In purely analytical terms if the etiology is identical (which I don’t think we know for sure) and the only outward difference is who someone is attracted to, then it seems we are only defining pedophilia as a mental illness because the attraction to children is not “acceptable” in society. Does that make sense?
Since only a very small percentage of society is gay, and they can procreate nowadays, I sincerely doubt the idea that “sex is for procreation” holds up here.
Lots of things are abnormal. I sleep on the floor. I keep a daily journal. And I am totally asexual. Does that mean I am mentally ill?
John Douglas of the FBI does thing that sexual preference is present at birth. It’s people’s job to see that they behave properly. Looking at a child’s toy or clothing catalogue while masturbating? Okay. Feeling up a child? Nope.
It makes perfect sense. It’s what I’ve been attempting to convey all along. What I’m wondering is why you feel that’s not a significant enough of a distinction.
Distinction being: Intentionally cause harm to another being for personal gratification = mental illness (as defined by society and a branch of science).
Because I am not referring to the act as much as the underlying “condition”. Is a pedophile who doesn’t act on his urges mentally ill? Does just being attracted sexually to children make one mentally ill? At the most base level I don’t see a difference between pedophilia, homosexuality or heterosexuality. Obviously heterosexuality is overwhelmingly represented in the population. Homosexuality is not considered an illness because the outward expression is consensual and there are other like-minded people. If there were only one homosexual in the world I assume he/she would be considered mentally ill because there are no other like-minded people available and his/her “attractions” would seem very strange indeed.
Exactly, again.
What normal sexual attraction is basically about, as I’ve said above, is the desire to reciprocally share the pleasure of sexual gratification with the object of one’s attraction.
The adult homosexual is attracted to another sexually mature adult who can reciprocate the attraction and share gratification.
The adult pedophile is attracted to a child who cannot possibly reciprocate or share these essentially adult sexual feelings.
It is not AT ALL making an artificial or trivial distinction to infer that the homosexual’s psyche is functioning more “correctly” or “healthily” than the pedophile’s. The pedophile’s desires are fundamentally in conflict with reality in a way that the homosexual’s are not. And being disconnected from reality is a big red flag for mental illness.
Sure. If only one person in the world were homosexual, then their wanting to have sex with someone of the same sex would also be like wanting to have sex with a unicorn. Because there would simply be no such thing in the world as a person who could reciprocate their desire. The world’s only homosexual would have desires fundamentally disconnected from reality, and as I said, that’s not healthy.
While we’re thinking up counterfactuals: If there existed children who reached full psychological and emotional maturity before they attained physical puberty, then pedophilia would not be a mental illness. Those “children” would be capable of understanding and reciprocating adult sexual feelings, so it would not be unrealistic or unhealthy for an adult to be sexually attracted to them.
I’d posit that there are plenty of children out there with emotional maturity in the range of a typical 18 year old (though maybe this says more about 18 year olds than 12 year olds). It’s still unhealthy to obsess over them because our laws do not account for exceptional cases and so there can be no legal reciprocation (or really, any reciprocation that the rest of society finds acceptable).
It’s also unhealthy, for slightly different reasons, to obsess over legal adults at the bottom range of normal emotional maturity. It may even be worse, since the psychological damage is just as bad to both parties, but there is no legal obstacle to the behavior.
I think you may be mixing up pedophilia with what is technically hebephilia/ephebophilia, or sexual attraction to pubescent and adolescent individuals. What we’ve been talking about here is pedophilia sensu strictu, i.e., sexual attraction to prepubescent children (as in Miller’s example of a 10-year-old abuse victim).
Being sexually attracted to individuals who are sexually mature (or well advanced towards sexual maturity) even though they are still legally minors may be problematic in many ways, and you’re right that smart and well-balanced adults will generally choose not to act on any such feelings.
But since such feelings do at least involve a possibility of a mutual and consensual relationship, they are not in the same category of psychological unhealthiness as pedophilia per se.
Perhaps a different analogy will help.
Is a recovering alcoholic or drug addict still considered an addict even though he/she is no longer a substance abuser?
Note: I’m not equating substance abuse with pedophelia (just in case that required clarification).
Oh no. Being gay is fine, it is not a mental illness.