I’ve seen a couple threads here on the 'Dope regarding unusual and disturbing sexual fantasies, specifically rape fantasys and pedophilia.
It seems that people fall into a few differnent camps on how people with these fantasies and desires should handle their situation. Some say they are flat out evil. Others say that they have a medical problem and must seek therapy, regardless of how they personally feel about their fantasies and their ability to control them. This view seems pretty tied to the idea that these people cannot be trusted not to act on their feelings. Still others (including myself) say that they world of fantasy is not neccesarily related to the rest of life and that a fantasy or desire can’t be “wrong”, only an action can be.
So how about it? Are these desires wrong? When should therapy be sought? Should therapy be forced? Does therapy even “worK”, and would that definition of “working” be a good thing? How should people with these desires deal with them? Can a sexual fantasy be wrong? Does what you wack of too make you evil, regardless of how you live your life?
Only when undesirable actions are occuring or seem likely to occur.
Maybe, in serious cases such a pederasts.
Probably not,
If the problem is particular actions, “working” would mean that the actions cease. If the problem is obsession, “working” could be defined as the ending of that obsession. If the “problem” is just “bad thoughts”, then I would not consider this to be a real problem.
Don’t know.
I don’t think so.
Not at all. Evil actions make people evil, not evil thoughts.
I don’t think something that doesn’t actually involve an action should be defined as “evil.” I’d bet most people have, at some point, thought of killing someone who happened to be particularly rude, assholish, etc, but would never actually seriously consider doing that. Same with most fantasies.
Where therapy should be sought is when a person can’t seperate the fantasy from reality, and starts acting out because of it (In this case, I’m assuming the “bad” fantasy of this topic, such as rape, murder, child molestation, etc. If you fantasy if having someone tickling you or something like that, go right ahead ), or has a very strong inclination to do so. At that point, it’s pushing past being just a fantasy, and therapy of some sort is probably a good thing at that point.
The main trick is, most people seem to assume that having that sick/weird fantasy automatically demands that strong inclination.
What struck me, in the other threads, was the general belief that pedophiles could be treated.
In what way exactly are people that are attracted to children, or to animals or to corpses or whatever else, different from people that are attracted to their own sex?
I think pedophilia is a touchy subject. The news story about the 12 yo girl who intentionally went out looking for older men on the Internet to seduce comes to mind.
Although, IMO she was probably rather ill, mentally.
But what about a 15 yo? 17? Where is the line drawn for how young is to young?
I don’t think treatment will work. I know a man who molested his daughters for years, went through therapy and was discharged by the court. He has never said he’s sorry, and does not believe he did anything wrong.
On a side note, at the slightest provocation I get to live out one of my fantasies… attempting to kill someone. Woot!
Tristen, I think the problem is that pedophilia is being defined way too broadly. I think the term should be used only for adults who are sexually attracted to pre-pubesent children.
I’ll grant that a sexual relationship between an over-21 adult and a 12 to 16 year old is inappropriate, and shows very bad judgement on the part of both parties.
But there’s nothing abnormal about an adult finding a sexually mature 12 to 16 year old attractive. They’d be well advised not to act on the attraction, but it’s cirtainly not abnormal to feel it. What IS abnormal is to feel an attraction for children who really are children – those who have not yet reached puberty.
When we fail to make this distiction, we make pedophilia seem less bad. It’s too easy for someone convicted of child molestation to pass it off as a minor gaff. (“Honest, I had no idea she [or he] was underage!”)
If we are going to forbid by law any sexual activity that involves anyone in the 12 to 17 age range, we need to call it something else; NOT child molestation, statutory rape, or pedophilia. I’ve heard the term “ephebophila” (meaning being attracted to young people in the first few years after reaching sexual maturity). I say, let’s find out how to spell this term and start using it! And let’s adjust the laws to regard a relationship between an adult and en ephebe as a far less serious matter then a sex act between an adult and an actual child.
That’s a extraordinary and unexpected event. I happen to agree with every word ** december ** wrote. I wouldn’t have thought such a thing would ever be possible.
Yes, I know. It’s a “me too” post. But I couldn’t help myself.
Count my views on this topic as exactly similar to his in this debate, anyway (at least until now).
I have to do a “me too” post. December described my reactions as well.
One quick comment: from an online friend (not currently posting here AFAIK) who is in a therapy group including a couple of pedophiles, I’m given to understand that current therapy does not attempt to “cure” pedophilia but to equip the person with pedophilic tendencies with the self-esteem, will power, and what I’d have to describe as social conscience to live as a contributing member of society with his or her pedophilic drive firmly under control.
It is very admirable to try different strategies after the main course of treatment has failed. Fact of the matter is though, it doesn’t work and probably will never work. It is very sad to say that pedophiles are doomed to a life of societal hell and then to horrible punishment as the lowest form of life in prison. I actually feel disgust, hate and compassion for them at the same time. If I found one ever abusing my children, he would be dead instantly (female pedophiles are almost non-existant). However, I do believe that he was born that way and must be dealt with. I have no idea how to do this. Several pedophiles have sought the sanctuary of the priesthood as an out but that doesn’t work for long and can actually shelter them from the consequences of their actions for years.
Because therapy is not doomed to failure. If the individual is highly motivated, honest, and willing, their behavior can be changed. Their underlying nature does not change, but they don’t have to act on their feelings. Unfortunately it often takes extremely severe consequences to make even some abusers amenable to make the changes necessary for them to act differently.
Combine that with the fact that many abusers are also sociopaths, who have no empathy but can fake it marvellously well, and you have a lot of treatment failures.
But some literature suggests that about a third of the people treated actually do get well; i.e. manage to change their behavior long-term. Their nature is not changed, but they no longer have to act out on it. Of course, the problem is figuring out which third of the offenders this is, and what to do with the other two-thirds.
and I would ask that all of you who have said, posted, posited that ‘therapy doesn’t work’ to back that up with data.
(you could, for example, check into recidivism rates for those convicted of child molestation, compare and contrast those who had treatment w/those who didn’t, with the caveat that what you’re looking for is additional criminal sexual behavior. Some one who’d molested children and 15 years later writes a bad check may be a ‘recidivist’ in the criminal sense but not in the c/m area. While this is not to condone writing bad checks, it’s important for people to actually examine the data involved, before making sweeping statements/assumptions like ‘therapy doesn’t work’ especially when your particular data sampling equals one or less).
I may as well be the first to bring A Clockwork Orange into this. Assume we use good ol’ Pavlovian conditioning on pedophiles who are incurable and would otherwise rot in jail. (For those who haven’t read the book, this would involve forcing them to look at images of pedophilia while torturing them, so sex+children = agonizing pain in their subconscious.)
Good? Bad? Easier to just shoot them?
Well, if they are recidivist and/or curing is not possible, what else is there?
We don’t want them near our children, do we?
Until the time that we can surgically alter the deviant part of the brain we are stuck with putting them away for ever or just shoot them.
Ofcourse I would go for putting them away.
I just recently watched a program on TLC (or another of those “educational” channels, I’m not sure which one) on child molesters. They interviewed a number of men. It was creepy, but interesting and informative.
One of the segments involved just this type of negative reinforcement. They showed one of the men in therapy, listening to stories involving molestation themes and sniffing amonia. The researchers involved had found that this was somewhat effective, but it only lasted for 6 months or so before wearing off.
What to do with pedophiles? (Def: men whose sexual orientation is toward pre-pubescent children.) I think the answer is fairly simple. Accept that they are not going to change their orientation; the most that can be expected is that some may try to refrain from acting on their desires. Accept that we cannot rely on them to maintain lifelong control of their impules: some may do so; most won’t, and we have no way to know which (if any) will maintain control. Accept that it just is not safe to ever let them have any access to children.
Bottom line: Once a pedophile has reveled himself, how can we justify any course of action other then life inprisonment?
But, please note, we do not have to lock them up in a regular prison; there’s a solution that is both less expensive and more humane. Set up walled “pedophile only” towns. You have a walled in area, with armed guards to see to it that no one leaves. Inside the walls, you have a regualr town with apartment buildings, businesses, banks, movie theaters, video stores, parks, gyms, restaurants, stores, etc. The inmates have jobs, live in apartments, spend their salaries on rent, food, entertainment.
Anyone convicted of raping or molesting a pre-pubesent child gets a life sentence to a Pediaphiletown. So long as he behaves himself, he gets to stay there. If he tries to escape, or if he commits ordinary crimes while inside, he can be sent to a regular prison.
And, pedophiles who have not been caught, and/or have not acted on their impules, can sign themselves into a Pediaphiletown. Sort of like voluntarily comitting oneself to an insane asylum. I think there are some pedophiles who realize how wrong their desires are; how damaging it would be to the child if they ever acted on their impulses. Such a person might well sign himself in to a Pedaphiletown with a sign of relief.
On what evidences are you basing your opinion that ** most** pedophiles will act on their impulses?
As for your idea to lock pedophiles in a walled city…don’t even know where to begin…
But for instance : how would you justify to lock them up if they commited no crimes? And if they commited crimes, why not jail them? Or do you mean that pedophiles who commited a crime aren’t really responsibles (since they’re mentally ill) hence shouldn’t be jailed?
Question: What research is there that pedophiles can’t control their desires? And no quoting DSM-IV: obviously the psychiatrists can’t get at the people who are sexually attracted to children and don’t let it be known. Maybe a helpful porn web-site owner could publish a list of hits?
), or has a very strong inclination to do so. At that point, it’s pushing past being just a fantasy, and therapy of some sort is probably a good thing at that point.