Mental Health Act

Under Her Majesty’s Mental Health Act, we can section individuals who are a threat to themselves or others.

I propose applying this to individuals with pedophilia.

Prostasia’s esteemed advisor noted that as many as 50% of pedophiles may have committed serious crimes, such as raping children. This number may be higher when considering those who haven’t been caught or haven’t confessed their crimes. Dr. Abel estimated a pedophile on average rapes 200 children.

We can use Dr. Abel’s Diana Screen and Dr. Cantor’s brain scans to identify pedophiles in the population and involuntarily section all of them. They will be relocated to a maximum security facilitiy within where persuant to the European Convention of Human Rights they have access to all needed amenities.

Any cartoons, dolls or other creature comforts. In exchange, they can provide labor for the camp and society to pay for the overhead. It is not unusual to detain people with other dangerous disorders like schizophrenia. This is really not a controversial idea.

1 Like

This was flagged as abusive, but I’m leaving it up so that (if anyone thinks it’s worthwhile spending the time) they can respond to it instead, pointing out the logical and legal flaws in this modest proposal.

2 Likes

Where do we begin?.. First of all, how reliable are those statistics? Being able to rape 200 children on average without anyone noticing would be extremely difficult, unless they are being extensively covered. If that were the case, you’d have to think outside the box, and first tackle whichever establishments and communities a pedophile would try to conduct themselves in. Brain scans couldn’t be as accurate as you would like them to be, seeing as there are people who happen to commit heinous crimes who have composed consciousnesses, and in contrast, there are many innocents who have contorted consciousnesses for several different reasons. All I’m saying is, this “solution”, without a specialized and authenticated guideline, is bound to implode into itself. I urge contemplation, consideration and constraint.

1 Like

As someone from the UK, we ha(d|ve) grooming gangs - which the police actively ignored - that did exactly that…

2 Likes

Though the perpetrators were not pedophiles, since the victims were mostly teenagers. Sectioning pedophiles wouldn’t have helped, and sectioning people from the ethnic communities who were profiled as likely offenders… well, you can see where this is going. Funny how fascism always leads to the same place.

1 Like

Heh, modest proposal? Last I checked (as someone who has a vested interest in knowing these numbers) generous estimates say that 5% percent of pedophiles have abused children. What you might be thinking of is people with pedophilic disorder, but the problem with that is one of the pre-requisites for a diagnosis of pedophilic disorder is to have acted on your attractions.
Second, thought crime is not a thing. We cannot ethically, feasibly, or politically swing it that it is a good idea to do brain scans on the entire population. Especially since people’s brains aren’t fully developed until 25. This means we would either have to start young and do frequent scans until the age of 25. Even then people would slip through the cracks.
Another thing to point out is that while yes, it is not unusual to detain schizophrenics, it is only done after that specific one has caused a disruption. You don’t go out of your way to find every potential schizophrenic in order to prevent them from having outbursts.
Then as far as the maximum security facility. You do realize that those places are a breeding ground for rape and sexual abuse for both guards and prisoners? Then there is the fact that as far as I am aware maximum security is only advisable for violent offenders, meaning a large portion of the population would simply be at a high risk of suicide or self harm, and the rest of the population would have a high risk of physically assaulting guards and inmates.
As for dolls, do you know how expensive they are (especially because research indicates that perhaps as high as 5 percent of the adult population has some kind of pedophilic interest)? I recently purchased a doll on the low end of good quality and she cost me almost $1000 (though to be fair a child sized one by that company would cost about half as much). Providing one of those for every pedophile would be ridiculously expensive and we would like need to build multiple factories just to pump out more dolls. For hygiene and safety reasons we couldn’t have multiple people to one doll.
Also, looking at this I can’t help but think of nazi internment camps where since jews were supposedly evil, inferior, manipulative, and harmful to society they were put to slavery for the state in internment camps where countless horrendous atrocities were committed against them. I know it isn’t the same, but as someone ( i think it was Mark Twain) said, “History never repeats, but sometimes it rhymes.”
And just as some food for thought on people with mental illness that would be considered severe, listen to the TED talk strange answers to the psychopath test, and for more information on pedophilia and law enforcement the TEDx talk let’s be mature about pedophilia
Strange answers to the psychopath test


Let’s be mature about pedophilia
2 Likes

50% for child pornography. Single digits for contact offenses. But this is based on clinical contexts like Virped.

B4UAct’s statistics put the number of individuals who commit crimes at all at 15%. But, this is still likely over-counting as many pedophiles who don’t commit crimes likely don’t even identify as pedophile. If they do, it is unlikely they will get involved in the sort of circles researchers are interested in.

It is impossible to have a disorder simply because you have done a specific action. This is not how a disorder works. A disorder is a state of mind, not an action. It is more likely it is a proxy for preferential / exclusive because it cannot be measured empirically by magic and trying to do so will lead to false positives. This has even proved by cases where people have blown the whistle on being forced to undergo “therapy” in America by the government against their will on grounds of a “disorder”. They’re particularly mean about bullying minor maps who have less ability to challenge the government against being “cured”. They’re only teenagers, these abominable fascist pieces o- Ahem.

If I embezzle money from several banks, do I suddenly have Embezzlement Syndrome? I am fairly sure this is not how this definition is used in most cases in any case. Laughs on them because the definition also covers POCD in some cases. And it is very likely rare interactions involving POCD which is implicated in cases like Federoffs.

The term for someone who commits crimes is “criminal” or “offender”. Criminal may be less stigmatized than offender at this point and contains less loaded language.

If only the police was the slightest bit competent, eh?

2 Likes

I never said it was the only requirement for a disorder. It’n not just because one acted on it, they are other prerequisites, but since I don’t have the DSM-V handy and an not a psychiatrist, I’m not qualified to make full statements on the disorder

White Collar Embezzler Disorder.

Billionaire Sex Dungeon Disorder.

Hiding Your Tax Returns As President Disorder.

Piss Off The Government Disorder.

The wording of the DSM changes every single year so it is going to be hard for me to provide you with very current wording. But, I have been keeping a loose eye on it.

Anyway, I told you why it is worded the way it is. They can’t reliably prove if someone is preferential or exclusive. Or if they’re just plain crazy or something. Or POCD. The wording is so vague you could say looking at lolicon makes you run afoul of it. It does make a distinction between a “sexual interest” and “disorder” but a “sexual interest” implies a transient or minor interest. Or passing interest, especially when coupled with the requirement it doesn’t have to be a “lifelong” state. There are many reasons someone could have a “transient” interest. The DSM even notes that many requirements for the “disorder” are to filter out individuals with “transient” interests.

It could even be construed to mean anything vaguely pedophilia related like being into 2D lolicon. It is the get out of jail card that just because someone does something which may look pedophillic, it doesn’t mean they’re a pedophile. But, it isn’t actually a helpful clause to pedophiles, as I stated a bit above. It wouldn’t make logical sense for your construction to stand either, this requires a tortured interpretation of map sexuality.

In the UK, it would likely be used to justify aversion therapy to get people to stop looking at lolicon (I know of people undergoing that treatment to rid of them of these troublesome sexual interests after being coerced by the government to do so or go to prison), if they can’t help doing that. In some other countries, you may be able to challenge it. Unless, you’re a minor as minors have far fewer constitutional protections than adults. There is little value in nitpicking over the wording of a section of the DSM in any case because APA is almost always wrong about any controversial issue.

I would advocate for the abolishment of the term in any case because it pathologizes sexuality and takes a fundamentally flawed approach to “treatment” and progressivism. The solution to sexual oppression is not more oppression. It is liberation to some degree. If anything, I would say repressing or restraining sexuality is the real problem and can only lead to harms to either yourself or others.

You don’t need to pathologize anything in any case to treat it if someone is willing and there is a legitimate issue. As the British Doctors would say, we’re doctors for individuals, not doctors for society. We think in the patient’s best interest. The DSM is particularly alarming, and ends up being dangerously vague, because it attempts to diagnose someone who is unwilling, and ask yourself why someone would really be unwilling.

You could say invocations of the Mental Health Act are already taking place, with or without someone’s will. Co-operate with the government and they may give you a long leash. Or they may decide to give you a short one. If you’re talking about the definition in the upcoming ICD-11, allow me to remind you it is a draft version and may not have had much input yet to finalize it. The current ICD-10 says this. ICD-11 is even vaguer than the DSM, despite being directly inspired by it.

Considering the wide range of countries and laws, the best choice would have been to explicitly mention contact offenses. But even that falls prey to the poorly formed logic that is pathologizing and blaming sexuality for someone’s actions, which they are ultimately accountable for. This premise is wholly indefensible.

The British are restricted from using the cruelest implements, even on “willing” individuals, unlike in more backwards faux progressive countries. But aversive therapy is still very abusive and unpleasant. It involves associating every you love with disgust and hatred. But, it can never truly take it away from you.

https://icd.who.int/browse11/l-m/en#/http%3A%2F%2Fid.who.int%2Ficd%2Fentity%2F1630268048
ICD-11 has a disorder for compulsive sexual behavior. No redundancies needed. It fits with my theme of “internalised stigma” even. It may need a slight tweak.

Bruh, not everything is out to attack everyone. Especially not psychiatrists. I have met far too many in my days, and none of them go out trying to patholgize people so they can cause stigma. Getting a diagnosis for anything outside of ADHD, Depression, or Anxiety (at least here in the US) is extremely difficult, because I have never met a psychiatrist who is going to diagnose a disorder unless they are absolutely 100% certain. I have gone through treatment for a sex offense. There are varying degrees of things. According to what I have read, the first requirement for a diagnosis of pedophilic disorder is “Recurrent, intense sexually arousing fantasies, urges, or behaviors involving a prepubescent child or children (usually ≤ 13 years) have been present for ≥ 6 months”. Recurrent implies it is something that keeps happening even if you want to stop it. Notice how it needs to be intense. I haven’t had a fantasy that would qualify as “intense” (outside of the BDSM sense) since I was maybe 13. The problem is the compulsion, this is for people who have made it clear they cannot control themself and is by no means a way of stigmatizing all pedophiles. Also, with what I have heard from my friends in the UK the british mental health system is an actual dumpster fire. I know someone who had to jump through multiple years of hoops in order to get his ADHD diagnosis, because it is apparently near impossible to get a diagnosis for it in the UK. Anyone who tried to construe it to lolicon would be a dunce, after all, it says fantasies about a child, a loli is not a child, it is a drawing.

1 Like

I know it is hard to accept how reality functions. But, this is really how it does. There is little point in twisting terms simply because it hurts feelings. If anything, people should go out and tell them their thoughts are nonsense and overblown.

A loli is clearly a cartoon / drawing of a child and most bystanders would agree. As would governments. As would many pedophiles, yes there are arguments between pedophiles and pure-loli people over whether lolicon is pedophilia and it is as much as a toxic mess as you can imagine it being.

Just about every pedophile. Don’t look at lolis for a few days? You get recurrent, intense sexually arousing fantasies. Not enough time? Try a week or more. If not, you have some serious biological problems which are likely ***ing you up in some way.

“Urges” is literally just “she’s hot” or “want to do things with her”, it is a simple impulse which is only referred to as “urge” out of stigma or self-stigma. This is something you learn on pretty much day ten of learning about pedophiles. It is only ever used as a stigmatizing term.

Recurrent means it isn’t just a random stray thought or a transient effect.

The medical disorder says nothing about compulsions. You’re the one reading something that isn’t there. There is a big difference between sexual desire and OCD. This definition has never been intended to refer to OCD for very clear reasons.

Try a private practice.

Behaviors is how we got many studies of “pedophiles” in prison who weren’t really pedophiles.

Your own thoughts seem quite nonsense and overblown to me as well

They are inline with reality. I am not even sure why you’re here pushing this nonsense about how everything is “fine”. If anything, I may even imagine you’re a shill for a psychiatry industry, although I’ll pass on this and assume you’re simply misguided.

Not all psychiatrists have uniform thoughts, for the sole reason that humans all have their own thoughts. Different psychologists have different schools of thinking as-well. I am sure someone somewhere will find some anecdote or case to try to ignore the clear text of the DSM and advance some conspiracy theory. This isn’t particularly useful. Or helpful.

You have read my rationale, if you can’t fathom it by now, there is certainly something alarmingly wrong here. To begin with, pathologizing a sexual orientation is fundamentally misguided. Assuming acts equals disorder is also the same logic that got the “most child molesters are not pedophiles” twist. If I see pedophile and disorder in the same word again, I might be tempted to slap you again. But won’t.

In the rare, imaginary, case of compulsive sexual behaviour, there are pre-existing disorders which get ignored because it isn’t as fun as stigmatizing a group further. If you need an internalised stigma disorder, you can add one, I am sure you could apply it to 1950s homosexuality too. If you need a disorder for POCD, you can add one.

Individuals in America being forced into “therapy” for no reason than saying the wrong thing or some other paranoia on the part of the government. Just take a look at Boychat. They skipped most criteria for diagnosing it.

I don’t know why you’re so stubborn about this. I am surprised you even defend the infamous DSM-4.

I have certainly seen high levels of gaslighting from therapists or psychiatrists on people that they were crazy when they they reported stated being subject to conversion therapy or other procedures. Autistic MAPs like TNF13 end up enabling them because they over-focus on stupid things or try to over-read some technical detail somewhere which is irrelevant. There is a common thread where autistic individuals focus on these sorts of things. But, others do not.

This is partially a factor in why some movements can go too far because they over-focus on some thing and can’t break away from it. Some pro-contact. Some anti-contact. Some stupid thing.

Since you may be one of those people, allow me to add that pathologizing a sexuality is not only harmful. But, it is also deeply offensive. And I am sure the psychiatry industry knows this but wants to gaslight people int a new “normal”.

It helps to reinforce the message to the public that individuals are inherently dangerous, the myth of “urges”, that “internalised stigma” is not a factor and it is rather a “disorder” which makes individuals do all the things they do or think all the things they do.

Pathologizing on grounds of sexuality increases stigma, self-stigma, increases psychopathology, increases alienation. But, why do individuals keep doing it? Politics. One of the top factors in recidivism was stigma from therapists treating them, as noted by Dr. Craig Harper. Stigma in therapists is built up by existing in a society with high stigma in general.

As in my Second Chances? thread, holding individuals responsible for their actions is important, they may be able to learn to avoid past mistakes and be counselled to not roll into a ball for the rest of their lives. But, pathologizing every mistake by saying it was a “disorder” isn’t very helpful and increases stigma.

My Thoughts on Stigma thread may also be useful to look into what I think of “internalised stigma” which helps form the basis of my thoughts.

I am a Pro-contact, Pro-law MAP. The law comes first. As someone who has issues with compulsive sexual behaviors, I would appreciate if you didn’t say it was non-existant. I have worked very hard in therap over the past 7 years, and it feels like you are the one out of touch with reality. It is not pathologizing a sexuality to say that the recurrent compulsive desire to violate consent is a problem. While I do believe in theory it may be possible for a minor to consent I know that would by no means be ethical with the way our current society raises children. Maybe in a few centuries people will be taught about healthy relationships and sexual behavior from a young age and encouraged to learn what is and is not okay with certain precautions in place, but it can never happen now. The disorder is about people who actively feel the desire to molest children not for everyday MAPs. And I was defending the DSM V, not the IV. I am not saying that the diagnosis is for everyone, I am saying it is for those few people you say don’t exist. Just because a disorder is uncommon, or not always diagnosed accurately does not mean we should get rid of it

Have you read my other threads? Lolicon Impact on Me (dated), They don’t really know, Second Chances?, Negative Biological Factors, Thoughts on Stigma. I have described a plethora of factors which may have an impact or initiate compulsive sexual behavior? Do you have some in mind which I have not covered?

You were a teenager, right? Being a teenager means you’re less adapted to your sex drive and the impacts of it. This seems to be an area of above average offenses.

I am a firm believer in free will. Regardless of what factors into your actions, it is always a choice. I am a firm believer in accountability. If I hadn’t learned that ethic of accountability, I would still be out there offending children. While I can cite my 8 years of being abused, my severe anxiety, my lack of experience with other people and thus lack of experience with social and sexual boundaries, as well as puberty and hormones as factors that contributed to my offending behavior, it was still my actions and my choices. Even though I didn’t know I was hurting people, I was hurting people. I had to learn how my actions affect others and how to stop myself from acting on my fantasies. If you want to gripe about the state of “treatment” for sex offenses I am right there with you. I am one of the rare few success cases, and far too many slip through the cracks. I’ve met a lot of sex offenders in my day, and since I was in juvy, most of them were other child molesters. Hell, I know one who got paroled a few years before me who I can directly quote as having said “As soon as I get off parole, I’m going right back to looking at child porn on the dark web”. You seem quite naive and misguided

This seems quite the bit more likely. Being abused is strongly correlated with higher levels of compulsive sexual activity (to burn off stress, traumatic stress?). It may be worth classifying as a disorder in it’s own right although I wouldn’t say it is purely a pedophilic disorder, a lot of people around the world suffer from compulsive sexual behaviour caused by it.

Possession is legal in some countries. The sky doesn’t fall. Although, it is a very bad idea generally speaking. This goes back to why I said, there is no value in vague terms which could mean anything, simply to be twisted and distorted in some country’s legal code.

Also, as a note, since I am an individual on disability for my mental health disorders, I understand that my disorders don’t exist to stigmatize me, they exist to help me get the support I need and make it easier for people to understand the things I struggle with. I have never been diagnosed with pedophilic disorder because I was 13 when I acted out, and I wouldn’t meet criteria for a diagnosis even if I were to offend today. The disorder doesn’t exist to say someone is bad because of their attractions, it is to make sure people with recurrent urges to offend can get the support necessary to not act on that attraction. Like all disorders it cannot just be an excuse to get out of actions, but it also can’t be used to signify an entire group of people, most of whom do not even have the disorder.

I feel you’ve proven more and more it isn’t a coherent disorder. 13, trans (inherently unstable hormones), abused. This is a bit of a stretch and hard to extrapolate because it is an exceptional case. You admitted too you wouldn’t have met the requirements.

You still have failed to define “act” or “offend”. You’re still tying this very tightly to a piece of paper, a piece of legislation. But, a “disorder” is a mental state, not a political opinion. A piece of legislation can be changed.

If ACLU one day said, possession laws in America are bad for privacy because they encourage unconstitutional searches and some other association says they cause more harm than good, bam. Change. Or it may never happen, that is probable too.

There is a big focus on “legislation” here and not a big focus on “contact offense”. I have also proved previously it doesn’t mean what you think it does as it is very vague and open to interpretation which is how some people (and a handful of psychiatrists trying to pushback on it slightly) invent very creative definitions on the basis of their wants but I digress.

1 Like