Pedophilia Officially Classified as Sexual Orientation

This topic is locked from further discussion.

#151 Posted by Makhaidos (1613 posts) -

Man gay pushing agendas, the rise in the fakeness of transgenders not being considered an illness when it is and is treated in the same way as one, being supported, a brief legal movement on bestiality, and now pedophiles are being a sexual orientation.

The new Rome will fall. I can see the 2016 president getting shot on the footstep of city hall, and then anarchy, and we will be a small capital of the new canada.

There's enough stupid in that one post to fill up a confederate revolutionary gang.

#152 Posted by LJS9502_basic (150338 posts) -

@LJS9502_basic said:

@Jakandsigz said:
and then anarchy, and we will be a small capital of the new canada.

Canada is more liberal than the US dude....

You seem to lack reading skills as usual. What does that have to do with the U.S. falling and ending up in a similar situation as current rome in italy?

Kind of sad that you didn't read what you posted....

#153 Posted by worlock77 (22547 posts) -

I think the best part here is how the article itself says that it's bullshit.

[quote]"The AFA cannot substantiate its research on this issue[/quote]

#154 Edited by deeliman (2391 posts) -

@LJS9502_basic said:

@Jakandsigz said:
and then anarchy, and we will be a small capital of the new canada.

Canada is more liberal than the US dude....

You seem to lack reading skills as usual. What does that have to do with the U.S. falling and ending up in a similar situation as current rome in italy?

As in the Roman empire? That happened like 1500 years ago, I would hardly call that current. If you're talking about the city, then I don't know what the fuck your talking about.

#155 Posted by Jakandsigz (4512 posts) -

@Jakandsigz said:

@LJS9502_basic said:

@Jakandsigz said:
and then anarchy, and we will be a small capital of the new canada.

Canada is more liberal than the US dude....

You seem to lack reading skills as usual. What does that have to do with the U.S. falling and ending up in a similar situation as current rome in italy?

Kind of sad that you didn't read what you posted....

Please continue to point nothing out and go around the fact you can't read in context.

#156 Posted by Jakandsigz (4512 posts) -

@Jakandsigz said:

Man gay pushing agendas, the rise in the fakeness of transgenders not being considered an illness when it is and is treated in the same way as one, being supported, a brief legal movement on bestiality, and now pedophiles are being a sexual orientation.

The new Rome will fall. I can see the 2016 president getting shot on the footstep of city hall, and then anarchy, and we will be a small capital of the new canada.

There's enough stupid in that one post to fill up a confederate revolutionary gang.

Rick Perry 2016. He was right, the New rome is here.

Granted I only agree with one small part of that but still 2016.

#157 Posted by LJS9502_basic (150338 posts) -

@LJS9502_basic said:

@Jakandsigz said:
and then anarchy, and we will be a small capital of the new canada.

Canada is more liberal than the US dude....

You seem to lack reading skills as usual. What does that have to do with the U.S. falling and ending up in a similar situation as current rome in italy?

You went on a rant about liberals in the US only to point to Canada. Which as I stated is more liberal than the US. You really really should get a clue about what words spew out of your head before commenting dude.

#158 Posted by deeliman (2391 posts) -

@Makhaidos said:

@Jakandsigz said:

Man gay pushing agendas, the rise in the fakeness of transgenders not being considered an illness when it is and is treated in the same way as one, being supported, a brief legal movement on bestiality, and now pedophiles are being a sexual orientation.

The new Rome will fall. I can see the 2016 president getting shot on the footstep of city hall, and then anarchy, and we will be a small capital of the new canada.

There's enough stupid in that one post to fill up a confederate revolutionary gang.

Rick Perry 2016. He was right, the New rome is here.

Granted I only agree with one small part of that but still 2016.

Comparing rome to america should be a bannable offense.

#159 Posted by LJS9502_basic (150338 posts) -

@deeliman said:

@Jakandsigz said:

@Makhaidos said:

@Jakandsigz said:

Man gay pushing agendas, the rise in the fakeness of transgenders not being considered an illness when it is and is treated in the same way as one, being supported, a brief legal movement on bestiality, and now pedophiles are being a sexual orientation.

The new Rome will fall. I can see the 2016 president getting shot on the footstep of city hall, and then anarchy, and we will be a small capital of the new canada.

There's enough stupid in that one post to fill up a confederate revolutionary gang.

Rick Perry 2016. He was right, the New rome is here.

Granted I only agree with one small part of that but still 2016.

Comparing rome to america should be a bannable offense.

LOL

#160 Edited by whipassmt (13995 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?

I don't know. Let's try an experiment: tell me not to be racist and we'll see what happens.

#161 Posted by Makhaidos (1613 posts) -

@Makhaidos said:

@Jakandsigz said:

Man gay pushing agendas, the rise in the fakeness of transgenders not being considered an illness when it is and is treated in the same way as one, being supported, a brief legal movement on bestiality, and now pedophiles are being a sexual orientation.

The new Rome will fall. I can see the 2016 president getting shot on the footstep of city hall, and then anarchy, and we will be a small capital of the new canada.

There's enough stupid in that one post to fill up a confederate revolutionary gang.

Rick Perry 2016.

And that's enough stupid to cover the Republican National Convention.

#162 Edited by deeliman (2391 posts) -

@Jakandsigz said:

@Makhaidos said:

@Jakandsigz said:

Man gay pushing agendas, the rise in the fakeness of transgenders not being considered an illness when it is and is treated in the same way as one, being supported, a brief legal movement on bestiality, and now pedophiles are being a sexual orientation.

The new Rome will fall. I can see the 2016 president getting shot on the footstep of city hall, and then anarchy, and we will be a small capital of the new canada.

There's enough stupid in that one post to fill up a confederate revolutionary gang.

Rick Perry 2016.

And that's enough stupid to cover the Republican National Convention.

Remember his political ad in the 2012 elections? The guy should be a comedian.

#163 Posted by Nibroc420 (13567 posts) -

@thegerg: actually I was quoting a response from an AMA spokesperson, just because the source isnt ideal, doesn't mean the AMA is wrong.

#164 Posted by Gaming-Planet (13998 posts) -

I guess being a rapist is a sexual orientation.

#165 Posted by noodlevixen (479 posts) -

Why haven't I heard this on the news if it's true? This is definitely something the media would gobble up. Sounds like BS to me. :/

#166 Posted by Vatusus (4437 posts) -

How isn't it a sexual orientation?

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

Pedophile =/= child molester

#167 Edited by Ace6301 (21389 posts) -

Well duh. So long as they're not acting on it then no harm, no foul. Fortunately it seems like the sort of thing society won't be willing to accept regardless of how we phrase it. I'd imagine a fair few here have read Lolita and are familiar with how uncomfortable even a book about this can make someone.

#168 Posted by Lone_Wolf_Lance (121 posts) -

Always said it was a sexual orientation. Doesn't make it right though, but still... pedophiles still need to satisfy their sexual desires somehow. Maybe one day they could make life-like humanoid sex bots or something that look like children. Technically they wouldn't be hurting anyone and everyone's happy.

#169 Posted by lamprey263 (23176 posts) -

@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.


actually it isn't readily available, we deal with pedophiles after they've raped children, not before

there was an article in Salon a while back I remember dealt with the experience of a pedophile who hasn't raped children seeking counseling and psychiatric help, and he's often chased away from speaking with psychiatrists and therapists because they'd call the police like he committed a crime, or the places that do offer counseling for pedophiles only work with criminal pedophiles who have raped/molested children

#170 Posted by LJS9502_basic (150338 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.

actually it isn't readily available, we deal with pedophiles after they've raped children, not before

there was an article in Salon a while back I remember dealt with the experience of a pedophile who hasn't raped children seeking counseling and psychiatric help, and he's often chased away from speaking with psychiatrists and therapists because they'd call the police like he committed a crime, or the places that do offer counseling for pedophiles only work with criminal pedophiles who have raped/molested children

Anyone at any time can seek therapy. It is available....

#171 Edited by lamprey263 (23176 posts) -

@lamprey263 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.

actually it isn't readily available, we deal with pedophiles after they've raped children, not before

there was an article in Salon a while back I remember dealt with the experience of a pedophile who hasn't raped children seeking counseling and psychiatric help, and he's often chased away from speaking with psychiatrists and therapists because they'd call the police like he committed a crime, or the places that do offer counseling for pedophiles only work with criminal pedophiles who have raped/molested children

Anyone at any time can seek therapy. It is available....

nope, not for pedophiles

#172 Posted by LJS9502_basic (150338 posts) -

@LJS9502_basic said:

@lamprey263 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.

actually it isn't readily available, we deal with pedophiles after they've raped children, not before

there was an article in Salon a while back I remember dealt with the experience of a pedophile who hasn't raped children seeking counseling and psychiatric help, and he's often chased away from speaking with psychiatrists and therapists because they'd call the police like he committed a crime, or the places that do offer counseling for pedophiles only work with criminal pedophiles who have raped/molested children

Anyone at any time can seek therapy. It is available....

nope, not for pedophiles

And I'm supposed to believe you because...?

#173 Edited by Barbariser (6724 posts) -
#175 Posted by thegerg (14859 posts) -

@thegerg: actually I was quoting a response from an AMA spokesperson, just because the source isnt ideal, doesn't mean the AMA is wrong.

Again, that definition doesn't say ANYWHERE that pedophiles are incapable of victimizing others.

#176 Posted by dave123321 (33784 posts) -
#177 Posted by dave123321 (33784 posts) -

Have to go with my bud thegerg on this one again nibroc

#178 Posted by Jimn_tonic (819 posts) -

i didn't know it wasn't a sexual orientation.

it seems to me that being attracted to a child would be something that is innate. obviously there's nothing criminal with the attraction in and of itself, but those who act on it.

as long as people still realize it's a dangerous condition, and doesn't leave the DSM, this news is like saying the sun's gonna rise tomorrow.

#179 Edited by capaho (1253 posts) -

Quote from the APA regarding the DSM-IV:

In DSM-III-R, the criteria sets for the Paraphilias included a clinical significance criterion (i.e., "the person has acted on these urges, or is markedly distressed by them") in recognition of the fact that the mere presence of paraphilic sexual urges or fantasies do not necessarily warrant a diagnosis of a paraphilia in an individual. During the preparation of DSM-IV, the wording of this criterion was adjusted (i.e.,”the fantasies, sexual urges, or behaviors cause clinically significant distress or impairment in social, occupational, or other important areas of functioning") as part of the effort to adopt uniform wording for the clinical significance criterion across the disorders.

An unforeseen side effect of this rewording was that it led to confusion regarding the DSM-IV definition of Pedophilia. Specifically, the replacement of the DSM-III-R phrase “acts on these urges” with the phrase “causes clinically significant…impairment” was misconstrued to represent a fundamental change in the definition of Pedophilia. Some readers misunderstood this new wording as greatly restricting the number of individuals who would be diagnosed with Pedophilia by requiring that they be distressed by their behavior in order to qualify for the diagnosis. This was clearly never intended, since it is well recognized that many (if not most) individuals with Pedophilia are not distressed by their pedophilic urges, fantasies, and behaviors. In fact, rather than restricting the diagnosis of Pedophilia to fewer individuals, the original purpose of the change was to potentially broaden the diagnosis to include individuals whose pedophilic urges interfered with functioning in a variety of ways (e.g., causing impairment in occupational functioning because of a preoccupation with pedophilic thoughts and images at work). There was never any intention to no longer include individuals who acted on their urges.

To remove any possible ambiguity regarding whether acting out pedophilic urges with others is sufficient for a diagnosis of Pedophilia, the original DSM-III-R wording has been reinstated. Furthermore, the original DSM-III-R wording has been reinstated for other paraphilias that inevitably harm their victims (i.e., voyeurism, exhibitionism, and frotteurism). Because some cases of Sexual Sadism may not involve harm to a victim (e.g., inflicting humiliation on a consenting partner), the wording for sexual sadism involves a hybrid of the DSM-III-R and DSM-IV wording (i.e., “the person has acted on these urges with a non-consenting person, or the urges, sexual fantasies, or behaviors cause marked distress or interpersonal difficulty”)


I cannot find any documentation anywhere that shows where the APA declared pedophilia to be a sexual orientation. That claim appears to be a total fabrication.

#180 Edited by LJS9502_basic (150338 posts) -
#181 Posted by foxhound_fox (87693 posts) -

Uh... duh?

It being a sexual orientation doesn't justify it or make it any less illegal.

#182 Posted by capaho (1253 posts) -
#183 Posted by thegerg (14859 posts) -

Uh... duh?

It being a sexual orientation doesn't justify it or make it any less illegal.

FYI, pedophilia isn't illegal.

#184 Posted by foxhound_fox (87693 posts) -

@thegerg said:

@foxhound_fox said:

Uh... duh?

It being a sexual orientation doesn't justify it or make it any less illegal.

FYI, pedophilia isn't illegal.

Thank you Captain Semantics.

#185 Posted by dave123321 (33784 posts) -
#186 Posted by thegerg (14859 posts) -

@thegerg said:

@foxhound_fox said:

Uh... duh?

It being a sexual orientation doesn't justify it or make it any less illegal.

FYI, pedophilia isn't illegal.

Thank you Captain Semantics.

It's got nothing to do with semantics, but rather with law.

#187 Posted by foxhound_fox (87693 posts) -

@thegerg said:

It's got nothing to do with semantics, but rather with law.

You are an insufferably dry person to talk to.

#188 Posted by capaho (1253 posts) -

Idiots!

#189 Posted by thegerg (14859 posts) -

@thegerg said:

It's got nothing to do with semantics, but rather with law.

You are an insufferably dry person to talk to.

You are ridiculously ignorant in terms of the lawfulness of pedophilia.

#190 Edited by Makhaidos (1613 posts) -
#191 Posted by MakeMeaSammitch (3791 posts) -
#192 Posted by thegerg (14859 posts) -

@MakeMeaSammitch:

I fail to see the issue with calling out ridiculously factually incorrect bullshit when idiots spew it online.

#193 Posted by HoolaHoopMan (7742 posts) -

@thegerg said:

@foxhound_fox said:

Uh... duh?

It being a sexual orientation doesn't justify it or make it any less illegal.

FYI, pedophilia isn't illegal.

I think its quite obvious that he's implying on it being illegal if ACTED upon, as in abusing a child.

#194 Edited by deeliman (2391 posts) -

It is always amusing when the village idiot is under the delusion that he has anything insightful to say. It's almost as if he thinks he is clever.

#195 Edited by deeliman (2391 posts) -

@thegerg said:

@foxhound_fox said:

Uh... duh?

It being a sexual orientation doesn't justify it or make it any less illegal.

FYI, pedophilia isn't illegal.

I think its quite obvious that he's implying on it being illegal if ACTED upon, as in abusing a child.

Of course it's obvious, that was just a poor attempt to troll or a showing of his lack of reading comprehension, pick your favorite.

#196 Posted by killerfist (19812 posts) -

I thought it already was

#197 Posted by MakeMeaSammitch (3791 posts) -

@thegerg said:

@MakeMeaSammitch:

I fail to see the issue with calling out ridiculously factually incorrect bullshit when idiots spew it online.

cause you argue semantics and go about it in a boring way.

#198 Posted by GOGOGOGURT (4470 posts) -

I'm skeptical if this article is what it seems.