DSM V: pedo not necessarily harmful; sexual orientation

According to the rumor mill, DSM V is expected to acknowledge pedophilia is not necessarily harmful, depathologizing non-harmful pedophilia, and recognize pedophilia as a sexual orientation.

"According to the new American psychiatric classification system, a person is only classified as a pedophile if that person acts on their sexual attraction to children - or at least suffers from the fact that they have this attraction," said Ponseti. "If he has this attraction without abusing a child, then we can call it a sexual orientation."


This thread moderated against ad hom and off-topic.

I will be moderating this thread David7, so as you were…

I used to detest psychiatry. now it’s only a moderate dislike.

I think as long as psychiatry remains in its current paradigm (,i.e. only prescribing persons for abnormalities that affect emotional wellbeing) and can give reasoned discourse as to why this paradigm is non-suitable, then my moderate dislike will remain.

I am going to have to check on the specifics. As a registered clinical psychologist who has spoken about problems with the DSM/psychiatry/psychology in university and in the media many times, I am well aware of the controversies surrounding the DSM 5 (btw, for the first time they’ve gone with the “5” instead of the roman numeral “V”).

Here’s some scary history about pedophilia in the DSM that very few people know. In fact, it was some massive ignorance from this very site that inspired me to track down Dr. Robert Spitzer–one of the masterminds behind the DSM-III–to put an end to the silliness a particular homophobe (maybe he was just homo-negative; he was the cat guy who used to be a gang banger in the US and then went into fashion design or something) was spouting with respect to homosexuality’s role in the DSM.

In any event, the DSM-IV USED TO have pedophelia described as a disorder only if it caused significant personal distress to the pedophile or impaired their functioning. I have not been able to find out why this change occurred, as it was not stated this way in the DSM-III, when many disorders needed one of those two criteria to be considered an actual disorder. In fact, those two criteria are what Dr. Spitzer came up with to end the controversy over homosexuality’s placement in the DSM in the early 70’s. That is, if you were gay and did not feel bad about it or it did not impair your functioning, you were no longer “mentally ill.”

On an interesting note, psych profs love to pat themselves on the back and say that we ended up taking homosexuality out of the DSM completely, rather than leaving it in the book in its modified form. The rationale was that most people who have a problem with their sexual orientation have that problem b/c of prejudice and ignorance within society; so why should we punish gays/lesbians by labelling them as “mentally ill” b/c many other people have a problem with them? See how forward thinking we psychologists are?

However, what these profs don’t tell their students–usually b/c they don’t actually know, as many of my colleagues have proved–is that homosexuality was in fact put back into the DSM-IV as a “sexual disorder not otherwise specified” if the person feels significant distress over being gay. In other words, contrary to what most profs/psychologists believe, homosexuality is in fact back in the DSM–in a very similar form to how it was when Dr. Spitzer helped modify it in 1973, which we “forward thinking” psychologists believed was not enough of a stance against anti-homosexual sentiment. Plus ca change, plus c’est la meme chose…

Getting back to pedophilia, for some reason, the DSM-IV changed things up so that now this sickness was not considered a disorder if the person did not feel bad about it or did not suffer socially/occupationally. Someone realized this was a bad move and thus they introduced the DSM-IV-Text Revision sooner than they had planned to revise the next edition. Now, the authors try to focus on the “text revision” aspect, claiming they needed to add some new information about the disorders, but in reality they were trying to cover up the pedophilia “mistake.”

What the DSM-IV-TR did was make pedophilia a disorder once the person acted on their impulses, regardless of how they felt about it or whether it impaired their functioning; it was also still a disorder if the person suffered significant distress about their thoughts/fantasies. However, if they merely fantasized about kids but did not do anything about it and did not feel bad about these thoughts/fantasies and didn’t get in trouble for their tendencies, then they were “okay.”

If anyone is a psych student, go check out the DSM-IV and DSM-IV-TR and you’ll see that everything I’m saying is true. Then ask your professor(s) about all of this and see if they know. I know that all of my students say I’m their first prof to have shared this fact.

On a side note, Dr. Spitzer was unaware that the DSM-IV-TR had made the aforementioned change when he told me the whole story behind the removal of homosexuality from the DSM-II; I had to convince him to check it out after he ranted to me about what had happened after he helped facilitate major changes in the DSM re. the two criteria from above: significant distress and impairment in functioning. He said he regretted making those changes when he saw them applied to pedophilia as I described above. He also said that, if in the 70’s those who wanted to keep homosexuality in the DSM had suggested labeling it as a “sexual disorder” as opposed to a “mental disorder,” he would have gone with that. But no one in the anti-homosexual camp took such a stance and Dr. Spitzer was convinced that the gay psychologists and other gay men he was meeting were not mentally ill, hence he recommended the changes I’ve described.

On a final side note, Dr. Spitzer ended his long conversation with me by saying that he couldn’t stop his compulsion to stir up shite. Specifically, he had recently published an article in which he claimed that “conversion therapy” or “reparative therapy”–i.e., “curing” gays/lesbians" could work in some cases. He said he had gone from being the “darling” of the gay community to one of the most despised men on the planet. Earlier this year (March I believe), he “came out” and apologized for his article, admitting that it was based on very poor “science” and “research.”

I haven’t spoken with Dr. Spitzer for many years but that conversation had a huge impact on me and my teaching. And as mentioned, it was inspired by some really ignorant comments posted on this very site. Ah, the circle of life…

That kinda makes sense. That’s what Eckhart Tolle said too: pychopathy means ‘suffering mind’.

Oh my God Magsj – a blast from the past! The colored woman philosopher, nearly as dissident as me! Fear not, I’ve discovered the Enlightenment Movement.

Roger that.

Maybe because anthropologically and cross-culturally speaking attraction to kids has always been the norm and not the exception?
Cantor seems to think (i.e. said) that in pedos the nurturative and sexual parts of the brain appear cross-wired in brain scans: but it’s really only crossed from the perspective of the capitalopatriarchy with it’s family-units and market state-form; in the alloparenting polysexual pre-tribe that preceeded/returns in times of abundance, sexualization promoted nurturing (that’s why I claim pedophilia is what is distinctly human, and the cause of culture and civilization).

My theory is that all sexual orientations are task-forces of the patriarchy, so in the sense of causing harm (i.e. anguish), the neurotic lack-based structures of the capitalopatriarchy: homosexuality, heterosexuality, any kind of teleio- or cissexuality, etc is suffering. Sexualities are institutions which are assemblages of desiring-machines, which are like Sartrean roles (jobs): strategies for meeting universal instinctual human needs (acceptance, touch, sexual expression, etc). Obviously cafe waiter is a form of suffering, just look how much baristas complain –

Interesting; I didn’t know that the hurried “R” was specifically the result of a sex scandal. Speaking for myself personally, I view the anguish caused by pedophilia as really a bi-product of the capitalopatriarchy meme, obviously attraction to children isn’t harmful in the sunny tropical communal alloparenting polysexual societies of the Pacific islands etc. Anyway: baby steps. If I follow you, you’re saying DSM 5 is getting back to where DSM IV was at after the temporary reversal caused by the pedohysteria of the noughties?

idk; seems to me sexual orientations are operant conditioning on a massive emergent scale? So, what would be the big scandal about? To me it’s like: could someone change from being a cafe waiter to a librarian or a professional water-skier? These complainers proly think the caste system is eternal essence too?

I’m starting to thing the DSM is really unduly subject, or strives to reflect to ideas of political correctness and the domestic policy and law of the USA.

There was a time where homosexuality was classified in the DSM, now it’s not even mentioned.

I’m not making any moral calls here, but I’m doubting the science behind the DSM when it seems to so closely follow the trends of societal and legal trends.

Then again, I doubt all psychology, because it is basically a pseudoscience with no real basis in science. It is just arbitrary classification of observed behavior. Neuroscience and cognitive science sort of makes psychology look like Alchemy and makes the DSM-V look like a 3rd rate cult leader’s self-help book.

Coloured woman? :icon-rolleyes: anyway… it’s been a while yes, but what a while its been.

Why is it a mistake ?

Strong ignorance.

It’s a mistake, IMO, because many pedophiles do not feel they are doing anything wrong when subjecting very young children (as an example) to sexual acts that they are not mentally, psychologically or physically prepared for, and which often causes them severe harm later on. For anyone who wants to claim that the only time harm comes is when their parents or other adults make it a big deal, I have many patients who were sexually assaulted as children and in many cases never told anyone. Thus, there was no reaction to shape their own interpretation of the experience. Yet, they did suffer greatly afterward, whether it is due to the manner in which the perp abused them or their own sense that something was “wrong.”

In short, in today’s–at least the past few centuries–world, I have not seen any evidence that pedophilia is not a harmful condition that can cause great suffering to children. Of course, the question remains "at what age do we consider an act “pedophilic”? In Canada, until 3 years ago, kids could have sex with whomever they wanted at 14, as long as the person was not in a position of trust or authority. Many Americans thought this bred pedophilia. Now it’s 16, although 12 year olds can still have sex as long as the other person is no older than 14 (it was always that way for the past half century). Putting such ages aside and not going back many years to the time of ancient Greeks and other civilizations cultivating man/boy relationships, anyone who has had the misfortune of viewing child pornography (unfortunately, in my job I’ve had to deal with such horrors) can see the sheer terror in their eyes/faces as they are abused terribly. In other cases, I’ve seen kids who “grow up too quickly” and are not able to establish a healthy sense of identity b/c they learned from an inappropriately young age to associate sex acts with what they mistakenly believe is love, acceptance, validation etc.

In other words, I am 100% in favour of labeling pedophilia as a disorder that needs to be dealt with, although we are woefully inadequate in treating this “illness.” So for the DSM-IV to state that, as long as the person doesn’t feel bad about abusing children and this crime is not impairing their functioning, we are going to say they do not have a disorder, I would consider that a “mistake.”

However, I do believe that fantasies alone do not a disorder make–as long as the person does not act on fantasies that can cause harm to others. Therefore, if someone does have fantasies about younger people and they do not feel bad about it and they do not act on it in any way, aside from perhaps masturbating while fantasizing about young people, I believe they should not be considered to have a “disorder.” That is my personal opinion, not professional opinion, because the science behind this issue is still quite sketchy. But I’m content at this point with the DSM-IV-TR’s definition of pedophilia.

I have my doubts about the DSM as well and have spoken publicly about them. But I have solid reasons for these doubts. I also speak frequently about the problems of cognitive psychology and neuropsychology b/c I know the leaps of inference the researchers often make based on poorly conducted studies; or, they try to make inferences that are not warranted based on what they actually did in their research. So I hope you are properly skeptical about those fields as well.

Also, it is very easy for a layperson to make broadly dismissive statements about psychology without understanding that, despite its status as a “soft science” at best, those of us who have approached the field with the right mind-set can learn and understand a lot about the human condition and can help people and society if we use this knowledge properly.

Here’s just one example, which has to be vague due to confidentiality: I have assessed many people who get letters from their family doctors or psychiatrists, stating that they are “fine” (again, confidentiality precludes anything more specific). Yet, my own assessments often paint a very different picture. Why? Because I do proper testing and interviewing. Yes, there is a lot of literature questioning the validity of various tests but much of that literature is based on specious arguments or bad research or bad psychologists who do in fact use these tests improperly. I like to think that I do use my tests responsibly and effectively. In any event, in every case in which the client got someone to provide a different opinion than mine, the client’s subsequent actions were in line with what I predicted based on my testing/interviewing. I have other colleagues who could say the same thing because they, like me, understand human psychology and are able to use these controversial tests to discover things about people that one would not necessarily get through self-report data such as what is obtained via pen/paper testing or interviews. However, there are some experts who can crack even the toughest cases through only interviewing so I’m not saying this is not effective; however, the research does show that proper testing is superior. Is it a hard science? No. Is it open to inaccurate interpretation? Definitely and it happens far too often within my field.

However, those of us who understand what we’re doing can determine a lot about a person and apply this knowledge to specific contexts in order to answer important questions about the person. Or, we can work with patients/clients in order to help them function far better than they were. Yes, there is a lot of quackery out there, some of which is due to the public’s ignorance of, e.g., psychologists vs psychiatrists vs psychotherapists–an ignorance that psychologists are complicit in fostering. But again, those of us who can do, do. And we do it well, even if it’s not a hard science.

Be more specific because one can find many historical examples of sexualization of children leading to exploitation, abuse, or worse.

First, I don’t know for certain that the “TR” was due to the pedophilia mistake but it does seem that way from what I’ve gathered. I have not seen anything more compelling and the committee members’ silence on and avoidance of the topic seems to corroborate this inference.

Second, I don’t know if you truly believe what you’re saying or you’re just agreeing with a particular perspective–which is antithetical to the “capitalopatriarchy” you obviously oppose; btw, I can infer the meaning of the term but when words don’t even make it onto google, aside from 3 similar philosophy forums, I question their validity. But I am a very open-minded person–especially with respect to sexuality–and if you knew my background, you would know why that is. But I would like you to find some specific references (to save me time, which I don’t have) to show that having sexual relations with young children does them no harm. I know there have been such claims but I would like some hard proof. Also, here is where many philosophers stumble: Do you have children? Are you planning on having children? If so, would you honestly have no problem with an adult friend of yours, say, “lovingly” penetrating your two year-old child’s vagina or anus? If I am reading you wrongly, please be more clear in where you stand regarding this issue. There can be a huge difference between “nurturing” a child and sexually abusing them. Yet, pedophiles the world over will try to conflate the two. Hence, I agree with the DSM-IV-TR’s stance on pedophilia.

As for the DSM-5, I don’t know yet. Here is the DSM-IV-TR:
A. Over a period of at least 6 months, recurrent, intense sexually arousing fantasies, sexual urges, or behaviors involving sexual activity with a prepubescent child or children (generally age 13 years or younger).

B. The person has acted on these sexual urges, or the sexual urges or fantasies cause marked distress or interpersonal difficulty.

C. The person is at least age 16 years and at least 5 years older than the child or children in Criterion A.
Note: Do not include an individual in late adolescence involved in an ongoing sexual relationship with a 12- or 13- year-old.

Specify if:
Sexually Attracted to Males
Sexually Attracted to Females
Sexually Attracted to Both

Specify if:
Limited to Incest

Specify type:
Exclusive Type (attracted only to children)
Nonexclusive Type[/i]

Here is the DSM-5 proposal:
[i]A. Over a period of at least 6 months, an equal or greater sexual arousal from prepubescent or early pubescent children than from physically mature persons, as manifested by fantasies, urges, or behaviors.

B. The individual has acted on these sexual urges, or the sexual urges or fantasies cause marked distress or impairment in social, occupational, or other important areas of functioning.

C. The individual must be at least 18 years of age and at least 5 years older than the children in Criterion A.

Specify type:
Classic Type—Sexually Attracted to Prepubescent Children (Tanner Stage 1)
Hebephilic Type—Sexually Attracted to Early Pubescent Children (Tanner Stages 2-3)
Pedohebephilic Type—Sexually Attracted to Both

Specify type:
Sexually Attracted to Males
Sexually Attracted to Females
Sexually Attracted to Both

Specify if:
In a Controlled Environment
In Remission (No Distress, Impairment, or Recurring Behavior for Five Years and in an Uncontrolled Environment)[/i]

Finally, here are the rationale for the proposed changes (all of this can be found from the DSM-5 website)

[i]Two major medical organizations publish corporately authored diagnostic manuals that include definitions of pedophilia: The American Psychiatric Association, which publishes the DSM, and the World Health Organization, which publishes the ICD (International Statistical Classification of Diseases and Related Health Problems).

Their definitions are somewhat different. The DSM-IV-TR definition is embedded in its diagnostic Criterion A: “Over a period of at least 6 months, recurrent, intense sexually arousing fantasies, sexual urges, or behaviors involving sexual activity with a prepubescent child or children (generally age 13 years or younger)” (APA, 2000). The ICD-10 definition of pedophilia is “A sexual preference for children, boys or girls or both, usually of prepubertal or early pubertal age” (WHO, 1992).

The major difference between ICD and DSM definitions is the inclusion or exclusion of intense or preferential attraction to children in the early stages of puberty. The existence of individuals who are most attracted sexually to early pubescents has been recognized for a long time. This orientation was called hebephilia by Glueck (1955). It may be defined as the sexual preference for children in Tanner stages 2 and 3, who are generally ages 11 through 14. (There are five Tanner stages of physical development, with Tanner Stage 1 indicating prepuberty and Tanner Stage 5 indicating full maturation.)

The Paraphilias Subworkgroup has proposed to include a hebephilic subtype under its diagnostic criteria for Pedophilic Disorder for several reasons. The first reason is to harmonize the DSM criteria with international standards, as reflected in the ICD.

A second reason concerns the potential misuse of Paraphilic Disorder Not Elsewhere Classified (NEC). In the past, the diagnoses of Paraphilia NOS (hebephilia) and Paraphilia NOS (adolescent victims) have been common among some diagnosticians. Furthermore, those NOS diagnoses have been made without any guidelines regarding the physical maturity of the individual’s preferred erotic objects. The proposed diagnostic criteria would eliminate such potential misuse of Paraphilic Disorder NEC.

A third reason concerns the external anatomy of developing humans in Tanner stages 2 and 3. They are physically still quite immature, and most adult observers would classify them as children as opposed to youth. Consistent with this fact is the existence of a subtype (pedohebephiles) who are about equally attracted to prepubescent and early pubescent children.

A fourth reason concerns the goal of increasing the accuracy of diagnoses without increasing the frequency of diagnoses. It is likely that some or many clinicians have been diagnosing as pedophiles individuals who do not qualify as pedophiles under a literal interpretation of the DSM-IV-TR criteria. This is particularly likely given the decreasing age of pubertal onset (e.g., Biro et al., 2010). Under the proposed criteria, the same individuals would be diagnosed, but more transparently and more accurately.[/i]

Although no hard-core proof exists to explain the development of sexual orientation/preference/inclination, to chalk it up to operant conditioning discounts the many millions of people who knew from a very young age that their “orientation” was “different” from others, yet they had no experiences that could shape them in that way. Are there many LGBTetc who did have certain experiences that could have “shaped” them? Yes. But how about the many more people who have such experiences but remain “hetero”? And again, how about the many LGBTetc who had no such experiences but still are as they are? How many people have you worked with very intimately and know a lot about their histories and psychological functioning, and see them struggle with their sense of self because they may have been biologically programmed to be one way (not necessarily genetically) but society/their family/religion/etc prevented them from being who they’ve always truly been? I have worked with many hundreds of patients/clients and I would not attribute the experiences of those who’ve struggled as I mentioned above to mere operant conditioning.

That is not to say that operant conditioning cannot shape one’s sexual behaviours. I believe it can, as various cross-cultural studies have shown. But shaping one’s behaviour does not necessarily mean you are changing who they are underneath. On a related note, I have worked with several clients who were subjected to “conversion therapy” and I have seen the damage it has done. I have some important information with regard to this but as I’ve stated in another post, I cannot say much due to confidentiality. Suffice to say, many of those who were/are involved in this work and have “escaped” know that the best “conversion therapy” does is cause someone to suppress their natural desires. They still have these urges but fight against them and this struggle causes them a lot of suffering. Some of them end up being celibate b/c the “conversion” did not work and they are not sexually attracted to the opposite sex. Some do hook up with members of the opposite sex but fantasize about same-sex sex. Some pretend to be celibate or pretend to refrain from same-sex sex (while being with an opposite-sex partner) but do get their fill of same-sex sex on the side/in secret. Very rare is the person who truly eliminates the urge to have same-sex sex and who is truly satisfied in opposite-sex relationships. And of those very few cases, they were most likely bisexual as opposed to gay/lesbian. But I know this because of my work and my discussions with many people in these situations. And believe me when I say that those who are supposedly “cured” usually concern me because there is really something “off” about them. You might not necessarily see if just from talking to them–although in many cases it is obvious–but it becomes clear to those of us who spend every day working with the human condition.

Obviously you did not read my post. Homosexuality is in the DSM-IV-TR, in a modified form. Moreover, if you did just a little bit of research, you would see why it was put in the DSM in the first place. All of my students know the story b/c I give it to them full throttle, unlike my P.C. colleagues or textbooks that present only part of the story. Sadly, the story does not paint my field in a very nice light, although it really was mostly psychiatrists and psychoanalysts at first.

As for the DSM being highly subjective, I would agree with that, hence I speak out about it in the media. But I know what I’m talking about b/c I’ve done the research and have communicated with those involved in the process. I’m not just spouting off ill-informed opinions. Now, if you have in fact read some articles on the problems with the DSM–as long as they are written by people in the know or include a lot of information from such people–then feel free to voice your concerns. But when I see you combining such concerns with what seems like baseless anti-psychology/psychiatry diatribes, I question your awareness of the controversies. If I am wrong about your knowledge of such matters, I apologize; nothing in your posts suggests such insight, hence my response.

Note: ilp don’t allow links for discussion of this topic, here is my bibliographical inspirations; despite some neologisms, not really any new ideas here.

Reading list:

Marshal Rosenberg, Non-Violent Communication
Overview of ‘animal-training’ emotions.

Eckhart Tolle, Power of Now
Overview of egoic consciousness.

Eugene W. Holland, “Introduction to Schizoanalysis”
Relation of capitalism to family-unit in incest-taboo.

Carlos Allones Pérez, “Nucleus of Family and Industrial Capitalism”
Anthropological origins of family-unit and market in incest-taboo.

Freud, Totem and Taboo: resemblances between the mental lives of savages and neurotics
Patriarchy and incest-taboo as neuroticism.

“There’s a problem, not in the sex center, but in the network that all together is responsible for identifying what in the environment is a potentially sexual object. It’s almost like there’s a literal cross-wiring. Humans of course have many social instincts: they include the four-Fs, they include when you meet a person who’s an alpha male you either run away or obey them, if you’re a child there’s natural instincts for learning, if you’re a parent there’s natural instincts for parenting, when you meet sexually interesting people that’s a natural social sexual instinct. It’s as if, as if – this is a metaphor not a conclusion – there is a cross-wiring, and when the person perceives the child, the brain, instead of triggering the nurturant instincts is triggering the sexual insticts: it’s cross wired; at least that’s a very helpful way to look at it that explains the data. So it looks like in pedophiles this white-matter is under-developed so the correct set of stimuli is not triggering the correct… I’ll say correct… the correct instincts. That’s what I found.”

James Cantor, “Brain Research and Pedophilia: What it Means for Assessment, Treatment, and Policy” (my transcript; from 0:35:00)
Consider where Cantor said, “…the correct… I’ll say correct… the correct instincts.” What if, it isn’t the structure of the patriarchy that is correct, rather, the patriarchy is the one that is “cross-wired”.

Patriarchy is a form of egoic consciousness. That is, patriarchy is neurosis. Patriarchy is a conditioned system of rewards and punishments. It’s the result of the discovery of animal training culture around 10,000 BC applied to ourselves. Another way of saying egoic consciousness is “life alienating communication”, that’s the expression Marshal Rosenberg uses in his system of “Non-Violent Communication”. We can recognize egoic consciousness in ourselves when we identify with thoughts and then experience anger, anxiety, resentment, self-loathing, and so on. We can recognize it in others with a Voice Stress Analysis that detects activation of the Sympathetic Nervous System; we can also observe neurotic routines like Anxiety Disorders or Schizophrenia; we can identify triggered word choice: “but, always, continuously”; and we can also watch body language. Egoic consciousness is the system of Transactional Analysis Adult-Child games. Egoic consciousness is objective and observable. The opposite of egoic consciousness is Enlightenment, Depersonalization and Derealization, and how children, wild animals, and primitive humans live.

A long long time ago, before egoic consciousness and the patriarchy emerged, there was a different mode of living than the one we are familiar with today. The pre-tribe is a semi-mythical concept because all human societies on Earth today are patriarchies; egoic consciousness and the patriarchy didn’t really start at 10,000 BC. Freud realized by Totem and Taboo that incest-taboo was a neuroticism; but he didn’t study its origin point. Carlos Pérez suggests that incest-taboo began at 500,000 BC: his reasoning is basically that Bonobos have no incest-taboo, but we do, so… when and why did it emerge? This is important because egoic consciousness, patriarchy and capitalism are all one thing. Monetarism definitely started before out-of-Africa since every culture on Earth used “size money” (religious icons). What Perez figured out, is that incest-taboo and money have something to do with each other. The market system and the family-unit system are somehow related, that relation is their mediation though the tribal central hoard, which becomes the temple, which becomes the banks. “No money, no honey”. I guess we can trace the origins of lion-king patriarchy to Australopithecus (corroborated by max hominid sexual dimorphism at this time) when defenseless arboreal simians suddenly found themselves marooned on the Savannah and formed a brutal gang-land structure in order to survive. Just as the market system is not really a system of barter as is commonly believed, incest-taboo has little to do with gene deformity as is commonly believed. Pedophilia-taboo is to parent-child what adultery is to husband-wife: a monopoly on intimacy exchanges. Royal families tend to get chided with accusations of being incestuous because monarchism is exactly the lion-king mode of patriarchy that the incest-taboo & band-of-brothers system was meant to off-set. Incest is not as harmful as often imagined, it takes about 500 years of continuous close inbreeding just to get a slightly protruding chin (eg Hapsburgs). The notion that incest-taboo is the result of genetic deformity aversion is what Eric Berne called “Wooden Leg game”, that is, looking for material explanations for what is emotional social dynamics; sort of like how hierarchy was justified similarly by Darwinian genetic fitness.

That’s a big regression, but necessary to contextualize how sexual orientations are anti-produced from initial “polymorphous perversity”… While there never really was a time when humans lived before patriarchy, since the patriarchy is a neurosis, just like stable-vice in horses, it can never really be cured, but it can be relaxed. So horses can be put out to pasture, well fed, brushed and so on and they will stop exhibiting neuroticism; similarly, when a warm sunny millennium came, the patriarchy would relax and the Bonobo-eque form or society would reemerge. In patriarchy we see family-units, market system, and sexual-orientation with incest-taboo – in insulated tropical societies we see alloparenting, communalism, and polysexuality. The difference is lack, or more usually, perceived lack. As Foucault, or Eckhart Tolle tell us, perceived lack is the drive-belt of discipline and punish societies/egoic consciousness.

Cantor had remarked that pedophiles have the nurturing part of the brain and the sexual part of the brain “cross-wired”. In pre-tribalism, these are the same thing. I call it ‘Barbarian Pederasty’. Before the family-unit and school system, learning happened my imitation, not by discipline. ‘Barbarian Pederasty’ was the system of enculturation for millions of years, it wasn’t extinguished in Indo-European culture until 399 BC when Socrates was executed: at that point free education motivated by adult sexual attraction to juveniles was displaced by a market-based system of paid contracted pedagogues. In most mammals, the males are indifferent or hostile to the juveniles. What made humans human was male attraction to the juveniles. Pedophilia is actually the cause of humanity and civilization.

So… The reason why pedophilia becomes taboo is not because there is anything in-itself harmful about touch or intimacy between adults and children, that was going on for millions of years and still is in warm sunny places; why pedophilia is “wrong” is because of the way man, woman, and child and market economy, and family unit, and encuturation all fit together in contemporary patriarchy. Hope that makes some sense? I would add, some pedophiles might be called ‘cross-cross-wired’; that is, they are lack produced: these pedophiles are living in a patriarchy and cannot get any touch or intimacy from adult females, these males perceive themselves as lacking in their need for touch, intimacy, recognition, and so on, and turn to kids. These pedophiles can be distinguished from the polysexuals because they are motivated by egoic or neurotic lack, not by what Marshal Rosenberg called “our natural desire to enrich the lives of those around us”.

Lolita is a nasty fictional tale of patriarchal domination told from the perspective of the Man; Marguerite Duras’s The Lover is a beautiful true story told from the girl’s perspective.

“Many lay persons and professionals believe that child sexual abuse (CSA) causes intense harm, regardless of gender, pervasively in the general population. The authors examined this belief by reviewing 59 studies based on college samples. Meta-analyses revealed that students with CSA were, on average, slightly less well adjusted than controls. However, this poorer adjustment could not be attributed to CSA because family environment (FE) was consistently confounded with CSA, FE explained considerably more adjustment variance than CSA, and CSA-adjustment relations generally became nonsignificant when studies controlled for FE. Self-reported reactions to and effects from CSA indicated that negative effects were neither pervasive nor typically intense, and that men reacted much less negatively than women. The college data were completely consistent with data from national samples. Basic beliefs about CSA in the general population were not supported.”

Rind B, Tromovitch P, Bauserman R., A meta-analytic examination of assumed properties of child sexual abuse using college samples.
The recent study by Kilpatrick (1992) differs from other studies in that it includes no clinical or offender population and allows for respondents to give positive and neutral, as well as negative, responses to their childhood sexual experiences. The sample population was 501 Southern adult women who were asked to recall their childhood sexual experiences. Sixty-seven percent of the white respondents and 36 percent of the black respondents reported having sexual experiences as children. Kilpatrick found that the larger proportion of women (67%) remembered having participated voluntarily rather than involuntarily in sexual activity, and most reported having been active in initiating such activity, while a smaller proportion (33%) felt that they had in some way been pressured or forced. Thirty-eight percent of the women found their experiences to be pleasant, 37 percent neither pleasant nor unpleasant, and 25 percent found the experiences to be unpleasant. Sixty-eight percent reported having had overall positive responses to their sexual experiences…"

Floyd M. Martinson, The Sexual Life Of Children
“I had an experience with an adult man when I was hardly twelve years old but the circumstances were not such that I look back on them with horror. On the contrary, I have very fine memories of the first, though rather bizarre, acquaintance with sex, and what happened eight years ago has had no bad consequences. I have no trauma about it and have become neither oversexed nor frigid. All that happened was that I learned, at a very early age, how a man and girl can satisfy each other, and obtained practical sexual instruction by means of which I did not have to learn from a book what a naked man looks like, how he gets an erection, ejaculation, masturbation, and so on. In the circumstances that surrounded my case there was no question of rape. He was a darling, and as we say, “opportunity made the thief”[…] I look back on it now as an odd but fine first experience; in fact I liked it so much that, when I went home, I asked if I could come and “play Eva” (as he called it) again. […] It certainly has done me no harm.”

Frits Bernard’s, Paedophilia: The Radical Case
“When I was a child I experienced an ongoing incestuous relationship that seemed to me to be caring and beneficial in nature. There were love and healthy self-actualization in what I perceived to be a safe environment. Suddenly one day I discerned from playground talk at school that what I was doing might be “bad”. Fearing that I might, indeed, be a “bad” person, I went to my mother for reassurance. The ensuing traumatic incidents of that day inaugurated a 30-year period of psychological and emotional dysfunction that reduced family communication to mere utilitarian process and established severe limits on my subsequent developmental journey.”

Nelson, J. A. (1982). “The impact of incest: Factors in self-evaluation,” in L. L. Constantine & F. M. Martinson (Eds.), Children and Sex: New Findings, New Perspectives
“For the children of the Trobrianders there is no sexual repression and no sexual mystery. Their sexual life develops naturally, freely and without restraint through all periods of life, with complete satisfaction. … Trobriander society in this third decade of our century knows no sexual perversions, no functional mental illnes, no psychoneurosis, no sex murders. … Sadism, destructiveness and theft are equally absent in Trobriander culture. … And these are always cultures with a positive attitude towards sex.”

Malinowski, The Sexual Life of the Savages________

I guess Guy Ritchie called his 2005 cinematic investigation into egoic consciousness, Revolver, because as long as the trigger keeps getting squeezed, the cylinder keeps turning and turning. Recalling patriarchy is an organized system of egoic consciousness; recalling Tolle to the effect, ‘ego is the only addiction’; recalling Gabor Maté’s collection of MRI research showing monetary tasks and status symbols (i.e. capitalopatriarchy) ‘light-up’ the same parts of the brain as hard drugs use (In the Realm of Hungry Ghosts); this remark “Do you have children…” is not just a fallacy, but also only too reminiscent of the Narcotic Anonymous maxim that, “one addict can best understand another addict”.

There are two kinds of harm. One is pain, the other is anguish. Pain comes from tissue damage. Anguish comes from thinking. The example of penetrating a two year-old seems to me to be Straw Man Fallacy, because this would be the behavior of a sadist, not a pedophile. Pedophiles are interested in caressing, mutual masturbation, oral sex, or intercrural sex; not penetration of the anus or vagina – certainly not of a toddler. Masturbation or intercural sex do not cause pain; what is left of ‘harm’ then is anguish; the anguish of pedophilic sex is produced from the social structure as described above in “1”.

If you are involved in counseling work then you know the expressions “interpretation” and “your story”. I have described in “1” above my guess of how sexual orientations are anti-produced from an original polysexuality in the capitalopatriarchy. By analogy; after the enlightenment of Ramana Maharshi he mentions enjoying all foods: we all begin accepting of pretty much all tastes, then as time passes, emotional baggage accumulates and someone becomes a picky eater. The more neurotic the person or the society, the more complex their tastes become. Children, and also adults, are influenced by very subtle body language and tone of voice: few people have insight into the events and emotions behind their favorite foods and the foods they dislike.

"T1: "I do not like this dish" , then the next thought...
T2: "But I have to eat it"
T3: "I cannot bear it"
T4: "This is terrible, even the smell is horrible"
T5: "This cannot be consumed! I wonder how people ever eat this""

Tushnim Asanam, commentary on Astavakra Gita
I guess that amnesia would “prove” whether or not sexual orientation is genetic and “born that way” or conditioned. An account of a homosexual who forgot he was gay after developing amnesia is described in John & Helen Watkins, Ego states: theory and therapy, in the chapter, “Dissociation”.

That’s a nice little speech dfhsdhd, but I don’t see why youngsters need to be touched in their genital areas by anyone.

Needs work like addiction; no need is really real; a Buddha who rests beyond karma is indifferent to all needs: touch, food, acceptance, sexual expression, pride, etc. We might choose to respond to our needs as a gratuity: as a way of making the perfect Universe that needs nothing even better, we do this, if at all, to give to ourselves and others in a way that enriches life. Were someone experiencing a sense of ease, joy, fun, life-affirmingness and contribution to well being, then all is very well; whereas, were someone doing or being or having in a sense of anger, anxiety or jerkiness, clinging, grasping, seeking, or hoarding, or with vendiction, defensiveness or reactivity, then there is suffering and there is a problem.

In some Oriental cultures, because of the culture-specific values attached to the head, it is considered taboo to touch someone’s head outside special circumstances – especial a child’s head.

In some cultures, particularly Northern, because of the culture-specific values attached to the genitals, it is considered taboo to touch someone’s genitals outside special circumstances – especial a child’s genitals.

An analogy that sometimes comes to mind for me when I am wanting to understand how needs, action, and thinking enmesh is imagining an empty soda pop can dropped from a bridge: the path of least resistance is always taken, the spanners the can tings and dings off on it’s way down represent held beliefs and assumptions affecting the chosen strategy for meeting needs.

If no one rocks the boat, the slave ship can be expected to continue on it’s course indefinitely.

@ dfhsdhd
Your extensive response deserves more time than I can afford; I used to get embroiled in these kinds of discussions online and found it took up far too much time and was not worth it. So please don’t infer my lack of response to mean anything other than a recognition that, to discuss this matter with you would be futile b/c you have a certain set of beliefs that you either developed after reading people such as Tolle and the other authors listed, or you found that these authors share your already established belief system.

I have nothing against Tolle and, in fact, a number of my patients read him. I’m all for anything that can help people live a more self-actualized, healthy, productive, adaptive life that can also have positive benefits for other people. I am therefore happy that these patients have found inspiration in his writings. The same can be said for anyone who truly gets “The Big Book” and lives their life in accordance with it–rather than merely quoting from it without any appreciation for what it all really means…kind of like people who are proud that they can cite philosophers but have not really done anything in their own lives worthy of mention. So, I am not disagreeing with your perspective because people such as Tolle aren’t exactly what one would call a credible mental health professional; he’s more of a philosopher IMO and, as long as he connects his words to real actions–which he does much of the time–I have respect for some of what he states. Other stuff seems far too esoteric to be practical, hence it is fascinating but not exactly beneficial in a real-life sense.

Now, one thing that concerns me is when people find solace not in neologisms but in revisions of words that have already been defined and accepted. To take such a word and define it differently, one must be able to show that his/her new definition is superior to the existing one; merely modifying it to suit one’s own needs is not a credible endeavour. To wit:

There are two kinds of harm. One is pain, the other is anguish. Pain comes from tissue damage. Anguish comes from thinking. The example of penetrating a two year-old seems to me to be Straw Man Fallacy, because this would be the behavior of a sadist, not a pedophile. Pedophiles are interested in caressing, mutual masturbation, oral sex, or intercrural sex; not penetration of the anus or vagina – certainly not of a toddler. Masturbation or intercural sex do not cause pain; what is left of ‘harm’ then is anguish; the anguish of pedophilic sex is produced from the social structure as described above in “1”.
This involves “your” (likely derived from one of the cited authors–thank you for the list, btw) definition of “harm” and “pedophile.” How can “you” arbitrarily define a pedophile as you have? Whose definition is that? NAMBLA’s? I would argue “yes.” Only a pedophile–defined nearly universally (aside from pedophiles) as a sexual preference for children–would describe it as you have. That kind of a definition is, my friend, a rationalization–defined as a lame justification for one’s “unacceptable” thoughts, feelings, urges, motives, behaviours–for something that can cause significant harm to children. To claim that sexual intercourse with children is the act of a sadist and not a pedophile is pure double speak or manipulation of reality to suit one’s own unhealthy needs; in this case, it is unhealthy because it is causing serious harm to an innocent child.

One does not need to be a clinical psychologist to recognize an excessively rigid belief system that will not change because to do so would be to acknowledge that the person has some very serious issues that, in modern civilized society, are considered unhealthy, immoral, and mentally/sexually disordered. Nothing I nor anyone else says will change your thinking because to do so would be like changing your entire self-concept–which is too frightening of a proposition for you. Therefore, I will not engage further purely out of the realization that I would be wasting hours of my life trying to discuss something with someone who is literally incapable of seeing things any other way, lest he lose touch with his self-concept.

Along these lines, most of what you wrote is based on the opinions of certain people who appeal to you. Yes, psychology is also based on opinions; even “research” is usually simply a means of creating studies to try to support one’s opinions. So it is a matter of which opinion one chooses to hold, with the hope that the decision is based on at least some good research and/or observation of human functioning. To claim that pedophilic tendencies are at the root of civilization is a dubious leap of inference. It’s the same as Freud’s over-emphasis of sexual urges rather than “attachment” or social/nurturant needs/desires. But that brings us back to your highly subjective definition of pedophilia as a “good” thing, rather than recognizing it for the sickness it is when the urges are acted on. Yes, the “sickness” is an opinion but it also has a lot of good research, science, and clinical observation behind it.

Because of time, I will simply comment on a few simpler issue and then bid you adieu:

First, I engage in proper psychotherapy, employing a number of powerful techniques based on various orientations in which I was trained. This is very different from “counselling work.” It’s not a matter of mere semantics but education. Second, you or Ramana Maharshi are so wrong to claim we all begin accepting of pretty much all tastes. We are genetically programmed to prefer certain tastes and to avoid others because, as the theory goes, these preferences developed out of “natural selection”: certain tastes suggest the food is good for us while other tastes indicate potential harm. The same goes for smells. So if you/Ramana want to try to use such an analogy, at least be more accurate.

As for “interpretation,” “narratives” etc., yes I am well aware of these issues and lecture on them extensively. I also lecture on Freud and make reference to his concept of “polymorphous perverse.” But I also provide documents to show how much of Freud’s work in the area of sexuality was driven by his own neurotic needs and beliefs. A great source is Jeffrey Masson; although he may be one of the most arrogant men on the planet and took liberties with a number of his inferences–hence some of what he has written has been discredited–much of his work has not been adequately challenged or disproved. Don’t get me wrong: I am a quasi-Freudian (not neo-Freudian) as I have trained in several therapies based on his work, along with very different orientations/therapies as well. However, I also did my research to try to see where his claims may have been dubious and thus I am not a zealot and do not take much of what he said literally.

Again, an extensive dissertation on these issues is beyond my time, as my professional practice keeps me very busy. I have read what you wrote and, while some of it may be interesting and some of it may have merit, I am not going to waste time trying to discuss things with someone who has chosen to accept certain belief systems which are only that: belief systems–some of which may in fact be based on solid psychological, anthropological, historical, evolutionary work. But other aspects are more philosophical or theoretical opinions and perspectives that make sense to the authors and to their readers or disciples…which you could just as easily apply to my own stance I acknowledge.

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.