Pedophilia - The Next Taboo To Fall?

[Starlight]

Adrift you're now on ignore. That was unacceptable.

[Jaecp]

Guys, neither Starlight nor myself spend a particularly large amount of time considering this stuff and, as such, you're getting our raw, off the cuff, "hmm, I wonder" level of contemplation. These are not our positions. We do not have an particular experience on how to "solve" pedophilia or whatever, but one thing especially comes off as weird and it's this

I already did in post #14. Intense social stigma to shame people away from even the thought of child molestation.

Surely you're aware that intense social stigma is already a thing and it hasn't eradicated pedophilia. Starlight knew this, too. Up until you said this again I had no idea you thought this was something we were actually supposed to consider on account of it already being a thing

Oh, and to the point about child porn harming the kid even though its in the past. This is a second order problem. First order would be "does the consumption of child porn by pedophiles positively impact society by sating their urges or exacerbate those urges" and only once that question is addressed and only if the former does the next order arise of "what is the most ethical way to provide it" and, were the people in this thread to engage in a thoughtful manner as opposed to the people bringing up that thing about abortion or whatnot then Starlight would have quickly, nay immediately, upon considering said second order problem would realize that there are already ways to create that media without even the possibility of harming real children.

If you haven't already guessed I'm speaking of animation or CGI. No children harmed and if the first order question is in the former then we both have a solution that doesn't hurt existing children and decreases the chance of other children being harmed. This is a win win, but its also just gross on the face of it, but --and this is an important but-- a big part of philosophy as a discipline is confronting counter-intuitive solutions that we might instinctively shy away from and, you can be sure, contemplating this bothers me, and Star, because it just feels gross to think about.

Still, gross or not, if it will help kids without hurting other kids, if we assume for the sake of argument that it works, what would you do? If you knew giving a pedophile CGI porn would decrease the odds of him raping a child would you give him the porn? If it was the single most effective way to decrease that chance, would you be ok with that?

[Adrift]

Adrift you're now on ignore. That was unacceptable.

Good riddance to bad rubbish.

[Adrift]

Guys, neither Starlight nor myself spend a particularly large amount of time considering this stuff and, as such, you're getting our raw, off the cuff, "hmm, I wonder" level of contemplation. These are not our positions. We do not have an particular experience on how to "solve" pedophilia

Then why even spend the time talking about it? If you haven't spent the time considering the options, just shut up. You add nothing to the conversation to the OP by being oppositional just to be oppositional.

Surely you're aware that intense social stigma is already a thing and it hasn't eradicated pedophilia.

But until recently, it HAS. For decades even the idea of pedophilia has disgusted people to an extant that even this conversation that we're having right now would have been unthinkable. It's only in recent times that apologetics for pedophilia have occurred to people, and primarily based around the excuse of orientation. You can not tell me that it isn't happening when I've seen it with my very own eyes.

Starlight knew this, too. Up until you said this again I had no idea you thought this was something we were actually supposed to consider on account of it already being a thing

But it isn't a thing anymore. That's the whole point of the freaking OP. How are you missing this? This is blowing my mind. If you're siding with him, and it appears that you are, what the hell are you thinking?

Oh, and to the point about child porn harming the kid even though its in the past. This is a second order problem.

No, it is not. What are you talking about!!??

First order would be "does the consumption of child porn by pedophiles positively impact society by sating their urges or exacerbate those urges" and only once that question is addressed and only if the former does the next order arise

No, there is no second order. Your first order is absolutely insane thinking. How could any sane individual even consider such an initial option? It is fraught with so many issues that only a madman would think its an option to put on the table. That you seriously consider it as an option at all is mind blowing. Again, what is wrong with you?

"what is the most ethical way to provide it"

There is no ethical way to provide child porn to a pedophile. Am I taking crazy pills? What are you even talking about?

and, were the people in this thread to engage in a thoughtful manner as opposed to the people bringing up that thing about abortion or whatnot then Starlight would have quickly, nay immediately, upon considering said second order problem would realize that there are already ways to create that media without even the possibility of harming real children.

Jaecp, there is no "thoughtful manner" in which to accept the allowance of child porn. Are you insane? What are you talking about?

If you haven't already guessed I'm speaking of animation or CGI. No children harmed and if the first order question is in the former then we both have a solution that doesn't hurt existing children and decreases the chance of other children being harmed. This is a win win, but its also just gross on the face of it, but --and this is an important but-- a big part of philosophy as a discipline is confronting counter-intuitive solutions that we might instinctively shy away from and, you can be sure, contemplating this bothers me, and Star, because it just feels gross to think about.

Still, gross or not, if it will help kids without hurting other kids, if we assume for the sake of argument that it works, what would you do? If you knew giving a pedophile CGI porn would decrease the odds of him raping a child would you give him the porn? If it was the single most effective way to decrease that chance, would you be ok with that?

No I would not give him child porn if it were CGI or animated. Are you hearing yourself? What the hell is wrong with you? Man, if I could express what I'm actually thinking right now about what you're saying I'd be banned from the forum. Sick. You are a sick person for even contemplating this. What the hell?

[Catholicity]

Pedophilia has always been in the DSM as a paraphilia or sexual disorder of perversion. What changed in the DSM-V was the classification of Pedophilia (an active pedophile) and Pedophilic disorder or one who expressed urges to have sex with children. I find this appropriate because there have been a few who've been active pedophiles that have been so called "cured" of there disorders by various means. Many by finding religious conversions and voluntarily sticking to a counseling regimen. I personally know one person who was a pedophile and became a Christian, went through counseling, then confessed to the godparents of his daughter, the pastor the court, his wife, and took voluntary steps to control himself. He would at that time be classified in the new DSM as pedophilic Disorder as opposed to Pedophilia. Another story I read was a man who served time then after ward became a buddhist monk where he took a vow of celibacy and stayed away from children. Again he would be classified with the disorder but no longer a pedophile. I feel this is fair. An ex active peophile who may have urges but refuses to act on them. However I don't see Pedophilia as ever being accepted as appropriate no matter how much Nambla wants it to. A child cannot consent to sex. Although states have varying ages of consent starting at 16 up to 18.

[Abigail]

How are these things you hadn't considered?

Some people only care about their own gratification. We had a lot in the news here in UK last week because NHS is being forced into funding what some have termed the 'promiscuity pill' even though it will mean funding taken away from kids with cystic fibrosis and people with cateracts etc. How heavy is a condom to carry. The brass neck of the people arguing for this also left me wondering how long it will be until paedophiles openly start arguing that their own sexual gratification trumps anything else.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/arti...-rationed.html

[Jaecp]

Adrift, pardon me asking this really, but are you a damned moron? None of what I'm saying are my own positions. These are damned thought experiments. I've told you this repeatedly. If you don't have the emotional ability to treat obvious thought experiments as obvious and when I clearly and repeatedly said that the idea grossed me out then you have no business discussing this.

Then why even spend the time talking about it? If you haven't spent the time considering the options, just shut up. You add nothing to the conversation to the OP by being oppositional just to be oppositional.

It's a discussion forum and the concept in the OP is worth considering. You can go back to page one to see my response to the actual OP. This tangent is simply that, an interesting tangent. Didn't you literally say "hey there is this idea someone else had, what do you think about it" or something? Seasanctuary. You invited this.

But until recently, it HAS. For decades even the idea of pedophilia has disgusted people to an extant that even this conversation that we're having right now would have been unthinkable. It's only in recent times that apologetics for pedophilia have occurred to people, and primarily based around the excuse of orientation. You can not tell me that it isn't happening when I've seen it with my very own eyes.

Outside of weird corners of the internet, I see little evidence of that. NAMBLA is just as reviled and laughed at as they were when they were created seven years before I was born back in 1978.

Oh, and to the point about child porn harming the kid even though its in the past. This is a second order problem.

No, it is not. What are you talking about!!??

I thought it was pretty clear that second order problems only occur after a first order problem.

No, there is no second order. Your first order is absolutely insane thinking. How could any sane individual even consider such an initial option? It is fraught with so many issues that only a madman would think its an option to put on the table. That you seriously consider it as an option at all is mind blowing. Again, what is wrong with you?

How could a sane individual consider such an initial option? By... creating a thought experiment? An if-then? Like, I hope that when you're reading this post my utter confusion at you is pretty damn strong.

There is no ethical way to provide child porn to a pedophile. Am I taking crazy pills? What are you even talking about?

Jaecp, there is no "thoughtful manner" in which to accept the allowance of child porn. Are you insane? What are you talking about?

No I would not give him child porn if it were CGI or animated. Are you hearing yourself? What the hell is wrong with you? Man, if I could express what I'm actually thinking right now about what you're saying I'd be banned from the forum. Sick. You are a sick person for even contemplating this. What the hell?

This is a thought experiment. Like, here's a really obvious one. If doing the sieg heil, you know, the NAZI SALUTE, cured cancer would you implement that in oncology wards? The Nazi salute is obviously terrible, but you know, cancer? The moral choice here is pretty obvious.

I do wish you'd express yourself, but at the topic at hand. This is a thought experiment and I'd rather you respond to the thought experiment that I repeatedly said wasn't reflective of anything, that I personally found gross, and so on and so on. Yet you spent most of this throwing moral outrage at me over something I've repeatedly told you I don't believe. It's weird

The thing about CGI porn is remarkably similar and I honestly wished you'd addressed it instead of just, like, freaking out on me. That's what a thoughtful manner is. It's about how you interact with the person. My opening spiel? Not thoughtful. I am legitimately angry at you for so failing my expectations as to your ability to calmly discuss something as touchy and abhorrent as pedophilia in one of seers stupid stupid threads on a tangent that, again, you initiated back in post 8

Not long after the Digg exodus to Reddit, I was surprised to find how many Redditors were either defending pedophila or even admitted to being pedophiles, and used a number of familiar arguments to defend the normality of their so-called "sexual orientation". Though I don't remember anyone actually defending the practice of preying on children physically, there were a number of incidences where they were defending pedophile literature and pornography as a perfectly reasonable outlet for their orientation. To my shock and dismay, these people were highly upvoted, and it became a bit of a meme for a while that Reddit was welcoming to pedophiles. In the last couple years, as the site has gotten more mainstream, and as a number of the more controversial subs have been split off, I'm seeing less of that sort of talk, but it still happens on occasion. So, it's not like this isn't a thing in the real world. It apparently is, and on a scale large enough to become meme-ic on some of the most popular social media forums. And if I had to venture a guess, unfortunately I think this mindset is growing, especially on youth-based forums like 4Chan where one of the gateways into this sort of perversion is loli porn and anime. I agree with rogue that the poly thing is more likely to be the next big taboo that falls before the pedo one, but it wouldn't surprise me if it's eventually downplayed in a larger scale than it currently is.

To which I replied

That's a big debate among researchers and treatment specialists. Does porn sate or exacerbate a pedophiles desires towards children. We want to know for more reasons than just that, incidentally. If its the former then we should be giving pedophiles as much porn as they friggin want. If it exacerbates? The opposite, of course.

As a note, Reddit is a worldwide website, top 9 in the US top 26 in the world according to alexa, so it wouldn't take a large amount of people to be able to all upvote each other and wouldn't be indicative of much in the broader society.

Saying both that Reddit, as an incredibly popular site, doesn't take a large % of people to upvote things. That's not even getting into subreddits relative popularity. I don't know which subreddit you were on and I'm pretty sure "pro-pedophile post gets top space on reddit main page" would be a story I remembered. Oh, and https://www.reddit.com/r/stormfront/ exists. Do you think a place on the internet that people can easily find makes an idea more popular or is it that the internet allows every idea to be able to easily be expressed no matter how terrible?

But the more important thing is a basic debate, which I'm thankful that Cath is bringing up the DSM, that I mentioned. Here's a question that needs to be answered before anything can be discussed for reals. Does porn help a pedophile control their urges. If no, then the discussion is over so the only thing we can discuss is if the answer is porn helps a pedophile control their urges which then leads to the weird, gross and counter-intuitive question (second order, in my parlance) involving whether after making a few assumption if there is any ethical way to do that.

So when I ask you that if, actually, wait, how about this

1. If Porn helps to reduce a pedophiles odds of acting upon their urges, which is code for raping a small child btw, just so we're clear on what it is that this thought experiment is addressing. A decrease in child rape

and

2. There are ways to produce porn without scarring another child

then

Do we do nothing? Or would you, of sound mind and body, take an action that prevented the rape of a child even if it makes you feel gross talking about it?

Look, I'm sorry for being rude at the top. I really am, but dude, you need to treat this as a thought experiment that I started contemplating earlier today as a result of answering questions from other people, including yourself, and to try not to get emotional over it. I'm down if you are, but we need to be dispassionate

[Jaecp]

Pedophilia has always been in the DSM as a paraphilia or sexual disorder of perversion. What changed in the DSM-V was the classification of Pedophilia (an active pedophile) and Pedophilic disorder or one who expressed urges to have sex with children. I find this appropriate because there have been a few who've been active pedophiles that have been so called "cured" of there disorders by various means. Many by finding religious conversions and voluntarily sticking to a counseling regimen. I personally know one person who was a pedophile and became a Christian, went through counseling, then confessed to the godparents of his daughter, the pastor the court, his wife, and took voluntary steps to control himself. He would at that time be classified in the new DSM as pedophilic Disorder as opposed to Pedophilia. Another story I read was a man who served time then after ward became a buddhist monk where he took a vow of celibacy and stayed away from children. Again he would be classified with the disorder but no longer a pedophile. I feel this is fair. An ex active peophile who may have urges but refuses to act on them. However I don't see Pedophilia as ever being accepted as appropriate no matter how much Nambla wants it to. A child cannot consent to sex. Although states have varying ages of consent starting at 16 up to 18.

Thank you for bringing up actual science <3 <3 <3

[Catholicity]

Thank you for bringing up actual science <3 <3 <3

I did complete the hours for my psychology minor.

[Jaecp]

I did complete the hours for my psychology minor.

It's what the majority of my degree is in :) I like talking about it, reading about behavior, that kind of thing.

I dunno, mostly I'm just rather frustrated after responding to other people :-/ What I thought was clearly a thought experiment based upon a contentious, but plausible idea became... ehh

[seer]

You might be fine with pedophilia and think objections to it are merely aesthetic, but some of us hold different moral views to you and disagree.

Yes relative moral views that change with the winds of culture...

[Jaecp]

Yes relative moral views that change with the winds of culture...

Repeating this doesn't bring it any closer to wisdom

[seer]

Repeating this doesn't bring it any closer to wisdom

Facts are facts Homer, if you think otherwise show me where I am off.

[Roy]

they would "betrothed" them off as promised to someone. they could not have sex with them as children.

Then why does your source refer to the hymen being broken?

...if a girl has intercourse (i.e. is raped) before the age of three her hymen will repair itself.

They are not only talking about raping children, they are saying there are no legal consequences thereof.

[Adrift]

Adrift, pardon me asking this really, but are you a damned moron? None of what I'm saying are my own positions. These are damned thought experiments. I've told you this repeatedly. If you don't have the emotional ability to treat obvious thought experiments as obvious and when I clearly and repeatedly said that the idea grossed me out then you have no business discussing this.

Are you out of your freaking mind? It's a thought experiment to give people child porn!!??

What world do you people live on that this is even open for consideration? I'm the damned moron?

Again, am I taking crazy pills? Wow. Just wow.

It's a discussion forum and the concept in the OP is worth considering. You can go back to page one to see my response to the actual OP. This tangent is simply that, an interesting tangent. Didn't you literally say "hey there is this idea someone else had, what do you think about it" or something? Seasanctuary. You invited this.

No I didn't. I asked you about incest, not about whether or not we should give people child porn. Again, it blows my freaking mind that this is something you even have to pause to mull over.

Outside of weird corners of the internet, I see little evidence of that.

Jaecp. I don't care what you've seen evidence of. I have seen evidence of it.

NAMBLA is just as reviled and laughed at as they were when they were created seven years before I was born back in 1978.

And yet we have people in this very thread considering giving child molesters child porn, and they hadn't even stopped to think that there might be larger ramifications to that action. We know for a fact that porn harms people in general. The industry harms those working in it, and it harms those watching it. You and Starlight seriously hadn't considered that child porn might do more of the same, but to our most defenseless and precious?

I thought it was pretty clear that second order problems only occur after a first order problem.


How could a sane individual consider such an initial option? By... creating a thought experiment? An if-then? Like, I hope that when you're reading this post my utter confusion at you is pretty damn strong.





This is a thought experiment. Like, here's a really obvious one. If doing the sieg heil, you know, the NAZI SALUTE, cured cancer would you implement that in oncology wards? The Nazi salute is obviously terrible, but you know, cancer? The moral choice here is pretty obvious.

I do wish you'd express yourself, but at the topic at hand. This is a thought experiment and I'd rather you respond to the thought experiment that I repeatedly said wasn't reflective of anything, that I personally found gross, and so on and so on. Yet you spent most of this throwing moral outrage at me over something I've repeatedly told you I don't believe. It's weird

The thing about CGI porn is remarkably similar and I honestly wished you'd addressed it instead of just, like, freaking out on me. That's what a thoughtful manner is. It's about how you interact with the person. My opening spiel? Not thoughtful. I am legitimately angry at you for so failing my expectations as to your ability to calmly discuss something as touchy and abhorrent as pedophilia in one of seers stupid stupid threads on a tangent that, again, you initiated back in post 8



To which I replied



Saying both that Reddit, as an incredibly popular site, doesn't take a large % of people to upvote things. That's not even getting into subreddits relative popularity. I don't know which subreddit you were on and I'm pretty sure "pro-pedophile post gets top space on reddit main page" would be a story I remembered. Oh, and https://www.reddit.com/r/stormfront/ exists. Do you think a place on the internet that people can easily find makes an idea more popular or is it that the internet allows every idea to be able to easily be expressed no matter how terrible?

But the more important thing is a basic debate, which I'm thankful that Cath is bringing up the DSM, that I mentioned. Here's a question that needs to be answered before anything can be discussed for reals. Does porn help a pedophile control their urges. If no, then the discussion is over so the only thing we can discuss is if the answer is porn helps a pedophile control their urges which then leads to the weird, gross and counter-intuitive question (second order, in my parlance) involving whether after making a few assumption if there is any ethical way to do that.

So when I ask you that if, actually, wait, how about this

1. If Porn helps to reduce a pedophiles odds of acting upon their urges, which is code for raping a small child btw, just so we're clear on what it is that this thought experiment is addressing. A decrease in child rape

and

2. There are ways to produce porn without scarring another child

then

Do we do nothing? Or would you, of sound mind and body, take an action that prevented the rape of a child even if it makes you feel gross talking about it?

Look, I'm sorry for being rude at the top. I really am, but dude, you need to treat this as a thought experiment that I started contemplating earlier today as a result of answering questions from other people, including yourself, and to try not to get emotional over it. I'm down if you are, but we need to be dispassionate

You're seriously considering the benefits of producing CHILD PORN, and you have the gall to be angry at ME!? What the hell is wrong with you? Man if I could reach through this screen right now, I'd punch you in your fat mouth. My anger is real, and it's justified. This is not an idea that sane people workshop Jaecp. It's filthy madness. Just shut up if you have no idea what your thoughts are on the subject. Let smarter people figure it out, because this is certainly NOT the answer.


Thanks for bringing up this subject seer and exposing some of these creeps for who they really are. There is nothing defensible about the idea of publishing child porn. These people are rotten to their core for even allowing the idea. Starlight I would have expected, but I thought that Jaecp was better than this.