Could medication be used for paedophilia?

Bat paedophiles is not a form of “mental ills”, if it were more people would have it.

People who can’t make a reasonable argument often do unreasonable things.

@bat wrote:

Ubermik ffs we arn,t talking about obsession or eroticism, we are talking about adults, who should know better, having sex with children!! To even contemplate the idea, you HAVE to be SICK IN THE HEAD. It isn,t normal to want much less consider, sex with children. Adults who do are such things therefore are seriously mentally ill, ie SICK and need chemical castration and solitary incarceration for the rest of their miserable pathetic existence. When a British government has the balls to bring back the death penalty, I,ll happily gas the sick bastards, and I tell you something else too. I,d PISS myself laughing whilst I did it and hope they suffered……….a LOT.

Blah blah, you really only read what you want to read dont you and stick to answering the questions that werent asked when you cant answer the ones that were

Its ALL subjective

“sick” is something thats more widely applied the more closed minded and brainwashed the labeller is till you get to the point where almost anything is “sick” to the most prudish closed minded person, “sick” is a moralisation, not a factual stance

And morality itself is a completely constructed concept with no actual natural basis whatsoever

To try and selectively split what are the exact same things, sexual fascinations as tho they are different and then try to claim theyre in some way different just because one shocks or disgusts you more than another is completely laughable really and lacks any degree of actual logic, its like trying to claim that racism and genocide arent linked in anyway, that one is merely a preference whereas the other is a “sickness”, when infact both are just a preference but one is just larger and more severe than the other

As for someone supposedly “knowing” something is wrong, well duh, you really are good at not reading what doesnt fit your synopsis arent you?

“wrongness” and sex are very heavily intertwined, many people get a kick out of and partake in things BECAUSE they feel wrong, its a common theme of human nature. Often escalating when one particlar taboo stops feeling wrong enough to get the same amount of kicks, similar to how some people progress through ever stregnthening narcotics

If two people have an allergy but one simply sneezes whilst the other has an anophalectic (sp??) shock reaction one doesnt magically stop being an allergy JUST because the degrees are vastly differing, they are just vastly differing degrees of reactions as a result of two allergies

Same with this, if one aspect of one persons sexuality and sexual fascination is found to be more abhorrent than someone elses one doesnt magically stop being what they both are no matter how many people will try to claim it is, much of the time thats simply a defensive measure to allow the person to separate their own activities that other people will also find abhorrent from the ones they find abhorrent which again is a very common aspect of human nature, the “yeah but what I do is TOOOOOOTALLY different” mindset

Classing the really low sexual fascinations as “sicknesses” elevates that persons own perversions not just to the higher moral level they actually are, but into a totally different and more “acceptable” type of perversion, but as with the allergy example its merely semantics and avoidence of more acurate groupings of the two activities

@ubermik wrote:

Topics like this are viewed with a near lack of common sense even by many alleged “profesionals”

Just because their sexuality isnt “normal” its assumed to be a totally different thing TO “sexuality” and is tried to be explained away as illness, evil, mental problems etc etc

Realistically tho its merely a sexual variant nothing more, the same as someone developing a foot fetish, or one for slime collector sniffing and millions of other “variants” that arent boring vanilla sexual practices

BUT it is not about whether bestiality, sadism and necrophilia is flogging a dead horse- its about society’s (and the law’s) view of what is and isnt acceptable. Society has made a clear distinct line that adult/child sexual contact is morally, ethically and legally wrong- whilst someone may indeed have a foot fetish and society may view them as “odd” or “unusual”, it does not view them as breaking the law

Of course any form of sexual act, within any thing animate or inanimate, is part of sexuality but just as rape is as much about control and power (and the sexual “buzz” which accompanies that power), so paedophilia is about power and control as much as it is about any sexual act itself- the power over the child and the power to bend that child to their will

@ubermik wrote:

Yes in many cases it COULD “possibly” be traced back to what the exact fascination was caused by, or what traumatic events, dissassociations or affectations were the seed that the sexual obsession grew from

But as is the case with many sexual variations they are very often childhood occurences that will be so deep rooted in the persons mind and that will have permeated so much of their consciousness that came afterwards they will be unchangeable

BUT if you believe sexuality, at least for the majority, is preconceived (literally) and that your sexuality is a given when you are born then events in your childhood cannot affect your future sexual deviances becuase you are already programmed genetically. And if many sexual deviances are affected by the subconscious relfecting pre pubsecent events, then it WOULD be “treatable”-it would be psychological not physical.

@ubermik wrote:

You have I reckon, as much chance of “curing” a paedo as you do a homosexuals sexuality or as much chance of convincing a straight sexually prolific man that tits and fannies arent sexual

But until people consider paedophilia more as an actual sexuality or “kink” and respond to it accordingly rather than as some “illness” or dysfunction of a different type the solutions will be just as missguided and inneffective

But paedophilia is a dysfunction- if your analogy that is all part of sexuality and that it is no different, at its base, than any other debviant sexual act then by the very nature that it is not accepted, it is dysfunctional. It may be an artificially dysfucntional driven by societies abhorrence of paedophilia but it is still a dysfunction.

Just like the many varied and diverse forms of mental illness- mental health, par se, has different variants (from psychotic to dillusional), the variants must be dysfucntional if they are different from what is considered the norm? 30 years ago, mentally ill people were permanently locked up for their own, and societies, safety. Now they are “out in the community”. Perhaps its time to revert that and lock up every paedo walking the street- if they are indeed rational, then it would be a wonderful deterrent

@slayer wrote:

@ubermik wrote:

Topics like this are viewed with a near lack of common sense even by many alleged “profesionals”

Just because their sexuality isnt “normal” its assumed to be a totally different thing TO “sexuality” and is tried to be explained away as illness, evil, mental problems etc etc

Realistically tho its merely a sexual variant nothing more, the same as someone developing a foot fetish, or one for slime collector sniffing and millions of other “variants” that arent boring vanilla sexual practices

BUT it is not about whether bestiality, sadism and necrophilia is flogging a dead horse- its about society’s (and the law’s) view of what is and isnt acceptable. Society has made a clear distinct line that adult/child sexual contact is morally, ethically and legally wrong- whilst someone may indeed have a foot fetish and society may view them as “odd” or “unusual”, it does not view them as breaking the law

Of course any form of sexual act, within any thing animate or inanimate, is part of sexuality but just as rape is as much about control and power (and the sexual “buzz” which accompanies that power), so paedophilia is about power and control as much as it is about any sexual act itself- the power over the child and the power to bend that child to their will

@ubermik wrote:

Yes in many cases it COULD “possibly” be traced back to what the exact fascination was caused by, or what traumatic events, dissassociations or affectations were the seed that the sexual obsession grew from

But as is the case with many sexual variations they are very often childhood occurences that will be so deep rooted in the persons mind and that will have permeated so much of their consciousness that came afterwards they will be unchangeable

BUT if you believe sexuality, at least for the majority, is preconceived (literally) and that your sexuality is a given when you are born then events in your childhood cannot affect your future sexual deviances becuase you are already programmed genetically. And if many sexual deviances are affected by the subconscious relfecting pre pubsecent events, then it WOULD be “treatable”-it would be psychological not physical.

@ubermik wrote:

You have I reckon, as much chance of “curing” a paedo as you do a homosexuals sexuality or as much chance of convincing a straight sexually prolific man that tits and fannies arent sexual

But until people consider paedophilia more as an actual sexuality or “kink” and respond to it accordingly rather than as some “illness” or dysfunction of a different type the solutions will be just as missguided and inneffective

But paedophilia is a dysfunction- if your analogy that is all part of sexuality and that it is no different, at its base, than any other debviant sexual act then by the very nature that it is not accepted, it is dysfunctional. It may be an artificially dysfucntional driven by societies abhorrence of paedophilia but it is still a dysfunction.

Just like the many varied and diverse forms of mental illness- mental health, par se, has different variants (from psychotic to dillusional), the variants must be dysfucntional if they are different from what is considered the norm? 30 years ago, mentally ill people were permanently locked up for their own, and societies, safety. Now they are “out in the community”. Perhaps its time to revert that and lock up every paedo walking the street- if they are indeed rational, then it would be a wonderful deterrent

Wow, an actual sensibly worded post on the topic :o , would I be right in guessing youre male then? (Serious question btw)

Re the first part, it is in a way about every form of sexual “deviation” in so much that they ARE sexual deviations. Because trying to segment some off by the use of convenient semantics removes the chance of ever reaching a workable answer to the occurence

Morals are only valid to those who hold and believe in THOSE particular morals, look at religion or different cultures??? Do all of them live and abide by ALL morals applied by ALL religions and cultures? Course not, so non are universally applicable, non are integrally “right” but all of them are to varying degrees reasonably commonsensical constructs to facilitate a workable society

To claim they are in some way hard wired into people is just ludicrous, whats actually the case is that they are brainwashed into members of a society or religion pretty much from birth, but no form of brainwashing is total, so not everyone exposed to it will absorb its concepts as well as a percentage who will rebel against its preachings anyway

Where a sexual matter is concerned that becomes a “taboo”, a forbidden fruit, which to that tiny percentage becomes more desireably, naughtier and more of a draw BECAUSE its a taboo, and the more of a taboo, then the more appeal it holds

As I said earlier, try and find a sexual activity that DOESNT have a greater or lesser degree of power and control involved on a psychological level, you’ll really struggle

We dont hear people wittering on that the missionary position, doggy style et al is preffered by perverts because its a position thats psychologically fraught with domination, power and subjugation do we? But think about it for a second, it IS filled with all of those things, and that is EXACTLY why many men and women get off over one position more than another, because having more or less feeling of power or control is erotic

And people have sex primarily for the eroticism which yes DOES often come via the way of power and control or feeling unempowered and out of control, but its the eroticism of that inbalance thats the root fascination

Otherwise people seeking the ultimate thrill from control over someone would be forcing them to self harm or harm someone they care about as that is the absolute pinnacle of power and control over another person

Eroticism however, would require someone to be participating in a sexual act of some kind, which may have an aspect of power and control as ALL sexual acts do anyway, but saying that means its ONLY about power and control is like saying that because all crashed cars have seatbelts that ALL crashes are ONLY to do with seatbelts which is quite clearly ludicrous

Re sexuality being preconcieved, I dont think anyone would think anything could be finitely concieved at birth, IF that were the case then as much as we are now civilised we would still be clubbing each other to death if someone tried to take a chip off your plate, and rape as well as promiscuity would be the norm rather than the exception

Although we must obviously start with some degree of firmware of an instinctual nature that isnt enough for any form of complex society, from the moment we are born we start to absorb aspects of the society around us, part of which is things pertaining to sex, eroticism rules, constraints and countless other things

But just being exposed to them doesnt mean they WILL be absorbed, or that in all cases they will be absorbed totally

The simple fact that people can vary many times in a life between being almost frigid or celebate to being overtly promiscuous, cant be appalled at a sexual act, then overly indulge in it and then even go back to being apalled by it both along with countless other things show that a persons sexuality is completely fluid, or at least has the ability to be where the persons mind and circumstance is flexible to allow it to be

Its already known that as with more normal folks many paedos have “preferences” in terms of age, gender, hair and eye colour, hieght, shape etc etc. So they arent as often assumed ALL just “into kids” full stop, end of.

The same as with any other area of sexuality there are variants, some more discerning than others and some having a very specific taste the same as you see with women who ONLY want to shag grant mitchel neanderthol types or men who only want to shag petite brunettes as well as you have the ones where anything between a certain group of ages will do of either gender similar to a proper rather than psuedo promiscuous bisexual looks at potential partners

All of these nuances have been documented countless times, and all show that paedophillia has more in common with normal sexuality in terms of driving factors than it doesnt, basically ONLY the target of their fascination differs, which is the same as with things like porker pokers, people who prefer ONLY orientals, asians, blacks, tall people, short people, those with big tits or dicks et al

Meaning it is more like bestiality or fatty fcuking (which some would argue is the same thing anyway) than it is similar to dementia which IS an illness of the mind

As for going back to fix flaws formed in childhood. Thats a topic in its own right really as its not like changing a tyre on a car. Some problems will be fairly isolated, but others will be strongly interlinked with the formation of other aspects of a persons personality

So to remove it fully ALL interlinks, influences and effects have to be removed and also replaced with an alternative association

So removing someones fear of spiders would be a doddle compared to someones fear of people purely because of the extent to which one influences every aspect of that persons life and the other doesnt

Much psychological “fixing” also doesnt really fix much at all. Lets say someons smokes, they are “modified” to not smoke, what often happens then is they start drinking or gambling, because the symptom has been fixed and not the cause of the symptom, so that same “issue” still firmly lodged in the subconcious just finds another way to manifest itself into the conscious domain, similar to someone having liposuction but not altering their overeating, eventually they just get fat somewhere else instead

Just to wrap up, dysfunction is another subjective term

Someone liking anal COULD be classed as a dysfunction IF it was still illegal and if hardly anyone did it

The word is often used in place of saying “not abiding by doctrine” in effect. As the trye meaning of dysfunction would mean there is an absolute working state which some people cant adhere to

But when that working state is a created, indoctrinated and then enforced one to not “abide” by it isnt “dysfunctional” in the true sense of the word, its merely a lack of adherence

Otherwise gays would be “dysfunctional”, in many cultures unmarried women or childless ones would be “dysfunctional”, on a more global level virgins over 25 would be psychologically dysfunctional, anyone who likes anything that the majority doesnt could be classed as dysfunctional, infact go back a few years and women who wanted equality and to vote could have been and were seen as dysfunctional purely because they werent adhering to the social conventions

Really tho, right and wrong is immaterial, what something actually is needs to be established first as whether socially or morally deemed right or wrong is the easy part after all

I dont think anyone, or not many people would argue paedophillia was “right”, certainly not with anyone under 12 ish at least so that can be pretty much taken as given which then leaves identifying what paedophillia is or isnt which is needed by any thinking society before an action in response to it can sensibly rather than idiotically and emotively be decided

@minim wrote:

Could it be that the reason the hypothalamus region of the brain didn’t react when paedophiles were shown adult sexual images is for the simple reason, they don’t get turned on by adults!

Just a thought.

It COULD, but have you ever seen a venn diagram?

If we have the outer circle of people whos hippopotamus didnt start glowing inside there would be countless smaller circles, one for kiddy fiddlers, one for people who just dont like porn, one for frigid folksies, one for prudes, one for people who like porn but not what was going on in the material, one for people who have the oppsosite orientation to what they are watching, one for people who just arent attracted to the people in the material and countless others

Whilst over in inside the circle of people who WERE turned on by the porn (the non paedos) will be circles for paedos who dont ONLY get off at the thought of kids, ones where the people or the acts being depicted REMINDED them of kids or past experiences with kids and others paedos turned on by the adult porn for other reaons

Just because something MIGHt be indicative of it doesnt mean its proof