That’s not true at all. Humans have clearly evolved to have non-procreative sex on a regular basis. We are interested in sex all the time, not just when the female is fertile; we have a low fertility rate; and unlike the females of most species women don’t even have an obvious signal for when they are fertile. Among humans, most sex is about social bonding and entertainment, not reproduction; “sex is about reproduction” is a religious/political assertion, not a scientific fact.
Two homosexuals having sex with each other for fun or because they’re in love are having sex for the same reasons that the great majority of heterosexual sex is done for. As for reproduction; there’s no shortage of people and if lesbians want to get pregnant they know how.
We aren’t cattle however. Human sexuality isn’t much like cattle sexuality, nor are we a species bred for the purposes of another species; so that analogy doesn’t work.
My view would be:
attracted to opposite sex= not ill
attracted to same sex = not ill
attracted to a tree = not ill
attracted to your car = not ill
attracted to a child = not ill, but unethical to indulge in it.
As for active pedophiles being compulsive; given how socially disapproved it is, the severity of the penalties and how blatantly immoral it is, I expect that the percentage of active pedophiles who are compulsive, have pathologically low self control or are sociopathic is far higher than the percentage for most sexual preferences. And those qualities are all mental illnesses of one kind or another, regardless of if they express themselves through pedophilia or something else. People can’t help what they are attracted to but they can help what they act out on - and if they can’t, that’s a sign of something wrong with them.
Misguided. Not necessarily (though not necessarily not) sick. But that’s as much politics as anything else (as is the fact that I initially wrote “evil” and changed my mind).
Maybe “sick” is not quite the right word. But as Miller was saying above, if obtaining your sexual satisfaction requires you either to pretend that the other person wants it when they obviously don’t, or to carry on without caring whether they want it or not, that indicates a screw loose somewhere in the old think-box.
So why is a pedophile incapable of *imagining *that there is consent? Sure, it’s not possible in reality, but there’s no reason that should be a barrier to the imagination. I have non-Euclidean sex in my imagination–why should reality limit what I can think of?
Also, suppose a person had an early sexual experience with someone of the same age; say, 12. If they fondly reminisce on the experience, does that mean they have a mental illness? Presumably not, since at the time there was, if not proper adult consent, at least a minimal power imbalance. I don’t see how things change if the imagined experience is entirely hypothetical.
Oh sure, a pedophile can imagine a child consenting to sex, just as someone could imagine having sex with a unicorn.
But is it healthy if your fundamental sexual desire, the only thing that will truly satisfy you sexually, is something that cannot possibly exist in reality?
No, certainly it’s not unhealthy to fondly remember positive sexual feelings that one had as a child, experiences that were part of a child’s natural sexuality (which is different from an adult’s).
But as I understand it, adult child molesters don’t desire to remember being children or to become children again; what they want is to express their adult sexual feelings with the participation and consent of a child. And that is simply impossible in real life.
I think you’re drawing a line where none necessarily exists. Sure, if your desires are so far removed from reality that they can’t possibly be expressed, but that nothing less will satisfy them, then there is a serious problem. This likely applies to any pedophiles that actually act on their feelings. But for every one of them, there are likely many others that are at least partially satisfied with ordinary adult interaction; enough that their thoughts do not become intrusive.
Sure. But it’s not a mental illness for me to want to fly, or to imagine that I can fly, or even to stand on a cliff edge and have an immense desire to spread my arms and leap off–the mental illness would be me actually acting on those feelings, or if my thoughts became so intrusive that I could not otherwise function in day to day life. There’s a spectrum, and IMHO only at the extreme point does it become an illness.
[QUOTE=Past Martin Hyde]
Now, I think homosexuality is a problem as many homosexuals have a variety of problems. Namely they clearly have sexual dysfunction and delude themselves that various acts with people of the same sex is a form of sexual intercourse when we’ve evolved to reproduce by having sexual intercourse with the opposite gender. Homosexuals also often have various emotional and mood problems along with depression. I think we should be looking into treatments and cures for homosexuality or at the very least let’s understand what combination of genetic or developmental conditions leads to the affliction so we can eventually eliminate it in future generations.
[/QUOTE]
To take that one at a time;
I can’t agree on that “sexual disfunction” point. That’s taking labels way too literally. What delusion is present? That acts between people of the same gender won’t result in procreation? I think that’s understood. That such acts should be called “sexual intercourse” when they are not? It seems like too narrow a definition to use in normal conversation, but, even if reduce it simply to the ol’ tab A into slot B, that takes out a whole lot of things, including opposite-gender pair doings, that, again, aren’t a matter of confusion (or delusion). Homosexuals often have various emotional and mood problems plus depression (i’d tend to lump depression into those prior categories, but); sure, but to what extent is that inherent to homosexuality and to what is it a matter of social interaction?
The question of cures and treatments brings up an interesting subject that I often don’t actually see answered whenever it comes up in debates like these; would you enforce such cures? If so, or not, why? I don’t know what the equivalent term is in the US, but in the UK we would use “sectioned” to refer to someone hospitalised and treated against their will, for a mental health issue that it is deemed they don’t have the wherewithal to agree to. That you’d refer to eventually eliminating it does rather suggest a total response, whether to the willing or the unwilling.
Monogamy, thus, is a mental aberration. Procreation of the species is vastly less hindered by those who have no desire to procreate manually than it is those who would be happy to do so but restrict themselves to one partner. A lack of desire to procreate with immediately pubescent partners; likewise, folly, and a sign of something wrong with you at a gross instinctual level, to so decrease your potential procreation opportunities.
Or, of course, we could say that procreation is not a be-all and end-all, and that procreation of the species is actually not best served by everyone trying to impregnate everyone else all the time; in fact by and large we’re all going to be spending most of our lives trying not to procreate, sexuality irrelevant, even if we want kids. So what exactly is however many people merely living 60 years or their lives without procreating instead of 70?
The Roman numeral thing? As I understand it, the intention is that it will be easier to name revisions (e.g. 5.1, 5.2), but I don’t know for sure that’s the reason.
No, but something like that is a fairly trivial voluntary fantasy amusement compared to essential sexual desire, which most people need to have fulfilled in some way in order to be mentally and emotionally healthy. If you dream of flying and aren’t interested in more realistically possible alternatives like swimming, it doesn’t matter. But if you dream of sex with children and don’t have a satisfying realistic alternative, you’re sexually unfulfilled, and that is generally considered unhealthy.
Take the more appropriate analogy of eating, which as a physical need is at least somewhat comparable to sex. It’s not a mental illness for you to want to be a herbivore and eat grass, or to imagine that you’re a herbivore eating grass. Arguably, it’s not even necessarily a mental illness for you to imagine being a cannibal and eating human flesh. But if you actually go ahead and eat somebody, either by persuading yourself that they want it too or by convincing yourself that you don’t have to worry about what they want, you are way, way messed up.
The difference between eating and flying is that you don’t have to fly but you do have to eat. Likewise, you have to have at least some outlet for sexual feeling. If the only form of satisfaction you truly want for these fundamental needs is one that requires abusing somebody else, that’s not healthy.
And even if you say “Well, I might like to think about it a bit but I’d never actually do it”, if you don’t have a realistically possible alternative way of satisfying this need that you find at least equally fulfilling, that’s still not healthy.
Why does it have to be exactly equal? Most of my fantasies are superior to what I can achieve in real life. My life is good, but I have an excellent imagination. Real life just has to be good enough, and I have to imagine that a large number of pedophiles are in exactly that situation. Maybe they prefer children to adults, at least in their fantasies, but nevertheless have a perfectly ordinary and fulfilling adult sex life. There’s no inherent reason this has to rise to the level of a mental illness.
Likewise, I’m sure there are plenty of homosexuals in heterosexual relationships, and are satisfied enough to be happy (of course, there are also plenty who are seriously dissatisfied and depressed at their situation). In some cases, they may not even know or admit to themselves that they’re homosexual. Again, I don’t think it matters as long as they are reasonably satisfied with their life and that their thoughts do not become intrusive. It’s no one’s place to “fix” that or judge the person.
I would agree with all of this but I wonder about cause and effect. I am a straight guy but I can’t imagine the pain of being trapped in an alternate universe where it is considered illegal and immoral to engage in my preferred behavior with adult women. Can you? I sincerely wonder if such a situation would drive the compulsion to “offend” or cause low self control.
I think being gay is similar to the sexing of plants. I know that sounds weird, but if you’v ever grown marijuana plants you know that you have to be very careful with your female plants or that may turn into males or “hermies.” You have to give them perfect nutrition and darkness or you got problems.
I think homosexuality is just a mixture of nutritional deficiencies and stress that for whatever reason caused the mental “hermaphorditing” of the brain. I mean stress in modern life is at an all time high, the food supply is garbage, and we have drugs (especially birth control pills) getting in our water supply. On top of this you have arrogance and selfishness in family life that is more than ever before with the breakdown of the family. High rates of homosexuality is inevitable.
I think what you’re suggesting is that we should have some kind of empathy for those who are born with a prediliction for immoral/illegal sexual preferences. I suppose that’s not unreasonable. I can imagine a situation in which I’d allow myself to have some sympathy for a pedophile. After all, he didn’t ask to be born that way any more than a guy with a thing for trees.
So I’m not advocating that all pedophiles should be jailed and chemically castrated, UNLESS, they are an imminent danger to kids. It’s hard to know if they are or not until it’s too late, but I’m not an advocate for pre-emptive actions like that because they are bound to be applied imperfectly and it would deminish society as a whole if we attempted to implement that sort of draconian treatment of people who have yet to commit a crime.
But at the end of the day we must draw a line about what we as a society will and will not tollerate. As a rule, we don’t tollerate abuse of children by adults. As a rule, adults do not have sexual desires for children. As an exception, those who do and cannot help themselves are deemed mentally ill and a danger to children. As a society we agree to discourage and punish that behaviour.
So when it comes down to a choice to look the other way while a pedophile (becase it’s his unchosen natural born tendency) harms a child or harming a pedophiles “self-esteem”, the choice is rather simple and clear.
In short, we might be able to understand what drives the pedophile, but we are not required to condone it. Same as with sociopaths and dangerous psychopaths.
Please note that in my posts I have in no way advocated looking the other way or condoning the behavior of pedophiles. As far as sympathy is concerned you won’t find much of that in our society for pedophiles just like you won’t find much for mass murderers. My point is that there is a difference between being a danger to society and being mentally ill (or maybe there is not…as Marley23 points out societal factors determine who is mentally ill).
I suppose the ability to treat should not determine who is mentally ill. Since pedophiles seem to be “born that way”, my initial thought is that this could be some naturally occurring variant in sexual orientation…much like being gay may be. I suppose the same argument could have been made about other mental disorders before we were able to adjust brain chemicals. Maybe one day we will be able to “rewire” the brains of pedophiles to make them “normal” but, then, that opens up the question of should the same be attempted with homosexuals if, indeed, they have brain wiring issues that makes them different. Of course, for the homosexual, there would obviously be a choice to undergo treatment and I imagine very few would want to fundamentally change something that they consider perfectly natural. The pedophile may be forced to undergo treatment as a condition of living in society.
At any rate, my first thought was that if both homosexuality and pedophilia are caused by abnormal wiring in the brain, should we consider both or neither to be a mental illness. If this is indeed the case then the etiology is identical but the external manifestation of the wiring is worlds apart. One allows for consensual relationships with like-minded same-sex partners while the other results in the very real potential to cause harm to the most innocent in our society. I think Kimstu convinced me that this makes all the difference in determining which one is mentally ill. The scientist in me is just not satisfied with that answer.
As far as we know, the biggest contributor is the hormones the fetus is exposed to while it’s developing. Studies have shown that the more male children a woman has, the more likely it is that a younger son will be gay. Do you have a degree in nutrition or botany or pharmacology?
The hypothesis is that the mother produces antibodies to male-specific antigens which, if they build up to high enough levels over numerous male pregnancies, are able to neutralize these male-specific antigens. This can block the “masculinization” of the brain.