Post No.: 0956
Fluffystealthkitten says:
This is a sensitive and controversial topic to discuss – but that has never stopped me from exploring what different people with different viewpoints think. Meow.
Okay, if whom a person is sexually attracted to isn’t their choice then perhaps we should make a distinction between paedophiles who act upon their impulses (which includes accessing indecent images online, which isn’t a victimless act because supply influences demand) and those who don’t?
In other words, should we morally separate the urge (paedophilia) from the act (child sex abuse)?
We don’t revile men who fancy women – just those who rape, sexually harass or otherwise do things to them or their property (including their private images or videos) without their consent.
Mutually (all affected parties) fully informed (no deception) and consensual (from those with sufficient mental capacity and non-coerced control to give their consent) sexual acts are mostly acceptable.
Underage minors aren’t considered able to give their consent though because they’re deemed to not be developmentally mature enough to comprehend certain decisions, including when to engage in sexual behaviours. Children must be protected rather than exploited by adults. Adults are responsible for looking after their best interests and health. Age isn’t just a number here! (Then again, many adults make decisions when they’re not fully mature or informed too so where do we draw the line? It’s not like when a person reaches their 16th, 18th or 21st birthday, it’s like ‘kazaam’ and they suddenly become wise about everything!)
Do paedophiles choose their sexual preferences any more than heterosexuals, homosexuals, bisexuals, gerontophiles or those into sexual masochistic kinks for instance? And how shall we decide what crosses into becoming an impermissible paraphilia (a persistent, intense and atypical sexual arousal pattern) if acted upon?
Should paedophilia be treated as a health issue, at least as well as a criminal issue if a criminal act has been committed? Homosexuality was once treated as a crime and health issue that needed ‘curing from’ too.
Many people regard paedophilia (or bestiality) as completely incomparable to homosexuality or bisexuality in terms of how it genetically and/or environmentally arises though. Children are indeed different to adults, even when mutual consent is present; although survivors of sexual abuse can be adults too, not just children.
But paedophiles are sometimes the victims of child abuse themselves, hence a vicious cycle; although note that the majority of victims/survivors of child sexual abuse never become perpetrators. The age when one was abused, the severity, and the gender of the perpetrator, appear to shape this risk too. If people profess that sexual preferences aren’t choices and they cannot be changed then paedophiles are essentially victims of something they didn’t choose – of mere luck. And people shouldn’t really be morally punished for their misfortunes.
If people alternatively assert that sexual preferences are choices then paedophiles can change, and their path towards change should be supported because there’s hope. Just like with drug abusers, convicted sexual abusers – even if they’re serving or have served prison sentences – need support if society wants them to not act upon their urges again. More important than punishing child abusers afterwards is to prevent child abuse in the first place.
So I guess the core conundrum is whether people’s sexualities are a choice? If no then should paedophiles (or indeed homosexuals, asexuals, etc.) be condemned for things they didn’t choose? If yes then should paedophiles (or indeed homosexuals, asexuals, etc.) be forced to change their preferences to fit according to the present culturally accepted norms lest they be ostracised from society, even if they don’t ever act upon their desires?
Owning child pornography was only made illegal in Japan in 2014! But some may contend that, like recreational drugs, it should be legalised and thus regulated to protect the consumers(!)
Some may contend that enough of the Japanese market decides it prefers very young models and hence child pornography, thus it’s just the free market at work, and it should be all about personal freedoms and profit maximisation(!) Yes, some people (children in this case) get exploited but it’s ‘survival of the fittest’.
I’m deliberately making some absurd arguments here! But one value of having interests in a wide breadth of philosophical topics is that I can compare them with each other to potentially find any contradictions – like people arguing for laissez-faire self-regulation in some contexts but not others despite the harms caused towards others (like towards small local businesses or animals/biodiversity). Whatever our logic is – we should at least aim to be consistent.
I’m not saying that I’ve fully appraised my thoughts on this particular topic that even I find tough to ponder. I’m just thinking along as I’m writing.
Many people who work with children aren’t paedophiles. Lots of people have photographed children but aren’t attracted to them. Stalking children, preferring to be in the company of children over people of one’s own age, insisting on spending time alone with children and on kissing, hugging, wrestling or tickling them even when a child doesn’t want it, are stronger clues. A history of related offences is obviously the most glaring sign.
It’s a sad world when people with no selfish intentions are too tentative to help children (or women) who might need assistance though because they’re afraid of being accused as sexual predators.
We’ve got to be aware that kids who cry in school aren’t necessarily crying due to something happening in school but due to something happening at home or elsewhere. And they mightn’t tell the truth that it’s something regarding an abusive relative to anyone either because they fear that it’d only lead to even more abuse at home. Children who are sexually or otherwise abused by family members worry about telling the truth to teachers or the police in case the family gets broken apart due to social services intervening. Or they may be confused or simply don’t know any better and think that what they’re receiving at home is normal for everyone else. They might, when they grow older, later learn that what happened to them was actual abuse or that they shouldn’t have lied about not being abused to protect someone because this can complicate the success of a criminal case made against their abuser.
Barely all sexual assaults get reported immediately. This delay is more likely to happen with child sexual abuse survivors, who might take decades before they openly mention it to anyone. It might also take an equally as long time for them to mentally reclaim sex as something that’s on their own terms.
Some never report their sexual abuse experiences ever. Various reasons include the offender is their partner and the survivor is dependent on their income, or not wishing to ruin a family member’s life (most sexual assaults are committed by someone the victim/survivor knows). Men, although far, far more rarely than women, can get raped too.
Due to the ‘fight, flight, freeze or fawn’ response – different victims react differently in the midst of an abusive experience. They don’t always fight back and scream just because they don’t permit the act. Many freeze and try to mentally dissociate themselves from the situation. Also, tragically, even if a case is reported, survivor accounts can be scrambled because under the above stress response, the brain tunnel-visions heavily on the here and now (i.e. on surviving the immediate threat) and not on the bigger picture (like what time of day it was). The memory of the trauma itself will remain incredibly vivid but the details that help bring a perpetrator to justice can be fragmented, especially if someone attempted to dissociate themselves from the experience at the time.
According to Freudian thinking (i.e. take with caution), the repression of unpleasant memories, emotions or impulses is an automatic defence mechanism. We cannot access those memories consciously but the thoughts will remain in our unconscious and affect us, mayhap via anxieties and aggression directed towards certain things associated with the original trauma. The more modern thinking however is that traumas will far more naturally create stronger memories that may, in some cases, lead to PTSD. Read Post No.: 0904 for more about PTSD.
Some honestly claim that they must’ve repressed some memories, but it could be the case that they’re getting gaslighted with false memories? Other explanations could be basic forgetting over time, denial, dissociation or some other memory disorder (regularly drinking alcohol until one blacks out as an adolescent or younger might cause lasting deleterious memory effects), or how new information reshapes our interpretations of past events – like if we only subsequently learn that the way one was touched by one’s teacher when young definitely amounted to sexual abuse.
Whether it’s troubling thoughts or troubling past experiences – it’s not usually memory repression but the way people simply find it difficult to talk about these experiences of theirs as to why we don’t hear them ever mentioning them until perhaps many years later. Of course if we don’t revisit a memory for a long time, it will gradually become fuzzier – but it’s especially hard to forget about traumatic events. And I suppose if you, say, got hit so frequently as a child, you’re not going to remember every individual incident of being lashed, but you’ll still remember that you were struck frequently. So a lack of individual novelty or saliency can mean we forget specific individual incidents and their finer details – just like we barely remember every occasion we’ve urinated.
…The more one learns and understands about psychology, mental disorders, and the way the universe, world and life works scientifically, the less likely one will take an extreme, enraged, knee-jerk reaction of ‘execute them all’, ‘lock them all up and never let them out’, ‘there’s no point in listening to their viewpoints or trying to learn what’s going on in their heads’, ‘they’re fundamentally evil’ or similar reactions regarding paedophiles, addicts, criminals or any other deviant or miscreant in general.
There’s a switch from merely emotional arguments such as expressions of disgust and anger to trying to understand the situation and people better. For those who’ve already committed criminal acts, the focus switches from vilification and punishment to rehabilitation, prevention and remedy.
Free will is understood to be an illusion, or at least no one is ever fully in control of their own choices and destinies. Yet we still want and need a civilised and safe society and coexistence for all, plus pragmatic solutions.
So certain behaviours can still be criminalised but also be regarded as public health or socio-economic issues too. So it’s not that those who break the law shouldn’t be incarcerated or otherwise punished for deterrent reasons and for the protection of the rest of society but – even if they’re ultimately practically entrenched and uncorrectable – these people are the way they are due to at least some factors that weren’t reasonably within their control, like their genetics, upbringing or environmental circumstances. People neither ultimately chose, earned nor deserved their genes, or indeed upbringings – either fortunate or unfortunate. They therefore debatably require our understanding and help to prevent them from acting out their desires even if they cannot change those desires.
For example, some contend that Manga cartoon depictions of, or AI-generated, child pornography involve no real-life victims and is thus a safe outlet for paedophiles who otherwise might turn to real children to fulfil their desires. A counterpoint however is won’t this normalise an environmental culture of sexualising young childlike figures?
Because we should contestably separate the mental desire, which isn’t itself criminal, from any physical act like actually molesting a child, which is criminal – I don’t believe that entrapment (luring paedophiles out with promises of child images or sex with a minor) is ethical – this’d be like luring a drug or gambling addict out with drugs or gambling opportunities. Rapidly taking down online images of abuse that ‘feed the desire’ is a must though.
Meow.
Comment on this post by replying to this tweet:
