The following comment is very possibly presumptuous to the point of being amateur psychoanalysis. If so, I apologize for any offense. I will say up front that my intention in writing it is primarily to reduce the likelihood of you abusing any children; and only secondarily to help you feel any better.
It seems from your writing that you treat “being a pedophile” as part of your identity. You use identity-politics vocabulary such as “discrimination”, and comparison to being liberal-identified in a conservative-identified household, and to gay sexual orientation which is also a well-known identity.
It is my hypothesis that this identification is a bad idea from the standpoint of preventing sexual abuse of children.
I was trying to present a different view: rather than thinking of yourself as “a pedophile”, you might think of yourself as “someone who sometimes has thoughts about sexual acts with young children.”
Or, to be a wee bit judgmental, “someone who is afflicted with intrusive thoughts about sexual acts with young children.”
Your post’s title could be translated out of identity-speak as, “A large proportion of people who have thoughts about sexual acts with young children do not act on those thoughts.” Which seems obviously true — and also sounds a heck of a lot better for the kids’ well-being than anything about “celibate pedophiles”.
It also means that people who notice that they have intrusive thoughts of this nature should not draw the conclusion, “Aha! These thoughts mean that I must adopt a ‘pedophile’ identity!” — just as a person who has intrusive thoughts about slitting irritating people’s throats shouldn’t infer “Aha! These thoughts mean I must adopt a ‘psychopath’ identity!”, and a person who has intrusive thoughts about jumping off bridges (but is not depressed and does not make any suicide attempts) shouldn’t infer that they are “a suicidal person”.
I’m not just saying, “Have you tried not being a pedophile?” Rather, I’m saying, “There are lots of ways that you could model yourself. Given that you actively don’t want to hurt children, it seems that the ‘intrusive thoughts’ model (or just the ‘thoughts’ model) may well be more effective than the ‘identity’ model, as a matter of instrumental rationality.”
It is surely true that in most company, you can’t admit such thoughts without getting a lot of nasty reactions. That is also true for a lot of other sorts of thoughts. Heck, about half of section 8 of the ol’ 1000-question purity test is off limits for almost any conversation, even among friends. That’s independent of whether it makes sense to think of thoughts you don’t intend to act on as part of your identity!
I will say up front that my intention in writing it is primarily to reduce the likelihood of you abusing any children; and only secondarily to help you feel any better.
No offense taken. My priorities are the same as yours. I’ve got the non-offending bit covered completely, but I’ll here take the viewpoint of someone who doesn’t, because it’s interesting. The idea that thinking about something makes you more likely to do it is addressed (as an indirect consequence) in an “open thread” comment I made titled “Assertion: Child porn availability does not increase child sex abuse”. Some thoughts are pleasant. If a person cannot achieve romantic or sexual satisfaction in the real world, spinning some fantasies about it may be about the best one can do. There is no evidence it makes offending against children more likely; it might make it less likely.
It also means that people who notice that they have intrusive thoughts of this nature should not draw the conclusion, “Aha! These thoughts mean that I must adopt a ‘pedophile’ identity!”
When young teens are worried they might be pedophiles, among my initial advice is that it might go away, and I always advise people to think about their attraction to appropriate-age partners and think about that most. I do not engage in recruiting.
Pedophilia is different from homosexuality in one very important way: it is not something that can be followed through ethically to a consummation in the real world. In that sense, homosexuality is just fine and pedophilia is not good. However, they are both sexual orientations. It’s right in the new DSM5: If individuals “report an absence of feelings of guilt, shame, or anxiety about these impulses and are not functionally limited by their paraphilic impulses (according to self-report, objective assessment, or both), and their self-reported and legally recorded histories indicate that they have never acted on their impulses, then these individuals have a pedophilic sexual orientation but not pedophilic disorder.” It’s controversial, but sufficiently mainstream in psychiatry that it made it into the official handbook.
Now, few people (other than heavy-duty social conservatives) would suggest that gay people just stop having those intrusive thoughts. The class of people one is attracted to sexually is just too important to be relegated to “intrusive thoughts”.
Pedophilia is different from homosexuality in one very important way: it is not something that can be followed through ethically to a consummation in the real world.
So the difference is a century or two of cultural drift?
Of course the values of my current culture (slightly distorted in the direction of the preferences of those I most desire affiliation with) is the ideal culture. I merely notice that the moral acceptability of each of those practices has varied drastically over time, including most recently a variation in acceptance of homosexuality.
The following comment is very possibly presumptuous to the point of being amateur psychoanalysis. If so, I apologize for any offense. I will say up front that my intention in writing it is primarily to reduce the likelihood of you abusing any children; and only secondarily to help you feel any better.
It seems from your writing that you treat “being a pedophile” as part of your identity. You use identity-politics vocabulary such as “discrimination”, and comparison to being liberal-identified in a conservative-identified household, and to gay sexual orientation which is also a well-known identity.
It is my hypothesis that this identification is a bad idea from the standpoint of preventing sexual abuse of children.
I was trying to present a different view: rather than thinking of yourself as “a pedophile”, you might think of yourself as “someone who sometimes has thoughts about sexual acts with young children.”
Or, to be a wee bit judgmental, “someone who is afflicted with intrusive thoughts about sexual acts with young children.”
Your post’s title could be translated out of identity-speak as, “A large proportion of people who have thoughts about sexual acts with young children do not act on those thoughts.” Which seems obviously true — and also sounds a heck of a lot better for the kids’ well-being than anything about “celibate pedophiles”.
It also means that people who notice that they have intrusive thoughts of this nature should not draw the conclusion, “Aha! These thoughts mean that I must adopt a ‘pedophile’ identity!” — just as a person who has intrusive thoughts about slitting irritating people’s throats shouldn’t infer “Aha! These thoughts mean I must adopt a ‘psychopath’ identity!”, and a person who has intrusive thoughts about jumping off bridges (but is not depressed and does not make any suicide attempts) shouldn’t infer that they are “a suicidal person”.
I’m not just saying, “Have you tried not being a pedophile?” Rather, I’m saying, “There are lots of ways that you could model yourself. Given that you actively don’t want to hurt children, it seems that the ‘intrusive thoughts’ model (or just the ‘thoughts’ model) may well be more effective than the ‘identity’ model, as a matter of instrumental rationality.”
It is surely true that in most company, you can’t admit such thoughts without getting a lot of nasty reactions. That is also true for a lot of other sorts of thoughts. Heck, about half of section 8 of the ol’ 1000-question purity test is off limits for almost any conversation, even among friends. That’s independent of whether it makes sense to think of thoughts you don’t intend to act on as part of your identity!
No offense taken. My priorities are the same as yours. I’ve got the non-offending bit covered completely, but I’ll here take the viewpoint of someone who doesn’t, because it’s interesting. The idea that thinking about something makes you more likely to do it is addressed (as an indirect consequence) in an “open thread” comment I made titled “Assertion: Child porn availability does not increase child sex abuse”. Some thoughts are pleasant. If a person cannot achieve romantic or sexual satisfaction in the real world, spinning some fantasies about it may be about the best one can do. There is no evidence it makes offending against children more likely; it might make it less likely.
When young teens are worried they might be pedophiles, among my initial advice is that it might go away, and I always advise people to think about their attraction to appropriate-age partners and think about that most. I do not engage in recruiting.
Pedophilia is different from homosexuality in one very important way: it is not something that can be followed through ethically to a consummation in the real world. In that sense, homosexuality is just fine and pedophilia is not good. However, they are both sexual orientations. It’s right in the new DSM5: If individuals “report an absence of feelings of guilt, shame, or anxiety about these impulses and are not functionally limited by their paraphilic impulses (according to self-report, objective assessment, or both), and their self-reported and legally recorded histories indicate that they have never acted on their impulses, then these individuals have a pedophilic sexual orientation but not pedophilic disorder.” It’s controversial, but sufficiently mainstream in psychiatry that it made it into the official handbook.
Now, few people (other than heavy-duty social conservatives) would suggest that gay people just stop having those intrusive thoughts. The class of people one is attracted to sexually is just too important to be relegated to “intrusive thoughts”.
So the difference is a century or two of cultural drift?
I’m reluctant to say what might possibly happen in the future, especially a century or two from now.
But I do not see a path to its happening, and I do not want it to happen.
Of course the values of my current culture (slightly distorted in the direction of the preferences of those I most desire affiliation with) is the ideal culture. I merely notice that the moral acceptability of each of those practices has varied drastically over time, including most recently a variation in acceptance of homosexuality.
PC poo-pooing of this phrase aside, the quoted phrase is actually a good summary of your point and good advise.
(Worth noting since it has appeared in consecutive comments: The word that goes here is ‘advice’. ‘Advise’ is what you do by giving ‘advice’.)
I don’t agree; it’s on the wrong meta-level.
That’s a relief. If it was professional psychoanalysis I’d be more concerned.