Gawker: 'Pedophilia Is a Sexual Orientation'

[Unreconstructed Reb]

There's no slippery slope.

The slippery slope is the acceptance of deviant behaviour which is, quite frankly, the 'progressive' goal.

[Hawkgirl]

What he is saying is that the pedophile would turn to murder in order to escape detection where as without the death penalty they would be hesitant to commit murder.

I understand exactly what he is saying, but kids are still murdered regardless of the DP by pedophiles or prostitution/porn traffickers.

[Hawkgirl]

This whole thing is a confused. Let me break it down...

1. You probably can't change the fact pedophiles will always be attracted to children. But last I checked we don't send people to jail for thought crimes.
2. You CAN correct behavior, and you CAN fairly punish behaviour. Last I checked what separates human beings from other animals is the ability to control our instincts.
3. Whether or not pedophilia is a sexual orientation is immaterial, other than the degree to which it helps society correct and prevent individuals from acting out their sexual urges.
4. All the above being said, we should probably do what we can to limit the abuse of all inmates at the hands of other inmates. If the goal is to correct the behaviour, this isn't helping.

m00, clarify this post and leave the death penalty out of it.

[wasp69]

Let's give this proper juxtaposition with the history of the queer movement.

The term sexual orientation was created to describe gender-related sexual preferences, and to remove homosexuality from the DSM as a mental disorder.

There's no slippery slope.

So, the American Psychiatric Association made a political decision to remove homosexuality as a mental disorder, normalize sexual deviancy, and you don't see the slippery slope.

Wow...

Where does it end, noonwitch? It really doesn't take that much of a leap to use history and manipulation to add pedophilia as "sexual orientation". Just like homosexuals, pedophiles cannot be made to not be attracted to children and all it will take is another group of "Young Turk" psychiatrists, sympathetic to "social issues of the day", who decide they need to reform the APA from the inside just like they did in the early 1970s. Articles like this are just the start.

Liberalism fucked up the APA in the 1970s, noonwitch, just like it fucked everything else up in this country since then. If the grey haired liberals aren't shoved out and replaced with people who are more interested in actual science than politics and social reform, you can bet your lib ass that the next bunch who get the blessing from the APA will be the child molesters. There is, after all, historical precedence.

[Stoic]

Unless we stop it, the time will come when pedophilia is "okay." And when that happens, just like with homosexuality, anyone who speaks out against it will be charged with hate crimes. Once again, we will have let the justice system itself be perverted to serve evil.

Also, interestingly enough, look at the correlations between homosexuality and pedophilia. In A LOT of cases, they go hand-in-hand.

[noonwitch]

Let's give this proper juxtaposition with the history of the queer movement.



So, the American Psychiatric Association made a political decision to remove homosexuality as a mental disorder, normalize sexual deviancy, and you don't see the slippery slope.

Wow...

Where does it end, noonwitch? It really doesn't take that much of a leap to use history and manipulation to add pedophilia as "sexual orientation". Just like homosexuals, pedophiles cannot be made to not be attracted to children and all it will take is another group of "Young Turk" psychiatrists, sympathetic to "social issues of the day", who decide they need to reform the APA from the inside just like they did in the early 1970s. Articles like this are just the start.

Liberalism fucked up the APA in the 1970s, noonwitch, just like it fucked everything else up in this country since then. If the grey haired liberals aren't shoved out and replaced with people who are more interested in actual science than politics and social reform, you can bet your lib ass that the next bunch who get the blessing from the APA will be the child molesters. There is, after all, historical precedence.

You never addressed my point about the difference between a gender issue sexual orientation and pedophelia being that the latter leaves victims in it's wake.

The APA did not remove homosexuality from the DSM for political reasons, they removed it because it does not meet the modern criteria for a psychological disorder. It was legalized by the courts because sexual relations between consenting adults, regardless of the genders involved, is not an act that leaves victims in it's wake.

You don't like it because you are prejudiced agains gays, and you want a reason to demonize them to the degree that pedophiles are rightfully demonized. But pedophiles are also sociopaths-anti social personality disorder, to use the DSM diagnosistic terminology. Do you think that all people who are gay are sociopaths? Most people, professionals and lay people, do not believe that. It would be irrational and just plain hateful to believe that.

[TVDOC]

The APA did not remove homosexuality from the DSM for political reasons, they removed it because it does not meet the modern criteria for a psychological disorder. It was legalized by the courts because sexual relations between consenting adults, regardless of the genders involved, is not an act that leaves victims in it's wake.

Bullshit.......A member of my family is a psychiatrist, and sat on the DSM 4 committee, when the document was drafted......the exclusion of homosexuality from the list of emotional disorders was purely politics. A good portion of the perceived role (among the members) of the APA at the time was to "mainstream" certain behaviors deemed relatively harmless to society, and difficult to treat, in order to minimize the "social stigma" attached to them, which the majority of them believed was "within acceptable behavioral limits".......a purely arbitrary criteria, with no scientific studies or evidence to back up the decision.

CAVEAT: I don't consider psychiatry to be a "science".......it is a psuedo-science.

There were no theraputic considerations at all at that time.......it's also interesting to note that a significant porportion of the committee members were homosexuals themselves.......talk about conflict of interest.

This entire effort is tantamount to the AMA forming a committee, and announcing that breast cancer is no risk to women, in order to lighten their patient load, and leave a few more days open during the week for golf.

Homosexuality is, and always be deviant behavior, regardless of what the DSM states........it's abnormal, and we can certainly debate whether it has genetic or life-experience roots (or both), and whether it can be successfully treated, but it cannot, by any stretch of the imagination be categorized as "normal". To the extent that both homosexuality and pedophilia are deviant (sexual) behaviors, they have similiar psychological roots.

ADDITIONAL CAVEAT: I have no personal axe to grind with homosexuals, so long as they keep their activities personal, live productive lives, and don't attempt to redefine societies institutions, or publicly establish their entire identities by their sexual preference.

doc

[FlaGator]

I understand exactly what he is saying, but kids are still murdered regardless of the DP by pedophiles or prostitution/porn traffickers.

That is what I replied when I address his view.

[wasp69]

You never addressed my point about the difference between a gender issue sexual orientation and pedophelia being that the latter leaves victims in it's wake.

Because it was irrelevant.

The APA did not remove homosexuality from the DSM for political reasons, they removed it because it does not meet the modern criteria for a psychological disorder.

Really?

The young turks were all psychiatrists, all members of the APA and all liberal-minded easterners who had decided to reform the American Psychiatric Association from the inside. Specifically they had decided to replace all the grey-haired conservatives who ran the organization with a new breed of psychiatrist; more sensitive to the social issues of the day with liberal opinions on Kent State, Vietnam, feminism. They figured that once they got this new breed into office they could fundamentally transform American psychiatry. And one of the things this group was keen to transform was American psychiatry’s approach to homosexuality.

http://www.mindofmodernity.com/not-s...y-from-the-dsm

Guess it didn't hurt that the president elect of the APA at the time the DSM was changed, Dr John Spiegel, was a homosexual, either, huh? Or that there had been activist agitation by the homosexuals in the APA prior to 1973, would there?

You don't like it because you are prejudiced agains gays, and you want a reason to demonize them to the degree that pedophiles are rightfully demonized. Most people, professionals and lay people, do not believe that. It would be irrational and just plain hateful to believe that.

What is it with you libs and your lack of rational thinking? You make a ton of assumptions based on your own pre programmed, knee jerk responses to anything that does not jibe with your feelings. I don't "hate" anyone nor do I seek to demonize those that do a damned good job of it on their own when they decide to flaunt and argue in favor of it in public.

Despite your attempts to drag this off of the original premise of the thread, I'll try and break the context down for you:

1. Those who pushed normalization of homosexuality as a sexual orientation were able to make the change through agitation and political pressure. The fact that it is not natural and is deviant behavior was rejected in favor of "social issues of the day".

2. Because of the history of activists seeking change through agitation/infiltration and the determination that their particular deviancy cannot be "cured", there is precedence for pedophiles to start seeking their particular perversion as a sexual orientation.

3. There is a slippery slope and we are on it. The line should have been drawn and not crossed in 1973 so we don't have to hear this bullshit that has been pointed out in the OP. Once we accepted one type of deviant behavior as "normal", the door is open for others to try and run through.

Get it now?

I will never look at biologically deviant behavior as natural and I will not accept it being put in front of children as natural. My wife and I having sex is natural - do you think it's a good idea to display that in front of my children?

But pedophiles are also sociopaths-anti social personality disorder, to use the DSM diagnosistic terminology. Do you think that all people who are gay are sociopaths?

Spare me this "when did you stop beating your wife" crap, huh? It doesn't work on me.

[noonwitch]

Because it was irrelevant.



Really?


http://www.mindofmodernity.com/not-s...y-from-the-dsm

Guess it didn't hurt that the president elect of the APA at the time the DSM was changed, Dr John Spiegel, was a homosexual, either, huh? Or that there had been activist agitation by the homosexuals in the APA prior to 1973, would there?



What is it with you libs and your lack of rational thinking? You make a ton of assumptions based on your own pre programmed, knee jerk responses to anything that does not jibe with your feelings. I don't "hate" anyone nor do I seek to demonize those that do a damned good job of it on their own when they decide to flaunt and argue in favor of it in public.

Despite your attempts to drag this off of the original premise of the thread, I'll try and break the context down for you:

1. Those who pushed normalization of homosexuality as a sexual orientation were able to make the change through agitation and political pressure. The fact that it is not natural and is deviant behavior was rejected in favor of "social issues of the day".

2. Because of the history of activists seeking change through agitation/infiltration and the determination that their particular deviancy cannot be "cured", there is precedence for pedophiles to start seeking their particular perversion as a sexual orientation.

3. There is a slippery slope and we are on it. The line should have been drawn and not crossed in 1973 so we don't have to hear this bullshit that has been pointed out in the OP. Once we accepted one type of deviant behavior as "normal", the door is open for others to try and run through.

Get it now?

I will never look at biologically deviant behavior as natural and I will not accept it being put in front of children as natural. My wife and I having sex is natural - do you think it's a good idea to display that in front of my children?




Spare me this "when did you stop beating your wife" crap, huh? It doesn't work on me.

How is the question of victimization irrelevant when the original discussion was about pedophelia being considered just another sexual orientation? Deviant behavior is not necessarily a psychological disorder. It just means "abnormal" which isn't any more of a diagnosis, it's a description based on the assumption that there is such a thing as "normal", whether it's describing sexuality or other issues.

Pedophelia is not a sexual orientation, it is a sexual attraction to children. To act on it is criminal, as it should be.