maiforpeace wrote:devogue wrote:maiforpeace wrote:Rum wrote:lordpasternack wrote:The above does beg the question of whether said sexual activities are always automatically abusive, per se - and this is one of the arguing points that certain paedophiles will continue to raise, and thus far be quite entitled to raise - since hypothetically, the activity could be seen to be benign to any impartial observers.
I am not sure we have any disagreement here, but for me it is about who holds the 'power'. Even if a child agreed to go along with the sexual requests of the paedophile in question and there was no aggression or violence and they found it pleasurable (and many do, which is where emotional confusion often arises later on), the point is that the child should not be subjected to and used for the sexual gratification of an adult - period. They are not equipped to make informed decisions goes the argument.
Yes, I too am not understanding exactly what you mean LP. Are you saying that in some cases paedophilia that has been acted upon may not be abusive? Since it is a psychiatric disorder, wouldn't it at minimum be abusive to the paedophile themselves?
But is paedophilia a psychiatric disorder any more than homosexuality is a psychiatric "disorder"? I think that sexuality is a bit like the autistic spectrum but because homosexuality (for instance) is seen as a benign form of sexuality society at large quite rightly agrees that it is not a disorder but a positive facet of human nature.
Uncomfortable as it sounds, I think that paedophilia is also a facet of human nature, albeit a negative one, and as such it is as impossible to dispel from the individual as homosexuality (or, indeed, heterosexuality). In other words, it's not the person's "fault" that they are a paedophile - they are bound by their natural inclination. I would imagine, and perhaps someone could confirm or deny this, that counselling for convicted paedophiles does not involve surpressing their inate sexuality, but containing the desire to act on their urges.
I'm not a psychiatrist, I'm just going with what I read on Wiki...technically, pedophilia (I'm going with the US spelling now
) is considered a psychiatric disorder, homosexuality is not.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pedophilia
I recognize that pedophiles suffer tremendously - whether or not they act upon their urges.
Up until fairly recently, however, homosexuality was considered a psychiatric disorder.
But, needless to say, pedophilia is not a crime. Sex with underage people is a crime, regardless of whether it's a psychiatric impulse or not. So long as a person is capable of determining right from wrong, they are held to control their natural impulses and conform to the law. If a pedophile can't stop committing the crime because they are clinically unable to determine right from wrong, then the appropriate action from a criminal court is to put them in a treatment center or psychiatric ward.
Many murderers are "wired" weirdly - sociopaths or psychopaths - to have no empathy for other humans, and have an "urge" to kill. Yet, what they do is still a crime. If they can tell right from wrong, they go to jail. If they can prove they are insane, and can't tell right from wrong, they get held indefinitely until they are medically determined able to control their behavior.
So, I'm in full agreement with maiforpeace here, I think.
I would also add to this conversation a distinction between pedophilia and homosexuality - that being an attraction to prepubescent children. Homosexuality involves an attraction to other humans of post-pubescant nature - sexually (if not emotionally) mature people. At some point homosexuals (and heterosexuals) have to conform to an arbitrary age of consent (sometimes it's 18, sometimes 17, sometimes 16), and even though they all have sexual urges that are natural, they have refrain from having sex with someone under the age of consent or face the legal consequences.
The reason we have an age of consent is because the government has made a determination that people under a certain age have a sufficient degree of inability, by and large, to make rational choices in regard to sex and/or a sufficient degree of vulnerability to being taken advantage of by older people. So, the reason why we tell pedophiles that they can't act out their natural urges is not because their natural urges are distasteful, but because their natural urges are prone to hurt emotionally, intellectually, physically and sexually vulnerable people - prepubescent children. And, we tell everyone, hetero, homo, or pedo, that they can't act out their natural urges with people under the age of consent, because those people under the age of consent are considered more vulnerable.
There are, absolutely, exceedingly mature folks among the "protected" group of those below the age of consent. Some are probably well able to make these decisions and be just fine. However, there are practical enforcement concerns that make it very difficult for law enforcement to decide these things on a case by case basis, making individual determinations about whether this 12 year old or that 14 year old or this 9 year old is able to "consent" to whatever conduct occurred. Instead, we tell older people that they have the legal responsibility to not fuck underage people no matter what.
