Essay talk:Pedophilia is not a sexual orientation

I doubt very much
I doubt very much that you'll find anyone here who is going to argue this point with you. We're all on the same page with the idea of "consenting adults" as a foundation of sexual morality. P-Foster Talk "Armed with the knowledge of our past we can charter a course for our future"--MX 18:12, 11 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Personally, i think pedophilia *is* a sexual orientation, psychologically. Just as shoe fetishes are an orientation, if that is a necessary aspect of your sexuality. That said, "so fucking what".  labels do not matter.  the only thing that matters is this: is your partner or love interest able to give legal and moral consent.  And did he, she or it.  [[Image:Pink mowse.png|25px]]Godot    On a perdu le contrôle 18:18, 11 April 2012 (UTC)
 * I'd probably agree with you, but "Claiming that it's a legitimate sexual orientation is not an acceptable excuse for child sexual abuse" was a little too long. Omar (gibber) 18:21, 11 April 2012 (UTC)


 * Yeah, I wasn't really expecting to. This is more of a, "it's handy to have a list of issues with these arguments to link to somewhere" and essayspace seemed the most appropriate. Omar (gibber) 18:21, 11 April 2012 (UTC)
 * ECE::So you're arguing for a degree of hard-wiredness/formative experiences that shapes people's sexual desires. Okay. But I think our friend here is writing about "sexual orientation" not just as a the set of things that gets someone off, which isn't just gender preference, but a whole set of things: shoes, spankings, blondes, being tied up, oral, anal, etc.etc.etc. but as a legal/social/identity position. As a straight person, there are certain rights and privileges I expect--I can marry who I want, visit her in the hospital, whatever--that I would be denied if I were not straight. How I "do" my straight sexuality is totally irrelevant to that, because we're talking about "straight" as a social/legal category. Gay activism is less about what gays do in the bedroom (although that's part of it) as it is the set of rights from which they are excluded because they are gay. What our friend wants to avoid, I think, is arguments where pedophiles treat their sexual tastes/desires as a position from which to make claims for rights--something nobody wants. P-Foster Talk "Armed with the knowledge of our past we can charter a course for our future"--MX 18:26, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

Only inasmuch as a predilection is an orientation, pedophilia is an orientation. I'm also not sure about the age at which consent can "rightfully" be given. Occasionaluse (talk) 18:53, 11 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Predelictions aren't orientations in this sense because we don't keep people from fully participating in society based on (legal) predilictions. Homosexuality is totally legal, but as an orientation it is used as a reason to exclude people from particular rights. P-Foster Talk "Armed with the knowledge of our past we can charter a course for our future"--MX 19:00, 11 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Only when you presuppose the legality of each predilection. Occasionaluse (talk) 19:08, 11 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Name a predilection, the participation in which will disqualify me from filing a joint tax return with someone or visiting them in the hospital. Orientation is bigger than predilection because it shapes how people are able to participate as citizens even when it's legal. P-Foster Talk "Armed with the knowledge of our past we can charter a course for our future"--MX 19:14, 11 April 2012 (UTC)
 * That's a narrow definition of orientation that I neither share nor wish to debate. Occasionaluse (talk) 19:16, 11 April 2012 (UTC)
 * I agree with OU on that one. Rather than deal in abstracts, let's have an example: Stephen Fry's deflowering as described by him in the first volume of his autobiography. For those who haven't read it, Fry was at a boarding school and was approached by a prefect, whom we must assume was in the 16-18 y/o range - if the book has figures I can't remember them. Fry was a few years younger. The prefect told Fry that his youthful body reminded him of a girl and that he'd like to kiss him. Kissing moved on, and - to cut a short story shorter - it ended up with some Vaseline behind the bike sheds.
 * So the prefect had sex with an underage male. Does that make him a homosexual pedophile? But he was doing it because he wanted a girl and there wasn't one, so was it straight pedophilia? Was it neither?
 * Let's have another example. I worked at a computer company for several months with a guy in his 50s who was a convicted pedophile. He was also gay. Horrors, right? A old gay man sodomizing our kids. That's how it was presented in the News of the World when he stood for the local council, but the truth is much different. His conviction dated back several decades, to the era in the UK when the age of consent for male homosexual sex was 21. He was arrested at the age of 18 while having sex with a 17 year old, but because the younger man was a minor, he got let off while my colleague was tried as an adult and convicted of assaulting a minor.
 * A lot of the shyness, embarrassment and repression to do with sex comes from the need of some people to apply simple labels to everything. Please stop doing that, pass me my tube of lube and hold the gerbil still. rpeh •T•C•E• 19:50, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

Assuming Frye was below the age of consent, example one is pedophilia. The gender of the perpetrator and the victim are irrelevant to that fact.P-Foster Talk "Armed with the knowledge of our past we can charter a course for our future"--MX 19:52, 11 April 2012 (UTC)
 * It's pedophilia when one underage person fancies another? Fuck me, I was a pedophile for about 6 years and never knew it! TerrenceKoeckring (talk) 19:55, 11 April 2012 (UTC)
 * From Encyclopaedia Britanica "psychosexual disorder in which an adult's arousal and sexual gratification occur primarily through sexual contact with prepubescent children." Two children having underage sex is not paedophilia. Where and how you draw the various lines is a very complex matter. Bob Soles (talk) 22:25, 11 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Exactly. As far as I'm concerned, it's the "prepubescent" part that needs to be emphasized. I'm not talking about teenagers. Updating the page now to reflect this. Another case to be made for rationalist taboo. Omar (gibber) 13:56, 13 April 2012 (UTC)