The propaganda campaign had already begun, true. I'm not saying taking it out of the DSM started the whole thing, just that it lent a false credibility to claims that deviant sex is normal.
And I'm saying that I'm not seeing a similar trend with pedophilia. I don't think that removing it from the DSM would give it any credibility of any kind -- if anything, it would reduce the credibility of the DSM because of the attitude that I mentioned before of mistaking removal of classification as a mental illness as declaration of it as a good thing.
The facts, actually, don't support that. Intimidation--threats of violence to career and body--were used to gain the acquiescence of moral cowards. That's all it took.
I've heard this before. I've not seen any reliable documentation. I've heard exactly one person claim that this happened, and he didn't have anyone else who backed up his story.
You might want to look harder. England just lowered the age of consent for buggering boys to 16 from 18.
There are two problems with your "example". First, this discussion is about pedophilia. I'm not claiming that an adult having sex with a sixteen year-old is a good thing, but most sixteen year-olds that I've seen (which admittedly hasn't been much since high school since I tend to avoid children) have experienced a significant time of puberty. Pedophilia refers to sexual attraction to prepubescent children. As such, lowering the AoC to 16 doesn't do much for an argument that pedophilia is being normalized. Second, the AoC for heterosexual sex was already at sixteen. English law was just changed so that the AoC for homosexual sex was the same as the AoC for heterosexual sex. If you're going to argue it as a bad thing, do comment on why the AoC for heterosexual sex was already at sixteen.
Then, too, look at all the "useful idiots" the pervofascist movement can draw on, people who leap to the defense of the disorder, prattling on about "consenting adults behind closed doors," as though that had anything to do with the matter.
And why doesn't it? Because you find it "icky" just to think about it?
Such people have bought in hook, line, and sinker to the nonsense that SSAD sufferers aren't attracted to teens.
Yeah, I've heard that line before and I've rejected it too. Some homosexuals aren't attracted to teens, but that is not a universal truth. Some homosexuals are attracted to teens. Heck, some heterosexuals are attracted to teens. Of course, I'm not sure that is really an effective argument against homosexuality, unless you decide not to mention the bit about some heterosexuals being attracted to teens in order to falsely bias the argument.
But then, when and if [...]
Ah, so your argument isn't based on what you know what will happen but rather "what if this happens!". I tried using that argument against Bush's tax plan, arguing "what if an alien race decides that passing the tax plan would put us on a course to wipe out their civilization, so they destroy ours as a first strike". No one was convinced.
posted on 06/13/2003 11:49:11 AM PDT
(Sometimes I doubt your committment to Sparkle Motion!)
"And I'm saying that I'm not seeing a similar trend with pedophilia."
And I said before that I think you need to look a little more closely.
"I don't think that removing it from the DSM would give it any credibility of any kind"
It did with homosexual behavior--SSAD.
"if anything, it would reduce the credibility of the DSM"
Every time I've hoped for something like that I've been disappointed.
"I've heard this before. I've not seen any reliable documentation."
I have. As a matter of fact, at the time it was common knowledge in every Psych department of every university in the country.
"First, this discussion is about pedophilia...Pedophilia refers to sexual attraction to prepubescent children."
Okay, fair enough, but a step from 18 to 16 is a step in the direction the pervofascist activists want to go.
"Second, the AoC for heterosexual sex was already at sixteen. English law was just changed so that the AoC for homosexual sex was the same as the AoC for heterosexual sex. If you're going to argue it as a bad thing, do comment on why the AoC for heterosexual sex was already at sixteen."
Matter of fact, the age for buggering a girl was 18, as was the age for buggering a boy. The laws were the same for heterosexual buggery and homosexual buggery.
What this move did, aside from giving SSAD sufferers access to younger victims, was to place homosexual buggery on the same plane as normal sexual behavior.
The law also reflected a judgment that the AOC should be higher for behaviors that are potentially more self-destructive than others. The AOC for whiskey is 21 (depending on the location), for bubble gum there is no prohibition.
Frankly, given the self-destructive and socially corrosive effects of legitimized SSAD, I'd say the AOC for homosexual behavior should be much higher than for normal sexual behavior.
"And why doesn't it? Because you find it "icky" just to think about it?"
Because if it were just consenting adults behind closed doors, we wouldn't even be having this discussion. But keeping it between adults behind closed doors is what the pervofascists call "being in the closet," and that's a bad thing for them. Nothing less than full freedom to rub it in everyone's faces and demand enthusiastic endorsement of their sickness will do for them.
Then, too, we probably wouldn't be having this discussion if SSAD sufferers didn't prey on the young so much.
"Some homosexuals aren't attracted to teens"
Even if true, and I've never seen any indication that it might remotely in anyone's wildest dreams be true, the ones who are attracted to teens are busy enough to take up the slack.
"unless you decide not to mention the bit about some heterosexuals being attracted to teens in order to falsely bias the argument."
Actually, it's introducing it that biases the argument. It's a false equivalence.
Healthy men who find sexually mature teens attractive are far less likely to even consider acting on those desires than SSAD sufferers, for a host of reasons.
My rib eye steak is waiting, so I'll just hit a couple.
Firstly, a person whose sexuality is not disordered is in far better control of himself than a person whose sexuality is disordered.
Secondly, a healthy man is more likely to be dissuaded by the immorality of the act. A typical SSAD sufferer has been committing immoral acts for years and years; he's accustomed to it.
Thirdly, a healthy man is much more likely to be dissaded by the thought of the harm he would do to his victim than a SSAD sufferer, who was himself a victim but has rationalized his own molestation into a postive experience that introduced him to the wonderful "gay" lifestyle. He'd just be doing the boy a favor to bugger him.
And, in fact, the actual numbers bear this out quite well. Although they are only 2 or maybe 3 percent of the population, SSAD sufferers commit somewhere around a third of sex offenses involving underage victims. You do the math.
"Ah, so your argument isn't based on what you know what will happen but rather "what if this happens!""
No, it's based on a rational, informed judgment of what is very likely to happen, based on past experience and an educated analysis.
I qualified my remarks with "if" in recognition of the fact that none of us mortals is omniscient.
posted on 06/14/2003 6:14:33 AM PDT
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson