Well, drawn violence IS still violence, but it’s imaginary violence- a violence fantasy. Pedophilia does not require a person to act- it only requires a sexual attraction to children, and that includes fantasies of sex- including cartoons or computer generated images, or even imagined children. Strictly speaking- a clinical diagnosis requires more than just a one time or occasional attraction or fantasy- but likewise psychopathy requires more than the enjoyment of violence but a host of symptoms. There is a strong distinction between paraphilia and attractions to “younger” people or roles of “experience” and “innocence,” “youth,” or “inexperience” and the like and pedophillia which is specifically an attraction to pre pubescent or general 13 and under year olds.
That said-one cannot e diagnosed a psychopath, murderer, rapist, etc. simply for having thoughts or fantasies of an act alone- but one CAN be diagnosed as a pedophile simply by desire alone- and that includes fantasy.
Oh my goodness! Is it like your mission in life to lecture me on every comment I make?
Also, you said that desire alone is enough for a diagnosis, even if it's towards something imaginary.
By that logic, wanting to kill enemies in a game would indeed make you a psychopath. Or, playing Pokémon would mean you actually want to have animals fight each other.
@happy_frog- tbh, I have no idea who you are, let alone that we’ve spoken before- and I mean no insult. Just as a fact. So I do not specifically reply to your comments. I look at memes, I look at comments, I see ones I have something to reply to, I reply. Now- for my reply....
“By that logic....” No. my logic is the criteria for medical diagnosis. So by that logic- a psychopath has certain symptoms- manipulation, charisma, lack of empathy for living creatures, an inability to understand moral wrong when it comes to getting their way- risk taking. Fictional violence is by definition for the risk averse, By your logic a person is a psychopath if they don’t feel real emotion for fictional characters? That’s like calling someone a psychopath for not crying when their toaster stops working or using a “face swap” app because if you face swapped a real person for fun at home you’d be nuts. The distinction between fictional violence and attraction to cartoons is that in one you do not feel real emotions for a fictional avatar and in another you do feel real emotion for a fictional avatar.
Now, a person can have psychopathic tendencies without having psychopathy, and a person can have tendencies of pedophilia without being a pedophile. Likewise, despite society often using the words interchangeably- a pedophile isn’t a child molester and not all child molesters are pedophiles. Likewise not all people who commit statutory rape are pedophiles either. Pedophilia requires not only an attraction to pre pubescents but a set of behaviors and thoughts. But a long term and consistent attraction of fantasy about pre pubescents by an adult is pedophilia wether they act on it or not.
I see what you're trying to get at. But, lemme ask you this: are furries zoophiles? Or, does liking lesbian porn make you a lesbian?
Also, you seem well-versed in medical terminology. Could you perhaps tell me what the clinical term for some one who can't distinguish between fantasy and reality might be?
A “furry” is a “furry” which is why we have a word just for that lifestyle. Strictly speaking many furries are Zoophiles. Zoophilia is an ATTRACTION to non human animals which- much like pedophile and child molester, zoophile is often equated to bestiality which is SEX with a non human animal. But not all furries find non human animals sexually attractive. Their participation and attraction to being a “furry” may come from many places.
Being a “furry” doesn’t require a sexual component, and a person may simply enjoy role play in a non sexual way. Likewise- most “furries” are anthropomorphic to some degree which calls into question the “non human animal” aspect of the definition of zoophilia. So by definition- a furry can be a zoophile or not- the two aren’t mutually inclusive. It hinges upon wether one finds sexual attraction in non human animals, and is distinguished from bestiality by wether or not someone actually has sex with non human animals.
As for distinguishing between fantasy and reality- there are many words for that. Delusional disorders and schizophrenia can cause this, and temporary states and conditions can be brought on by stress, trauma, chemicals, drugs etc. I don’t see the relevance however- a pedophile who is able to distinguish fantasy from reality and only has fantasy is still a pedophile because fantasy is all that is required to be a pedophile or zoophile. A pedophile who cannot distinguish the two but only has fantasy is still a pedophile but they’re likely to believe they may be a child molester since they can’t tell the difference between the two.
This is the subtlety of language. Words have meaning. We may not always like the meaning- but they mean what they mean. Being called a “pedophile” is a generally negative thing, most people don’t like the idea, and it certainly carries a social stigma. It is what it is though. Many prefer to use terms like “loli” that sound softer and aren’t as widely recognized. The “loli” sub culture is so defined after the novel and titular character “Lolita,” a 12 year old girl in a tale of... pedophilia. So one may apply whatever alias they like, the definition of the word is quite clear.
Now- pedophilia is used as a “catch all” for ANY adult attracted to ANY child and that’s not so. There are specific words for those attracted to certain age ranges such as children under the age of 5 etc. “pedophilia” refers exclusively to immediately pre pubescent ages (using an age range standard and not biological measures,) so that if a child were say- mid puberty or post pubescent at 12 years of age that is still diagnosable as pedophilia if age is a factor of attraction.
That’s a clear distinguishing factor- there are many types of “chronophilias”- attraction to people of a certain age range. Attraction to a young but “sexually mature” person (like older people attracted to 20yo olds and the like) is teleiophilia, an attraction to teens who are not yet adults is ephebophilia, so on. In popular parlance people simply refer to any attraction between a person of legal consent and one not as “pedophilia” but this isn’t strictly true.
Where the nuance lies, and in reference to your “fantasy vs reality” line of thought- is wether. Person acts or not. There is no crime in fantasy- at least as of this writing we are not policing thought. It is not criminal to fantasize about rape or murder or even pedophilia etc. it IS criminal to victimize a child through owning, distributing, or displaying sexual images of a child. Animation etc. where no child is actually victimized is generally not prohibited under most US laws but it can vary state by state. Federally, the law doesn’t expressly hold animation as child pornography- but the PROTECT act prohibits the depiction of any person under 18 in a lewd or obscene manner.
What that means, is that strictly speaking there is no specific CRIME of pedophilia in the watching or distribution of animation and the like where no actual children are involved- but that doesn’t mean it isn’t pedophilia or another chronophilia etc. since only an ATTRACTION is required and not an actual child. But it’s nothing to get worked up about. People shame people for all manner of things from being a furry or plushie or into BDSM, being Bi, homosexual, liking butt play, whatever. You like what you like. Don’t break any laws and it’s your business. Didling kids is illegal. Victimizing kids is illegal. Having your partner dress up as your kid and “pway pwetend” or whatever might not be for me- but if they’re legal and it’s consensual, you gotta do you.
One important distinction with any -philia is the affected person is EXCLUSIVELY attracted to that thing, be it an animal or a kid or an elderly person or even a freaking car crash. Philias are compulsions and, sadly, they turn many people in to abusers. That's the inherent danger with becoming so unbalanced that you lose the ability to express yourself sexually any other way.
,
Play. Get weird. Figure out what you like. But please remember that deviant actions only flow from deviant fantasies. If you feel yourself living outside your values, knock it off.
Largely Agreed- with one caveat- many philia like pedophilia may be exclusive or PRIMARY, meaning that one might be unable or just find it very difficult to gain arousal or satisfaction in absence of the stimuli of note- either way the core point of agreement there is that a true philia is one which makes a sex life without the focus of said philia difficult at the least unless it is addressed in some way.
I like that; primary is a better word than exclusive. If it were exclusive, there wouldn't be any success at rehabilitation, and that isn't the case. Good call.
Isn't that kind of the point of loli porn or whatever? You want to look at porn of little kids and that's the closest you're going to get? I'm not even really judging, I think people can't help certain things (while I'm not saying it's ok to entertain the notion and they need to seek help) but I've never accidentaly found myself going "Man, this piss porn is hot" or something when normally I think it's gross. I think if you're looking at drawings of little kids it's because you want to diddle kids, and you've got a serious issue. I can't really relate, and I'm not saying one sin is as bad as the other but lets call a spade a spade
8Reply
deleted
· 5 years ago
What's cáusing confusion is the incorrect definition of a pedophile and the missing differentiation to a person who is actually having (or is trying to have) sex with children. For example, Lewis Carroll most definitely was a pedophile but nobody ever even insinuated he ever touched a child in a sexual way. Reputable psychiatrists believe that many men who were found guilty of sexually attacking a child weren't even pedophiles. It was more about crossing a line of decency than living out specific sexual desires and executing power over a helpless human being. So not everone raping a child is a pedophile while not all pedophiles want to rape children.
As a matter of fact, it’s quite clear without psychological credentials that many who attack children aren’t pedophiles. Pedophilia requires primary attraction to prepubescents. Other psychological issues which cause a person to select child victims are not intrinsically pedophilia not are “crimes of opportunity” where age isn’t a component but the desire to act out other urges which aren’t age dependent. Likewise, “prepubescent” is defined as an age range and not a biological standard,
so statutory rape of a developed minor where said minor could be physically mistaken as older and a person was unaware or not primarily aroused by age related factors but general appearance of a developed “adult” body separate from an underdeveloped mind are not strictly pedophilia on their own merits.
Pedophilia or attraction to younger or “underage” partners- whatever one may feel about it isn’t inherently illegal. Individual morality differs but the subject can get rather complex and uncomfortable- as can any in-depth analysis of individual human sexuality. It’s key to not only at least be aware of and attempt proper use of language in such discourse, but to distinguish between thought, action, law, and intent of law.
The primary rule of law on the subject is to safeguard children from abuse and exploitation. While I personally do not condone embracing thoughts or fantasies about underage children, where such fantasies do not endanger children, abuse, or exploit them- we can’t conflate those fantasies with child molestation any more than we can conflate fantasizing about a non consenting stranger with rape. What is in the head is in the head. Those who frequently have disturbing thoughts- especially ones they fear they may act upon are urged to seek help in managing and understanding such thoughts regardless of what subject they may be upon- but as a society we must recognize we all have disturbing thoughts from time to time and we need to differentiate between those who seek help for these thoughts or who do harm because of them, and foster an environment where people feel safe to get help when these thoughts become frequent and or problematic.
deleted
· 5 years ago
"Pedophilia or attraction to younger or “underage” partners- whatever one may feel about it isn’t inherently illegal." - it has become a very fine line between legal and illegal all in all. From what I hear, in the UK you can get in actual legal trouble for merely visiting certain so-called jailbait sites, which mainly collect "frivolous" selfies kids put up in their own facebook, not even with full nudity, but "sexually stimulatiing" which all in all leaves an alarmingly high level of personal, subjective judgement for authorities and legal bodies.
Also, you said that desire alone is enough for a diagnosis, even if it's towards something imaginary.
By that logic, wanting to kill enemies in a game would indeed make you a psychopath. Or, playing Pokémon would mean you actually want to have animals fight each other.
Also, you seem well-versed in medical terminology. Could you perhaps tell me what the clinical term for some one who can't distinguish between fantasy and reality might be?
,
Play. Get weird. Figure out what you like. But please remember that deviant actions only flow from deviant fantasies. If you feel yourself living outside your values, knock it off.