Emotionally triggered reactivity corroborates my hypothesis that the capitaliopatriarchy is a neurotic conditioned routine of the Parasympathetic Nervous System (against an earlier/relaxed Bonoboism based on gentle and compassionate communalism, alloparenting and polysexuality).
Reading list:
Lori L. Oliver et al, “Sexual Arousal and Arousability to Pedophilic Stimuli in a Community Sample of Normal Men”
9 out of 10 normal men are sexually aroused by prepubertal children; (88.7%).
One more presumption about me and I’ll lock this thread up, as you are not replying to my posts but just presuming about my state of mind whilst writing said posts… the easy option for you, I’d say.
A paradigm shift in attitudes toward pedophilia is happening now?
The old positions were entrenched and polarized; at one end were emotionally charged mob reactions like ‘he should be castrated’ or even ‘he should be hung’, while at the other end were observations such as those by academic Arne Frederiksen in Paedophilia, Science, and Self-deception: A Criticism of Sex Abuse Research that, “[v]oluntary sexual relations between children and adults do not cause any psychological harm other than the problems associated with discovery and intervention.”
These days, a moderate middle-ground position is also emerging? For example, the organization B4U-ACT is reaching out to both mental health professionals and also minor-attracted persons with a message “that persons who are sexually attracted to children can be contributing members of their communities and that they deserve to be treated with respect. All clients should be treated in a caring, non-judgmental, and respectful manner. We see minor-attracted people as whole human beings, not as dangerous criminals or “deviants.”” And that “[s]ome minor-attracted people seek services to help them deal with issues that result from society’s negative reactions to their sexual feelings. Others seek assistance and support in finding satisfying lives and relationships while living within the law.”
Similarly, articles have appeared recently on the German Zeit Online and English salon.com: “Der Getriebene” [“The Driven”] and “Meet pedophiles who mean well” presenting a moderate middle. The German article follows a pedophile “Jonas” and discusses a therapy center, Das Charité-Projekt, he attends; while the English article interviews “Devin and Edwards” about their project “Virtuous Pedophiles” (virped.org). Both of these ventures present a similar ideology, to quote virped, “We do not choose to be attracted to children, and we cannot make that attraction go away. But we can resist the temptation to abuse children sexually”.
This image of the courageous yet tragic helpless, morose and chaste pedophile will be understandable to the general public who are also self-loathing and auto-repressed. From Das Getriebene, “[h]e will not get any merit for it. He can not even expect a pat-on-the-back. No one must ever know of the fight, which he must wage, as long as he lives.” (my trans) This new middle-ground image of pedophilia may sell well to the masses who believe they are passive in the creation of their desires and must endure themselves? In the long run, to paraphrase Eckhart Tolle, ‘egoic consciousness is only an evolutionary stage’: very few people have insight into that they first lay down and accept goals and values, and then after punish and reward themselves emotionally for failing or meeting those objectives. Unlikely will most pedophiles or therapists or the general public gain enlightenment in the Noble Truths and the nature of Upādāna shortly, therefore egoic consciousness and it’s mode of expression: the patriarchy, with it’s sexual orientations and pedophilia-taboo, will yet continue for some time. The apparent paradigm-shift happening away from emotionally charged mob reactions and toward a tolerant, if depressive and repressive, middle-ground as expressed by new organizations like B4U-ACT, Das Charité-Projekt, and “Virtuous Pedophiles” can be understood as representing a progressive next-stage of evolution in the flowering of human consciousness.
Nope. Good question though.
Or hanged really.
Which would mean not satisfying those sexual feelings. Nothing’s changed there. And that there is an organization with what you call a moderate position doesn’t mean very much. The Klan has an organization. Anyone can have an organization.
Note again that what you are calling the moderate position is against the act.
Projection or delusion.
Moderate groups of sexual abuse survivors very likely do not call for castration, and that’s good. But they do not approve of the acts because there is no good way to prevent emotional damage.
This is a highly contraversial topic, and abominal to most as to me too.
My personal theory is that it’s has come to be out of practicallity. In primadorial time we were very war like and we might also have had terrible decimation in population due to famine, sickness, etc, therefore it was practical that some would see an option in repopulate through this aboniable means.
Foucault’s response was that, “[t]his notion of consent is a trap”. That’s because contractualism is something that happens on the level of egoic consciousness: the capitalopatriarchy; whereas, what is true is happening at the level of the “desert of the real” (Baudrillard). Foucault gave this interview in 1978, in the context of the 1977 petition to repeal Age-of-Consent laws from the French penal code; among others, that petition was signed by Foucault, Jacques Derrida, Louis Althusser, Jean-Paul Sartre, Simone de Beauvoir and Roland Barthes. A similar paradigm shift as was happening in 70’s France seems to be occurring today.
"This notion of consent is a trap, in any case. What is sure is that the legal form of an intersexual consent is nonsense. … When we say that children are ‘consenting’ in these cases, all we intend to say is this: in any case, there was no violence, or organized manipulation in order to wrench out of them affective or erotic relations. … We took great care to speak exclusively of an indecent act not involving violence and incitement of a minor to commit an indecent act. We were extremely careful not to touch, in any way, on the problem of rape, which is totally different.”
May I save some of you a lot of time and implore you to stop discussing this issue with dfetc? Let me provide you with a bit of insight into what you are dealing with. The most important point is 4):
He PMed me, which is fine; I will not reveal everything he wrote but will make reference to one critical point that should prove to you what a waste it is trying to hold rational discussions with dfetc. As mentioned, the main point can be found in 4).
In the PM, as well as elsewhere, he is playing the game that psychologists are frequently accused of playing; sadly, some of my colleagues do indeed do it, much to my dismay. Namely, he is apt to label any action his opponents take as something “wrong”–or, in the case of my colleagues, as "pathological–when he knows he cannot dispute their actual arguments. This is one of the most classic fallacies: Namely, although a particular action might indeed signify something in some cases (e.g., Usually when I open an umbrella, it is because I want to shield myself from the rain), it does not necessarily signify the same thing in every case (i.e., Sometimes when I open an umbrella, it is because I want to shield myself from the sun). Yet, extremely rigid thinkers such as dfetc arbitrarily assume/decide that they can label the person’s actions however they like, regardless of the accuracy. To continue with the analogy, he will always assume that, when I open an umbrella, I am doing so to shield myself from the rain, even if it is sunny or if I am inside and am merely testing the hypothesis of a certain superstition.
Watch out for such people as depicted in 2): they are impossible to reason with. I can guarantee you that, upon reading this message, dfetc wants to make some interpretation of my writing to other readers of this site while ignoring his attempts to engage me. (I do admit that I did address him once in another thread because he infiltrated my unrelated request for information on various members; I will infer that he was stalking me and saw that I had made reference to his “type” in that thread. http://www.ilovephilosophy.com/viewtopic.php?f=2&t=180319#p2348120 This is the last such interaction I need to have with him…I hope…)
4) Here’s the kicker: he wrote, Hope you caught: Lori L. Oliver et al, “Sexual Arousal and Arousability to Pedophilic Stimuli in a Community Sample of Normal Men” 9 out of 10 normal men are sexually aroused by prepubertal children; (88.7%).
As a professor, I have access to these materials so I downloaded the actual paper: Sexual arousal and arousability to pedophilic stimuli in a community sample of normal men. (1995) Hall, Gordon C. Nagayama; Hirschman, Richard; Oliver, Lori L… Behavior Therapy, 26 (4): 681-694.
Nowhere in the entire study does it mention the number 88.7%! Rather, they found that, “Consistent with previous data…20% of the current subjects [from among 80 men] self-reported pedophilic interest and 26.25% exhibited penile arousal to pedophilic stimuli that equalled or exceeded arousal to adult stimuli.”
Now, 25% is a crazy high number and I’ve been reporting that stat to my students for the past 10 years (notice my “appeal to authority”… 
). But it is not 88.7%. [b]
Simple. Case closed. 'Nuff said. Avoid at all costs. Don’t say I didn’t warn you…[/b]
I would say what he perpetrates in a thread is precisely the kind of non-violent tactics a pedophile uses to bypass the ‘resistance’ of their targets. First the idea is brought up as if it will not be acted on in this thread. It is OK to have the feelings. Then there is a movement, without being acknowledged, towards the act. Precisely as you point out resistance is labelled ‘judgmental’ or otherwise wrong, the pedophile presenting as victim or misunderstood. The dislike of the real victim for the act is pathologized and/or guilt tripped. Here, with other adults, the appeal to authority is repeatedly used. Foucault said…etc. With the child victim, the pedophile is the authority, as an adult, and can more directly dismiss resistance. The disrespect, lack of candor about real goals, use of authority as power, not really addressing the reasons there is resistance, and manipulation of adults in the forum, parallels the approach to child victims. Mind fuck paralleling sexual abuse.
As you experienced a kind of stalking and also if you have a problem with his ideas (or the child has a problem having sex with him) you have the problem (the child has a problem).
I also notice a parallel in his interest in ego smashing drugs. The ego being part of a healthy boundary and the one thing a pedophile cannot stand in his would be victims - those who notice he is an abuser and those he abuses - is healthy boundaries.
He can blab some mystical abstractions about ego, when the goal is to satisfy his ego’s goals. What he does not want is anyone to feel OK resisting his goals.
It’s extremely fallacious to assume that the only factor that should be accounted for is age. A 15 year old can give consent to another 15 year old but not to a 30 year old?
Good post.
No, I am not saying age is the only factor. It’s arbitrary at best and, as mentioned, was changed from 14 to 16 only a few years ago in Canada (2008 or 2009). And why is there a two-year window for the partner for 12 and 13 year olds, and a five-year window for 14-17 year olds? Again, all arbitrary. But it’s a simple criterion that can be checked easily. However, age is not the only factor if there are questions about the person’s mental/psychological capacity.
I personally think that we should be flexible in certain cases, for instance if someone is 17 and their partner is 23, I don’t think the 23 year old should be arrested–despite showing immaturity and bad judgment. And I don’t know if this was covered already but the law for anal sex in Canada is different than for penile/vaginal intercourse: You have to be 18 or over to legally engage in anal sex, even though a girl who is 12 can have vaginal intercourse as long as her partner is no older than 14. Moreover, even if both people are over 18 and consenting, they can be arrested if there is a third person in the room during anal sex, regardless if that person is penetrating as well. This is all political and anti-gay policies that most people don’t know about (aside from my students).
Interestingly, there was a case two or three years ago where a Canadian student originally from Cuba or Brazil I believe had a sexual relationship with his teacher. Ordinarily, this is against the law for someone under 18. However, in this case they could not confirm his actual age b/c his original documentation was apparently dubious. But it did seem that he was under 18 so the teacher could have been arrested. Yet, because his and her families knew and approved of the relationship, nothing ever happened and they were allowed to continue. In this case, it seemed appropriate.
So I agree that “consent” should be the main factor but how do we have a simple determination of whether one is capable of doing so? Age is the simple benchmark that applies to most people.
Immaturity and bad judgment? Why on earth are you immediately assuming that ? Just because some guy got involved with someone below the age of 18 ?
That’s almost embarrassing coming from a psychologist.
Nice little ego stroking…moving on…
What if the kid’s family disapproved of the relationship and tried to have the teacher arrested despite the relationship being absolutely consensual ?
That’s why approval from the parents should be utterly irrelevant when looking at this cases.
Psychological testing, Socratic questioning and so forth…
That was a weird brain hiccup on my part because, as mentioned, the age restriction is for 12-15; I thus meant to make the person’s age 21 years old–hence 1 year past the 5-year window. As for the point I was making, if a 21 year old is dating a 15 year old, in most cases that shows immaturity because there is usually a difference in one’s mentality and psychological state among 15 and 21 year olds, hence only the latter group can drink, can vote, can drive, etc. If you disagree with this point, I would have to question your own maturity and intelligence. If you were questioning my original point with the 17 year old, then I understand and apologize for the confusion. Also, if someone knows that he/she could go to jail for dating a 15 year old–regardless of whether he/she agrees with the law–then that is showing poor judgment. I trust you understand my point now.
Not ego stroking. I’m stating a fact. Given that I have taught over 11,000 students, that is a relatively high number, especially since each of these students could potentially pass on the information to others, thus spreading the knowledge of this little-known but very important fact. It is not ego stroking to state that one does not merely complain about the state of affairs but instead takes action, either directly in some of the work I do, or indirectly by conveying information as I do.
Now, taking together some of your statements and “tone” in this post (that I am inferring), I am wondering whether you have an aversion to psychologists or to authority in general. Having said that, I do acknowledge that your initial comment regarding my example of the 23 year old dating a 17 year old could have been due to my mistake. I guess time will tell…
Tough call. By Canadian law, a person in authority cannot have a sexual relationship with anyone under 18 so that they do not exploit the person’s age and “inferior status.” In other contexts, people in a position of authority cannot use their status to procure sexual acts from the other person but in most cases it would not be a criminal matter but rather a civil one. The point is, these laws are supposed to prevent exploitations of “vulnerable” people. So I guess in the case I mentioned, if there was such a risk–which would have to be determined through investigation–then legal action might be appropriate.
I’m curious, Volchok: How old are you?
In theory, yes. But that is not very practical. For instance, if we had no age limit on sexual acts–only "capacity for consent–then anyone who thought someone was taking advantage of someone else’s lack of capacity could call the police for an investigation. Do you know how many people would do that? Many. How do I know? Because, for instance, when it comes to child protection cases, 40-60% of all calls made are “nuisance calls” or “spite calls” with no merit. So if someone was pissed at someone else, they could easily call the police or other relevant agency and make the victim’s life miserable and cost the taxpayers far too much money.
Conversely, having a set age limit prevents such malfeasance, at least in this particular context. That is not why the age laws are as they are. I’m just saying that such a concrete criterion–whether you or I agree with it–is far more practical than what you suggest. The question of capacity to consent is more of an adjunct to that age law in certain cases.
A ten year old cannot be considered to have consented to sex with an adult.
Now there are ages where grey areas arise, and 15 year olds who are much more experienced than 19 years olds, etc.
But consent is a meaningless concept in some power dynamics.
It’s not that straightforward. Culture has to be taken into account for instance. Also, you mean to tell me that only a 21 year old is mature enough to drink ?
You do know that in the states 18 year old kids can serve their country right ? They can literally die defending their country but they are not allowed to drink.
Let’s not pretend like the laws in place ( in the states) are backed up by scientific knowledge about human development.
I think it’s great that you do more then merely complain. It’s just that you always make it a point to say that most people don’t know X but you do and so do your students.
An aversion to psychologists and to authority ? Good lord. I sure hope that’s the not the kind of analysis you do in your private practise. I’m a psychology undergraduate.
I sense an ad hominem coming. I turn 23 this month.
I do think there should be an age limit. But I also think that other factors must be taken into account and that other factors may, sometimes, override the age factor.
If you notice, I’ve said several times that the ages are arbitrary. So of course I am making no such claim. Nevertheless, for most people, a 21 year old is quite different in his/her psychological development than a 15 year old. Having said that, it seems that the last generation is pretty stunted, so I see, e.g., today’s 25-30 year olds acting more like 18-20 year olds from just a few generations ago. So once again, age limits are arbitrary.
That has a dual purpose, one of which I explained to dfetc in another post:
Because I make these statements publicly–not just in my lectures but on each major TV station in Canada and on various radio stations–they are seen widely by, among others, my colleagues. Therefore, if anything I say is wrong, I should be challenged by them (they know where to reach me and trust me, they will do so); this is not ego stroking but rather asserting that there is credibility to what I say (which dfetc claimed was an “appeal to authority”). The same can’t necessarily be said of someone online just anonymously spouting stuff out of various orifices (I’m not saying you do that; it’s a general statement).
The second reason is more of an indictment against my field. I discuss this further in the next point.
Why would your status as a psych undergrad negate an aversion to psychologists or authority? Heck, even among psychologists, many in the “experimental/research” stream have an aversion to their colleagues in the more highly esteemed “clinical” stream. And if you’ve had the kinds of professors I had from undergrad all the way up to PhD–and those who now comprise my colleagues–you should have a healthy aversion to at least some psychologists. That is why I frequently mention that I tell my students things they don’t hear from others; I encourage my students to challenge their other profs with the information I give them, just like I encourage them to challenge me or to present me with things that I may not be aware of. Every term I say that I’m very lucky to come in contact with many bright minds who send me links or other materials to things that I might not have heard of, and who also provide answers to questions I ask that I may not have thought of or heard despite asking the same question dozens of times over the years. In short, I am embarrassed of many of my colleagues in academia and make sure I emulate those who inspired me coming up through the ranks and eschew everything about the majority of my profs. So you may call it ego stroking but I call it declaring my stance and exhorting students (or anyone else) to question everything they hear/see and to not trust those who tell it to them just because of the position they hold. Again, that is why I mention that I say these things in the media: I go on the public record with my beliefs/opinions/knowledge and literally millions of people have the opportunity to check it out and challenge me. I don’t expect everyone to do that but, if I didn’t know what I was talking about, at least one psychologist or other professional would have called me on it by now, given that I have been interviewed publicly well over 100 times.
Conversely, most profs are used to saying things to a bunch of students only, most of who will never challenge them. And many of them present their opinions, agendas or biased/limited knowledge as “facts.” If you are an astute psych student, you will have likely experienced this very many times. I know I did. And I made a vow to be different when I became a prof and am now very vocal about this difference–much to the resentment of some of my colleagues. It’s not about praising myself but about stressing that what I–and more and more others–do is, unfortunately, not the norm. The more that students realize that some of us profs have the right perspective, the more they might expect the same from other profs.
On a side note, I hold the same disdainful attitude toward my clinical colleagues who adhere rigidly to only one orientation, be it psychodynamic, CBT, humanistic, etc. They train or try to teach others to adopt the same rigid, cult-like belief in their orientation without recognizing the limitations of each orientation and technique. They also blindly accept any research that suggests their orientation or technique is sound, without properly reviewing the research to see whether such conclusions are warranted. So when I get the chance to discuss the merits of being trained in many different orientations/techniques–namely that it allows one to understand what might work or not work for various people/problems, and to recognize the common underlying factors among different approaches–I do it so that my students or trainees might become better therapists or better mental health “consumers”. But some people will infer that I am “ego stroking” or bragging about my diverse training.
Don’t be so “paranoid.” I was curious as to your age so I could have a better understanding of your own “personal position” vis a vis this particular discussion.
You’re not going to get a disagreement from me on that. I think I’ve been pretty clear about that.
My apologies for the rant in the previous post. I am very proud of the good that psychologists and psychology profs can do for society. But I am equally miffed at my many colleagues who do our field a huge disservice through incompetence or lack of ethics, so once I get started on the topic…
Do you really have to ask that question ? Come on. What is the sheer probability of that being true ?
That’s not my case. In fact, the “clinical stream” is the area I’m most interested in.
I don’t have an aversion. I simply recognize that there are many psychologists out there who are awful. Specially where I live.
I think that’s great. I really do.
I guess that begs the question, who are you ?
Yes, some profs don’t expect to be challenged. And some profs are not the greatest thinkers. But I haven´t seen any sort of agenda so far but then again I live in a very small country where almost no research is done so…
But I also have one prof that is constantly telling us to think critically about everything, even about what she’s saying so, they are not all bad.
I would actually love to see a well thought out critique of all the main “orientations”, strengths, limitations and so forth…
Have you published anything ?
You know what? I honestly cannot tell whether your answer implies an aversion or not. Looking at the rest of your post, I still cannot make such an inference because, on one hand, you have experienced the kinds of profs I mentioned in a negative light; yet, on the other hand, you do not seem overly critical of the field/your profs. If you were to say it in person with all of the verbal and non-verbal cues that go along with such statements, I’m sure it would be much more obvious.
That is good. As you progress through academia, I’m sure you will see the camps forming. I was part of a committee that started a new graduate program and that was the one thing I stressed to my colleagues: Let’s make sure the experimental and clinical streams do not work at odds with each other but let’s make courses and requirements such that people from each stream have several opportunities to experience profs/labs/classes/students from the other stream.
To quote Dr. Ali G, “potato, tomato…”
I don’t believe in anonymity and always put my name behind anything I write, even if it’s an online response to a newspaper article. On this site, however, I had a lot of “silly fun” a number of years ago (it’s even weirder than anyone who “knew” me back then realized) and, with my jobs being what they are, I do not need to have certain statements from this site attributed to me. Anyone who knows who I really am can easily tell it is I, based on my posts; I don’t mind that. I just cannot admit to who I am on this forum so I can always claim plausible deniability if anyone should ever try to hold statements made here against me. Yes, I appreciate how silly or “paranoid” that may seem but trust me, worse has happened already.
Every prof should be pushing critical thinking. In my experiences, most of my colleagues do in fact claim to promote critical thinking but, when students actually try to do so with respect to what they say in class, they hypocritically get offended. As for agendas, I am surprised that you have not seen that. Some of them are subtle and require some digging, whereas others are extremely blatant. For example, I have had literally hundreds of students tell me that their various profs stress that we know that homosexuality is biologically caused. We know no such thing. Anyone who makes such an assertion is ignorant and/or biased. I tell students what I believe, based on all of the readings I’ve done and based on my clinical and personal experiences; but I make sure they know this is only my informed opinion, not fact. And I make sure to present information that both supports and contradicts my beliefs. I also show how some of the research on both sides is flawed. Then I tell students to make their own inferences based on this and other evidence. And if they aren’t going to take the time to do the necessary exploration, then at least admit that it’s their uninformed and likely biased opinion.
Sticking with homosexuality, any prof who says you must accept this or that about LGBTetc is promoting their own personal or professional agenda. I tell students they can think whatever the heck they want. But I always tell them that I will come to the problem through science and clinical experience. If they’re going to present only their uninformed opinions, it’s going to be a very short conversation. And again, they must have enough integrity to admit that it’s only their beliefs, not fact or not beliefs based on proper research. And I also let them know my background so they can try to infer what is my own possible bias, what is my personal experience, and what is my expert opinion. Anything less than this is unprofessional or sub-par teaching, IMO.
On a side note, I don’t want to be hypocritical so I understand if you don’t answer. But where are you from that you described it as you did?
Not on this topic. I lecture on it all the time and train therapists to understand these issues but I haven’t written about it because I don’t think I could bring anything really new to the table beyond what others have already written. Plus, I’ve got two other books that have been waiting for me to complete…
No, I don’t have an aversion to psychologists. And would think it would be very strange if you did. That does not mean that I think all psychologists are good at what they do.
Actually, I think it’s a very important distinction. But let’s move on.
You could always pm me your name. I don’t really care that much, it’s just that it would crazy if I was talking to someone I admire. lol. It would be kinda funny. And since you have talked in the media so much maybe I have heard your name.
I couldn’t agree more.
I have never been told that by any prof. And as far as I’m aware right now, homosexuality is seen as the product of the interaction between genetic, biological, psychological and social factors.
Again, I couldn’t agree more.
Portugal.
Any book recommendations on that topic ?