3 ms·

> homosexuality exists among consenting adults No it doesn't. I'm gay, and I could be on a desert island with not a soul in sight, or I could be the last man a

> homosexuality exists among consenting adults No it doesn't. I'm gay, and I could be on a desert island with not a soul in sight, or I could be the last man alive on planet Earth and I will still be gay. I do not need anyone else to have my identity. This is because homosexuality is a trait of one person and his/her attraction. I am attracted to men whether or not there is a consenting man present on the planet. Just like you may be heterosexual but never have a date in your life. Not being able to attract a partner does not cause you to change who you're attracted to. One does have to stop calling oneself heterosexual just because they're ugly and no one will go out with them. You see? There is no consent. Because there isn't anyone else. You've missed the entire point of my post. It's this: One's attraction needs to be de-coupled from the sex that a person may or may not partake in. You've conflated attraction and the act of sex. Pedophilia is about the former not the latter.

throwanem 7y ago
Even granting everything you've just said, which I do only for the sake of argument, I see no good end to normalizing the idea that even pedophilia qua attraction, as you have it, is in any way okay. Sure, I can see where that'd be a cross to bear. Bearing it in public silence, with the support of others who share your affliction and are willing to offer understanding, seems like a strongly preferable option. I don't understand what you hope to gain by this crusade, and I am unconcerned with whatever judgment you may make of me for saying that I doubt the rectitude of your motives in pursuing it. Even the people who molested me never argued to anyone that the urge which helped move them to do so wasn't a problem. They'd be as horrified and disgusted as I am to hear you argue that it's not. They were ashamed not only of what they'd done, but also of why they'd done it. They should have been, too. But even after what they did to me, I have more respect for them than for you. (I'm gay, too. Don't conflate that with this. We had enough problems being associated with NAMBLA through big-tent naïveté back decades ago, and no one will thank you or think well of you for arguing we should make the same damnfool mistake another time.)
- dragonwriter 7y ago
  > I see no good end to normalizing the idea that even pedophilia qua attraction, as you have it, is in any way okay. Just as with drug and alcohol addiction, destigmatizing the condition as a moral failing removes a barrier to acknowledgement and seeking (and continuing) treatment, which reduces the likelihood and severity of the condition producing socially harmful behaviors. In the case of pedophilia, I think that's a pretty big win, but obviously that's a matter of the relative priority of expressing moral revulsion compared to preventing harmful action. > They were ashamed not only of what they'd done, but also of why they'd done it. Clearly that shame associated with the orientation didn't do any good in preventing the harmful action, so maybe it's worth considering whether the stigma around the orientation is useful or counterproductive. “People feel shane about having pedophilic orientation but still go out and molest children” doesn't seem to me to be as compelling an argument as you seem to think it is for the social utility of the stigma it references.
  - throwanem 7y ago
    Even I don't believe that having pedophilia makes someone a bad person, irredeemable. It's not a moral failing; it's a dangerous paraphilia. And so I don't think you are wrong in saying that reducing barriers to treatment is worthwhile, and that a carefully titrated degree of destigmatization is likely to serve that end. The person with whom I've been arguing in this thread has shown no sign yet that his thesis is like your own. His argument hasn't been about treatment. It has instead been that no more doubt, concern, or askance should by default attach to someone with pedophilia than to, for example, someone who is gay. That's not mere destigmatization. That's outright normalization, and I won't apologize for my reaction to it any more than I would apologize for demanding the same justification from someone who came begging similar consideration at par for those "cursed" with the urge to rape grown adults.

throwanem 7y ago

Even granting everything you've just said, which I do only for the sake of argument, I see no good end to normalizing the idea that even pedophilia qua attraction, as you have it, is in any way okay. Sure, I can see where that'd be a cross to bear. Bearing it in public silence, with the support of others who share your affliction and are willing to offer understanding, seems like a strongly preferable option. I don't understand what you hope to gain by this crusade, and I am unconcerned with whatever judgment you may make of me for saying that I doubt the rectitude of your motives in pursuing it. Even the people who molested me never argued to anyone that the urge which helped move them to do so wasn't a problem. They'd be as horrified and disgusted as I am to hear you argue that it's not. They were ashamed not only of what they'd done, but also of why they'd done it. They should have been, too. But even after what they did to me, I have more respect for them than for you. (I'm gay, too. Don't conflate that with this. We had enough problems being associated with NAMBLA through big-tent naïveté back decades ago, and no one will thank you or think well of you for arguing we should make the same damnfool mistake another time.)

dragonwriter 7y ago
> I see no good end to normalizing the idea that even pedophilia qua attraction, as you have it, is in any way okay. Just as with drug and alcohol addiction, destigmatizing the condition as a moral failing removes a barrier to acknowledgement and seeking (and continuing) treatment, which reduces the likelihood and severity of the condition producing socially harmful behaviors. In the case of pedophilia, I think that's a pretty big win, but obviously that's a matter of the relative priority of expressing moral revulsion compared to preventing harmful action. > They were ashamed not only of what they'd done, but also of why they'd done it. Clearly that shame associated with the orientation didn't do any good in preventing the harmful action, so maybe it's worth considering whether the stigma around the orientation is useful or counterproductive. “People feel shane about having pedophilic orientation but still go out and molest children” doesn't seem to me to be as compelling an argument as you seem to think it is for the social utility of the stigma it references.
- throwanem 7y ago
  Even I don't believe that having pedophilia makes someone a bad person, irredeemable. It's not a moral failing; it's a dangerous paraphilia. And so I don't think you are wrong in saying that reducing barriers to treatment is worthwhile, and that a carefully titrated degree of destigmatization is likely to serve that end. The person with whom I've been arguing in this thread has shown no sign yet that his thesis is like your own. His argument hasn't been about treatment. It has instead been that no more doubt, concern, or askance should by default attach to someone with pedophilia than to, for example, someone who is gay. That's not mere destigmatization. That's outright normalization, and I won't apologize for my reaction to it any more than I would apologize for demanding the same justification from someone who came begging similar consideration at par for those "cursed" with the urge to rape grown adults.