Page 7 of 9 FirstFirst ... 56789 LastLast
Results 61 to 70 of 88
Thanks Tree50Thanks

Thread: Do liberals want to make the world safe for child molesters?

  1. #61
    New Member Havelock's Avatar
    Joined
    Jul 2013
    Posts
    872
    Thanks
    1053

    From
    U.S.A.
    Quote Originally Posted by Sassy View Post
    What I mean is pedophilia still exists in the DSM but not as a disorder. It's a psychiatric diagnosis essentially of choice. So that pedophiles can get treatment covered through insurance. Which I don't know why they'd WANT treatment, since if they were BOTHERED by it they'd have pedophiliac disorder!
    Okay, what do you mean when you say, "pedophilia still exists in the DSM but not as a disorder?" You say it's a "psychiatric diagnosis essentially of choice." Do you have a citation for that? You say that pedophiles can get "treatment" covered through insurance, presumably without admitting to a disorder and by requesting treatment for "pedophilia." Where's the evidence for that?

    Based on my reading of the DSM, there isn't actually any evidence for that and there is no citation you can produce. In fact, this appears to be an objection that you've created out of whole cloth. As you've noted, if a pedophile is distressed by their sexual interests and seeks treatment based on that distress, then by definition they would be diagnosed with pedophilic disorder. So where exactly is this "end run" to which you're objecting?

    Frankly it seems to me that you need to make up your mind about this. Do you fundamentally object to the fact that a pedophile who doesn't act on his or her interests and doesn't suffer mental distress or dysfunction as a result of those interests can no longer be diagnosed with a mental disorder? Or are you concerned that a self-admitted pedophile might receive psychiatric care covered by insurance without being diagnosed with a mental disorder? Either way, as I've noted previously, those possibilities have existed for decades now.

    Here's what I think. I think what really chaps your hide here is that a pedophile who doesn't act on those urges can no longer be preemptively declared "sick" and consequently subjected to coercive supervision and "treatment." Fact is, that's not a completely irrational position to take. So why not be honest about it? We'll never make progress on these sorts of issues until we can discuss them openly and honestly.

    Cheers.

  2. #62
    Chubby Member
    Joined
    May 2006
    Posts
    9,622
    Thanks
    3020

    Quote Originally Posted by Sassy View Post
    OK, but a person seeking treatment would be because having these thoughts, urges, fantasies bothers them. If it bothers them, then it's supposed to kicked into the disorder category. It's a strange end-run.
    I see what you mean. It essentially defines a category of people that we would simply never hear or know about, people who are apparently somehow turned on by some sort of underage thing, but who never act on it, except maybe some sort of fantasy where their girlfriend puts on a Catholic school outfit, I suppose? So it describes people who thought that Brittany Spears video was hot, that kind of shit.

    Are they pedophiles? Should they be incarcerated in a psychiatric ward?

  3. #63
    New Member Mister B's Avatar
    Joined
    Jul 2016
    Posts
    725
    Thanks
    508

    From
    DS9
    Quote Originally Posted by Sassy View Post
    I don't agree that the change is minor. I think it is huge that it's no longer a disorder to have sexual urges and fantasies about children.
    Like rape, Paedophilia has never been about sexual urges. It's about control.

  4. #64
    New Member Mister B's Avatar
    Joined
    Jul 2016
    Posts
    725
    Thanks
    508

    From
    DS9
    Added: Sexual preference has nothing to do with paedophilia.

  5. #65
    ~Standing My Ground~ Sassy's Avatar
    Joined
    Jun 2011
    Posts
    43,116
    Thanks
    16906

    From
    God Bless Texas
    Quote Originally Posted by Havelock View Post
    Okay, what do you mean when you say, "pedophilia still exists in the DSM but not as a disorder?" You say it's a "psychiatric diagnosis essentially of choice." Do you have a citation for that? You say that pedophiles can get "treatment" covered through insurance, presumably without admitting to a disorder and by requesting treatment for "pedophilia." Where's the evidence for that?

    Based on my reading of the DSM, there isn't actually any evidence for that and there is no citation you can produce. In fact, this appears to be an objection that you've created out of whole cloth. As you've noted, if a pedophile is distressed by their sexual interests and seeks treatment based on that distress, then by definition they would be diagnosed with pedophilic disorder. So where exactly is this "end run" to which you're objecting?

    Frankly it seems to me that you need to make up your mind about this. Do you fundamentally object to the fact that a pedophile who doesn't act on his or her interests and doesn't suffer mental distress or dysfunction as a result of those interests can no longer be diagnosed with a mental disorder? Or are you concerned that a self-admitted pedophile might receive psychiatric care covered by insurance without being diagnosed with a mental disorder? Either way, as I've noted previously, those possibilities have existed for decades now.

    Here's what I think. I think what really chaps your hide here is that a pedophile who doesn't act on those urges can no longer be preemptively declared "sick" and consequently subjected to coercive supervision and "treatment." Fact is, that's not a completely irrational position to take. So why not be honest about it? We'll never make progress on these sorts of issues until we can discuss them openly and honestly.

    Cheers.
    What you are describing here is a disorder that used to be named pedophilia but is now named pedophiliac disorder, which I already cited. Pedophilia remains as a paraphilia, but not a disorder.

  6. #66
    Member
    Joined
    Jul 2013
    Posts
    3,297
    Thanks
    3503

    From
    Ohio
    It's helpful to distinguish between pedophiles and sexual abusers, the latter may have had sex with a minor,
    but in no way do they meet the pedophile criteria.
    Pedophiles can't be cured; sexual abusers can.
    Thanks from Havelock

  7. #67
    Member Claudius the God's Avatar
    Joined
    Sep 2012
    Posts
    2,090
    Thanks
    1399

    From
    California
    Having sex with kids up to 13 years old is pretty strange to me but then again, it was not that long ago that men could marry girls that age so times change and so do our mores. In many cultures as soon as a girl starts menstruating she is ready for sex. Is it right? Nope. Is it a sickness or just pure lust coupled with some form of dominance fetish? I am not qualified to say one way or the other. The conclusion sassy makes that this is some liberal plot to OK sex with kids is pretty strange to me as well. Maybe this is an indication of some form of sickness itself.

  8. #68
    Veteran Member Czernobog's Avatar
    Joined
    Dec 2011
    Posts
    35,162
    Thanks
    17529

    From
    Phoenix, AZ
    Quote Originally Posted by Claudius the God View Post
    Having sex with kids up to 13 years old is pretty strange to me but then again, it was not that long ago that men could marry girls that age so times change and so do our mores. In many cultures as soon as a girl starts menstruating she is ready for sex. Is it right? Nope. Is it a sickness or just pure lust coupled with some form of dominance fetish? I am not qualified to say one way or the other. The conclusion sassy makes that this is some liberal plot to OK sex with kids is pretty strange to me as well. Maybe this is an indication of some form of sickness itself.
    By definition, sexual attraction to a pubescent teen is not paedophilia, and is not relevant to this discussion.

  9. #69
    Member Claudius the God's Avatar
    Joined
    Sep 2012
    Posts
    2,090
    Thanks
    1399

    From
    California
    Quote Originally Posted by Czernobog View Post
    By definition, sexual attraction to a pubescent teen is not paedophilia, and is not relevant to this discussion.
    hey, I have no idea what the latest definitions of sex with kids is, i am merely stating that whatever it is today is a function of the times we live in and not necessarily an indication of a disease or mental impairment unless one wants to make the case that most of human history is filled with men who had this very same disease. History is filled with stories of men having sex with children. As we stand today, it is pretty disgusting and a sign of complete disregard for another human being but human history is a story of thousands of years of disgusting behavior by men. I am not saying it is right by any means. The issue is one of morality IMHO not some clinical thing that can be identified or treated medically. Either you have empathy and compassion or you don't, either you are a caring person or you don't give a damn. As a society we no longer allow children to work in textile mills at 5 or 6. Most women are no longer being forced to bear 10 or 12 or 15 children. Men no longer rape single women without recourse as they did legally all across the Western Frontier up until the late 1800's. If a man has sex with a minor, especially one younger than 13, then that person is not sick, they are overcome with lust and immoral. Just think about the mind of a man who forces a toddler into sex. This is so grotesque that the man has to consider the toddler nothing more than an animal in order to overcome all other empathetic notions. It is the same kind of mind that decapitates a stranger on live TV or shoots a whole village of Native Americans down or enslaves people for centuries. This is how I view these types of behaviors. They are barbaric. Now is this barbarism a disease? Like I said, if it is, all of us might carry that genetic tendency within us because human history is filled with these atrocities.

  10. #70
    Veteran Member Czernobog's Avatar
    Joined
    Dec 2011
    Posts
    35,162
    Thanks
    17529

    From
    Phoenix, AZ
    Quote Originally Posted by Claudius the God View Post
    hey, I have no idea what the latest definitions of sex with kids is, i am merely stating that whatever it is today is a function of the times we live in and not necessarily an indication of a disease or mental impairment unless one wants to make the case that most of human history is filled with men who had this very same disease. History is filled with stories of men having sex with children. As we stand today, it is pretty disgusting and a sign of complete disregard for another human being but human history is a story of thousands of years of disgusting behavior by men. I am not saying it is right by any means. The issue is one of morality IMHO not some clinical thing that can be identified or treated medically. Either you have empathy and compassion or you don't, either you are a caring person or you don't give a damn. As a society we no longer allow children to work in textile mills at 5 or 6. Most women are no longer being forced to bear 10 or 12 or 15 children. Men no longer rape single women without recourse as they did legally all across the Western Frontier up until the late 1800's. If a man has sex with a minor, especially one younger than 13, then that person is not sick, they are overcome with lust and immoral. Just think about the mind of a man who forces a toddler into sex. This is so grotesque that the man has to consider the toddler nothing more than an animal in order to overcome all other empathetic notions. It is the same kind of mind that decapitates a stranger on live TV or shoots a whole village of Native Americans down or enslaves people for centuries. This is how I view these types of behaviors. They are barbaric. Now is this barbarism a disease? Like I said, if it is, all of us might carry that genetic tendency within us because human history is filled with these atrocities.
    Not true. Paedophilia has never been considered acceptable behaviour. Sexual conduct with adolescents was, at one time, not only acceptable, but was, in fact, common practice. Of course life expectancy at the time was, like, 45, too, so there was that. However, sexual conduct with children has never been considered acceptable behaviour in any society that I know of.

    Quite frankly I am a proponent of changing the laws concerning adolescent sexual behaviour. A 16-year-old girl is considered quite capable of deciding to have sex with her 16- or 17-year old boyfriend, and there is no stigma, nor crime attached. Why, then, is she not equally capable of deciding to have sex with a 21-year-old? Or a 35-year-old? Or, if she chooses, a 45-year-old? Why is 18 a magic age of her sexual partner where this 16-year-old girl magically loses the ability to make personal decisions regarding her own behaviour?

    Now, I understand that some people are going to bring up teachers, and other people in authority exerting that authority to coerce someone into sexual activity. However, that is an entirely different situation, and age should make no difference there, either. The punishment for coercing a 16-year-old into having sex should be no less vile, and reprehensible than coercing a 22-year-old into having sex.
    Thanks from Havelock

Page 7 of 9 FirstFirst ... 56789 LastLast

Similar Threads

  1. Trump Vows to 'Make America Safe Again'
    By the watchman in forum Current Events
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 9th July 2016, 04:09 PM
  2. California Gun laws make us safe?
    By aboutenough in forum Political Humor
    Replies: 49
    Last Post: 8th December 2015, 08:57 AM
  3. Replies: 6
    Last Post: 18th September 2014, 11:28 PM
  4. Replies: 3
    Last Post: 1st June 2010, 07:34 PM
  5. Jewish child molesters that are never on the NEWS - WHY
    By Octoldit in forum Philosophy and Religion
    Replies: 6
    Last Post: 5th May 2009, 10:54 AM

Tags for this Thread


Facebook Twitter RSS Feed