The Purple Pill Debate subreddit is a strange little corner of the internet, a place where intrepid Blue Pillers try to logic Red Pillers into giving up their repugnant ideology, and vice versa.
The main problem with this strategy is that Red Pillers don’t really understand logic as you or I do. They’ve got their own version, and it’s pretty … weird, as one recent post in r/PurplePillDebate makes abundantly clear.
The proposition being debated: “If you expect a man to date a rape victim, then you should be willing to date a pedophile.”
Wait, what? The Red Piller advancing this, er, argument tries to explain in more detail what exactly he means:
Rape victims often develop a variety of serious psychological issues, including depression, borderline personality disorder (aka borderline insanity disorder), self-harm, alcohol and/or drug addiction, and PTSD.
People who have these serious psychological issues are at a higher risk of joblessness, homelessness, and divorce. They tend to have unstable and chaotic relationships.
Now, of course it isn’t a rape victim’s fault that they were raped, but that still doesn’t mean that it is a good idea to date a rape victim.
So far, not so good. All of the sources the poster cites as evidence for these claims about rape survivors are behind paywalls, but a quick scan of the abstracts suggest that he didn’t read them very carefully. One of the papers he cites, actually looking at the effects of childhood sexual abuse rather than rape per se, reports that, contrary to the poster’s claims,
there is insufficient evidence to confirm a relation between a history of childhood sexual abuse and a postsexual abuse syndrome and multiple or borderline personality disorder.
That said, there’s no question that rape (or any kind of sexual abuse) can be extremely traumatic, with far-reaching and long-lasting consequences. These can certainly cause issues in relationships.
But every relationship has issues, and there is absolutely no evidence that rape survivors — or the survivors of any other serious trauma — are incapable of having healthy relationships.
At this point, our Red Pill poster goes completely off the rails:
Dating someone who has serious psychological issues is risky. To illustrate how risky it is, would you date a pedophile? Pedophilia isn’t a choice. However, pedophiles have unstable lives and wouldn’t make good romantic partners.
So, if you expect a man to be willing to date a rape victim because “it wasn’t her fault,” then you should be willing to date a pedophile because “it isn’t his fault.”
Wow. There are at least two gigantic problems here. First, of course, is the inherent offensiveness of suggesting there’s some sort of moral equivalency between pedophiles (potential if not necessarily actual predators) with rape survivors (people who have themselves been victimized by predators).
Second, there’s insurrectono’s if-then logic, which is utterly inappropriate when it comes to matters of the heart, where “should” shouldn’t go.
No, Red Pillers, no one is telling you that you are obligated to date rape survivors — or, for that matter, cancer patients, or Billy Joel fans, or indeed anyone in any particular category that human beings fall into.
Indeed, if your first thought upon hearing that someone us a rape survivor is to think “ick, she’s probably all messed up,” guess what?
No one really gives two shits whether or not you’re willing to date her. Because she doesn’t want to date you. Because you’re a petulant asshole with no empathy for other people. And that makes you pretty damn “risky” as a romantic partner.
H/T — r/TheBluePill
sbel: Yeah, I completely fucked that up. I thought the original author of this bullshit was using “pedophile” to refer to an active child molester, so I wound up conflating “people with an attraction” and “people who rape” instead of them.
@ jenora
Over fishing is perhaps a bigger problem than most people realise. I think it’s a real possibility that in a century there’ll be some fish that will only exist if we clone them.
I was involved in representing the Cornish fishing fleet in a “black fishing” case a few years back (that’s where you identify species that’s subject to quota as a different fish). As a result I ended up spending a lot of time looking at material from ICES (that’s the body that advises on fish quotas). The reports make surprising, and slightly worrying, reading.
TW for another anecdote
I was lamenting with the DEFRA lawyer that I’d never heard of half the fish involved in the case (seriously, what is a ‘Ling’ anyway?). He subsequently sent me a fish identification chart with the annotation “You might want to get your clients to look at this as well :-)”
@mrex
I really don’t get how it’s dangerous to say that pedophiles shouldn’t work around children because the difference between being a pedophile and other sexual orientations is that they are sexually attracted to people who CAN’T consent — I don’t see how see how saying that people who have the impulse to have sex with (molest) children, shouldn’t be around children is a problem or any different than saying an alcoholic shouldn’t drink
and this is just really wrong, because I think the idea that rapists are sadists or somehow inhuman monsters only hurts rape victims because it allows people to reject the rape victims accusations on the grounds that “rapists are pure evil and he’s not pure evil, so therefor he can’t be a rapist” and also leads to the phenomenon where rapists will readily admit to being raping only as long as the things that they did aren’t labeled as rape–I was told by my rapist that he wasn’t the type of guy who would rape someone
you also seem to be arguing that pedophiles never molest children and that’s not true (that’s not to say that all pedophiles molest children)
Also, for me at least, saying “consensual sex with children” has a certain eww factor with scare quotes or not because statutory rape is often dismissed as not as not as bad as other types of rape because it is assumed that the child somehow wanted it and I’m guessing that’s what’s history nerd was thinking about too
finally, pedophilia is NOT a sexual orientation, it doesn’t fit the definition (children are people of a certain age group and not a gender) and the DSM defines it as a disorder and I also don’t think that labeling pedophilia as a sexual orientation is helpful to non-offending pedophiles because the non-offending pedophiles I’ve heard of tend to want to be able to receive treatment for their disorder and the “pedophilia is really just another sexual orientation” thing has always striked me as a well meaning but misguided idea that gets abused really really easily
@Alan:
Oh, believe me, anybody in Eastern Canada knows how big a problem overfishing is. Fishing was one of the mainstays of the region, so when the cod stocks collapsed, so did the Newfoundland and Labrador economy.
As for the ‘black fishing’, well, that of course is also part of the problem. So were the Spanish ships that deliberately went out to trawl through any regions they had access to so they could grab anything they could. So were the French ships that made use of St. Pierre and Miquelon. So were the ships that would deliberately set up in international waters just outside of the Exclusive Economic Zone and trawl the migrating fish before they could get into anybody else’s local waters. It’s all been a ‘Tragedy of the Commons’ writ large where, as things collapsed, everybody scrambled to get everything they could before it was gone, and thus accelerated the collapse.
(And I’m not absolving Canada of this: after the Exclusive Economic Zone idea became de facto policy, Canada made use of the improved fishing it got by pushing out the foreign fleets to expand our own quotas before realizing just how dire things were. And then, of course, no politician wanted to tell people that they couldn’t make a living by fishing when they’d done so for generations, so nobody was willing to do anything about it until the whole thing fell apart completely.)
So much wrong here. Rape survivors are not broken people. A lot of the people you know, perfectly normal people are rape survivors and you’d never know it unless they told you.
And okay, you think rape victims aren’t as bad as pedophiles. Well, just how bad do you think they are, then?
Wtf?
Calling pedophilia a sexual orientation also doesn’t do much help to combat the harmful stereotype that gay men are likely to be child molesters. Sure, straight is as much of an orientation as gay is, but when people hear the phrase “sexual orientation” gay people come to mind.
Ever get the hunch these guys just don’t want to see anyone else happy, ever?
Their advice couldn’t be worse if they were trying to sabotage other men’s potential happiness.
@ lea
Although the ‘relationship advice’ theses chaps give is universally terrible, I don’t think they’re trying to sabotage other people’s happiness. I don’t think this is seriously meant as advice at all.
Since learning more about MRAs I’m of the firm opinion that their *sole* raison d’être is to harass, demean and terrify women.
That original article isn’t aimed at men at all. Their male fans will of course see it, but the only thing they get out of it is a vicarious thrill at seeing their heroes demean women. It’s women that they are targeting.
The sole purpose of the article is to abuse rape victims by saying “you are on a par with paedophiles” and then have a laugh at the hurt they hope to cause by that.
Alan,
That makes sense.
@ lea
Well, law of averages, I was bound to get something right one day 🙂
I think a lot of the MRA output is aimed at women. It’s part of their campaign of harassment generally. That’s why they post these things on public boards rather than, say, having a secret cabal where they just communicate with their own kind.
They want women to see this. They hope it will upset them.
It’s one of the reasons MGTOWs never actually “go” but instead constantly intrude in spaces women hang out.
Imagine that all women suddenly emigrated to Mars so men had the whole Earth to themselves.
Do you think all the MGTOWs and MRAs would rejoice that they had finally gained the paradise they sought; or do you think it’s more likely they’d shout “Come back! We haven’t got anyone we can threaten to rape now!”?
Just to add to the generally grim and glum discussion about fisheries …
http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2016/jan/19/overfishing-causing-global-catches-to-fall-three-times-faster-than-estimated
“finally, pedophilia is NOT a sexual orientation, it doesn’t fit the definition”
It isn’t if you consider the definition of “sexual orientation” as “what gender you are sexually attracted to”, but that definition also leaves off asexuality and sometimes even pansexuality. There’s another legitimate definition of sexual orientation that is “the primary group that you’re sexually stimulated by,(or not)”, and that would include not just pedophilia but also asexuality. Yes, in studies pedophiles are primarily stimulated by explicit stories of children (as measured by sexual response), and usually have a gender preference as well, just like normal adults. Pedophiles are often romantically oriented to children as well.
Basically, human sexuality is more complex than the “everyone wants it, and the only difference is whether you want it with men or women or both” definition that is usually used.
Pedophilia is listed as a paraphilia in the DSM because it’s distressing and harmful to the sufferer, and because there is no harmless, consensual expression of it. That doesn’t mean it can’t be a sexual orientation. Remember, homosexuality was (wrongly) listed as a paraphilia in DSM1, that didn’t stop it from being a “sexual orientation” then either. Two seperate things.
Kinks are thought to be learned. Mounting evidence is showing that pedophilia is innate and a certain percent of people are simply born with it.
“offending pedophiles I’ve heard of tend to want to be able to receive treatment for their disorder and the “pedophilia is really just another sexual orientation” thing has always striked me as a well meaning but misguided idea that gets abused really really easily”
Again being a “sexual orientation” does not mean it is not a mental disorder. It causes significant suffering. No-one here is suggesting that it’s OK to sleep with children. This isn’t NAMBLA.
There is little to no help available for pedophiles in the US outside of jail due to manditory reporting laws. Even if a child is not *actually* being harmed, manditory reporters (ie. All health professionals) still have to report the pedophile if he “could” hurt a child. I think the criminalization of a mental disorder puts much more of a damper on getting help than considering it a “sexual orientation” does.
“Also, for me at least, saying “consensual sex with children” has a certain eww factor with scare quotes or not”.
Uh, it should have a huge “ewwww” factor; it’s child rape . The scare quotes were to acknowledge the “ewwwwww” factor, not to make light of it.
Basically, pedophiles are set up to desire something that can’t exist; “consensual” sex with a child. Some go into denial of this (hey NAMBLA), some are just rapist assholes, and some are neither and can live lonely lives due to the cards nature handed them. The ones that have the best chance are attracted to adults as well, since they have a healthy outlet to explore their sexuality, rather than having to learn how to completely suppress it.
@ spark
“I don’t see how see how saying that people who have the impulse to have sex with (molest) children, shouldn’t be around children is a problem or any different than saying an alcoholic shouldn’t drink
1. Because it implies that pedophiles are basically rape machines that can’t help themselves but rape, which is an argument that is *always wrong*. I mean, the “I just can’t help myself because I have needs “, excuse being bullshit is feminism 101, and it doesn’t get any better just because we’re talking about child rape.
“But jailed child rapists almost always rape again”, I hear someone cry. Why yes, the operative word being rapist . Rapists almost always rape again. Rapists always look to avoid responsibly with a “I just can’t help it” excuse. It’s all bullshit. All of it. Appyling it as a blanket to a marginalized group of the mentally ill is not OK.
Judge based on behavior. Not on diagnosis.
2. Many, if not most, child rapists are not pedophiles . Which is why I’m more worried about my kids being around “normal” people that have a hidden history of sexual violence than being around a hidden pedophile. A hidden sexual assailant could rape my child despite not being sexually attracted, a hidden pedophile that was not a rapist would not.
3. I think it’s very understandable to want to ban *all* pedophiles from working with children. Truth is, I would be uncomfortable myself. Hey, I can still be biased, and suffer from rape myths.
“you also seem to be arguing that pedophiles never molest children and that’s not true (that’s not to say that all pedophiles molest children)”
LOL, where did I say that? I actually don’t think that there is a single group on the planet in which *someone* hasn’t molested children. So never ? Hahaha, yeah no.
What I did say is that we don’t know much about pedophilia, including how common it is outside of offenders, and consequently what percent of pedophiles offend. It could be 99%, or it could be 1%.
We can guess is that it’s high percent, but it’s at best an educated guess, as we don’t have many facts due to it being hidden from view. Since most guesses as to how many offend seem to be biased filled wild conjecture, so yeah, I may not take them very seriously.
Blame it on pedophilia being a “hidden” disease outside of jail.
“and this is just really wrong, because I think the idea that rapists are sadists or somehow inhuman monsters”
Uh, please tell me you’re not calling sadists “inhuman monsters?”
You woefully missed the point. Most rapists don’t sexually enjoy rape. Sadist do. Ergo, most rapists are not sadists.
Although, most sadists don’t rape, either. :/
@WWTH
“Sure, straight is as much of an orientation as gay is, but when people hear the phrase “sexual orientation” gay people come to mind.”.
Hay, straight privilege, waddup?
This isn’t aimed at you, WWTH. People be stupid.
Don’t do that. I agree that non-offending pedophiles shouldn’t be automatically loathed because that creates an environment where they don’t feel safe seeking treatment, making them more likely to give in and offend. But that can be said without making this kind of false equivalence. This comparison harms gay people because it plays right into homophobic stereotypes that have frequently been used as justifications to deny rights to gay people. The reason it was wrong to have homosexuality in the DSM is that being gay isn’t disordered. It doesn’t harm the person who is gay and it doesn’t harm the people around them (as long as consent is observed, of course). That’s the difference between a sexual orientation and a disorder.
I’ve actually done research and had my mind changes on this due to arguments with MRAs (?) because I’m concerned with bias against the mentally ill. It’s not just pedophiles, there was a case where a young man seeking help for sexual obsessions due to OCD got ratted out to the police as a “potential threat” by his therapist. It makes my ears bleed.
Anyway, here’s a good article I read a while back. It gets a trigger warning because the man that they interviewed for buying child porn is pretty gross.
“Many researchers taking a different view of pedophilia
Pedophilia once was thought to stem from psychological influences early in life. Now, many experts view it as a deep-rooted predisposition that does not change.
As a young boy, Paul Christiano loved the world of girls — the way they danced, how their spindly bodies tumbled in gymnastics.
In adolescence, as other boys ogled classmates, he was troubled to find himself fantasizing about 7- to 11-year-olds.
His desires remained stuck in time as he neared adulthood. Despite a stable home life in suburban Chicago, he was tortured by urges he knew could land him in prison.
“For having these feelings, I was destined to become a monster,” he said. “I was terrified.”
In 1999, Christiano was caught buying child pornography. Now 36, he said he has never molested a child, but after five years of state-ordered therapy, the attraction remains.
These people felt they could snuff out the desire, or shame me into denying it existed,” he said. “But it’s as intrinsic as the next person’s heterosexuality.”
In the laboratory, researchers are coming to the same conclusion.
Like many forms of sexual deviance, pedophilia once was thought to stem from psychological influences early in life. Now, many experts view it as a sexual orientation as immutable as heterosexuality or homosexuality. It is a deep-rooted predisposition — limited almost entirely to men — that becomes clear during puberty and does not change.
The best estimates are that between 1% and 5% of men are pedophiles, meaning that they have a dominant attraction to prepubescent children.
Not all pedophiles molest children. Nor are all child molesters pedophiles. Studies show that about half of all molesters are not sexually attracted to their victims. They often have personality disorders or violent streaks, and their victims are typically family members.
By contrast, pedophiles tend to think of children as romantic partners and look beyond immediate relatives. They include chronic abusers familiar from the headlines — Catholic priests, coaches and generations of Boy Scout leaders.
Other pedophiles are “good people who are struggling,” said Dr. Fred Berlin, a psychiatrist who heads the Johns Hopkins Sexual Behaviors Consultation Unit. “They’re tortured souls fighting like heck not to do this. We do virtually nothing in terms of reaching out to these folks. We drive it underground.”
Studying criminals
Some of the new understanding of pedophilia comes from studies done on convicted sex criminals at the Center for Mental Health and Addiction in Toronto, where researchers use a procedure known as phallometry to identify men whose peak attraction is to children.
A man sits alone in a room viewing a series of images and listening to descriptions of various sexual acts with adults and children, male and female, while wearing a device that monitors blood flow to his penis.
Like men attracted to adults, nearly all pedophiles respond most strongly to one gender or the other — females far more often than males.
In searching for causes of pedophilia, researchers have largely dismissed the popular belief that abuse in childhood plays an important role. Studies show that few victims grow up to be abusers, and only about a third of offenders say they were molested.
Scientists at the Toronto center have uncovered a series of associations that suggest pedophilia has biological roots.
Among the most compelling findings is that 30% of pedophiles are left-handed or ambidextrous, triple the general rate. Because hand dominance is established through some combination of genetics and the environment of the womb, scientists see that association as a powerful indicator that something is different about pedophiles at birth.
“The only explanation is a physiological one,” said James Cantor, a leader of the research.
Researchers have also determined that pedophiles are nearly an inch shorter on average than non-pedophiles and lag behind the average IQ by 10 points — discoveries that are consistent with developmental problems, whether before birth or in childhood.
“
Read the Rest
Pedophilia is absolutely not an orientation. It is strictly a paraphilla. It is not a valid sexuality, and it is delusional due to the inability of children to give consent. An “orientation,” both medically and colloquially, implies a valid sexuality that can be practiced healthily. In the same way , necrophilia is not an “orientation.” It is, frankly, from both a medical and social standpoint, absurd to claim as such.
The other more technical aspect of pedopilia that shows it is not just an unhealthy variation of sexuality, is that like most paraphilias, it has compulsive aspects to it. The desire to indulge in acts of sexual violence grows stronger when fantasies and Proto behaviors are indulged. This is not seen as a major pattern in sexual orientations (I.e, engaging in sexual activity does not make people become obsessive). This comes from the current knowledge base of therapists who specialize in paraphilias.
I’m very tired of seeing pedopilia touted as a sexual orientation. It is factually incorrect, and only undermines the severity and potential consequences of the disorder. I also believe that in the case of most ( if not all) child molesters, it is not a matter of “being unable to control themselves,” but either a willful or intrinsic blindness to empathy and reality.
@WWTH
” The reason it was wrong to have homosexuality in the DSM is that being gay isn’t disordered”
I couldn’t agree more.
My point was that it was still considered a “sexual orientation” even when it was (wrongly) considered disordered, , so the words are not exactly mutually exclusive.
I get that you don’t want to associate homosexuality with the word “disorder” through even the most tortured logic. I’m still a fan of pushing to change the cultural definition of “sexual orientation” anyway. This isn’t really about pedophilia, and whether or not it’s “disordered”, for me. I would like “sexual orientation” to include asexuality and all forms of primary sexual identity. 🙂
I screwed up a deleted the bottom of the first page if anyone’s wondering why the linked page makes no sense.
It’s not tortured. You used homosexuality being in the DSM in the past as a reason that pedophilia should be considered an orientation. Just please stop.
@WWTH
“It’s not tortured. You used homosexuality being in the DSM in the past as a reason that pedophilia should be considered an orientation. Just please stop.”
If that’s what you took, then fuck me, because that’s not what I meant. I would smack myself and put myself in the naughty corner for internalized homophobia if I meant that. My bad.
What I meant to say was that “being a sexual orientation” and “being a disorder” are two completely separate things. It’s possible to be both, or one or the other.
Clearer?
@mrex,
Personally, I generally avoid calling pedophilia a sexual orientation purely because I know that a lot of homophobes like to link homosexuality and pedophilia, and I hate to make it easier for them.
Not saying that you’re linking the two, but like WWTH said,
@TinyAnts
“An “orientation,” both medically and colloquially, implies a valid sexuality that can be practiced healthily. In the same way , necrophilia is not an “orientation.” It is, frankly, from both a medical and social standpoint, absurd to claim as such.
If an “orientation” implies anything it implies something that is inherent, not learned, and cannot be changed with treatment. All three appear to be true of pedophilia, which is why treatment has shifted from trying to cure the urges, to teaching pedophiles how to manage them.
You guys add all kinds of shit into the definition of sexual orientation. Show me where a medical definition insists that a sexual orientation must be healthy .
I’ll give you something from Harvard Health Publications
“Consensus now exists that pedophilia is a distinct sexual orientation, not something that develops in someone who is homosexual or heterosexual. Some people with pedophilic urges are also attracted to adults, and may act only on the latter urges. Because people with pedophilic urges tend to be attracted to children of a particular gender, they are sometimes described in the literature as heterosexual, homosexual, or bisexual pedophiles. Roughly 9% to 40% of pedophiles are homosexual in their orientation toward children — but that is not the same as saying they are homosexual. Homosexual adults are no more likely than heterosexuals to abuse children.
Things are far from a consensus, but this paragraph probably illustrates why, as bisexual, I’m probably less offended for pedophilia to be it’s own sexual orientation. Pedophilia gets its own box, “homosexual” or “bisexual” pedophiles are not “homosexual” or “bisexual” in an adult orientation. (And I think sometimes they’re not). And “normal” homosexuals/bisexuals are not a paraphilia away from being “homosexual” pedophiles. There isn’t a over representation of “homosexual” pedophiles if it’s simply a different thing.
I don’t know much about necrophilia, but is it thought to be psychologically based and not biological/innate? Actually, glancing through the Wiki page, (I know), it seems that actual sexual attraction to corpses is only rarely a motivation.
“The other more technical aspect of pedopilia that shows it is not just an unhealthy variation of sexuality, is that like most paraphilias, it has compulsive aspects to it. The desire to indulge in acts of sexual violence grows stronger when fantasies and Proto behaviors are indulged. This is not seen as a major pattern in sexual orientations (I.e, engaging in sexual activity does not make people become obsessive).
Interesting. Citation?
I have a suspicion that they see rape primarily as being an offense against themselves, the possibility they might be romantical involved with a rape victim, is a bigger concern to them than the experiences of the victim.
Another worry is that devaluing is pretty much a cornerstone of abuse, a suggestion of a loss of status or respect for the victim is a tool rapists have used to control their targets, which brings to mind the fairly overt objectification found in the term “damaged goods”
@mrex please just fucking stop. All this arguing just smacks of apologetics and whether you used scare quotes or not you used the term enthusiastic consent. Also can I have some sources on most child molesters aren’t peadohiles or vice versa. Because strangely enough these assholes don’t usually admit it when confronted.
I don’t comment a lot here so don’t usually get into disagreements but fuck this. This isn’t a conversation where you’ll come out looking good judging by your comments so far
@Kat
That is usually not meant in a straight up positive way, more in an ironical one.
@weirwoodtreehugger
That says nothing about how true or not the definition is, though. I mean, what you say is a concern, of course, but surely in psychology, like any science, the primary concern should be what the theories, test results etc. say?
@Ddog
If you think I’m saying that legitimizing the emotions that are products of a mental disorder legitimizes actually committing harmful behavior, then you are deliberately misreading me. I explicitly said that sex with children is *always* rape. Rape is bad and harmful, no?
Just so we’re completely clear; rape and pictures of rape are always and unequivocally bad. There is no legitimate rape, and there is no legitimate child porn. BUUUT, feelings are not actions. We can legitimize people having emotions without legitimizing acting upon them.
I’m curious as to whether you extend your faulty logic to other mental disorders as well. For example, perhaps 15% of postpartum women experience intrusive thoughts of committing harm to their newborn babies. I was one if them. I got help when I went to Family Services because I believed that loosing her was an acceptable alternative to the possibility of hurting her, or of myself. Thank god that I got help instead of being told that I was a bad, violent person that shouldn’t be around children for having certain feelings. Although I think that postpartum illness/psychosis is *very* different from pedophilia, I can certainly relate to people who would view me as dangerous for nothing more than my thoughts. And I can relate to the idea that legitimizing postpartum disorders doesn’t legitimize child abuse or murder. Thoughts =/= actions.
We don’t know much about pedophiles that don’t commit crimes, or aren’t sex addicts. Because any pedophile is automatically treated as a de facto rapist the second they seek treatment, it’s not something they usually volunteer to do.
Which, at the very least, does not impress me as a way to reduce the odds of a pedophile abusing a child.
“Also can I have some sources on most child molesters aren’t peadohiles or vice versa. Because strangely enough these assholes don’t usually admit it when confronted.”
Are you honestly asking or are you just playing gotcha? They don’t just ask them; they use tests to measure sexual arousal to pedophilic situations. Not surprisingly, child rapists that aren’t pedophiles don’t respond sexually to depictions of pedophilia.
The article I quoted gave a summary of this. The idea that rape is usually about power and not sexual gratification is just feminism 101. If you want to have an honest discussion, I’ll spend more time here, but it seems pretty clear you don’t.
@Octo
“That says nothing about how true or not the definition is, though. I mean, what you say is a concern, of course, but surely in psychology, like any science, the primary concern should be what the theories, test results etc. say? ”
I think much of the problem is that people don’t agree on a definition of “sexual orientation” to begin with. Maybe categories such as “age orientation”, “gender orientation” and etc. would be better?
@Ddog ” This isn’t a conversation where you’ll come out looking good judging by your comments so far.”
Yeah I got that. Considering that I think the societal conversation needs to move on from “pedophiles are all potential rapists and monsters” for everyone’s sake, I don’t care.
But I think I’ve made my points and I’m bowing out if anyone wants to move on.