Stop treating them like monsters.

[Guest]

If I based, being born a certain way by "attraction", then why are some men more easily to decline the attraction and shrug it off, where others give in?

I think this type of article leads to slippery slopes.

Anddenex, the purpose of the article is not to EXCUSE pedophilia. The purpose of the article is to have a better understanding of one possible causality of pedophilia so we can help those people like Spencer fight the attraction instead of just bunching him up with the convicted felons.

Being born a certain way is a proclivity to the attraction. This is just one aspect of a person's personality. Another aspect may be a strength of will. So that you combine those two, then the person can shrug off the attraction much easier if his morality points to it. The flip side of this coin is, of course, a strong will combined with the proclivity to the attraction, with a different set or moral standards, may result in defying authorities and becoming a serial pedophile by choice.

Another aspect may be a non-confrontational disposition - when combined with the proclivity to the attraction - may decide to ignore/deny the attraction to avoid having to confront its ramifications. Burrying the attraction, may sometimes, lead to inner turmoil, so that this may end up (like inner conflicts usually do) boiling over into one moment of insanity which usually ends up in suicide.

There are thousands more possibilities. A person is rarely a product of one label. A person is unique in his personality footprint as he is unique in is physical look - a product of a jillion aspects of his personality - both genetic and environmental.

[Backroads]

I am not seeing the difference between the two.

Both are able to represent an attraction, or an attraction that has been acted upon, toward children.

You will have to help me understand your frame of reference in dividing the two.

In addition to attraction, is a man considered an adulterer if he is attracted to other women besides his wife?

This is my problem, to root an argument upon attraction, verses acting on the attraction, I would agree are two different scenarios.

However, it will be really hard to convince me, that an attraction, automatically assumes one is born as a pedophila, zoophila, or homophila (is that the correct workd), etc...

If I based, being born a certain way by "attraction", then why are some men more easily to decline the attraction and shrug it off, where others give in?

I think this type of article leads to slippery slopes.

I don't see "I was born this way" as much of an excuse, either--at least enough to excuse actions.

But it seems you're saying that someone who is dealing with pedophilia attractions yet works on avoiding the temptation, avoids children, and has never committed a crime in his life should be treated exactly the same as a child rapist. You say you see a difference in scenario, but treat thema ll the same.

THIS is where I see the difference.

One has molested a child. One has not and works hard to deal with the problem.

What you're saying is that if a child rapist gets the death penalty, so should everyone who has to deal with the attraction. And since we have no way of knowing who is a pedophile who just hasn't done anything yet, what are your plans for finding them all?

[Vort]

How Can We Stop Pedophiles?

Stop treating them like monsters.

A rather intriguing article

Interesting that it is found at a leftist site like Slate. The reactions are exactly what I would expect from the Left:

• Attracted to adult members of your own sex? You're golden! Nothing immoral about that! It's just another beauuuuuutiful expression of the DIVERSITY of human sexuality!!!! You can -- and should! -- act on those wonderful, non-perverted feelings, you winner of a human being!

• Attracted to juvenile members of your own sex? You're awful! You are an evil person! Yuck, you weirdo! NO ONE can be attracted to juveniles!!! You're making it up!!!! You are a stinking, rotten bag of subhuman scum!

Leftists would make me laugh, if only they did not hold such sway in our society.

As Saints, we should recognize that pedophilic feelings are not fundamentally different from homosexual feelings. Both are perfectly natural, in the sense of being the natural man. They arise from a complex interaction of genetics, hormones, upbringing, and experiences, doubtless with many other factors thrown in. It is another perversion (or "variation", if you prefer) on human sexual preference.

We are expected to reject the sin of homosexuality, but embrace the homosexual who seeks to follow Christ. I see no possible reason we would not be expected to do exactly the same with the so-called pedophile. That does not mean we should leave our children to the care of a pedophile any more than a homosexual. It means we should treat them with the same love and respect we should treat anyone else.

I have long suspected that attraction to children is another "sexual preference" every bit as much as homosexuality. This is one of the issues that has made me very uncomfortable with the wholesale legitimization of homosexuality in decent society: What is to prevent us from next accepting pedophilia? About fifteen or so years ago, I actually predicted that pedophilia would be the next homosexuality, in that within ten or twenty years, it would be publicly recognized and accepted. Thank heavens I have proven not to have the gift of prophecy, at least with respect to that. But I do think it's dishonest and hypocritically inconsistent of the Left to embrace those with homosexual attraction and spurn those with pedophilic attraction -- though, to be fair, the Hollywood Left's open embrace of and support for the despicable Roman Polanski might just put a needle in that particular balloon.

[Backroads]

I am not seeing the difference between the two.

Both are able to represent an attraction, or an attraction that has been acted upon, toward children.

You will have to help me understand your frame of reference in dividing the two.

I assume the difference is that a pedophilia, in simplest terms, harbors an attraction toward juveniles, while a pedosexual will act in sexual manners with children.

I don't understand why they should be punished the same way.

[prisonchaplain]

Nature vs. nurture? Perhaps a bit of both. We live in a sin-sick world. Some of that sin-sickness could surely be in our genes. After all, nature is corrupted. Temptations are one type of cross we bare. Why else would we be commanded to work out our salvation daily, with fear and trembling.

Of course, the temptation discussed in this thread is one of the most awful. Society has become mostly sympathetic to those with SSA--some even declaring that it is no sin to act upon. As Christians we disagree. With pedaphilia "the world" agrees with us...no one should act out on this temptation!

What an awful burden to bare. It would not be hard at all for me to sympathize with those who struggle to control such temptations. Monsters? Perhaps...but aren't we all. The strong brothers are supposed to come along and help the weaker brothers.

I felt especially sorry for the sex-offender who'd been off paper for 15 years. Are there no strong men in the church who could have come along side the brother, served as accountability partners, and escorted him to the ward? Many churches now have written policies and well-established protocols for sex-offenders who attend them. Anyone willing to combat their demons deserves support.

[Anddenex]

Anddenex, the purpose of the article is not to EXCUSE pedophilia. The purpose of the article is to have a better understanding of one possible causality of pedophilia so we can help those people like Spencer fight the attraction instead of just bunching him up with the convicted felons.

Being born a certain way is a proclivity to the attraction. This is just one aspect of a person's personality. Another aspect may be a strength of will. So that you combine those two, then the person can shrug off the attraction much easier if his morality points to it. The flip side of this coin is, of course, a strong will combined with the proclivity to the attraction, with a different set or moral standards, may result in defying authorities and becoming a serial pedophile by choice.

Another aspect may be a non-confrontational disposition - when combined with the proclivity to the attraction - may decide to ignore/deny the attraction to avoid having to confront its ramifications. Burrying the attraction, may sometimes, lead to inner turmoil, so that this may end up (like inner conflicts usually do) boiling over into one moment of insanity which usually ends up in suicide.

There are thousands more possibilities. A person is rarely a product of one label. A person is unique in his personality footprint as he is unique in is physical look - a product of a jillion aspects of his personality - both genetic and environmental.

I don't remember ever saying this "excuses" pedophilia. I simple said it leads to a slippery slope.

Are they really "born this way"? Or are they born the same way any other male/female has been born with attractions?

I, personally, have never read any good evidence to say people are "born" a certain way, when it comes to attraction, or their sexual preference. Nothing convincing, at least to me.

[jerome1232]

I fail to see why it matters if it's born or acquired latter in life, the fact is the attraction is there and it needs to be understood and addressed. The point of the article was that we shouldn't demonize someone because they have that attraction inside them.

[Anddenex]

After all, nature is corrupted. Temptations are one type of cross we bare. Why else would we be commanded to work out our salvation daily, with fear and trembling.

This is where my debate comes in PC. We all have temptations to bare, and are these people truly "born this way" or is it merely a temptation they have succumbed to?

Is it a temptation we all have received, except, we have officially and outright when the first temptation came, ignored?

[Backroads]

This is where my debate comes in PC. We all have temptations to bare, and are these people truly "born this way" or is it merely a temptation they have succumbed to?

Is it a temptation we all have received, except, we have officially and outright when the first temptation came, ignored?

I believe there might be something to "born this way" but I don't think it's a full excuse. I believe AT MOST it will make someone more sensitive to certain evils in the world. Those sensitivities might be considered when all is said and done, but I believe that actions will count for a lot.

Edited September 25, 2012 by Backroads

[prisonchaplain]

Addenex, I'm no expert, but I have come to believe that there are predispositions that are partially genetic. No one is "hardwired" that they have no choice but to commit a given sin. However, 97% feel no temptation at all towards engaging romantically with the same sex. The roughly 3% that do feel these temptations don't have to "act out" on what they feel, but I cannot deny that they feel what they feel, nor can I pinpoint WHY they have those feelings.

No one here has suggested that being born with a predisposition EXCUSES sinful behavior. Likewise, having an innate temptation to struggle with is different from being hardwired to act out, with no possible recourse.

The OP's articles encouraged sympathy, not exoneration.

[jerome1232]

This is where my debate comes in PC. We all have temptations to bare, and are these people truly "born this way" or is it merely a temptation they have succumbed to?

Is it a temptation we all have received, except, we have officially and outright when the first temptation came, ignored?

I know that a man fears to allow himself to be exposed to children on a regular basis due to the feelings it stirs inside him. I most definitely never have had an inkling of a stirring of feelings like that. Sounds to me like he is dealing with a temptation that I have never felt.

[Guest]

I don't remember ever saying this "excuses" pedophilia. I simple said it leads to a slippery slope.

What did you mean by slippery slope in this case? I interpreted that to mean - your slipping down the excuse slope. This is what I was referring to as - the article's purpose is not to give any slippery slope excuses for pedophilia.

Are they really "born this way"? Or are they born the same way any other male/female has been born with attractions?

I, personally, have never read any good evidence to say people are "born" a certain way, when it comes to attraction, or their sexual preference. Nothing convincing, at least to me.

Whether we understand it or not is not the issue. Just being open to the possibility is enough. Saying, "Oh no, never" - is a closed position. It's the end of learning and lends to a blanket reaction to people like Spencer. Saying, "I can understand how that can be possible" is an open position. It tends to give us more incentive to listen to what people like Spencer is telling us so we can best determine how we can help him.

This is where I see the many psychologists/therapists I met fail. They already pigeon-holed me to their preset understanding that they already "know" who I am. And they can't seem to accept the possibility that they may be wrong in my case. So, I'm talking, trying to tell them who I am and they nod their heads and say something that I can't relate to.

Edited September 25, 2012 by anatess

[Guest LiterateParakeet]

I don't know if joining this conversation is a good idea or not, but I can't help myself. I think it is very important to talk about abuse, particularly sexual abuse of children...but if I drop out suddenly, you'll have to excuse me...it is a rather touchy subject for me.

I feel conflicted about this issue. I didn't read the article and barely skimmed the thread, part of me (as a victim of childhood sexual abuse) says yes, absolutely they are monsters, give them the death penalty!

BUT ironically, I work with teenage sex offenders in a residential treatment program. I work graveyard so I dont actually participate in their "treatment", but I appreciate the work my co-workers do though trying to rehabilitate these young men. I do interact with them in the mornings as they prepare for school. No, I don't think these boys are monsters. I don't read all their files, but the ones I have read were victims themselves. Not that that is an excuse. . .

I could be wrong and I reserve the right to change my mind later, but I don't believe that anyone is born with an attraction to children. I think it comes from either being a victim oneself (in which case it is not attraction but part of a power/shame cycle), or I believe that pornography can cause this attraction as well.

For adult males, I think life in prison is necessary, and should be mandatory. The damage they do...well, you just cannot imagine. For me these last two years of remembering the abuse and having to process those feelings have been hellish. Truly the jaws of Hell have gaped after me. So yeah, I don't think that life in prison for adult offenders is too much to ask. For the teenagers though, I do hope that therapy can turn them around.

P.S. I have some interesting (at least in my mind) thoughts on what it means to have the jaws of Hell gap after you. Ask me if you are interested, I'm dying to share.

[Anddenex]

I know that a man fears to allow himself to be exposed to children on a regular basis due to the feelings it stirs inside him. I most definitely never have had an inkling of a stirring of feelings like that. Sounds to me like he is dealing with a temptation that I have never felt.

I agree jerome, however, just because it is a stirring you have never felt does not mean they were born this way, or born with this attraction.

[Guest]

I agree jerome, however, just because it is a stirring you have never felt does not mean they were born this way, or born with this attraction.

I just want to clarify one thing: Nobody is born with an attraction. What we're saying is, people may be born with the proclivity for certain attractions. Difference in nuance.

And with this, the degree of proclivity may vary. Some people may have only a slight tendency while others have a stronger tendency.

Stating it this way makes it a lot easier to understand. We know some people are born with proclivity for alcoholism. Some people are born with the proclivity to hurt. Some people have the proclivity to be girly-girls while some have the proclivity to be tomboys.

And then, these tendencies can be enhanced/suppressed by environmental factors.

It's nothing but a part of the imperfections of the natural man.

Edited September 25, 2012 by anatess

[MarginOfError]

I, for one, can sympathize with the idea of a pedophile's being "born that way", just as I can agree that many gays are also "born that way".

But therein lies the problem. As a society we've spent the last three decades convincing ourselves at a person with a socially unacceptable sexual predisposition, nevertheless has a natural right to enjoy an intimate relationship in fulfillment of that predisposition. Those of us who asked how pedophiles fit into that paradigm, were shouted down and accused of slandering gays as child rapists.

As a conservative, I just hate it when my "slippery slope" arguments turn out to be right.

For me, the step from "allowing homosexuals to express their sexual preferences" to "allowing pedophiles to express their sexual preferences" was a fairly absurd argument. The peripheral route to countering that argument is the "you're smearing gays" argument; the central route would use the argument that homosexuals should be free to express their sexual preferences with other consenting adults. I think NAMBLA's arguments tend to fall apart once you throw in the piece about consent.

I am not seeing the difference between the two.

Both are able to represent an attraction, or an attraction that has been acted upon, toward children.

You will have to help me understand your frame of reference in dividing the two.

The impetus between proposing two words was specifically to divide attraction from action on the attraction. Your statements are difficult for me because on the one hand, you seem to be able to separate the two concepts, but on the other hand, you seem to refuse to entertain the premise that they are separate.

In addition to attraction, is a man considered an adulterer if he is attracted to other women besides his wife?

Not at all. I work with beautiful women. I go to church with beautiful women. I recognize that they are beautiful (and am very happy that there is so much beautiful in the world). Many of the women I encounter in my life are--I'm going to say it--sexually attractive. Does recognizing and admitting that make me an adulterer?

I do not believe it does.

Fantasizing about these women, on the other hand, would, by the higher standard that Christ proclaimed, make me one who has committed adultery in my heart. Is that the same as being an adulterer? I don't know. I've not really thought about it, but I think the answer to that question is open to debate.

Likewise with minor-attracted people (I'm going to stick to that term to emphasize a lack of action on those attractions), I do not believe a person has sinned by admitting that he or she is attracted to children. A minor-attracted person who has fantasized about a child has committed some sin in his heart. But I don't think that's the same thing as actually acting on the attraction with a child.

This is my problem, to root an argument upon attraction, verses acting on the attraction, I would agree are two different scenarios.

However, it will be really hard to convince me, that an attraction, automatically assumes one is born as a pedophila, zoophila, or homophila (is that the correct workd), etc...

I don't understand why it should be hard to convince you. It's the same process. Admitting the attraction is a statement of the way things are. Admitting what is doesn't mean that we have to condone the acts that people perform because of their attractions.

If I based, being born a certain way by "attraction", then why are some men more easily to decline the attraction and shrug it off, where others give in?

I think this type of article leads to slippery slopes.

What seems most likely to me is that sexual preference is not nearly as discrete a concept as we think of it. We tend to view sexual orientation is absolutes. That person is homosexual. That person is heterosexual. Okay, maybe we'll make a compromise and say that some people are bisexual. But everyone is definitely one, and only one, of those three possibilities.

Nonsense.

I suspect that we are all heterosexual in some measure, homosexual in some measure, and bisexual in some measure. Given the complexity of the brain and the genetic and environmental factors that contribute to sexual identity, I think it would be fair to say that we all have a little homosexual in us; and we all have a little pedosexual in us (that should make everyone plenty angry). But under most genetic and environmental conditions, the homosexual and pedosexual portions of our sexual orientation are very, very small. In these cases, it is easy to overcome the attraction because the attraction is rare and is weak.

But for the uncommon person who has a strong inclination toward homosexual orientation, he feels as strongly for members of the same sex as you did for members of the opposite sex when you were dating before your marriage. Why would we expect the manifestation to be different for a minor-attracted person? It could very well be different only in pathology.

This is where my debate comes in PC. We all have temptations to bare, and are these people truly "born this way" or is it merely a temptation they have succumbed to?

Is it a temptation we all have received, except, we have officially and outright when the first temptation came, ignored?

Generally, "succumb to temptation" implies having acted in some way that we were tempted. Are you saying that minor-attracted people have succumbed to the temptation to be tempted?

[Anddenex]

What did you mean by slippery slope in this case? I interpreted that to mean - your slipping down the excuse slope. This is what I was referring to as - the article's purpose is not to give any slippery slope excuses for pedophilia.

Whether we understand it or not is not the issue. Just being open to the possibility is enough. Saying, "Oh no, never" - is a closed position. It's the end of learning and lends to a blanket reaction to people like Spencer. Saying, "I can understand how that can be possible" is an open position. It tends to give us more incentive to listen to what people like Spencer is telling us so we can best determine how we can help him.

This is where I see the many psychologists/therapists I met fail. They already pigeon-holed me to their preset understanding that they already "know" who I am. And they can't seem to accept the possibility that they may be wrong in my case. So, I'm talking, trying to tell them who I am and they nod their heads and say something that I can't relate to.

Yes, opening up a debate about pedophila as an "attraction" and "born this way" leads to other argumentation. The article may condemn it. This doesn't mean others will not use this article as a springboard to other avenues. Thus, a slippery slope.

I simply don't agree that these people are born this way. Some men are more inclined to commit adultery. Is this a result of being born this way? Or a result of them given into the adversaries temptations of a natural attraction?

[Guest]

I simply don't agree that these people are born this way. Some men are more inclined to commit adultery. Is this a result of being born this way? Or a result of them given into the adversaries temptations of a natural attraction?

Both. Read my post above.

[MarginOfError]

Yes, opening up a debate about pedophila as an "attraction" and "born this way" leads to other argumentation. The article may condemn it. This doesn't mean others will not use this article as a springboard to other avenues. Thus, a slippery slope.

I simply don't agree that these people are born this way. Some men are more inclined to commit adultery. Is this a result of being born this way? Or a result of them given into the adversaries temptations of a natural attraction?

"Natural attraction" is the problematic phrase here. A pedophile's attraction to children is as natural and effortless to him as is your attraction to your wife.

[MarginOfError]

Yes, opening up a debate about pedophila as an "attraction" and "born this way" leads to other argumentation. The article may condemn it. This doesn't mean others will not use this article as a springboard to other avenues. Thus, a slippery slope.

I understand why you fear this, but this has been as issue at the heart of NAMBLA for years, and they have made no progress. The reason they make no progress is that pesky issue of consent.

[Anddenex]

Not at all. I work with beautiful women. I go to church with beautiful women. I recognize that they are beautiful (and am very happy that there is so much beautiful in the world). Many of the women I encounter in my life are--I'm going to say it--sexually attractive. Does recognizing and admitting that make me an adulterer?

I do not believe it does.

Fantasizing about these women, on the other hand, would, by the higher standard that Christ proclaimed, make me one who has committed adultery in my heart. Is that the same as being an adulterer? I don't know. I've not really thought about it, but I think the answer to that question is open to debate.

Likewise with minor-attracted people (I'm going to stick to that term to emphasize a lack of action on those attractions), I do not believe a person has sinned by admitting that he or she is attracted to children. A minor-attracted person who has fantasized about a child has committed some sin in his heart. But I don't think that's the same thing as actually acting on the attraction with a child.

I don't understand why it should be hard to convince you. It's the same process. Admitting the attraction is a statement of the way things are. Admitting what is doesn't mean that we have to condone the acts that people perform because of their attractions.

Generally, "succumb to temptation" implies having acted in some way that we were tempted. Are you saying that minor-attracted people have succumbed to the temptation to be tempted?

Thank you for clarification, and that is what I thought you meant.

Your last question will sum things up. Yes, minor-attracted people have succumbed to the temptation.

Naturally we all are prone to attractions. We think women are beautiful, there are some men who are attractive. We think children are attractive also.

A man that looks at a child and thinks, oh she/he is pretty/handsome. Nothing wrong. The men/women then that is tempted beyond that natural attraction, must rid himself/herself of the temptation quickly.

Thus, my question, are they born this way, or is it a temptation they have fully given into?

I am more to believe this attraction is a by-product of nurture verses nature.

[Anddenex]

"Natural attraction" is the problematic phrase here. A pedophile's attraction to children is as natural and effortless to him as is your attraction to your wife.

As is my natural attraction toward other women, however, this temptation must be subdued, immediately, and without excuse, otherwise...well we all know someone who has experienced a husband who has succumbed.

[Guest]

As is my natural attraction toward other women, however, this temptation must be subdued, immediately, and without excuse, otherwise...well we all know someone who has experienced a husband who has succumbed.

This is not the issue though Anddenex. We all agree with this - including Spencer in the article. The issue is that nobody believes Spencer when he says, this is a natural attraction like your attraction to women. He is, so far, successfully subduing the attraction. But, when you admit that you are attracted to women, you're still okay. When Spencer admits that he is attracted to 13-year-olds, he is labeled a pedophile with all the negative connotations and societal snubs that go with it.

[Anddenex]

This is not the issue though Anddenex. We all agree with this - including Spencer in the article. The issue is that nobody believes Spencer when he says, this is a natural attraction like your attraction to women. He is, so far, successfully subduing the attraction. But, when you admit that you are attracted to women, you're still okay. When Spencer admits that he is attracted to 13-year-olds, he is labeled a pedophile with all the negative connotations and societal snubs that go with it.

The issue is "attraction", and whether or not a person is "born as pedophila" or not. I agree that Spencer is feeling these attractions. I disagree that he was born that way.

I don't think it would be correct to label a man/woman a pedophile until they have actually committed the crime, or attempted to and were unsuccessful (dang it couldn't think of the right word, other than successful)

At least this has been what has stemmed my argument with this article. If I remember the article correctly, Spencer acted out, and thus deserves the connotations the society he lives in correlates with such activities. Or, was Spencer, the member someone brought up in this thread? Either way, both acted on their temptations.

[Just_A_Guy]

For me, the step from "allowing homosexuals to express their sexual preferences" to "allowing pedophiles to express their sexual preferences" was a fairly absurd argument. The peripheral route to countering that argument is the "you're smearing gays" argument; the central route would use the argument that homosexuals should be free to express their sexual preferences with other consenting adults. I think NAMBLA's arguments tend to fall apart once you throw in the piece about consent.

I'm sorry, MOE, but having thrown out one formerly universally-accepted social norm, you don't get to fiat that remaining universally-accepted social norms will remain so in perpetuity. In the 1960s I'm sure JFK would have glibly noted that the gay rights crowd - or the abortion rights agitators - weren't making much headway, either. His brother and children lived long enough to fully embrace both movements.

An argument of "consent" rests on the assumptions that a) "consent" should even be required at all because a prospective sex partner is an individual with free will that should be respected (rather than--say--property); b) that "consent" is never outweighed by any other interest; c) that "consent" may only be given at the legal age of majority (or some universally-acknowledged point before then); d) that "consent" is only meaningful if the potential sex partner has specific information, knowledge, or understanding; and e) childhood and "innocence" are states to be valued and prolonged.

Our own religion has, in times past, not fully embraced all of those assumptions (Joseph Smith married a couple of teenagers), and another relatively fast-growing religion in our country lionizes a prophet who is reputed to have impregnated a nine-year-old. No one knows--no one can know--what our society will really think about the sexual rights of children a hundred--or even fifty--years from now. They have changed in the relatively recent past; and forces are in play that may well change them again in the near future.

Once I've taken one of my sacred cows to the slaughterhouse, no one's going to believe my assurances that the rest of the herd remains off-limits.