Is 'pedophile' a sexual preferece? One that cannot be legally discriminated against?

Great Debates
21

I would have nothing but sympathy for a moral person afflicted with a sexual desire for prepubescent children and the awareness of what acting on it would do to those kids’ psyches.

I think that there is indeed a line to be drawn, notwithstanding the fact that you can (as robertliguoiri did) draw some parallels between advocacy for gay rights and some more-or-less-hypothetical advocacy for pedophile rights.

And that line is that the gay people cause each other no social harm by acting on their sexual impulses in a moral way, while the pedophile cannot.

What the APA or any given religious group thinks about it is a side issue – the question is one of personal ethics. If a gay man or woman chooses to enter into a sexual relationship with another gay man or woman, he or she is not ipso facto causing psychological harm to the other person. One would need to create an exceedingly unlikely set of circumstances to hypothecase a similar case for a pedophile – his partner would need to be an emotionally stable supergenius child with adult-level maturity and a sexual desire for the pedophile prior to entering puberty – possible, but approaching the limits of the barely credible.

22

“Is ‘pedophile’ a sexual preferece? One that cannot be legally discriminated against?
Hypothetical: If someplace claims not to discriminate on grounds of sexual orientation, would they be ‘forced’ to not discriminate against him or her, or be forced to change their policy? Is pedophilia even a legally recognized sexual preference for anti-discrimination policies?”

I’m repeating the OP because it seems to me that many posters are ignoring what was actually asked.

“Is Pedophilia a sexual preference?”

Yes. Which only means: it relates to sexual stimulation, and some people prefer it.

“One that can not legally be discriminated against?”

I know of no law that specifies pedophilia as a sexual preference that cannot be discriminated against. As far as I know, every jurisdiction has some sort of law that would make active (ie, “practicing”) pedophilia illegal–presuming that the activity involved is sexual contact, sexual inducement, something like indecent exposure, etc. The only “iffy” cases might be premarital sexual relations between a legal adult and legal minor, followed by legal marriage.

“…would they be ‘forced’ to not discriminate against him or her…Is pedophilia even a legally recognized sexual preference for anti-discrimination policies?”

The words of the law get interpreted. You can bet that if a judge interpreted “no discrimination based upon sexual preference” to cover pedophilia, rape, bestiality, indecent expose, etc.–the decision would be overturned on appeal, the law would be quickly amended for clarification, and the judge would be looking at some serious sanctions. “Sexual preference” is almost always taken to mean–and is often expicitly defined as–hetero-/homosexuality.

Impact of sexual-preference antidiscrimination laws in states with a sodomy statute? Beats me. I suppose you could prefer it till the cows come home, as long as you don’t actually act on it. In truth, I would think the sodomy law would be viewed as pretty much unenforcible under such circumstances.

As to the further implicit issue of whether someone who discloses a “…fondness for pubescent teens…a hobby of travelling to countries where the age of consent in 13 or 14 and engaging in legal sex with those children…” is protected from discrimination in hiring, dismissal, housing, etc–not by a typical “sexual preference” law, no. But I think some states may have a general “no discrimination in employment without good cause” statute, or perhaps a basic “right to privacy” provision. Here things could get interesting. But the obvious necessities of the job are usually accepted as a defense: you won’t be penalized if you refuse to hire a self-avowed pedophile as a camp counselor, a fantasizing rapist as a gynecologist, etc. IMHO.

23

To my knowledge, the law does not concern itself with desires. It concerns itself with what people say and do, not what they feel. People are allowed to have whatever dark desires they like. It’s when they begin to act on them (and I include discussing them in an inappropriate setting as a form of action) that they run into potential trouble.

In other words, if I had a business I think I could safely and legally fire known child molestors as well as employees who simply discussed their desire to molest children around the watercooler, but pedophiles who never act on their desires should never come to my attention. If I did happen to discover that, say, one of my employees was in counseling for pedophilia but had never acted on these desires I don’t think I’d legally be allowed to fire him/her for that.

24

BTW, in my first post, please insert “pedophile” instead of “pedophiliac.” Although the OED does list the latter as an acceptable term, i think the former is more widely used.

25

It has already been said(in so many words), but I’ll say my bit anyway; paedophilia (the acts of) involves violation of consent, homosexuality does not; it is irrelevant whether it is a preference or orientation or whatever you want to call it; the preference toward causing harm to an unconsenting party is not morally acceptable.

I’ve seen (hyper)fundamentalist Christians argue using this logic; “Gay Christian? Impossible!! You’re one or the other,…you’re gay, or you’re a Christian!! Is there a such thing as a Christian Child Molestor? How about a Christian Murderer? What about a Christian Bank Robber?” , but as I said it is a position that ignores (wilfully in a great many cases, I believe) the fact that homosexuality involves consenting parties, rape, murder, paedophilia, theft etc involve forcible violation of consent.

26

Sure, you should be free to be a paedophile if you want. But the moment you actually abuse a child, (including making payment for pictures of kiddy porn, which would be paying someone else to abuse a child for you) then that’s it.

I can be sexually attracted to as many guys or girls as I want, but I can’t have sex with them unless they agree to it.

Given that minors will always be unable to give consent to sex under the law, it makes sense for paedophiles to seek help to try and iron out the wrinkles in their sex-life. In order for them to feel able to do this, they should be able to admit that they have these feelings without feeling like “that’s it, your life is now over, welcome to PariahLand, please keep all limbs inside the car.” In order for them to feel like they are able to deal with their problems, the rest of society needs to take the stick out of its ass and treat paedophiles (who are almost invariably the victims of abuse themselves) in a way which means that they can, comfortably, seek help.

27

Sure, in a perfect world it should be so, a world in which we would be able to discern what people’s intentions are at every moment. The problem is that no parent would want a confessed paedophile near their children in the same manner that I wouldn’t like to be operated by a doctor with a drinking problem.

28

Poor analogy. Try again.

29

Maybe you are right and it is a poor analogy. The truth remains that it is the human nature to distance ourselves from anyone who we perceive as not necessarily good at controlling their urges if those urges can result in someone getting hurt. Paedophiles included.

Can you see what you propose happening?

30

mhendo: As it regards the intentions of the individuals, and their level of self control, as well as the potential to cause harm if that control is lost, it’s a fine analogy. It might be better stated as a doctor who is proposed to handle a surgery, whom you have discovered has a drinking problem, if you’re a hospital administrator. But, I get the meaning across just fine from the original.

31

Mighty_Girl
So your solution is to drive them underground where they feel they can’t talk to anyone about their urges, and they know it’s bad and wrong but they can’t help it, and why is it so bad anyway, people don’t understand what it’s like, and they don’t want to hurt the kids, they just like looking, not touching, well, maybe touching a little bit…

While acknowledging that human beings are dumb, shallow creatures who often pick the kneejerk over the actually useful, I see no reason to stick with the status quo just because that’s the way it’s always been done. I’d rather the paedophile near me was able to find help and talk about his problems with a psychiatrist without feeling like he was going to lose his job or his home if he did so, thanks all the same. That way, if he needs help, he’ll get it.

32

{b}If I did happen to discover that, say, one of my employees was in counseling for pedophilia but had never acted on these desires I don’t think I’d legally be allowed to fire him/her for that.**

In my state you can fire any employee, for any reason, or for no reason. It’s called a “right to work” state. Do’t tell me that rich irony is wasted on lawmakers!

33

EXCUSE ME! Do not put words in my mouth. I am perfectly capable of expressing my feelings myself.

I never said anything about my solution being “to drive them underground where they feel they can’t talk to anyone about their urges”. I said it is highly unlikely that we will change our feelings and just start trusting people whom we know might have a problem controlling their urges. IIRC, that’s what mental health professionals are for, huh? and again, if all this time watching Law and Order is good for something I believe that there is such thing as “priviledged communication” or some such, by virtue of which the patient does have a right to privacy and to keep his communications with his doctor in secret. Maybe a lawyer will tell me I am wrong, maybe not.

And you are damn right, I don’t know how it feels not been able to control myself, I never had that problem, and I hope I never do. I feel for anyone who has that problem and hope they all have the opportunity to seek for help, but I remain adamant that I don’t want a doctor with a drinking problem to operate on me. Thankyouverymuch.

34

They want to get counseling, fine. I would never restrict that. They want sympathy? They have it. They want a right to think and act as they please? Sure, as long as they’re not touching kids. If their opinions differ significantly from those of a retail operator, and could conceivably cause a drop in sales, I think they probably could be fired. I think it’s one issue to say that an employer discovers that their employee is taking counseling for child sex issues, or whatever, and fires them based on that. It’s another for an employer to discover that an employee is a listed sexual predator, or somesuch, and that anyone who recognises them might draw such conclusions. It would potentially impact sales. If they’re working at Toys ‘R’ Us, it could impact national sales. Based on that I think they could be fired.

35

My point about “right to work” was that in such states a pedophile list cold easily become an employment blacklist. Let’s face it, nobody WANTS pedophiles as employees, and “right to work” laws give employers the ability to discriminate against pedos at will.

It’s a tough call, because I just can’t see FORCING people to hire or keep pedos on the job, but barring them forever from decent work conflict with my feeling that if someoe serves their time for a crime they oughtta be given a second chance. There are some very strong principles in direct opposition here.

36

Well, even your modified analogy is poor, because it fails to recognize that “a drinking problem” refers both to a psychological problem, and a specific act that goes along with it. Pedophilia, on the other hand, is a pathology that is not necessarily accompanied by action. A better analogy would be a doctor who is an alcoholic (in the psychological sense), but who has been through treatment and no longer drinks. There are people in all walks of life who are alcoholics but who do not drink; they still have the disease (i’m not sure if it’s called a pathology), but they do not act on it.

Another problem is that Mighty Girl’s analogy, when it said that “no parent would want a confessed paedophile near their children,” drew with a very broad brush. I would certainly agree, for example, that someone known to be a pedophile should not work in places where he has frequent and/or unsupervised access to children. But if someone is a pedophile who has demonstrated an ability not to act on his urges, then i don’t think we should shut that person away from the rest of society.

Even if you don’t agree with such an assessment from some sort of moral objection, i think it has a certain practical value. If we continue to treat all pedophiles like criminals - even those who do not touch children and have no intention doing so - then those who control their urges might well decide that if they are being treated like criminals anyway, they have no real incentive to avoid the behavior. If, on the other hand, we recognize the effort it takes to overcome this pathology, and allow non-acting pedophiles to become functioning members of society, this will demonstrate to them the concrete benefits to be gained from being in therapy and maintaining their self-control.

37

Mhendo: An ‘alcoholic’ can easily be referred to as someone with a ‘drinking problem’, but the fact that they’re not drinking now would have to be stated if it were to fit.

It’s a tough issue either way. In essence, I agree with you.

38

Of course, after a few years and protests, rallies, and media whine-fests, pedophili-phobia will be considered a mental illness :rolleyes:

39

Troll.

40

Winging it a little here:

Pathology is a pattern of behaviors that is persistent and counterproductive.
Mental illness refers more to things like depression, bipolar disorder, schizophrenia, etc. But it is used interchangeably with other terms.

so someone may be depressed, but not pathologically depressed, meaning they’re just “in a funk” make sense?

The DSM does not recognize “pedophile” as a diagnosis. Most people who have sex with children are either diagnosed with Antisocial personality disorder (a persistent pattern of violating the basic rights of others) conduct disorder, or
There is a V-code (not really disorders, but things that can be the focus of treatment) labeled “Sexual abuse of a child” and specifiers for focus on the offender or focus on the child.

So although we all agree that it’s bad to have sex with children (NAMBLA members aside), and these people do need therapy, there is no specific mental disorder pigeonholing them.