As was foretold, we've added advertisements to the forums! If you have questions, or if you encounter any bugs, please visit this thread: https://forums.penny-arcade.com/discussion/240191/forum-advertisement-faq-and-reports-thread/
Options
Pedophilia and how we treat it
Astaereth
In the belly of the beastRegistered User regular
In the belly of the beastRegistered User regular
This is a controversial topic that was drawing some interest in the LGBT thread, and as one of the people who brought it up in the first place, it seemed appropriate that I make a new thread.
I think we should discuss the ways in which society currently deals with pedophiles and whether or not there are issues with that.
Personally I feel that:
-Pedophilia is a sexual orientation, not just a fetish or interest, at least in some people, and deserves to be treated with the same level of respect as other orientations (albeit one we acknowledge is harmful for someone to act on).
-Pedophilia is therefore a horrifying affliction, the victims of which are forced to hurt other people or face never fulfilling their sexual needs.
-Our society tends to punish and demonize pedophiles, including those who do not molest, and this is counter-productive to the goal of getting these people counseling and support so that they can live with their condition without hurting others.
-Child pornography is awful, but simulated child pornography may be a key way to allow pedophiles a release valve, and as such should not be illegal.
This is a tricky and very emotional subject, so I ask that people try and remain respectful.
A quick note on terminology:
A pedophile is someone who is solely or primarily sexually attracted to children.
A child molester is someone who has committed a crime by sexually abusing a child.
Not all pedophiles are molesters, and not all molesters are pedophiles.
I'm having trouble finding good statistics on this subject (and I'm happy to blame this on the way the social response to pedophilia has made the subject difficult to study or even quantify), but if useful, well-sourced stats come up in the discussion I'll be happy to add them to this OP.
I think we should discuss the ways in which society currently deals with pedophiles and whether or not there are issues with that.
Personally I feel that:
-Pedophilia is a sexual orientation, not just a fetish or interest, at least in some people, and deserves to be treated with the same level of respect as other orientations (albeit one we acknowledge is harmful for someone to act on).
-Pedophilia is therefore a horrifying affliction, the victims of which are forced to hurt other people or face never fulfilling their sexual needs.
-Our society tends to punish and demonize pedophiles, including those who do not molest, and this is counter-productive to the goal of getting these people counseling and support so that they can live with their condition without hurting others.
-Child pornography is awful, but simulated child pornography may be a key way to allow pedophiles a release valve, and as such should not be illegal.
This is a tricky and very emotional subject, so I ask that people try and remain respectful.
A quick note on terminology:
A pedophile is someone who is solely or primarily sexually attracted to children.
A child molester is someone who has committed a crime by sexually abusing a child.
Not all pedophiles are molesters, and not all molesters are pedophiles.
I'm having trouble finding good statistics on this subject (and I'm happy to blame this on the way the social response to pedophilia has made the subject difficult to study or even quantify), but if useful, well-sourced stats come up in the discussion I'll be happy to add them to this OP.
0
Posts
This isn't a sexual orientation, it's a disease. It requires treatment. The usual treatment appears to be taking drugs to reduce the libido. Certainly it is a horrifying thing to be only attracted to children, but when the choice is " never fulfilling sexual needs" or "fucking a child" I (and most sane people) would land heavily on the side of "children not getting fucked".
The thread is mostly concerned with how hostility towards pedophilia prevents the non-acting ones from seeking psychological help. Locking them all up wouldn't really help with that matter.
I agree that the sane and responsible choice is to repress one's desires rather than hurting others. The question is how society can best help them to do that while respecting them and their rights as human beings. I think part of the answer is to focus on counseling rather than imprisonment and acceptance rather than demonization. In a way I look at pedophilia as being similar to alcoholism; having the urges is not your fault, giving into them and engaging in destructive behavior is, and overall the proper response from society is to assist rather than reject.
Doing anything will cause a select amount of people to avoid help. If it breaks them from their day-to-day you'd be hard pressed to find anyone to volunteer any information let alone drastic societal taboos and lawbreaking ones.
I'd say it's a lot more akin to schizophrenia; it's a psychological disorder that, if acted upon, is harmful to other people and society in general, but if treated with a combination of drugs and therapy can allow a person to live a fairly normal life with no risk to themselves or others.
I wouldn't make a comparison to an addiction, which has different neurology at work there. Nonetheless, the basic thrust of your argument (treat the ones who don't act on their feelings as mentally ill people, not violent criminals) is one I agree with.
Homosexuality, bisexuality and heterosexuality are sexual orientations. The reason the minority orientations (homo- and bi-sexuality) are treated (increasingly and optimally) with the same level of respect as the 90+% of the population that is heterosexual is we have an increasing understanding that sexuality is an innate, intrinsic characteristics of a person and that sexual congress with a member of the same sex/gender does no harm to another. A person can not be "cured" of homosexuality and there is nothing wrong with homosexuality.
The same can not be said of pedophilia. It is not innate as pedophilia is often caused by sexual abuse as a child. Additionally consummating the defining desires of a pedophile is rape, which is not analogous to same sex coupling. In the original synopsis, treatment and counseling is mentioned. Unless one believes gays should be counseled and given support so they never have intrasex fucking, that doesn't speak to the "same level of respect".
Just because a person wants to fuck something, does not make that desire healthy, normal, or above judgement. Non-standard sexual proclivities has long been a source of minority persecution. Those minority groups banded together as a basically "not hetero" grouping so as to maximize their political power to end this persecution based on educating and pressuring the public into understanding that being gay is not something one chooses. Just as sex/gender, race, ethnicity and (kinda) religion are not valid characteristics to base discrimination on, they argued that sexual orientation was also not a valid basis for discrimination. And they have largely won if the change in paradigm is still being implemented and resisted.
That doesn't mean that any sexual characteristic is invalid as a method of discrimination. Pedophilia and bisexuality aren't interchangeable morally or ethically. One is a desire for a criminal and monstrous act of rape, the other is a desire for sexual relations with both males and females.
QEDMF xbl: PantsB G+
Some people like the term and continue to propagate it, because they want it to seem like some kind of horrible punishment (which physical castration is). There's a whole cultural mindset at work, retributive versus restorative justice, the idea that people who are outside society's acceptable limits ought be punished, with a way increasingly more horrible to fit the more horrid crime.
My mom's a social worker, and when she was volunteering in college she worked with a mentally ill man who had never harmed a child in his life but most definitely had the urge to. He took these so-called "chemical castration" drugs, and lived as normal life as he could given his other associated mental health issues. However, apparently he went for years avoiding admitting his pedophilia and volunteering to this medication regime, because he was terrified of being "chemically castrated" and was afraid he'd be locked up for admitting he has urges that he consciously resists and wants to get rid of.
And it's not like I hate pedophiles and want them all locked up, it's just that I feel this is something society should not normalize and instead be treated like the disease it is. I feel bad for the people who have it who don't act on their desires.
Two people who share compatible sexual orientations can engage in a whole spectrum of consensual, healthy, and normal sexual behaviors that are constructive both for themselves as individuals and for society as a whole, including as a way to maintain a loving, stable relationship.
Pedophilia has no such qualifier. A pedophiliac cannot actually participate in a relationship with a child, because the child is never able to consent to such a relationship in the first place. (And no, I'm not talking about just the legal definition of consent.) There is no expression of pedophilia beyond mere fantasy that would be healthy.
Sexual orientation is a loaded subject with a lot of other issues tied to it, including legal ones. I guess my question is what, exactly, is gained by defining pedophilia as a sexual orientation as opposed to a psychological disorder or a sexual fetish? If you are arguing in favor of an attitudinal shift in how society treats pedophilia, then I think most of us would argue that the same thing is true of many psychological disorders and sexual fetishes as well.
I think the difficulty is that any acting on these urges does harm to others, whether it's looking at material, or performing the act.
With something like this, where the only possible outcome of anyone acting on the urges causes harm - the onus has to be on the protection of the vulnerable.
I think you're perhaps putting forward the rarer scenario - where someone admits to the urge and then seeks help. In this instance, I'd assume regular patient/doctor confidentiality would prevail? The issue seems to be that by definition, you're talking about a scenario whereby someone has done/contributed to harm.
So, yes, I agree that rehabilitation should be a part of the remedy - but you'd have a very difficult time convincing anyone that it should happen at the expense of protecting potential victims, who by their nature are vulnerable.
As far as public scorn goes:
a) I dont agree with people going out of their way to do offenders harm
b) Again, this is difficult, because by nature, anyone acting has done/contributed to harming the most vulnerable in our society, that most are hard-wired to protect.
I think you're reading unintended meanings into my statements, which is fair because these meanings are often associated with them by other people. I will attempt to clarify.
I consider pedophilia to be an orientation, or at least something similar, despite the typical use of "orientation" to refer only to gender. This is because the key point of similarity for me is that an orientation is not a choice and cannot be changed. When I say respect I mean that a pedophile should be no more demonized or ostracized or blamed for his sexuality than a homosexual should be. I completely acknowledge the difference between innate, immutable sexual desires that are not harmful (homosexuality) and those that are harmful (pedophilia), but I believe that recognizing that difference does not preclude respecting and accepting people whose desires are harmful. Each situation is different; respecting homosexuals means giving them the freedom to act on their desires, and respecting pedophiles means giving them the medical and psychiatric assistance they need in order to refrain from acting on their desires. I recognize drawing a line between these two makes people uncomfortable, but those people are just going to have to deal.
The distinction is that I don't think any desire should be subject to judgment. I don't believe that thoughts can be crimes or sins. I can only judge actions. I can say a pedophile's desires are rare, unhealthy, and unfortunate without calling them evil or that person evil for being born with them. I can call the decision to act on those desires selfish, immoral, unethical, and evil.
I also want to point out that there's a distinction between a pedophile's sexual desires and "a person want[ing] to fuck something." The key difference being that what you're describing is an interest, or at most a fetish, things which do not preclude alternate sexual desires or expression. Pedophiles, in contrast, are often solely and exclusively attracted to children. The fact that they cannot have or express desires outside of this one particular class of people is both the entire problem and the reason why they should be pitied and helped rather than scorned.
Why not treat them the same way you would anyone else with a mental illness? I'm not familiar with the process of committing people, but it should still be applicable if the situation warrants.
As I understand it, the law is generally interpreted in favor of the right to refuse treatment. And I think there's merit to the argument that pedophiliac urges are not in and of themselves sufficient evidence that someone is a danger to others without at least additional evidence that someone has committed a crime or is intending on committing a crime.
What compels one to give in to an urge? When we're dealing with personal responsibility, how is it determined when an individual has the ability to control this aspect of their personality (the indulgence)? If we're to treat pedophilia like mental illness, it seems that taking into account problems with identity would be an area to address.
So the celibate pedophile is a normal person and it would be unlawful discrimination to force them into treatment.
Pedophilia is not an orientation, in that the attraction is not toward someone or situations that are normally considered to be objects of sexual attraction. Adults of either sex are.
I think the more important questions for our society are the ones that deal with "latent" harmful paraphilias - sexual attractions that are harmful if acted upon but ultimately are not. Is simulated child sex worthy of judgment? Are outlets for rape fantasies more or less likely to result in actual rape? Are reformed sex criminals more dangerous, and thus deserving of constant supervision and restriction of their rights?
So it would be just plain unlawful to force someone into treatment. As I understand things, you would have more justification involuntarily committing a professed pedophile than you would forcing them to take anti-libido medications. The same applies to schizophrenics; the law generally does not allow the state to force them to take anti-psychotics against their will, even if they are deemed a danger to themselves or others while unmedicated (provided they have the mental capacity to properly make that decision, which is much less of an issue with pedophilia, for obvious reasons).
The term "reasonably determined danger" is tricky, though. Like, if a guy goes into his therapist's office and says "I think the guys I work with are agents of the Knights Templar, and they're going to kill me if I don't kill them first. I know I shouldn't, I know I'm schizophrenic and it's probably the voices talking, but I'm scared, doc. Should I ice these guys just to be sure?"
The doctor can call the cops for back-up and have the guy committed to an inpatient facility. Leaving such a facility is contingent (in most places) on the patient demonstrating a willingness to be treated for their illness and a capability to continue to be treated as an outpatient. If they don't display that, if they're still a danger to themselves or others, they don't get out. That's how it works (usually).
However, if a schizophrenic says to his therapist "Yeah, I hear voices sometimes, sometimes they tell me to do bad things, but I know that I'm ill and that the voices are just my illness. I don't feel the need to be medicated, I'm in control of it, I can deal with it." It can be hard, in most jurisdictions, for the therapist to have that person committed to inpatient care involuntarily.
Similarly, if a celibate pedophile confesses he has these feelings, these urges, but knows they're unacceptable and that he can never act on them, it's a little trickier for the the doctor to commit the guy even if the guy refuses to be treated. That said, the doctor could be within the law to inform law enforcement, who will then put the guy under some degree of surveillance, etc. etc.
As a result, pedophiles who acknowledge they have a mental illness and may want treatment are pretty much completely terrified of going to prison simply for admitting they have this problem, even if they've never acted on it and actively do not want to act on it and want to be treated to make it go away or at least minimize it.
It's one of the few forms of mental illness we basically imprison people for admitting having, even if they haven't done anything against the law yet. Seems a bit off, that.
Because how to treat pedophiles depends a whole lot on how these questions are answered.
It's a very important lesson for anyone going to college. Professors are just as prone to spout flagrant bullshit as anyone else.
People can have all sorts of urges they never act on, and I don't see why the harmful ones are any different.
http://www.reddit.com/comments/9qdnf/iama_25_year_old_pedophile_ama/
http://www.reddit.com/r/IAmA/comments/ubexw/debated_doing_this_for_months_but_here_goesi/
Quick wiki lookup says that recidivism rates for child molesters is around 3% for similar crimes committed within 3 years (ie just over 3% are arrested again within 3 years). Even being aware of the fact that these crimes are under-reported and that many could be arrested even later, I'm struggling to see how we're arriving at a 100% recidivism rate.
Notwithstanding that not all child molesters are pedophiles, a 1990 review of sex offender recidivism studies found that:
Another meta-analysis found:
What I'm seeing in general is that even taking into account the widespread underreporting of sex offenses, the recidivism rate for convicted child molesters is almost certainly sub-50%. (That's not taking into account that not all child molesters are pedophiles, and that this doesn't tell us how likely a pedophile is to offend in the first place.) In my opinion, that puts things well under the point at which we should preemptively strip pedophiles (or even convicted molesters) of their rights.
Quick edit: that also puts the recidivism rates well, well under the proposed rate of 100%. I think we can agree that the idea that no pedophile can resist, that no molester can reform, is bullshit.
I'm getting all of this from here, and I encourage people to look over that whole page, as it has hard data not only on recidivism rates but how effective various forms of treatment have been in reducing those rates. Overall, it appears that the various forms of therapy are not panacea, but they can provide a meaningful reduction of about 5-10 percentage points in recidivism compared to untreated subjects.
https://www.ncjrs.gov/app/abstractdb/AbstractDBDetails.aspx?id=169594
The Abstract
Problem is we push away/demonize people even before they do anything which feeds the problem in and of itself.
Steam Profile | Signature art by Alexandra 'Lexxy' Douglass
I also think discussing recidivism is tricky because, assuming an imperfect justice system, while (as they say there) you may underestimate recidivism by looking at convictions, you will probably overestimate recidivism by looking only at arrests.
If the people who are on the record as being dangerous at least once still only have a fifty-fifty shot of acting (keeping in mind this number is from one study you are referencing amongst myriad conflicting ones), then what are the odds of those never brought to the attention of the justice system?
Edit: Note that I find this whole tangent of discussion of pretty low value given our inability to settle on well-defined and relevant terms.
I mean, we used to drown/burn people for being witches because we didn't (or didn't want to) understand certain things. I think it's unfair to say that there is nothing we'll ever be able to do. THAT being said, I worry about if we do manage to find a way to fix/prevent the biological factors of pedophilia if people won't start using it for things like preventing their fetuses from being gay or something. Of course, by the time such technology existed I imagine pretty much no one will care whether anyone is gay or not. I hope.
Steam Profile | Signature art by Alexandra 'Lexxy' Douglass