3 ms·

The important question here I think is: is it under the person's control. If it's not (and it seems plausible to me that it's not as other more normal sexual pr

The important question here I think is: is it under the person's control. If it's not (and it seems plausible to me that it's not as other more normal sexual preferences like homosexuality and heterosexuality are to a large degree not) then they can hardly be held responsible for it. If someone is unlucky enough to be born attracted to children and they control themselves such that they don't act on those urges then I'd consider that quite admirable.

noduerme 4y ago
I'm not sure this holds up logically. If someone can't control something, then the "admirable" quality of controlling it would be impossible. If they do control it (admirably) then it's by definition under the person's control. If what you mean is that the desire is not under their control but refraining from acting upon it is, then is it admirable for someone to repress their homosexuality in, say, Iran? Or is that just a matter of survival? In that case, don't we say it's admirable for someone to have the courage to be themselves in the face of enormous risk, and that repressing individual sexuality is a violation of human rights? The difference, of course, being that homosexuality doesn't imply non-consensual acts; no one is hurt by it. It could be that some pedophiles refrain from molesting children because some internal moral standard tells them it would hurt the child, but it seems more likely that they only refrain when and where they could get into trouble for it. Just looking at what an outlier "teens under 18" is on that chart... it's as popularly a fetish as "lips" or "thighs" (Y-axis), but it sits way out in the taboo area near bestiality. That's gotta be because it's illegal. Almost everything right of 70% is illegal, and its position correlates roughly to "how illegal is it".
- nhchris 4y ago
  > It could be that some pedophiles refrain from molesting children because some internal moral standard tells them it would hurt the child, but it seems more likely that they only refrain when and where they could get into trouble for it. By that logic, the majority of heterosexual men only refrain from rape because they could get in trouble for it?
  - coldtea 4y ago
    Rape is more about desire for control and power over the other, not about sensuality and sexuality. So no. Mere sexual desire is not enough. A sizable chunk of heterosexual men (and possibly women), on the other hand, would indeed have sex with available women at every opportunity, if they could not get in trouble for it - you know, like the stigma of adultery, divorces, and stuff.
  - noduerme 4y ago
    I wrote: >> some pedophiles refrain from [...] So no, not the majority of men, just the majority of rapists (or potential rapists) would rape if they could. According to the survey, interest in "violating another's consent" sits at around 17%. The majority of men don't have to "refrain" from pedophilia, because the majority aren't sexually interested in children. Similarly, the majority of men aren't interested in raping people.
    - nhchris 4y ago
      > the majority of men aren't interested in raping people. I'm confused. You're saying they are interested in sex, but not in rape, with their object of attraction. Okay. So does the same apply to pedophiles? Is the majority of pedophiles also not interested in raping anyone?
      - coldtea 4y ago
        In pedophiles the "object of attraction" can't ever consent, so merely wanting to have sex with it is already giving in to thoughts of non-consentual sex. Whereas heterosexual men can be interested in sex with women but not in rape (and most are). To map it out: heterosexual men: (a) interested (or acting) on consentual sex with adult women: fine (b) interested (or acting) non-consentual sex with adult women: bad pedos: (a) interested (or acting) non-consentual sex with children: bad It's not symmetrical, as there's no (b) option in the second case. Pedophilia is always about non-consentual sex (that is rape), whether acted upon or not. (In heterosexual men rape is mostly about power. In pedos, it can be about both power and desire, but that desire is still by definition a rape desire, as it can't ever be consentual).
- nicoburns 4y ago
  > If what you mean is that the desire is not under their control but refraining from acting upon it is Yes, this is what I mean. > The difference, of course, being that homosexuality doesn't imply non-consensual acts; no one is hurt by it. Indeed. There is no moral imperative to refrain from that which doesn't cause harm. > It could be that some pedophiles refrain from molesting children because some internal moral standard tells them it would hurt the child, but it seems more likely that they only refrain when and where they could get into trouble for it. To me it seems likely that the majority of pedophiles (who have the thoughts) make at least some effort to refrain from molesting children, because I believe that most people care about others and want to do right by them as best they can. In many ways this is no different to anyone refraining from forcing themselves upon someone they are attracted to but who isn't interested in them, which is of course a commonplace and unremarkable occurrence. The difference of course being that if someone is exclusively attracted to children then they may find it difficult to find an outlet for their desire, which could make this more difficult for them.

noduerme 4y ago

I'm not sure this holds up logically. If someone can't control something, then the "admirable" quality of controlling it would be impossible. If they do control it (admirably) then it's by definition under the person's control. If what you mean is that the desire is not under their control but refraining from acting upon it is, then is it admirable for someone to repress their homosexuality in, say, Iran? Or is that just a matter of survival? In that case, don't we say it's admirable for someone to have the courage to be themselves in the face of enormous risk, and that repressing individual sexuality is a violation of human rights? The difference, of course, being that homosexuality doesn't imply non-consensual acts; no one is hurt by it. It could be that some pedophiles refrain from molesting children because some internal moral standard tells them it would hurt the child, but it seems more likely that they only refrain when and where they could get into trouble for it. Just looking at what an outlier "teens under 18" is on that chart... it's as popularly a fetish as "lips" or "thighs" (Y-axis), but it sits way out in the taboo area near bestiality. That's gotta be because it's illegal. Almost everything right of 70% is illegal, and its position correlates roughly to "how illegal is it".

nhchris 4y ago
> It could be that some pedophiles refrain from molesting children because some internal moral standard tells them it would hurt the child, but it seems more likely that they only refrain when and where they could get into trouble for it. By that logic, the majority of heterosexual men only refrain from rape because they could get in trouble for it?
- coldtea 4y ago
  Rape is more about desire for control and power over the other, not about sensuality and sexuality. So no. Mere sexual desire is not enough. A sizable chunk of heterosexual men (and possibly women), on the other hand, would indeed have sex with available women at every opportunity, if they could not get in trouble for it - you know, like the stigma of adultery, divorces, and stuff.
- noduerme 4y ago
  I wrote: >> some pedophiles refrain from [...] So no, not the majority of men, just the majority of rapists (or potential rapists) would rape if they could. According to the survey, interest in "violating another's consent" sits at around 17%. The majority of men don't have to "refrain" from pedophilia, because the majority aren't sexually interested in children. Similarly, the majority of men aren't interested in raping people.
  - nhchris 4y ago
    > the majority of men aren't interested in raping people. I'm confused. You're saying they are interested in sex, but not in rape, with their object of attraction. Okay. So does the same apply to pedophiles? Is the majority of pedophiles also not interested in raping anyone?
    - coldtea 4y ago
      In pedophiles the "object of attraction" can't ever consent, so merely wanting to have sex with it is already giving in to thoughts of non-consentual sex. Whereas heterosexual men can be interested in sex with women but not in rape (and most are). To map it out: heterosexual men: (a) interested (or acting) on consentual sex with adult women: fine (b) interested (or acting) non-consentual sex with adult women: bad pedos: (a) interested (or acting) non-consentual sex with children: bad It's not symmetrical, as there's no (b) option in the second case. Pedophilia is always about non-consentual sex (that is rape), whether acted upon or not. (In heterosexual men rape is mostly about power. In pedos, it can be about both power and desire, but that desire is still by definition a rape desire, as it can't ever be consentual).
nicoburns 4y ago
> If what you mean is that the desire is not under their control but refraining from acting upon it is Yes, this is what I mean. > The difference, of course, being that homosexuality doesn't imply non-consensual acts; no one is hurt by it. Indeed. There is no moral imperative to refrain from that which doesn't cause harm. > It could be that some pedophiles refrain from molesting children because some internal moral standard tells them it would hurt the child, but it seems more likely that they only refrain when and where they could get into trouble for it. To me it seems likely that the majority of pedophiles (who have the thoughts) make at least some effort to refrain from molesting children, because I believe that most people care about others and want to do right by them as best they can. In many ways this is no different to anyone refraining from forcing themselves upon someone they are attracted to but who isn't interested in them, which is of course a commonplace and unremarkable occurrence. The difference of course being that if someone is exclusively attracted to children then they may find it difficult to find an outlet for their desire, which could make this more difficult for them.