Fair enough; it made sense to me at the time; it was supposed to be an example of the fallacy of false analogy; comparing P to Q by brushing off the differences between P and Q - differences which actually make the comparison of P and Q a completely invalid one.
I would also like to see your evidence that pedophilia is genetic.
Insofar as pedophiles are saying, “I can’t help what I feel”, they are probably correct. They should be regarded with extra suspicion, since orientation often leads them to commit crimes against children. If you wish to describe this extra suspicion as “stigma”, I have no objection.
Insofar as pedophiles are saying, “I can’t help what I do”, they are either telling the truth and need to be executed or sent to prison for life, or lying, in which case they need to be executed or sent to prison for life.
If you cannot do other than to violate children, you are a dangerous criminal. If you can choose to do other, but do it anyway, same thing.
You can’t help your feelings, but you can help your actions. If you can’t control your actions, then God pity you, but don’t be surprised if society takes steps to protect itself from you.
Regards,
Shodan
It’s not absolutely clear, but there are definite indications that a biological component exists somewhere. My comments in italics.
-
Gaffney et al (1984) and Freund and Blanchard (1993) found that the prevalence of paraphilias was greater among the first degree relatives of paedphiles than in the normal population. Could be purely biological, purely social, or a mixture of the two.
-
Langevin et al (1988), Langevin (1990) etc have found indications of abnormal brain structure in some paedophiles. Again, possibly biological, but there could easily be a confound somewhere.
-
Sue, Sue and Sue (2000) and Nevid et al (1995) suggest the presence of neurohormal bases to paedophilia.
Basically, noone is suggesting that social factors are unimportant. What is generally said is that there seems a biological component somewhere. What exactly this component is, has so far not been isolated.
Very, very valid point.
IF all sexual preferences is hard-wired, that is if we are born homo, hetero, etc…should pedophiles be automatically condemned as subhumans because of something they have no more control over than you or I do…i.e our sexual wiring? I did say IF.
Especially considering how interracial, homosexuality etc…was once and still considered against the “laws of nature”. Social moires are liquid and ever changing.
The biggest problem is of course age of consent, but consent has changed and may change again. No, i’m not talking about 3 year olds or 10 year olds , or forcing anyone do what they don’t want and NO I’m not saying that homosexuals are the same as child molesters.
But I do think the OP has an interesting premise, if ALL sexual preferences are innate, should they all not be treated equally, until they break whatever laws society decides they’ve broken?
The laws say this age and no lower, but those are arbitrary numbers…similar laws said that it was against the law to have sex with a different race…there are still laws that say it’s illegal to have same sex relations. These laws ignored the consent issue all together.
The problem is that the rules that govern consent vary from state to state, as well as country to country. I think in Canada the age of consent is still 14. Let’s say our pedophile knows the law, finds himself a 14 year old that looks 12 and has relations…has he broken the law? Does he still deserve to be executed?
Is the 14 year old a victim? Legally they have the right to consent and did so…is he no longer a pedophile because he’s in Canada or NC (pc) and not in New York? Isn’t the act the same, isn’t he still fulfilling his urges?
What I find strange is the difference in the age of consent. A 37 year can have sex with a 14 year old girl, but not with a 14 year old boy.
Is the age of consent for homosexuals still 18 in Canada, btw?
You should visit the criminology department. As has been pointed out in previous threads on this topic (which as a non member I can no longer look up) the rate of recivism is rather low for paedophilia in comparison to other violent crimes. It is also not “accepted” that the condition cannot be controlled (rather than cured).
I thought Mangetout was smack-on until the OP clarified, at which point I no longer see why homosexuality was ever really brought into it.
That said, no, I don’t think the tendency, if by tendency you merely mean non-actual expression (talk, drawings, etc), should be stigmatized. If the person has done nothing wrong, then they have done nothing wrong. That seems about as straightforward as can be.
I’m not so unrealistic as to think this will ever actually happen, though. Mostly we’ve set our society up to dislike the thought/activity if the thought/activity is a necessary condition for the problem. Drunk driving, for example, is a crime in and of itself, rather than just harshly punishing people who cause an accident while drunk.
In a related thread, I posted some of my thoughts on the issue of whether pedophilic tendencies, as opposed to actions, should be considered wrong. The tough part is defining what this thread’s OP means when using the term “tendencies”. The point where I drew the line in the other thread was when there is an amount of volition on the part of the pedophile. I said:
Applying those thoughts to the OP, once there is an amount of volition on the part of the pedophile, whether in the form of fantasizing or continually focusing on children as potential sexual mates, then I have absolutely no problem stigmatizing that person.
Missed this the first time around, and think it’s a good point. While I can concede a pedophile may be unable to help those thoughts, I think it’s equally fair to say it’s difficult for me to not attach a stigma to them in my own mind. Not a justification for me to ostracize one, but it’d be disingenuous of me to say I’d feel no qualms about hiring one as a babysitter. I agree with erislover and his if a person has done nothing wrong, then they’ve done nothing wrong statement. I do have a “but” there, much as I’d like to think I don’t. The “but” is, from a legal standpoint, I don’t see a need to punish someone who has done nothing wrong, but I suppose it would be a punishment meted out by me, for not hiring that person for a certain job in the first place.
To be honest, this thread is all over the place; what exactly is meant by the term ‘validating’ in the thread title? Are we making a clear distinction between stigma and prosecution? What do we actually mean by ‘stigmatised’ anyway? Is it possible to control social stigma? If possible, is it beneficial?
Question for anyone: Are paedophiles attracted to children because of age or because of lack of sexual development? In other words could a underdeveloped 14 year old be attractive to a paedophile until they found out they were really 14?
Secondly, my old college stuff is kicking in…isn’t or wasn’t paedophilila considered an act of ‘control’ or ‘power’ similar to rape? Sorry for the hijack, but I based my post on these two points and I’m wondering if I may have be mistaken.
I vaguely remember this thread, and some posters, IIRC, responded in the same way I’m going to answer :
I doubt it’s actually possible to control one’s sexual fantaisies. I wouldn’t know for sure, since I never tried. Did you? Similarily, assuming you’re straight, how would you manage to never have “improper” thoughts or reactions when meeting/seeing an attractive woman? Do you think it’s actually possible?
In any case, assuming it’s possible, it seems to me a heavy burden, and I still can’t see how having mere thoughts about something should deserve blame, since it isn’t going to harm anybody.
Besides, it seems to me to be a moot point, since how are you going to tell what someone is thinking/ fantaziing about as long as he doesn’t admit to it? So, you can’t know who you can stigmatize, anyway.
Finally, I would suspect it would be safer to have your neighbour admitting to his pedophilic tendancies rather than keeping them secret. If only because you would then take the precautions you feel are necessary re. your own children. And said neighbor isn’t going to admit to it as long as there’s such a strong stigma attached.
I’ve met a non-practicing paedophile. They do exist. A person can only really be blamed for their actions, not their emotions.
That said, I can understand the uneasiness of some parents in the thread, especially when it comes to babysitting. I don’t have any kids, but I imagine it would be like leaving a starved lion – however well-trained – in charge of a beloved pet rabbit.
As for clairobscur’s worries that tolerating non-practicing paedophiles would encourage active paedophilia among those who do not currently practice it, it’s may be a real concern, but it’s not fair to individuals. We all have desires which, if acted upon, can be destructive – murderous rage, for example – but everyone has to have the opportunity to hold themselves back before society gets involved.
It’s 14 for everything but anal sex. Both the Quebec Court of Appeal and the Ontario Court of Appeal have struck down the section as discriminatory (Cite, click on “Current Law”). The court didn’t have any problem with an age-18 age of consent, just with the difference between ages of consent for vaginal and anal sex.
Well…sure, but not hiring him as a babysitter is a quite sensible thing to do. And though this could be constructed as a kind of discrimination, it’s a long shot from saying say “Let’s torch his house with him inside”, and given what kind of comments one’s hear or read, the stigma we’re talking about seem closer to “pedophiles should receive a bullet in the head” than to “pedophiles shouldn’t be hired as babysitters”.
I don’t buy into absolutes, so I’m not going to tell : “since pedophiles who didn’t commit a crime aren’t at fault, they shouldn’t face any kind of discrimination, ever, in any possible situation, and someone who wouldn’t let his daughter spend a week in an avowed pedophile’s home is a prejudiced moron”.
Yes, it’s not fair to the concerned individual, and I admitted to it in the very post where I made this statement.
But I was trying to adress also the consequences that the lack of stigma could have, for the community (not the individual), both beneficial and harmful.
Of course, this whole “age of consent” matter is entirely subjective, just as opposition to homosexuality based on its “ickyness” was subjective. Why can’t a child legally consent? It is not as cut-and-dried as it sounds; the tide of public opinion can change. It is not impossible that that restriction will soon be regarded as a holdover of an intolerant past.
(Needless to say, pedophilia without the child’s consent would always be viewed negatively, but there’s no irrevokable reason why a child cannot legally give consent.)
By the way, it seems to me we should concentrate on pedophiles as in “attracted to prebuscent children”, or else we’re going to sidetrack to the unending debate about the age of consent.
(though the stigma attached to pedophiles certainly has an impact for the eternal “18 years and two days old who slept with his 17 years and 11 months girlfriend and is registered as a sex offender” in countries or places where there’s such a register is accessible to the public)
Yes, it’s possible. And there are probably out there some 12 yo more able to give consent than many adults.
But still, it’s much more likely that the child won’t give an informed consent. For instance, it’s way easier to manipulate in various ways a child than an adult.
The issue would be then to decide whether a particular child, in a particular instance actually gave a consent which was meaningful and it didn’t result in some harm for him/her. Because though I probably can get quite easily a child’s consent to do something stupid and potentialy harmful to him (say, driving my car) as an adult presumably competent, I still should be held responsible for the resulting harm.
That said, it’s perfectly possible that it will be perceived in the future as “the holdover of an intolerant past”, as you stated, like the prejudices against homosexuals or the belief that masturbation is harmful to children in the XIX° century. Someone believing that our current values will hold forever would be a fool.
Yes, I know. I wasn’t trying to misrepresent your views. I mentioned your name because you were the first in the thread to raise this issue.
The rest of my post wasn’t meant so much as a counterargument as a statement of my views. I should have made more of an effort to make that clear.
clairobscur’s point was indeed valid, and no less so because of this observation.
Why is it not fair to stigmatize the behavior of thinking about pedophilia? Given that, as a society, we elect to discourage pedophilia, why should we endorse or support thinking about the act? If the person does not wish to engage in pedophilia, stigma will support that decision.
There is much that we stigmatize as a society, even if it is not illegal. Sure it isn’t fair to the person who wishes to take a cell phone call during a play when others glare at them. We stigmatize lying.
What about physical abuse of a child? What would you say to someone who says, “Boy, I’ve really been thinking about getting a piece of electrical wire and beating my child with it”? Should we discourage that or not. Should we say, “Well, I know it can be frustrating, but there are far better ways to get a child to behave the way that you would like them to”? That’s stigmatizing, no?
Would you encourage an alcoholic if she told you that she was thinking about beer? “Oh, that’s okay. Go for it, it’ll help you kick the craving?”
Like your murderous rage example - why shouldn’t society be involved in discouraging murderous rage through stigmatization? Stigma is not the same as societally sanctioned punishment, even if it shares some similarities in function.
And I am dubious about the degree to which the cites the OP has presented even come close to supporting an innate, genetic pedophilic tendency.