The demonization of pedophiles.

[Josquius]

What if the kid has anililagnia or graeophilia? :p

(I kid I kid, the case is already closed)

[Razgovory]

Well, I do intend ignore one thing.

[Razgovory]

First of all I don't think anyone gives serious thought to curing paedos.  There's a general acknowledgement that their behaviour's compulsive and they are pretty likely to offend again.  That's why they're required to register and there's quite a lot of support for policies like chemical castration.

Secondly you talk about 'born this way' as the great justification of homosexuality, but I think you're putting the horse before the cart.  The reasoning behind the decriminalisation of homosexuality, certainly, in this country wasn't because 'the gays are okay, they're just born like this', it was more of a negative liberty.  The Wolfenden Report, which recommended the legalisation of gay about 10 years before it happened, basically said this behaviour is sad and depraved, but if it isn't exploitative and corrupting then it shouldn't be illegal.  I think it's very difficult to argue that paedophilia isn't exploitative and corrupting.  I'd argue that those are probably its defining features.

The 'born this way' idea comes later.  I think that was far more a part of the struggle of legalised gays to get general acceptance.  That idea and the AIDS epidemic were, I think, hugely important in increasing general sympathy and tolerance for the homos.  Personally I've always thought it's a blind alley and there's something a little cringing about it.  Sexuality isn't a choice, but even if it were I don't think that should matter.  My view is that tolerance should generally sort of branch out from a 'well it's not hurting anyone' view.

Thirdly I think you dismiss 'consent' way too easily.  It is only a legal concept and you're entirely right that it could be shifted as you describe.  But then almost everything is ultimately an arbitrary legal concept.  Having a problem with that is like having a problem with 'murder' as an idea.  I'd argue that the legal acceptance of honour killings (which springs to mind due to G's thread) is ultimately due to a culture's moral position on, among other things, the importance of the individual.  Our moral philosophy gives a great deal of importance to the autonomy of the individual, if they're viewed as less important than a family or group identity then it's easy to see how you can get to a position in which honour killings are culturally and legally acceptable.

The arbitrary legal nature is really, I think, an imperfect map of the moral.  I'd suggest the importance of consent as the defining characteristic of allowed sexual activity is a reflection of the weakening of the patriarchy.  The position of the parties and their relationship are of less importance than their consent, which should protect the weaker party.  I think this is what's behind the criminalisation of marital rape, for example, and an end (at least in theory) to the idea that a prostitute can't be raped.

Finally I think we always instinctively reach for the Greeks when discussing paedophilia, which I don't think is helpful.  We're very distant from Greek culture and we can't even go and speak to them to realise what's going on as is the case with, say, the sperm ingesting tribe in Indonesia.

What matters is that we've had a huge change in our view of children.  Boswell's diary mentions a few times him sleeping with a prostitute.  What's really striking is that he has almost no sympathy for them, they're a service that exists like any other, and there's pretty strong hints that they're effectively children, I believe other diarists from the same period have similar unremarkable experiences.  So this was standard in the late 18th century and viewed as something not worth commenting on.  If you look in rural England and America I imagine you're pretty heavily into the 19th century before what we'd consider child brides become unacceptable, far less illegal.

I think there's a shift in how children are viewed.  We move from Boswell's unpleasant acts under Waterloo bridge to Little Nell in less than a century.  The 19th century I think starts the sentimentalisation of childhood and the emphasis on its innocence.  This is far more important in how paedophilia's viewed than any comparison with a 'born this way' attitude to homosexuality.

I will have to think on this.

[Barrister]

First of all I don't think anyone gives serious thought to curing paedos.  There's a general acknowledgement that their behaviour's compulsive and they are pretty likely to offend again.  That's why they're required to register and there's quite a lot of support for policies like chemical castration.

You're really quite mistaken.  Plenty of people give a lot of serious thought towards curing paedos.  Plus they aren't "pretty likely" to offend again.  I believe recidivism rates are on par with any number of other offences.

Being sexually attracted by young people is not in and of itself a crime.  It is of course acting on those impulses that is criminal.  Research has shown that there is a respectable % of the population who have that kind of impulse, but would never act on that impulse and are really not a risk to anyone.

The psychiatrist I heard speak on these topics said there are two components at work - the type and level of attraction, and the impulse control of the individual.  If you have someone with somewhat 'compromised' impulse control they are much more likely to act on their impulses in a criminal manner.  On the other hand you can have the Sanduskys of the world - someone whose sexual impulses were so great he acted in what he knew to be an illegal and immoral manner.

Sex offender registries are politically popular, but really ineffective in acheiving anything other than harassing sex offenders.  Similarily I believe chemical castration has been shown to be fairly ineffective in reducing recidivism.

[The Brain]

  Force-fitted analogies

Enough with the pedo jokes already.

[Eddie Teach]

 

[garbon]

It's hard for you to understand, because like many homos you seem to dislike children, but really, it's hard to feel pity for a well educated men who admitted stabbing repeatedly his kids while they begged him to stop.

Depends. If he was suffering from extreme mental illness and wasn't really "in control" of his actions, I could feel pity for him.

[garbon]

  Force-fitted analogies

Enough with the pedo jokes already.

Awful!

[Sheilbh]

You're really quite mistaken.  Plenty of people give a lot of serious thought towards curing paedos.  Plus they aren't "pretty likely" to offend again.  I believe recidivism rates are on par with any number of other offences.

Really?  I didn't know that.  Prior to them getting caught are they more likely to be repeat offenders (again my understanding)?

Sex offender registries are politically popular, but really ineffective in acheiving anything other than harassing sex offenders.  Similarily I believe chemical castration has been shown to be fairly ineffective in reducing recidivism.

I should clarify that I don't support chemical castration and by sex offender registry I mean the sort maintained in this country that's for the probation service and the police, not the public.

[viper37]

Depends. If he was suffering from extreme mental illness and wasn't really "in control" of his actions, I could feel pity for him.

It's a temporary insanity case.  And I have zero pity for the guy.  The jury came to their conclusions without hearing all the facts, unfortunately.  Some evidences weren't allowed in court, the defense managing to have them excluded, and buying some psys offering a mental illness defense.
If that man is crazy, than all criminals on earth are crazy, at the time of their crimes, and should be set free.

[Ideologue]

Sex offender registries are politically popular, but really ineffective in acheiving anything other than harassing sex offenders.  Similarily I believe chemical castration has been shown to be fairly ineffective in reducing recidivism.

What about execution?  Would that be effective?

[viper37]

What about execution?  Would that be effective?

Just as effective as nuking New York would be in eliminating any kind of fraud in Wall Street.

[Ideologue]

What about execution?  Would that be effective?

Just as effective as nuking New York would be in eliminating any kind of fraud in Wall Street.

I didn't say execute them and whoever happens to be standing next to them.  That's not a very good analogy.

[dps]

Okay, maybe I should step back.  What do board members think of the claims that a pedophile is predisposed toward his sexual peculiarity?  That the pedophile lusts for small children because that's the way his head is wired.  He was born that way.  Is this a legitimate statement?

Mostly bullshit is my guess.  History is full of examples of pseudo-science being invented to justify persecution of undesirables.

Leaving aside the question of whether or not the claim that a pedophile is "predisposed to his sexual peculiarity" is "pseudo-science", wouldn't the opposite argument--that it's a conscious choice--be even a more powerful argument to justify demonization of pedophiles?  After all, no one (or at least almost no one) argues that a counterfeiter is genetically predisposed to print phony $20 bills, yet there is little support for legalizing counterfeiting.

[viper37]

Leaving aside the question of whether or not the claim that a pedophile is "predisposed to his sexual peculiarity" is "pseudo-science", wouldn't the opposite argument--that it's a conscious choice--be even a more powerful argument to justify demonization of pedophiles?  After all, no one (or at least almost no one) argues that a counterfeiter is genetically predisposed to print phony $20 bills, yet there is little support for legalizing counterfeiting.

it's a choice to act on these impulses, always.