General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region Forums5 things you don't know about pedophilia
http://www.cracked.com/article_20981_5-ways-were-making-pedophilia-worse.html5. Not every pedophile is automatically a child-molester.
In a survey 18% of males said, they had fantasized about having sex with a child, but only 4% said, they would have sex with a child.
How many pedophiles are there in society? Nobody knows. The estimates range from 1% to 20%.
How many males get turned on by a naked child? Nobody knows. The estimates range from 17% to 50%.
Why is all this unknown? Because nobody will dare to give you an honest answer.
4. There is no plan how to deal with pedophiles who don't want to molest children.
Self-help groups are the only organized help they get for coping with their disorder. (And how do you actually FIND an Anonymous Pedophiles group?)
3. Being a pedophile is not a choice.
MRI-experiments have shown that a pedophile's brain is different from a normal person's brain. Pedophiles most likely have a cross-wiring in their brain, connecting parts regulating societal behavior that shouldn't be connected.
Although pedophile behavior is often attributed to having experienced sexual child-abuse, most sex-offenders (pedophile or not) just pretend this abuse to get others to be more sympathetic.
2. Nobody knows how to treat child-porn that doesn't contain children.
First, the jury is still out whether the availability of child-porn actually increases or decreases sexual child-abuse. Nobody knows. Why does nobody know? Because there is not enough data because nobody will dare to give you an honest answer.
Second, what if the child-porn does not involve a child, like an animation or erotic pedophile fiction? That's a perfectly grey legal area and every US-state has its own laws on that.
1. Coming out and asking for help might get you in legal trouble.
What about a pedophile who doesn't want to be a pedophile? What about a pedophile who is afraid that he might molest a child one day?
A pedophile cannot simply go to a therapist and ask for help: Depending on the laws of that particular US-state, the therapist might or might not be forced to report him to the authorities in any case.
Flame away.
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
GeorgeGist
(25,322 posts)Response to GeorgeGist (Reply #1)
Taitertots This message was self-deleted by its author.
Bohunk68
(1,364 posts)First comment and it is lousy reasoning, straight out of the Republican party.
Orrex
(63,220 posts)However, since it doesn't address the underlying problem, it's not actually much of a solution.
HereSince1628
(36,063 posts)Even if the proportion of women is low, it isn't zero. A research in the UK says females make up between 5 and 10 percent of sex abusers of minors.
It's no secret that women have been charged with sexual abuse of minors. Children have even made accusations of child sexual abuse against mothers.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/magazine/8022861.stm
Mutilation as a treatment or a punishment for a psychiatric problem seems extreme and based on primitive understandings and possibly primitive motivations based on a primitive sense of justice.
appalachiablue
(41,170 posts)HereSince1628
(36,063 posts)I'm opposed to physical mutilation as a curative of mental illness or as a preventative to crime. Under the concept of equal treatment anything like castration would have to be equally available to ALL the offenders or all the ill.
do you have a link to suggest that
1) no women engage in sex abuse of minors?
2) that ovariectomy is not more serious surgery than orchiectomy?
3) do you have anything to say about the goodness of physical mutilation of the old testament variety as modern crime preventative?
appalachiablue
(41,170 posts)trumad
(41,692 posts)So I think what you are saying--- it's not that bad if grown men watch a kid getting molested or raped if it's animated ---because there's no proof that it will cause that adult to act on it.
OK---so let's say it isn't illegal---would that increase the need for it---hence more production of it?
That's kind of fucking sick.
Chemisse
(30,817 posts)I doubt there is any difference in the interest in or response to that kind of image among men who are pedophiles, as compared to one that has a child being victimized.
Tom Ripley
(4,945 posts)and have never had a desire to go commit murder.
Dorian Gray
(13,499 posts)that's creepy.
Tom Ripley
(4,945 posts)murder has been a rather common and constant narrative element.
People are funny that way.
11 Bravo
(23,926 posts)Ted Nugent was, is, and always will be an asshole!
perfect.
TheNutcracker
(2,104 posts)Correct, all doctors have said, you don't change this shit. It's wired in.
Just look at the thread here:
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10026133742
All you need to know is right there, and within all the comments and links provided within them.
Duppers
(28,125 posts)
MineralMan
(146,327 posts)it doesn't change my thinking about pedophiles.
5. If they don't act on their sexual desires that involve children, I will not know that they are pedophiles.
4. If a pedophile is looking for help, then there are professionals who will help them. Self-help is problematic, since it brings pedophiles together where their desires may well be reinforced, rather than diminished.
3. It's possible that pedophilia is hard-wired in the brain. That is not an excuse for imposing one's sexual desires on innocent children. Further research on this should be done, with a goal of finding ways to reduce that desire.
2. Child pornography is sexual exploitation of children. I don't care about its effect on pedophiles. I care about the children who are used in child pornography. Those who exploit children in that way for exhibition should receive life sentences, if convicted. As for animations and text descriptions, I have no problem with making them illegal. They stimulate the sexual interest of pedophiles.
1. If a pedophile seeks help and has never actually participated in pedophilic activity, professional help should be available. If, on the other hand, that activity has occurred, including receiving and viewing pedophilic pornography involving real children, it should be reported to the authorities. There should be no protection against prosecution.
And that's my opinion, point-by-point.
DetlefK
(16,423 posts)4. + 1. A pedophile cannot simply seek professional help. That's the problem. Depending on the regional laws, he could be registered as a child-molester even if he never did anything wrong.
2. You are for outlawing something, based purely on the fact that some law-breaking and some law-abiding people like it?
What about violent horror-movies? Murderous sociopaths like them, so we should outlaw them as well. And while we are at it, we should outlaw all the other stuff horrible people like.
Okay, let's say we outlaw pedophile animations and erotic pedophile fiction and related forms of art depicting minors in a sexualized manner.
The more important question you should ask yourself is this: If the number of sexual child-abuse increases as a result, would you be willing to legalize child-porn for the sake of actual children???????
I know, it's an ugly question, but this is not a problem that can be solved once and for all, it can only be managed. There have always been child-molesters, murderous sociopaths and people who put profit before lives. And there will always be child-molesters, murderous sociopaths and people who put profit before lives. There is no perfect solution. (Unless we are willing to go full-on dystopian and use genetic and MRI-scans to identify and exterminate certain kinds of people before they become a problem.)
We don't know the correlation between child-porn and sexual child-abuse, because there is no research on that, because society regards pedophilia as intentional malevolence and not as a mental illness.
MineralMan
(146,327 posts)I'm not interested in any way. Not now, not ever. I've seen the results of pedophilia.
Donald Ian Rankin
(13,598 posts)There are (at least) two possible definitions:
1) People who are sexually attracted to children.
2) People who engage in sexual activity with children.
The OP is clearly using the former.
If you're talking about the latter, I think your response is reasonable, but if you're talking about the former, it very much isn't, and if you're trying to conflate the two, it very much isn't and also illustrates the problem the OP is raising.
DetlefK
(16,423 posts)I'm saying a "burn-them-all-on-the-pyre"-approach is useless because it forces pedophilia into hiding. If we get it into the open, then we can get pedophiles to get treatment before they molest a child.
ismnotwasm
(42,000 posts)Bruce R. Feeley for The New York Times
A study of child pornographers was conducted at the Federal Correctional Complex in Butner, N.C.
The study, which has not yet been published, is stirring a vehement debate among psychologists, law enforcement officers and prison officials, who cannot agree on how the findings should be presented or interpreted.
The research, carried out by psychologists at the Federal Bureau of Prisons, is the first in-depth survey of such online offenders’ sexual behavior done by prison therapists who were actively performing treatment. Its findings have circulated privately among experts, who say they could have enormous implications
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/07/19/us/19sex.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0
There are more recent studies that challenge this conclusion
A year or so ago, the APA had to correct its newest manual
By Cheryl Wetzstein - The Washington Times - Thursday, October 31, 2013
Pedophilia is not a “sexual orientation,” and erroneous use of that phrase will be corrected soon in its new manual on mental illnesses, the American Psychiatric Association said Thursday.
The APA’s statement came in response to media inquiries, including from The Washington Times, about an uproar on the Internet that the APA had designated pedophilia as a sexual orientation in its new Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, known as DSM-5 or DSM-V.
Read more: http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2013/oct/31/apa-correct-manual-clarification-pedophilia-not-se/#ixzz3RHF7nV13
The understory of this error was the very poor response to therapy by pedophiles, unless early identification and treatment was implemented. But the nature of treatment is often flawed-- posters of partially unclothed adult women in prison cells to redirect fantasy for instance.
Here is an article from Slate which backs up your OP
Stop treating them like monsters.
http://www.slate.com/articles/health_and_science/medical_examiner/2012/09/stop_childhood_sexual_abuse_how_to_treat_pedophilia_.html
But the stories of what actually happens to children, sometimes babies, ARE monstrous. Human monsters do monsterous things, and this is not limited to pedophiles.
Having a SIL who works with "special offenders" (they cannot, of course be released into GP), I've heard a few of those stories. Attending a forensic nursing conference and listening to expert nurse witnesses, I've heard a few more.
Refusing to look at the acts themselves, treating the offenders as 'victims' of society and brain wiring is not all that helpful, although I agree it's an important conversation that needs to be held. One must also, however understand the manipulative nature of pedophiles, the extent of underground child pornography, the on-line pedophilia groups that one must have a certain number of pornographic images to be allowed to join. Pedophiles have been able to find and validate one another every since the beginning internet, and even before.
What I'm saying is the solution is far more complicated than it appears.
DetlefK
(16,423 posts)What I take away from these statistics is that the percentage of pedophiles who molest children is not very precisely known.
Of course molesting a child is horrible. And I think the best way to at least reduce the numbers is to get pedophiles to come out of the woods and give them psychological treatment before anything happens.
Tuesday Afternoon
(56,912 posts)of this thread is uncomfortable but, needs discussing. I would like to suggest a film ...
After twelve years in prison, Walter arrives in an unnamed city, moves into a small apartment across the street from an elementary school, gets a job at a lumberyard, and mostly keeps to himself. A quiet, guarded man, Walter finds unexpected solace from Vickie, a tough-talking woman who promises not to judge him for his history. But Walter cannot escape his past. A convicted sex offender, Walter is warily eyed by his brother-in-law, shunned by his sister, lives in fear of being discovered at work, and is hounded by a suspicious local police officer, Detective Lucas. After befriending a young girl in a neighborhood park, Walter must also grapple with the terrible prospect of his own reawakened demons.
Superb exploration of shame and the struggle to be normal
This is a somewhat slow (never boring) film with several performances of the highest quality. Kyra Sedgwick has amazing scenes, and one in particular flipped around my perception of every other character's motivation. David Alan Grier's performance is, maybe for the first time, not over the top. Hannah Pilkes, in her first film, nearly steals the scene from Kevin Bacon. Eve and Benjamin Bratt both do a good job. Mos Def's lines are either beyond his range or the lines themselves are just too heavy-handed, but Kevin plays off of them in brilliant silence.
Kevin Bacon's performance is Oscar-worthy. In other films, weak effects, poor acting, awful dialog, etc., have pulled me out of the world that the film was attempting to create. Kevin's performance is so good that at one time I found myself pulled out of the experience in awe; while continuing to believe the truth of the character, I was at the same time floored by Kevin's ability to deliver such depth.
Sure, the subject matter allows actors to express strong feeling. Anger is an easy route, as is self-loathing. This script has some of that, but what makes this film great is that primarily it chooses to explore shame and the struggle to be normal. The actors (Bacon, Kira, Pilkes) that are given the opportunity to explore that, they really excel in this film.
Chemisse
(30,817 posts)If so, I think you're barking up the wrong tree. If someone is in danger of acting out pedophilic fantasies, it doesn't sound like a good plan to immerse oneself in such images, whether real or animated.
DetlefK
(16,423 posts)If animated child-porn turns out to be an effective method for reducing the number of sexual child-abuse in a given population, would you still be against it?
lumberjack_jeff
(33,224 posts)Correlation <> causation, but that argument against porn "it stimulates the sexual interest of rapists" has generally proven to be invalid.
Humans often have bad fantasies but appealing to them hasn't resulted in increased crime. I doubt that banning the book Lolita would reduce child molestation.
MineralMan
(146,327 posts)So, are you saying that child pornography should be OK, based on your assertion? If so, I'm not having any of that argument. Not in any way at all.
For one thing, I'm quite certain that porn stimulates the interest in more porn. That seems pretty clear from the vast stores of porn on the internet. So, might not a pedophile who was "stimulated" by simulated, animated, or text porn involving children be "stimulated" to go find real child pornography to view? I suspect the answer to that is yes.
There is no child porn that involves actual children that can ever be acceptable, since the children involved are sexually abused. Child porn is a crime, and should remain a crime. In fact, I'd like to see it much more aggressively prosecuted internationally, since most child porn is hosted outside of the US, from what I understand.
I will never accept any sort of apologies for actual pedophiles who take any sort of action, from viewing child porn to actual abuse of children.
I'm not buying your argument.
lumberjack_jeff
(33,224 posts)Beyond that, we're getting into definitional challenges here... is the marker of "child porn" the fact that children are in it, or the belief that it will be found appealing by pedophiles? So, Taxi Driver, Pretty Baby and Blue Lagoon are not child porn despite featuring teen and preteen actresses but a comic book is?
Personally, I'm mostly ambivalent about porn. I'm simply saying that criminalizing thought hasn't been proven to reduce crime.
MineralMan
(146,327 posts)Or any others, for that matter. I'm also not interested in nuances of definition with regard to child porn. You mentioned three movies. I did not see any of them, because they depicted underaged girls in sexual situations. Were they illegal? No they weren't Neither was Lolita, which I have also skipped.
That does not mean that I don't think that child porn viewers did not go see those movies. I suspect that they did. And then, I imagine they continued viewing real child porn with real children in them in real sexual exploitation episodes.
I don't like pedophiles. I've seen the aftermath of children who were violated by pedophiles. I'm not in any way sympathetic to their needs, desires or predilections. If they're not engaging in illegal activities, then there's no reason for me to be interested in seeing them prosecuted. If they are, however, I want them prosecuted to the full extent of the law.
Is a pedophile who engages in no activities of pedophilia actually a pedophile? I can't answer that question, and don't care. If they're doing nothing illegal, then they're doing nothing illegal. If they are, then I want them arrested and prosecuted. How much more simple can I make it?
Graphic fictional pedophilia, animations, CGI and other such nonsense I simply avoid, due to lack of interest. Do I think it should be made illegal? I wouldn't object if it were. I feel certain that those who seek it out are also seeking out real depictions of real sexual abuse of children, too. I have no idea how they find such things, and don't care to know.
Of all the crimes that involve victims, sexual abuse of children is the most noxious to me. Children have no defenses against such things, and people who sexually abuse children need to be removed from society. Period. People who consume materials that depict such abuse should also be prosecuted.
You can play semantic games as much as you wish. It doesn't matter to me. But I won't listen to defenses of pedophilia, and I will comment negatively on them if I do see or hear them. Every last fucking time.
ismnotwasm
(42,000 posts)Most of it is clearly of age actors, despite the "teen" or "underage" titles--but occationally you will see an actor deliberately made to look child like. Or who will make you wonder. On-line porn stories-- there seems to be no prohibition/law against writing graphic pornographic stories involving children-- who are identified by age. These are often "amateur" sites.
I find this worrisome and disturbing as it crosses countries and cultures.
MineralMan
(146,327 posts)I guess porn, like many things, puts an emphasis on extreme youth. That's troubling, I think. As you say, since porn is international in scope, who really knows how old some of the participants are? I assume child porn is well-hidden. I've not encountered any of it at any time in my life. I'm glad of that, but I wonder how widespread it really is.
Whiskeytide
(4,462 posts)...aware of studies, etc...
But I suspect the preoccupation with youth in mainstream porn is "teen" youth. This likely has something to do with the fact that we come of age and acquire sexual markers when we are teenagers, and maybe it imprints on us somehow. The age old "catholic school girl uniform" male fantasy likely stems from something like this. The fantasy is probably as much or more about the "fantasizer's" own longing for youth as it is about the girl, anyway.
Pedophilia is, at least in my mind, something all together different.
lumberjack_jeff
(33,224 posts)So noxious that it is worth understanding what is causative and what is protective.
There's little porn viewed by Catholic priests. Just sayin'.
F4lconF16
(3,747 posts)Any data on that? (Legitimate question)
lumberjack_jeff
(33,224 posts)Ask a catholic priest if he watches porn. Sure, may be a degree of selection bias at work - the study subjects may be more likely to lie despite the fact that lying and porn watching are both equally likely to send the subject to hell.
http://www.catholicculture.org/culture/library/view.cfm?recnum=6182
F4lconF16
(3,747 posts)I appreciate it.
rjsquirrel
(4,762 posts)Their religious orientation doesn't stop them from raping children in huge numbers, so why would it stop them from watching it.
LanternWaste
(37,748 posts)"I doubt that banning the book Lolita would reduce child molestation..."
Or reduce the amount of dullards who rationalize a "how young is too young" thread.
lumberjack_jeff
(33,224 posts)TransitJohn
(6,932 posts)It's a tough stance to take.
MineralMan
(146,327 posts)But, never mind.
TransitJohn
(6,932 posts)Seems pretty clear cut to me. Have a good one.
MineralMan
(146,327 posts)But I'm not going to repeat myself. I said what I meant to say the first time. If you misunderstood it, you can read it again.
Good luck.
chrisa
(4,524 posts)I agree with number 5.
Number 4 is a problem with our mental health structure - people who have serious mental problems are stigmatized, so they just stay in the shadows until they act out.
Number 3 is wrong. Everyone has a choice. Even if the cause is purely biological, someone can still ignore those urges. It's also a common argument by pedophiles that pedophilia should be recognized as an orientation. If someone is unable to control themselves, maybe their desires should be controlled chemically or by castration.
Number 2 - Not surprised things like this exist. I'm also not sure it's worth the time to go after people watching dumb animations.
Number 1 - This sounds totally wrong. Reported on what grounds? If they did do something wrong, like molesting a kid, shouldn't they be reported?
HereSince1628
(36,063 posts)has been a significant contributor to prejudice and stigmatizing reactions to persons with mental illness.
Impulsiveness, compulsiveness. obsessiveness are psychological features that influence behaviors and whose severity is measured by degree of inability to control behavior.
A person who for psychiatric reasons can't discipline their impulses, compulsions, obsessions etc, really doesn't face choice in the same way as people who can control their behavior.
Involuntary physical mutilation and even chemical castration really doesn't seem aimed at psychiatric underpinnings but rather forced physical/physiological incapacitation to act.
The motivations of different people for 'solutions' that introduce anatomical/physiological dysfunction are difficult to assess and the enactment of these solution becomes indistinguishable as either old testament style retribution (if thy hand offend the cut it off), and 'best' therapy for the feature of the dysfunction that the psychiatric condition promotes.
Response to DetlefK (Original post)
BlueJazz This message was self-deleted by its author.
RadiationTherapy
(5,818 posts)It matched much of what is listed in the OP. (Scroll down to Act 2)
"Reporter Luke Malone met somebody who has those feelings for young children and definitely does not want to act on them, and has to cobble together his own way to deal with the problem which raises the question is there a way to treat pedophiles. Could there be a way to treat pedophiles?"
Luke Malone: "Here's the first of many distinctions, I wasn't clear on when I first met Adam. And it's an important one to make. Technically, you don't have to act on your desires to be a pedophile. Pedophilia marks the attraction, not the behavior. Adam doesn't want to act on his attractions."
http://www.thisamericanlife.org/radio-archives/episode/522/transcript
Blue_Adept
(6,402 posts)... because the first instinct is what you see further up about just castrating them.
It's like science from the 1800's.
KamaAina
(78,249 posts)The idea behind the outright ban on mere possession of child porn is that the making of it harms the child "actors". Animation and erotic fiction do not. They're just icky.
riderinthestorm
(23,272 posts)Forever.
NuclearDem
(16,184 posts)and it needs to be had in the absence of "castrate them all" type comments.
Douglas Carpenter
(20,226 posts)to real children most people not able to look at the subject as miss-wiring of someone's psycho-neurological order. If one were to be honest about it - it takes an exceptionally ethical person to commit themselves to a lifetime of denying some of their strongest impulses. Imagine if anyone whether heterosexual or homosexual or whatever faced a life of knowing that they have no ethical, moral or practical choice than to deny themselves some of their strongest impulses at work both consciously and unconsciously in their psychology. The life of an ethical person with pedophilic attraction would in many ways be a very difficult life.
Xithras
(16,191 posts)On one end of the spectrum, you have people who are solely attracted to young prepubescent children. This is the SMALLEST group of pedophiles (probably comprising less than 5% of all pedophiles), but it also the group most likely to offend.
On the other end of the spectrum you have people who aren't particularly sexually attracted to younger children, but who aren't repulsed by it either and who don't see any moral difference between sex with a 13 or 14 year old and sex with a 20 year old. That group makes up the largest percentage of pedophiles (possibly more than 80% by one study), but is also the group that is LEAST likely to actually offend (offense rate under 1%). It's also estimated that this group may include more than 20% of all men on the planet.
Between those two ends lays a wide range of attractions and risk.
steve2470
(37,457 posts)NuclearDem
(16,184 posts)Because that's the definition of pedophilia. Hebephilia covers early pubescent (around 11-14) and ephebophilia covers late pubescent (15-19).
steve2470
(37,457 posts)and pedophiles usually do NOT come to treatment, unless it's court-ordered.
My guess is that eventually, some combination of heavy-duty psychoactive drugs and actual brain surgery will be required to control this disorder. I've heard of "penile aversion techniques" (electrodes connected to penis combined with images) but not sure how effective that is. I've also heard of self-help groups, but again, my understanding is that pedophiles usually do not go to treatment voluntarily.
An important social issue, to be sure.
MADem
(135,425 posts)Wouldn't it be nice if there could be a DNA test to screen for the "pedo gene" -- and then they find a way to eradicate it?
It's a scourge on society. I have a hard time feeling sorry for anyone who thinks that abusing children is a fun and exciting prospect. The harm those people do to kids will last the entire life of a child, and impact the people that child comes in contact with as well.
No flames away, but no sympathy, either. I am sure serial killers would probably prefer to not have that urge to kill people, too, if they think about it.
Until we find a cure, we have to protect the kids. That's the bottom line.
TexasMommaWithAHat
(3,212 posts)Yet, psychopaths don't choose to be psychopaths.
Chemisse
(30,817 posts)And we (as a society) won't understand it if the mere mention of such inclinations is met with repulsion (albeit understandable) and condemnation - even from therapists.
If there are young men out there who need help dealing with these urges, we need to find a way to try and help. Think of the children who could be saved from rape or worse if we had a way to treat pedophilia.
HereSince1628
(36,063 posts)than fixing the problem caused by the problem gene product?
Eugenics has a really bad history, books written on it by American advocates. You know who- used that warped understanding to justify cleansing society for the Nazi dream of a superior master race.
MADem
(135,425 posts)You seriously think all gene therapy is "eugenics?" In all its portentous negativity?
That word has come to suggest the "N" word (Nazis) and the whole Master Race thing.
I'm talking about the kind of gene therapy that turns off, say, cancer genes, or prevents diseases from taking hold. No one need die in the application of this science.
But ...ugh. Thanks for taking the conversation in that direction--not.
HereSince1628
(36,063 posts)from a person or a human population
Perhaps the problem is the word eradicate means something different to me than to you.
Interferring with transcription by manipulating a promotor or an operon doesn't eliminate the gene. Theoretically such things might be possible but the gene isn't eradicated it simply doesn't transcribe.
MADem
(135,425 posts)Fifty years ago, we didn't have anything like that at all. Who knows what the next half century will bring?
http://www.technologyreview.com/featuredstory/530631/gene-silencing-drugs-finally-show-promise/
.....Alnylam is testing a drug to treat FAP in advanced human trials. It’s the last hurdle before the company will seek regulatory approval to put the drug on the market. Although it’s too early to tell how well the drug will alleviate symptoms, it’s doing what the researchers hoped it would: it can decrease the production of the protein that causes FAP by more than 80 percent.
This could be just the beginning for RNAi. Alnylam has more than 11 drugs, including ones for hemophilia, hepatitis B, and even high cholesterol, in its development pipeline, and has three in human trials —progress that led the pharmaceutical company Sanofi to make a $700 million investment in the company last winter. Last month, the pharmaceutical giant Roche, an early Alnylam supporter that had given up on RNAi, reversed its opinion of the technology as well, announcing a $450 million deal to acquire the RNAi startup Santaris. All told, there are about 15 RNAi-based drugs in clinical trials from several research groups and companies.....
Another research line is to send in a virus with the 'right' gene--they were doing something like this with gioblastomas with good effects, too:
It’s an application of the idea behind gene therapy. The premise is that if you have a disease that’s caused by a defect in a single gene, a virus engineered to carry a “fix-it” gene can be sent in to remove and replace the abnormal gene.
http://hereandnow.wbur.org/2013/07/17/therapy-down-syndrome
joshcryer
(62,276 posts)The problem is a cross wiring of the brain to turn nurture feelings into sexual feelings. Once those wirings happen due to the genes then it's all said and done.
MADem
(135,425 posts)about that drug, anyway). If a chemical can change a person's attitude about an addictive substance, who knows how plastic the brain can be with the right nudge? Hell, after strokes, the brain manages to rewire itself in many instances.
I think there's much more research to be done, and I'm not ready to rule any possibilities out. Anyone willing to take this particular topic on should be commended--it's not terribly savory, certainly, but a breakthrough in this area would be a giant leap for mankind--if kids could grow up in safety, that would solve a LOT of problems down the road as they become adults.
joshcryer
(62,276 posts)I can see definitely a chemical rewiring drug that fixes the nurture center of the brain back to normal. I think the biggest takeaway is that no one wants to research this stuff because of the reaction. I applaud all the researchers identifying the problem and trying to find solutions.
I think what's probably going to happen is VR and digital creations being legalized. It should at the minimum kill the market for the actual abuse stuff. That's a tough sell of course, but I'm just predicting how I see it panning out (the SCOTUS has repeatedly ruled that digital content is not illegal though it varies by state and it hasn't yet had a really tough filing).
HereSince1628
(36,063 posts)I'm not ignorant of the concept of genetic manipulation as a therapies. I'm not opposed to genetic manipulation assuming all the caveats for safety are met. And that's why I said why not look to manipulate things to get a suitable gene-product produced.
But, to my knowledge there is no such therapy that's gone beyond trial and is approved as a treatment in humans.
So, on Feb 10, 2015, when I wrote what I wrote, to eradicate a human gene still depended on the prevention of the gene from being carried in gametes to the next generation.
MADem
(135,425 posts)So we're on the same page, here--no one is talking about killing people to eliminate "bad" genes.
HereSince1628
(36,063 posts)MADem
(135,425 posts)It's simply a treatment that is on offer. I don't think anyone regards it as optimal, necessarily.
HereSince1628
(36,063 posts)and it seemed to be implied by the word 'eradicate' that led to this subthread.
I'm willing to say that could exist as a difference of opinion on the meaning and implications of 'eradicate'
With respect to treatment I think we may differ on our views.
I do see how treatment could be directed at different targets such as 1) discomfort 2) amelioration of a symptom or 3) curing the dysfunction.
When the dysfunction is cast in terms of criminal behavior, society really has to careful about conflating a social objective (crime prevention) with treatment.
Changing the disorder so as to make this easier to see... if a person was a cleptomaniac, we wouldn't think it's ok to cut off their hands as a 'treatment' for stealing...even though it might ameliorate the symptom of stealing.
The problem is the desire to steal, and people obviously need their hands for other things than stealing.
MADem
(135,425 posts)people, or their body parts, for that matter. We eradicate polio--not the people who have it. We eradicate smallpox, not the sufferers.
I mean, good grief--I just don't see that word as appropriate when referring to human beings. YMMV.
HereSince1628
(36,063 posts)gene frequencies, penetrance, eradication/extinction were all among the story problems considered...
as was a history of eugenics, at least as told as a cautionary tale from a population genetics perspective
prayin4rain
(2,065 posts)joshcryer
(62,276 posts)And the gay gene likely exists, at least in males, so it'll be found.
The article makes an important point about child abuse in Germany vs the US. Mandatory reporting anyone who has those issues results in no one seeking therapy in the US, while in Germany they aren't afraid to seek help.
MADem
(135,425 posts)"screen for" a male fetus, and abort the ones that don't measure up, because sons are regarded as 'more valuable' for some reason. When China was giving away babies hand over fist, they were never boy babies--always girls. And there's a lonely army of forty million Chinese guys who will never find a bride, odds are good, because there aren't enough women to go around.
Being gay, aside from having nothing to do with this particular affliction, doesn't hurt people (I'm not counting the apoplectic scolds who get poutraged when it's none of their frigging business--I'm sure they "hurt" themselves twisting themselves into an offended pretzel!). Pedophiles who molest children do hurt kids, though. Now, not all of these pedophiles are going to act on their urges, but I don't think it's unreasonable to be concerned about them--you certainly wouldn't want them babysitting your kids, that's for sure.
If there were a way to switch off that tendency, I think it would benefit society. There'd be no need to lock 'em up forever, or pump them full of drugs, or use tactics such as chemical or surgical castration.
joshcryer
(62,276 posts)Just to make that clear. I'm just saying there's always a downside or at least moral gray area to these sorts of things. No question about it once we have good gene therapy and DNA manipulation people will be screening for all sorts of issues, including homosexuality and pedophilia. It's going to be a strange new world because it will be a health issue and right to privacy will trump any laws against it.
MADem
(135,425 posts)little Republican or Libertarian shit will try to misuse it, whatever "it" is. We just have to keep having these little philosophical discussions in the public square so that We, The People come to accord about what's the proper use of the technology.
It's a bit like the conversations about surveillance cameras, and drones. There are a LOT of good things that have happened as a result of surveillance cameras--thieves, rapists, murderers, and all sorts of bad people are "caught on tape" and brought to justice. OTOH, face recognition technology is a two edged sword--yeah, you can see that escaped murderer sauntering down Fifth Avenue, but you can also track Joe Blow The Innocent going about his daily routine. Drones can drop bombs on people and target them in bad ways, BUT they can also provide Proof of Life, go into volcano craters, check on the true extent of a forest fire, and maybe one day deliver a pizza.
We can't go backwards, and we won't. We just have to hope like hell we don't put a foot wrong too often going forward...!
ND-Dem
(4,571 posts)numbers come from.
I bet somebody just made it up.
We need real research on this problem.
ProfessorGAC
(65,159 posts)Seems far too high, unless one uses a VERY broad definition of child, like for instance, a 17 year old.
At my age, that is still a kid, but 25 year olds might see that as very appealing and sexually instigative. Then, we could see numbers like 20, 30 and maybe even 50%.
But, i think most of us conjure up a different image when we here about this kind of thing. We picture a CHILD, not a "almost adult".
gordianot
(15,243 posts)Sometimes the victims can become pedophiles. Who really gets under my skin are the non pedophile enablers, deniers, and those who cover it up. There may well be some who are hard wired wired for this, others are created, as one who has dealt with victims those who work with pedophiles tell me it is often hard to tell the difference. I referred the victims to law enforcement or specialist which was never easy.
La Lioness Priyanka
(53,866 posts)because i believe they are true. what to do with a person who has this inclination and does not want to act on it.
MindPilot
(12,693 posts)(emphasis is mine)
Before we get started, can we all agree that there's a difference between trying to understand something and condoning it? There's nothing on Earth so awful that we should avoid talking about it completely. If anything, the more scared you are of a thing, the more you should try to understand it. Talking about a subject like pedophilia isn't going to make it worse. But refusing to talk about it -- or accusing those who do of glorifying it or normalizing it -- definitely will. No problem has ever been solved with ignorance.
Read more: http://www.cracked.com/article_20981_5-ways-were-making-pedophilia-worse.html#ixzz3RHu3atOU
polly7
(20,582 posts)or even those who are tempted but able to stop themselves, there's got to be some way to access help. If it could save one child .....
eridani
(51,907 posts)Point 5 is some cause for comfort--looks like the vast majority of those who are oriented that way know that perfectly well and have resolved not to act on it.
Orrex
(63,220 posts)After reading it, I immediately thought of related threads on DU, which are invariably full of rational progressives calling for all sorts of violent, Old Testament retribution. And if you're foolish enough to post something like "maybe we should allow due process to play out before we castrate and execute him," then you're very likely to be accused of a being a pedophile or a pedophile enabler.
Quite a third rail.
k/r
pipi_k
(21,020 posts)where a small group of pre teen girls were out in front of one girl's home and there was a guy across the street eyeing them, also I think he was beckoning for one to come across the street.
The girl told her father, who went over and beat the holy living hell out of the guy.
Some people, myself included, thought that act was over the top, illegal, and that the father should have called the police instead.
Anyone who didn't support the father beating on the guy was called all the things you mentioned. Pedophile. Pedophile enabler. Pedophile apologist. etc.
I tried to find that thread but couldn't.