Inspired by this thread about whether or not paedophiles can be cured. I’m not posting this there because I don’t wish to hijack it from the topic directly under discussion.
As a psychology undergraduate, all the literature I have ever encountered about paedophilia indicates that the people in question just seem to be wired that way. Rates of recidivism are extremely high, and it is generally accepted that this is not a ‘condition’ to be ‘cured’ by punishment or therapy. If this is so, why should paedophilia not be given a status in society that is comparable to homosexuality?
(Okay, before people jump on me for this, I should explain why I mentioned homosexuality and not heterosexuality. Socially, same-sex romantic relationships have been taboo for ages. Only recently has there been a growing awareness that homosexuality is not a freak disorder or merely an example of lascivious sinning. Homosexuals are born so just as heterosexuals are born straight. Hence from the ‘prevailing social prejudices’ point of view, homosexuality is a better example.)
To continue. So, just as we accept that homosexuals can’t help being homosexuals, why should paedophilia be treated any differently? One answer is, of course, that paedophilia involves taking advantage of the sexuality of a physically and mentally immature human being, whereas homosexual behaviour involves consenting adults (in the ideal world). Fine. Accepted. It’s probably a better idea to prevent (and punish) people who indulge in behaviour that comes at the expense of another individual’s basic rights.
But.
Should there be a stigma attached to the paedophile? Right now we curse them as being the scum of the earth, and if ever a child of mine came even close to being taken advantage of, I would probably be on the warpath too. Nevertheless, from a balanced perspective, should they be so strongly stigmatised and reviled? Or should they be pitied for being saddled with a burden that cannot legitimately be relieved?
Did you even read what I wrote? One doesn’t have to kneejerk everywhere, you know. Here’s what I said again. Please read and understand before remarking.
Homosexuality is genetic. Indications are that paedophilic tendencies are too.
Homosexuality was and to a large extent still is socially unacceptable. Paedophilia is too.
Homosexuality works with consent, and so is acceptable. Paedophilia does not and so is very rightfully not acceptable.
Now, based on 1, should paedophilic tendencies be reviled (as they definitely are now) or pitied?
I think a more valid comparison would be to serial rapists (or individuals that have an overwhelming desire to commit rape) - since this involves violation of consent - should the desire to rape be stigmatised?
Pitied. These people will never be able to satisfy themselves sexually without also engaging in a criminal act that is at the bottom of society’s pit of vile acts. I felt kind of icky when my girlfriend found porn in my history cache (not fer long, tho…heh)…these people must feel icky 24/7.
I don’t think aankh is suggesting they should be given a free pass criminally…just understand where it comes from. I had a housemate once that was a pedophile. I don’t know if he ever acted on it, but he always talked about this 13 year old daughter of some friends of his that he was in love with. I thought that was kind of weird, but I rationalized that maybe she was just way early developed and wore makeup and put it out there or something. So I finally meet this family, and this girl could not have been/looked less sexual. There was nothing ‘adult’ about her. She looked like a little kid, and this 37 year old guy is drooling over her. I think that day I decided that all sexual attraction has to be hard wired, no matter how bizarre.
Interesting question.
I don’t know of any research that suggests a genetic or ‘born that way’ component to serial rapists. If it does exist, and you could provide me such a cite, I would gladly accept this as a more valid comparison.
I suppose what I and others are saying is that since the desire to commit the act also implies the desire to violate consent, it is fallacious to ignore the violation of consent factor in your comparison, otherwise you could make any comparison you chose by simply ignoring valid but inconvenient factors, i.e:
*To continue. So, just as we accept that compulsive shoppers can’t help being compulsive shoppers, why should paedophilia be treated any differently? One answer is, of course, that paedophilia involves taking advantage of the sexuality of a physically and mentally immature human being, whereas compulsive shopping behaviour involves retail purchases (in the ideal world)…
Sure. I dunno by what goofy means homosexuality came to be stigmatized, but I can certainly see a good reason to stigmatize paedophilia. Nothing good can come of paedophilia. There is always a victim involved, unlike with homosexuality.
When a person is a walking threat to society, (especially one of societies most vulnerable components), and there is no reliable way to remove that threat, short of execution or permanent imprisonment, keeping the hell away from that person is the next best thing. If that means putting electronic tracking bracelets on 'em and letting the neighborhood know, so be it.
You’re asking for a cite, yet you haven’t given a cite to back up your premise that pedophilia is genetic. I suppose it could be somewhere in that other thread, but you should link directly instead of sending people searching through another thread.
Also, please note that, if pedophilia is not curable, that does not automatically mean it is genetic. Everything I’ve seen indicates that a rather large percentage of pedophiles were abused as children, which could be used as an argument against the genetic nature of pedophilia if it is true.
Case study: Obsert W. Ever since he can remember, he has been sexually attracted toward little girls. He is upset by this, wishes it were not so, has never acted on it and never intends to act on it, but there you are; that’s how he’s wired.
Should we revile him and jail him and throw bricks (or chickens) at him, or should we say, “That poor schmoe. At least he’s striong enough to resist his urges.”
My last post was made without having read your most recent posts; at the time of posting (unless you preview, which I didn’t), you only get to see posts made up until the point where you click the ‘reply’ button - any posts made between ‘reply’ and ‘submit’ are not seen until the post has been added.
OK, so you’re dropping the whole comparison thing? Good idea IMO.
Now, as a standalone question, should tendencies, rather than behaviours be stigmatised?
Good question, but stigma isn’t always logically derived - it is more visceral than that and often arises as the collective expression of personal fears; if I’m wary of leaving my children in the sole charge of someone with paedophilic tendencies (who may never have acted on them), and others feel the same way about their children, the result is a stigma (or the beginnings of one) - a general feeling that this person cannot be trusted with children.
Let’s not confuse the issues of stigma and punishment - the law (at least where I live) largely doesn’t punish people for what they think, only what they do - society, on the other hand, doesn’t tend to be so understanding.
Should the law intervene to prevent the formation or growth of a particular stigma? - IMO, this should depend on the potential for harm - since paedophilic behaviour is exhibited by individuals who have paedophilic tendencies (although I realise it is not true to say that all who have the tendecies act on them), the tendencies, where detectable, act as a useful marker for avoidance of potential harm.
I saw you acknowledged the lack of consent, as a huge difference, but I see more differences than that. Can an adult really have a sexual relationship with a child, in the way a heterosexual or homosexual would with an adult? Consent aside, it seems like there’s a lot more involved than that. I see more in common with an arsonist or serial killer, etc. the dynamics may not be exactly the same, but the aftereffects seem closer. An act involving a victim, requiring counseling, and leaving destruction in its wake. I really don’t see the comparison between that and being homosexual (or heterosexual). I also don’t see someone being wired a certain way as suggesting a lack of culpability.
IMO, no, it shouldn’t, especially since this stigma is going to prevent them from seeking some kind of support, which certainly would be useful to help them not acting on their impulses.
On the other hand, if there wasn’t such a stigma attached, wouldn’t be a pedophile more likely to act, since he could more easily rationalize by saying to himself “It’s not my fault, anyway, I’m wired that way”, while he wouldn’t if he was thinking “I’m such an horrible person for having such desires”?
IOW, what would be more likely to lessen the risk of a pedophile commiting a crime : less stigma, allowing him to receive counsel, etc…on how to handle his desires, or more stigma to make more likely that any such desire will be repressed? The first option seems fairer, but not necessarily more efficient.
Anyway, I can’t see the sitgma dissapearing as long as the associated crime is odious.
Finally, it seems to me that there’s no clear-cut answer about the recidivism rate issue. At least, the thread you’re linking too doesn’t seem to provide a definitive answer.
I admit that the OP is something I’ve thought about in the past.
If we accept pedophiles are those hard-wired to swing that way and that they have no choice regarding it (just as with homosexuals, heterosexuals and what-have-you-sexuals)…
Then shouldn’t the proper course not be stigmatization but rather pity? Here are persons that, through no fault of their own, end up wanting what society cannot condone or accept: sexual relations with children. It’s not like these people asked to be wired that way, after all.
What’s your opinion on this statement:
“Can’t you just try NOT being attracted to children for a while?”
Assuming that this comparison would be more valid, there has been a long htread last year precisely on this issue in the Pit. And there was a lot people (me included) who stated that the desire to rape (or be raped, by the way, since both were adressed) shouldn’t be stigmatised. Clearly the majority of posters in this thread were agreeing on this.
Also, an issue would be : is a particular sexual desire hardwired or not? Is pedophilia? Are rape fantasies? Is there a fundamental difference or not in the nature of these desires (I’m not refering to their moral value or lack thereof, or their consequences, only on the way they appear in someone’s brain?). Is pedophilia closer in nature to rape fantasy or to homosexuality or to fetichism?(or to whatever other sexual preference/attraction)?