Despite this blog being almost retired I feel like I should reply to this because obvious inactivity is causing people not to actually read any other part of this blog apart from the title.
It sickens me that people support that kind of behaviour too.
I support no behaviour. I support understanding of an issue in order to promote risk reduction and access to services.
Sexual activity is for consenting adults. Sexual orientation is a private mental state that doesn’t always result in any form of behaviour, Policing someone’s mind is firstly impossible, and secondly, overstepping to a disturbing extent. There are no thought crimes, this is not Orwellian 1984, and should someone identify as a pedophile and never harm a child, why should they be tarred with the same brush as a child molester?
A pedophile is not always a child molester, and a child molester is not always a pedophile. The two terms are not synonymous. Again, if you actually read this blog you would realise this.
Not only that but social support reduces the chances of offending behaviour. Studies have been done to show this, and again, if you look through this blog you will probably find a number of references to them. So, by offering support to either those who identify as a pedophile but who haven’t harmed a child or those who are trying to reduce their offending behaviour, you are reducing the risk of further crimes occurring.
You cannot stop a disease until you understand it.
WHAT. THE. HELL?!?!?!
NO. So much no about this.
Let’s NOT blame people suffering from mental illness with the stigma that they have to endure every day. Mentally ill people are not the ones committing the vast majority of violent offences!
- “Although studies suggest a link between mental illnesses and violence, the contribution of people with mental illnesses to overall rates of violence is small” (Institute of Medicine, 2006)
- “the magnitude of the relationship is greatly exaggerated in the minds of the general population” (Institute of Medicine, 2006)
- “Research has shown that the vast majority of people who are violent do not suffer from mental illnesses (American Psychiatric Association, 1994).”
- “… [T]he absolute risk of violence among the mentally ill as a group is still very small and … only a small proportion of the violence in our society can be attributed to persons who are mentally ill (Mulvey, 1994).”
Increasing availability of treatment will not reduce stigma - REDUCING STIGMA INCREASES THE AVAILABILITY OF TREATMENT.
Instead of enforcing treatment, maybe we should stop the media sensationalising any crimes committed by someone dealing with mental illness.
Maybe stopping bullshit like this will help reduce stigma.
Maybe educating on people on the fact that people with psychiatric disabilities are far more likely to be victims than perpetrators of violent crime (Appleby, et al., 2001) will help reduce stigma.
ENFORCING TREATMENT AND TELLING PEOPLE WITH MENTAL ILLNESS THAT THEY’RE THE PROBLEM WILL NOT REDUCE STIGMA.
EDUCATION IS WHAT REDUCES STIGMA.
Hi, I have three messages about this in my inbox. This blog isn’t really active at the moment, but as I’ve a day off I’ll post it for you.
If you have engaged in sexual activity with a child, then yes, I would consider you a child molester because by legal definition you are a child molester. You didn’t clarify if you have engaged in sexual activity with them, so if you haven’t then no, I wouldn’t consider you one because you haven’t committed the crime necessary to be branded as one.
Now, I can safely say that the vast majority of the public would consider you a bad person and possibly a monster. I’m slightly different, I work with child molesters and I acknowledge that they are just human beings - I don’t agree with dehumanising any sort of offender as it limits understanding - I do not believe you’re necessarily a fundamentally bad person but I also do not agree with your views on consent in the slightest.
Anyone with a basic understanding of developmental psychology will know a child is not able to consent to a number of things for a variety of different reasons, and I’d suggest you look into the issues of using children as witnesses in court - as the issues there touch A LOT on why when a child says ‘yes’ they frequently do not mean ‘yes’. Also, anyone with a basic knowledge of biological development will know that an actual physical desire for sex would be absent in a child until they reach puberty. So your knowledge is wrong, and flawed, and probably down to a self-serving cognitive bias that everyone has - you want it to be true because you’re attracted to children and do not want to hurt them, so believing that they have an ability to consent is comforting. It’s understandable, but it doesn’t make your view correct.
I sincerely hope you are not a child molester and realise the flaws in your opinions on consent, and if not I sincerely hope you have enough drive towards self-preservation to acknowledge the legality of what you’re talking about here and know that despite if a child says ‘yes’ to do anything about it could destroy your life.
I was literally only arguing the semantics of ‘release’ and drive reduction theory. Like I’ve said twice now, I don’t think pornography has a particularly big impact on offending - positive or negative.
Also, there are other criticisms of ‘ordinary’ porn, such as increased objectification of women, lower opinion of women, a reduced empathic connection to women - something like a reduced empathic connection to children could heavily contribute to a reduced appreciation of the impact of CSA. Again, I’m NOT saying that this will happen, and again, correlation is not causation, perhaps men compulsively viewing pornography have a lower opinion of women to begin with. But when looking at these studies which are trying to determine causal relationships you have to look at them with a critical mind. I’m sorry but I think the idea that more porn = less crime is a simplification myself, you have to look at the societal ideals that shift to allow this availability of pornography.
I’m arguing the science here, no more, no less, I’m pretty sure we see eye to eye on the moral standpoint, but I’m not going to accept answers because they fit my ideals without looking at the rather obvious flaws in the theories and the statistics.
You don’t know what’s causing the decrease though, whether it is the availability of pornography or the sexually open and liberal ideals that lead to availability of pornography is impossible to say, it hasn’t been controlled for in that study as far as I can tell.
The evidence comes from behaviourism and the fact that drive reduction theory has fallen out of favor with most psychologists who study motivation. The implication that comes from the term ‘release’ implies that your ‘drive’ to view pornography is lessened by viewing pornography. People view pornography when they’re bored, they can view it for prolonged periods of time, or repetitively, and it doesn’t always result in sexual gratification. It is not always driven by an overwhelming drive that has to be released, and even then something like the sex ‘drive’ can always be overcome or suppressed. ‘Release’ is a huge oversimplification.
Now, onto the behaviorist standpoint - this only really applies when a person is using pornography for sexual gratification. The more you pair a stimulus with sexual gratification, the stronger the association. For example, that is how fetishes are typically created - you pair a typically non-sexual stimulus (ie shoes.) with sexual gratification and suddenly shoes can illicit sexual arousal that had been absent before the pairing. (It works the same way with phobias). So, the more your receive sexual gratification from a stimulus, ie. pornography, the more you will be aroused by it. It doesn’t aid in a ‘release’ in the sense we’re talking about, it doesn’t ‘lessen a drive’, it strengthens the arousal.
Basically, I’m arguing that there’s not enough evidence, at all, that CP can reduce sexual offending, but I’m definitely not arguing that it increases it (except that obviously viewing CP is an offense, but I mean CSA).
I’m not sure what you mean by incorporating? I’m pretty sure that is just a more detailed account of what they mean by distress/impairment in functioning. I’ve also mentioned quite a few times in replies to asks and submissions that without an offense or marked distress/impairment a person doesn’t receive a diagnosis of pedophilic disorder. I’m also pretty sure I made a post about it when I discovered the DSM-V were changing the name to distinguish between a paraphilic disorder and a normal, non-pathological paraphilia.
…so yeah, I’m aware of that change, and am pretty damn happy about it!