Should pedophilia be considered a "sexual orientation"?

For a little background, feel free to read this article: http://www.neontommy.com/news/2013/1...al-orientation

The gist of the article is this. According to the new DSM, pedophilia is to be considered a sexual orientation in the Psychology community. This only includes pedophilia in its simplest form, the attraction towards individuals under the age of consent, for lack of better phrasing, without acting upon those urges, and is still to be differentiated from "pedophilic disorder", which is basically acting upon those urges or child molestation.

Being someone who has worked with children for many years, I have some strong feelings about this, but I'd prefer to let others have their say first and I will join in the debate later.

So basically, what I'm asking is, as the thread title says, should pedophilia be considered a sexual orientation in the same way that heterosexuality, homosexuality, asexuality, etc. are, and relatedly, is the change in the DSM right?

I think Fetish would be a more accurate term to use to describe this than Sexual Orientation, as Orientation seems to refer more to gender preference than age. If this where to be classed as a Orientation, so would other acts of Paraphilic behavior, such as Zoophilia, and Sadism.

Fetish seems to comfortably hold anything to do with a person's sexual preference, besides that of gender.

Would People into Japanese 'Loli' Characters but are not sexual predators, still be classed as this new orientation?

This is a tricky situation. Personally, I fail to see how anyone could possibly be attracted to children, especially those who are very much under age. Because at it's core that is what a sexual orientation is, the group that you are physically attracted to. As such, I do not think that pedophilia should be classified as a sexual orientation.

With a classification of 'sexual orientation', it adds a sense of legitimacy to sexual attraction to children (even if you do not act on those urges). The issue behind pedophilia has, as far as I can tell, been the issue of informed consent. The question is then "how old do you need to be to give informed consent?" Personally I don't think that a blanket age is the ideal option, but I understand it's use. However, I do not believe that an underage child can be capable of giving informed consent with regards to sexual contact.

I am aware that the new ruling specifically states that it is purely the thoughts, rather than acting upon them. However, normalising these types of thoughts could potentially lead to cases of people then acting upon them. In short I find the idea worrying, as I am of the opinion that children are not capable of fully grasping the concepts and intricacies of sexual activity.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Freddy Krueger

I think Fetish would be a more accurate term to use to describe this than Sexual Orientation, as Orientation seems to refer more to gender preference than age. If this where to be classed as a Orientation, so would other acts of Paraphilic behavior, such as Zoophilia, and Sadism.

Fetish seems to comfortably hold anything to do with a person's sexual preference, besides that of gender.

Would People into Japanese 'Loli' Characters but are not sexual predators, still be classed as this new orientation?

---

The problem with the "fetish" specification is that sexual fetishism is defined as "the sexual arousal a person receives from a physical object, or from a specific situation." which applies purely to sexual situations. If someone is attracted to children, perhaps in more than just a sexual way, then the 'Fetish' label is completely blown out of the water

No.

Just. . .no.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Jack Skellington

The problem with the "fetish" specification is that sexual fetishism is defined as "the sexual arousal a person receives from a physical object, or from a specific situation." which applies purely to sexual situations. If someone is attracted to children, perhaps in more than just a sexual way, then the 'Fetish' label is completely blown out of the water

---

Oohh, very true. But i still believe it's classification as an orientation still put a lot of other Paraphilic behavior into the same position, E.g. Zoophilia, or Mechnophilia.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Freddy Krueger

Oohh, very true. But i still believe it's classification as an orientation still put a lot of other Paraphilic behavior into the same position, E.g. Zoophilia, or Mechnophilia.

---

It all depends on whether or not it's purely sexual arousal, and also the other sides ability to give consent. Technically a child can give some kind of consent, albeit not informed and probably very unreliable. However, an animal or a machine have no way to give anything other than implied consent. To then class them as an orientation, rather than a potentially one sided sexual inclination would be inappropriate.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Jack Skellington

It all depends on whether or not it's purely sexual arousal, and also the other sides ability to give consent. Technically a child can give some kind of consent, albeit not informed and probably very unreliable. However, an animal or a machine have no way to give anything other than implied consent. To then class them as an orientation, rather than a potentially one sided sexual inclination would be inappropriate.

---

True, but sexual consent doesn't have to be there for the existence of an Orientation. For instance, people consider themselves homosexuals, but have no desire to engage in intercourse. The same can be considered here.

On the main topic of this I would say that it is a sexual orientation.
To me, though it may not be accurate according to the complete definition, I honestly don't know, a fetish more a thing which further arouse you rather then being a requirement. You can have a fetish for feet, but feets aren't -required- for enjoyment. Since, as far as I have understood it, Pedophiles tend to be only into kids. Might be wrong there though.
In this part I suppose I'd compare them a bit to gay/straight? I am willing to accept I might not be entirely up to date with definitions though.

As for if it is okay... that is a question in two parts to me.

Is it okay to fantasize about children or watch porn not made with the involvement of real children, such as hentai, 3D animations or drawings... yes. Yes I am personally okay with that. I'll probably find it kinda weird or creepy, but I do consider this acceptable since no real children are involved in this. I am also okay with people Roleplaying this with another adult.
In short, as long as no harm is done to a real child, I am fine with it.

On the topic of watching porn with actual children, touching actual children with sexual intent, or trying to have sex with a real child, then I put a firm stop. This deal damage to real persons.

I suppose in the end I'd say as long as it's a fantasy and not something which affects an actual child, they are welcome to get at it. If they do try and do something like that with a kid, I do hope they end up behind bars.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Freddy Krueger

True, but sexual consent doesn't have to be there for the existence of an Orientation. For instance, people consider themselves homosexuals, but have no desire to engage in intercourse. The same can be considered here.

---

It can be considered, but should it be considered? As I stated before, it's all about informed consent. I'm not talking about sexual consent here, but rather the ability of both parties to be able to fully comprehend the situation they are involved in.

Obviously I am talking seriously underage children here, generally under the age of 10. Kids are smart, generally, but prior to puberty I sincerely do not think that they are fully capable of understanding sexual orientation. As such, I do not think that people who are emotionally, sexually or mentally attracted to those who are underage should have the validation of being classed as a "sexual orientation"

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Lyssea

On the main topic of this I would say that it is a sexual orientation.
To me, though it may not be accurate according to the complete definition, I honestly don't know, a fetish more a thing which further arouse you rather then being a requirement. You can have a fetish for feet, but feets aren't -required- for enjoyment. Since, as far as I have understood it, Pedophiles tend to be only into kids. Might be wrong there though.

---

Someone I knew turned out to be a paedophile, and what was perhaps most disturbing about the whole thing (aside from the mountains of child pornography etc) was the fact that he was otherwise a normal person, in a happy (seemingly) relationship. Like all sexuality it's a messy thing, and pigeon-holing tends to muddy the issue rather than clear it.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Jack Skellington

Someone I knew turned out to be a paedophile, and what was perhaps most disturbing about the whole thing (aside from the mountains of child pornography etc) was the fact that he was otherwise a normal person.

---

Err... because he needs to be a monster to be into kids...? I honestly don't get at all what you were trying to say with the entire paragraph.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Lyssea

Err... because he needs to be a monster to be into kids...? I honestly don't get at all what you were trying to say with the entire paragraph.

---

What I was trying to say (and evidently failing) was that this guy wasn't solely into children, as evidenced by his being in a long term relationship at the time.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Jack Skellington

What I was trying to say (and evidently failing) was that this guy wasn't solely into children, as evidenced by his being in a long term relationship at the time.

---

Ah. My bad!
I would still say that it's an orientation ( more like Bisexuals ) rather then a fetish... but I have nothing to back me up, to be honest. So I'll step out of the debate.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Lyssea

Ah. My bad!
I would still say that it's an orientation ( more like Bisexuals ) rather then a fetish... but I have nothing to back me up, to be honest. So I'll step out of the debate.

---

If I'm honest, I'd be reluctant to class it as either of those

I suppose I may as well put my two cents in at this point since we have people on both sides of this. I'm just going to ramble for a while and then respond to some of the points that others have made.

I'm actually in favor of this ruling because I believe it opens up an avenue not previously available to people who are affected by these feelings. This will likely lose me a few points with some of the users here, but so be it. That is the point of debate, no?

The current stigma behind those attracted to children is very negative, and usually rightfully so. Anyone who admits to having this attraction is almost immediately ostracized by everyone who knows about it, regardless of if they've actually done anything legally wrong. In my eyes, it's turned into more of an attack on the one who is attracted than a defense of the children. People seem to say that if you're attracted to children, you're going to try and take advantage of them. What they fail to realize is that, for many of the people with these feelings, they are no different than those feelings of heterosexual or homosexual people. Does my attraction towards a 19-year old girl mean that I'm going to stalk her, kidnap her, and have sex with her? No, it doesn't. To me, pedophiles are not rapists or predators any more than anyone else is; rapists and sexual predators exist in every sexual orientation.

One of the common arguments I hear against it is that viewing images of "sexualized" images of children, whether those be actual sexual acts, skimpy clothing, or whatever, will lead people to feel more comfortable with those feelings and thus act upon those feelings. However, I don't see this as the case. I equate it to something like enjoying pornography portraying things like rape or violence towards sexual partners. Does watching a porno about rape actually increase the chances of someone going out and raping another person? I also see it along the same lines of the violent video games argument. Just because someone enjoys going and killing another character in a video game, that doesn't mean they are going to go out and murder someone in the streets. If it's entirely fantasy, I don't see the issue.

Another argument I often hear against the idea of child pornography in itself is that if there wasn't an audience, then the videos, images, etc. would not be made. However, I don't see this as being true either. The people who make these videos and images are not doing it for others; they're doing it for their own perverted interests. Whether or not someone else views them is irrelevant; they just want to be able to relive their indulgence. I suppose there are times in which this argument is true, but I believe they are few and far between.

Before I get too far into this, I do want to say that I'm not for legalizing sex with children and that if I knew anyone who violated a child, I'd be the first one to be seeking his or her head on a stick. As adults we are meant to be protecting the children from the bad in the world, not being the ones causing them firsthand harm by performing such acts with them. I don't condone anyone who does these acts, and I'm entirely for the persecution of them, and of the people making such pornography.

However, I do feel the distinction is the right call. As someone in the comments section pointed out, the current view of "sexual predators" is a one-size-fits-all view. People who have molested ten children in cold blood are put on the same watch list as people who are 19 and happen to have sex with their girlfriend/boyfriend who happens to be 15-16. While the DSM distinction isn't addressing this specific instance, it is opening the door for the understanding of people who have feelings that seem foreign to others instead of immediately jumping to the conclusion that anyone who thinks a child is attractive is automatically going to try and harm that child sexually.

This also opens the door to these people getting help from psychiatrists or other mental health professionals rather than being secluded and having to seek refuge from others who share their attractions. Instead of a psychiatrist being required to report pedophilic thoughts (correct me if I'm wrong, but I do believe they have to do so), people will be able to confide in these professionals and determine ways to actively prevent themselves from actually going and acting upon their urges. To me, this is better than pedophiles coming together to assist one another, because in a large enough group of any collection of people, there is bound to be a sexual predator who is going to steer the others in the entirely wrong direction.

tl;dr - I think this is going to help more than it hurts, and I don't really think it's going to make life any worse for children or the people who are trusted to protect them. It simply seems like a way for the people with these feelings to be more open and seek help in dealing with them.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Shining Armor

Would People into Japanese 'Loli' Characters but are not sexual predators, still be classed as this new orientation?

---

I believe this is one of the better examples of who would fall under this classification actually. People who are attracted to the idea of children, but not those who are actually going to try and have intercourse with them. So yes, I believe they would be classed under this orientation, but I cannot say that with 100% certainty.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Braeburn

With a classification of 'sexual orientation', it adds a sense of legitimacy to sexual attraction to children (even if you do not act on those urges). The issue behind pedophilia has, as far as I can tell, been the issue of informed consent. The question is then "how old do you need to be to give informed consent?" Personally I don't think that a blanket age is the ideal option, but I understand it's use. However, I do not believe that an underage child can be capable of giving informed consent with regards to sexual contact.

---

I totally agree with you in the sense that an underage child is no capable of giving informed consent and I do agree with the law having a blanket age at which it cuts off between legality and illegality, despite the fact that people do all age at different speeds. In fact, it's necessary for it to be like that. Without such an age, a fifteen-year old, for example, who is very mature can engage in consensual intercourse with an older male, change her mind, and then play the ignorance card in court and get the man into trouble. Conversely, someone who is a less mature 20-year old and is not ready for something of that nature could be portrayed by an older man as someone who is more mature than she seems to be. It just leads to too many loopholes without such a cutoff.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Braeburn

I am aware that the new ruling specifically states that it is purely the thoughts, rather than acting upon them. However, normalising these types of thoughts could potentially lead to cases of people then acting upon them. In short I find the idea worrying, as I am of the opinion that children are not capable of fully grasping the concepts and intricacies of sexual activity.

---

I actually referenced this above, but I personally believe it to be the opposite. I think these people being more understood and having more avenues in which to help themselves will lessen the occurrences of actual sexual offenses towards children.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Braeburn

Someone I knew turned out to be a paedophile, and what was perhaps most disturbing about the whole thing (aside from the mountains of child pornography etc) was the fact that he was otherwise a normal person, in a happy (seemingly) relationship. Like all sexuality it's a messy thing, and pigeon-holing tends to muddy the issue rather than clear it.

---

I actually believe this is more the norm than the exception. I don't think many people who are attracted to children are only attracted to those who are underage. It seems to me that many of them are attracted to the idea of females or males as a whole and simply don't draw the line between who is or isn't old enough. Honestly, I think if someone is attracted to a child simply because of the child's age, that is leaning more towards the "pedophilic disorder" side because of the fact that are looking for someone who is underage, ignorant towards the implications of sex, etc.

So this thread is a sort of subtle confession, huh?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Pinkamena

So this thread is a sort of subtle confession, huh?

---

I'm interested in what people's thoughts on it are, but thanks for assuming the worst.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Xzyzrzq

I'm interested in what people's thoughts on it are, but thanks for assuming the worst.

---

I am slightly surprised that you expected a user like Pinka to not say something like that

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Braeburn

I am slightly surprised that you expected a user like Pinka to not say something like that

---

It's not that I didn't expect it. I was aware of the sort of replies that this thread would illicit, but I was hoping it would also lead to a debate that was worth reading through the rest of the mindless replies.

This thread is now closed on request of OP.