i don't think paedophilia is an illness, its a choice and a crime. if it weren't, paedophiles would be blameless, which i don't believe for one minute.

nope--it is actually a mental illness. it's classified in the DSM IV.

http://www.webmd.com/sex-relationships/features/explaining-pedophilia

and the fact that it is, in fact, a mental illness doesn't mean that pedophiles who act on their urges are blameless--one may have the unnatural urge to have a sexual relationship with a minor, but one doesn't have to act on it.

it works the same way as other mental illnesses: a sociopath may not understand human emotion as others do, but they don't have to commit murder.

i know what the classification is (my 2nd wife was a sociologist - silly discipline), but i think its plain wrong and apologetic. being a paodophile makes you a callous, calculating individual with a need for power over their victims, with a choice over right and wrong. i do not believe it makes them ill, and i do not think its helpful to call paedophilia an illness.

paedophilia is well known to have been widespread in ancient greece and rome. was that cultural, or and epidemic? personally i think it was cultural, and we have since come to realise that it is wrong, much like neutering of people and wifebeating.

i've heard the sociopath argument before - how then do you diagnose a sociopath who has not offended? there is no illness without symptoms.

other conditions which are in my opinion completely wrongly classified as illnesses are alcoholism, drug addiction and depression. there are times when medical science and psychology should butt out and realise that sometimes people aren't very nice and they make bad choices.

I'm not understanding why you think classifying pedophilia as a mental illness is apologetic. It doesn't make the crime any less wrong. In fact, it's what makes a pedophile one of the most dangerous offenders out there--the fact that it is a mental illness makes them more likely to repeat their offense, if they've acted on their urges, which was my original point.

Pedophilia was indeed wide-spread in ancient Rome and Greece, but now you're entering into cultural psychology, which is not applicable in this case. Roman Polanski did not grow up in ancient Rome or ancient Greece. He grew up in modern Western culture, which strongly emphasizes early on that children are children, and they are not to be sexualized. Other cultures are not so firm on this, but Western culture is. He committed his crime in the United States, which takes a firm stance on not engaging in sexual behavior with children.

There are several symptoms you can identify in a sociopath who hasn't committed an offense, just as there are plenty of symptoms you can identify in a pedophile, even if they haven't abused anyone. One is isolation--pedophiles often feel that they can't relate to people their own age. Another is good interpersonal skills only with children. Pedophiles, like sociopaths, tend to be very attractive to their victims.

Probably the most obvious symptom of pedophilia is having intense, consistent fantasies involving a prepubescent child, usually about thirteen years old or younger. Usually, they last about six months, and either cause clinically significant distress/social impairment, or the phenomenon of rationalization, which makes it even more dangerous.

There are also plenty of identifiable symptoms of sociopathism which can be caught before the person has committed an offense, but we're not talking about sociopaths, so I won't list them. You said that "being a paodophile makes you a callous, calculating individual with a need for power over their victims, with a choice over right and wrong," and that is true. A pedophile is a sick individual. This does not mean sick in the sense that one is deserving of pity, but it does make them very dangerous, because nothing really cures pedophilia except prevention. Once the crime has been committed, the individual is highly likely to commit it again.

Alcoholism, drug addiction and depression are inarguably illnesses. That doesn't mean that there are no bad choices involved, but you can have an addictive personality, which makes you more likely to develop the disease. And I'm sorry, but I'm actually pretty offended by what you have to say about depression--so someone who is depressed isn't "very nice" and has made "bad choices?"?

You can actually see all of these mental illnesses on the brain. Certain things go on chemically, which we can't help. There is, of course, always an aspect of it that involves an individual's decision-making and character (which, by the way, is part of psychology), but that's only half of the picture.

You said that "there are times when medical science and psychology should butt out and realise that sometimes people aren't very nice and they make bad choices," but science and realizing that "sometimes people aren't very nice and they make bad choices" aren't mutually exclusive. The bottom line is, referring to pedophilia as an illness is a fact, and that doesn't make the crime any less awful. If anything, it gives it even more of an edge because, as I said, it makes it more likely that they will act again.

I read that depression is the result of a lack of certain chemicals to the brain.

Thank you LoRaXspeek4keets,

On behalf of anyone who has suffered themselves or has had a family member suffer from depression, it is not a choice and no they cannot just "pull up their socks" and be happy any more than someone with diabetes can try really really hard to make insulin.

That is probably the saddest comment I have ever read on this forum and there have been a few zingers.

Btw nice to see you around on the forum, how is Nene doing? PM me!!

This is going off topic, so I have started a new thread:

Illnesses?
http://www.wineintro.com/forum/ubbthreads.php?ubb=showflat&Number=387417

The thing is, many 13 year olds are not pre-pubescent.
Many are sexually actively.
A few are parents.
In some societies they would be / would have been considered old enough for marriage.

I am not entirely convinced that sex with a sexually mature (and possibly sexually active) girl ~ even if she is under the age of consent, is genuine paedophilia.

I'm certyainly not saying that it isn't immoral.

If he knew her age ~ and drugged her for sex ~ then he knew that he was doing wrong. And he may even be a paedophile, of course. But it is odd that the woman does not want to proceed with this, and I do wonder what really went on.

I know of men, who have been convinced, by girls, that they were over 18, when they were not. And the men have got into legal trouble because of it.

How are the men to know?
How many people could be certain how old a teenage girl is?
Some 13 years old look 20; some 20 year olds look 13.

The most important part about that is the fantasies of a prepubescent child. That's it. It doesn't matter if she's 13 or 6. It is pedophilia. In this society. Which is the context in which he committed the crime.

I'll start a new thread on paedophilia and the age of consent.
http://www.wineintro.com/forum/ubbthreads.php?ubb=showflat&Number=387431