Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[Bandages]

Semantics, indeed. I'm far too tired to reply in any sort of argumenative way, mainly because I think your points are valid and I would have to try to hard to play devil's advocate.

Good show, Zombie.

For the record, I agree with all your points, but enjoy arguing against convention for the sake of learning more about my own psychology through other people explaining theirs.

[Zironic]

Learn to swim...

bill hicks and tool.

[piecewise]

This thread brings up an interesting question of "what is pedophilia?". Is it a fetish? A mental illness? An evolutionary hold over? The effect of childhood experience or just a personal taste? Its one of those questions which gives me pause because we must remember that, until very very recently, homosexuality was considered a mental illness. Do pedophiles chose their sexual preference? Are they born with it or is it the result of their up bringing? It's also strange to me that people would automatically connect pedophilia with child molestation because thats like connecting heterosexuality with rape, they're related but one does not necessarily mean the other. Its a stigma that I really think is making any sort of research into the condition very difficult because it demonizes them and makes it a disease to remove when It might not be that at all.

I dunno, some of the overstated disgust I see people have when talking about pedophilia strikes me in the same way that a gay man acting homophobic does. It would explain the paradox of things like "to catch a predator" being popular at the same time that porn sites advertise with slogans like"barely legal".

[Aqizzar]

I dunno, some of the overstated disgust I see people have when talking about pedophilia strikes me in the same way that a gay man acting homophobic does. It would explain the paradox of things like "to catch a predator" being popular at the same time that porn sites advertise with slogans like"barely legal".

It is a very strange phenomenon that at the same time that we can make catching people trying to hook up with girls just under the legal pornography age into a legal spectacle, we consider it perfectly normal to ogle and chase girls just over the legal pornography age.  I chalk it up to more appeal-of-the-forbidden.  While I don't think any of the disgust on display is overstated, I do agree that the blanket, irrational (that is, hasty, not unjustifiable) stigma makes it very hard to probe into and understand.  And with understanding comes answers.  So yeah.

[piecewise]

I dunno, some of the overstated disgust I see people have when talking about pedophilia strikes me in the same way that a gay man acting homophobic does. It would explain the paradox of things like "to catch a predator" being popular at the same time that porn sites advertise with slogans like"barely legal".

It is a very strange phenomenon that at the same time that we can make catching people trying to hook up with girls just under the legal pornography age into a legal spectacle, we consider it perfectly normal to ogle and chase girls just over the legal pornography age.  I chalk it up to more appeal-of-the-forbidden.  While I don't think any of the disgust on display is overstated, I do agree that the blanket, irrational (that is, hasty, not unjustifiable) stigma makes it very hard to probe into and understand.  And with understanding comes answers.  So yeah.

Really, one thing I hate is the idea of a "legal age". Its basically just an arbitrary line saying " at 17 years and 11 months you are totally innocent and incapable of mentally comprehending sex. But at 18 you're suddenly a lot more mature and can go out and fuck anything that moves." Worse yet they let kids drive before they're supposed to have sex, which strikes me as hilariously ironic. Yeah, they're capable of piloting a steel box filled with explosive liquid down the street at 90 miles an hour but heaven forbid that they should do what nature, society and their hormones are all screaming for them to do.

Alternatively couldn't we have a "sex license?". Something like a drivers license, except that it allows you to hump people. Just go down to the DSF, take a test, be evaluated by a trained psychologist and if everything comes out good then bam, sexual freedom. On the other hand you could just institute a " x year law" saying that only people with X years difference between their ages can hump one another. So a 19 year old can hump her 17 year old boyfriend or vice versa but a 40 year old can't hump a 16 year old.

I dunno, its a tricky subject. Addressing the sexuality of "children" (eg people under the legal age) is something that makes many people uncomfortable, probably because they fear being called a pedophile. But I think it's something that has to be addressed rather then simply ignored.

[Leafsnail]

This thread brings up an interesting question of "what is pedophilia?". Is it a fetish? A mental illness? An evolutionary hold over? The effect of childhood experience or just a personal taste?

Medically, it goes under Paraphilia, a sexual fixation on something that will cause problems for either the paraphiliac or the objects of the desire.  Something interesting to note is that many object to Ephebophilia (sexual interest in mid to late adolescants) being put on the list, as they regard it as too close to normal sexuality.  It's a... difficult one.

Weirdly, I had thought the paraphilia list was fairly short and helpful, but it turns out it seems to cover pretty much EVERYTHING.  I definately wouldn't have things like sadomasochism or "Sthenolagnia" (Muscles and displays of strength) on there.

I know I'm stepping onto a bit of a minefield but... I don't think there has to be anything wrong with pedophiles if they can control their urges.  It's only a minority that do end up abusing children...

[ein]

The problem with paraphilias is how subjective they are.
Some are, of course, universally agreed upon as odd, such as necrophilia, but others, less so.
A lot of the ones placed in the DSM are probably in there because the DSM is written by Americans.
Because Americans are crazy sexually repressed puritans, as far as cultural ancestry at least.

[Leafsnail]

The problem with paraphilias is how subjective they are.
Some are, of course, universally agreed upon as odd, such as necrophilia, but others, less so.
A lot of the ones placed in the DSM are probably in there because the DSM is written by Americans.
Because Americans are crazy sexually repressed puritans, as far as cultural ancestry at least.

But they could at least stick to ones that obviously harm people...

[ein]

In which case, many sadomasochistic practices would fall under paraphilia.
You know, things like flogging.
According to Wikipedia:

Psychologists and psychiatrists codified paraphilias as disorders, as a replacement for the legal constructs of sodomy and perversion. American Journal of Psychiatry describes paraphilia as "recurrent, intense sexually arousing fantasies, sexual urges, or behaviors generally involving:

   1. nonhuman objects, or
   2. the suffering or humiliation of oneself or one's partner, or
   3. children, or
   4. nonconsenting persons"

Sexual arousal in association with objects that were designed for sexual purposes is not DSM diagnosable (DSM, p. 570).

[bjlong]

Generally, the DSM isn't about giving concise definitions, but complete definitions. Some of these things can be harmful, if pushed to huge extremes, but generally aren't. Like S&M. The point to remember is that for these to be diagnosed, they have to cause problems in everyday situations.

[Leafsnail]

Sure, it fits the definition they've given, but it goes against the spirit (something that is harmful to the paraphiliac or someone else).

There are other ones too... I mean, how, for instance, is a foot fetishist dangerous to anyone?

[bjlong]

He's not--for him to be diagnosed, he has to have problems in everyday life. Not that he has to cause problems for other people.

[ein]

Feet are covered in icky germs. 
They hold great potential for spreading disease. 
_^[/sarcasm]

[Pathos]

Generally, the DSM isn't about giving concise definitions, but complete definitions. Some of these things can be harmful, if pushed to huge extremes, but generally aren't. Like S&M. The point to remember is that for these to be diagnosed, they have to cause problems in everyday situations.

That does sound like most things.

Also, a foot fetishist could have an overwhelming urge for feet, so much so that he tries to take people's shoes off? There's an example.

[ein]

I do that, not because I have a foot fetish, but because tying people's shoes together and throwing them like bolas is fun.