Why is Pedophilia Categorized as a Disorder?

[evensaul]

...homosexuality per se implies no impairment in judgment, reliability or general social and vocational capabilities"

Are necrophilia and pedophilia matters of "judgment, reliability or general social and vocational capabilities"? I don't think so. What does or doesn't give you a boner has nothing to do with those issues. Something either turns you on or it doesn't.

---------- Post added at 05:35 PM ---------- Previous post was at 05:08 PM ----------

But to be clear, I do not accept that it's a sexual orientation.

This is nothing more than unsupported opinion, and is rejected.

And that's because unlike other "sexual orientations", pedophilia fits the definition of a paraphilia while the other sexual orientations do not.

And the classification as paraphilia is rejected as unsupported.

Actually, nowadays it's pretty much unanimous amongst medial and psychiatric professionals that pedophilia is a disorder and homosexuality is not and I'm quite sure if one is to research how such conclusions were reached, they would find a lot of professional studies and evidence and logic supporting those conclusions.

I forget the name for this fallacy - claiming evidence would support your claim if it was looked for, but it is clearly a bogus argument. Go find and post your evidence if you want it considered.

If you are going to argue that the CURRENT status is determined not by credible research and such but mere alignment with public opinion, you will need to support it. And again, I'm referring to NOWADAYS so what happened back in the early 70s is not particularly relevant.

Been there, done that.

And besides that, I don't need to appeal to experts to believe that one is a disorder and the other is not. Speaking in general terms, whether something is a disorder or not is dependent on whether it is harmful.

Harmful to whom? Where are you getting this definition?

Pedophilia, when practiced, CONSISTENTLY causes harm.

If a guy wacks off to his own drawings of children, is that causing harm? To whom?

[futureboy]

Are necrophilia and pedophilia matters of "judgment, reliability or general social and vocational capabilities"? I don't think so. What does or doesn't give you a boner has nothing to do with those issues. Something either turns you on or it doesn't.

The statement you quoted is part of a completely separate area of discussion which has no bearing on how paedophilic disorder is classified.

[evensaul]

My argument, fb, is that the same logic and reasoning should apply to each and every sexual orientation. If homosexuality is not a disorder according to certain reasoning, then that same reasoning must be applied to necrophilia and pedophilia. Do you disagree?

[mican333]

This is nothing more than unsupported opinion, and is rejected.

Likewise your argument that pedophilia is a sexual orientation is nothing more than an unsupported opinion and is rejected. If you aren't appealing to the psychiatric professionals on whether it's a sexual orientation, which you aren’t, then all that's left is what you think.

And to be clear, you do have the burden to support that it is before I have to support that it isn't.

As I said in my last post (the portion you ignored):

And before you seek to get me to support what I've said, I'm not offering support for this right now. And that's because the burden is yours. You are arguing that the two should be classified the same and therefore it's your burden to show that my contrary position is incorrect before I have any burden to defend my position. If you choose to not challenge me, then you have no basis to argue that my viewpoint is incorrect and therefore the contrary position, that the two things should be classified as the same, is unsupported.

So I am primarily just saying that I disagree with your position and until you support your side, that's enough.

You can reject my opinions but then I likewise reject your opinions and you will need to base your argument on something more than your opinions before they can be considered supported.

And the classification as paraphilia is rejected as unsupported.

And the position that pedophilia is not paraphilia or disorder is rejected as unsupported.

I forget the name for this fallacy - claiming evidence would support your claim if it was looked for, but it is clearly a bogus argument. Go find and post your evidence if you want it considered.

No problem. Here ya go!

"The longstanding consensus of scientific research and clinical literature demonstrate that same-sex sexual and romantic attractions, feelings, and behaviors are normal and positive variations of human sexuality. There is now a large body of scientific evidence that indicates that being gay, lesbian, or bisexual is compatible with normal mental health and social adjustment."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homose...and_psychology

Now, would you say the same thing about an attraction to children likewise is a "normal and positive variations of human sexuality" and " is compatible with normal mental health and social adjustment".

And assuming the answer is "no", then they belong in different categories for one is a normal and positive variations of human sexuality and the other is not a normal and positive variations of human sexuality.

So they are clearly different in a relevant fashion and therefore should be categorized in some way to differentiate them.

And again, the burden is yours to show that they should be categorized similarly so if you are going to support your position, you have to provide support for that. Just challenging what I provided will not suffice.

Harmful to whom? Where are you getting this definition?

Harmful to either oneself or others. And I'm speaking from my best understanding of the issue which is the only option if you are going to reject the definitions as provided by the experts.

And it's not my burden to convince you anyway. You can subjectively say that a desire for sex with children is not particularly harmful and challenge any notion that it is until the end of time. But then again, it's not my burden to convince you. It's your burden to show that the desire to have sex with children and the desire to have sex with adult members of your own gender is essentially the same in all relevant ways when it comes to disorder/paraphilia. You not being convinced that they shouldn't be differentiated does not even begin to equate support for your position. And you inventing your own criteria and rejecting all differing criteria does not do it either. If you want to reject the professional criteria and present your own, you may. And if it is clear and makes sense to me, I will even accept it. But you will need to support your use of alternative criteria before you can support using it.

So stop shifting the burden and explain why someone who doesn't already agree with what you think should agree that the two things should be categorized the same.

[futureboy]

My argument, fb, is that the same logic and reasoning should apply to each and every sexual orientation.

No, your argument, per the OP, is that paedophilia is classified as a disorder because of laws but it shouldn't be, which you've failed to support. If you want to make a separate argument, then please forward it and provide support.

If homosexuality is not a disorder according to certain reasoning, then that same reasoning must be applied to necrophilia and pedophilia. Do you disagree?

Of course I do, since the acts involved and their consequences are completely different, which is why necrophilia and paedophilia are not commonly considered to be sexual orientations. The main difference being that the common sexual orientations involve sexual acts between consenting adults, whereas necrophilia and paedophilia do not. Another difference is the distress which necrophilia and paedophilia cause to the person with the desires and/or the object of the desires.

[SharmaK]

My argument, fb, is that the same logic and reasoning should apply to each and every sexual orientation. If homosexuality is not a disorder according to certain reasoning, then that same reasoning must be applied to necrophilia and pedophilia. Do you disagree?

Come on man, you can’t still be defending this still when I’ve pointed out that given your exact logic, praying should be considered insanity since it is literally talking to something that you cannot see and expecting a response back. And it is literally MASS hysteria (pun intended) when done by many people on a regular basis.

Your idea makes no sense since you already benefit greatly from the free pass that religious folk get to do things that are clearly a disorder and a danger to themselves and others.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk Pro

[SharmaK]

You're making zero sense, fb. Honestly, you're offering zero of substance here. And why should anyone care that you're using Tapatalk Pro to tap out your post? Is that an excuse for lazy nonsense rambling?

Lol. Just answer the point - you very well recall what we discussed. If H is a disorder then by your logic so should praying be considered a disorder.

[evensaul]

I've gone back and read your earlier posts. Nonsense red herring after red herring that have nothing to do with my op. If that's all you've got, you'll be ignored again. Happy posting.

[SharmaK]

I've gone back and read your earlier posts. Nonsense red herring after red herring that have nothing to do with my op. If that's all you've got, you'll be ignored again. Happy posting.

How is it a red herring? I’m using your exact logic. So do you therefore agree that praying is a disorder?

[evensaul]

No, your argument...

I have several related arguments in this thread. Deal with it.

... the acts involved and their consequences are completely different, which is why necrophilia and paedophilia are not commonly considered to be sexual orientations.

Support this claim.

The main difference being that the common sexual orientations involve sexual acts between consenting adults, whereas necrophilia and paedophilia do not.

Support the claim that sexual orientations are classified according to consent.

Another difference is the distress which necrophilia and paedophilia cause to the person with the desires and/or the object of the desires.

Support the claim that classification of sexual orientations (or mental disorders) are dependent on distress caused to others.

[futureboy]

I have several related arguments in this thread. Deal with it.

You may have made many statements in this thread, but what you quoted was regarding the APA's statement explaining the change which took place for homosexuality, and how Belthazor made a gross misrepresentation of the nature of the change. His misrepresentation attempted to imply that the decision was reached without evidence or consideration, and I pointed out why that's wrong by quoting the APA's statement. Their finding that homosexuality implies no impairment in judgment, reliability or general social and vocational capabilities has nothing to do with how any other disorders are defined.

Support this claim.

Which claim, specifically? That the acts and their consequences are different, or that necrophilia and paedophilia are not classified as sexual orientations?

Support the claim that sexual orientations are classified according to consent.

I never stated that sexual orientations are classified according to consent. I simply pointed out one glaring difference between sexual orientations and disorders such as necrophilia and paedophilia. You asked if I agreed that the same reasoning should be applied to paedophilia, and I stated that I don't and explained why I don't.

Support the claim that classification of sexual orientations (or mental disorders) are dependent on distress caused to others.

Again, I'm simply pointing out the glaring difference. Do you not agree that there is a difference between an act that is performed by two consenting adults together and an act that is performed by an adult on a non-consenting minor, not even considering the potential consequences of the two acts?

[evensaul]

Which claim, specifically? That the acts and their consequences are different, or that necrophilia and paedophilia are not classified as sexual orientations?

Support the "which is why" part, and that the reasoning is valid.

... and I stated that I don't.

Then you contribute nothing to the discussion.

Again, I'm simply pointing out the glaring difference. Do you not agree that there is a difference between an act that is performed by two consenting adults together and an act that is performed by an adult on a non-consenting minor, not even considering the potential consequences of the two acts?

The difference should not be relevant to the classifications. Recognition of heterosexual and homosexual orientation have never considered the affects on others for classification. So there is no reason for that to be considered for necrophilia or pedophilia. If you think so, then you're making a Special Pleading, which is a fallacy.

[evensaul]

Mican, this was your argument in another thread, arguing that supposed transgendered people could not be classified as having a mental disorder because not every transgender has been shown to suffer from their mental condition:
.................................................. ..............

"A mental disorder has a negative effect on EVERYONE who suffers from it. If transgenderism is a mental disorder, that means that every single transgendered person, who would "suffer" from transgenderism if it were a disease, has some kind of problem ("clinically significant disturbance in an individual's cognition, emotion regulation, or behavior"). Obviously those who attempt suicide (successful or not) has a problem of some kind but then most transgendered people don't attempt suicide and therefore one cannot use a minority attempting suicide as the basis of saying that they ALL have a problem and therefore they all suffer from some disorder. If they don't all suffer from some disorder, then transgenderism cannot be considered a disorder.

It's safe to say that it has not been shown that every transgendered person suffers from a clinically significant disturbance in their cognition, emotion regulation, or behavior."
http://www.onlinedebate.net/forums/s...nsgender/page2

.................................................. ...............

Why are you unwilling to apply the same reasoning to pedophiles? Not every pedophile has been proven to have a significant disturbance in cognition, emotion regulation, or behavior. So by your logic, pedophilia is not a mental disorder, right?

If a pedophile swears off touching children and isn't bothered by their attraction or denial of acting on it, and is completely okay with that, then your above argument would mean they do not have a mental disorder. Right?

[Belthazor]

You may have made many statements in this thread, but what you quoted was regarding the APA's statement explaining the change which took place for homosexuality, and how Belthazor made a gross misrepresentation of the nature of the change.

1. You never showed ANY "gross misrepresentation" on my part. If you can, I will retract the statement/s as I have no issue admitting when I am wrong.

2. I don't think you ever really got my point so I will state it again:
I don't care if homosexuality is in DSM as a disorder or not! My point is/was DSM should not be used as if it were a medical textbook. I was only using the way homosexuality was originally put into, and the way it was taken out of DSM as one reason for that opinion.

---------- Post added at 05:19 PM ---------- Previous post was at 05:15 PM ----------

His misrepresentation attempted to imply that the decision was reached without evidence or consideration, and I pointed out why that's wrong by quoting the APA's statement.

More accurately, I showed how some other than medical considerations affected what is considered a disorder in DSM. I don't believe I said there were "no evidence or consideration" when the decisions were made.

---------- Post added at 05:24 PM ---------- Previous post was at 05:19 PM ----------

…
and how Belthazor made a gross misrepresentation of the nature of the change.

The more I think about this comment, the more it bothers me so

Please immediately support my "gross misrepresentations" that I may correct them.

[mican333]

Mican, this was your argument in another thread, arguing that supposed transgendered people could not be classified as having a mental disorder because not every transgender has been shown to suffer from their mental condition:
.................................................. ..............

"A mental disorder has a negative effect on EVERYONE who suffers from it. If transgenderism is a mental disorder, that means that every single transgendered person, who would "suffer" from transgenderism if it were a disease, has some kind of problem ("clinically significant disturbance in an individual's cognition, emotion regulation, or behavior"). Obviously those who attempt suicide (successful or not) has a problem of some kind but then most transgendered people don't attempt suicide and therefore one cannot use a minority attempting suicide as the basis of saying that they ALL have a problem and therefore they all suffer from some disorder. If they don't all suffer from some disorder, then transgenderism cannot be considered a disorder.

It's safe to say that it has not been shown that every transgendered person suffers from a clinically significant disturbance in their cognition, emotion regulation, or behavior."
http://www.onlinedebate.net/forums/s...nsgender/page2

.................................................. ...............

Why are you unwilling to apply the same reasoning to pedophiles? Not every pedophile has been proven to have a significant disturbance in cognition, emotion regulation, or behavior.

Yes they have. Saying that some pedophiles don't have a disorder is like saying that that some people who have a cold don't have a disease.

By definition, they have a disorder.

Maybe you don't agree with the way "disorder" is defined and that's up to you. But I happen to agree with the definition and therefore am being consistent with my above argument.

If a pedophile swears off touching children and isn't bothered by their attraction or denial of acting on it, and is completely okay with that, then your above argument would mean they do not have a mental disorder. Right?

Unless you can show that such a person actually exists (and I don't think one does), this hypothetical situation is irrelevant to whether pedophilia is ACTUALLY a disorder or not.

[evensaul]

Nope, that doesn't work. They don't have a disorder just because the description of the disorder says so. Not when that contradicts how other conditions are labeled a disorder or not.

All you did was evade my question. Predictable. So the only real question is whether you were arguing disingenuously in the other thread or this one. Or more likely, both. So your current opinion, devoid of any logic, can be ignored. (Your real position was stated early on "There's something wrong with them". That's all you really believe, and it's no different than how some people think of homosexuals and supposed transgendered.)

[mican333]

Nope, that doesn't work. They don't have a disorder just because the description of the disorder says so. Not when that contradicts how other conditions are labeled a disorder or not.

What disorder doesn't fit the definition of a disorder?

All you did was evade my question. Predictable. So the only real question is whether you were arguing disingenuously in the other thread or this one. Or more likely, both.

Sincerely disagreeing with your arguments does not make my arguments disingenuous.

There is a description of a disorder that I abide by and "Pedophilia" meets it and "Transgenderism" does not.

Whether you agree with the definition of disorder that I use is irrelevant to whether I am being consistent in MY usage.

So your current opinion, devoid of any logic, can be ignored. (Your real position was stated early on "There's something wrong with them". That's all you really believe, and it's no different than how some people think of homosexuals and supposed transgendered.)

I am being a bit more specific than "something wrong". There is something called "harm" and, to put it in layman terms, if a condition consistently causes harm to oneself or others, then it's a disorder. If it doesn't, then it's not a disorder.

If you don't think pedophilia consistently causes harm, then go ahead and think that. But if you are going to support that my position is incorrect, then you need to show that it sometimes does not cause harm (and providing a hypothetical of it not causing harm is not evidence that it sometimes does not harm).

[futureboy]

Support the "which is why" part, and that the reasoning is valid.

Support that their classifications are different because they're different?

Then you contribute nothing to the discussion.

So, if someone disagrees with you and provides justification, they're not contributing to the discussion? Why do you even bother to post here if you're not interested in rational discourse? Your complaint that someone who disagrees with you isn't contributing says a lot more about you and your discussion than it does that person.

The difference should not be relevant to the classifications.

It's not. Nobody's saying that paedophilia should be classified as a disorder because it's different from homosexuality, which isn't classified as a disorder. Paedophilia is classified as a disorder because of the it's inherent risk of serious harm to non-consenting minors as well as the paedophile, full-stop. Appealing to paedophilia's difference from homosexuality is not required nor relevant. It's only because you decided to start complaining that paedophilia is classified as a disorder as a flawed attempt to argue that homosexuality is a disorder, that folks have had to explain the differences between them for you, and why those differences mean that the classification is also going to be different. But now you've latched on to the explanation that they're different and you are now going on about some nonsense that just because paedophilia is different from a non-disorder like homosexuality, that doesn't mean it should be called a disorder. And then you complain that someone else is not contributing to the discussion? Way to be you, dude.

Recognition of heterosexual and homosexual orientation have never considered the affects on others for classification.

I don't know how you'd support that assertion, but just because sexual orientations don't inherently involve non-consenting parties or cause harm to the parties involved, that doesn't mean that whether homosexuality causes harm to others has never been considered when classifying homosexuality. Further, the effect on the individual being classified is indeed considered when classifying homosexuality and also in disorders like necro- and paedophilia. For homosexuality, the effect on the individual was determined to not warrant its classification as a disorder, whereas necro- and paedophilia's effects on the individual have been found to be harmful in many cases, hence their classifications as disorders.

So there is no reason for that to be considered for necrophilia or pedophilia. If you think so, then you're making a Special Pleading, which is a fallacy.

More bald assertions. Simply put, the considerations behind the classifications of homosexuality as not a disorder and paedophilia as a disorder include whether they are harmful to the individuals or others. It's not special pleading to recognize that homosexuality doesn't involve harm or non-consent, and is therefore different and should be classified differently than paedophilia, which does involve harm and non-consent.


===========================================

1. You never showed ANY "gross representation" on my part. If you can, I will retract the statement/s as I have no issue admitting when I am wrong.

From the very beginning of our exchange you were attempting to present the change of homosexuality to a non-disorder as resulting from political pressure, and not from careful consideration and discussion of the available evidence. It's literally the only reason I stepped into the discussion to respond to you. I know you were just parroting Phil Hickey's blog post, but you were wrong. Here are a few examples:
"No new studies or other information was utilized"
"no new studies used to base changing DSM on homosexuality classification"
"changing homosexuality from a disorder to not being one, was not based on scientific study/research/etc"

Trying to say that the decision to stop classifying homosexuality as a disorder did not happen as a result of debate/discussion by experts of the available evidence is simply false, as I already supported multiple times.
Please go back and re-read our exchange and respond to the rebuttals of your arguments, or stop making statements which have been refuted.

2. I don't think you ever really got my point so I will state it again: I don't care if homosexuality is in DSM as a disorder or not! My point is/was DSM should not be used as if it were a medical textbook. I was only using the way homosexuality was originally put into, and the way it was taken out of DSM as one reason for that opinion.

And since your opinion is based on the flawed position that the decision to no longer classify homosexuality as a disorder was made in the same way as how it was classified as a disorder in the first place, your opinion is simply false.

More accurately, I showed how some other than medical considerations affected what is considered a disorder in DSM.

I've already addressed this repeatedly. Until you provide a valid response to rebuttals to your arguments, continuing to forward them despite their being refuted is incredibly bad form.

[mican333]

Starting Fresh and here is my argument. I will be speaking in layman terms and not appealing to any professional definitions or terms.

Pedophilia, generally speaking, is harmful. Those who practice it as they desire will harm children. It likewise has led to the production of child pornography which likewise results in harming children. Those who manage to keep their urges in check and not cause any direct harm to children generally feel stress at having to clamp down on their urges. Given all of the above, pedophilia is a condition that warrants treatment. Whether the treatment is to remove the desire or help a pedophile better control his urges so he doesn't harm anyone or to help the pedophile feel less stress at denying his urges, it is all worthy avenues of treatment.

So given that pedophilia SHOULD be professionally treated, pedophilia needs to be categorized as something that warrants such treatment and therefore should be categorized as "a condition that warrants treatment" and therefore a "disorder".

That is why I hold that pedophilia should be considered a disorder.


And of course the above reasoning does not apply to homosexuality or transgenderism so they do not warrant to be categorized in the same fashion as pedophilia.

[evensaul]

Pedophilia, generally speaking, is harmful. Those who practice it as they desire will harm children. It likewise has led to the production of child pornography which likewise results in harming children. Those who manage to keep their urges in check and not cause any direct harm to children generally feel stress at having to clamp down on their urges. Given all of the above, pedophilia is a condition that warrants treatment. Whether the treatment is to remove the desire or help a pedophile better control his urges so he doesn't harm anyone or to help the pedophile feel less stress at denying his urges, it is all worthy avenues of treatment.

So given that pedophilia SHOULD be professionally treated, pedophilia needs to be categorized as something that warrants such treatment and therefore should be categorized as "a condition that warrants treatment" and therefore a "disorder".

That is why I hold that pedophilia should be considered a disorder.


And of course the above reasoning does not apply to homosexuality or transgenderism so they do not warrant to be categorized in the same fashion as pedophilia.

Can you point to any other mental conditions classified as disorders because of the effects on others? Or is pedophilia the only one? If you can't, then aren't you guilty of a special pleading fallacy?

Does the typical alpha male have a mental disorder because of negative effects on other men?
Is the short-fused woman or man who slaps a spouse classified as having a mental disorder?
Do kids who haven't learned to share or who butt in line have mental disorders?

Or is pedophilia the only mental disorder classified as such because of the effect on others?