Pedophilia - The Next Taboo To Fall?

[HumbleThinker]

But beyond that, you're still making a moral argument by implying that it is immoral because a child can't consent. Do you really think pedophiles care about what you think is or is not moral? Furthermore, I'm sure the issue of "consent" can probably be disputed because, first of all, psychology is not a hard science and therefore open to interpretation, and secondly, it's a simple matter of redefining what "consent" means, just like how the latest DSM redefined pedophilia as an "interest" rather than a "disorder". Like the homosexual, the pedophile does not see a moral hurdle, merely a social and legal one, and that hurdle has gotten awfully low thanks to the efforts of the homosexual community.

My whole point here is that once you agree to give up the moral argument, like we were forced to do with the issue of homosexual marriage, then everything becomes permissible, and I have no doubt that pedophiles are eager to follow the trail blazed by the homosexuals.

Consent is both a legal and moral concept. The age of consent in particular is a legal concept. And people who commit any illegal act tend to not care that it is illegal or immoral, if applicable, so I'm not certain what your point is there. I've also never been a pedophile so I would not know whether he would care or not care about acting on his urges as being moral or immoral. I'd imagine it would be a mixed bag like every other vice you can use to classify a person with. Overall, though, it would take the majority of the country to abolish or change the age of consent, which pedophiles are not.

Which DSM version are you looking at? DSM 5 has it listed as pedophiliac disorder under the general category of paraphiliac disorders. The most recent updates to the DSM 5 I've seen only added a Hebephilic Subtype.

I completely disagree with your whole point. One reason is that I do not find slippery slope arguments appealing. People have claimed many acts as being immoral, claimed that the cultural shift of those acts being moral or amoral would lead to worse acts being deemed moral, and then watched as these predictions didn't come true. Letting in Irish immigrants used to be seen as immoral, particularly because they were largely Catholic, but allowing Irish immigration and Irish workers did not lead to any disastrous results like some predicted.

[HumbleThinker]

Both homosexuality and pedophilia have long been considered deviant. Today that evaluation has largely been reversed for homosexuality. It seems that the perversion of pedophilia is following suit. Hard to miss the similarity.

That seems to be a very thin similarity. Lots of things have been considered deviant by some part of the culture and the law and were later considered not deviant by some that previously considered it deviant and the law.

[Mountain Man]

I haven't heard any good scientific objections for homosexuality. Care to mention them for us?

Some pedophiles care about what we think is moral and immoral. I'm sure there are many pedophiles that never act on their desires due to what we think about pedophilia. Consent cannot simply be redefined to mean whatever someone wants. A person in a coma cannot consent without prior agreement, no matter how you define consent. Someone mentally incompetent will not be able to consent, in any reasonable fashion. So I don't think pedophilia will be the next thing to be accepted. It is completely different from homosexuality.

The fact that it is impossible for a homosexual couple to reproduce, and the fact that homosexuals have a host of mental and physical health issues and shortened lifespans are pretty darn good scientific arguments against homosexuality.

And you're missing the point. Your argument is essentially, "Consent, as it is currently understood by society, is required for an action to be moral." First of all, I don't see how you could defend such a statement without appealing to some objective moral standard, but that's moot because we weren't allowed to make a moral argument against homosexual marriage, so unless you want to be hypocritical, you can't make a moral argument against pedophilia. You say, "Consent cannot simply be redefined to mean whatever someone wants." Why not? If the American Psychiatric Association can redefine pedophilia as an "interest" rather than a "disorder", and homosexuals can redefine marriage, then what's to stop anyone from similarly redefining consent? The only thing preventing it is that most people, sensibly enough, consider pedophilia "icky", but it wasn't too many years ago that most people felt the same way about homosexuality, and now look where we are.

[Sparko]

I haven't heard any good scientific objections for homosexuality. Care to mention them for us?

Some pedophiles care about what we think is moral and immoral. I'm sure there are many pedophiles that never act on their desires due to what we think about pedophilia. Consent cannot simply be redefined to mean whatever someone wants. A person in a coma cannot consent without prior agreement, no matter how you define consent. Someone mentally incompetent will not be able to consent, in any reasonable fashion. So I don't think pedophilia will be the next thing to be accepted. It is completely different from homosexuality.

if a child is defined as a non-person, you don't need consent.

[Mountain Man]

Consent is both a legal and moral concept. The age of consent in particular is a legal concept. And people who commit any illegal act tend to not care that it is illegal or immoral, if applicable, so I'm not certain what your point is there. I've also never been a pedophile so I would not know whether he would care or not care about acting on his urges as being moral or immoral. I'd imagine it would be a mixed bag like every other vice you can use to classify a person with. Overall, though, it would take the majority of the country to abolish or change the age of consent, which pedophiles are not.

Which DSM version are you looking at? DSM 5 has it listed as pedophiliac disorder under the general category of paraphiliac disorders. The most recent updates to the DSM 5 I've seen only added a Hebephilic Subtype.

I completely disagree with your whole point. One reason is that I do not find slippery slope arguments appealing. People have claimed many acts as being immoral, claimed that the cultural shift of those acts being moral or amoral would lead to worse acts being deemed moral, and then watched as these predictions didn't come true. Letting in Irish immigrants used to be seen as immoral, particularly because they were largely Catholic, but allowing Irish immigration and Irish workers did not lead to any disastrous results like some predicted.

"The age of consent in particular is a legal concept."

Yes, and laws can be changed. Can you argue against lowering the age of consent without appealing to morality?

Regarding the DSM 5, the APA made a clear distinction between a paraphilic disorder and what they call an "atypical sexual interest" (emphasis mine):

Source: APA

Most people with atypical sexual interests do not have a mental disorder. To be diagnosed with a paraphilic disorder, DSM-5 requires that people with these interests:
To further define the line between an atypical sexual interest and disorder, the Work Group revised the names of these disorders to differentiate between the behavior itself and the disorder stemming from that behavior (i.e., Sexual Masochism in DSM-IV will be titled Sexual Masochism Disorder in DSM-5).

It is a subtle but crucial difference that makes it possible for an individual to engage in consensual atypical sexual behavior without inappropriately being labeled with a mental disorder. With this revision, DSM-5 clearly distinguishes between atypical sexual interests and mental disorders involving these
desires or behaviors.

The chapter on paraphilic disorders includes eight conditions: exhibitionistic disorder, fetishistic disorder, frotteuristic disorder, pedophilic disorder, sexual masochism disorder, sexual sadism disorder, transvestic disorder, and voyeuristic disorder.

http://www.dsm5.org/Documents/Paraph...ct%20Sheet.pdf

© Copyright Original Source

So there's the opening shot in the war. According to the APA, a person who fantasizes about having sex with children does not have a psychological disorder so long as he does not find these fantasies distressing and so long as he doesn't do anything illegal. Which brings us to next battle line: the age of consent, and, following the homosexual advocate playbook, unless opponents of pedophilia can come up with a good naturalistic argument against pedophilia (because moral arguments are only for religious bigots and pedophobes), pedophiles are guaranteed to win.

You say the slippery slope doesn't apply here? Open your eyes, man, the war is already being fought! The APA is already OK with it, and if you know your history then you know that the homosexual movement's first victory in changing societal norms was getting homosexuality removed from the list of psychological disorders. Some years ago, an attorney in England argued for lowering the age of consent so that pedophiles wouldn't be unfairly ostracized. The opening post of this thread is about a recently published book which argues in favor of pedophilia. The fact that such a book can be published and openly sold is disturbing enough. The war is being fought whether you realize it or not, and the homosexual movement has left us so battered and weakened that the pedophiles have a very good chance of winning.

[HumbleThinker]

"The age of consent in particular is a legal concept."

Yes, and laws can be changed.

Yes, we agree here. That said, we do not have the majority acceptance of pedophilia like we had when gay marriage was legalized. We do not have the majority of acceptance of either lowering the age of consent or getting rid of it. We also have research that describes the harm to children of pedophilic activity. If this is later shown to not be the case, then that would be a necessary first step to lowering the age of consent. And unless we find out that rape has no negative impacts, the legal concept of consent will never go away.

Can you argue against lowering the age of consent without appealing to morality?

Yes, in the manner I did so previously. By appealing to current research on child psychology and the psychology of power dynamics. And we certainly can and should appeal based on morality, but we should not do so solely based on morality.

Regarding the DSM 5, the APA made a clear distinction between a paraphilic disorder and what they call an "atypical sexual interest" (emphasis mine):

Source: APA

Most people with atypical sexual interests do not have a mental disorder. To be diagnosed with a paraphilic disorder, DSM-5 requires that people with these interests:
To further define the line between an atypical sexual interest and disorder, the Work Group revised the names of these disorders to differentiate between the behavior itself and the disorder stemming from that behavior (i.e., Sexual Masochism in DSM-IV will be titled Sexual Masochism Disorder in DSM-5).

It is a subtle but crucial difference that makes it possible for an individual to engage in consensual atypical sexual behavior without inappropriately being labeled with a mental disorder. With this revision, DSM-5 clearly distinguishes between atypical sexual interests and mental disorders involving these
desires or behaviors.

The chapter on paraphilic disorders includes eight conditions: exhibitionistic disorder, fetishistic disorder, frotteuristic disorder, pedophilic disorder, sexual masochism disorder, sexual sadism disorder, transvestic disorder, and voyeuristic disorder.

http://www.dsm5.org/Documents/Paraph...ct%20Sheet.pdf

© Copyright Original Source

So there's the opening shot in the war. According to the APA, a person who fantasizes about having sex with children does not have a psychological disorder so long as he does not find these fantasies distressing and so long as he doesn't do anything illegal. Which brings us to next battle line: the age of consent, and, following the homosexual advocate playbook, unless opponents of pedophilia can come up with a good naturalistic argument against pedophilia (because moral arguments are only for religious bigots and pedophobes), pedophiles are guaranteed to win.

You say the slippery slope doesn't apply here? Open your eyes, man, the war is already being fought! The APA is already OK with it, and if you know your history then you know that the homosexual movement's first victory in changing societal norms was getting homosexuality removed from the list of psychological disorders. Some years ago, an attorney in England argued for lowering the age of consent so that pedophiles wouldn't be unfairly ostracized. The opening post of this thread is about a recently published book which argues in favor of pedophilia. The fact that such a book can be published and openly sold is disturbing enough. The war is being fought whether you realize it or not, and the homosexual movement has left us so battered and weakened that the pedophiles have a very good chance of winning.

Thank you for the reference. I was unaware that the DSM differentiated between pedophiliac interest and pedophiliac disorder. I don't see this as any sort of "opening shot" however. My labeling, for instance, of pedophilia as an immoral behavior that should also be illegal does not rely on pedophilia being a mental disorder. What the reference seems to be doing is making what psychologists feel to be an important distinction, full-blown mental disorders and simple atypical interests. Disorders, from their usage, seem to involve stress for one or both participants, while atypical interests do not. In particular it seems to make a distinction between one who is actively stressed by their pedophiliac desires and one who is not stressed, either because treatment has assisted them in not being so or they have otherwise accepted their urges without experiencing stress.

Given that one can accept their urges without acting on them, just as heterosexuals can pledge abstinence without psychological stress, and given that the DSM still appeals to legal consent, I honestly don't perceive things the same as you. That you in multiple spots appeal to violent metaphor, war, shots, etc., leads me to believe that you position is based moreso on your emotional reaction to pedophilia and the larger change of sex in our culture than a sober analysis of the situation. Combined with slippery slope appeals, I can't accept your position.

Your position requires me to accept a perception I do not myself perceive. Only after forcing myself to see a "war" going on when I do not would I be able to perceive your position as being valid. I understand that you truly believe it, and I'm ok with that. But I do worry that you are perpetuating the same cycle that has gone on with every change in culture: demonization and unfounded paranoia. I would hope that someone with your abilities can get past that some day.

[Mountain Man]

Yes, we agree here. That said, we do not have the majority acceptance of pedophilia like we had when gay marriage was legalized. We do not have the majority of acceptance of either lowering the age of consent or getting rid of it. We also have research that describes the harm to children of pedophilic activity. If this is later shown to not be the case, then that would be a necessary first step to lowering the age of consent. And unless we find out that rape has no negative impacts, the legal concept of consent will never go away.



Yes, in the manner I did so previously. By appealing to current research on child psychology and the psychology of power dynamics. And we certainly can and should appeal based on morality, but we should not do so solely based on morality.



Thank you for the reference. I was unaware that the DSM differentiated between pedophiliac interest and pedophiliac disorder. I don't see this as any sort of "opening shot" however. My labeling, for instance, of pedophilia as an immoral behavior that should also be illegal does not rely on pedophilia being a mental disorder. What the reference seems to be doing is making what psychologists feel to be an important distinction, full-blown mental disorders and simple atypical interests. Disorders, from their usage, seem to involve stress for one or both participants, while atypical interests do not. In particular it seems to make a distinction between one who is actively stressed by their pedophiliac desires and one who is not stressed, either because treatment has assisted them in not being so or they have otherwise accepted their urges without experiencing stress.

Given that one can accept their urges without acting on them, just as heterosexuals can pledge abstinence without psychological stress, and given that the DSM still appeals to legal consent, I honestly don't perceive things the same as you. That you in multiple spots appeal to violent metaphor, war, shots, etc., leads me to believe that you position is based moreso on your emotional reaction to pedophilia and the larger change of sex in our culture than a sober analysis of the situation. Combined with slippery slope appeals, I can't accept your position.

Your position requires me to accept a perception I do not myself perceive. Only after forcing myself to see a "war" going on when I do not would I be able to perceive your position as being valid. I understand that you truly believe it, and I'm ok with that. But I do worry that you are perpetuating the same cycle that has gone on with every change in culture: demonization and unfounded paranoia. I would hope that someone with your abilities can get past that some day.

"...appealing to current research on child psychology and the psychology of power dynamics."

Sorry, but that's a moral argument, essentially saying that taking advantage of a power differential within a relationship is inherently immoral. I'm sure pedophiles don't see it that way, and who are you to tell them they're wrong?

You say that "we certainly can and should appeal based on morality, but we should not do so solely based on morality." Not according to the homosexual movement we can't. Their entire campaign from day one has studiously avoided the question of right and wrong and focused exclusively on rights. Any time morality entered the debate, it was shouted down as bigoted and homophobic and how dare you force your religious beliefs on others? We're just lucky at the moment that the majority of society happens to object to pedophilia, but it wasn't too many years ago when we could have said the same thing about homosexuality. The battle lines were drawn years ago by homosexual movement, and the bullets are already flying in the war for our children. Sticking your head in the sand isn't going to change that.

And speaking of war, I find it curious that you object to my use of military metaphors, seeing how you claim to be a Christian. Haven't you read the Bible? We are called soldiers in Christ in Philippians 2. Ephesians 6 likens Christian virtues to battle armor. 2 Corinthians 10 talks about using the weapons of our warfare to destroy spiritual strongholds.

Oh, but I suppose the New Testament writers were just a bunch of angry men "perpetuating the same cycle that has gone on with every change in culture: demonization and unfounded paranoia".

[Starlight]

You say that "we certainly can and should appeal based on morality, but we should not do so solely based on morality." Not according to the homosexual movement we can't. Their entire campaign from day one has studiously avoided the question of right and wrong and focused exclusively on rights. Any time morality entered the debate, it was shouted down as bigoted and homophobic and how dare you force your religious beliefs on others?

I think you're precisely wrong on this, and that the gay rights movement catalyzed a paradigm shift in our society about morality (that was already occurring, but only very gradually).

Around 1980, your statements applied. The religious right was vigorously using moral language to espouse their views, and the liberals had, on the whole, ceded such language to them. In the minds of many liberals, "morality" was a religious thing, and "ethics" were secular, and thus something like homosexuality was religiously-wrong and hence "immoral", but was ethically okay according to the hand-waving ethical viewpoints of most liberals. But in the course of the 30 years following, that all changed. The different ideas of various liberals about ethics began to increasingly align into coherent and widely agreed-upon frameworks and liberals increasingly applied moral terminology to their own views, and came to see themselves as morally in the right on human rights issues like homosexuality, and saw the religious groups as morally wrong and evil in their stances on these issues. Liberals worldwide seem to increasingly agree upon the same moral framework and widely view themselves as acting in accordance with an objective and universal moral code, which many of the liberal posters on this forum have explained to you multiple times, myself included. Most of us genuinely think there is a real moral framework and that your opposition to homosexuality is immoral.

A couple of insightful blog posts that I think are worth reading in full in this context (I've cited only the most significant parts of them here):

Contrasting conservative and progressive moral views

Why the white evangelical religious right can no longer presume to claim moral superioritygoodon moral grounds.moralsyesincorrectnot good or decent or right. No, legal coercion compelling rape victims to bear the offspring of their attackers is not

And speaking of war, I find it curious that you object to my use of military metaphors, seeing how you claim to be a Christian. Haven't you read the Bible? We are called soldiers in Christ in Philippians 2. Ephesians 6 likens Christian virtues to battle armor. 2 Corinthians 10 talks about using the weapons of our warfare to destroy spiritual strongholds.

Most Christians don't regard these verses as teaching the need to be ultra-zealous, self-righteous, and war-like, and I think on the whole most Christians would regard your combative attitude to be very unchristian, and not at all exhibiting the fruits of the spirit that Christians are supposed to have. Love, joy, peace, patience, kindness, goodness, self-control, are much more what is widely preferred... the Mother Theresa ideal rather than the Crusader.

[Mountain Man]

Sorry, Dimbulb, you can beat your chest and breathlessly pontificate all you want, but all we need is one, minor change to the law, and the legal argument against pedophilia suddenly goes away, so that dispenses with your first reference. As for your second reference, it's basically describing the moral decay of society. I can see pedophiles happily using those exact same arguments to defend their actions. Right now, pedophiles are "portrayed as less moral, less godly, less good," but for how much longer? How much longer before society stands up and rejects the moral dictates that are being unfairly foisted on pedophiles by religious bigots and pedophobes? "Love will win", right?

Oh, and if my "combative attitude" is unchristian then what does that say about Jesus, or the Apostle Paul, or the Prophet Elijah? Read the Bible some time. They pulled no punches when confronting sin, and neither will I.

[seer]

This is all stupid, why on earth would an atheist be against bestiality?

[demi-conservative]

This is all stupid, why on earth would an atheist be against bestiality?

Liberal: Consent all important, so no sex with pet without consent!!! (But owning pet without consent is okay!!!!)

[EvoUK]

This is all stupid, why on earth would an atheist be against bestiality?

???

Is this a serious question? Would you immediately have sex with animals if you lost your faith tomorrow? I mean, whatever blows your skirt up I guess, but it is kinda frowned upon in polite society.

[demi-conservative]

???

Is this a serious question? Would you immediately have sex with animals if you lost your faith tomorrow? I mean, whatever blows your skirt up I guess

but it is kinda frowned upon in polite society.

Ahh, so you think that only problem is old-fashioned traditions and qualms?

[EvoUK]

Ahh, so you think that only problem is old-fashioned traditions and qualms?

No, I just didn't think such a self-evidently silly suggestion required a serious answer, so treated it with the disrespect and derision it deserved.

[demi-conservative]

No, I just didn't think such a self-evidently silly suggestion required a serious answer, so treated it with the disrespect and derision it deserved.