BARBELITH underground
 

Subcultural engagement for the 21st Century...
Barbelith is a new kind of community (find out more)...
You can login or register.


Underground > Head Shop >

The pedophile debate (subtopic of little girl model post)

  
  

Page: 123(4)

 
 
The Natural Way
08:03 / 10.06.02
Yes, Lada, sure have seen it.

Fantastically nasty. My friend Vicky used to force her kid sister to watch it.
 
 
alas
19:59 / 10.06.02
"I don't think all "desire" is socially constructed - not 100%, anyway. Sexuality (which, I grant you,
is not the same thing as desire) appears to include a 'hardwired' (for want of a better term)
component. There's compelling - if confusing - evidence from research into transsexuality (and, to
some extent, homosexuality) that pre-natal hormonal factors play a large part in influencing one's
perceptions of gender and gender/sexual behaviour. It's not a huge logical step to suppose that
other, more esoteric 'disorders of sexual object' (and yes, I'm aware that transsexuality might
more reasonably be viewed as a 'disorder of subject') might combine environmental, societal and
'biological' elements in a similarly complex fashion."

We agree, Ganesh, I suspect more than we disagree: sexuality is clearly a complex matrix of forces, but I'm pretty convinced that it's all shot through with cultural construction. Probably this is just a matter of where one puts the emphasis, but what I'm harkening to goes to the very centrality of desire as definitive of sexuality, which is a fairly recent phenomenon (i.e., the fact that heterosexuality was invented AFTER the word "homosexual" came into existence, sometime in the latter half of the 19th c.) Both words indicating something quite different that what most of us here mean, today, when we use them, and both constructed within a discourse of non-normative, abherrent sexuality. Does that mean that I think no one "desired" before the late 19th c? That there weren't men who had sex with men or women who had sex with women or women who had sex with men, for that matter? no. no. and no.

What I do believe is, sure, there may be "biological" explanations for how desire happens, these explanations may even suggest that sexuality has prenatal roots, that the object of desire may be "hardwired" to some degree, but those studies can only be undertaken in a culture that has already defined sexuality according to cultural norms of the time, and the results of those studies thus are interpreted in that ever-evolving context.

The problem that I see is that many queer people want to hang on to biological explanations of desire, as if that will somehow solve problems. But it won't because it's still likely to be medicalized, seen as a disorder. I can't seek to cure a disease, but I can't change my history, and the way my history has deeply shaped me.

So I don't believe in the kind agency that is often (wrongly, simplisiticaly) attributed to the kinds of cultural constructivist claims that others have made (Judith Butler etc), but I do believe that sexuality is deeply, deeply culturally constructed, to the point where it is virtually meaningless to claim that any sexuality is "inherent." I believe heterosexuality is a deeply culturally constructed as any other form of sexuality--possibly even more so!--even as culturally constructed as, say, race, even perhaps as culturally constructed as religious beliefs.
 
 
alas
20:01 / 10.06.02
As usual, I hit "post reply" too quickly. The above should read: "I CAN seek to cure a disease {even a congenital one}, but I can't change my history."
 
 
Ganesh
20:08 / 10.06.02
You're talking societies; I'm talking individuals. I think we're basically agreeing. Sort of.
 
 
cusm
03:04 / 11.06.02
Absolute bull-twoddle, shit, crap, nonsense, wrong, wrong, wrong.

Thank you D, your stimulating argument has enlightened my errant perspective.

Interesting. Is your problem that as an evil act you want to punish the paedophile, yet if he has no control over the desire you'd feel guilty for punishing him for something he has no choice over?

You miss the point. I don't believe he has no choice over it. One can always choose to attempt to change themselves. They might not succeed, but in trying some progress will be made. Some may differ with this opinion, but I have more faith in the ability of the human psyche to rewire itself than most, I suppose.

And its not punishment. The idea here is to avoid punishment in favor of rehabilitation. Punishment accomplishes nothing but more misery. Vengence solves nothing. Positive reinforcement in a different direction however, at least has the possibility of showing results. And though I do find the idea of trying to "de-gay" someone abhorrent, I have to conceed that there are by necessity some things society deems unacceptable and universally "wrong". Pedophilia is one of them. You don't stick it in little boys. Period. That's bad. If you have an uncontrollable urge to do so, you are ill and need treatment should you wish to be a member of society. It is more productive and hopeful to view them as ill than evil, as this leads to some possible solution other than jail time for the pedophile.
 
 
Saveloy
06:55 / 11.06.02
cusm:

"Either way sexual attraction can be changed, just like any other element of the psyche. As evidence, I have my own experience, where I as an hetersexual decided it would be more fun to be bi [and] reprogrammed how I view gender... ...I have learned to be attracted to male sexuality as well as female. I was not born this way, I learned it. If I can do it, it is therefore possible..."

I think there is a crucial difference between what you did and what you're suggesting others do, and that is that you expanded your options. Do you think you could just as easily eliminate desire for, say, women - rewire yourself so that you never find them attractive?

The difficulty of something is an issue. You might be uniquely gifted in your ability to rewire, in which case it would be impractical and inefficient to insist that others perform to the same standard.

"If I can do it, it is therefore possible, and so I at least will take the opinion that a socially inexcusable condition such as pedophilia can and should be corrected. If it is not, it is due only to the weakness of the individual, be it a weakness of ethics or ability."

So we discover that individuals are too weak to achieve this particular goal - what do you do with them then?
 
 
Ganesh
18:17 / 11.06.02
Problem with the "treatment" angle being the fact that there exists no pharmacological, psychological or surgical remedy for long-term change of "uncontrollable" sexual behaviours...
 
 
Turk
18:49 / 11.06.02
Normally I'm much more polite than this but;

"You miss the point. I don't believe he has no choice over it. One can always choose to attempt to change themselves. They might not succeed, but in trying some progress will be made. Some may differ with this opinion, but I have more faith in the ability of the human psyche to rewire itself than most, I suppose."
Nope. What you have there is ignorance my friend. Why give an opinion when clearly you know bugger all about the problem? Is it some kind of intentional plan to cloud the issue?
Ah well, plenty of other posters have explained how you're wrong, so I hope you're learning.

"Problem with the "treatment" angle being the fact that there exists no pharmacological, psychological or surgical remedy for long-term change of "uncontrollable" sexual behaviours..."
Well there are drugs that partly suppress sexual desire, as part of a wider-ranging course of treatment (therapy, supervision, etc) it can begin to make the difference. One trial centre in Britain that offered the more inclusive treatment (it's closing due to a govermnent cock-up) had reoffending rates down from around 90% to 20%. For sure that's not perfect, but the sign is that improvements in behaviour are possible even if the awful desire can't be entirely removed.
 
 
cusm
19:57 / 11.06.02
I think there is a crucial difference between what you did and what you're suggesting others do, and that is that you expanded your options. Do you think you could just as easily eliminate desire for, say, women - rewire yourself so that you never find them attractive?

That is a good point, Saveloy. The subconscious doesn't process negatives, its much harder to tell someone to stop something than it is to get them to do something new. I don't think negative reinforcement will do a fat lot of good, but positive reinforcement for say, adults, may have better results. Neural programming fades when unused. You can't just erase it. So it may be that enough positive reinforcement for adult sexuality can tip the scale of preference in time to where the attraction for children becomes unimportant enough that it can be managed. But of course, only if the person wants to change. No, there's no solution for it at present, but I think attempts along these lines may be better than just punishment in the long run. Otherwise, all you can do is lock them up or kill them, which amounts to the same thing.
 
 
Ganesh
14:00 / 16.06.02
D, I would be extremely interested in hearing more about the British "trial centre" you mention, particularly with regard to the types of offenders with whom they achieved such spectacular results. Within the group labelled 'paedophiles' there exist several sub-groups, and I strongly suspect those who attended the clinic fell within the diagnostic category of 'secondary paedophilia' ie. individuals who'd offended infrequently if at all, were psychosexually flexible enough to sublimate their desires into adult relationships and were sufficiently motivated to persist with potentially unpleasant treatment options. I may be wrong, of course, but I'd also be interested to read any long-term follow-up data on this group...

And yes, there are drugs that suppress sexual drive generally. I'm not sure that they'd constitute actual "treatment" of the underlying problem, though. At best, they partially suppress the basic desires as opposed to changing them. Again, their use is dependent on the motivation of the individual concerned.
 
  

Page: 123(4)

 
  
Add Your Reply