In one of the interminable threads that devolved into endless discussions of pedophilia a couple of months ago, I raised an academic question about whether those who were commenting could come up with a reason why pedophilia was "wrong" without relying on a Judeo-Christian cultural context. The history, I argued, was that in Greece and to a lesser extent in Rome, pedophilia in some forms was culturally acceptable; only those pesky Christians managed to radically change the culture.
For me it was just an academic speculation, but apparently I was much closer than I had ever considered possible.
In a recent interview with the Times magazine, Richard Dawkins attempted to defend what he called “mild pedophilia,” which, he says, he personally experienced as a young child and does not believe causes “lasting harm.”
Dawkins went on to say that one of his former school masters “pulled me on his knee and put his hand inside my shorts,” and that to condemn this “mild touching up” as sexual abuse today would somehow be unfair.
Child welfare experts responded to Dawkins’ remarks with outrage — and concern over their effect on survivors of abuse.
I'm just curious what people think? Even in the midst of the groping, fondling, and raping of kids, and hiding/covering up of the crimes which occurred among clergy of my faith, it was exceptionally rare that anyone actually tried to condone it as being harmless.
I agree Strega, nobody chooses to be made a pedophile after all, or is proud of the fact (I doubt).
A man can express to his therapist merely having an urge to molest a child and it must be reported. He can talk about an active plan to defraud thousands families involved in a fund he manages and it's protected by therapist-client privilege.
An 'Urge' - a strong desire or impulse.
A "Plan" - decide on and arrange in advance.
An urge may be more likely to be acted on.
I think most of us already understood those words, so why?...
The word "urge" does not even imply intent, whereas "active plan" does.
So if, for instance, a lesbian decided that it was just too hard, she could then just deem her sexuality to be "unwanted behavioral urges" and get fixed? Or should she, instead, "resist using [her] own willpower" for life? Maybe with practise she might even find Mr Depp attractive. :-)
I vaguely remember many months or maybe years ago, a poster (on TA, I'm quite sure) used a word I can't remember and can't find but was something like "othersexual" and the meaning was someone with sexual urges which transgressed societal norms (like (and including) pedophylia). The assertion of this poster was that, instead of trying to "cure" people, ways should be found to satisfy these urges without harming or even involving other people.
Sorry my memory is so sketchy. I wonder if anyone else remembers this word and/or this contention. Considering the success rate for people permanently changing their sexuality, this sounds like a reasonable and permanent solution.
The assertion of this poster was that, instead of trying to "cure" people, ways should be found to satisfy these urges without harming or even involving other people.
I've always thought that we might control pedophilia by providing them with high-resolution, ultra-realistic CGI animation kiddie porn for them to satisfy their urges with. Perhaps it could be combined with a chemical that takes the edge of their sexual urges a bit.
Almost anything is better than the "hang 'em high" approach we take now.
Yes, but before trying to get that past the Moral Panic Governing Body, we need to be ready to go all the way. What comes after pedophylia? Necrophylia?
No progress is possible without recognition by society in general that we're dealing with real human beings who have not chosen their own sexuality. And we're a LONG way from the general recognition that they are even human. There's a brick wall blocking the path. A sledge hammer is required just to introduce a hair-line crack in the wall. I'm afraid I can't envisage a time when society will be able to step over the rubble of this bogotry.
Start a campaign called - "My Poor Penis Is Sad Because Society Wont Let Me Fuck A Child."
There's a brick wall blocking the path. A sledge hammer is required just to introduce a hair-line crack in the wall. I'm afraid I can't envisage a time when society will be able to step over the rubble of this bogotry.
That's why I like Strega's hypothetical about how a parent should address their child's sexual urges for other, prepubescent kids. At least most of the "just shootem" crowd might be willing to see if a juvenile can be dealt with before harmful behavior happens. Such cases of early detection might be rare, but at least some intervention should be possible in a few cases, which we might learn from with some extra effort.
"animation kiddie porn for them"
How do you teach the really, really dumb men that no matter how much it appears that the child is enjoying it in the film, that it is not like that in real life. That children are not there for the taking. That a normal healthy child does not go about the art of seduction unless it has been exploited and damaged.
How do we teach men where to draw the line?
There is the threat of criminal prosecution if they touch a child inappropriately (or worse).
Oh yeah - thats gunna work.