Pedophilia Officially Classified as Sexual Orientation

This topic is locked from further discussion.

#51 Edited by LJS9502_basic (149614 posts) -

@LJS9502_basic said:

@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.

Yes my objection did have to do with what you were saying. You said legitimizing it wasn't a big deal. I think it is. It does in some cases create victims.

#52 Posted by Renevent42 (5011 posts) -

@LJS9502_basic said:

@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.

I'm not sure that is true...it does seem like while the APA doesn't consider it an orientation, other respected psychiatrist do.

http://articles.latimes.com/2013/jan/14/local/la-me-pedophiles-20130115

Also, it does appear the APA uses sexual orientation:

http://www.apa.org/helpcenter/sexual-orientation.aspx

#53 Edited by Renevent42 (5011 posts) -

@Renevent42 said:

@LJS9502_basic said:

@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.

Yes my objection did have to do with what you were saying. You said legitimizing it wasn't a big deal. I think it is. It does in some cases create victims.

Not really...I said it maybe does...and that the APA (if the story was actually true) categorizing it as an orientation doesn't actually legitimize it...society does...so it would have been a moot point to that action. There are lots of things that are recognized psychological behaviors/predispositions/etc that are still not legitimized/legal.

#54 Posted by Makhaidos (1611 posts) -

@Makhaidos said:

@LJS9502_basic said:

@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.

I'm not sure that is true...it does seem like while the APA doesn't consider it an orientation, other respected psychiatrist do.

http://articles.latimes.com/2013/jan/14/local/la-me-pedophiles-20130115

Also, it does appear the APA uses sexual orientation:

http://www.apa.org/helpcenter/sexual-orientation.aspx

Eh, I didn't say my knowledge was expansive. :P I did hear they were trying to move away from it, but it's hard to make such semantic changes in a community of thousands.

#55 Edited by Renevent42 (5011 posts) -

@Makhaidos said:

@Renevent42 said:

@Makhaidos said:

@LJS9502_basic said:

@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.

I'm not sure that is true...it does seem like while the APA doesn't consider it an orientation, other respected psychiatrist do.

http://articles.latimes.com/2013/jan/14/local/la-me-pedophiles-20130115

Also, it does appear the APA uses sexual orientation:

http://www.apa.org/helpcenter/sexual-orientation.aspx

Eh, I didn't say my knowledge was expansive. :P I did hear they were trying to move away from it, but it's hard to make such semantic changes in a community of thousands.

That's exactly why I try not to argue over the definitions of terms in the world of psychology lol...they are constantly being modified and it's a large community with lots of conflicting points of view. If someone wants to view sexual orientation as strictly gender based I would def not argue with them...obviously a valid view point. I do think there is legitimate other views on the subject out there though, and by respected people in the scientific community.

#56 Posted by LJS9502_basic (149614 posts) -

@LJS9502_basic said:

@Renevent42 said:

@LJS9502_basic said:

@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.

Yes my objection did have to do with what you were saying. You said legitimizing it wasn't a big deal. I think it is. It does in some cases create victims.

Not really...I said it maybe does...and that the APA (if the story was actually true) categorizing it as an orientation doesn't actually legitimize it...society does...so it would have been a moot point to that action. There are lots of things that are recognized psychological behaviors/predispositions/etc that are still not legitimized/legal.

I guess you worded your comment poorly then since you seemed to say so what to legitimacy.

#57 Posted by LJS9502_basic (149614 posts) -

@Makhaidos said:

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.

I'm not sure that is true...it does seem like while the APA doesn't consider it an orientation, other respected psychiatrist do.

http://articles.latimes.com/2013/jan/14/local/la-me-pedophiles-20130115

Also, it does appear the APA uses sexual orientation:

http://www.apa.org/helpcenter/sexual-orientation.aspx

Do outliers really matter? I mean if we define something outside the general consensus that doesn't make it legitimate.

#58 Posted by Makhaidos (1611 posts) -

@Makhaidos said:

@Renevent42 said:

@Makhaidos said:

@LJS9502_basic said:

@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.

I'm not sure that is true...it does seem like while the APA doesn't consider it an orientation, other respected psychiatrist do.

http://articles.latimes.com/2013/jan/14/local/la-me-pedophiles-20130115

Also, it does appear the APA uses sexual orientation:

http://www.apa.org/helpcenter/sexual-orientation.aspx

Eh, I didn't say my knowledge was expansive. :P I did hear they were trying to move away from it, but it's hard to make such semantic changes in a community of thousands.

That's exactly why I try not to argue over the definitions of terms in the world of psychology lol...they are constantly being modified and it's a large community with lots of conflicting points of view. If someone wants to view sexual orientation as strictly gender based I would def not argue with them...obviously a valid view point. I do think there is legitimate other views on the subject out there though, and by respected people in the scientific community.

My field is social work, so I try to use terms as they are accepted by their respective communities (for example, the term "queer" is no longer an epithet among the LGBT community and some people say it defines their sexuality very well), unless I'm doing scientific papers (I wouldn't use "queer" in a literature review since it's kinda vague).

It gets really confusing, but eh. Occupational hazard.

#59 Posted by Randolph (10407 posts) -

People really do need to actually click links and verify their credibility before they start fighting over what the OP claims they say. Especially because it's a Christian website, it's credibility was immediately questionable to me as soon as I opened the thread and clicked the link. Christians have been (falsely) trying to link homosexuality and pedophilia since I was a kid and my dad and step-mom used to tell me gay men wanted to kidnap me, rape me, and raise me to be gay because they can't reproduce. (and give me aids so that I will go rape others and give it to them)

#60 Edited by Renevent42 (5011 posts) -

@LJS9502_basic said:

@Renevent42 said:

@Makhaidos said:

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.

I'm not sure that is true...it does seem like while the APA doesn't consider it an orientation, other respected psychiatrist do.

http://articles.latimes.com/2013/jan/14/local/la-me-pedophiles-20130115

Also, it does appear the APA uses sexual orientation:

http://www.apa.org/helpcenter/sexual-orientation.aspx

Do outliers really matter? I mean if we define something outside the general consensus that doesn't make it legitimate.

Just 50 years ago homosexuality was considered a mental disorder...by consensus no less (and the very same organization we are discussing). It was (initially) the outliers who changed that. Also, it's not just one person and the guy in article is not some quack outlier...the guy quoted in the article is the head of the Johns Hopkins Sexual Behaviors Consultation Unit.

Beyond that, this is psychology were talking about...as a science it's not quite mathematics or other sciences where 1=1.

#61 Edited by Aljosa23 (24338 posts) -

How is it a sexual orientation? Can two pedophiles fall in love with each other and have a meaningful relationship?

This is so stupid.

#62 Edited by Makhaidos (1611 posts) -

@Aljosa23 said:

How is it a sexual orientation? Can two pedophiles fall in love with each other and have a meaningful relationship?

Well, yes, actually, they can.

#63 Posted by LJS9502_basic (149614 posts) -

@LJS9502_basic said:

@Renevent42 said:

@Makhaidos said:

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.

I'm not sure that is true...it does seem like while the APA doesn't consider it an orientation, other respected psychiatrist do.

http://articles.latimes.com/2013/jan/14/local/la-me-pedophiles-20130115

Also, it does appear the APA uses sexual orientation:

http://www.apa.org/helpcenter/sexual-orientation.aspx

Do outliers really matter? I mean if we define something outside the general consensus that doesn't make it legitimate.

Just 50 years ago homosexuality was considered a mental disorder...by consensus no less (and the very same organization we are discussing). Also, it's not just one person and the guy in article is not some quack outliers...the guy quoted in the article is the head of the Johns Hopkins Sexual Behaviors Consultation Unit.

Beyond that, this is psychology were talking about...as a science it's not quite mathematics or other sciences where 1=1.

I really hope you aren't comparing pedophiles with homosexuals. And pedophilia may not actually become accepted as a similar term except by outliers. And frankly...it's not an orientation. Age does not define orientation.

#64 Edited by LJS9502_basic (149614 posts) -

@Aljosa23 said:

How is it a sexual orientation? Can two pedophiles fall in love with each other and have a meaningful relationship?

This is so stupid.

Here you go revenant. Another perfectly good example of why it shouldn't be considered an orientation.

#65 Edited by Shottayouth13- (6693 posts) -

By all definitions of sexual orientation, pedophilia is not a sexual orientation.

Bullshit link anyway.

#66 Posted by MuddyMaestro (10346 posts) -

I could tell something was awry just from the thread's title. Even though scientific merit has been applied to non-social development of pedophlilic attraction, determining whether it is an identifiable sexual orientation or not should be considered a forbidden experiment, simply due to the ethics of the social application that would be required to approve/disprove it. With that said, whether it is a legitimate orientation doesn't mean that it will become an acceptable practice in society.

#67 Edited by Aljosa23 (24338 posts) -

@Makhaidos said:

@Aljosa23 said:

How is it a sexual orientation? Can two pedophiles fall in love with each other and have a meaningful relationship?

Well, yes, actually, they can.

No. :|

At least not in the sense we're talking about. They can still be heterosexual or homosexual. Pedophilia is a disorder.

#68 Edited by lostrib (31959 posts) -

So was the link all bullshit?

#69 Edited by Capitan_Kid (6509 posts) -

Doesnt make sense. Kids arent a sex.

#70 Edited by Renevent42 (5011 posts) -

@LJS9502_basic said:

@Renevent42 said:

@LJS9502_basic said:

@Renevent42 said:

@Makhaidos said:

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.

I'm not sure that is true...it does seem like while the APA doesn't consider it an orientation, other respected psychiatrist do.

http://articles.latimes.com/2013/jan/14/local/la-me-pedophiles-20130115

Also, it does appear the APA uses sexual orientation:

http://www.apa.org/helpcenter/sexual-orientation.aspx

Do outliers really matter? I mean if we define something outside the general consensus that doesn't make it legitimate.

Just 50 years ago homosexuality was considered a mental disorder...by consensus no less (and the very same organization we are discussing). Also, it's not just one person and the guy in article is not some quack outliers...the guy quoted in the article is the head of the Johns Hopkins Sexual Behaviors Consultation Unit.

Beyond that, this is psychology were talking about...as a science it's not quite mathematics or other sciences where 1=1.

I really hope you aren't comparing pedophiles with homosexuals. And pedophilia may not actually become accepted as a similar term except by outliers. And frankly...it's not an orientation. Age does not define orientation.

The obvious point was that these terms change, and change frequently. In addition, you are acting as if these terms are almost set in stone by some majority and everyone else is an outlier, the reality is psychology is a soft science and doesn't quite work like that. That's why homosexuality was once considered a mental disorder, by the very same organization in which you now seem to hold their definition as paramount. The definitions of terms that describe social behavior isn't hard science.

#71 Edited by Renevent42 (5011 posts) -

@Aljosa23 said:

How is it a sexual orientation? Can two pedophiles fall in love with each other and have a meaningful relationship?

This is so stupid.

Here you go revenant. Another perfectly good example of why it shouldn't be considered an orientation.

I don't even see how that's relevant at all. First of all, what does two pedophiles falling in love have to do with someone who is predisposed to being sexually attracted to children?

#72 Posted by Makhaidos (1611 posts) -

@Aljosa23 said:

@Makhaidos said:

@Aljosa23 said:

How is it a sexual orientation? Can two pedophiles fall in love with each other and have a meaningful relationship?

Well, yes, actually, they can.

No. :|

At least not in the sense we're talking about. They can still be heterosexual or homosexual. Pedophilia is a disorder.

Yes, pedophilia is a disorder. People with pedophilia can fall in love with eachother (or with someone without the disorder) and have a meaningful relationship, whether it's homosexual, heterosexual, or otherwise. They just can't with children.

Never define a person by their disorder.

#73 Edited by Pirate700 (46462 posts) -

@toast_burner said:

How isn't it a sexual orientation?

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

To clarify, a pedophile doesn't have to act on their attraction to be one. A pedophile is just a person who is attracted to kids.

#74 Posted by Pirate700 (46462 posts) -

Doesnt make sense. Kids arent a sex.

Uh, that has nothing to do with sexual orientation...

#75 Posted by LJS9502_basic (149614 posts) -

@Capitan_Kid said:

Doesnt make sense. Kids arent a sex.

Uh, that has nothing to do with sexual orientation...

And pedophilia isn't an orientation either....

#76 Posted by Pirate700 (46462 posts) -

@Pirate700 said:

@Capitan_Kid said:

Doesnt make sense. Kids arent a sex.

Uh, that has nothing to do with sexual orientation...

And pedophilia isn't an orientation either....

I don't see why not. Sexual orientation is based on what you're attracted to.

#77 Posted by LJS9502_basic (149614 posts) -

@LJS9502_basic said:

@Pirate700 said:

@Capitan_Kid said:

Doesnt make sense. Kids arent a sex.

Uh, that has nothing to do with sexual orientation...

And pedophilia isn't an orientation either....

I don't see why not. Sexual orientation is based on what you're attracted to.

Let's look at the current sexual orientations. Homosexuality....attraction to same sex. Heterosexuality....attraction to opposite sex. Bisexuality....attraction to same and opposite sex. Asexuality....no attraction to any sex.

Yeah....not seeing that dude.

#78 Edited by Pirate700 (46462 posts) -

@LJS9502_basic said:

@Pirate700 said:

@LJS9502_basic said:

@Pirate700 said:

@Capitan_Kid said:

Doesnt make sense. Kids arent a sex.

Uh, that has nothing to do with sexual orientation...

And pedophilia isn't an orientation either....

I don't see why not. Sexual orientation is based on what you're attracted to.

Let's look at the current sexual orientations. Homosexuality....attraction to same sex. Heterosexuality....attraction to opposite sex. Bisexuality....attraction to same and opposite sex. Asexuality....no attraction to any sex.

Yeah....not seeing that dude.

Right, those are three orientations. That doesn't mean there isn't more. The dictionary definition for exual orientation is as follows.....

"sexual orientation
noun

one's natural preference in sexual partners; predilection for homosexuality, heterosexuality, or bisexuality."

Nowhere in there does it say orientation has to relate to sex and/or gender. Only partner type.

#79 Posted by LJS9502_basic (149614 posts) -

@LJS9502_basic said:

@Pirate700 said:

@LJS9502_basic said:

@Pirate700 said:

@Capitan_Kid said:

Doesnt make sense. Kids arent a sex.

Uh, that has nothing to do with sexual orientation...

And pedophilia isn't an orientation either....

I don't see why not. Sexual orientation is based on what you're attracted to.

Let's look at the current sexual orientations. Homosexuality....attraction to same sex. Heterosexuality....attraction to opposite sex. Bisexuality....attraction to same and opposite sex. Asexuality....no attraction to any sex.

Yeah....not seeing that dude.

Right, those are three orientations. That doesn't mean there isn't more. The dictionary definition for exual orientation is as follows.....

"sexual orientation

noun

one's natural preference in sexual partners; predilection for homosexuality, heterosexuality, or bisexuality."

Nowhere in there does it say orientation has to relate to sex and/or gender. Only partner type.

Uh did you actually read your definition pirate?

#80 Posted by Pirate700 (46462 posts) -

@Pirate700 said:

@LJS9502_basic said:

@Pirate700 said:

@LJS9502_basic said:

@Pirate700 said:

@Capitan_Kid said:

Doesnt make sense. Kids arent a sex.

Uh, that has nothing to do with sexual orientation...

And pedophilia isn't an orientation either....

I don't see why not. Sexual orientation is based on what you're attracted to.

Let's look at the current sexual orientations. Homosexuality....attraction to same sex. Heterosexuality....attraction to opposite sex. Bisexuality....attraction to same and opposite sex. Asexuality....no attraction to any sex.

Yeah....not seeing that dude.

Right, those are three orientations. That doesn't mean there isn't more. The dictionary definition for exual orientation is as follows.....

"sexual orientation

noun

one's natural preference in sexual partners; predilection for homosexuality, heterosexuality, or bisexuality."

Nowhere in there does it say orientation has to relate to sex and/or gender. Only partner type.

Uh did you actually read your definition pirate?

Yes I did. It says it's base on one's preference in sexual partners. Now I get the definition lists three types of orientations, but that doesn't mean their can't be more.

#81 Posted by BranKetra (47530 posts) -

Japan calls this a fun and cutesy name. Lolicon.

#82 Edited by LJS9502_basic (149614 posts) -

@LJS9502_basic said:

@Pirate700 said:

Right, those are three orientations. That doesn't mean there isn't more. The dictionary definition for exual orientation is as follows.....

"sexual orientation

noun

one's natural preference in sexual partners; predilection for homosexuality, heterosexuality, or bisexuality."

Nowhere in there does it say orientation has to relate to sex and/or gender. Only partner type.

Uh did you actually read your definition pirate?

Yes I did. It says it's base on one's preference in sexual partners. Now I get the definition lists three types of orientations, but that doesn't mean their can't be more.

Yeah as defined by homosexuality, heterosexuality, and bisexuality like I stated. Not by age.

#83 Edited by Pirate700 (46462 posts) -

@Pirate700 said:

@LJS9502_basic said:

@Pirate700 said:

Right, those are three orientations. That doesn't mean there isn't more. The dictionary definition for exual orientation is as follows.....

"sexual orientation

noun

one's natural preference in sexual partners; predilection for homosexuality, heterosexuality, or bisexuality."

Nowhere in there does it say orientation has to relate to sex and/or gender. Only partner type.

Uh did you actually read your definition pirate?

Yes I did. It says it's base on one's preference in sexual partners. Now I get the definition lists three types of orientations, but that doesn't mean their can't be more.

Yeah as defined by homosexuality, heterosexuality, and bisexuality like I stated. Not by age.

I guess we'll just have to agree to disagree on this one. I don't really want to go on about it either way because I think it's disgusting regardless of label.

#84 Edited by Makhaidos (1611 posts) -

@Pirate700 said:

Yes I did. It says it's base on one's preference in sexual partners. Now I get the definition lists three types of orientations, but that doesn't mean their can't be more.

Using the dictionary to define something as complicated as sexual orientation isn't a smart idea.

Sexual orientation is based upon what sex you are attracted to. People with pedophilia can fall anywhere on the sexual orientation spectrum: they can be gay, straight, bi, or otherwise. But pedophilia is not a sexual orientation. It's the same thing for any other paraphilia: liking feet isn't a sexual orientation.

#85 Posted by LJS9502_basic (149614 posts) -

@Pirate700 said:

Yes I did. It says it's base on one's preference in sexual partners. Now I get the definition lists three types of orientations, but that doesn't mean their can't be more.

Using the dictionary to define something as complicated as sexual orientation isn't a smart idea.

Sexual orientation is based upon what sex you are attracted to. People with pedophilia can fall anywhere on the sexual orientation spectrum: they can be gay, straight, bi, or otherwise. But pedophilia is not a sexual orientation. It's the same thing for any other paraphilia: liking feet isn't a sexual orientation.

Correct. I'm not sure why anyone feels the need to divide it by the age of the individual.

#87 Edited by LJS9502_basic (149614 posts) -

Woah this was locked a minute ago and now it's unlocked. What madness is this....

#88 Posted by Aljosa23 (24338 posts) -

@Makhaidos said:

@Pirate700 said:

Yes I did. It says it's base on one's preference in sexual partners. Now I get the definition lists three types of orientations, but that doesn't mean their can't be more.

Using the dictionary to define something as complicated as sexual orientation isn't a smart idea.

Sexual orientation is based upon what sex you are attracted to. People with pedophilia can fall anywhere on the sexual orientation spectrum: they can be gay, straight, bi, or otherwise. But pedophilia is not a sexual orientation. It's the same thing for any other paraphilia: liking feet isn't a sexual orientation.

What was it, a decade ago?

People saying that "Gay" isn't a sexual orientation, and that those "gay" people are just going through a phase?

At one point Homosexuality was seen as a sign of mental illness, just as some people viewed pedophilia.

Just because currently, our outdated definitions do not currently include age as a factor in deciding a mate, doesn't mean they shouldn't be changed.

Guess LGBT is going to be LGBTP now.

Man, you don't even try anymore.

#89 Edited by deeliman (2265 posts) -

@Makhaidos said:

@Pirate700 said:

Yes I did. It says it's base on one's preference in sexual partners. Now I get the definition lists three types of orientations, but that doesn't mean their can't be more.

Using the dictionary to define something as complicated as sexual orientation isn't a smart idea.

Sexual orientation is based upon what sex you are attracted to. People with pedophilia can fall anywhere on the sexual orientation spectrum: they can be gay, straight, bi, or otherwise. But pedophilia is not a sexual orientation. It's the same thing for any other paraphilia: liking feet isn't a sexual orientation.

What was it, a decade ago?

People saying that "Gay" isn't a sexual orientation, and that those "gay" people are just going through a phase?

At one point Homosexuality was seen as a sign of mental illness, just as some people viewed pedophilia.

Just because currently, our outdated definitions do not currently include age as a factor in deciding a mate, doesn't mean they shouldn't be changed.

Guess LGBT is going to be LGBTP now.

There's a big difference though. There's nothing wrong with 2 consenting adults having sex. But a child is not mature enough to give consent.

#90 Posted by Nibroc420 (13567 posts) -

@deeliman said:

@Nibroc420 said:

@Makhaidos said:

@Pirate700 said:

Yes I did. It says it's base on one's preference in sexual partners. Now I get the definition lists three types of orientations, but that doesn't mean their can't be more.

Using the dictionary to define something as complicated as sexual orientation isn't a smart idea.

Sexual orientation is based upon what sex you are attracted to. People with pedophilia can fall anywhere on the sexual orientation spectrum: they can be gay, straight, bi, or otherwise. But pedophilia is not a sexual orientation. It's the same thing for any other paraphilia: liking feet isn't a sexual orientation.

What was it, a decade ago?

People saying that "Gay" isn't a sexual orientation, and that those "gay" people are just going through a phase?

At one point Homosexuality was seen as a sign of mental illness, just as some people viewed pedophilia.

Just because currently, our outdated definitions do not currently include age as a factor in deciding a mate, doesn't mean they shouldn't be changed.

Guess LGBT is going to be LGBTP now.

There's a big difference though. There's nothing wrong with 2 consenting adults having sex. But a child is not mature enough to give consent.

Depends on where you live.
Some places have an age of concent as low as 14, however if a 14 year old has consentual sex with a 25 year old, the 25 year old could face statutory rape charges.
Girlfriend and boyfriends have been charged, because the age of consent was 16, one was 16 and the other 15, thus the 16 year old is charged with rape.

I'd oppose this if we were referring to the actual definition of Pedophile (someone who wants sex with pre-pubecent children), however AFAIC, in today's world, if you're over 18 and having sex with a consensual minor, you're viewed as a pedophile.

#91 Posted by LJS9502_basic (149614 posts) -

@deeliman said:

@Nibroc420 said:

@Makhaidos said:

@Pirate700 said:

Yes I did. It says it's base on one's preference in sexual partners. Now I get the definition lists three types of orientations, but that doesn't mean their can't be more.

Using the dictionary to define something as complicated as sexual orientation isn't a smart idea.

Sexual orientation is based upon what sex you are attracted to. People with pedophilia can fall anywhere on the sexual orientation spectrum: they can be gay, straight, bi, or otherwise. But pedophilia is not a sexual orientation. It's the same thing for any other paraphilia: liking feet isn't a sexual orientation.

What was it, a decade ago?

People saying that "Gay" isn't a sexual orientation, and that those "gay" people are just going through a phase?

At one point Homosexuality was seen as a sign of mental illness, just as some people viewed pedophilia.

Just because currently, our outdated definitions do not currently include age as a factor in deciding a mate, doesn't mean they shouldn't be changed.

Guess LGBT is going to be LGBTP now.

There's a big difference though. There's nothing wrong with 2 consenting adults having sex. But a child is not mature enough to give consent.

Depends on where you live.

Some places have an age of concent as low as 14, however if a 14 year old has consentual sex with a 25 year old, the 25 year old could face statutory rape charges.

Girlfriend and boyfriends have been charged, because the age of consent was 16, one was 16 and the other 15, thus the 16 year old is charged with rape.

I'd oppose this if we were referring to the actual definition of Pedophile (someone who wants sex with pre-pubecent children), however AFAIC, in today's world, if you're over 18 and having sex with a consensual minor, you're viewed as a pedophile.

Do you actually know what age group pedophilia encompasses? Because you don't show it in this post.

#92 Posted by Nibroc420 (13567 posts) -

@Nibroc420 said:

@deeliman said:

@Nibroc420 said:

@Makhaidos said:

@Pirate700 said:

Yes I did. It says it's base on one's preference in sexual partners. Now I get the definition lists three types of orientations, but that doesn't mean their can't be more.

Using the dictionary to define something as complicated as sexual orientation isn't a smart idea.

Sexual orientation is based upon what sex you are attracted to. People with pedophilia can fall anywhere on the sexual orientation spectrum: they can be gay, straight, bi, or otherwise. But pedophilia is not a sexual orientation. It's the same thing for any other paraphilia: liking feet isn't a sexual orientation.

What was it, a decade ago?

People saying that "Gay" isn't a sexual orientation, and that those "gay" people are just going through a phase?

At one point Homosexuality was seen as a sign of mental illness, just as some people viewed pedophilia.

Just because currently, our outdated definitions do not currently include age as a factor in deciding a mate, doesn't mean they shouldn't be changed.

Guess LGBT is going to be LGBTP now.

There's a big difference though. There's nothing wrong with 2 consenting adults having sex. But a child is not mature enough to give consent.

Depends on where you live.

Some places have an age of concent as low as 14, however if a 14 year old has consentual sex with a 25 year old, the 25 year old could face statutory rape charges.

Girlfriend and boyfriends have been charged, because the age of consent was 16, one was 16 and the other 15, thus the 16 year old is charged with rape.

I'd oppose this if we were referring to the actual definition of Pedophile (someone who wants sex with pre-pubecent children), however AFAIC, in today's world, if you're over 18 and having sex with a consensual minor, you're viewed as a pedophile.

Do you actually know what age group pedophilia encompasses? Because you don't show it in this post.

I suggest you spend less time insulting people, and more time reading then.
Once again, i understand that technically a pedophile has to be attracted to pre-pubecent children. HOWEVER, in today's world, if a 30-something year old guy thinks a well developed 16 year old is attractive, he would be called a pedophile by both media, and the majority of the people out there.

#93 Posted by LJS9502_basic (149614 posts) -

@LJS9502_basic said:

@Nibroc420 said:

@deeliman said:

@Nibroc420 said:

@Makhaidos said:

@Pirate700 said:

Yes I did. It says it's base on one's preference in sexual partners. Now I get the definition lists three types of orientations, but that doesn't mean their can't be more.

Using the dictionary to define something as complicated as sexual orientation isn't a smart idea.

Sexual orientation is based upon what sex you are attracted to. People with pedophilia can fall anywhere on the sexual orientation spectrum: they can be gay, straight, bi, or otherwise. But pedophilia is not a sexual orientation. It's the same thing for any other paraphilia: liking feet isn't a sexual orientation.

What was it, a decade ago?

People saying that "Gay" isn't a sexual orientation, and that those "gay" people are just going through a phase?

At one point Homosexuality was seen as a sign of mental illness, just as some people viewed pedophilia.

Just because currently, our outdated definitions do not currently include age as a factor in deciding a mate, doesn't mean they shouldn't be changed.

Guess LGBT is going to be LGBTP now.

There's a big difference though. There's nothing wrong with 2 consenting adults having sex. But a child is not mature enough to give consent.

Depends on where you live.

Some places have an age of concent as low as 14, however if a 14 year old has consentual sex with a 25 year old, the 25 year old could face statutory rape charges.

Girlfriend and boyfriends have been charged, because the age of consent was 16, one was 16 and the other 15, thus the 16 year old is charged with rape.

I'd oppose this if we were referring to the actual definition of Pedophile (someone who wants sex with pre-pubecent children), however AFAIC, in today's world, if you're over 18 and having sex with a consensual minor, you're viewed as a pedophile.

Do you actually know what age group pedophilia encompasses? Because you don't show it in this post.

I suggest you spend less time insulting people, and more time reading then.

Once again, i understand that technically a pedophile has to be attracted to pre-pubecent children. HOWEVER, in today's world, if a 30-something year old guy thinks a well developed 16 year old is attractive, he would be called a pedophile by both media, and the majority of the people out there.

And this isn't about the media it was about the APA which wouldn't make that mistake. Maybe you should do the reading.

#94 Posted by Nibroc420 (13567 posts) -

@Nibroc420 said:

@LJS9502_basic said:

@Nibroc420 said:

@deeliman said:

@Nibroc420 said:

@Makhaidos said:

@Pirate700 said:

Yes I did. It says it's base on one's preference in sexual partners. Now I get the definition lists three types of orientations, but that doesn't mean their can't be more.

Using the dictionary to define something as complicated as sexual orientation isn't a smart idea.

Sexual orientation is based upon what sex you are attracted to. People with pedophilia can fall anywhere on the sexual orientation spectrum: they can be gay, straight, bi, or otherwise. But pedophilia is not a sexual orientation. It's the same thing for any other paraphilia: liking feet isn't a sexual orientation.

What was it, a decade ago?

People saying that "Gay" isn't a sexual orientation, and that those "gay" people are just going through a phase?

At one point Homosexuality was seen as a sign of mental illness, just as some people viewed pedophilia.

Just because currently, our outdated definitions do not currently include age as a factor in deciding a mate, doesn't mean they shouldn't be changed.

Guess LGBT is going to be LGBTP now.

There's a big difference though. There's nothing wrong with 2 consenting adults having sex. But a child is not mature enough to give consent.

Depends on where you live.

Some places have an age of concent as low as 14, however if a 14 year old has consentual sex with a 25 year old, the 25 year old could face statutory rape charges.

Girlfriend and boyfriends have been charged, because the age of consent was 16, one was 16 and the other 15, thus the 16 year old is charged with rape.

I'd oppose this if we were referring to the actual definition of Pedophile (someone who wants sex with pre-pubecent children), however AFAIC, in today's world, if you're over 18 and having sex with a consensual minor, you're viewed as a pedophile.

Do you actually know what age group pedophilia encompasses? Because you don't show it in this post.

I suggest you spend less time insulting people, and more time reading then.

Once again, i understand that technically a pedophile has to be attracted to pre-pubecent children. HOWEVER, in today's world, if a 30-something year old guy thinks a well developed 16 year old is attractive, he would be called a pedophile by both media, and the majority of the people out there.

And this isn't about the media it was about the APA which wouldn't make that mistake. Maybe you should do the reading.

Really?
Because the TC linked to a news site, so, yeah, it is about the media.

#95 Posted by LJS9502_basic (149614 posts) -

@LJS9502_basic said:

@Nibroc420 said:

@LJS9502_basic said:

Do you actually know what age group pedophilia encompasses? Because you don't show it in this post.

I suggest you spend less time insulting people, and more time reading then.

Once again, i understand that technically a pedophile has to be attracted to pre-pubecent children. HOWEVER, in today's world, if a 30-something year old guy thinks a well developed 16 year old is attractive, he would be called a pedophile by both media, and the majority of the people out there.

And this isn't about the media it was about the APA which wouldn't make that mistake. Maybe you should do the reading.

Really?

Because the TC linked to a news site, so, yeah, it is about the media.

No. It was about the so called classification by the APA...not the media doing the classification...and you went on a rant about teenagers which had nothing to do with the topic.

I suppose it's your usual deflections. Like how you accused me of insults when I asked if you understood the term since you misused it.

I always forget to ignore your troll posts.

#96 Edited by Nibroc420 (13567 posts) -

@Nibroc420 said:

@LJS9502_basic said:

@Nibroc420 said:

@LJS9502_basic said:

Do you actually know what age group pedophilia encompasses? Because you don't show it in this post.

I suggest you spend less time insulting people, and more time reading then.

Once again, i understand that technically a pedophile has to be attracted to pre-pubecent children. HOWEVER, in today's world, if a 30-something year old guy thinks a well developed 16 year old is attractive, he would be called a pedophile by both media, and the majority of the people out there.

And this isn't about the media it was about the APA which wouldn't make that mistake. Maybe you should do the reading.

Really?

Because the TC linked to a news site, so, yeah, it is about the media.

No. It was about the so called classification by the APA...not the media doing the classification...and you went on a rant about teenagers which had nothing to do with the topic.

I suppose it's your usual deflections. Like how you accused me of insults when I asked if you understood the term since you misused it.

I always forget to ignore your troll posts.

I didn't misuse it, you just failed to read the actual post...as usual.

I explained, twice now, that although i understand a pedophile is defined as someone who prefers sex with pre-pubecent children; In modern times, media, both print and visual, will refer to adults who find young teenage girls attractive, as pedophiles.

Keep spinning things and pretending you're right though, my constant correcting of your errors hasn't seemed to stop you.

#97 Posted by MakeMeaSammitch (3689 posts) -

I'd rather we just take all the pedophiles and have some sort of firing squad situation

#98 Posted by Nibroc420 (13567 posts) -

I'd rather we just take all the pedophiles and have some sort of firing squad situation

Just because you disagree with their sexual orientation?

What makes you any different from the Anti-gays who were suggesting the same sort of thing?

#99 Posted by Serraph105 (27588 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

I'm trying to figure out what you mean by "push it onto people". I highly doubt we will see some new tolerance push for pedophilia the way we have for relationships between two consenting adults.

So what specifically do you think you will see people do in the future in response to pedophiles?

#100 Posted by Nibroc420 (13567 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

I'm trying to figure out what you mean by "push it onto people". I highly doubt we will see some new tolerance push for pedophilia the way we have for relationships between two consenting adults.

So what specifically do you think you will see people do in the future in response to pedophiles?

This is the first step.

Homosexuality was once on that list, it was them removed, and a few years later there was a push for equality.