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.Ā 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. AllĀ 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.Ā One of theĀ 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, withĀ far-reaching and long-lasting consequences. These can certainly cause issues in relationships.
But every relationship has issues, and there is absolutelyĀ no evidence that rapeĀ survivors — or the survivors of any other serious trauma — are incapable of having healthy relationships.
At this point, our Red Pill posterĀ 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 theĀ inherent offensiveness of suggesting there’s some sort of moral equivalencyĀ between pedophiles (potential if not necessarily actual predators) with rapeĀ 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, orĀ 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 messedĀ 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 assholeĀ with no empathy for other people. And that makes you pretty damn “risky” as a romantic partner.
H/T — r/TheBluePill
@mrex
How can you test people who won’t consent to being tested? Like you literally aren’t making sense. And I’m not playing gotcha, I’m calling out someone who comes across as a troll who is making bizarre comparisons first between sexual orientations and a fetish/disorder in the DSM. Oh and now making comparisons with PPD.
And fuck you asking about other disorders. I happen to suffer from a number of them. I have intrusive thoughts as well. However I still don’t think pedophiles should be around kids. When I had compulsive thoughts about jumping in front of trains, I avoided rail tracks. That’s a self preservation thing for me. With pedophiles it’s a protecting kids thing.
You’re saying rape is about power is feminism 101 but seriously a lot of feminists are trying to combat this because often date rape for example is about sexual gratification.
So to answer your condescending bullshit questions, no I’m not playing gotcha I’m honestly asking why you equated peadophilia with genuine sexual orientations. Also asking why you think most child molesters aren’t attracted to children?
Because all I get from you is that you don’t seem to see any potential threat from people who are attracted to children. Which as a survivor is the most enraging thing I’ve come across in awhile because it’s all the poor fucking peadophiles. All the people I’ve known who where abused was by serial child molesters, who fetishised kids, so fuck off trying to insult me as someone just trying to catch you out for points on the Internet. It’s not a game of gotcha it’s a genuine fucking concern that people like you think they can equate a harmful paraphilia to a sexual orientation.
Redpiller:
Truer words have never been spoken.
Apparently this guy lives in a world completely devoid of mirrors, shiny spoons, or bodies of water.
So as a male, who is a rape victim, does that mean by this guy’s metric I’m comparable to a pedophile? Just because we both “have issues”? Fuck you, red pill asshole.
Also, Mrex. After reading the conversation it really seems like you’re trying to make the point that not everyone with pedophilia acts on it, which is true, but you made it in such a way as to seem like you’re trying to justify pedophilia as a legitimate sexual orientation, and it’s very much not.
This discussion is why I’ve always been loathe to the reducing of the defense of homosexuality to the fact that it’s an inborn characteristic of a person. The defense doesn’t end there, and it never should have; nor is the fact that it’s inborn the primary factor in why it’s okay. (In fact, I would argue that it doesn’t matter at all.)
Whether you call pedophilia a sexual orientation or not, the fact is that for most, it’s completely inborn; and that the common understanding of “orientation” is as a synonym for “inborn”. Speaking generally for the sake of simplicity, there’s no such thing as an ex-pedophile: someone who, through some form of therapy, was able to remove their attraction to children.
Homosexuality is okay because it doesn’t harm anyone. Even if it could be freely chosen, there would be nothing problematic about it.
The reason “I can’t change; even if I tried” is powerful is because of all of the unnecessary repression of homosexuality.
Most sexual orientations, homosexuality included, are not harmful. But an orientation also being a harmful paraphilia shouldn’t make it not an orientation, should it?
(Another thing that seems unhelpful: pointing out that homosexuality occurs in other animals. So do rape, murder, and a number of other troubling behaviors. Homosexuality being natural has nothing to do with it not being harmful.)
@Ddog:
Are you aware of scientific experiments that measure a person’s involuntary physical changes to sexual images and videos, etc.? It’s quite simple to compel a convicted criminal to participate in such an experiment.
mrex did state that “[PPD] … is *very* different from pedophilia”. It seemed to me that it was just an analogy, to make the point that feelings are not actions; and that the way we deal with pedophilia leads to more crimes against children.
Treating non-offending pedophiles as if they are all ticking time bombs who will one day rape children is one factor that isolates them and drives them to organizations like NAMBLA that do real harm.
Non-offenders are presumably non-offenders because they understand that having sex with children is rape. How do we keep them in the non-offender category? I don’t think the solution is easy, and I don’t think telling them that their disorder is not an orientation they were born with, but rather something they chose (and hence can unchoose if they aren’t disgusting monsters), is something that makes kids safer.
Child abusers are roughly evenly split between situational and preferential offenders, but preferential offenders have many more victims on average, so you are right that most children who are abused are abused by serial offenders who are primarily attracted to children.
If I thought that making a law requiring pedophiles to register themselves and undergo physical or chemical castration would work, I would be for it. But I’m sure it would be a disaster for children.
My understanding is that calling it an orientation, but a harmful orientation, and creating a stark dividing line between those who choose to act on their attractions, and those who choose not to, would help the most children.
My mother being a survivor herself, I am sensitive to what survivors think, so I am welcome to my opinion being changed.
Good summary littleknown. I like the cut of your jib.
Thank you littleknown, for your contribution, and for making much more sense than I did.
@Ddog;
Considering that the first thing you told me was to “stop”, I was honestly wondering if you were open for a discussion. Since you are…
I never saved citations. The article I linked before gave a statistic, but I promise I will look up citations for studies.
I’m very sorry for what happened to you. You didn’t deserve it. Your rapist(s) deserve to burn. But put aside your (righteous) anger for a second. Do you honestly think punishing non-offending pedophiles as rapists will;
1. Protect children or
2. Encourage pedophiles to seek help
Children are not trains. It’s impossible to live in society and avoid them. No, I’m not convinced that a person, who is distressed by their urges, does not wish to act on them, and views acting on them as “bad” and “harmful”, is an overwhelming threat.
However, I’m more than willing to change my mind.
I guess I just don’t see why it’s so important to call it an orientation. We can be compassionate towards pedophiles who don’t want to offend and create an environment where it’s possible for them to get help without calling it an orientation. I wouldn’t say Bill Cosbyās orientation is unconsciousphile, even though it seems to me that for him, his victim’s lack of consciousness is probably part of the attraction in addition to the usual power dynamics involved with rape. I’m sure there are people who are turned on my unconscious partners and only seek out people willing to role play unconsciousness.
I guess I don’t see why every attraction is an orientation or why it’s necessary to label pedophilia as such.
And I know nobody here is trying to excuse child sexual abuse, but abusers and apologists do frequently use the “it’s an orientation, therefore okay” excuse. So, there’s also that.
I wanted to date someone who was a victim of a pedophile, who has a ton of issues as a result of frequent rape and child abuse.
While it’s true that a relationship with her would’ve been too difficult for me, doesn’t mean that it’s impossible for anyone else. She’s actually polyamorous and has good romantic and quasiplatonic relationships with more than one person, so *shrug*. She’s a good friend, but there are times when I can’t support her because I don’t have the spoons to do so, that’s the only problem. I find what happened to her to be too upsetting, so she can’t tell me what’s bothering her sometimes.
Considering that some rape victims were victims of pedophiles adds a whole new layer of ick to these statements. >_>
Also, I don’t think this person knows that BPD and DID are a result of childhood abuse or prolonged torture in adulthood. Any rape victim can have PTSD and depression, but personality disorders can’t develop in just any rape victim.
The APA recently acknowledged that the terminology of “sexual orientation” in the case of pedophilia is a misapplication of the term. They clarify that it is a paraphilia.
The reason this distinction is important is that children are not a gender, or type of partner. Being a child is being in a state, like being dead, sober, drunk, comatose, etc. Being “born” with something isn’t enough to make it an orientation. There’s a good chance that serial rapists are born with the underlying psychopathy, but “nonconsenting person” is a state of being, and “rapist” is not an orientation.
The reason this distinction is significant is not only due to the social issues tree hugger brings up, but that it creates a messy classification system for disorders versus sexualities that can be practiced.
As for the request for a source, the compulsive aspect of pedophilia is both in the DSM and discussed here: http://neuroanthropology.net/2010/05/10/inside-the-mind-of-a-pedophile/
Intrusive thoughts, fantasies, impulses, repetitive thoughts, and the well documented “upping the ante” (thoughts turn into actions which strengthen the thoughts, requiring more action) pathology indicates it is a compulsive paraphilia.
Again, it’s critical to have clear terminology that draws a distinction between a disorder and a behavior that in of in itself is not unhealthy. This is the reason “transgender” is no longer in the DSM, and instead “gender dysphoria” is. This makes the specification that the disorder isn’t in transitioning, but mental distress as a result of feeling stuck assigned to the wrong gender. These seemingly small distinctions of terminology makes a big impact on the way we view treatment.
@TinyAntsGoingToEatMe
Thank you for the information; it really bugged me that people were discussing it as an orientation when it really is not.
(Also you’re name and icon are great; have I said that before? You don’t post here very often so IDK. I just like The Land Before Time and dada usernames.)
Seconding the thanks. I was at work and didn’t have time to do research and now that I’m home, I’m exhausted from my recent bouts of insomnia and I just don’t have the energy. I elect to watch Ghostbusters instead.
Yes I’ve posted before as “sylviaplant.” I changed my name due to the current situation I’m having with an invasion of very tiny ants.
You’re very welcome for the information!
Speaking of “risk” of sexual offending, here’s the first example I’ve found of a court imposing our new sexual risk order. You’ll be able to figure out what they are from the news report.
http://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2016/jan/23/court-man-must-tell-police-if-he-is-going-to-have-sex
@Paradoxy
It wasn’t about condoning pedophilia as a lifestyle. It was a dry, empirical, short-handed way of saying “an inborn, fixed, sexual preference, that is completely resistant to any therapeutic attempt to redirect it into any other form of sexual preference.” Believe it or not, the term “sexual orientation” gets frequently used like this by researchers.
@TinyAnts
Thank you for that explanation. It makes sense that sexual orientation is a preference for something relatively fixed, like gender. At least to the extent that gender is fixed and not fluid.
Could you source it, though? I can’t seem to come up with one.
As far as the APA… you’re not describing the fallout of the kerfuffle where the DSMV “accidentally” described pedophilia as a sexual orientation, are you?
”Ā Being ābornā with something isnāt enough to make it an orientation. Thereās a good chance that serial rapists are born with the underlying psychopathy, but ānonconsenting personā is a state of being, and ārapistā is not an orientation.”
Psychopathy? You mean Antisocial PD? Yeah, it’s probably inborn, but it’s not a sexual preference. It’s not even a criminal preference. Did you mean psychopathology, as in a mental disorder in general?
Rape is a criminal action, and a rapist is a person who chooses to engage in a criminal act. Rape is not a mental disorder, a rapist is not mentally ill.
FFS.
I don’t even see the metaphor. Are you honestly defining pedophile as “person who commits sex acts with children/views child porn” after that whole speech about using precise terminology based on the DSM V’s definitions? š
As to your link on the compulsive nature for pedophilia, thank you. I’ll start going through it later.
What a stupid parallel to draw – whilst rape victims and paedophiles may (based on his view) share a common trait of having psychological issues, that doesn’t mean that some random shared trait automatically aligns them for dating purposes. I would speculate that most people wouldn’t want to date a paedophile because of finding their sexual urges abhorrent (which in my view is a bit of a deal-breaker for a partner). The traits that make a paedophile undesirable as a partner are not the existence of broadly termed psychological issues – it’s a different, specific, unshared trait. Putting aside that he may personally choose to not date someone with psychological issues, it’s still irrelevant (in terms of general dateability) that a rape victim and a paedophile might have shared traits, as those traits are not the ones that make paedophiles unappealing partners to most people.
Might as well say that all people with eyeballs are undateable because paedophiles have eyeballs too. Aargh.
I’m not going to waste my time harvesting sources for you, mrex, if you can’t be bothered to read the link I’ve already provided before requesting more. You can google sexual orientation and see the definition yourself.
It would also help if you responded to what I wrote, not what you think I wrote. I never said rape was a mental illness, nor made the case that all pedophiles are rapists. Your straw man tactics and snideness are tiresome.
@TinyAntsGoingToEatMe
I think I have the same ants. š Any ideas?
@dhag
Diatomaceous earth and those little ant motels where they carry poison back to their colony. I usually do a thick diatomaceous earth ring around the opening they’re coming in from, then set up a bait inside it. Also it makes me feel like I’m practicing witchcraft.
I have no idea where they’re coming from though. So helpless. :/
@tinyants “Iām not going to waste my time harvesting sources for you, mrex, if you canāt be bothered to read the link Iāve already provided before requesting more.”
I had read it, which is why I knew it didn’t say anything about how sexual orientation can’t be a preference for a state. Actually it describes pedophilia as a “sexual orientation” at least twice- I’ll quote it!
“The sexual urges associated with pedophilia may never permanently disappear, and a personās sexual preference and orientation can be difficult to completely re-orient. At present, treatment primarily focuses on preventing further offenses rather than changing sexual orientation.”-tiny ants’s link.
I’m not too surprised that the link described it as “sexual orientation”, since the link is a pretty shitty regurgitation of scientific research, and it’s not uncommon to describe pedophilia as a “sexual orientation” in research. Researchers generally aren’t too concerned with legal and social definitions.
Which doesn’t mean that your earlier definition of “sexual orientation” is wrong, it just means you haven’t given a source yet.
“You can google sexual orientation and see the definition yourself.
If you can’t tell, I Googled it multiple ways and couldn’t source what you said. It’s normal to ask for sources when you’re trying to understand what someone is saying. Maybe I missed something, maybe I didn’t use the right terms, etc.
So, source please.
When I said I was going to go through the link later, Imeant that I’m going to give it a careful reading, read up it’s sources, and whatnot later. Which I’ll repeat. Thank you for the link- I’ll go through it later, after I’m done with my own sourcing for Ddog.
“It would also help if you responded to what I wrote, not what you think I wrote. I never said rape was a mental illness, nor made the case that all pedophiles are rapists.”
If I misread you then fair enough. But, if that was not was you meant, then what did you mean. At best, it was confusing.
When we’re talking about ants, isn’t ‘very tiny’ a bit redundant?
Surely you only need a qualifier if you were talking about those 1950s sci if movie giant ants?
Oh, and however you get rid of them, please don’t hurt them! š
“I have no idea where theyāre coming from though. So helpless. :/”
Put out a plate of soda and another plate of peanut butter. Leave it there and grit your teeth as a big swarm of ants develops. Let it get to epic proportions. Then follow all the worker ants as they follow their scent trails home.
It’s hard to seal up a house against ants. I hate to use poison, but got rid of my problem by spraying the outside perimeter of my house with a pesticide. The poison repels the ants, and I made sure to mop counters and floors to disrupt the scent trails of any ants that did come in and found food and water.
This doesn’t work with ants that have a nest inside of your house. I’ve had limited success with ant cups. Try different brands/types because some species of ants are more attracted to protein, and some are more attracted to sugar.
@Alan “Oh, and however you get rid of them, please donāt hurt them!Ā “
I’m a live and let live kind of girl with most other kinds of insects but when you rent you usually have to keep ants away. :/
I live in an apartment.
I’m not completely swarmed but I see 1-3 ants/day and sadly I can’t keep them alive. I think I’ll have to call a professional about this eventually.
It’s normal to only see a couple. Ants live in communities, and you’re seeing a couple of workers scouting for food for the colony. Once the find it, they’ll go home to get their friends, who will bring back food and get their friends, and so on. A queen ant and lay many, many eggs for sterile worker ants a day. Hundreds, I believe. She has to. Those worker ants you see only live for a couple of days.
Ant biology is pretty fraking fascinating actually. I remember learning about the genetics of the worker ants/gender and stuff in college and it being even cooler.
If you’re ib an apartment, I believe the stuff I used (OrthoMax, maybe) could be sprayed around the inside perimeter of the house as well. I just didn’t want to do so as I have kids. Just a thought.
One thought; have you tried cleaning behind your refrigerator and stove yet. I forgot to, and man the crap that was behind there when I finally thought of it.
Course the gas stove I have in now is hard plumbed in. DH claims it can’t be moved without calling in a plumber. I’m thinking maybe one of the flexible tubes used to attach to a household vacuum and clean out dryer vents may be my saving grace here.