Pedophilia Officially Classified as Sexual Orientation

This topic is locked from further discussion.

#2 Edited by toast_burner (21061 posts) -

How isn't it a sexual orientation?

Saying it is doesn't mean it's ok to have sex with kids.

#3 Posted by Netret0120 (1857 posts) -

It's a bad thing if a 45 year old man walks up to a stranger's kid with a smile and lollipop in his hand right?

#4 Edited by Flubbbs (2735 posts) -

i called this a couple years ago.. its only a matter of time until they push this garbage onto people.. up next will be beastiality, necrophillia and so on

#6 Posted by Renevent42 (4996 posts) -

How isn't it a sexual orientation?

Saying it is doesn't mean it's ok to have sex with kids.

Agreed.

#7 Posted by LJS9502_basic (149329 posts) -

How isn't it a sexual orientation?

Saying it is doesn't mean it's ok to have sex with kids.

Eh.....if we define orientation by the sex one is attracted to...it isn't. Sometimes I think society goes to far in explaining things. I mean sex in the sense of biology is still involved.

#8 Posted by Flubbbs (2735 posts) -

@Flubbbs said:

i called this a couple years ago.. its only a matter of time until they push this garbage onto people.. up next will be beastiality

You really are an idiot aren't you?

and how is that?

#9 Edited by toast_burner (21061 posts) -

@Flubbbs said:

@toast_burner said:

@Flubbbs said:

i called this a couple years ago.. its only a matter of time until they push this garbage onto people.. up next will be beastiality

You really are an idiot aren't you?

and how is that?

How are they pushing anything onto people?

#10 Posted by Flubbbs (2735 posts) -

@Flubbbs said:

@toast_burner said:

@Flubbbs said:

i called this a couple years ago.. its only a matter of time until they push this garbage onto people.. up next will be beastiality

You really are an idiot aren't you?

and how is that?

How are they pushing anything onto people?

they arent pushing anything yet.. homosexuality started off the same way with the APA taking it off the mental disorder list.. if you think pedophilla wont be pushed the same way then youre dumb yourself guy

#11 Edited by toast_burner (21061 posts) -

@Flubbbs said:
@toast_burner said:

@Flubbbs said:

@toast_burner said:

@Flubbbs said:

i called this a couple years ago.. its only a matter of time until they push this garbage onto people.. up next will be beastiality

You really are an idiot aren't you?

and how is that?

How are they pushing anything onto people?

they arent pushing anything yet.. homosexuality started off the same way with the APA taking it off the mental disorder list.. if you think pedophilla wont be pushed the same way then youre dumb yourself guy

How are they pushing homosexuality onto people?

You really are stupid.

#12 Posted by Flubbbs (2735 posts) -

@Flubbbs said:
@toast_burner said:

@Flubbbs said:

@toast_burner said:

@Flubbbs said:

i called this a couple years ago.. its only a matter of time until they push this garbage onto people.. up next will be beastiality

You really are an idiot aren't you?

and how is that?

How are they pushing anything onto people?

they arent pushing anything yet.. homosexuality started off the same way with the APA taking it off the mental disorder list.. if you think pedophilla wont be pushed the same way then youre dumb yourself guy

How are they pushing homosexuality onto people?

You really are stupid.

what world do you live in? places like california have passed bills mandating pro gay teaching in schools.. thats pushing homosexuality on people

#13 Edited by Teenaged (31743 posts) -

@Flubbbs said:
@toast_burner said:

@Flubbbs said:

@toast_burner said:

@Flubbbs said:

i called this a couple years ago.. its only a matter of time until they push this garbage onto people.. up next will be beastiality

You really are an idiot aren't you?

and how is that?

How are they pushing anything onto people?

they arent pushing anything yet.. homosexuality started off the same way with the APA taking it off the mental disorder list.. if you think pedophilla wont be pushed the same way then youre dumb yourself guy

Something has to be classified as a mental disorder in order to not condone it?

I'll go with what toast_burner told you.

#14 Posted by toast_burner (21061 posts) -

@Flubbbs said:

@toast_burner said:

@Flubbbs said:
@toast_burner said:

@Flubbbs said:

@toast_burner said:

@Flubbbs said:

i called this a couple years ago.. its only a matter of time until they push this garbage onto people.. up next will be beastiality

You really are an idiot aren't you?

and how is that?

How are they pushing anything onto people?

they arent pushing anything yet.. homosexuality started off the same way with the APA taking it off the mental disorder list.. if you think pedophilla wont be pushed the same way then youre dumb yourself guy

How are they pushing homosexuality onto people?

You really are stupid.

what world do you live in? places like california have passed bills mandating pro gay teaching in schools.. thats pushing homosexuality on people

That's not pushing homosexuality on people. Does telling people not to be racist turn them black?

#15 Edited by LJS9502_basic (149329 posts) -

@Flubbbs said:

@toast_burner said:

@Flubbbs said:
@toast_burner said:

@Flubbbs said:

@toast_burner said:

@Flubbbs said:

i called this a couple years ago.. its only a matter of time until they push this garbage onto people.. up next will be beastiality

You really are an idiot aren't you?

and how is that?

How are they pushing anything onto people?

they arent pushing anything yet.. homosexuality started off the same way with the APA taking it off the mental disorder list.. if you think pedophilla wont be pushed the same way then youre dumb yourself guy

How are they pushing homosexuality onto people?

You really are stupid.

what world do you live in? places like california have passed bills mandating pro gay teaching in schools.. thats pushing homosexuality on people

That's not pushing homosexuality on people. Does telling people not to be racist turn them black?

Man that's racist.

I'm kidding toast.

Anyway this entire argument is silly. I don't agree that pedophilia is an orientation....I believe orientation is best used to define the sex one is or isn't attracted toward. But defining it doesn't make it legal. Doesn't make it acceptable. And frankly complaining about homosexuality is silly because what adults do is their business. You don't have to join in flubbs.

#16 Posted by capaho (1253 posts) -

@MrYaotubo: Not true. The website you linked to belongs to a fundamentalist Christian organization. It's just propaganda. Next lie, please.

#17 Posted by lamprey263 (22278 posts) -

This could be somewhat progressive toward helping stop the issue of victims. I remember an article about a guy who was attracted to young kids but he never did anything, and he was always battling with his urges and he tried to seek psychiatric help but they wouldn't help him because they either saw him as a criminal or couldn't help him because psychiatric resources for people who have those urges are reserved for treating criminals. He was not a criminal and had never done anything, but he was afraid that he could if he didn't get help, and the mental health system simply is not set up to treat people with these urges to help stop them before they commit any crimes.

So maybe this classification is a step toward looking for ways to treat people before anything bad happens.

#18 Posted by toast_burner (21061 posts) -

This could be somewhat progressive toward helping stop the issue of victims. I remember an article about a guy who was attracted to young kids but he never did anything, and he was always battling with his urges and he tried to seek psychiatric help but they wouldn't help him because they either saw him as a criminal or couldn't help him because psychiatric resources for people who have those urges are reserved for treating criminals. He was not a criminal and had never done anything, but he was afraid that he could if he didn't get help, and the mental health system simply is not set up to treat people with these urges to help stop them before they commit any crimes.

So maybe this classification is a step toward looking for ways to treat people before anything bad happens.

I agree, the way we deal with pedophiles at the moment has massive flaws. They should be able to seek counseling without being accused of being the biggest piece of scum on earth.

Forcing people to bottle up their feelings does not help.

#19 Posted by LJS9502_basic (149329 posts) -

This could be somewhat progressive toward helping stop the issue of victims. I remember an article about a guy who was attracted to young kids but he never did anything, and he was always battling with his urges and he tried to seek psychiatric help but they wouldn't help him because they either saw him as a criminal or couldn't help him because psychiatric resources for people who have those urges are reserved for treating criminals. He was not a criminal and had never done anything, but he was afraid that he could if he didn't get help, and the mental health system simply is not set up to treat people with these urges to help stop them before they commit any crimes.

So maybe this classification is a step toward looking for ways to treat people before anything bad happens.

You can't "treat" that. And I don't think anyone knows who is a pedophile unless they've been caught....so how would an individual be stigmatized?

#20 Posted by capaho (1253 posts) -

@lamprey263: The OP's report is not true, it's just fundamentalist Christian anti-gay propaganda.

#21 Edited by Renevent42 (4996 posts) -
@lamprey263 said:

This could be somewhat progressive toward helping stop the issue of victims. I remember an article about a guy who was attracted to young kids but he never did anything, and he was always battling with his urges and he tried to seek psychiatric help but they wouldn't help him because they either saw him as a criminal or couldn't help him because psychiatric resources for people who have those urges are reserved for treating criminals. He was not a criminal and had never done anything, but he was afraid that he could if he didn't get help, and the mental health system simply is not set up to treat people with these urges to help stop them before they commit any crimes.

So maybe this classification is a step toward looking for ways to treat people before anything bad happens.

Based on some other articles I've read, this is exactly why it's being done. These people are clearly sexually attracted to children, and for the ones that don't act upon those sexual urges it's a constant internal struggle...very similar to homosexuals who have to stay in the closest due to unjust social pressure.

Obviously I don't believe pedophilia should be legal, but at least it might help those battling these urges to get some help in order to better cope with those urges.

#22 Posted by toast_burner (21061 posts) -

@lamprey263 said:

This could be somewhat progressive toward helping stop the issue of victims. I remember an article about a guy who was attracted to young kids but he never did anything, and he was always battling with his urges and he tried to seek psychiatric help but they wouldn't help him because they either saw him as a criminal or couldn't help him because psychiatric resources for people who have those urges are reserved for treating criminals. He was not a criminal and had never done anything, but he was afraid that he could if he didn't get help, and the mental health system simply is not set up to treat people with these urges to help stop them before they commit any crimes.

So maybe this classification is a step toward looking for ways to treat people before anything bad happens.

You can't "treat" that. And I don't think anyone knows who is a pedophile unless they've been caught....so how would an individual be stigmatized?

It is possible to treat people to cope with their urges...

#23 Posted by LJS9502_basic (149329 posts) -

@LJS9502_basic said:

@lamprey263 said:

This could be somewhat progressive toward helping stop the issue of victims. I remember an article about a guy who was attracted to young kids but he never did anything, and he was always battling with his urges and he tried to seek psychiatric help but they wouldn't help him because they either saw him as a criminal or couldn't help him because psychiatric resources for people who have those urges are reserved for treating criminals. He was not a criminal and had never done anything, but he was afraid that he could if he didn't get help, and the mental health system simply is not set up to treat people with these urges to help stop them before they commit any crimes.

So maybe this classification is a step toward looking for ways to treat people before anything bad happens.

You can't "treat" that. And I don't think anyone knows who is a pedophile unless they've been caught....so how would an individual be stigmatized?

It is possible to treat people to cope with their urges...

Coping with urges is up to the individual. No one can treat that.....that's why some addicts go back after treatment....and some don't.

#24 Posted by toast_burner (21061 posts) -

@toast_burner said:

@LJS9502_basic said:

@lamprey263 said:

This could be somewhat progressive toward helping stop the issue of victims. I remember an article about a guy who was attracted to young kids but he never did anything, and he was always battling with his urges and he tried to seek psychiatric help but they wouldn't help him because they either saw him as a criminal or couldn't help him because psychiatric resources for people who have those urges are reserved for treating criminals. He was not a criminal and had never done anything, but he was afraid that he could if he didn't get help, and the mental health system simply is not set up to treat people with these urges to help stop them before they commit any crimes.

So maybe this classification is a step toward looking for ways to treat people before anything bad happens.

You can't "treat" that. And I don't think anyone knows who is a pedophile unless they've been caught....so how would an individual be stigmatized?

It is possible to treat people to cope with their urges...

Coping with urges is up to the individual. No one can treat that.....that's why some addicts go back after treatment....and some don't.

The example he gave was of someone willingly looking for help.

#25 Edited by Renevent42 (4996 posts) -

@toast_burner said:

@LJS9502_basic said:

@toast_burner said:

@LJS9502_basic said:

@lamprey263 said:

This could be somewhat progressive toward helping stop the issue of victims. I remember an article about a guy who was attracted to young kids but he never did anything, and he was always battling with his urges and he tried to seek psychiatric help but they wouldn't help him because they either saw him as a criminal or couldn't help him because psychiatric resources for people who have those urges are reserved for treating criminals. He was not a criminal and had never done anything, but he was afraid that he could if he didn't get help, and the mental health system simply is not set up to treat people with these urges to help stop them before they commit any crimes.

So maybe this classification is a step toward looking for ways to treat people before anything bad happens.

You can't "treat" that. And I don't think anyone knows who is a pedophile unless they've been caught....so how would an individual be stigmatized?

It is possible to treat people to cope with their urges...

Coping with urges is up to the individual. No one can treat that.....that's why some addicts go back after treatment....and some don't.

The example he gave was of someone willingly looking for help.

Not to mention that just because a specific treatment doesn't help 100% of the time doesn't mean it isn't effective at helping some people cope or improving their chances at keeping those urges at bay..

#26 Posted by LJS9502_basic (149329 posts) -

@lamprey263 said:

This could be somewhat progressive toward helping stop the issue of victims. I remember an article about a guy who was attracted to young kids but he never did anything, and he was always battling with his urges and he tried to seek psychiatric help but they wouldn't help him because they either saw him as a criminal or couldn't help him because psychiatric resources for people who have those urges are reserved for treating criminals. He was not a criminal and had never done anything, but he was afraid that he could if he didn't get help, and the mental health system simply is not set up to treat people with these urges to help stop them before they commit any crimes.

So maybe this classification is a step toward looking for ways to treat people before anything bad happens.

Based on some other articles I've read, this is exactly why it's being done. These people are clearly sexually attracted to children, and for the ones that don't act upon those sexual urges it's a constant internal struggle...very similar to homosexuals who have to stay in the closest due to unjust social pressure.

Obviously I don't believe pedophilia should be legal, but at least it might help those battling these urges to get some help in order to better cope with those urges.

To play devil's advocate....consider this. If we define it....in the eyes of some...wouldn't that legitimize it? Considering it's still illegal....and should be....wouldn't they still have to fight that struggle? How does this change that struggle? It's not like therapy isn't readily available already pre this AMA decision.

#27 Edited by Renevent42 (4996 posts) -

@LJS9502_basic said:

@Renevent42 said:
@lamprey263 said:

This could be somewhat progressive toward helping stop the issue of victims. I remember an article about a guy who was attracted to young kids but he never did anything, and he was always battling with his urges and he tried to seek psychiatric help but they wouldn't help him because they either saw him as a criminal or couldn't help him because psychiatric resources for people who have those urges are reserved for treating criminals. He was not a criminal and had never done anything, but he was afraid that he could if he didn't get help, and the mental health system simply is not set up to treat people with these urges to help stop them before they commit any crimes.

So maybe this classification is a step toward looking for ways to treat people before anything bad happens.

Based on some other articles I've read, this is exactly why it's being done. These people are clearly sexually attracted to children, and for the ones that don't act upon those sexual urges it's a constant internal struggle...very similar to homosexuals who have to stay in the closest due to unjust social pressure.

Obviously I don't believe pedophilia should be legal, but at least it might help those battling these urges to get some help in order to better cope with those urges.

To play devil's advocate....consider this. If we define it....in the eyes of some...wouldn't that legitimize it? Considering it's still illegal....and should be....wouldn't they still have to fight that struggle? How does this change that struggle? It's not like therapy isn't readily available already pre this AMA decision.

Maybe, but so what? What's legitimized/legal/etc is largely a social construct that is nothing more than what the majority in a given society feels is acceptable behavior. The reality is, the AMA feels this is a better way at providing help for these people, and that by doing so will hopefully help reduce the number of people who will act on these urges.

Personally I don't believe that pedophilia will ever be legalized with or without this distinction...unlike homosexuality, pedophilia is almost universally despised by society.

#28 Posted by LJS9502_basic (149329 posts) -

@LJS9502_basic said:

@toast_burner said:

@LJS9502_basic said:

@lamprey263 said:

This could be somewhat progressive toward helping stop the issue of victims. I remember an article about a guy who was attracted to young kids but he never did anything, and he was always battling with his urges and he tried to seek psychiatric help but they wouldn't help him because they either saw him as a criminal or couldn't help him because psychiatric resources for people who have those urges are reserved for treating criminals. He was not a criminal and had never done anything, but he was afraid that he could if he didn't get help, and the mental health system simply is not set up to treat people with these urges to help stop them before they commit any crimes.

So maybe this classification is a step toward looking for ways to treat people before anything bad happens.

You can't "treat" that. And I don't think anyone knows who is a pedophile unless they've been caught....so how would an individual be stigmatized?

It is possible to treat people to cope with their urges...

Coping with urges is up to the individual. No one can treat that.....that's why some addicts go back after treatment....and some don't.

The example he gave was of someone willingly looking for help.

Help already exists......

#29 Posted by LJS9502_basic (149329 posts) -

@LJS9502_basic said:

@Renevent42 said:
@lamprey263 said:

This could be somewhat progressive toward helping stop the issue of victims. I remember an article about a guy who was attracted to young kids but he never did anything, and he was always battling with his urges and he tried to seek psychiatric help but they wouldn't help him because they either saw him as a criminal or couldn't help him because psychiatric resources for people who have those urges are reserved for treating criminals. He was not a criminal and had never done anything, but he was afraid that he could if he didn't get help, and the mental health system simply is not set up to treat people with these urges to help stop them before they commit any crimes.

So maybe this classification is a step toward looking for ways to treat people before anything bad happens.

Based on some other articles I've read, this is exactly why it's being done. These people are clearly sexually attracted to children, and for the ones that don't act upon those sexual urges it's a constant internal struggle...very similar to homosexuals who have to stay in the closest due to unjust social pressure.

Obviously I don't believe pedophilia should be legal, but at least it might help those battling these urges to get some help in order to better cope with those urges.

To play devil's advocate....consider this. If we define it....in the eyes of some...wouldn't that legitimize it? Considering it's still illegal....and should be....wouldn't they still have to fight that struggle? How does this change that struggle? It's not like therapy isn't readily available already pre this AMA decision.

Maybe, but so what? What's legitimized/legal/etc is largely a social construct that is nothing more than what the majority in a given society feels is acceptable behavior. The reality is, the AMA feels this is a better way at providing help for these people, and that by doing so will hopefully help reduce the number of people who will act on these urges.

Dude...so what? Legitimacy makes things okay. And pedophiles that act on urges harm children. It's not victimless no matter what the AMA says.

#30 Edited by Renevent42 (4996 posts) -

@Renevent42 said:

@LJS9502_basic said:

@Renevent42 said:
@lamprey263 said:

This could be somewhat progressive toward helping stop the issue of victims. I remember an article about a guy who was attracted to young kids but he never did anything, and he was always battling with his urges and he tried to seek psychiatric help but they wouldn't help him because they either saw him as a criminal or couldn't help him because psychiatric resources for people who have those urges are reserved for treating criminals. He was not a criminal and had never done anything, but he was afraid that he could if he didn't get help, and the mental health system simply is not set up to treat people with these urges to help stop them before they commit any crimes.

So maybe this classification is a step toward looking for ways to treat people before anything bad happens.

Based on some other articles I've read, this is exactly why it's being done. These people are clearly sexually attracted to children, and for the ones that don't act upon those sexual urges it's a constant internal struggle...very similar to homosexuals who have to stay in the closest due to unjust social pressure.

Obviously I don't believe pedophilia should be legal, but at least it might help those battling these urges to get some help in order to better cope with those urges.

To play devil's advocate....consider this. If we define it....in the eyes of some...wouldn't that legitimize it? Considering it's still illegal....and should be....wouldn't they still have to fight that struggle? How does this change that struggle? It's not like therapy isn't readily available already pre this AMA decision.

Maybe, but so what? What's legitimized/legal/etc is largely a social construct that is nothing more than what the majority in a given society feels is acceptable behavior. The reality is, the AMA feels this is a better way at providing help for these people, and that by doing so will hopefully help reduce the number of people who will act on these urges.

Dude...so what? Legitimacy makes things okay. And pedophiles that act on urges harm children. It's not victimless no matter what the AMA says.

What lol?!?!? Where did the AMA say it's victimless?

#31 Edited by LJS9502_basic (149329 posts) -

@LJS9502_basic said:

@Renevent42 said:

@LJS9502_basic said:

@Renevent42 said:
@lamprey263 said:

This could be somewhat progressive toward helping stop the issue of victims. I remember an article about a guy who was attracted to young kids but he never did anything, and he was always battling with his urges and he tried to seek psychiatric help but they wouldn't help him because they either saw him as a criminal or couldn't help him because psychiatric resources for people who have those urges are reserved for treating criminals. He was not a criminal and had never done anything, but he was afraid that he could if he didn't get help, and the mental health system simply is not set up to treat people with these urges to help stop them before they commit any crimes.

So maybe this classification is a step toward looking for ways to treat people before anything bad happens.

Based on some other articles I've read, this is exactly why it's being done. These people are clearly sexually attracted to children, and for the ones that don't act upon those sexual urges it's a constant internal struggle...very similar to homosexuals who have to stay in the closest due to unjust social pressure.

Obviously I don't believe pedophilia should be legal, but at least it might help those battling these urges to get some help in order to better cope with those urges.

To play devil's advocate....consider this. If we define it....in the eyes of some...wouldn't that legitimize it? Considering it's still illegal....and should be....wouldn't they still have to fight that struggle? How does this change that struggle? It's not like therapy isn't readily available already pre this AMA decision.

Maybe, but so what? What's legitimized/legal/etc is largely a social construct that is nothing more than what the majority in a given society feels is acceptable behavior. The reality is, the AMA feels this is a better way at providing help for these people, and that by doing so will hopefully help reduce the number of people who will act on these urges.

Dude...so what? Legitimacy makes things okay. And pedophiles that act on urges harm children. It's not victimless no matter what the AMA says.

What lol?!?!? Where did the AMA say it's victimless?

That actually isn't what I said....

#32 Edited by Renevent42 (4996 posts) -

"And pedophiles that act on urges harm children. It's not victimless no matter what the AMA says."

Please explain the above comment then, because I am not sure what you are getting at with that statement especially as it pertains the to current discussion.

#33 Edited by LJS9502_basic (149329 posts) -

@Renevent42 said:

"And pedophiles that act on urges harm children. It's not victimless no matter what the AMA says."

Please explain the above comment then, because I am not sure what you are getting at with that statement as it pertains the to current discussion.

Okay I'll dumb my comments down for you. No matter what the AMA says or decides in regard to classification of pedophilia that does not mean that pedophilia in action does not create victims.

#34 Edited by LJS9502_basic (149329 posts) -

And I find your comment of so what in regard to legitimizing it to be ridiculous.

#35 Posted by Renevent42 (4996 posts) -

@Renevent42 said:

"And pedophiles that act on urges harm children. It's not victimless no matter what the AMA says."

Please explain the above comment then, because I am not sure what you are getting at with that statement as it pertains the to current discussion.

Okay I'll dumb my comments down for you. No matter what the AMA says or decides in regard in to classification of pedophilia that does not mean the pedophilia in action does not create victims.

How about you better express yourself instead?

Regarding your explanation, the AMA classification doesn't in anyway say that pedophilia in action doesn't create victims.

#36 Posted by capaho (1253 posts) -

Does anyone read anything other than their own comments? The OP's report is bogus. There is nothing to argue about.

#37 Edited by LJS9502_basic (149329 posts) -

@Renevent42: Oh for fucks sake and for the second time....that isn't what I said.

#38 Posted by NightlyOne (319 posts) -

@capaho said:

Does anyone read anything other than their own comments? The OP's report is bogus. There is nothing to argue about.

Just sit back and watch the fireworks, man.

#39 Edited by Renevent42 (4996 posts) -

@Renevent42: Oh for fucks sake and for the second time....that isn't what I said.

"No matter what the AMA says or decides in regard in to classification of pedophilia that does not mean the pedophilia in action does not create victims."

That's what you said...what context does it have to the AMA's classification of pedophilia and the overall discussion regarding it?

The AMA only classifies something, it doesn't legitimize it. Society does. The AMA officially recognizing pedophilia as a sexual orientation does not make society accept it.

#40 Edited by theone86 (20555 posts) -

When you do a Google search every single hit on at least the first two pages (including that article) is either some Christian news site, forum, or blog. The only article I could find with any real information on the topic said that in the DSM-V pedophilia will still be classified as a disorder or paraphilia that needs to be treated.

fromthetrenchesworldreport.com, christianchat.com, women of grace.com, jerseyric.blogspot.com, christculturenews.com, walkingchristian.com, shariaunveiled.com, mixedmartialarts.com, godlikeproductions.com, etc., etc.

#41 Edited by LJS9502_basic (149329 posts) -

@LJS9502_basic said:

@Renevent42: Oh for fucks sake and for the second time....that isn't what I said.

"No matter what the AMA says or decides in regard in to classification of pedophilia that does not mean the pedophilia in action does not create victims."

That's what you said...what context does it have to the AMA's classification of pedophilia and the overall discussion regarding it?

The AMA only classifies something, it doesn't legitimize it. Society does. The AMA officially recognizing pedophilia as a sexual orientation does not make society accept it.

Right that's what I said....two separate thoughts in one sentence. That does NOT mean they are inferring that a stated b.. And I further explained that to you....but you still don't fucking get it.

Second one can certainly see that a legitimacy can cause some harm to society down the road. And frankly the AMA is playing fast and lose with the term sexual orientation. That defines the sex/sexes one is/is not attracted toward. Not the age. Even pedophiles have a sex they are attracted toward.

#42 Edited by Renevent42 (4996 posts) -

@theone86 said:

When you do a Google search every single hit on at least the first two pages (including that article) is either some Christian news site, forum, or blog. The only article I could find with any real information on the topic said that in the DSM-V pedophilia will still be classified as a disorder or paraphilia that needs to be treated.

This appears to be true...although it does seem like many clinical psychologist do believe it is a sexual orientation towards pubescent children.


The article in the OP appears to be crap, though.

#43 Posted by LJS9502_basic (149329 posts) -

@theone86 said:

When you do a Google search every single hit on at least the first two pages (including that article) is either some Christian news site, forum, or blog. The only article I could find with any real information on the topic said that in the DSM-V pedophilia will still be classified as a disorder or paraphilia that needs to be treated.

You have more energy than most....kudos for the catch. Where is your avatar?

#44 Edited by Makhaidos (1611 posts) -

Anybody who actually believes this story is a fucking moron.

Here's what the DSM-V actually says about pedophilia. Pedophilia is a paraphilic sexual disorder, not a sexual orientation (sexual orientation isn't even in the fucking DSM, because sexual orientation hasn't been labelled a disorder since the goddamned 1970s).

Do some actual research before believing everything you read on some paranoid nutjob conservative website whose insane agenda includes, but isn't limited to, making people afraid that the end of the world is nigh.

#45 Edited by Renevent42 (4996 posts) -

@LJS9502_basic said:

@Renevent42 said:

@LJS9502_basic said:

@Renevent42: Oh for fucks sake and for the second time....that isn't what I said.

"No matter what the AMA says or decides in regard in to classification of pedophilia that does not mean the pedophilia in action does not create victims."

That's what you said...what context does it have to the AMA's classification of pedophilia and the overall discussion regarding it?

The AMA only classifies something, it doesn't legitimize it. Society does. The AMA officially recognizing pedophilia as a sexual orientation does not make society accept it.

Right that's what I said....two separate thoughts in one sentence. That does NOT mean they are inferring that a stated b.. And I further explained that to you....but you still don't fucking get it.

Second one can certainly see that a legitimacy can cause some harm to society down the road. And frankly the AMA is playing fast and lose with the term sexual orientation. That defines the sex/sexes one is/is not attracted toward. Not the age. Even pedophiles have a sex they are attracted toward.

What you said had no relevance to anything I or toast said, and the way you worded your first response was poor.

In the context to the (now pointless discussion since the article is bogus), the prospect AMA classifying it wouldn't legitimize the behavior nor does it downplay there being victims of those who acted upon those urges. That's why your objection to it based on that line of reasoning didn't have any relevance.

As far as sexual orientation, depends on how you define it. Most define strictly based on gender, but it since it largely overlaps with sexual attractions and how a person identifies with themselves I can see it also including other things (like people who are exclusively attracted to objects which is a real thing).

These definitions are constantly being changed though, so not something I would personally argue over. What I mean is, I wouldn't say you were wrong for wanting to strictly adhere to it being gender based and argue over it.

#46 Posted by LJS9502_basic (149329 posts) -

Anybody who actually believes this story is a fucking moron.

Here's what the DSM-V actually says about pedophilia. Pedophilia is a paraphilic sexual disorder, not a sexual orientation (sexual orientation isn't even in the fucking DSM, because sexual orientation hasn't been labelled a disorder since the goddamned 1970s).

Do some actual research before believing everything you read on some paranoid nutjob conservative website.

Good to know they haven't labeled that an orientation. That kind of bugged me and all.

#47 Posted by theone86 (20555 posts) -

More details:

http://www.patheos.com/blogs/faithonthecouch/2013/10/does-the-new-dsm-call-pedophilia-an-orientation/

"Outside the limits of the DSM itself, some experts argue that because not all people with sexual attractions toward children actually molest children, it might be useful to distinguish between pedophilia as an orientation (i.e., obsessive thoughts but no molestation) verses pedophilia as a disorder (obsessive thoughts with molestation)...It is important to note that the diagnostic criteria haven’t changed for this disorder from the last version of the DSM (i.e., DSM IV-TR) to the present edition (DSM-V). The name of the disorder did change in the DSM V from Pedophilia to Pedophilic Disorder to keep the nomenclature consistent with other categories. But that was an editorial change, not a clinical one and it has no significance for diagnosis of treatment of the disorder."

http://www.dsm5.org/Documents/Paraphilic%20Disorders%20Fact%20Sheet.pdf

"To further define the line between an atypical sexual interest and disorder, the Work Group revised the names of these disorders to differentiate between the behavior itself and the disorder stemming from that behavior."

@LJS9502_basic: He got cancelled.

#48 Posted by LJS9502_basic (149329 posts) -

What you said had no relevance to anything I or toast said, and the way you worded your first response was poor.

In the context to the (now pointless discussion since the article is bogus), the prospect AMA classifying it wouldn't legitimize the behavior nor does it downplay there being victims of those who acted upon those urges. That's why your objection to it based on that line of reasoning didn't have any relevance.

As far as sexual orientation, depends on how you define it. Most define strictly based on gender, but it since it largely overlaps with sexual attractions and how a person identifies with themselves I can see it also including other things (like people who are exclusively attracted to objects which is a real thing).

These definitions are constantly being changed though, so not something I would personally argue over.

You and toast weren't exactly saying the same thing. And as I explained to you three times now....you misinterpreted my post. We can move on now or you can continue to whine about that.

#49 Posted by Makhaidos (1611 posts) -

@Makhaidos said:

Anybody who actually believes this story is a fucking moron.

Here's what the DSM-V actually says about pedophilia. Pedophilia is a paraphilic sexual disorder, not a sexual orientation (sexual orientation isn't even in the fucking DSM, because sexual orientation hasn't been labelled a disorder since the goddamned 1970s).

Do some actual research before believing everything you read on some paranoid nutjob conservative website.

Good to know they haven't labeled that an orientation. That kind of bugged me and all.

If they had, the APA would have immediately lost all scientific credibility. Hell, to my knowledge, they don't even use the term "sexual orientation" anymore.

#50 Posted by Renevent42 (4996 posts) -

@Renevent42 said:

What you said had no relevance to anything I or toast said, and the way you worded your first response was poor.

In the context to the (now pointless discussion since the article is bogus), the prospect AMA classifying it wouldn't legitimize the behavior nor does it downplay there being victims of those who acted upon those urges. That's why your objection to it based on that line of reasoning didn't have any relevance.

As far as sexual orientation, depends on how you define it. Most define strictly based on gender, but it since it largely overlaps with sexual attractions and how a person identifies with themselves I can see it also including other things (like people who are exclusively attracted to objects which is a real thing).

These definitions are constantly being changed though, so not something I would personally argue over.

You and toast weren't exactly saying the same thing. And as I explained to you three times now....you misinterpreted my post. We can move on now or you can continue to whine about that.

Your objection had nothing to do with what I was saying, and your first reply was very poorly worded. Yes we can move on.