• Is Pedophilia a Mental Illness/Disorder?
    240 replies, posted
[QUOTE=Sherow_Xx;32734232]Could you provide a link? :v: I mean really, that's actually interesting. Especially if that is the only thing that has ever happened. I mean of course, changing the brain will cause you to change behaviour and thoughts. But if there's a specific place that consistently makes people go pedo, then that is definitely interesting. [/QUOTE] 'consistently makes people go pedo' lol.
[QUOTE=Orkel;32727369]I see it as just a fetish. But the problem is that it fucks up lives when taken to the extremes (abuse etc). I don't have a problem with it if they keep it to themselves.[/QUOTE] You shouldn't have a problem if they're open about it, either. The only problem is if kids are affected.
[QUOTE=CheeseMan;32709679]Lol what[/QUOTE] It was a joke. Point is though it doesn't really go under the term of mental disorder unless you stretch the definition a bit. [editline]12th October 2011[/editline] [QUOTE=Crimor;32727735]Sorry, but that has to be the funniest thing I've read in a while :v:[/QUOTE] See, he got it. [editline]12th October 2011[/editline] [QUOTE=lordsmitty;32731002]There has been cases of people who out of the blue have all of a sudden gained an interest in children and found it impossible not to act upon their urges, then it has has turned out that they had a brain tumor in a certain part of the brain (which I think is related to self control and the moral compass) after the tumor has been removed then the person looses their sexual attraction to children. Some people say that this means that the peadophillia was an underlying thing and the tumor just brought it out, whether or not that is he case is unknown. I'm not saying all peadophiles have this however this is just one instance where peadophillia could be attributed to a mental problem.[/QUOTE] tumors do strange things. I know there is cases of mental disorders causing people to have accents. Of course most people wouldn't call having an accent as a disorder.
[QUOTE=imasillypiggy;32755286]It was a joke. Point is though it doesn't really go under the term of mental disorder unless you stretch the definition a bit. [editline]12th October 2011[/editline] See he got it. [editline]12th October 2011[/editline] tumors do strange things. I know there is cases of mental disorders causing people to have accents. Of course most people wouldn't call having an accent as a disorder.[/QUOTE] There's been cases of people speaking an entirely different language perfectly, and forgetting their old one too, the brain is a dick like that. Also seeing as people keep bringing up raping children, please remember this thread is about the fetish called pedophelia, and a rapist is a person that acts out their fetish on people without their consent, no matter what the fetish is. so just stop with the "omgchildrape" thing already.
Disorder-An ailment that affects the function of mind or body, To disturb the normal state of physical or mental health. You don't really have to Stretch the definition of mental disorder, although it's more like the tumor is causing a mental disorder rather than the tumor being the mental disorder.
IF he commits a crime castrate that pedophile. every1 who forces a kid to perform sexual deeds needs to get shot in the head. Every tree hugging Fagetsz who want to treat these ppl in a humane way are stupid [editline]13th October 2011[/editline] Where are the LMAO pics at guyz [highlight](User was banned for this post ("This isn't how you should debate" - Orkel))[/highlight]
[QUOTE=AMG;32757940]IF he commits a crime castrate that pedophile. every1 who forces a kid to perform sexual deeds needs to get shot in the head. Every tree hugging Fagetsz who want to treat these ppl in a humane way are stupid [editline]13th October 2011[/editline] Where are the LMAO pics at guyz[/QUOTE] Double standards yay. Why not castrate anybody who commits a crime?
I think it's just another fetish that people have. It's just unfortunate that apparently the majority of people with this fetish try and carry it out. I don't have a problem with the fetish (despite it being pretty bad, since children can't really consent to it), but I have a huge problem with the people that have it, since apparently none of them can control their urges.
Paedophilia could probably be explained in Freudian terms and probably is some kind of mental defect that was brought on by a certain experience in life. It's the same with people who have a fetish for faeces, which I believe in Freudian terms stems from neglect/abandonment issues from the father. But then again, Freud...
[QUOTE=hegrec;32703553]It's the same as being a homosexual. One prefers men, while one prefers children. They just won't equate the two because it would cause a media shitstorm.[/QUOTE] it's the same with a heterosexual one prefers the opposite sex, another prefers the same sex, the other prefers children.
So Homo and Heterosexuals can be agreed upon that they were born that way. Why are pedophiles so quickly and without reason labelled as fetishists? Why do people think it's a fetish? Pedophiles have been around forever, Joseph and Muhammad were pedophiles.
[QUOTE=The DooD;32759419]I think it's just another fetish that people have. It's just unfortunate that apparently the majority of people with this fetish try and carry it out. I don't have a problem with the fetish (despite it being pretty bad, since children can't really consent to it), but I have a huge problem with the people that have it, since apparently none of them can control their urges.[/QUOTE] You only hear about the bad ones who actually act on it. Obviously most of the ones who [I]do[/I] control their urges aren't going to appear on statistics or be very open about it, since they'd get shot down instantly for it. That's why "apperantly" they all carry it out. But in fact we have no idea how many pedophiles actually exist in the world, so there's no way to tell whether child molesters are a tiny minority of all the pedophiles or if it's more general. Personally though, I imagine that the child molesters are a tiny minority.
[QUOTE=pg.;32762117]So Homo and Heterosexuals can be agreed upon that they were born that way. Why are pedophiles so quickly and without reason labelled as fetishists? Why do people think it's a fetish? Pedophiles have been around forever, Joseph and Muhammad were pedophiles.[/QUOTE] Pedophilia is a fetish, EVERYTHING sexual is a fetish, even the average fucking straight stuff.
A fetish is [I] -A form of sexual desire in which gratification is linked to an abnormal degree to a particular object, item of clothing, part of the body, etc[/I] It's only for items and body parts. So it's like, feet, clothes, boobs, ears, whatever the fuck. It's really just an aspect of a person's overall sexual preference. Like add-ons. I think the word, like most words when it comes to sexuality, has been butchered completely. It's lost all it's meaning and serves only to confuse.
I think when it comes to paedophilia we have the problem of mixing the idea of having an attraction to children and actually carrying out that attraction. I don't think the -attraction- to a certain age is any different (aside from being completely socially unacceptable) than the idea of being attracted to any other personal attribute. We don't condemn men who like women who are one or two decades older than them, but the reverse is seen as horrendously unnatural. It doesn't make any sense because there really is no distinction as far as the person who is attracted is concerned. The problem that society has is that children are not entirely developed and incapable of dealing with the emotions and physically unfit to have a serious, intimate emotional or physical relationship with someone advanced in age from them. That's why I've tried to make very little distinction between sexual assault in adults and children. Sexual relations with kids aren't wrong because they are kids. In all physical senses, it's the same damn thing. The problem is that with any sexual relations with a child, you can still consider it technically rape. They're not old enough to be capable of giving any kind of consent. They don't really understand what is going on. To me I see it in the same vein as having sex with an [B]adult[/B] when they don't know what is going on (unconscious, drugged) - it's rape, and to me it's as bad as physically forcing a sex act on someone. The issue with my logic then becomes where do we draw the line once a child "knows" what sex is, and when can we say that they are capable of consent? That's something I think society has to figure out before we start trying to categorize certain behaviors as "disorder." I should probably note that I'm not advocating paedophilia, I simply think that we as a society need to think in less reactionary terms about the subject. I would imagine the person who finds one day that they are attracted to children sexually would be extremely upset given what they know of how society acts towards paedophiles. I don't want to be part of a system that imposes such a stark sense of shame on a person without even [I]trying[/I] to empathize.
I agree that pedophilia is creepy, but I wouldn't necessarily say that's a mental disorder. It's really more of a mental problem than a disorder. The human brain is really just a machine that computes data, and it's actually functioning the right way even if you are a pedophile, it's just that you were raised to be that way.
I'm obviously a pedo, cause i like those on my own age giggity But real Pedophilia's, not troll's like me, are some mentally ill people, psychopaths if I may..
Might as well inject some recent criminological insight into the matter [release][h2]Misperceptions about child sex offenders[/h2] Trends & issues in crime and criminal justice no.429 Canberra: Australian Institute of Criminology, September 2011 This paper addresses five common misperceptions about the perpetrators of sexual offences against children. Specifically, the issues addressed include whether all child sex offenders are ‘paedophiles’, who sexually abuse children, whether most child sex offenders were victims of sexual abuse themselves, rates of recidivism among child sex offenders and the number of children sex offenders typically abuse before they are detected by police. The evidence outlined in this paper highlights that there are few black and white answers to these questions. [B]Perpetrators of sexual crimes against children are not, contrary to widespread opinion, a homogenous group.[/B] Rather, there are a number of varied offending profiles that characterise child sex offenders. Gaining an understanding of the nuances of this offender population is critical if children are to be protected from sexual abuse. [h2]Misperception 1: All child sex offenders are paedophiles[/h2] The terms ‘paedophile’ and ‘child sex offender’ are often used interchangeably (Nellis 2009). It is important to understand, however, that the two terms have different meanings; not all child sex offenders are paedophiles and conversely, not all paedophiles are child sex offenders. Although the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual IV has been criticised on a number of grounds (Moulden et al. 2009), the diagnostic criteria for paedophilia provide a helpful framework for understanding that not all child sex offenders are paedophiles and not all paedophiles are child sex offenders. As this suggests,[B] paedophiles are those individuals who are sexually attracted to young children; these individuals may or may not act on this attraction. Conversely, while some child sex offenders are attracted to children, others may have sexual interest in and/or offend against both children and adults, and/or may act out of opportunity rather than an exclusive sexual interest in children.[/B] [B]The role of opportunity in sexual offending against children[/B] It is also important to recognise that not all child sex offenders feel driven or compelled to sexually abuse children. In fact, opportunity can play a key role in the commission of sexual offences against children. As Wortley and Smallbone (2006) argue, research has indicated that situational and environmental factors can play a key role in sexual offending against children. Smallbone and Wortley’s (2001) own research on child sex offenders found, for example: - a late onset of offending behaviour (37% were aged 31 to 40 years); - a low incidence of chronic sexual offending (less than one-quarter had previous convictions for sexual offences); - a high incidence of previous non-sexual offending (approximately 60% had convictions for non-sexual offences); - a low incidence of stranger abuse (94% abused their own child or a child they already knew); - a low incidence of networking among offenders (only about 8% had talked to other offenders); - a low incidence of child pornography use (approximately 10% had used child pornography); and These factors, the authors argue, [B]challenge the view that ‘most sexual offenders are dedicated, serial offenders driven by irresistible sexual urges’[/B] (Wortley & Smallbone 2006: 11) and [B]suggest instead that the role of opportunity in child sexual abuse should be given more attention.[/B] [h2]Misperception 2: Child sex offenders target strangers[/h2] Although parents often fear that strangers will abuse their children, it has been well-documented that most child sex offenders are known to their victims. [img]http://www.aic.gov.au/publications/current%20series/tandi/421-440/~/media/publications/tandi_image/429_figure01.png[/img] Figure 1: Relationship of victims of child sexual abuse to perpetrator (n=1,294,000) Despite an enduring fear of strangers abusing children, therefore, the evidence demonstrates that in the vast majority of cases, children’s abusers are known to them. Importantly, however, male children are abused by strangers at a much higher rate than female children, with nearly one in five male victims of child sexual abuse identifying a stranger as the offender (ABS 2005). [h2]Misperception 3: All child sex offenders were victims of sexual abuse themselves[/h2] [B]It is often argued that perpetrators of child sexual abuse have been the victims of child sexual abuse themselves [/B](Salter 2003). That all, or most, perpetrators of child sexual abuse were themselves abused as children has become ‘a pearl of conventional wisdom’ (Hindman & Peters 2001: 9). As Salter (2003: 74) argues, this belief is ‘strangely comforting’: If offenders are just victims, then no one has to face the reality...that there are people out there who prey on others for reasons we simply don’t understand (see also Hindman & Peters 2001). Undoubtedly, a proportion of child sex offenders were abused themselves as children. It is very difficult, however, to accurately determine this proportion and results from studies vary substantially There are a number of potential explanations for these inconsistencies in prevalence rates. A higher proportion of child sex offenders from treatment populations (rather than prison populations) may report having been abused as children because participation in treatment encourages disclosure of this kind. Studies that aim to ascertain prevalence rates of childhood sexual abuse among offending populations usually rely on self-report measures, which require offenders both to tell the truth about, and accurately recall, their experiences as children. To overcome the limitations of these studies, a number of researchers have compared self-reports by child sex offenders with self-reports of child sex offenders subjected to polygraph testing. For example, Hindman and Peters (2001) reviewed a number of studies in which child sex offenders were required to self-report whether they had been sexually abused as children and compared the results with studies in which child sex offenders were also asked to self-report whether they had been sexually abused as children, but had their responses verified by polygraph testing. Hindman and Peters (2001: 10) found that '[B]more than two-thirds of the non-polygraphed group claimed to have been sexually abused as children; in the polygraphed group, however, that number dropped to 29 percent—far more in keeping with studies of the prevalence of sexual abuse in the community generally[/B].' Although the validity of polygraph testing has been questioned (Ansley 1997), as Salter (2003) argues, polygraph tests are likely to reveal accurate self-reports of child sexual abuse if the offenders undertaking the tests believe in their validity. [h2]Misperception 4: Child sex offenders have high rates of recidivism[/h2] Two contrasting arguments have been made about child sex offenders’ proclivity to reoffend. [B]In public and media discourse, child sex offenders are often constructed as compulsive recidivists who are virtually certain to reoffend.[/B] For example, in a second reading speech to the Legislative Council of South Australia about the Criminal Law (Sentencing) (Mandatory Imprisonment of Child Sex Offenders) Amendment Bill, [b]one Parliamentarian described child sex offenders as ‘beings of a subhuman category...[they are]...the least rehabilitatable people’ [/B](Bressington 2010). Conversely, [B]in the criminological literature, the opposite is often posited—that child sex offenders have low rates of recidivism compared with other types of offenders[/B] (see eg McSherry & Keyzer 2009; Minnesota Department of Corrections 2007). It is certainly the case that [B]many studies of child sex offenders have found low levels of recidivism[/B] (Doren 1998). The [B]empirical literature therefore suggests that both the media’s insistence that child sex offenders are compulsive recidivists and criminologists’ counterargument that child sex offenders are unlikely to reoffend may be somewhat skewed.[/B] While better quality evidence is required on the question of child sex offender recidivism, the existing research literature indicates that some subgroups of child sex offenders have higher rates of recidivism than others. For example, those who offend against children in their own families have access to only a small number of children, thereby limiting opportunities for recidivism to occur. T[B]he competing claims outlined at the opening of this section—ie that all child sex offenders will reoffend/that there is a low recidivism rate among child sex offenders—may not be as mutually exclusive as they appear. The research literature indicates that among a subset of child sex offenders—those who target male victims outside of their family—reoffending in the long term is likely and far more likely than for child sex offenders who target female and/or family member victims.[/B] [h2]Misperception 5: By the time an offender is detected, he has victimised hundreds of children[/h2] In public discourse, including internet sites designed to combat child sex offending, it is frequently claimed that by the time a child sex offender is detected, he will have amassed a very large number of victims or committed a very large number of child sex offences. Bressington (2010: 533), for example, drew on the claim that ‘a child sex offender has probably committed 300 to 400 crimes against children before being caught’ in her second reading speech to the Legislative Council of South Australia. [B]Child sex offenders are a heterogeneous group, with varying offending profiles.[/B] Abel et al.’s (1987) study found key differences between incest perpetrators and other child sex offenders. Abel et al. (1987) found that [B]perpetrators of paedophilia (incest) had a median of 1.3 victims[/B] (for those who targeted female children) and 1.2 victims (for those who targeted male children; n=159 and 44 respectively; mean=1.8 and 1.7 respectively). [B]Paedophilia (incest) perpetrators reported a very high number of acts per victim by comparison with paedophilia (non-incest) perpetrators. Paedophilia (incest) perpetrators with female targets had an average of 45.2 acts per victim; those with male targets had an average of 36.5 acts per victim[/B] (n=159 and 44 respectively; medians not reported). Undoubtedly, there are some child sex offenders who victimise very large numbers of children. For example, in a recent case in the Netherlands, a man confessed to sexually abusing 83 children during his employment at two crèches and as a babysitter (‘Dutch creche worker abused 83 children’ 9 News 12 January 2011. [url]http://news.ninemsn.com.au/world/8195429/dutch-creche-worker-admits-abusing-83-children[/url]). In another case documented by Salter (2003), a school athletics director abused children over a period of nearly 20 years. This man estimated he had abused 1,250 children. As these examples suggest, this type of perpetrator usually has access to large numbers of children over an extended period of time. Many are ‘professional perpetrators’; that is, those who use ‘the institutions or organizations within which they work to target and abuse children’ (Sullivan & Beech 2004: 39). Sullivan and Beech’s (2004) study of professional perpetrators (n=41) found that 15 percent chose their occupation (eg clergy, teaching, child care) exclusively so they could sexually abuse children and a further 41.5 percent admitted that this was part of their motivation. In addition, Sullivan and Beech (2004: 49) found that 'most perpetrators interviewed listed several different areas of contact with children, [and] some have spoken of switching to the voluntary or charity sector to continue abusing as a result of being discovered sexually abusing children in their professional capacity.' [B]Given also the heterogeneity of child sex offenders, it is unlikely that on average child sex offenders have victimised hundreds of children before coming to the attention of authorities. [/B]This is, however, undoubtedly the case for a subset of child sex offenders. [/release] [release] [h2]tl;dr[/h2] An understanding of child sex offenders, based on the available evidence, is critical if child sexual abuse is to be prevented and responded to in effective ways. A wide range of criminal justice and related professionals (eg police, therapists, corrections) and processes (eg investigative, court, sentencing) deal with child sex offenders and could benefit from an accurate understanding of this population of offenders. This paper contributes to the literature on perpetrators of child sexual abuse by outlining the evidence around a number of common misperceptions. Specifically, it highlights that:[B] - not all child sex offenders are ‘paedophiles’. That is, child sex offenders are a heterogeneous group with varying offender profiles; - children are usually abused by someone they know, although data suggest that strangers comprise nearly one in five perpetrators of child sexual abuse against males; - not all child sex offenders have been victims of sexual abuse themselves and there are complex relationships between being a victim of child sexual abuse and becoming a perpetrator, which require further research. It is important to recognise that while many offenders report a history of being sexually abused, most victims of child sexual abuse do not become perpetrators later in life; - while not all child sex offenders have high rates of recidivism, a specific subset—those who target extrafamilial male children—do frequently reoffend; - although it is difficult to accurately determine how many children a child sex offender has already offended against by the time he is detected for an offence, this number varies according to offending profiles and is unlikely to be as high as is commonly assumed. There is, however, a subset of extrafamilial male offenders who abuse high numbers of victims. [/B] Although sexual offending against children is a highly emotive issue, it is important that the empirical literature on this topic underpins any public policy response to child sex offenders (eg risk assessment, treatment, investigative and court processes, sentencing, child protection policies) in order to ensure the implementation of approaches that are best placed to enhance public safety and protect children from sexual abuse. A future paper will explore some of the current policy issues in prosecuting and managing sex offenders, once they have been identified. [/release]
You forgot this in the tl;dr: paedophiles aren't sex offenders/child rapists. Paedophilia is the fetish, raping is the act, and the act could be fueled by any fetish.
It's not a fetish. A fetish means you gain sexual pleasure from an inanimate object.
Wrote it right after waking up, no idea why I wrote fetish :v:
[QUOTE=Crimor;32843586]You forgot this in the tl;dr: paedophiles aren't sex offenders/child rapists. Paedophilia is the fetish, raping is the act, and the act could be fueled by any fetish.[/QUOTE] The act could also be initiated as a result of opportunity, and lack of opportunity elsewhere. e.g. rural father molesting his pubescent daughter, for example
[QUOTE=Contag;32844277]The act could also be initiated as a result of opportunity, and lack of opportunity elsewhere. e.g. rural father molesting his pubescent daughter, for example[/QUOTE] You could say that about any rape.
[QUOTE=Darth_GW7;32843978]It's not a fetish. A fetish means you gain sexual pleasure from an inanimate object.[/QUOTE]Feet fetish?
Inanimate objects or body parts.
Well it's not a fetish, as the name implies, it's a philia.
[QUOTE=carcarcargo;32703347]It's not a disorder, it's just a messed up fetish.[/QUOTE] So what you're saying is that masturbation is a messed up fetish? Are you sure you know what masturbation is?
[QUOTE=AceOfDivine;32849414]Well it's not a fetish, as the name implies, it's a philia.[/QUOTE] Exactly, it is a paraphilia [I]-A condition characterized by [B]abnormal[/B] sexual desires, [B]typically[/B] involving extreme or dangerous activities[/I] [I]-Paraphilia (in Greek para παρά = beside and -philia φιλία = friendship, having the meaning of love) is a biomedical term used to describe sexual arousal to objects, situations, or individuals that are [B]not part of normative stimulation[/B] and that [B]may[/B] cause distress or serious problems for the paraphiliac or persons associated with him or her.[/I] Basically, what this means is that if it is not abnormal, then it is just a sexuality. So pedophilia is really just an abnormal sexuality.
Isn't sexuality defined by which gender you prefer? Male or female? Or am I wrong on this one? Because some pedos might prefer males, some females.
[QUOTE=AceOfDivine;32879409]Isn't sexuality defined by which gender you prefer? Male or female? Or am I wrong on this one? Because some pedos might prefer males, some females.[/QUOTE] Some do that. But I feel that is a strange way to define "sexuality". Sexuality is just, well, any sexual preference or orientation in my eyes. I can't see why you would limit it to only gender, unless you deliberately want to make every other type of preference seem more like disorders and mental illnesses. Sexual preference is just, what you prefer sexually. Be it centered around a gender, age, height, color, whatever. From google: [quote][I][B]sex·u·al·i·ty[/B] noun /ˌsekSHo͞oˈalitē/  sexualities, plural Capacity for sexual feelings - she began to understand the power of her sexuality A person's sexual orientation or preference - people with proscribed sexualities Sexual activity[/I][/quote] Wikipedia does something like what you're talking about. [quote][B]Sexual orientation[/B] describes a pattern of emotional, romantic, and/or sexual attractions to the opposite sex, the same sex, both, or neither, and the genders that accompany them.[/quote] But I just feel this is stupid. There's no real reason why one's sexual orientation would be limited to gender unless you want to raise those sexual orientations that have to do with genders above every other orientation. And that doesn't feel entirely scientific. And yeah, about that, there's 3 types of pedophiles that nobody except pedophiles themselves seem to distinguish. There's the ones who likes girls, the ones who likes boys, and the ones who likes both.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.