my take, plus some comments
Submitted by d on November 01 1999 at 01:17:26
In reply to Paradigms Submitted by Mark on October 31 1999 at 21:55:56
|
First, I've been talking to some gay and lesbian people lately, and how pedos are treated seems to reflect how gays were treated a generation ago. Hmm, anyone have access to the 1969 archives of Christian GayLes Forum? (joke). >(1) Tendency toward sin According to this view, BLers have a particularly insidious weakness toward sin: perverted sexual feelings toward boys and a desire or tendency to molest them. Bogus arguement: The red and blue parts don't necessarily go hand in hand. Does and unmarried heterosexual man have "sexual feelings towards women" and "a desire or tendency to have sex with them"? Well, all have the first and only some have the second. And the tendency to actually have sex with them changes with the culture and family the man was raised in. In some parts of the US, heterosexual sex by unmarried partners is relatively common, in other areas it's relatively uncommon. >(2) Demon possession This is possible for anyone sinning, but it does not necessarily explain a majority of any type of sin (except maybe devil-worship). >(3) Mental illness This is a useful paradigm only to the extent that 1) treatment is desired and 2) treatment is possible. Otherwise it's not a very useful way to look at things. I liked your bit about the APA treating pedophilia as a mental illness in name only. >(4) Disability Meets ADA rules (impairs a major life function...). But then again, so does being gay (the life function being to start a family in the traditional manner). And so does being straight (the life function being the ability to dialog with gays or pedophiles and have more than a small clue what they are talking about). >(5) Variation This is a useful paradigm. Something to think about: When a man who is lecherous for women starts to act out, women slap him and tell all their friends to stay away from him. The woman is an adult and the average woman will not suffer more than a small amount of harm from this (granted, some women who have a history of being abused may be triggered and suffer greately). When a man who is lecherous (we aren't talking boylovers here, I hope) for a child flashes him or otherwise does something inappropriate, the likelihood of psychological damage is higher, and society may need to impose consequences to deter such actions. Likewise, if a man sweet-talks a woman into going to bed with him and she later regrets it, she may be damaged but not terribly severely. Also, she's an adult and considered responsible for not saying no the night before. If a man sweet-talks a child into going to bed with him and the child later regrets it, the child may be damaged more than a little (then again, maybe not much). The child is not expected to be responsible for his or her failure to say no to the man. |