, I find it ironic to find that this is a view gaining increasing academic respectability. From the article:
quote:
Like many forms of sexual deviance, pedophilia once was thought to stem from psychological influences early in life. Now, many experts view it as a sexual orientation as immutable as heterosexuality or homosexuality. It is a deep-rooted predisposition — limited almost entirely to men — that becomes clear during puberty and does not change.
That source doesn't cite any academic studies.
Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Ender's Shadow:
Given the shredding I got recently for paralleling homosexuality and paedophilia, I find it ironic to find that this is a view gaining increasing academic respectability. From the article:
quote:
Like many forms of sexual deviance, pedophilia once was thought to stem from psychological influences early in life. Now, many experts view it as a sexual orientation as immutable as heterosexuality or homosexuality. It is a deep-rooted predisposition — limited almost entirely to men — that becomes clear during puberty and does not change.
Given the views you hold about homosexuality, I find it even more ironic that you would quote something that suggests it's immutable.
Posted by alienfromzog (# 5327) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Doublethink:
quote:
Originally posted by Ender's Shadow:
Given the shredding I got recently for paralleling homosexuality and paedophilia, I find it ironic to find that this is a view gaining increasing academic respectability. From the article:
quote:
Like many forms of sexual deviance, pedophilia once was thought to stem from psychological influences early in life. Now, many experts view it as a sexual orientation as immutable as heterosexuality or homosexuality. It is a deep-rooted predisposition — limited almost entirely to men — that becomes clear during puberty and does not change.
That source doesn't cite any academic studies.
Yep.
Interestingly, the link is to an ethics blog which is discussing the ethical implications of the concept. The point being that the discussion is one that is taking place in newspaper opinions pages.
That is a hell of a long way from - what was it again? - oh yeah, I know; 'increasing academic respectability'
![[Disappointed]](graemlins/disappointed.gif)
C- Must try harder...
or not.
AFZ
[ 21. January 2013, 23:14: Message edited by: alienfromzog ]
Posted by Ariston (# 10894) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Siegfried:
One ethics blog (which, if you look at the "about" section) does not increasing academic respectability make.
Not even that; one pull quote from the LA Times cited by someone writing for an ethics blog that also discusses things like infidelity and the morals of spreading AIDS (that is, things the author of the blog presumably doesn't endorse) does not academic respectability make.
(Crosspost with AFZ, who's making basically the same point)
[ 21. January 2013, 23:21: Message edited by: Ariston ]
Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on
:
In any case, ES, the very blog you link to goes on to explain why equating homosexuality with paedophilia in practice is completely wrong even accepting for the sake of argument that they're both innate.
quote:
The reason we think that homosexual intercourse is morally acceptable (and was before society “recognized” it as so) seems primarily to do with the understanding that it is a consensual act, not because it follows from an innate orientation rather than an acquired desire. Similarly, it would be strange to say that we think having sex with a child is wrong because pedophilia is an acquired rather than an innate attraction; we think it is wrong because children are not capable of consenting to sex due largely to their underdeveloped reasoning and decision-making capacities.
Posted by gorpo (# 17025) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Jade Constable:
Newsflash - people find comparing the sexual abuse of children to sex between consenting adults offensive.
Mental illness isn't chosen either, but nobody would say that same-gender attraction is a mental illness - or rather, they couldn't say it and expect to get away with it. Not everything that's sex-related and not chosen counts as an orientation comparable to homosexual, bisexual etc.
Is there anything other then people´s sensibilities that makes it okay to say feeling attracted by very young people is an "illness" but feeling atracted by people of the same sex is not? The world health organization only declassified homossexuality as an illness in 1990. But it´s easier to shut the discussion by sayng something like "No one could say it and get away with it".
And no, nobody is comparing sex between consenting adults with child abuse. But, *newsflash*, people can feel sexuallly atracted by kids and adolescents without taking action, and therefore, not committing abuse, just like some people might feel homossexual desire for their whole lives and not ever engage in homossexual relationship. The question remains. Why is feeling atracted by younger people so instrinsically different from feeling atracted by someone of the same gender.
The argument that it offends people is not scientifically valid.
Posted by Soror Magna (# 9881) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by gorpo:
... The question remains. Why is feeling atracted by younger people so instrinsically different from feeling atracted by someone of the same gender. ...
Pedophiles are not attracted to children in the same way that adults are attracted to adults. Pedophiles are attracted to children because they can control the child and the relationship. Pedophilia is more accurately compared to domestic violence, not to any particular sexual orientation. Like rape, it`s not about sex, it`s about power.
Posted by Jade Constable (# 17175) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by gorpo:
quote:
Originally posted by Jade Constable:
Newsflash - people find comparing the sexual abuse of children to sex between consenting adults offensive.
Mental illness isn't chosen either, but nobody would say that same-gender attraction is a mental illness - or rather, they couldn't say it and expect to get away with it. Not everything that's sex-related and not chosen counts as an orientation comparable to homosexual, bisexual etc.
Is there anything other then people´s sensibilities that makes it okay to say feeling attracted by very young people is an "illness" but feeling atracted by people of the same sex is not? The world health organization only declassified homossexuality as an illness in 1990. But it´s easier to shut the discussion by sayng something like "No one could say it and get away with it".
And no, nobody is comparing sex between consenting adults with child abuse. But, *newsflash*, people can feel sexuallly atracted by kids and adolescents without taking action, and therefore, not committing abuse, just like some people might feel homossexual desire for their whole lives and not ever engage in homossexual relationship. The question remains. Why is feeling atracted by younger people so instrinsically different from feeling atracted by someone of the same gender.
The argument that it offends people is not scientifically valid.
Being attracted to children (and let's not cloud the issue by saying 'young people') is about power relationships. A child can never respond to an adult in a sexual/romantic way in a way they truly understand. It is about the other person in the relationship being vulnerable.
Paedophilia is inherently unhealthy because of the uneven power balance, same-gender attraction is not.
Posted by Evensong (# 14696) on
:
quote:
Having sex with a child, then, will be wrong regardless of whether the underlying attraction is deeply-rooted in the offender’s biology.
I rather think that says it all.
We may have innate or acquired impulses that we have to control because they are bad for others and society. Pedophilia is one of them.
[ 22. January 2013, 01:49: Message edited by: Evensong ]
Posted by no prophet (# 15560) on
:
Ender's Shadow, you will continue to be shredded if the opinion is repeated. Evensong is correct, as are the others posting about this.
Consider: being a psychopath, who considers themselves a person, and other people as "things" to be used with callousness*, presents themselves with superficial charm*, and is basically parasitic*, preying on others. It is also an orientation, or if you prefer, a personality disorder. Not curable, but manageable, and the management will include locking them away from those they may harm.
*look up psychopathy (key author, Robert Hare) somewhere and you'll find these are the components of it from factor analysis.
It doesn't matter that it's an orientation, it matters that it hurts others. You can find parallels to the article you posted from other jurisdictions. Here's one from Canada, Pedophilia a ‘sexual orientation’ experts tell Parliament.
quote:
“True pedophiles have an exclusive preference for children, which is the same as having a sexual orientation. You cannot change this person’s sexual orientation.” He added, however: “He may however remain abstinent.”
The parliamentary summary of the testimony includes the following, and it may be reproduced in quite a bit of detail per these permissions with out concerns about copyright, so I will below:
quote:
This leads us to believe that therapy or an order given by a judge for a course of therapy, even though it may be seen as good news by all, cannot be perceived as an alternative to incarceration nor a substitute for punishment.
When we speak of therapy or when individuals get therapy and we feel as though everyone is pacified, the good news is often illusory. For instance, it is a fact that real pedophiles account for only 20% of sexual abusers. If we know that pedophiles are not simply people who commit a small offence from time to time but rather are grappling with what is equivalent to a sexual orientation just like another individual may be grappling with heterosexuality or even homosexuality, and if we agree on the fact that true pedophiles have an exclusive preference for children, which is the same as having a sexual orientation, everyone knows that there is no such thing as real therapy. You cannot change this person's sexual orientation. He may however remain abstinent....
...pedophiles are people who prefer prepubescent children. They're not interested in 15-year-olds who have an adult body shape or anything like that. They're not interested in those kinds of people. They have quite a restricted area of sexual interests in terms of the kinds of body types that their victims have. There is no evidence that this sort of preference can be changed through treatment or through anything else.
Treatment for those offenders shades into management, where you essentially have to teach someone to live within their sexual preference structure. They have to find other kinds of outlets. They have to avoid high-risk situations. They have to do all those sorts of things. But I think that most people would agree that this kind of sexual preference pattern—an actual preference for prepubertal children—is not alterable by any kinds of current treatments.
I personally do not want any of these people near my children, nieces, nephews, or any other vulnerable children, and I'm certain it will remain criminal to exploit children, with, we can hope, longer and more comprehensive supervision that represents a continuum of care and control between incarceration, community monitoring, and removal back to lock-up when the risk is assessed as rising.
We've come a long way in my lifetime from people considering that children can seduce adults, thus reversing the responsibility from the adult. We're not going to return. And it ultimately doesn't matter that pedophilia is an orientation for us to lock up those who harm others.
[ 22. January 2013, 02:46: Message edited by: no prophet ]
Posted by Boogie (# 13538) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by no prophet:
Consider: being a psychopath, who considers themselves a person, and other people as "things" to be used with callousness*, presents themselves with superficial charm*, and is basically parasitic*, preying on others. It is also an orientation, or if you prefer, a personality disorder. Not curable, but manageable, and the management will include locking them away from those they may harm.
Yes, paedophilia must to be treated as a disorder - just psychopathy is.
I find it astounding that anyone wants to equate paedophilia with homosexuality. What could their motive possibly be?
Sex between consenting adults is a million miles from the terrible exploitation of children.
Posted by Doc Tor (# 9748) on
:
Two things: whilst I am heterosexual, I neither get, nor want, credit for not being rapey. Because despite being attracted to women, I consider the consent thing really very important.
Secondly, I don't get credit (though I really should) for not being an axe-wielding homicidal maniac. The Lord knows that there are many blessed subtractions I could make from His flock, but I somehow I manage to stay my hand and not go on a murderous rampage.
I will have another piece of chocolate, though.
You see, we can be in control of our desires, and we can differentiate between ones that harm others, harm only ourselves, and are harmless. Something tells me that two men putting their penises in each other by mutual consent isn't harming you. Or me. Whereas raping children is harming lots of people, not least the child.
Posted by Doublethink (# 1984) on
:
Is this the view of one specific Canadian research group - I can't find anything much else in terms of academic study.
Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on
:
It's interesting that the quote in the OP compares paedophilia with both heterosexuality and homosexuality, in the sense of being 'immutable', whatever that means. But the OP compares paedophilia with homosexuality. Now why would that be?
Posted by Sergius-Melli (# 17462) on
:
I always get a bit wooly on this topic when it comes to the lower end of the spectrum.
I can never remember the exact position the law takes when a 15 year old and a 17 year old are in a sexualised relationship - since it is the age of consent thing that makes all the difference, but the gap between the two people is so insignificant, is this classed as paedophilia or not...
Posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider (# 76) on
:
No, it isn't. It might be, legally, with a much older adult, but it isn't what a psychologist would consider paedophilia.
Posted by Sergius-Melli (# 17462) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
No, it isn't. It might be, legally, with a much older adult, but it isn't what a psychologist would consider paedophilia.
But I'm concerned legally if someone could point me in the direction of something to help...
It may well be 'common' rape I'm not sure...
But anyway, Karl, at what age is someone considered to be a paedophile then? What is the exact age difference between the older and the younger?
Posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider (# 76) on
:
It's not about age differences, not from a psychological viewpoint. Paedophilia is an attraction to pre-pubescent children. After puberty, an individual may be legally a child but they are biologically - body shape, facial appearance - adult. Normal sexual attraction is to individuals with adult body shape and appearance.
I can only imagine that the age difference comes in in a limited manner during puberty, when the body shape is changing from child to adult. At this stage an individual may appear quite adult to other pubescents, but not to grown adults. This last bit is pure guesswork.
Posted by Sergius-Melli (# 17462) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
It's not about age differences, not from a psychological viewpoint. Paedophilia is an attraction to pre-pubescent children. After puberty, an individual may be legally a child but they are biologically - body shape, facial appearance - adult. Normal sexual attraction is to individuals with adult body shape and appearance.
I can only imagine that the age difference comes in in a limited manner during puberty, when the body shape is changing from child to adult. At this stage an individual may appear quite adult to other pubescents, but not to grown adults. This last bit is pure guesswork.
Cheers, I know little, if anything about this topic, it is not something I have dealt with much except where it rears its head in the SSR debates - and I don't normally have to go further than look at the general dynamics of such a 'relationship'.
Posted by iamchristianhearmeroar (# 15483) on
:
If Pedophilia were, for the sake of argument, an immutable orientation can it be explained from any sort of evolutionary perspective? I can't see any possible evolutionary advantage it might give.
I am not a biologist, so help me out here folks.
Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by iamchristianhearmeroar:
If Pedophilia were, for the sake of argument, an immutable orientation can it be explained from any sort of evolutionary perspective? I can't see any possible evolutionary advantage it might give.
I am not a biologist, so help me out here folks.
I can't believe I'm going to answer this, but as the argument appears to have stuck in my brain, despite me wishing I hadn't read it where I read it in the first place...
I have seen it argued that it provides a means for the older ones to teach the younger ones how to have good sex.
Posted by iamchristianhearmeroar (# 15483) on
:
Yikes.
Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on
:
One interesting thing about this, is that hetero- and homosexuality are concerned with the sex of the partner, whereas paedophilia is concerned with their age, or stage of development. Thus, they are in a sense orthogonal to each other.
Thus, I assume that most male paedophiles are heterosexual, (they like little girls), although I don't have the stats to hand. On the other hand, one might argue that terms like 'heterosexual' should not be used about paedophiles, since they are showing regressed behaviour.
Posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider (# 76) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
One interesting thing about this, is that hetero- and homosexuality are concerned with the sex of the partner, whereas paedophilia is concerned with their age, or stage of development. Thus, they are in a sense orthogonal to each other.
Thus, I assume that most male paedophiles are heterosexual, (they like little girls), although I don't have the stats to hand. On the other hand, one might argue that terms like 'heterosexual' should not be used about paedophiles, since they are showing regressed behaviour.
I understand that most paedophiles who target children of either sex identify as heterosexual in what adult relationships they may have or would desire to have.
Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on
:
You've just got to keep an eye on these heterosexuals. Bloody dangerous people, if you ask me.
Posted by teddybear (# 7842) on
:
In addition to all of the above, something else that caught my eye was this comment: quote:
limited almost entirely to men.
Which is blatantly false. All you have to do is do a Google search to see numerous accounts of women arrested for child molestation. While men may be in the majority, the above statement is still false.
Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on
:
Let me summarize my views then: paedophilia is in the main a dangerous heterosexual perversion. Accordingly, heterosexual teachers, and in fact, anyone heterosexual working with children and young people, should be kept under close scrutiny.
[ 22. January 2013, 12:10: Message edited by: quetzalcoatl ]
Posted by no prophet (# 15560) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Doublethink:
Is this the view of one specific Canadian research group - I can't find anything much else in terms of academic study.
Yes, that's about it for info.
Note that what they are saying is not making the homosexual-pedophilia orientation inequivalency the way ES has tried. They are just saying that the pedo orientation is difficult to manage and therapy is really difficult. It is more like managing and controlling than curing the orientation that makes them harm children.
The Canadian criminal sentencing landscape has changed under the current Stephen Harper Conservative gov't. They've brought mandatory minimums sentences and equated various things that aren't quite equal, such as child rape with child porn possession. The statements and information from Canada must be read within the politically motivated context. While both child rape and child porn are terrible, most of us would consider the first worse than the second, though the second can lead to the first. There's a difference between control from the criminal side, which also contains punishment, and the psychological side which contains teaching offenders control - though it must be clear that control is not cure and these people are always potentially dangerous.
I understand that the Christian empathy and love wants to extend to pedophiles, but it is misplaced to consider that this love might include reduced control. It must contain increased control both as taught to those who have motivation and desire to have sex with kids, and from the outside with monitoring and if necessary lock-up.
Posted by glockenspiel (# 13645) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Ender's Shadow:
Now, many experts view it as a sexual orientation as immutable as heterosexuality or homosexuality. QUOTE]
IE, Not necessarily immutable, after all.
Posted by Liopleurodon (# 4836) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by iamchristianhearmeroar:
If Pedophilia were, for the sake of argument, an immutable orientation can it be explained from any sort of evolutionary perspective? I can't see any possible evolutionary advantage it might give.
I am not a biologist, so help me out here folks.
The trouble with this is that most evolutionary takes on behaviour are pretty much speculation based on people's preconceptions. A lot of sexist bullshit on human evolutionary psychology is taken seriously even though it only really serves to confirm the author's prejudices. So take any hypothesis about evolutionary psychology with a truckload of salt. (V.S. Ramachandran was able to demonstrate this with a complete bullshit article, Why Do Gentlemen Prefer Blondes? which he managed to get published. It's a great read.)
Having said that, I can see a possible route by which this could happen. A bias towards very young girls and very early marriage (particularly in society where powerful men are polygamous) could be useful in getting your claim in on a particular young woman before she has the chance to go elsewhere. And indeed, it seems to be the case that where powerful men can have multiple wives, the girls often get married very early. It wouldn't be such a jump from going for pubescent girls to going for prepubescent girls as a supernormal stimulus of youth. Probably only ever a small fraction of people get it to this extent.
But that, like so many other evolutionary psychology hypotheses, is probably bollocks that someone just made up. This is not to say that evolution itself is bollocks (it's not - it's very firmly backed by a shit-ton of evidence), but when you search for a way in which natural selection could plausibly support any behaviour, you'll find it, whether there's any truth to it or not. So it's a pretty pointless endeavour.
[ 22. January 2013, 12:51: Message edited by: Liopleurodon ]
Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on
:
I also don't think that everything that exists in nature has an 'evolutionary advantage'. Surely, this is a canard, which is used by those hostile to evolution - what is the advantage of male nipples, and so on? What is the advantage of male baldness? Or, for that matter, depression?
Posted by iamchristianhearmeroar (# 15483) on
:
I am in no way hostile to evolution. I was just interested as to whether there could be any possible biological explanation as to why paedophilia might be an immutable characteristic.
It was probably a red herring, certainly not a canard (rouge)!
Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by iamchristianhearmeroar:
I am in no way hostile to evolution. I was just interested as to whether there could be any possible biological explanation as to why paedophilia might be an immutable characteristic.
It was probably a red herring, certainly not a canard (rouge)!
No, I didn't think you were. I am suspicious of the word 'immutable' in any case. I suppose it means innate? As far as I can see, research into the causes of paedophilia is ongoing, and highly tentative.
Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
Let me summarize my views then: paedophilia is in the main a dangerous heterosexual perversion. Accordingly, heterosexual teachers, and in fact, anyone heterosexual working with children and young people, should be kept under close scrutiny.
Heterosexual males in the main. So let's shoot the bastards and reduce the problem. It'll lower adult rape occurrence as well.
[ 22. January 2013, 18:38: Message edited by: lilBuddha ]
Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on
:
Or random castrations of heterosexual males? - pour encourager les autres, of course.
See Voltaire: "In this country, it is wise to kill an admiral from time to time to encourage the others."
Posted by Honest Ron Bacardi (# 38) on
:
Why random? Go for the whole thing - make it universal. It's more equitable, and will certainly make for a quieter and more serene future.
Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on
:
No more babies?
Posted by Honest Ron Bacardi (# 38) on
:
Who needs 'em?
Posted by Siegfried (# 29) on
:
I suppose it is too much to hope that ES would deign to comment on the responses to his OP.
Posted by Honest Ron Bacardi (# 38) on
:
...but enough of such pleasantries. Back to the matter of paedophilia as an orientation.
This one often (elsewhere) seems to stir up strong emotions. Can we really say (where we = people whose orientation is largely comprised of hetero- and/or homosexual desires) that paedophiles also have an orientation in the same way? Is this threatening in some way? If so, why? What do we actually mean by "orientation" anyway?
Posted by glockenspiel (# 13645) on
:
'Orientation' is about as useful a word as 'natural' - it gets us precisely nowhere. Even trying to define it will send us round and round in ever-dizzying circles ...
... Whereas the rightful place of age limits (which is what we're really talking about in the crime of paedophilia) is something to be discussed - different cultures can bring different insights to the table ...
... Unless I've missed something, and someone is actually proposing a change in the law????
Posted by Honest Ron Bacardi (# 38) on
:
I haven't seen anyone here suggesting a change in the law.
But the concept of orientation has been of importance historically in conceptualizing why our erotic desires are not infinitely malleable in regard to their external objects, so I can't agree with your "gets us nowhere" part.
Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on
:
But previous threads indicate that glockenspiel feels our desires are far more malleable than many other Shipmates think.
Posted by Ender's Shadow (# 2272) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Sergius-Melli:
I always get a bit wooly on this topic when it comes to the lower end of the spectrum.
I can never remember the exact position the law takes when a 15 year old and a 17 year old are in a sexualised relationship - since it is the age of consent thing that makes all the difference, but the gap between the two people is so insignificant, is this classed as paedophilia or not...
The law varies wildly between different jurisdictions.
England and Wales:
1) if the younger participant is between 13 and 16, a crime of unlawful sexual intercourse has occurred. This is a lesser offence. If coercion has been present, then an offence of rape becomes applicable.
2) If the younger participant is younger than 12, then it is always rape.
In practice prosecutors tend not to be terribly interested if the age difference isn't a lot.
In the US and other Western jurisdictions the age of consent varies wildly; the youngest appears to be Spain at 13 and Germany at 14. Some parts of the states it's 18. See Wikipedia for an overview.
The term 'statutory rape' seems to be used in the US for an offence that we would term 'Unlawful sexual intercourse'. The situation is further clouded by the fact that some states add an 'age range' allowance, formalising the recognition that a couple of teenagers, one of whom happens to be just over and the other just under, are deemed not to be worth worrying about.
Posted by Honest Ron Bacardi (# 38) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
But previous threads indicate that glockenspiel feels our desires are far more malleable than many other Shipmates think.
Well - I tried to make the phraseology non-contentious, as you may have spotted. And I wasn't trying to do anything that hasn't already been touched on by others in this thread. I just think that a bit more focus on the aspects I mentioned might prove fruitful. But if some people really do think our erotic desires are entirely at our beck and call, then I guess we don't have the grounds for any discussion at all.
Posted by Lucia (# 15201) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Honest Ron Bacardi:
...but enough of such pleasantries. Back to the matter of paedophilia as an orientation.
This one often (elsewhere) seems to stir up strong emotions. Can we really say (where we = people whose orientation is largely comprised of hetero- and/or homosexual desires) that paedophiles also have an orientation in the same way? Is this threatening in some way? If so, why?
I imagine part of what is going on is that someone who believes the sexual expression of a homosexual orientation is wrong might be wanting to draw attention to there being other 'sexual orientations' that it is morally wrong to express. Presumably to make the point that it is not always right to express something that seems to be innate and unchangeable. However this seems to me an entirely simplistic approach as it completely ignores questions both of consent and harm, so these situations can never be considered to be equivalent.
Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on
:
It's a confusion to equate paedophilia with heterosexuality or homosexuality. Those are to do with the sex of one's partner; paedophilia is to do with age, or stage of development.
Thus, many male paedophiles appear to have a heterosexual choice of partner, young girls.
Thus, they are independent systems (orthogonal).
Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on
:
Indeed, gender attraction is just one part of our sexual makeup - although a very big part.
It seems to me we all have different 'types' of people that we're sexually attracted to. Being homosexual doesn't mean I'm attracted to every male. I come across people with different attractions in terms of age (older/younger/similar age to themselves), race (same/different), build (skinny, muscular, fatter), height, hair length... the list goes on and on.
Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on
:
I suppose the homophobes used to want to equate homosexuality with paedophilia as a 'bad' orientation, but it's just confused thinking, in any case. There are plenty of heterosexual paedophiles, so in fact, you could describe paedophilia in many men as a heterosexual perversion.
Mention of the word 'gender' reminds me how confused the whole area is, as many people use this word to refer to sex. But I was taught to use gender to refer to masculinity and femininity, as independent systems. But the fact that there is this confusion is perhaps indicative of how sexuality and gender are not full of sharp edges, but sort of melting clocks.
[ 23. January 2013, 10:24: Message edited by: quetzalcoatl ]
Posted by Robert Armin (# 182) on
:
Suppose the argument ran: Paedophilia is an orientation in the same way that being left handed is. I suspect a Lot of left handers would object if that were repeated widely, on the basis that eventually it would give the impression that being left handed was the same as being a paedophile.
Isn't it funny how touchy some people are?
Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on
:
It would also be an incoherent thing to say, since handedness and sexual object choice are not exactly congruent.
Posted by Honest Ron Bacardi (# 38) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Robert Armin:
Suppose the argument ran: Paedophilia is an orientation in the same way that being left handed is. I suspect a Lot of left handers would object if that were repeated widely, on the basis that eventually it would give the impression that being left handed was the same as being a paedophile.
Isn't it funny how touchy some people are?
I realise the background to it, RA, but as quetzalcoatl says, the solution is to point out the confused thinking involved in such constructions.
Posted by mousethief (# 953) on
:
Given the context in which "orientation" is used in our culture, I can draw no other conclusion than that calling paedophilia an orientation is a blatant attempt to offend.
Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
Given the context in which "orientation" is used in our culture, I can draw no other conclusion than that calling paedophilia an orientation is a blatant attempt to offend.
Especially as the people giving the argument are typically the same ones who oppose treating homosexuality as being equal to heterosexuality.
Posted by Honest Ron Bacardi (# 38) on
:
Well, how about this then?
What is orientation? It concerns how our erotic ideas are primarily oriented towards one sex or the other. Sometimes to both. Let's leave any other examples out for the moment to avoid contentiousness. We know next to nothing about what the causes of that might be at present, though we suspect it to be influenced by hormonal, environmental and genetic factors, though not necessarily equally in everyone. It's based on observations, questionnaires and the like, and the subsequent observation that there are close similarities, whatever the object.
As a concept, it belongs in the realm of phenomenology. If you don't know what that means, Wikipedia is your friend, though I can't link due to the URL being disallowed by board software. It is not a thing in itself. The idea never was intended to be that, and if you treat it that way by reifying it, you will push it beyond the load it is able to bear.
So if it is to be a coherent concept, there needs to be something about the phenomena that makes them coherent right across all the categories mentioned. That's not a problem - the idea was conceived precisely because the sort of phenomena we see in one, we see in the others. It's not my purpose to lay out rigid definitions here but the sort of things covered are well known - a relative constancy in the nature of the objects of our erotic desire, a high level of immutability, and so on. It's a coherent concept precisely because whatever we see in one sexuality, we find in the others.
So what are we to say about something that meets all the criteria we use to define orientation, but which is not on the homo to heterosexual axis, but some other axis entirely?
Well - some things are not going to count as orientations - quite a few paraphilias don't seem to meet the criteria. But what if paedophilia does? I'm not sure I know enough about it to pontificate on the matter, but superficially there seems a strong probability it might. The recidivism rate of offenders and reports of people who offend multiple times are widely known and point towards a similar sort of immutability at least.
So what are we going to do scientifically if it transpires we have a phenomenological concept designed to cover erotic attraction, from which we have decided to exclude one category - perhaps the category that cries out for explanation the most - ? We could I suppose invent a separate but parallel category of things that meet the definitions but that we are obliged to call something else. Maybe we shall have to. But if we do it is almost certainly going to run into flack about scientific freedoms, ability of the scientific community to devise its own taxonomies, and the like. Some of these things may be defendable convincingly. Others may not.
Once again, the defence against this ridiculous linkage of paedophilia with homosexuality is to point out the nonsense in comparing them in the first place. Some paedophiles are attracted just to underage children. Some are attracted to underage children as well as mature adults. And some of the latter are attracted to a different sex of child compared with their adult attractions. And some are attracted to all children but only one adult sex. All these are known examples. None of these examples is remotely like heterosexual or homosexual desire in presentation, and the one thing they share in common is the erotic attraction towards children.
If everything else outside the object of attraction is the same, then there is no scientific case for erecting a new category. If it transpires that paedophilia winds up in the same category as homosexuality, then by definition it is in the same category as heterosexuality. If you do want to erect a new category you will need to defend it on the basis of why it needs to be different in this case. I'm not saying you can't do it - I'm trying to point out it may be less logical than you think, and that may bring more new problems in its train.
Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Honest Ron Bacardi:
The recidivism rate of offenders and reports of people who offend multiple times are widely known and point towards a similar sort of immutability at least.
Many types of abuse have a high rate of recidivism. Traits ingrained early in life are difficult to change.
The point isn't truly about the actual meaning of the word orientation, but its usage in this context. And the usage is typically disingenuous.
Posted by mousethief (# 953) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Honest Ron Bacardi:
The recidivism rate of offenders and reports of people who offend multiple times are widely known and point towards a similar sort of immutability at least.
Immutability doesn't have to be called "orientation." Everything that's immutable isn't an orientation, even if it has to do with what one does with one's naughty bits. It's offensive to use that word. WHY DO IT?
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
And the usage is typically disingenuous.
That too.
[ 23. January 2013, 20:35: Message edited by: mousethief ]
Posted by Honest Ron Bacardi (# 38) on
:
Oh, I dare say it arose here (and no doubt elsewhere too) disingenuously.
But you are both overlooking the point that we are talking about sexual orientation. The category was erected (no pun intended) years ago. References to other potential orientations are of no relevance.
I don't think the fact that a naughty homophobe may have tweaked my nose with it forms a logical defence. Emotional, yes. If you want to persist with your plan, it would be prudent to work out what the downside of doing that might be. If it works out to be potentially serious and you can't see how to mitigate it, then you would be far better advised to drop it, however much tongue biting that involved. But then science has always been like that.
I'm not wildly concerned about which way it might go, so far as categories are concerned, though I would hate to see science impeded, even temporarily. If your best defence is an emotional one, I wouldn't put any money on a separate category surviving. That could lead to other arguments bundled with it being discounted as well, on the "how can we trust these people?" basis.
But I have no more insight in what the future may hold than anyone else. And in the longer run we will probably stop talking about observational categories like orientation, in favour of more detailed understandings, though that's probably at least decades, or even a century away.
Posted by Soror Magna (# 9881) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Honest Ron Bacardi:
... If it transpires that paedophilia winds up in the same category as homosexuality, then by definition it is in the same category as heterosexuality. ...
This.
Posted by RooK (# 1852) on
:
Please pardon me while I point out the following:
Ender's Shadow final warning in November.
His final C1 nail.
He is now gone.
Posted by glockenspiel (# 13645) on
:
What exactly did he allege?
Posted by Louise (# 30) on
:
Discussion of host or Admin decisions belongs in the Styx & not here. There is an open thread 'Rhetorical Devices in Hell threads' with the background.
Thanks
Louise
Dead Horses Host
Posted by glockenspiel (# 13645) on
:
It would have been useful to have been shown the offending 'straw that broke the camel's back' passage, all the same.
Posted by Louise (# 30) on
:
Hosting
Hi Glockenspiel, discussion/ commenting on host and admin rulings - especially of admin rulings - belongs only in The Styx and not on the thread or board which occasioned the ruling. I see this rule has been broken on another thread and that may have confused you, but in future you need to stick to this.
thanks,
Louise
Dead Horses Host
Hosting off
Posted by glockenspiel (# 13645) on
:
Yes, I understood that. It was a vague expression of a wish, that's all.
Posted by glockenspiel (# 13645) on
:
I will hop over to Styx and express the wish there ...
Posted by Louise (# 30) on
:
Thanks!
Posted by Honest Ron Bacardi (# 38) on
:
I tuned in at lunchtime to find matters had moved on. Having read some of the background to ES's previous form on this subject, I think I should offer an apology to mousethief and lilBuddha (specifically) if my frustration came over at all snippy. If you have been reading all that sort of continuing insinuation of identity I can understand you may well have a sense of exasperation about it all.
I hope I made clear in earlier postings why I think - which others had already pointed out - that the work claimed as being ironic is in fact offering no support whatever to ES's POV.
Rather than continue any discussion, which was what I thought I would be doing, let me just offer a couple of reference links so people can read and make up their own minds.
Firstly - a link to a discussion on a forum for cognitive sciences practitioners, covering a lot of the stuff raised so far.
Secondly - a link to a Google search for academic papers and publications using the terms paedophilia and orientation, simply so you can see that the discussion about paedophilia being classified as an orientation goes back at least to the 1980's in academia and is not a promotion by the usual suspects, as was alleged by someone earlier.
If you are either interested or concerned, please do at least take a look for yourself. I hope the importance of not accidentally getting this one wrong are sufficiently obvious.
Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on
:
HRB, I thought you were doing a rather good job at continuing discussion in a sensible vein.
Posted by Honest Ron Bacardi (# 38) on
:
Thanks, orfeo - I know things sometimes get a bit heated, but reading the back history on the Styx (I never read the other thread currently canned) I felt rather more sympathy might have been appropriate, had I realised.
Posted by mousethief (# 953) on
:
HRB: Not offended, I just think that given the way the word "orientation" is used, it's a mistake to try to use it for aught else in the sexual proclivity realm than the sex/gender of one's desirands, and particularly not for things that are exploitative and harmful. It's kind of like saying "What if lazy is a race?" Even if laziness is inborn in some people, there's just no reason to go there. It's offensive and serves absolutely no positive purpose. All pain. No gain. Why do it?
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
It seems to me we all have different 'types' of people that we're sexually attracted to. Being homosexual doesn't mean I'm attracted to every male. I come across people with different attractions in terms of age (older/younger/similar age to themselves), race (same/different), build (skinny, muscular, fatter), height, hair length... the list goes on and on.
I wonder if you think those particular factors in your attraction are as unchosen as the sex of your desirands? My first girlfriend in high school, quite randomly, had red hair, and for years I was overwhelmingly attracted to gingers, and even went so far as to marry a redhead, much to my harm. The attraction I felt toward people with the hair color and complexion of my first girlfriend didn't seem "chosen" at all -- but I remember clearly that I wasn't attracted to her for that reason.
Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on
:
I'm not entirely sure, mousethief. I don't think there's a lot of conscious choice involved, and I'm not sure just how stable people's preferences tend to be.
Nor am I sure how much of it is inbuilt versus cultural. I sometimes make the quip that I take after my mother because we both like English lads (my Dad is English), but I honestly couldn't tell you where my preference for certain physical features most often found in English, Dutch and German populations comes from.
In many cases there isn't the same kind of sense of moral judgement that certain preferences are 'right' or 'wrong', so we all just get on with liking the kinds of people we like. Race is probably the one that tends to be most controversial. Over here in homoland I certainly encounter lots of people who make statements either about the race they prefer, or their lack of racial preference.
Posted by glockenspiel (# 13645) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
HRB: Not offended, I just think that given the way the word "orientation" is used, it's a mistake to try to use it for aught else in the sexual proclivity realm than the sex/gender of one's desirands, and particularly not for things that are exploitative and harmful. It's kind of like saying "What if lazy is a race?" Even if laziness is inborn in some people, there's just no reason to go there. It's offensive and serves absolutely no positive purpose. All pain. No gain. Why do it?
Ermm, because people will tend to want to extend the logic of the ground you have already ceded.
Posted by Honest Ron Bacardi (# 38) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by glockenspiel:
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
HRB: Not offended, I just think that given the way the word "orientation" is used, it's a mistake to try to use it for aught else in the sexual proclivity realm than the sex/gender of one's desirands, and particularly not for things that are exploitative and harmful. It's kind of like saying "What if lazy is a race?" Even if laziness is inborn in some people, there's just no reason to go there. It's offensive and serves absolutely no positive purpose. All pain. No gain. Why do it?
Ermm, because people will tend to want to extend the logic of the ground you have already ceded.
In what way. glockenspiel?
(mousethief - will get back to you later - short of time this a.m.)
Posted by glockenspiel (# 13645) on
:
Ermmm, in much the same way as already described.
Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on
:
HRB,
Not offended by your efforts, however much I disagree.
Not certain the arguments from the world of psychology are as weighty as one might think. If ever there were an example of a contradictory, mutable field of study; psychology would be it. But I think it irrelevant regardless. There are many words which have different nuance in technical discussion than they do in common usage. In common usage, orientation does not work.
Posted by mousethief (# 953) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by glockenspiel:
Ermmm, in much the same way as already described.
You're going to have to do better than this. A very cryptic answer and a non-response to a request to expand on it don't advance the conversation. Please explain what you mean.
Posted by Honest Ron Bacardi (# 38) on
:
mousethief -
Sorry about the delay. You asked - quote:
HRB: Not offended, I just think that given the way the word "orientation" is used, it's a mistake to try to use it for aught else in the sexual proclivity realm than the sex/gender of one's desirands, and particularly not for things that are exploitative and harmful. It's kind of like saying "What if lazy is a race?" Even if laziness is inborn in some people, there's just no reason to go there. It's offensive and serves absolutely no positive purpose. All pain. No gain. Why do it?
It's a fair question (apart from your analogy which I don't think works, though that's not critical as you only meant it to be illustrative). I think I've raised a few of these points earlier, but it won't do any harm to set them out in this context. Some of these reasons are a lot more important than others, but just off the top of my head -
1. The history behind this is that homosexuality used to be classified as a paraphilia. Without looking it up, I think that was up to DSM-III. Two things happened to change that. The first was the observation that homosexuality did not share most of the cluster of typical characteristics of the other paraphilias as defined then. Such characteristics as it did show were not any different to the characteristics of heterosexuality, save only in the object of erotic desire which defined it. Secondly, it was pointed out that with this discrepancy, the only function of the category "paraphilia" was pejorative. Paraphilias were sexual stuff we didn't like. Clearly that is no basis for any scientific categorization.
So it was no longer classified as a paraphilia, not because - as some would have it - it became socially acceptable, but because its presenting characteristics were not those of what we would now call paraphilias. It was not "treatable". It did not cause distressingly obsessive and intrusive thoughts, at least no more than the average heterosexual reports. The childhood trauma that so often seemed to be present in cases of paraphilia seemed to be mysteriously absent. And so on.
As I said earlier, this is a phenomenological classification, and on that basis it was declassified as a paraphilia and is now simply regarded as an orientation. Social acceptability - not just of homosexuality but of different manifestations of both hetero and homosexuality - is a separate matter, although contemporaneous, and cross-informed.
What we consider to constitute an orientation derives from such considerations. It is not an arbitrary category; it derives from all sorts of cognitive studies which led to this.
The reclassification of paedophilia as an orientation continues that work, which is ensuring the consistency of what we speak about. To return to a classification based on sexual stuff we like and stuff we don't like would be highly retrogressive. Who can say what the future holds if you put the whole area back into public estimation? The whole business of gay people being accepted as not making perverse choices (as it was then seen) was moved forward when it got separated from that.
2. The above is also important as it has a major bearing on how we deal with paedophiles, both those who offend and those who report paedophilic urges. It is of paramount importance that we do not waste finite resources on snake-oil "cures". Yes, there are claims for reparative therapies for paedophiles, and that despite the notorious recidivism rate for offenders, which would only confirm the dereliction of the medical model mindset (something that has infected or is missing from the patient, and which can be treated).
3. One of the key components of much breakthrough research is the use of analogy. This is generally true, not specific to this field. If paedophilia shares many characteristics with vanilla sexualities, then insights into those may well be relevant to studies in paedophilia.
This is highly relevant to public funding of projects. If researchers are inhibited from being able to undertake comparative work (because it's "not comparable" in public estimation), then progress will be delayed fairly severely. Not by scientists, who can always think of ways round definitional issues, but because it will be far less acceptable to fund this area of work in the estimation of the public.
4. The issue of scientific freedoms - the ability of scientists to determine meaningful taxonomies. The whole destruction of "racial theory" relied on this. Would you want to be on the wrong side of that all over again? In particular, the social sciences are very reliant on this, much more than the physical sciences.
5. In fact, I think the usage is unremarkable in professional circles. It's certainly not new. What I think is happening is that it is breaking through into the consciousness of the public, and across sideways into other disciplines. Opposing it may be far more of an uphill task than you imagine. That's not a reason for not doing it if you feel it wrong of course, but it might give you cause to pause and think why so many in the field are leaning this way.
This all off the top of my head. In summary -
1. The risk of going back to socially determined "what we dislike" categorization.
2. The wasting of resources on inappropriate but socially acceptable "therapies" for paedophiles.
3. Inhibiting research in areas that have proved reliably promising in other scientific areas.
4. Inhibiting scientific freedom to conceptualize problems.
5. You probably don't have much of a chance anyway. (OK, this isn't really a reason, but it's worth knowing about).
As I said in an earlier post, I'm not primarily here to sell the idea. I'm about 75% sure it is well-founded, but you never know. My main consideration is that I worry about what might go wrong if it turns out to be true and there is a co-ordinated attempt to oppose it. I think it could be very damaging in the ways I've listed above. Maybe others.
Posted by Honest Ron Bacardi (# 38) on
:
Sorry, lilBuddha, posted my reply to mousethief before reading your last post. I need to hit the sack but will respond tomorrow.
Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on
:
quote:
The reclassification of paedophilia as an orientation continues that work, which is ensuring the consistency of what we speak about. To return to a classification based on sexual stuff we like and stuff we don't like would be highly retrogressive. Who can say what the future holds if you put the whole area back into public estimation? The whole business of gay people being accepted as not making perverse choices (as it was then seen) was moved forward when it got separated from that.
Homosexuality was changed because there is no inherent harm in it. The same cannot be said for paedophilia. This is not a judgement, but an observation.
If reclassification leads to better science, better treatment; that is good. If the goal is to perceive it as no different to heterosexuality or homosexuality, this is a classification error.
Posted by churchgeek (# 5557) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Sergius-Melli:
I always get a bit wooly on this topic when it comes to the lower end of the spectrum.
I can never remember the exact position the law takes when a 15 year old and a 17 year old are in a sexualised relationship - since it is the age of consent thing that makes all the difference, but the gap between the two people is so insignificant, is this classed as paedophilia or not...
Legally, the issue of statutory rape comes in.
I knew a guy who went to jail for statutory rape, because his ex-girlfriend, who was about 2 years younger than him, told her dad they'd had sex. He was 18 or 19, I think. That made him legally an adult and her legally a child, even though their age difference was slight and the sex was consensual. It was pure revenge on her part, as far as I could tell. This was before sex offenders registries, so hopefully he hasn't wound up on any for that. He was actually a very good and nice guy.
Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
Homosexuality was changed because there is no inherent harm in it.
Hmm. From earlier in Honest Ron Bacardi's post than the bit you quoted, I'm not sure that's really correct.
Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on
:
Perhaps I am a bit dense at the moment, but I do not see your objection.
Posted by mousethief (# 953) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Honest Ron Bacardi:
1. The risk of going back to socially determined "what we dislike" categorization.
I don't understand how not calling pedophilia an "orientation" would lead to that.
quote:
2. The wasting of resources on inappropriate but socially acceptable "therapies" for paedophiles.
And this is all because we don't use the word "orientation" for pedophilia?
quote:
3. Inhibiting research in areas that have proved reliably promising in other scientific areas.
Same reaction.
quote:
4. Inhibiting scientific freedom to conceptualize problems.
Again. Conceptualize all you want. But once a word is in the public domain, and using it for a certain scientific purpose would be socially harmful, pick another goddamn word. Why is this so hard? Make one up. Scientists do it all the time. If you can't think of one, call one of the big pharmaceuticals. They excel at it.
quote:
5. You probably don't have much of a chance anyway. (OK, this isn't really a reason, but it's worth knowing about).
Not against a raft of well-placed people determined to use a word in socially harmful ways, probably not.
Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
quote:
Originally posted by Honest Ron Bacardi:
1. The risk of going back to socially determined "what we dislike" categorization.
I don't understand how not calling pedophilia an "orientation" would lead to that.
Well, I certainly did. HRB's point is that if pedophilia gets classified as a type of mental disorder, and that's incorrect, then a whole lot of attitudes and approaches towards it are likely to be misconceived.
It's perfectly possible to call something an 'orientation' and still think that it's bad. Witness the current attitude of the Catholic Church to homosexuality, which as I understand it is to acknowledge that it's innate but to still consider it something that must not be acted on.
Such an attitude is entirely possible with pedophilia, with the reasons WHY it must not be acted on being different from, and more defensible than, the reasons put forward for homosexuality.
Posted by mousethief (# 953) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
quote:
Originally posted by Honest Ron Bacardi:
1. The risk of going back to socially determined "what we dislike" categorization.
I don't understand how not calling pedophilia an "orientation" would lead to that.
Well, I certainly did. HRB's point is that if pedophilia gets classified as a type of mental disorder, and that's incorrect, then a whole lot of attitudes and approaches towards it are likely to be misconceived.
It's perfectly possible to call something an 'orientation' and still think that it's bad.
My point is rather that we can do all that HRB would want to do without using the word "orientation" at all. HRB seems to think that only by using this one particular word can we actually make progress as concerns paedophiles. Unless and until we call it an orientation, it will continue to be misdiagnosed and mistreated and miscategorized and nothing correct and good and proper can possibly happen.
Posted by Honest Ron Bacardi (# 38) on
:
lilBuddha -
quote:
Not certain the arguments from the world of psychology are as weighty as one might think. If ever there were an example of a contradictory, mutable field of study; psychology would be it. But I think it irrelevant regardless.
Psychology changed over the twentieth century, from the grand narratives of Freud for example - which belong somewhere between Icelandic sagas and those yarns Uncle Harry used to tell after one too many - to a quantitative science, such as in this paper. It was similar to the transition that chemistry made from alchemy years earlier. A lot of the theories from the earlier days have been discarded or refined as they are subjected to experimental investigation.
But all science is mutable. Or rather all the models we test in science are provisional. Probably the example of the removal of homosexuality from the category of paraphilia is as relevant an example of that as any other I can think of. But in any event, the progress of the social sciences especially involves prolonged use of parallel models and their development.
What I am heading towards is to say that I think your dismissal of psychology is too broad. It looks suspiciously like shooting the messenger because you don't like the news he brings. You need to look at the topic under consideration. If I were trying to convince you of some thing concerned with motivation - where there are multiple overlapping attempts at explanations - you would have a point. But I'm not. Indeed the argument rests solely on the phenomenology. It's simply the repeated observance of characteristics that cluster together. In due course, the holy grail will be to find ways in which they diverge. Then we might be on the verge of understanding . But we can't do that until we have compared them together.
quote:
There are many words which have different nuance in technical discussion than they do in common usage. In common usage, orientation does not work.
I don't understand what you mean by your last sentence. But I agree with the first one certainly. However, I'm not aware of any difference between the public understanding of orientation and its technical use. I think if you were to ask the man in the street what "orientation" means, you would get an answer that was broadly in line with its technical use.
quote:
Homosexuality was changed because there is no inherent harm in it. The same cannot be said for paedophilia. This is not a judgement, but an observation.
If reclassification leads to better science, better treatment; that is good. If the goal is to perceive it as no different to heterosexuality or homosexuality, this is a classification error.
Re the classification, I was referring to its classification in earlier DSM manuals. But those categories are not there to say what is right or wrong - they are to help practitioners correctly diagnose patients who present themselves in some sort of distress. The situation of a mad axeman who kills people but derives pleasure from it is unlikely to be in there as well. That would be an area of psychiatric and legal concern.
I don't think you are right about "no difference". We are talking about the character of how the symptoms present themselves, not what effects they have on third parties. Any description of orientation relates to internal disposition, not effects. This has nothing whatever to do with making paedophilia acceptable in any way.
The issue of harmlessness is very important I agree. I think a couple of issues have got confused here. The issue of harmlessness reklates to why homosexuality is not in the DSM at all, rather than why it why it was not just moved from paraphilia to some other category or a category of its own. But strictly speaking, neither heterosexuality nor homosexuality are "harmless" generally. Each has problematic, not to mention derelict manifestations. They will continue to fill doctors and counsellors waiting rooms I'm sure.
Posted by Honest Ron Bacardi (# 38) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
quote:
Originally posted by Honest Ron Bacardi:
1. The risk of going back to socially determined "what we dislike" categorization.
I don't understand how not calling pedophilia an "orientation" would lead to that.
Well, I certainly did. HRB's point is that if pedophilia gets classified as a type of mental disorder, and that's incorrect, then a whole lot of attitudes and approaches towards it are likely to be misconceived.
It's perfectly possible to call something an 'orientation' and still think that it's bad.
My point is rather that we can do all that HRB would want to do without using the word "orientation" at all. HRB seems to think that only by using this one particular word can we actually make progress as concerns paedophiles. Unless and until we call it an orientation, it will continue to be misdiagnosed and mistreated and miscategorized and nothing correct and good and proper can possibly happen.
mt - sorry I haven't had the time today I was expecting to have. I realise I haven't addressed your points in your previous post (I'll try again tomorrow) but honestly I'm not trying to do anything as strong as in your last paragraph. I'm simply trying to do one of those Director of Research type things. That is to say, just trying to ensure that as many ways of looking at things have been considered in the whole business. You asked me why would anyone want to use the word orientation this way. There are reasons, and there could be unexpected consequences of getting it wrong. I'm not saying any or all those things will happen. But those sort of things have happened when we got these sort of issues wrong in the past. It's reasonable to learn from that surely?
So far as using the word orientation in everyday speech, that's not really a problem. It hardly crops up at all. The problem is it likely won't be under your control, and the way it arose here is illustrative of that. I hope in passing I've also pointed out logically justifiable ways of countering the misuse of orientation as a concept (ie by ES) when it arises.
Posted by mousethief (# 953) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Honest Ron Bacardi:
But those sort of things have happened when we got these sort of issues wrong in the past. It's reasonable to learn from that surely?
But again, why is the use of one particular word for one particular thing an "issue" that can cause all these dire things to happen? From a linguistic point of view, it's absurd. Like I said above, you can make up a word. That way you can be sure everyone knows what it means, and it won't have any negative effects on research at all. Placing all this importance on the absolutely dire necessity of using "orientation" to describe something that is innate or not chosen is silly.
Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on
:
Mousethief, we get into arguments about precise words all the time. The one that immediately leapt to mind was "why aren't all these gays happy with civil unions? why do they have to be called marriages?"
We use words to classify things. Things described with the same word belong together.
[ 26. January 2013, 23:30: Message edited by: orfeo ]
Posted by mousethief (# 953) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
Things described with the same word belong together.
This is backwards from what HRB is saying, which is that things that belong together must have the same word, and IT MUST BE THIS ONE.
Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on
:
No, it isn't backwards at all. Unless you propose no longer calling heterosexuality and homosexuality orientations.
Posted by mousethief (# 953) on
:
You didn't answer what I said.
You said: things that described with the same word belong together.
I said HRB said: things that belong together need to use the same word.
These are not equivalent. You didn't answer this.
Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
You didn't answer what I said.
You said: things that described with the same word belong together.
I said HRB said: things that belong together need to use the same word.
These are not equivalent. You didn't answer this.
Well I agree with both of them.
Because the purpose of using the same word for things is to indicate that they belong together, the best way to indicate that things belong together is to use the same word.
As evidenced by the whole marriage debate. The whole reason for wanting the 'marriage' used is as a signifier of what SSM supporters believe, that a same-sex relationship is the same kind of thing as an heterosexual one.
[ 27. January 2013, 05:54: Message edited by: orfeo ]
Posted by Honest Ron Bacardi (# 38) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
quote:
Originally posted by Honest Ron Bacardi:
But those sort of things have happened when we got these sort of issues wrong in the past. It's reasonable to learn from that surely?
But again, why is the use of one particular word for one particular thing an "issue" that can cause all these dire things to happen? From a linguistic point of view, it's absurd. Like I said above, you can make up a word. That way you can be sure everyone knows what it means, and it won't have any negative effects on research at all. Placing all this importance on the absolutely dire necessity of using "orientation" to describe something that is innate or not chosen is silly.
mt - I really don't think you've taken on board the import of my previous post to you. Maybe we cross-posted or something, but I was trying to answer your question "why do it?" by pointing out the sort of pressures that could be expected to arise if we don't permit it. I'm not running around like Chicken Little saying the sky is going to fall in, which I get the impression you would have me doing.
I'm happy to engage as long as you are, but there seems to be some sort of impasse here. Orfeo seems to understand the point I'm making. So can I ask you what it is you fear from such a classification that uses "orientation" for paedophilia?
Posted by mousethief (# 953) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Honest Ron Bacardi:
So can I ask you what it is you fear from such a classification that uses "orientation" for paedophilia?
In turn I think I have made this clear, but I will reiterate. 1. causing unnecessary offense; 2. giving ammunition to nasty jackasses to attack GLBTs.
Posted by Boogie (# 13538) on
:
I would add 3. Making paedophilia sound almost natural and ok.
Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on
:
I would add all three.
In language, common usage trumps technical usage. Common usage of orientation is what makes this word a problem.
Posted by mousethief (# 953) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Boogie:
I would add 3. Making paedophilia sound almost natural and ok.
Well pointed out.
Posted by JoannaP (# 4493) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Boogie:
I would add 3. Making paedophilia sound almost natural and ok.
If by natural you mean "innate", then surely that is what this thread is discussing. If a predisposition is determined by one's genes and the environment in your mother's womb, surely that is irrelevant to the morality or otherwise of expressing that predisposition (which I assume is what you mean by "ok").
Posted by JoannaP (# 4493) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Soror Magna:
Pedophiles are not attracted to children in the same way that adults are attracted to adults. Pedophiles are attracted to children because they can control the child and the relationship. Pedophilia is more accurately compared to domestic violence, not to any particular sexual orientation. Like rape, it`s not about sex, it`s about power.
quote:
Originally posted by Jade Constable:
Being attracted to children (and let's not cloud the issue by saying 'young people') is about power relationships. A child can never respond to an adult in a sexual/romantic way in a way they truly understand. It is about the other person in the relationship being vulnerable.
Actually, the LA Times article quoted by the blog in the OP seems to suggest that this is not the case for paedophiles, who apparently make up less than half of those convicted for molesting children.
Posted by Honest Ron Bacardi (# 38) on
:
Drawing threads of an argument together is always useful, mt.
I would say if you are determined in this then how would you suggest we address the issue yourselves? How do you propose we deal with paedophilia in a way that is scientifically consistent, defensible and yet addresses your concerns?
For my part I would respond to your points as follows -
1. Causing unnecessary offence. Too vague to address without specifying who to and why. I'm not up for offending people for offence's sake, but why are people going to be offended by this? If you can be more specific who they are and why then maybe something could be worked out.
2. Giving ammunition to nasty jackasses to attack GLBTs. Nasty jackasses will be nasty jackasses - you can rely on that. The science is out there, and they will read it. ES clearly did to an extent and at second hand, though obviously not as far as following shipmates did. So expect more incoming. What's your defence going to be? I don't like this?
If the position you favour persists in advocating refusal to engage with the science then frankly I've no idea what will happen. But it will involve them looking like they have read the work and you haven't. In the long run if the science is sound it will prevail anyway, and they will lose anyway. Your position doesn't stand to lose anything but face, but while it persists it will militate against progress for the reasons I gave earlier. I've given you several reasons why that particular argument does not fly. I can't honestly understand why you don't use more defensible arguments.
3. Making paedophilia sound almost natural and ok This is the one that makes me despair the most. Natural is not, and never was a defence. People keep pointing this out to you - Ken did most recently. The world is full of things that are natural yet are harmful, dangerous and illegal. "Natural" explains whence things arise. To use natural as a sole defence for anything is to make a biologically essentialist argument. Heterosexuality and homosexuality are not OK because they are natural. They occur because they are natural and we accept them socially because they are not just harmless but actually beneficial - or at worst neutral. Pedophilia is not OK - it is none of those latter things.
4. In language, common usage trumps technical usage. Common usage of orientation is what makes this word a problem. But right now common usage is the same as technical usage. Nobody has actually proposed a change in the meaning of "orientation" except you (where you = anyone making this argument). You are adding in the criterion of social acceptability to orientation. If you bring that back in what are other people going to want to add on that basis? No prizes for guessing what an early candidate will be. I honestly don't think you've thought this thing through.
Having said all that, you might be able to make progress if you invented a qualified version of orientation. I've no idea what that might involve but it would leave orientation definition untouched, whilst making it clear that the qualifier was about something else. That might fly. You'd have to work at it though with no guarantees it would take off.
(ETA - crossposted with JoannaP)
[ 27. January 2013, 21:13: Message edited by: Honest Ron Bacardi ]
Posted by Honest Ron Bacardi (# 38) on
:
(follow-up - edit period expired)
quote:
I've given you several reasons why that particular argument does not fly.
The argument I am referring to is the linkage of homosexuality with paedophilia. Sorry that's less than clear.
Posted by Boogie (# 13538) on
:
Yes, you are right Honest Ron Bacardi, I shouldn't have used the word 'natural'.
I should have said that a classification that uses "orientation" makes paedophilia sound healthy, good and right for humans.
Posted by Lucia (# 15201) on
:
I think the problem is between those who see the word 'orientation' as having a moral implication of something that is good (as Boogie has just expressed) and those who see it as a morally neutral, technical word to describe particular features of a person's psychological makeup.
But of course neither heterosexual or homosexual orientation are intrinsically morally good. But both have the capacity to be expressed in both good, positive, life affirming ways but also in destructive, harmful ways. We see enough broken relationships and people to know that orientation does not automatically lead to good, harm free relationships. So perhaps we should be cautious of seeing orientation as a morally loaded word?
The difference with paedophilia is that there is no unharmful expression available so maybe a technical description is needed to distinguish those orientations which have the potential for healthy expression which does no harm and those that do not. Clearly paedophilia would fall in the second category, I'm not sure what else would.
Posted by Honest Ron Bacardi (# 38) on
:
Lucia & Boogie - that's the sort of thing I was driving towards with my last reply. But as I said there, at the moment I don't think there is a difference between the public and the technical understanding of orientation. The morally good vs. morally bad comes from somewhere else, and as you say, the unstated assumption that heterosexuality and homosexuality is all good is itself a dangerous simplification. But I would agree that potentially at least, some sort of different wording to distinguish between the technical and the public usages may be a possibility. No guarantees it will work though.
Just thinking about it some more, the move would need to come more from the public than the technical side. I don't really see the technical side with a definition like that.
Posted by Alogon (# 5513) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
Let me summarize my views then: paedophilia is in the main a dangerous heterosexual perversion. Accordingly, heterosexual teachers, and in fact, anyone heterosexual working with children and young people, should be kept under close scrutiny.
Good point-- particularly in that any adult working with children is in an unbalanced power relationship. Or so the premise goes. What's unique about sex in this regard?
[ 31. January 2013, 00:14: Message edited by: Alogon ]
Posted by mousethief (# 953) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Honest Ron Bacardi:
If the position you favour persists in advocating refusal to engage with the science then frankly I've no idea what will happen.
You're clearly not reading what I write. My entire point is LINGUISTIC.
Posted by Alogon (# 5513) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
Given the context in which "orientation" is used in our culture, I can draw no other conclusion than that calling paedophilia an orientation is a blatant attempt to offend.
Especially as the people giving the argument are typically the same ones who oppose treating homosexuality as being equal to heterosexuality.
Ad hominem attack. oh my.
The expert professional woman who led the last session on child-abuse that I had to attend as a church employee said early on that it was an orientation. No one objected. That didn't stop her or anyone else in the room from spending the next two hours hating them.
Perhaps the objection to the idea is theological: we like to say that God doesn't create junk. But where does that leave pedophilia?
Posted by Honest Ron Bacardi (# 38) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
quote:
Originally posted by Honest Ron Bacardi:
If the position you favour persists in advocating refusal to engage with the science then frankly I've no idea what will happen.
You're clearly not reading what I write. My entire point is LINGUISTIC.
I have read your postings and I do understand that. What I have been trying to point out to you is that if you feel sufficiently aggrieved at this usage (which is not new), then it will be for you to do something about it. I even tried to suggest what that might look like if it was going to be successful, and draw attention to the pitfalls of getting it wrong.
This is because nobody has changed the meaning of orientation. What changed was elsewhere. It has nothing to do with either heterosexuality or homosexuality which both remain exactly where they were before. Why should anyone else change their usage?
I'm at a loss to see how you can say we (or rather, I) have not been addressing the linguistics of the matter in our discussion, as we have covered both the meanings of the words and the different contexts.
Posted by mousethief (# 953) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Honest Ron Bacardi:
Why should anyone else change their usage?
It is adding paedophilia to the definition of "orientation" that is changing it.
Posted by Honest Ron Bacardi (# 38) on
:
This will probably have to be the point at which we agree to disagree.
Adding paedophilia to the category of things orientation describes does not change the meaning of orientation in any sense that I can discern. It certainly changes the range of things it describes. If you want to give the matter of the words some thought and come up with an example that would address your objections, it might be easier to take this forward.
Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on
:
Tend to agree with HRB here. If 'orientation' is the word for sexuality we consider inbuilt, and the science on pedophilia develops to the point where we consider it correctly to be classified as an orientation, it's not the definition of the word orientation that has changed, but the knowledge about pedophilia. It's primarily not a linguistic issue but a scientific one.
[ 01. February 2013, 01:42: Message edited by: orfeo ]
© Ship of Fools 2016
UBB.classicTM
6.5.0