Pedophilia is not a mental disease.

[Fried Ice Cream]

Hi there,

I recently watched Oprah with my mother, and the subject was pedophiles in rehabilitation centers. It was fully funded by tax payers and said it was a ridiculous waste of money. My mother asked me why.

I compared pedophilia to being homosexual. Rather than being attracted to members of the other sex, around your own age, you are looking for members of your own sex. Homosexuality has become reasonably accepted in modern-day society, and I fully support that.
I am not saying that homosexuality is as bad as pedophilia, but it has similarities. It hasn't been their choice to be attracted to children, just as it hasn't been a gay's choice to be attracted to their own sex. It's something that they were born with and that can not be cured. At most, it can be oppressed by the individual.

My mother disagreed and said that pedophiles are just sick-minded individuals who were seriously ill. She was for the idea of trying to rehabilitate the pedophiles.

Personally, I feel that this is just as useless or stupid as sending gays to Bible camps to convert them back to their "normal" state. It hasn't worked and will not work.
However, I'm not saying we should accept pedophiles as happened with gay people. Pedophiles often take advantage of children who are not capable of giving rational consent.


Sorry if this sounds like rambling, English isn't my first language, and I didn't think this through much, I just wanted to share and hear what your take on this is.

Is pedophilia comparable to homosexuality (in the way of not being curable) and how useful is it to treat pedophiles to "cure" their condition with tax payer's money?

P.S. Don't derail this thread to another "should homosexuality be accepted"-debate. Try to keep it to the subject of pedophilia.

 

[_Keno_]

I completely agree completely that pedophilia is not a mental disorder, it is simply another range of sexualities, one that few people find agreeable. A person who has these preferences is not automatically more likely to **** than the average person, and nor are their personalities less "moral" than others. They are just normal people but with a different sexual preference.

The only studies ever done on pedophiles are done on the ones suspected or convicted of wrong doing (I doubt any closet pedophile would ever step forward for such studies), which is tantamount to studying rapists in order to learn about male sexuality. Everything we know about this sexuality is absurdly bias.

Like any sexuality, they yearn to fulfill their desires, either with pictures, erotic stories, or real life (or whatever other sources there might be). And like any other sexuality, there are people that **** others in order to fulfill these desires.
And nobody has really ever seen an example of a "good" pedophile, only "bad" ones, and so we assume them to all be bad. As I said before, I doubt any pedophile, no matter how "good" they are, would ever step forward.

 

[A Pimp Named Slickback]

"Curing" pedophiles is senseless and idiotic. Could you direct me to somewhere that gives an example of pedophiles being treated for this?

 

[1048576]

Obviously having sex with children is a problem because they can't give free and informed consent, so it's ****. But why is there such a stigma against fictitious CP? Who exactly is harmed when some pedophile stumbles upon a picture of Stewie and Brian getting off on each other.

 

[ballin4life]

It's possible to imagine a society where children can give free and informed consent, the same way that children can "give consent" to play baseball or something. But it sure as hell isn't this society.

 

[_Keno_]

But why is there such a stigma against fictitious CP? Who exactly is harmed when some pedophile stumbles upon a picture of Stewie and Brian getting off on each other.

Thats more of a problem of shotacon or yaoi rather than CP, but is illegal all the same (in the US).

Obviously having sex with children is a problem because they can't give free and informed consent, so it's ****.

The attraction to children is called pedophilia, and a person who has this attraction is called a pedophile. A person who ***** children is called a child molester, they are two very different groups. Unless you are talking about where the child gives consent illegally, in which case I really dont know what to call the person. It is technically ****, although in reality it is not.
Also, the age at what people can give consent is the only major legal issue surrounding pedophiles (of course the social issue is huge).

 

[Dre89]

Firstly, the claim that homosexuals and pedophiles are just born with their sexuality wasn't justified in the OP, considering that we know now that sexuality is psychologically influenced, not biological. I can go in depth into this if you want me to.

I also find it interesting that the logic is "pedophlia is similar to homosexuality, homosexuality is not a mental disorder (apparently being accepted by society means it's not a mental disrder anymore), therefore pedophilia is not a mental disorder". It could have easily been "homosexuality is similar to pedophilia, pedophilia is mental disorder (because it is not accepted by society), therefore homosexuality is a mental disorder".

I'm not trying to start a homosexuality debate, I'm just saying the logic there isn't really solid at all.

There wasn't really any argument for it not being a mental disorder other than "it's like homosexuality, which I'm just going to assume without justification is not a mental disorder because it's accepted by society". Your other argument is that it's not a mental disorder because they're born with it, and can't help having it. Are you saying all mental disorders are chosen, or attained through psychological influences in life? Plenty of mental disorders are there at birth, being born with it doesn't mean it's not a mental disorder, if anything that would make it more likely to be one.

The problem is, you just assumed the premises for your conclusions were self-evident, when really they themselves required more justification than your conclusions.

I do agree with your point though that using only child molesterers to study child-attraction is like using rapists to study heterosexuality.

 

[_Keno_]

Dre. is quite right that comparing homosexuality to pedophilia in that way is useless. He is also right on the account that it is unknown whether homosexuality and pedophilia were caused by genetics, hormones in the womb, environment, unconscious choice and/or a mix. It has become apparent over the years that it is not conscious choice, at least we all know that much.

 

[Dre89]

Dre. is quite right that comparing homosexuality to pedophilia in that way is useless. He is also right on the account that it is unknown whether homosexuality and pedophilia were caused by genetics, hormones in the womb, environment, unconscious choice and/or a mix. It has become apparent over the years that it is not conscious choice, at least we all know that much.

There's too much evidence for psychological influences to argue that sexuality is genetic, but that doesn't mean I'm saying it was consciously chosen, or that it's the person's fault that they have that sexuality.

 

[Fried Ice Cream]

"Curing" pedophiles is senseless and idiotic. Could you direct me to somewhere that gives an example of pedophiles being treated for this?

http://whyfiles.org/154pedophile/2.html

http://www.minddisorders.com/Ob-Ps/Pedophilia.html

Those are just two examples. If you google "pedophile treatment" you will get a lot of results. I'll try to find you a specific institute that attempts to treat pedophiles, but most of it happens in prisons, together with a punishment they received.

Firstly, the claim that homosexuals and pedophiles are just born with their sexuality wasn't justified in the OP, considering that we know now that sexuality is psychologically influenced, not biological. I can go in depth into this if you want me to.

I also find it interesting that the logic is "pedophlia is similar to homosexuality, homosexuality is not a mental disorder (apparently being accepted by society means it's not a mental disrder anymore), therefore pedophilia is not a mental disorder". It could have easily been "homosexuality is similar to pedophilia, pedophilia is mental disorder (because it is not accepted by society), therefore homosexuality is a mental disorder".

I'm not trying to start a homosexuality debate, I'm just saying the logic there isn't really solid at all.

There wasn't really any argument for it not being a mental disorder other than "it's like homosexuality, which I'm just going to assume without justification is not a mental disorder because it's accepted by society". Your other argument is that it's not a mental disorder because they're born with it, and can't help having it. Are you saying all mental disorders are chosen, or attained through psychological influences in life? Plenty of mental disorders are there at birth, being born with it doesn't mean it's not a mental disorder, if anything that would make it more likely to be one.

The problem is, you just assumed the premises for your conclusions were self-evident, when really they themselves required more justification than your conclusions.

I do agree with your point though that using only child molesterers to study child-attraction is like using rapists to study heterosexuality.

I understand. I've read your posts before, and all I can say about it that it's just me thinking differently of homosexuality than you, I'm not really here to debate it. I guess I'm not really arguing for anything OP here, then. I'm laying down an issue that I'd like to see other's opinions on. I can't present solid arguments for what I think of this, but maybe later on in this thread I can.

Sexual preference being psychological is definitely an option. I believe sexual preference starts to develop somewhere when a child hits puberty.

Also, you're right on that I shouldn't compare homosexuality and pedophilia like that. I'll rephrase it in the OP as comparing it to it being treatable.
Also, the title is indeed a bit misleading, because all sexual preference is a mental "condition", some are just accepted, some are not. Maybe I should have said disease .

 

[1048576]

Homosexuality has a genetic component, for sure. In identical twins, if person 1 is gay, person 2 is gay ~40% of the time. The correlation is much lower for fraternal twins.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biology_and_sexual_orientation

 

[_Keno_]

There's too much evidence for psychological influences to argue that sexuality is genetic, but that doesn't mean I'm saying it was consciously chosen, or that it's the person's fault that they have that sexuality.

Oh, I know. I'm agreeing with you, I'm just expanding on the material that I agree with. Well, now I have one point I can disagree with you on, that sexuality is not genetic. I am of the opinion that genetics can predispose people towards a certain sexuality, but that the environment can trump those predispositions. At the very least, you can't rule this out as a possibility like you can rule out homosexuality/pedophilia being purely genetic.

 

[El Nino]

(apparently being accepted by society means it's not a mental disrder anymore)

To a certain extent, yeah. Society's acceptance of certain forms of behavior determine what is considered deviant and what is considered normal. It is a standard that is flexible and can change over time.

 

[1048576]

Wait, are there people in here willing to argue that being gay is tantamount to mental sickness? I just assumed we were working from the premise that it's not.

Homosexuality isn't like pedophilia though, in that actually conducting the fantasized act is harmful to one of the participants.

 

[Dre89]

El Nino, I don't see how society accepting tourette syndrome suddenly makes it no longer a mental disease. Something is a mental disease whether or not it is accepted by society.

104- I'm saying it shouldn't be assumed it's not a mental illness simply because society accepts it. And yes everyone knows homosexuality is different from pedophilia in that in pedophilia the offender is violating the rights of another person.

 

[Deleted member]

P.S. Don't derail this thread to another "should homosexuality be accepted"-debate. Try to keep it to the subject of pedophilia.

I don't know how, but you know the DH/PG so well already.

 

[El Nino]

El Nino, I don't see how society accepting tourette syndrome suddenly makes it no longer a mental disease. Something is a mental disease whether or not it is accepted by society.

You wanna take it to DH?

 

[A Pimp Named Slickback]

Is consensual sex between a minor and an adult considered violating the minor's rights?

I don't see how you can simply label pedophilia as "harmful" when it is perfectly possible for a minor to agree to sexual relations with an older male. The "harm" you speak of is called molestation or ****, which are different matters entirely.

 

[Dre89]

El Nino- Not really.

Are you saying you don't see and issue with a 40 year old having consensual sex with a 14 year old?

 

[A Pimp Named Slickback]

Honestly, I do not, as long as the 14-year-old is in a right state of mind and consents to the activity.

It's just another taboo placed by society, not so different from other sexual preferences like homosexuality, or even scat/whatever.

 

[ballin4life]

El Nino, I don't see how society accepting tourette syndrome suddenly makes it no longer a mental disease. Something is a mental disease whether or not it is accepted by society.

104- I'm saying it shouldn't be assumed it's not a mental illness simply because society accepts it. And yes everyone knows homosexuality is different from pedophilia in that in pedophilia the offender is violating the rights of another person.

I don't know about this. Someone from another planet might argue that humans have a mental disease of being obsessed with sex, for example.

Tourette syndrome is different (it's a more of a physical issue than a mental issue, unless I am mistaken), but still if everyone had it then it would not be considered a disease, it would be considered a natural part of human life.

So to some extent society does determine what is and isn't a "disease".

Edit: I wouldn't have as much of an issue with a 14 year old, but I would probably have an issue with a 5 year old. I think that the question of what rights children have is quite difficult.

 

[Dre89]

You don't need to use aliens, when we can just say humans may consider animals mentally ill. But that doesn't work, because mental health isn't about sustaining an objective level of intelligence, it's about having your mental state structured the way it's naturally supposed to be.

This is why we say a blind person has a disability, but we don't say the same for a stone, despite the fact that it too has no sight. The blind person is supposed to have sight, making such a lack of sight a disability.

With child sex, the age could be younger than what it is now, it's just the way our society is that makes us so immature that we can't responsibly have sex until we're older. At least at 14 though, kids have hit puberty. I mean, we were pretty much structured to be having sex at 14, the life expectancy of an Ancient Egyptian peasant was 35, so they obviously needed to be having kids at a younger age than we do, hence why he hit puberty so young.

But I don't advocate 40 year olds sleeping with 14 year olds, they're at different stages of their lives. I'm thinking more of 14 year olds with each other. However, I don't think we should allow that in this society, because in this society kids are too immature to be having sex at such a young age.

 

[El Nino]

mental health isn't about sustaining an objective level of intelligence, it's about having your mental state structured the way it's naturally supposed to be.

No.

Do you have any knowledge on neuroscience?

Biological systems exhibit a high degree of variability, even within the same species. There is no way to determine "the way it's naturally supposed to be." If you were to scan the brains of every single human being on the planet, they are not all going to be the same. You may find a majority that exhibits traits that are similar within a specific range, but that is all. A lot can happen from the first cell replication until a person is full grown. It is never a completely "perfect" process of development for anyone. As such, there is only "what is" and "what is not."

Mental illnesses incorporate a wide range of conditions, from psychosis in the form of schizophrenia to the milder classification of conditions known as personality disorders. In schizophrenia, the cause has been identified as biochemical. This is also true of clinical depression.

However, conditions such as dissociative identity disorder are not medical conditions as defined because the root cause is not physical; the cause is usually psychological. Amnesia on the other hand is a mental condition that can be either psychological or physical (as in, memory repression due to emotional stress, or physical trauma due to a concussion).

Homosexuality used to be considered a mental illness by American psychologists. It was classified under sexual deviance. It has since been removed from the index. However, it remains a disorder in other places that practice modern psychology (in China, for instance).

The key concept here in this specific classification of mental illness is "deviance." Deviance is a variation from the norm; the norm is determined by the majority and what the majority finds acceptable. Even though society in the U.S. is not overwhelmingly supportive of homosexuality, enough people find it tolerable. As such, it is no longer deviant.

Anti-social personality disorder is another example of a mental condition defined by what society thinks is acceptable. Aggression and violence have their place in nature, but within society they can tear at the fabric of a community unless channeled in pro-social ways. Because these traits, if unchecked, are disadvantageous to society, they are classified as a disorder.

In psychology and in the treatment of mental illnesses, we have a system in which social values are used as a standard by which to determine whether or not certain forms of behavior are acceptable or not. As such, that standard is bound to vary between cultures. And that standard is going to change as society changes.

Consider also that schizophrenia is bound to have occurred in humanity's past long before anyone knew about neurotransmitters. If an individual was viewed as being completely unable to function, perhaps this person would have been considered ill. However, if this individual spoke in a way that people thought was mystical or spiritual, this individual may have been regarded as a mystic. As such, the community may have a role for this person to play. Given a role, taken care of by others, the condition may not be very detrimental.

The outcome changes drastically in a situation in which society has no need for mystics.

As such, social values can and do influence whether a condition is or is not a mental illness, and to what degree.

 

[ballin4life]

I'm not sure if you are disagreeing with me, but all I'm saying is that the definition of a "disorder" or "disease" relies on being abnormal. So if everyone else also has that trait, it is no longer a disorder or disease.

Your criteria of what makes something a disease appears to be whether it is "natural". How do you determine what is natural? The example of the blind person implies that the criteria is based on how common something is among humans. But for something to be a disorder or disease, it also has to be considered a bad thing - and who makes this determination besides society? You wouldn't necessarily consider Heterochromia to be a disease or disorder just because it is unusual - it has to be considered a bad thing as well.

 

[Dre89]

So are you guys going to argue that it is wrong to say that having two arms is normal, and having no arms is abnormal?

El Nino, yes deviation is what defines a disease, but deviation from what's natural, not social norm.

Let me ask you this. Suppose there exists a society of down syndrome people. Within the society, DS is not a deviation from the norm. However, the society itself is a deviation from other societies. So is having DS in that society a mental disease?

 

[SuperBowser]

It's pretty easy to argue that society play a huge role in the classification of what makes a disease a "disease". Pick up a psychiatry/medical anthropology/history of medicine textbook. Maybe a more striking example (aside from personality disorder) is hypertension. Despite your assertion, doctors do not use the term "natural" when assessing a patient. They ask themselves "Does this factor deviate from what I deem, given my expertise and training, to lie in the normal range?". Sometimes, deviating from the social norm is exactly what they look for.

Personality disorder has an interesting history, at least for the UK.

[I am a fifth year medical student]

So are you guys going to argue that it is wrong to say that having two arms is normal, and having no arms is abnormal?

I'm interested. Please provide a definition of disability that fails to account for society. I do not know of one.


To stay on topic: I assume many of these paedophiles seek treatment themselves. I think it's unethical to just lock these people away. While treatment may not work, we do not know yet. Given what is at stake I think it is worth trying. Though I share your scepticism, we research and trial treatments for so many other conditions. Why should paedophilia be treated any different?

 

[LLDL]

There is no way of telling whether or not they are in the right mind. There have been countless incidents where someone monitored and known to be "normal" has committed suicide seemingly for no good reason, or a person who has no prior record of violence committing a murder. The fact of the matter is that we as humans cannot read minds, and to say that some who is a pedophile is mentally ill on the base that it is abnormal behavior isn't a valid argument. Call them abnormal. That is true. You can't base whether they are mentally ill unless you have tangible evidence or test results. Until then, it's safe to assume that a pedophile IS right of mind. That's just the way they were born.

 

[SuperBowser]

Being born a particular way does not preclude the possibility of mental illness.

 

[ballin4life]

So are you guys going to argue that it is wrong to say that having two arms is normal, and having no arms is abnormal?

No, I'm just saying that the definition of normal relies on some baseline established by society. Furthermore, the standard of a "disease" or "disorder" relies on being both abnormal and negative in the sense that society has judged it to be a bad thing.

El Nino, yes deviation is what defines a disease, but deviation from what's natural, not social norm.

Let me ask you this. Suppose there exists a society of down syndrome people. Within the society, DS is not a deviation from the norm. However, the society itself is a deviation from other societies. So is having DS in that society a mental disease?

It would seem that within that society it is not a mental disease.

If aliens were to come to Earth who are much smarter than humans (making us the down syndrome society), would you say that humans all have a disease? It all depends on what baseline of "normal" that you choose.

 

[El Nino]

So are you guys going to argue that it is wrong to say that having two arms is normal, and having no arms is abnormal?

El Nino, yes deviation is what defines a disease, but deviation from what's natural, not social norm.

Having two arms is normal when the majority has two arms.

Everything that exists is natural. The distinction between natural and artificial is made only to identify things that can be directly attributed to human invention or modification.

Let me ask you this. Suppose there exists a society of down syndrome people. Within the society, DS is not a deviation from the norm. However, the society itself is a deviation from other societies. So is having DS in that society a mental disease?

Societies deviate from each other because they are under different selection pressures. Cultures located by the water are different from those that originate in the desert. Down syndrome is caused by an error during cell division. However, all mutations are errors as well, and mutation is the basis of evolution. Whether a trait is detrimental or not depends on the environment. If the majority of a population has a specific genetic trait, it is either the genetic bottleneck effect, or it is that that trait is advantageous.

If that trait is advantageous, there would be no basis for calling it a disease. If it were detrimental, it's high occurrence would lead to a decrease in population. In that case, there would be a basis for terming it a disease. However, I hesitate to compare societies between each other because if they are located in different regions, they are in different environments and subject to different selection pressures. What is advantageous in one area may be detrimental in another.

Technically, by your definition, all mutations are deviations from the norm, from what is "natural." A mutation is a copying error during DNA replication (Down's syndrome is caused by a different type of error, but they are both errors, is my point). However, such errors are the root mechanism for evolution. So the line of reasoning would follow that evolution works due to deviations from what is natural, assuming that what is natural is the original sequence of the DNA code. It would also follow that all the biodiversity on the planet is a result of deviations from the natural code. Therefore, deviation is the natural state.

 

[Dre89]

El Nino that's a good argument but humans do have a current stage of evolution, in that it is a disorder to deviate from what the natural norm of that time is. So a disorder would be not meeting the criteria of the current most evolved form of human (eg. having the mental capacity of a dog when in adulthood).

 

[_Keno_]

Dre., I can perfectly understand how something is a disorder if it is genetic or if it is caused by bacteria/viruses/disease/infections, but if something is simply a preference that differs from the common, how is it a disorder?

 

[Dre89]

Because there's a reason why the common preference is the common.

When I say common, I'm not talking about societal norms, I'm talking about biological norms such as having two arms etc.

With sexuality, the norm is hetero because that is how we reproduce. That's why it's considered a deviation if one's sexuality is not hetero.

 

[_Keno_]

Pedophiles can be, and mostly are, heterosexual. Your current argument is only against homosexuals.
Do you think homosexuality is a mental disorder?

Also, what is your definition of disorder? From what I've seem, it seems to encompass quite a lot.

 

[Mike]

Deviation from the norm is not enough to call something a disease. It must also be handicapping in some way. You certainly don't hear people calling Stephen Hawking's intelligence a disease.

 

[Dre89]

But intelligence is not where Hawkins is handicapped.

I don't want to turn this into another homosexuality debate, so I'll refrain from responding to the above posts.

 

[Mike]

Exactly. It's a deviation from the norm, but it isn't a disease because higher intelligence is seen as a plus. So if pedophilia is to be labelled as a disease, it needs to be shown to be harmful to either the holder or its 'victims'.

 

[_Keno_]

Okay, then respond to the parts of the main discussion that do not deal with homosexuality.

Pedophiles can be, and mostly are, heterosexual.
Also, what is your definition of disorder? From what I've seem, it seems to encompass quite a lot.

Which is a response to this:

With sexuality, the norm is hetero because that is how we reproduce. That's why it's considered a deviation if one's sexuality is not hetero.

 

[1048576]

What is this the 1800s? Is atheism a mental disorder? Will eating your snickers with a fork get you burned at the stake?

Sorry, civilizations progress over time. The criteria of 'things that should be condemned' has moved beyond just being abnormal. Now it has to cause harm.

Maybe your definition of 'mental disorder' is so wide that disliking pizza qualifies. In that case, whatever dude. Personally, I prefer my words to have meaning.

 

[El Nino]

it is a disorder to deviate from what the natural norm of that time is. So a disorder would be not meeting the criteria of the current most evolved form of human (eg. having the mental capacity of a dog when in adulthood).

My point was that every mutation is a deviation from the natural norm of the time. The "most evolved" form(s) of any species is the currently existing population. "Having the mental capacity of a dog" does not make an individual less evolved. "Less evolved" means a species that hasn't changed very much over time. If we say that cockroaches are very similar to how they were millions of years ago, then we can say that they are "less evolved."

The only concept in evolutionary biology I can think of that sounds similar to what I think you're trying to say is Darwinian fitness, which is sort of a measure of how well an individual survives, but it is measured by counting the number of that individual's offspring that survive to reproductive age. So, evolutionary biologists would only be concerned with "mental capacity" if it affects reprodution.

Under this line of reasoning, you could argue that pedophiles have low Darwinian fitness because they attempt to reproduce with children, who don't have that capacity. However, low fitness alone has never been used in modern practice as a criteria for labelling something a disorder. Some people just choose not to have children, and that is not a disease, nor is it a mental disorder. They may even engage in intercourse, but still choose not to have children.

However, you can imagine that back in the day of hunters and gatherers, choosing not to have children would probably make you "odd" because the tribe needs children in order to have a future. So, I think, from the beginning, human beings within a society impose rules on other members of the tribe, and it is the tribe that determines what is taboo and what is a disorder.