I was arguing with someone here who can’t stop but define pedophiles as “anyone who has CSA”
Do you find this annoying? It’s like homophobes hearing about “homosexual rape” in the military and not realizing it reffers the type of sexual contact involved, not the sexual orientation of the perpetrator.
Don’t listen to @anon16261197 . They’re a pro-contact boylover whose word is not valid, nor do they represent the forum in any legitimate capacity. They’re a troll and they should not be on the forum.
No. You’d be hard pressed to learn that only half of all CSA (contact sexual offenses, such as molestation, rape, any kind of physical adult-child sexual conduct) is perpetrated by people who do not meet the diagnostic criteria for pedophilic disorder, or even have a persistent sexual interest in children.
This has been confirmed by multiple meta analyses that a sexual interest in minors is NOT a primary risk factor for child sex abuse (CSA).
Perhaps my post on an article about why child sex dolls are not a risk to children will better explain it since I included citations and a graph taken directly from the article.
As far as whether or not a sexual interest or desire should be conflated with the actuality of such acts?
That would be like arguing Grand Theft Auto is real-life mass murder, or is likely to turn you into one because you’re able to simulate violent acts.
If I start reading Foucault I’m sure I’ll be susceptible to confirmation bias. Though what I’ve read about in a quick search suggests to me he is more delineating the power dynamics within society and societal institutions rather than in individual, personal relationships.
It may be criticised, but my personal belief, like that of Larry’s, is that sexual desires are - at least in part - instinctively a need to feel dominant or dominated. (- “Sweet dreams are made of these.”)
Obviously being attracted to someone (or thing) also comes into play.
As it so happens, yesterday I decided to commit something I had been working on for some time to be viewed by a wider audience. (Well, potentially anyway.) So I “bit the bullet” and published my first piece to ‘Wordpress’.
Except, it turns out the editing of it is too difficult on a mobile phone and it all seemed far too complicated, so I pasted it in ‘Medium’ instead (which ripped out all the ‘Word’ formatting, but never mind). I added a final couple of paragraphs as a musing on this very point. However, the initial concept - “Can you be attractive without being sexually attractive?” - also seems not too dissimilar to @87blue’s original post:
Although I start off with the greatest of intentions (giving my interpretation of Diotima’s ‘Ladder of Love’ in an attempt to show an evolving hierarchy to desires) it is an introspective, and I am apt to go off on a tangent here and there. I would be appreciative of any feedback, but no pressure.
Assaulting someone is rarely about attractiveness. It is usually about dominance and power. Rapists are usually not that choosy, it’s more about accessibility. “Put a bag over her/his head” is more likely. A lot of child abuse is the same. It’s who the abuser can easily get and control. That’s why many believe pedophiles and hebephiles are not the greatest risk. They have specific desires that are difficult to access and they would prefer a mutual acquiescence. And even if they do have access, many don’t want to hurt the child and keep distant fearing being found out. The ones that misuse the trust of a child are heinous.