354
Rule
(lemmy.blahaj.zone)
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
this post was submitted on 06 Mar 2024
354 points (99.7% liked)
196
16713 readers
2999 users here now
Be sure to follow the rule before you head out.
Rule: You must post before you leave.
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
Ace people? Yes. Pedophiles? No. It’s that simple.
Pedophiles are not a sexual minority, they are people who need professional help so that they don't harm children.
They are definitely a sexual minority but i agree that an exception to acceptance can and should be made for behaviour that is harmful to others.
They're a sexual minority same way serial killers are hobbyist minority.
Bringing up pedophilia in the context of LGBT+ people (sexual minorities) almost seems likes a hate crime.
People targeting others based on non-consensual activities (pedophilia or bestiality) are predators, and that behavior is never justifiable is a civilized society. The key differentiator is the ability of all parties to give consent, otherwise what’s happening is an assault. Imposing your sexual interest on someone without consent is sociopathic.
So to frame such ideas as part of sexual minorities seems misguided if someone does it out of lack of knowledge or not having thought it through. Or it’s malicious if someone does it besmirch a group they don’t like by including members into it who are practically sociopathic. So by association all of the group is sociopathic.
I agree that people who need help should get it, and we shouldn’t demonize people who have murderous thoughts either—therapy and rehabilitation is ideally the goal. Letting people self actualize into someone who traumatizes or disrupts the self actualization of someone else should always be prevented.
I think the conversation around pedophiles always needs to be explicit about the line between desire and action (broader sexual orientation conversation aside). There's essentially nothing a person can do about their sexual desires, but of course their actions are always under their control.
The attempt to connect pedophiles with LGBT is a right-wing agenda in order to turn straight people against LGBT folks. The tactic has been used before and I'm sure it'll be used again. When they try to sneak this connection in under an intellectual guise, they're intentionally silent about the difference between what's in your head and what you do in reality. In that sense, no, of course pedophiles and LGBT are completely different, and you clearly explained why. One group can responsibly act on their sexual desires, the other absolutely cannot. With that framing, straight people and LGBT are united and pedophiles are out.
I guess I basically just said what you said but with different words, I'm still gonna leave it.
FINALLY someone who doesn't just pass pedophiles to the side as if they are not human...
Professional help that really doesn't exist because society isn't interested in actually preventing child abuse.
Ehhhh, more like nobody wants to endorse the icky work and mindset you need to adopt if you actually want to reduce the number of people that abuse children. Nobody wants to have nuanced discussions about the problem because it's so revolting, but then you're stuck with blunt instruments, which are always worse.
Example: most people who sexually abuse children aren't actually sexually attracted to them. They do it for other reasons. Similarly, most people who are actually sexually attracted to kids never act on their urges. Also, they're nearly always miserable because they can plainly see their urges are abhorrent, so there's a lot of (valid) self-hate going on.
It's been a while since I read up on this, so the details are all gone, but the point being that in order to reduce child sexual abuse and get pedophiles the help they need (two related, but different things) you have to learn how these things work, and most people can't stomach that conversation. It often leads to solutions people find difficult to accept, like the fact that the sex offender registry does more harm than good.
Why is that so difficult for people to grasp…
In the 1990s (the last time I read the DSM IV regarding pedophilia) behavior, that is, actual child sexual assault or behavioral efforts towards doing so (e.g. sitting down with & Chris Hansen on Dateline ) were essential symptoms for the diagnostic.
That may have changed in the DSM V, but I don't know. In common dialogue, pedophilia was extended to a wider range of cases (those who have developmental experimentation fantasies, those who engage in age play, etc.) By the 2010s, a 23 year old with a 17 year old girlfriend (a statutory rape edge case) would be considered pedo.¹
By the late 2010s, LGBT+ folk were considered groomers for letting kids know some of their peers might have two mommies or two daddies. QAnon was offering conspiracy stories about politicians in the Democratic Party that were part of a pedo sex ring, resulting in an active gunman shooting up Comet Ping Pong, a pizzaria.
Meanwhile the same people seeking to kill gays and trans folk as degenerate child predators were happy to cover for Roy Moore and Matt Gaetz, showing us once again it's less about kids as it is demonizing undesirables, or enemies of the transnational white power movement.
As per with all other actual concerns for kids, the worey about child sexual predators only rose once it was decided people who weren't white men should have bodily autonomy. Once husbands required consent from wives (in the 1970s) and unmarried women were allowed to consent or not consent, did we care about if anyone was fucking children. We assumed it was dads sampling their daughters, which should have been covered by incest laws. Then we went through a stranger danger (🚐🍬🍭) before finding that other adult authorities (teachers, ministers, police) were taking advantage of their access to kids.
We may still be processing societal guilt for ignoring kids... while still arranging child labor and child marriages in some states.
¹ A rant of mine: This edge case drops to a 17 year old and an 18 year old if the teens getting it on if they are the same sex. Romeo and Juliet laws often do not apply to same sex cases
Is it because society decided that they need to be treated with disgust because of something they don't have control over, something they were born with, who they are?
No it's because they target children ?
Yes pedophiles acting on their urges are criminals, of the worst kind. Pedophiles that manage their urges should be treated like anyone else. They also deserve representation so that they can find the support they need. Just shoving them in a closet won't help anybody.
I don't know enough about the subject but I feel like pedophilia should be treated as a mental disorder and while I mostly agree with you about pedophiles who don't act on it, I think what they need is psychological treatment and maybe medical. But putting them in the minority group like if they were lgbtqia for exemple, is only going to harm minorities and allow more pedophiles to feel legitimate in their urges, and maybe act on it.
But I might be wrong
I don't know enough either. But for me this means I don't want not err on the side of unnecessarly making people go through psychological treatment or even medical procedures. That's what we have done to homosexuals and transgender people for decades and now most people agree that that was nonsense and actually pretty cruel. The affected themselves can choose to do any of these but they shouldn't be pressured and certainly not forced to do any of it.
I don't think that's true. Firstly, and it's just a technicality, they are by definition a minority. But more importantly: Afaik they face a lot of the same challenges other minorities face. Fear of rejection in social groups, discrimination in the workplace, being forced to always be concious of hiding one aspect of yourself. Empathizing with that does not mean legitimating their urges, which is the main thing differentiating them from most other minorities. And I get that that makes it hard to empathize with them.
I also don't think socially outcasting peoples urges is as effective as people think. Just look at the scandals in the churches that have been uncovered in the last few years. It just means that people hide their urges, never learn how to really deal with them, and then turn into predators because of it.
Yeah I never said socially outcast them. But I feel that what you are saying is "we should accept them", and multiple times you have been comparing pedophilia to homosexuality. That's harmful, because there is one big difference : one harms others, the other doesn't.
LGBTQIA should not have to hide themselves, pedophiles should try to not be pedophiles anymore. Simple as. Pedophiles SHOULD fear social rejection, because pedophilia is harmful to society. It's really not that hard. It doesn't mean we should not empathize, it means we should treat them.
And I don't see how one would even think it's unecessary to make people undergo psychological treatment for something as harmful as pedophilia. They need help, they need at the minimum psychological support. Of course you can't force people to go through that, but please don't compare this to anti homosexual treatments, it is not the same.
This is the core of our disagreement. Pedophilia itself does not harm anyone but the one having to deal with it. Representing pedophiles as a threat to society judges many for the actions of a few. The individuals did not do anything wrong, and they do not deserve rejection for what they are.
This sentiment is, and I am sorry that you don't like the comparison, the same that people had towards homosexuals for a long time. I am not saying that homosecuality and pedophilia are the same. I am saying the people in both groups face very similar challenges. As far as I know "just not being a pedophile" is not possible for an actual pedophile. The only result you'll get with that is that people hide in a closet, without getting the help that they could use.
The simple fact that I don't know that there is a treatment that actually cures pedophilia.
This is not the same as "make people undergo psychological treatment".
Well which is it, "make people undergo psychological treatment" or " you can’t force people to go through that". You've got to pick a line here.
You've been pretty vague as to what you want to "make" them do or "not force" them to do or what help you want to get them. Though your sentiment towards pedophilia is similar to what spawend the hellhole of homosexual conversion therapies so please forgive my assumption that you would go into this direction as well.
Until they do... It's not because they never acted on it that they will never. And I'm pretty sure that if you start to accept pedophilia as "just another minority", pedophiles all around the world will feel more legitimate and act on it more because hey it's normal now.
PLUS if you merge them to LGBTQ for instance, it allows more hate towards LGBTQ because people fear (for a good reason) pedophilia. It already is their main argument, with grooming etc. It's always the children.
There are actual treatments (for reducing libido for instance, like antiandrogens, selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors), group therapies, etc. that seems to help :
Here are some interesting resources on the subject
I agree that I'm a little confused about how it should be approached, because it should be a initiative from the pedophiles and not mandated, but I still think it should be done for every pedophiles.
As a parent, pedophilia is a real concern, and you merging it with homosexuality just make me really angry.
That's just preemptive ~~capital~~ (wrong word, my bad! I'll leave it so the comment below still makes sense) collective punishment. If you want to support that I can't stop you but I won't agree with it.
Again, noone is advocating for normalising acting on it. Conflating treating pedophiles as humans with a unique struggle with supporting them raping children is not helpful to the discussion.
That is a legitimate concern, insofar as it is a tactical concern for the movement. That does not speak towards the logic of things, as it is only about optics. The opposition lies about the LGBTQ movement, and therefore you want to separate the movement from that minority. This might be valid as a strategy for the movement but it does not mean that pedophiles don't have very similar struggels as other minorities in LGBTQ.
Again, I am not saying the two are the same. I am saying that people of both groups face similar issues.
They won't stop you from being a pedophile or cure you. Both help you manage your urges. And I agree that people who struggle with pedophilia should look into these options if they feel they are not able to manage it on their own.
I think this is in part fueled by a (very much understandable!) fear for your children. I would ask you to take a step back and ask yourself if you are being completely rational about this issue.
I mean I kinda would like you to do the same, because you keep misunderstanding me, and it looks more and more like you're doing it on purpose. Wth are you going on about "preemptive capital punishment" ?I said we need to empathize with them, never talked about punishment, never said we should not treat them as human.
I said we should not treat them as "another minority" because it's a mental disorder, unlike homosexuality... When I said they should try not being pedophiles anymore, what I meant was they should seek help for fighting their urges because it should never be accepted, as you should not accept psychopaths until they are under treatment. They are both disorders and should be treated as such. Saying they face similar issues is not helping, because those issues are for completely different reasons. Some are legitimate, other aren't.
I am sorry if this is the impression I am giving you, I promise that is not what is happening here.
I am very sorry that was completely wrong. I meant collective punishment. I'll edit the comment above accordingly. Obviously you never called for captial punishment.
I would actually disagree with that too. You need to take some care when you interact with them but "not accepting" or "social rejection" is far over the line in my opinion. The people having to deal with this are the ones that can decide how they deal with it unless they have become dangerous to others. And no, just because some have become dangerous does not mean all of them are dangerous.
I disagree with this too. For examples I don't think discriminating against people that are pedophiles in the jobmarket is better than discriminating against any other minority.
That's where we shall agree to disagree. We should not discriminate against those who seek help, yes, but if they are not willing to, they should not be near children.
If I understand you correctly, in your opinion something should be categorized as a mental disorder based on whether a behavior is potentially harmful to others?
Homosexuality, a sexual attraction that deviates from the norm - not a mental disorder because it doesn't cause harm.
Paedophilia, a sexual attraction that deviates from the norm - is a mental disorder because it potentially causes harm.
Seems a bit arbitrary to me. Maybe I'm missing something.
How is that arbitrary ? Harmful => disorder is not that hard to grasp imo.
Anyway I'm not the one that makes that decision :
https://www.msdmanuals.com/professional/psychiatric-disorders/paraphilias-and-paraphilic-disorders/pedophilic-disorder
I did some extra research, and yeah, turns out something being a mental disorder does not depend on whether it involves atypical behaviors or preferences, it depends on whether it causes distress or impairment, or is harmful to the individual or others. Furthermore, the context, intensity, and impact of the behavior is also a deciding factor.
Basically, it's subjective. It's a disorder if we decide it's a disorder.
I would not go as far as saying it's subjective, there are official definitions like the who's :
https://www.who.int/news-room/fact-sheets/detail/mental-disorders
But yes it depends on the context and the period so it's not entirely objective either.
The main caveat is the the group they try to be included with is associated with "pride" and we can't endorse pride in pedophillia because it's immoral. Even if you don't act on it, you cant be proud of it. I think the idea of encouraging them is nice but the encouragement almost feels like it should be part of a support group which obviously doesn't help.
I would rather identity and kinks be separated for the sake of the movement but I think there's arguments behind the difference.
Yes exactly, well put.
Your statement is correct in that demonizing pedos only makes them hide it rather than seeking help, but in the context of this meme and conversation, I'm getting the implication that you think they should be included in the LGBTQ+ group, and I promise that will cause more harm than good.
Honestly I don't think I have any authority to speak on whether anyone should or shouldn't be included in LGBTQ+. I just think they face a lot of the same struggles that people in the LGTBQ+ group experience. So I wouldn't be surprised if they were included in the future.
Could you expand on that?
As others have pointed out, it's a pride group. It would imply acceptance of MAPs as they are. Republicans already demonize LGBTQ+ people as pedos and groomers, this would only legitimize their claims and galvanize their attempts to marginalize them. Not to mention the are vulnerable minors that have no support network outside of the LGBTQ+ movement. Giving pedos legitimacy and access to them would be a huge mistake.
Yes, the things they face do reflect prior and even current struggles of queer people, but the difference is they fought for eventually attained some level of acceptance as they are because being gay/trans/whatever is not harmful. MAPs should be treated with understanding and given help, but they should not be accepted as they are because of the actual harm it will cause to the movement and society.
Ultimately I think any conversation that boils down to who is or isn't LGBT+ is a bit reductive. It's not like every person in that broad grouping is completely valid as they are - there's lots of abusive and dangerous queer people, just like any other group. It's not like we endorse every LGBT+ person's behavior uncritically, nor are we asking for anyone else to do so.
That's kinda why I prefer "queer" as a broad label. It's less about whether what you are fits into the acronym and is therefore valid. If someone identifies as queer, the question becomes - how so? And if someone spews some obviously abusive nonsense in response, we don't have to support them, but if they experience attraction to people they know they can't safely engage with (and don't), my thinking would turn empathetic pretty quickly.
That danger isn't inherent to being gay or trans. It is inherent to being a pedo.
The LGB-dropt-the-T's are making the exact same point, just saying. I'm not convinced either way on this issue, but your point is a bad one.
Trans people are a hot button issue at the moment, but including them is helping spread acceptance in the same way gay people needed it to. Being anything under the umbrella should be normalized. Being a pedo should not. That's my distinction between the arguments.
I don't think it was society, but more so a bias in media to portray paedophiles with co-morbid psychopathy as THE paedophile. In reality most satisfy themselves with cartoons, fanfics, etc. and only rarely is there also co-morbidity enabling them to harm children. Certainly not an expert though, and mainly citing my first year psych professor.
Nope, it’s because they’re not looking for the same goals as LGBTQ+: a world where they can safely love whom they might love and where they can safely express who they are and their romantic and sexual desires or lack thereof to the same degree straight cis people do without persecution.
Whereas moral pedophiles would not want a world where they can actualize their romantic and sexual desires, so there’s no reason to form a coalition. Honestly, they’d probably do better with sociopaths who don’t hurt people, but I can’t see that playing well politically.
Those are clear cut examples, I think, but there are others that aren't.
For example, I don't think Furries should be included in there but I have heard some people do consider them as part of the +.
like most of these things, depends on context I think. being a furry is technically something different and not inherently sexual, however furries are treated as such and also overlap a lot with other queer communities. so there's lots of solidarity to find there. same goes for lots of neurodivergent folks too.
My take is that Furries align conceptually better with the leather community for roughly that reason. It's not exclusively a sexuality, but deals with stigma in ways that are similar and has some other overlaps.
That's pretty close, tho leather is much more sexual imo and furries also dip a little into identity