People should not be disadvantaged, persecuted or oppressed because of their sexuality

Disadvantaged?

In the sense of unfair discrimination

In other words, people should be afforded the same basic rights as their fellow citizens, regardless of their sexuality.

I'm gonna have to disagree until I'm convinced that pedophilia isn't a form of sexuality.

Switcheroo...

Ben, you're right. Time to re-phrase.

Ahh. Bam, that's a switch for me, too, although I'm not necessarily 100% convinced (I think I'm in the same boat as Ben.)

I agree with the claim even if it does apply to pedophilia, on the understanding that actually acting on pedophilic desires is tantamount to rape and thus still punished. A pedophile, sitting alone in his house wanking to imagined or drawn children, is not currently harming anyone and has not harmed anyone and thus disadvantaging him amounts to precrime and a violation of liberty.

Worse, pedophilia is generally believed in modern psychology to stem from a sense of powerlessness and futility in relating to adults, which the pedophile attempts to counter by relating only to children.

(That is, a pedophile hangs out with kids because he thinks of them as his equals. That's why Michael Jackson is almost certainly a pedophile based on his public statements, whether or not he actually molested any children.)

If this theory is correct, disadvantaging, persecuting, or oppressing a pedophile who hasn't molested any children will only further worsen his pathology and make it more likely that he will molest children. This can only ruin his prospects for living in society. It's a course of action that, once started, can only reasonably end in the death penalty, imprisonment for life (read: tax $$$), or something similarly drastic.

Damn well said. Thank you CT, once again, a voice of reason. I'll just be swapping my vote, then.

Chronos, I agree with the essence of what you say, but, with respect, is it not fair to say that the scenario of “A pedophile, sitting alone in his house wanking to imagined or drawn children” is largely hypothetical? Is it not reasonable to surmise that most paedophiles will have made attempts to secure illicit photographic or video material? Or, to put it another way, until a person has indulged in such ‘real’ imagery, can we usefully call them a paedophile?

*switches vote again as head explodes*

Mr. Shofield, actually I think there are probably far more people turned on by children than most people realize. It's already been shown that there are far more potential rapists than most people realize. What keeps most potential rapists in check is a combination of not needing rape to be sexually satisfied and fear of consequences. I suspect the same is true with pedophilia. I suspect many people are turned on by children, but not exclusively by children. And that many people who are turned on by children take steps to not act on it.

It's hard to say, and incredibly hard to study because people don't want to stand up and be counted as desiring children. I'm impressed the rape stats were as attainable as they were. But it would fit with what I know of psychology, and fit with the significantly increased likelihood for a step-father to rape a child than a father to. I don't think this is a matter of people becoming step-fathers with evil intention, but an inherent weakness in many people, especially men, toward rape and a willingness to rape children. Please note, I'm not saying men are rapists. People also have tendencies toward violent expressions of anger and various other nasty things. The decent people keep them reasonably in check. That's what makes them decent, not the lack of desire.

You could define a pedophile as someone who can only be sexually satisfied with children, but I suspect that might define out some people who have actually raped children, which strikes me as a poor renaming. You could redefine it as only those who have acted on it, but that simply isn't what it means.

As Rachel mentioned, there are basically two categories of pedophile in modern psychological thinking: the "fixated" pedophile (the sort I was talking about, who's often a pedophile for life), and the "regressed" pedophile (the sort Rachel mentioned, where the pedophilia is more situational and the person involved is capable of adult relationships). I was focusing on "fixated" pedophiles, because they're the more difficult case.

Of course, since pedophilia is as stigmatized as it is, there are no good statistics on how many are actually are out there, or on how many of them successfully avoid molesting children. When the hysteria is so bad that even pediatricians get harassed because their profession starts with the prefix "ped-", there's little chance that pedophiles can receive professional help.

(Not that there's a lot that a therapist can really do, beyond offer support and work on the underlying self-esteem issues. But even is much more helpful than nothing.)

For those who can only have sexual satisfaction through acts that relate to children, there would be the potential to offer them drugs that significantly decrease the libido, were treatment a more easily attainable option.

Well stated. I am again made a flip-flopper.

Thanks, Rachel and Chronos, for sharing your wisdom and insight.

There are a few -philias that I wouldn't want generally accepted. Necrophilia, for example, is arguably a form of rape (i.e. lack of consent).