The Pentacle Queen wrote:Setanta wrote: It seems to me that the majority of expert opinion on the matter consider paedophilia to be a psychological pathology--so, in fact, a paedophile can reasonably be characterized as sick. I have no comment to make on whether or not one were justified in describing such an individual as twisted.
What does this 'sick' mean? Surely this is just a quesition of numbers? If paedophilia were more widespread then what would be the prognosis? How do we seperate 'mafuntion' from 'different function?'
I can't agree at all with that position. When the Spanish influenza was killing literally tens of millions of people around the world after the Great War, when bubonic and pneumonic plague killed a third or more of the population of Europe in the 14th century--there were entire villages, cites, even regions in which half or more of the population were afflicted with these diseases. Simple numbers did not invalidate the fact that they were the victims of a pathological condition, a physical morbidity.
The argument you are advancing here is that the mere proportion of the incidence of a pathology should determine whether or not one is "sick." That certainly did not apply to bubonic, or pneumonic plague, and not to the Spanish influence, either. Although the pathology of paedophilia is a psychological morbidity rather than a physical one, it does not alter the validity of the comparison. The prevalence of paedophilia is not a valid means of measuring whether or not it is a pathological, psychologically morbid condition. It is a sickness not just in the opinion of members of society, but in the opinion of those whose life studies are the morbid pathologies of the mind.
Quote:Quote:I reject utterly the argument offered first by Agrote, and now by you, that paedophilia is simply another form of sexuality equivalent to those practiced between consenting adults. And for precisely that reason--the absence of mature, informed consent on the part of at least one party to the practice
I never said that paedophilia is another form of sexuality equivalent to those practiced between consenting adults. The issue of non-consent is what sets it apart from other sexual practice, as you say.
What I said was that paedophilia is another form of sexual desire. This is different, because consent isn't an issue.
Desire is largely selfish- when a man looks at a picture of a naked woman he thinks of what it would be like to **** her. Consent doesn't come into the question. Thats the nature of desire as opposed to actuality.
I think you're dancing now, and changing the tune to which you dance.
[url=http://www.able2know.org/forums/viewtopic.php?p=3294381#3294381][b]In your post # 3294381, to which i initially responded, You[/b][/url] wrote:I'm obviously not advocating paedophilia., but it annoys me how people take things to far when condemning them. Yes, abusing a child is evil, but I think it is foolish to paint these people as sick twisted freaks of nature- this alienates them, makes them more illusive and the problem harder to understand. I think it's pretty obvious these people don't just 'choose' to be paedophiles- who the hell would choose a sexual preference that makes them social outcasts?
Saying "sexual preference" is hardly acknowledging that paedophilia is a morbid phsychological pathology. But more significant is that, subsequent to this post to which i am responding . . .
[url=http://www.able2know.org/forums/viewtopic.php?p=3294485#3294485][b]In your post #3294485, on page 25, You[/b][/url] wrote:That they can't help feeling sexually attracted to children, therefore it's not inherently wrong. [This in response to Rockhead asking to what principle you refer.]
In that post, you also object to branding people as paedophiles just because of the discussion, and earlier . . .
[url=http://www.able2know.org/forums/viewtopic.php?p=3294485#3294485][b]In your post #3294485, on page 24, You[/b][/url] wrote:There's very likely no paedophiles here, and this discussion would be more beneficial if people didn't try and turn it into a witch hunt.
You are, apparently, unaware that long before he ever started this thread, Agrote has admitted to being a paedophile. This thread is just the latest in a long series of attempts on his part to get people to agree that there is nothing essentially wrong with him. I cannot agree, nor can i agree that this is a discussion of his sexuality--it is a discussion of a pyschologically morbid pathology through which he experiences a desire to exercise power over children by sexual means.
) can you truly see no problem with people getting their rocks off on such a picture when the subject is unable to give informed consent?