DSM V: pedo not necessarily harmful; sexual orientation

Ramana Maharshi wrong? Funny story.

“Out beyond ideas…”

  • Rumi

Hmm… Sounds like sense of importance and sense of urgency: i.e. the voice of egoic consciousness is speaking.

I shall reply to you after twenty days; around about November 11th. :heart:

Dude… I don’t like people touching me full stop now… let alone when I was a child - most humans fulfil their wants and needs first, at the expense of what is best for the species… try thinking first for once. =;

re. Bonoboism [alloparenting & polysexuality] versus capitalopatriarchy; (anti-Cantor “cross-wired”);

"Oxytocin -- promotes nurturing behaviors toward children and bonding in couples...."

Vasopressin -- supports pair bonding: in men it may provoke aggressiveness toward sexual rivals."

Rick Hanson, [i]Buddha's Brain[/i]

Reminds me of the Henry Harlow monkey experiments. Infants raised without physical contact from other monkeys react violently when introduced into population and touched by another. The use of perambulators, cribs, and “independent sleeping” (Farber) in contemporary Anglo society reproduce Harlow’s experiments. Harlow concluded touch deprivation was the single most pathogenic influence on monkey development, equivalent to life-long solitary confinement. Similar conclusions from James Prescott: touch deprivation in childhood fuels war-society, see The Origins of Love & Violence.

Did anyone associated with the DSM even made such a claim?

Has anyone claimed that there is evidence in support of that proposition ?

We should perhaps stop using the term pedophilia and focus on non-consensual sex. Which has potential to cause more damage if the victim is younger.
The term pedophilia seems to be more of a value judgment then anything else.

What if a so called “pedophile” feels attraction to kids but does not act on it ? Is still a disease ? If you’re a psychologist then you probably know that mechanisms trough which people start feeling attracted to people of their age as opposed to someone younger, are not yet understood.

It seems to me the OP writer has gone off topic and is no longer writing about the topic, but defending active pedophilia where the child is sexually engaged with by the adult.

Since we previously had that interesting discussion, you of all people, Moreno, can understand my suggestion that pederasty and hominid evolution✝ are intimately connected. It’s not off-topic to understand the zoomed-out cultural milieu DSM 5 is happening in?

Since links are not allowed, persons interested in those discussions my wish to google for,

“Barbarian Pederasty”
“Incest-taboo & Capitalism”
“Aristotle & 1400 -1700g”
“Spectrum of Sexual State form”
To understand why this stuff is relevant, consider last year’s #OCCUPY movement. One of the hopes and dreams of #OCCUPY was that a new means of production will affect a radical shift in political organization: specifically the end of marshaling labor with money and the start of a Linux economy that uses computers to organize labor, sort of like a non-dictatorial Project Cybersyn. In 399 BC, Socrates was executed for “corrupting the youth” and the old system of enculturation: pederasty, was replaced with a new system: pedagogy: education based in monetarism. Deleuzoguattarianism maintains that mental illness has always only been what was required of anyone to keep-up with the flow of capital. With the proliferation of coin money, the suppression of pederasty and it’s replacement with salaried pedagogs followed. This process is still underway in the most remote areas, for example Central Asia, where currently in Afghanistan the culture of bachabaze boys is being stomped-out and the culture of universal education is arriving. However – since the development of computers has in some ways obsoleted monetarism, the pedagogic culture that was based on coinage (and war*) can’t continue unaffected. Therefore, DSM 5, which is a reflection of current cultural trends, is beginning to depathologize pedophilia.

Reading list:
:latin_cross: J.Philippe Rushton and C. Davidson Ankey, Brain size and cognitive ability: Correlations with age, sex, social class, and race
Men, women, children, barbarians, slaves, coloreds and Whites all have the same brain size.

  • David Graebers, Debt: The First 5000 Years
    Coin money was invented to facilitate military campaigning.

snip…

what I remember from that discussion is that you failed to respond to certain points and disappeared from the forum. Some of the points you failed to respond to dealt with the selective way you use bonobo behavior and human evolution. In that interesting discussion you repeatedly psycholanalyzed me, instead of addressing points. And here in this thread, you appear with a new name and do precisely what I said to Magsj which is go off your own topic. If the OP here is correct, the DSM still considers the behavior you would like to engage in or perhaps engage in as a mental disorder. I prefer to look at it as a moral issue, especially in a case where the person mounts semi-intellectual arguments to justify behavior repeatedly demonstrated to cause suffering in children. Bonoboes are polysexual, and are attracted to adult bonoboes at the very least also. So bringing them up as support for pederasty, actually only provides another angle for diagnosing such behavior as a disorder. I don’t accept the argument, but if we are going to base our sexuality on the behavior of bonoboes then the vast majority of pederasts are suffering from a disorder of some kind. They cannot seem to find sexual pleasure when the power/experience is more or less equal between the partners.

Oops. Sorry if my writing wasn’t clear Moreno. I’m using “Bonoboism” is a special way; not per say to refer to our hairy simian cousins. By Bonoboism I mean the pre-tribal mode of communal polysexual alloparenting that preceded hierarchical incest-taboo family-unit and market capitalopatriarchy. Since the patriarchy is a memetic neurotic Parasympathetic conditioned response to perceived lack, it tends to relax in warm sunny places and in times of perceived abundance. The one system is based on fear, the other on love and compassion. Since the DSM evolved from US Army manuals, it’s encouraging to see changes that seem progressive, and moving ‘back’ toward Bonoboism.

(I made a new userID because I couldn’t remember my old password.)

I ain’t no blood-clart monkey experiment so don’t presume anything about the way I was brought up, which has nothing to do with underage dealings so stop defending that position - there are enough people around of consensual age to get sexual gratification from but you are obviously blinkering yourself of that fact for your own gains, so please don’t think we are stupid enough for you to try and justify anything to us - does it make you feel better/accepted if you can justify your actions?

No, I was pre-emptively preventing such a claim HERE, as certain people will likely try to make it.

See above.

Okay, but you have to then determine at what age someone can give proper and informed consent for sex. In certain provinces in Canada, what constitutes a “child” or “ability to give consent” for various matters (not just sexual) can be 10, 12, 14, 16, 18, etc. So at what age can someone give consent? I don’t see how your approach negates this conundrum.

The mechanisms underlying most sexual processes are not well understood. We have lots and lots of theories, a lot of supposed “research” on humans and experiments using animal analogues, and many clinical experiences. And the answer is still “We don’t know” for most things.

As for your question about not acting on an attraction to “younger” people, I believe I addressed that in a previous post. To be clear, I am okay with not calling it a disorder if someone has some a predisposition but has never acted on it and having it does not cause them significant distress or impair their functioning.

re. origin of culture and humanity in pedophilia/pederasty,

“In ninety-five percent of all primate species the father does nothing for the kid… So the evolution of the size of the brain required an evolution of love… Love has been the primary driver of the evolution of our brain, certainly over the past several million years.”

  • Rick Hanson; “The Neurology of Awakening” at Unity In Marin, 2011

Okay, someone has to say it–this should not be misconstrued as my engaging further with dfetc…–I love my dog very much. I take care of him. I nurture him. I protect him. I feed him. I have a secure attachment with him. I have no urge to rub his genitals or to allow him to lick mine…

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.”

  • Michel Foucault, “Sexual Morality and the Law”, Semiotext(e)

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):

  1. 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).

  2. 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.

  3. 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”… :icon-rolleyes: ). 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.