Debate:Should pedophiles be pressured to remain closeted?
There is a social stigma against pedophiles' outing themselves as having attractions to children, even if they say they intend to refrain from any illegal behavior. Arguments in favor of their being pressured to remain closeted are that (1) acceptance of the desire for sex with children could lead to acceptance of the practice of sex with children, and (2) if pedophiles are able to openly reveal their sexuality, it will be easier for them to find one another and engage in organized exploitation of children. Arguments in favor of their not being pressured to remain closeted are that (1) it could make them more comfortable seeking treatment and participating in pedosexuality research and (2) people should not be stigmatized for a desire that they cannot help, as long as they do not act upon it.— Unsigned, by: Landmartian / talk / contribs 19:18, 18 February 2015 (UTC)
Wherever the clinical evidence points
I'm content to leave this question up to professional criminologists and psychologists. To that end the only a priori suggestion I'm going to make is not compelling psychologists to break patient confidentiality for non-offending pedophiles. Ikanreed (talk) 19:23, 18 February 2015 (UTC)
- Would this also apply in situations in which the patient has ready access to children and intense symptoms of pedophilia, but denies having offended? See e.g. this article. Landmartian (talk) 19:58, 18 February 2015 (UTC)
- Ugh, you and your gray areas. Well, I'd say that, conventionally, there is literally no improvement in that situation over them not seeking clinical treatment at all. Chilling effects can be terrible. Absent evidence of offense, they're still citizens with all the rights that entails. Do we demand non-offending psychopaths be held to arbitrary standards of risk? Non-offending kleptomaniacs(well, I'm not sure that exists, by definition) be kept out of stores? The psychologist might have good cause to counsel them to seek new lines of employment.
- No... I feel if we make psychologists compelled to violate confidentiality in that situation, all we're doing is isolating pedophiles from preventative measures. If the psychologist in question feels as though they are lying, existing "immediate hazard" exemptions apply. Ikanreed (talk) 20:06, 18 February 2015 (UTC)
- Ugh....this is a topic I struggle to speak out about, for reasons, but here I go....There's a huge amount of unstudied things to this topic...should pedophilia or hebephilia be considered actual mental disorders? If so what's stopping homosexuality from being considered one as well? If instead we consider it a sexual orientation who's expected to accept it? It's not likely many people would, at least for a very long time, no matter how much in the public eye it is.
- Related, I have seen some studies showing decreased underage sex crimes when in areas that readily accept some form of cathartic outlet, usually and preferably animated, of course. I cannot look up the actual validity of these since I'm at work, but it's out there.
- Overall, I personally think having some sort of outlet is more helpful in most cases. ABDL fetishists, roleplayers, and other related fetishists, as well as some available anime of the topic, do more good in my eyes than the general view of "it makes them think it's OK." Honestly, the more non-closeted -philes that are out there the more it can be studied, providing help for those that have legitimate anxiety or a lack of self control.Trick (talk) 20:58, 18 February 2015 (UTC)
- Side note to potential assumptions, no I am not a pedophile or hebephile myself. I just have certain anxieties with speaking out on such a controversial topic. Trick (talk) 21:07, 18 February 2015 (UTC)
- Note: tolerance towards pedophilia, not child molestation.
Similar to prostitution and drugs, a more acceptant/tolerant society (and government) could be a great incentive for these people to not regress into criminal behaviour. And if they're out in the open, it'll probably be a lot easier to spot warning signals indicative of criminal intentions before the actual crime is committed. 188.8.131.52 (talk) 14:01, 19 February 2015 (UTC)
Both Shota and Loli
pornography artwork tend to assert that the characters are actually old enough to consent (usually 18 years or older) but that they merely look young. Sketchy as the premise may be, if we could put warnings and labels on pornography depicting young-looking characters and assert that "it's okay to like the appearance of youth" but that it's "only legal if your real life partner is old enough to consent" then we might create a large market which satiates pedophilic desires whilst still discouraging criminal behaviours. This, coupled with more available therapy to cope with the criminal aspect of pedophilia, could reduce rates of child molestation. Sinclair Sanguine talk to Sinclair 18:23, 12 February 2016 (UTC)