Are our attitudes toward pedos actually endangering our children?

[Simon PayntonParticipant]

Autumn wrote:

I don’t think everyone attracted to minors is seeking to commit acts of sexual violence against them even if that’s what acting on those urges would result in. Maybe it’s a pointless distinction.

I think this is where a typical paedophile might justify themselves on the grounds that the child is the instigator, or likes it – so as to continue to think of themselves as an OK person.  On the other hand, I understand that some feel very guilty about the abuses they have committed.

[AutumnParticipant]

I have seen interviews with sex offenders who do have a very skewed perception. One was talking about how a young girl, perhaps eight or nine, was flirting with him while she was on the swing. He said something about being aware it wasn’t true—she wasn’t actually flirting—, but this seemed more tacit acceptance than actual belief.

I think it’s harder to account for those who never offend. Perhaps some who don’t offend don’t do it because they know it would destroy their lives. Perhaps some accept that it can never actually be consenting. I really don’t know much about it. I am sure there are some first-person accounts out there, though I’d wager most would be reluctant to speak even on condition of anonymity.

Strangely, in Canada, the age of consent was 14 up until around 2008 (the law hadn’t been changed since the late 19th century). It was a surprise to many when it was raised to 16 as few knew just how low it was. The age of consent for anal sex, specifically, remained 18 until five years ago. I don’t harbour any delusions that people are sexually active younger that 16, but the idea that adults could legally have sex with fourteen-year-olds certainly doesn’t sit well.

A man going by the name Octavius Altaire was quite vocally opposed to the change. His book Viamund The Boy Love Vampyre Says…: Poetry & Haiku’s addresses some of his thoughts on the general subject, yet I can’t really bring myself to download a copy.

From the book description:

I will share what little knowledge I have of Viamund. He was born in the mid 1700’s and is of Irish/English/French descent. He transformed into a Vampyre through a chance encounter he had with an eleven-year-old male prostitute in Belgium. Upon attaining the gift they lived together posing as father and son while traveling and slaying until eventually the lad (Viamund’s master) was slain. Viamund currently resides in Canada.

‘Viamund The Boy-Love Vampyre Says.’ is a combination of pictures, poetry & haiku’s presented as a meager work in quantity that was years in the making and is meant to be construed as a soft voice where there are none; without the intention to offend but to be heard. To help blur those barriers that surround a misunderstood stigmata. The use of raw, un-tempered, often brutal images of word convey the thoughts of the lonely, socially-isolated individuals who are held primarily in contempt; nonetheless existing on the sexual fringe. It’s [sic] purpose is to convey the state of those who are subject to the machinations of the political clockwork as it relates to the categorization and alienating of all sexual minorities in North America-if indeed the world-To provide vision to those who appreciate the differences that are humanity.

N.B. I am not claiming he is representative of anything; he’s just the only figure I know to have been quite so vocal on the matter.

[_Robert_Participant]

When I was chasing skirts, the ones who were insanely kinky, almost always talked about some sort of very young taboo experiences. I bet there are studies.

[TheEncogitationerParticipant]

Unseen and Fellow Unbelievers,

This give rise to all kinds of thoughts in all kinds of directions.

One, while before it was called “Minor-Attractedness” it was called “Pedophilia,” before it was called “Pedophilia,” it was called “Child Molestation.”. Whatever it is called, it doesn’t make it any better.

Two, the title of the thread is: “Are our attitudes toward pedos actually endangering our children?”

Would we ask the question “Are our attitudes towards those who desire to kidnap and brainwash children into becoming child soldiers endangering our children?”. It has many examples in the Islamic World such as Hamas in The Palestinian Territories, Hezbollah in Lebanon, Al-Qaeda and ISIS throughout The Middle East, Boko Haram in North and West Africa, and at least one Christian example in Uganda in the form of The Lord’s Resistance Army.

Three, doesn’t the fact that people can resist acting upon desires, even innate desires, indicate that some form of Volition does exist after all?

Four, Atheists and Secularists and just people of good will have all fought justifiably damn hard to expose and bring to justice child molesters in religious bodies such as The Roman Catholic Church, The Latter-Day Saints, The Southern Baptist Convention, and others where children are taught blind obedience to adult authority and where rational thought is suppressed and snuffed out.

Why would we want to fuck up all of that good work by adopting a policy of “respect” and “understanding” towards would-be child molesters?

Five, LGBTQ+ people have also justifiably fought damn hard to distance themselves from child molesters. Why would they and we then want to fuck up this good work by demanding that LGBTQ+ people get admission to join or work for these nests of religious child molesters? Why not go where the love is and where both adults and children are safe and protected?

Maybe most of those with these horrible desires haven’t hurt anyone, but it is also the Natural freedom-of-thought Right of the rest of us to exercise situational awareness and also our Natural Right to protect and defend Life, Liberty, and Property, especially of the most vulnerable of our fellow sapient beings.

• This reply was modified 4 months, 1 week ago by  TheEncogitationer. Reason: Spelling
• This reply was modified 4 months, 1 week ago by  TheEncogitationer.

[AutumnParticipant]

Why would we want to fuck up all of that good work by adopting a policy of “respect” and “understanding” towards would-be child molesters?

Because they are people who are, possibly, unfairly saddled with an attraction that that will either lead to lifelong suffering or make a monster of them (or both). And because if there is any hope of treatment, support, coping strategies that can help such a person not offend, then that is a better means of safeguarding children than simply having people repress their urges in the shadows and try to cope on their own.

[DavisModerator]

Why would we want to fuck up all of that good work by adopting a policy of “respect” and “understanding” towards would-be child molesters?

Enco you don’t think logically through many of the things you say. You are a would-be rapist. You have the potential to rape. Men in fact rape women FAR more than women rape men. Would it make sense for women to scorn you for this, lock you up pre-emptively (along with other men), shun you, blame you and scorn you? Or maybe the solution is to understand what leads to rape, reduce the conditions that allow it to happen, encourage cultural wide changes etc. If women took the position you are taking with pedophilia, they would rightly overthrow the male sex, lock them all up and forget about you all. Perhaps the “respect” and “understanding” model works better?

[UnseenParticipant]

TheEncogitationer wrote:

Three, doesn’t the fact that people can resist acting upon desires, even innate desires, indicate that some form of Volition does exist after all?

Well, “some form of volition,” yes, but let’s look at what that means. Clearly, the desire to offend is an OCD. OCD’s tend to increase like steam building in a pressure cooker until they are released explosively. Probably the best example is the Tourette syndrome sufferer. A Tourette syndrome victim has a desire to perform various tics (winking, blinking, twitching, etc.) or to say socially inappropriate things out loud. Yes, they can hold it in, but it’s asking a lot of them and ultimately, it must be acted on. While they annoy or appall people nearby, their interior life is a living hell. Yes, the can control these impulses…for a time.

We can’t control a MAP’s impulses by simply telling them “Don’t do it” and then walk away from them. That’s a recipe for failure. They need coping techniques and possibly harmless outlets like CG porn that lets them just masturbate, roll over in bed, and go to sleep. Curing them by damaging them (threats, guilt tripping, prior restraint, etc.) fails all kinds of ethical tests.

BTW, I’m not going to debate you on every point you made. I have a life outside AZ and now we have a number of other participants.

[DavisModerator]

doesn’t the fact that people can resist acting upon desires, even innate desires, indicate that some form of Volition does exist after all?

Actually, Unseen is certain that there is no such thing as free will. So, in effect, choice, volition, decision etc are totally meaningless. If you could not have done but what you did…then moral responsibility is as meaningful as “being able to do otherwise” (which of course, unseen is certain is not the case). So…even talking about those attracted to children in terms of whether or not they act on their desires and commit unspeakable crimes by choice, as though “acting on something” means something is absurd. Why even use such vocabulary if you are certain “choice” is not possible. If a termite isn’t morally responsible for eating the foundation of a house, then why is a meat-robot, who cannot have done other than they’ve done be morally responsible for unspeakable crimes?  I’m curious what the answer is, though I would suffocate quickly if I held my breath in hopes of getting a meaningful reply. I never ever have. People who profess certainty that free will is an illusion, cannot seem to resist talking about morality, which inherently requires “will”. Sigh.

• This reply was modified 4 months, 1 week ago by  Davis.
• This reply was modified 4 months, 1 week ago by  Davis.

[AutumnParticipant]

Davis wrote:

If a termite isn’t morally responsible for eating the foundation of a house, then why is a meat-robot, who cannot have done other than they’ve done be morally responsible for unspeakable crimes? I’m curious what the answer is, though I would suffocate quickly if I held my breath in hopes of getting a meaningful reply. I never ever have.

Termites usually get the death penalty en masse without trial, so I suppose we hold them more accountable for what they are than we do humans (who are far more destructive in our own consumption habits, not that genocide is the answer).

[jakelafortParticipant]

What exactly does no free will mean?

Understanding differs. Strict determinism negates it. And if we go with that assumption then the idea of moral responsibility is impossible.

Regardless of how we conceptualize the issue we operate in our day to day lives as though we all have free will. And it is the same thing with how we conceptualize morality and ethics. The underpinnings may be absent but that does not prevent us from treating the topic in the same way as those who believe in free will.

[PopeBeanieModerator]

Enco, you often pack so many points and/or opinion into a post that it’s impossible to respond to all of them, so I’m forced to just reduce and prioritize, while just plain trying to ignore other points.

TheEncogitationer wrote:

Why would we want to fuck up all of that good work by adopting a policy of “respect” and “understanding” towards would-be child molesters?

In addition to how others have responded to this: I forget the name of the fallacy there, but how do the research and suggestions put forward by professionals wrt preventing damaging pedophilic behavior “fuck up all of that good work”? Does one approach to the prevention of harm necessarily exclude other approaches? Did someone actually use the word “respect” in the same way that you’re implying? Is “understanding” not desirable, if it adds to understanding what motivates harmful behavior, in order to propose or implement (say) treatments that can mitigate harmful behavior?

My take on harmful sexual behavior in humans is that it is a human flaw, with probable genetic influences. Since sexual behavior in all animals has evolved as an essential survival mechanism for every species, it is at the very least important to “respect” investigations into potential genetic (and epigenetic) influences, while trying to mitigate harmful behaviors by trying to understand what professionally administrated behavioral therapies might work. This approach does NOT generally set the clock back on society’s endeavor or ability to reduce harm to children. Am I wrong?

(That was my TLDR response.)

While I should add, in response to Unseen’s question, yes, stigma (and adults running around with their pants on fire in front of their abused children) probably adds to the child’s trauma in most cases.

[Simon PayntonParticipant]

PopeBeanie wrote:

My take on harmful sexual behavior in humans is that it is a human flaw, with probable genetic influences.

I think it can be an atypical genetic variation whereby someone is naturally born to be a pedophile in a small minority of men and women.  It probably doesn’t have any survival value at all – rather, it’s a kind of disorder of sexuality, in that nature would not wish anybody to be this way, since there is not much chance of any resulting reproduction.

[AutumnParticipant]

Bringing in the genetics element is complicated. I think Pope’s phrasing “potential genetic (and epigenetic) influences” encompasses the broadness of what sort of factors could be relevant in potentially complex ways. Historically, we’ve had a habit of looking for things like a ‘gay gene’ or an ‘addiction gene’ or a ‘violence gene’. The problem isn’t looking to genetics, but rather doing so in an overly simplified way. If there are genetic and epigenetic variables that make a person more prone to pedophilic attraction, it’s not necessarily due to typically disadvantageous traits.

Another complicating factor is socialization almost certainly skews our perception. When we’re talking about ‘minor-attracted persons” this includes pedophilia, hebephilia, and ephebophilia, I believe. It would be unexpected to have a genetically reinforced attraction to pre-pubescent children, but not to youth who are capable of producing offspring. Potentially, there are some advantages to old-young pairings (I believe there have been some studies regarding DNA damage repair, though by no means does the younger side need to be that young). When we look at what’s biologically optimal, it’s hard to say, especially for genetic females where pregnancy can present a very real threat of mortality, and when the limitations on number of offspring are much higher than they are for genetic males.

What I am getting at is our aversion to hebephilia and ephebophilia is not necessarily natural. It’s not culturally universal in humans. My revulsion to being intimate with anyone markedly younger is definitely shaped by my understanding of harm and my aversion to predatory behaviour (though there are other factors besides).

I suppose on top of that, humans may also have a certain amount of ‘any-hole/rod-will-do’ sort of sexual behaviour, though often it’s driven by a lack of better options. While there is obviously a reproductive aspect to sexual gratification, a lot of the sexual activity we engage in has fuck all to do with trying to reproduce. A lot of sexual activity humans engage in (and certain other mammals) has little to do with sexual stimulation or even gratification. This doesn’t explain why a person might have predominate or exclusive attraction to minors. I’m just saying there is so much to consider once we start barreling down into causes of what might actually be varied and complex behaviour.

[Simon PayntonParticipant]

Simon Paynton wrote:

a kind of disorder of sexuality, in that nature would not wish anybody to be this way, since there is not much chance of any resulting reproduction.

We could make exactly the same argument against homosexuality, and we don’t condemn that morally.  We condemn paedophilia morally because, as you say, it causes harm in itself, and is basically always harmful and can ruin lives.

[AutumnParticipant]

Simon Paynton wrote:

Simon Paynton wrote:

a kind of disorder of sexuality, in that nature would not wish anybody to be this way, since there is not much chance of any resulting reproduction.

We could make exactly the same argument against homosexuality, and we don’t condemn that morally. We condemn paedophilia morally because, as you say, it causes harm in itself, and is basically always harmful and can ruin lives.

Non-reproduction, as a moral consideration, was likely a more valid concern in times when bolstering a tribe’s population was paramount for that tribe’s survival. While that doesn’t preclude homosexuality (you can make babies and still find ample time to be gay), you can still speculate why blanket prohibitions might have seemed sensible in certain cultures.

But certainly that’s not an issue today both in that we don’t need to reproduce in such great numbers, and many queer couples do have children by various means anyway (meaning such pair-bonds shouldn’t be viewed as strictly non-reproductive).

N.B. I am aware the original quote wasn’t about the moral aspect, but rather evolutionary survival. I was just going off on a tangent. Although, I can think of some ways homosexuality could be advantageous to a community and its survival.

[Author]

Posts