• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Would you call pedephelia a disorder?

Do you believe pedophilia is a disorder?

  • Yes

    Votes: 27 58.7%
  • No

    Votes: 3 6.5%
  • It can be in some cases

    Votes: 3 6.5%
  • No, it's criminal even if it is a disorder

    Votes: 13 28.3%

  • Total voters
    46

Sure, having sex with a child is obviously a crime, but being sexually attracted to children is not. In other words, it's not an either/or choice. Crime OR disorder.

And whether you define addiction as a disease boils down to how one defines "disease." If left untreated, many addictions including alcoholism are progressive (get worse over time) with predictable harmful effects on health leading to death. That alcoholism involves more than 'free will' or some desire to drink is made obvious by the fact withdrawing from alcohol without medical supervision can cause death.
 
Ah, so you are defining homosexual purely in behavioural terms. The incidence of homosexual behavior is far higher than the incidence of exclusive homosexual attraction. I know men who identify as heterosexual and are married with children who would be classified as "homosexual" under your definition. It would be intellectually dishonest to use self reporting stats that use a different definition of homosexual to argue a higher prevalence of homosexual child molesters. There is no way to discern how many people are homosexual under your definition.

Oddly enough, opportunist offenders who molest both boys and girls would also meet you definition.

In Liberal LA-LA-Land, no homosexual behavior is bad---it's all good.

I'm from the world of individual accountability. One must attest for their own behavior and actions. What is dishonest is not to think man on boy pepohilia is not homosexual behavior---it is homoseexual behavior of the worst kind.

Anyone who has persistant homosexual desires, and has made no effort to break them, is still a homosexual. But until they have commited a homosexual act, they haven't commited an immoral or unnatural act.

A pedophile who is sexually attracted to children, yet never molests one, is still a pedophile---but has commited no crime.

Think: Actions, not words.
 
It can also be perfectly legal, as it seems to have been in Delaware in 1895, where according to the New York Times the age of consent seems to have been 7.



How could anyone think that a 7-year old child could legally give its consent to anything?
 
Yeah but what causes the duress? Is it inherent or largely produced by a society so opposed to them that they can't even tell a therapist without fear of being reported? I can imagine that being attracted to little kids would by itself cause dysfunction,
but with so much hostility, it's probably impossible to know
.



I very much doubt that hostility will ever go away so maybe we'll never really know.
 
The Family Research Council is a far-right anti -gay hate group.

The American Psychiatric Association is a far-left, pro-gay, anti-Christian hate group.

Home | psychiatry.org

The phrase "sexual orientation" was used erroneously in the discussion section about pedophilia in the recently released fifth edition of the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM-5).

In a press release, the American Psychiatric Association (APA) notes that the correct terminology is "sexual interest" and that it will correct the error in the manual's electronic version and in the next print edition.

"Sexual orientation is not a term used in the diagnostic criteria for pedophilic disorder, and its use in the DSM-5 text discussion is an error," said the organization in its statement.
http://www.medscape.com/viewarticle/813669
 
The same thing works for haters.

Like ones who hate Christian groups like the Family Research Council.

Do you have no tolerance for those with opinions of your own?
 
There is no real medical cure for pedophilia. I'll go by a what a common man in a jury would believe a young child, per-pubrety, would be. Just to be safe, 12 and under.

At what point did I make any claim towards a cure for pedophilia? There are numberous disorders for which there are no cures, yet people can treat and maintain these disorders and live normal or near normal lives. The age I listed is the medical definition. The legal definition of course can be different, going as low as 10, should a state wish, and range up to 18. Legal and medical definitions do not always match.

Pedophiles continue to rape children at a rate up to 50 percent---about the fatality rate of Ebola viruses. Imprisonment and psychotherapy are failed therapies. The only sure way to treat pedophila "disorders-HA" is by capital punishment.
Pessimism About Pedophilia - Harvard Health Publications

We are currently only treating pedophilia as a criminal event and not a disorder. Therefore we are not actually treating pedophilia at its root. If we can treat kleptomania, then we can treat pedophillia. Like kleptomania, a variety of methods will be necessary. The source of the disorder will not be the same in all pedophiles, nor will their reactions to various drugs and therapies be the same. If we don't treat the source of the problem, then it will continue to resurface.

Theives should do hard time on chain gangs. If you like cutting the hands off people, then move to Saudi Arabia.

I find it very telling that you didn't actually address the point of the question of do you punish the kleptomaniac before he steals.
 
Do you realize that in some cultures and or religions pedophilia is not disapproved of? Does that make it OK too?

That depends on whether it is consensual and whether it creates pain or harm for the participants. For example, the book "Perv" refers to a New Guinea tribe that believes that consuming semen is healthy for near-pubescent boys and provides it to them in a manner that our culture would consider humiliating and likely to be traumatic. Apparently it is not considered harmful to the people involved. If it genuinely is consensual and does not creates pain or harm for the participants, then I do not disapprove. Cultural context is very significant when considering harm.
 
To me this is unnecessary complication and/or slicing hair compared to what I stated.

So I guess when an explosion occurs then you consider it splitting hairs whether it was dynamite or C4? The reason and source behind the action can be very important, even if two separate sources can cause the same results. If for no other reason, it determines how the treat.handle the person. Well outside the concept of kill them all. For example, an adult sees a young girl in a short skirt and halter top. To teach the girl a "lesson" about such "slutty behavior" (s)he sexually assaults the girl. This is not a pedophile as they are not attracted to the child. A girl that wears long skirts, and high neck blouses would be safe from this individual as they are not a pedophile. Mentally deranged, yes. And by legal definitions, yes. But any treatment under the idea that they are a pedophile would fail because they are treating the wrong source.
 
In Liberal LA-LA-Land, no homosexual behavior is bad---it's all good.

I'm from the world of individual accountability. One must attest for their own behavior and actions. What is dishonest is not to think man on boy pepohilia is not homosexual behavior---it is homoseexual behavior of the worst kind.

Well, it's pedophilia. We use different words to describe things. If I say you're a heterosexual, everyone assumes that your sexual attractions are to consenting adults of the opposite sex. Same with homosexual. There is a different word we use to describe sexual interest or sex acts with children - pedophilia.

I have no idea what purpose is served by conflating terms with different meanings.
 
So I guess when an explosion occurs then you consider it splitting hairs whether it was dynamite or C4? The reason and source behind the action can be very important, even if two separate sources can cause the same results. If for no other reason, it determines how the treat.handle the person. Well outside the concept of kill them all. For example, an adult sees a young girl in a short skirt and halter top. To teach the girl a "lesson" about such "slutty behavior" (s)he sexually assaults the girl. This is not a pedophile as they are not attracted to the child. A girl that wears long skirts, and high neck blouses would be safe from this individual as they are not a pedophile. Mentally deranged, yes. And by legal definitions, yes. But any treatment under the idea that they are a pedophile would fail because they are treating the wrong source.

Why not leave diagnosticians and law enforcers deal with it? Who cares what the sources behind actions of pedo's are anyway?
 
Definition of Homosexual:


1

: of, relating to, or characterized by a tendency to direct sexual desire toward another of the same sex


2

: of, relating to, or involving sexual intercourse between persons of the same sex

The word is what the word is. A male having sexual relations---rape or otherwise---has commited a homosexual act. A male man desiring to have sex with a boy is still a homosexual.

I'll go by what the traditional meaning and understanding of what homosexaulity is----not a white-washed, feel-good, new age, Orwellian understanding of what you think it should be.

Your failure is that you don't realize that the definitions apply to two different things. The first applies to a person. It even says so right in the definition. "...direct(ing) sexual desire toward another of the same sex". The second applies to the action. A heterosexual can perform a homosexual act without having any desire towards their same sex. Likewise a homosexual can perform a heterosexual act without having any desire towards the opposite gender. For that matter a homosexual is a homosexual even if they never have sex with anyone in their entire life.
 
Go back to post #16.

The Family Research Council (FRC) is an American conservative Christian group and lobbying organization formed in the United States in 1981 by James Dobson. It was incorporated in 1983.[2] In the late 1980s, the FRC officially became a division of Dobson's main organization, Focus on the Family, but after an administrative separation, the FRC became an independent entity in 1992. Tony Perkins is the current president.

The FRC promotes what it considers to be traditional family values, by advocating and lobbying for socially conservative policies. It opposes and lobbies against LGBT rights (such as same-sex marriage and LGBT adoption), abortion, divorce, embryonic stem-cell research and pornography.

Family Research Council - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You might as well have linked to conservapedia.
 

Alcoholism is a crime? When you give only one answer to two blanks, one can only assume that you mean it to apply to both blanks.
 
At what point did I make any claim towards a cure for pedophilia? There are numberous disorders for which there are no cures, yet people can treat and maintain these disorders and live normal or near normal lives. The age I listed is the medical definition. The legal definition of course can be different, going as low as 10, should a state wish, and range up to 18. Legal and medical definitions do not always match.



We are currently only treating pedophilia as a criminal event and not a disorder. Therefore we are not actually treating pedophilia at its root. If we can treat kleptomania, then we can treat pedophillia. Like kleptomania, a variety of methods will be necessary. The source of the disorder will not be the same in all pedophiles, nor will their reactions to various drugs and therapies be the same. If we don't treat the source of the problem, then it will continue to resurface.



I find it very telling that you didn't actually address the point of the question of do you punish the kleptomaniac before he steals.

Capital punishment and prison time serve as punishments----justice----AND behavior modification therapy.

Even primative Amerindian savages had moral laws and consequences for breaking them.

Liberal psuedoscientists have been keen to use their evolving standards of indecency to justify criminal and unnatural acts.

The APA thought they could get away with listing pedophillia as a "sexual orientation" in their DSM 5---but were caught.

Quickly changing their diagnosis shows just how laughable their "science" is.

I say hanging pedophiles convicted of their actions is both a deterrent to other like people---and a permanent end of the behavior for the quilty party.
 
Why not leave diagnosticians and law enforcers deal with it? Who cares what the sources behind actions of pedo's are anyway?

Because it is actually important. Why not say who aces about the cause of someone's depression? Because if it is environmentally caused, the treating it as genetic/a disorder can actually cause more harm than help. Additionally, one of the main underlying themes of this thread is about those pedophiles who have not harmed children and are seeking help.
 
Because it is actually important. Why not say who aces about the cause of someone's depression? Because if it is environmentally caused, the treating it as genetic/a disorder can actually cause more harm than help. Additionally, one of the main underlying themes of this thread is about those pedophiles who have not harmed children and are seeking help.

I just stop thinking about sources behind actions of pedo's once they do crime.
 
I am only stating the facts---and the facts are that most pedophiles are not homosexuals, but that homosexuals commit acts of pedophilia far outside their statistical population.

There are a few types of pedophiles:

One type is not particularly attracted to children but will molest or rape them because, or when, they are readily available and vulnerable.

There are those with an attraction to children but never act on it.

There are those with an attraction to children that do act on it.

There are those with an attraction to one gender of child.

There are those who are attracted to both genders of children.

The first one is not a pedophile, but probably has another mental disorder. (such as an impulse control problem)

In our culture, all pedophiles have a disorder except for possibly a person who does not act on their attraction to children and is at peace with his situation.

Those pedophiles who are attracted to both genders, or those who are not particularly attracted to children but will molest or rape them because it is convenient (and even if their victim is the same gender as them), may be bi, bi with children only, or homosexual with children only.
 
Last edited:
How could anyone think that a 7-year old child could legally give its consent to anything?

It seems that in cultures all around the globe this happened. It must have been a behavior that did not destabilize societies very much and may have had survival value under the situations pertaining in less privileged one than our own.
 
Capital punishment and prison time serve as punishments----justice----AND behavior modification therapy.

I'm sorry that you can't concept that sometimes prison actually makes things worse and turns people more towards the negative behavior, and not away. While I will agree that a person who actually acts upon pedophillic desires deserves to be jailed, jailing them will not address the source of the problem. You're just as effective to give a person antibiotics for an infection without treating the rotting tissue that is causing the infection.

Liberal psuedoscientists have been keen to use their evolving standards of indecency to justify criminal and unnatural acts.

The APA thought they could get away with listing pedophillia as a "sexual orientation" in their DSM 5---but were caught.

Quickly changing their diagnosis shows just how laughable their "science" is.

Ah because such people can never make typing errors or inadvertent word switches. Well in that case I would guess the Christians thought they could get away with requiring adultery ---but we're caught. (Ref:wicked bible)

I say hanging pedophiles convicted of their actions is both a deterrent to other like people---and a permanent end of the behavior for the quilty party.

which still doesn't address the question asked. The overall point of pedophilia being made a disorder is so that those who have not yet harmed a child can get help. Yet and your ilk would just as soon put them to death the moment you learn of their desires instead of helping them overcome their disorder. But hey let's continue with your logic. If a person commits murder due to being mentally retarded, would hanging them be an effective deterrent to others becoming mentally retarded...as well as a permanent end of the behavior for the guilty party? Don't forget to answer both questions.
 
Back
Top Bottom