"Paedophilia is a sexual orientation" taught in California schools

[Lamaha]

Tell me it isn't true.

freedomproject.com/the-newman-report/1077-pedophilia-being-taught-as-sexual-orientation-in-california-schools

Horrified, the mother turned activist expressed shock at Torres' admission. “So sex between a man and a boy is a sexual orientation?” she asked. Torres did not deny it. “It's something that occurred in history, and so this is really important for us to include,” the assistant superintendent said, implying that yes, sexual relations between a man and a boy — properly considered rape under the laws of every state — is a “sexual orientation.”

Morality I hadn't thought of it in those terms before. I do love MN for this reason, even though this discussion is an unpleasant topic it is thought provoking.

So someone could simply be a nasty evil rapist and not be especially attracted to children, but it could be more of an opportunistic thing. As was said earlier someone could maintain a adult sexual relationship and also abuse a child so that doesn't support the argument of it being a sexual orientation.

Children who are groomed for the purposes of creating a sense of a relationship to manipulate and rape them, and only with children would be a paedophile who is a child molester. I'm thinking MJ...allegedly...

I'm not changing my view on paedophiles and child molesters being monsters, just thinking about it in new terms.

It is quite common (ish) for paedophiles to target single mothers developing relationships in order to access the children. It's misleading to think of paedophilia as exclusive, it's more like a preference in many cases. Just as many gay or lesbian people have had heterosexual relationships.

Apparently paedophiles in the true sense of the word are only attracted to children emotionally, 'romantically', sexually etc. and some studies have found physical differences in their brains. I presume MJ fell within that category; though it was interesting, if that's the right word (!) to hear one if his victims say he still met him and had sex with him when he was pubescent/post pubescent. Perhaps having built up the "relationship" with the young man as a child, he was still attracted to him/felt he had a bond with him. (Plus the young man was definitely still not a mature adult). Another notable thing about MJ is that he seems to have been specifically a pederast - only attracted to the same sex/boys.

Anyway, yes - the vast majority of sex offenders against children do not fall into this category. They are attracted to and enter into relationships with adults. What they have in common is immorality, exploitativeness, a predatory nature, no boundaries, entitlement (other humans are there to fulfill their needs Inc sexual, children or not) etc etc., lack of compassion, lack of empathy, lack of responsibility, deceptiveness etc. I suppose they are likely to be psychopaths and sociopaths.

Many people don't fully understand this even now and a man being married/in a relationship with an adult (or having been) is incompatible with him sexually abusing children; he couldn't have done it.

That attitude has ensured large numbers of men got away with it and large numbers of victims were disbelieved.

I think I read somewhere that the typical profile if a child sex abuser is married, employed, a church attender, a father himself.

Checked the figures (in the interest of precision) From the Guardian
Establishing a relationship with a single mother is a common strategy used by predatory paedophiles to gain access to children. Such men represent about a fifth of child sex offenders; the rest are relatives or otherwise known to the victim.

Maybe not in this thread; but I've often seen "Christian" used in a mocking way, as a slur, assuming that "we are all intelligent people here and don't worship an imaginary friend in the sky,' and dismissive of anything that comes out of such a person's mouth.
I can imagine that can get pretty annoying to an intelligent, well-educated Christian of sound ethical values.

I agree. I'm sick of people dismissing Christians in such sweeping, woke ways. Christians, and Christianity, form a very broad church.

It is quite common (ish) for paedophiles to target single mothers developing relationships in order to access the children. It's misleading to think of paedophilia as exclusive, it's more like a preference in many cases. Just as many gay or lesbian people have had heterosexual relationships.

Absolutely, it is most often opportunistic.

I think goose is confusing 'orientation' with fetish.

As far as MJ went, he suffered some pretty extreme abuse himself, and some of it IMO was sexual even though that isn't always aknowledged. I've also understood that there may have been some attempts to delay his puberty though I am not sure how reliable that is.

So how he got to be the way he was seems pretty difficult to detangle. I'd expect someone like that to have a lot of emotional problems with forming relationships.

I have a psychologist cousin who works with sex offenders in prisons, my understanding from her is that peadophiles aren't particularly the majority of those involved with offences against children.

I think goose is confusing 'orientation' with fetish.The fact that pedarists have existed through history does not make it a 'sexual orientation'. Sexual orientation implies some degree of reciprocity between participants. Sex with children is a, largely, one way act of abuse.

Calling it a sexual orientation, legitimises it and put it on a par with other sexual orientations.

This then in turn, leds to a narrative where those who believe they are being denied the right to follow their sexual orientation are somehow persecuted.

And it also legitimatises the case to follow the social acceptance of other sexual orientations by using this narrative of being persecuted. This is why you get the crap about how its a 'natural thing' which has been around historically for thousands of years too.

Its all about legitimisation which paves the way, whether deliberately or unwittingly for even having a discussion about whether its 'normal' or not.

This entire thread is the product of legitimising it as a sexual orientation. It is part of the normalising process. Be wary of anything abhorent which seeks to frame things in a historical or social way which glosses over the reality of abuse by doing so.

Abuse is about power and control afterall.

Thank you Morality - people (including counsellors I’ve seen) are often aghast when I say that I don’t believe that my abuser was a paedophile. Most people can’t grasp the idea that someone could abuse a child and not be a paedophile.

My abuser was my father. He had relationships with adult women throughout his adult life, including three marriages that I know of. Aside from his abuse of me, I never saw any evidence that he was attracted to children.

He was an all round abusive man, sexually physically and emotionally. He abused every female in his life. I don’t think he had an unmanageable sexual attraction to children - I think it was just another form of his abuse, control and overall misogyny.

"I think goose is confusing 'orientation' with fetish.The fact that pedarists have existed through history does not make it a 'sexual orientation'. Sexual orientation implies some degree of reciprocity between participants. Sex with children is a, largely, one way act of abuse."

Confused is the wrong word, and no, I don't think they are really the same. That's an opinion though.

I think that sexual orientation is a vague and ill-defined word, and in fact people often use it for things that maybe fetishes, or have some different sort of origin. I think it's probably the case that for some people, what looks like a homosexual or heterosexual orientation could be fetishistic in origin, but many people would think it was offensive to say so, even when it seemed pretty obvious.
The difficulty is that I don't think there is a clear enough definition of sexual orientation to actually say it is outright incorrect to use it with regard to things like fetishes - if people think that such things can be inborn, they may see that language as very sensible. In any case, paedophilia doesn't seem like it is a fetish, or at least not always, it does seem like it may be inborn which is why I think people use the term orientation.

I'm not sure why anyone thinks that there is some necessary connection with a sexual orientation and moral approval or disapproval though.

And I really don't see what reciprocity has to do with it.

And I really don't see what reciprocity has to do with it.

Usually when one talks about a sexual orientation then one assumes a reciprocity of attraction between participants. This is not the case between a paedophile and their prey.

I don't for one minute think that paedophilia is in-born. It develops as a release valve for pressing psychological issues. Paedophilia can never be the healthy pursuit of a whole individual.

"Usually when one talks about a sexual orientation then one assumes a reciprocity of attraction between participants. This is not the case between a paedophile and their prey.

I don't for one minute think that paedophilia is in-born. It develops as a release valve for pressing psychological issues. Paedophilia can never be the healthy pursuit of a whole individual."

No, I don't think one does assume that, I don't think that is in any way implied in the idea of orientation. That's not even part of the loosest common usage I've ever heard, and it's not uncommon to hear about people who are predators as having a particular sexual orientation that they follow, which seems separate from whatever it is that makes them predatory.

I don't know that peadophiles are born that way - I am sure that not all people who assault children are paedophiles. But I also don't think there is any reason to make a statement that they aren't.

It seems like you think that people can't be born with a sexual orientation that would be in some way negative or anti-social because that would undermine the idea that sexual orientation should be protected. I think that's an ideological position though, not a scientific one. It could be that sexual orientation could include a few different inborn sorts of sexual interests, and so not all sexual orientations are positive or healthy. Would that have to change the way some people think about the idea of sexual orientation, probably, but I think people can handle that. We already know that some people are born not healthy, and that for some a sexual relationship is not going to be a way to find wholeness.

I'm not changing my view on paedophiles and child molesters being monsters, just thinking about it in new terms.

I don’t actually see paedophiles as monsters, when considering paedophiles simply as those who are attracted to children. I think there are very few human beings who would choose a sexual attraction to children - I can imagine that discovering you are attracted to children would be horrific for most people, given that we live in a society that abhors this (understandably). I don’t believe that paedophilia is an orientation you are born with, like hetero or homosexuality. I believe it’s something that’s triggered by experiences in childhood, whether negative or positive, I don’t think the attraction in itself makes someone evil and it’s not something I would ever want to have to deal with. I can’t think of a much worse thing to feel.

I suppose I see paedophiles and child abusers as two distinct groups - obviously there will be a lot of crossover but I don’t believe that being one necessarily means you are both.

@YetAnotherSurvivor

They don't want to believe it. It's too complicated but and be all, it's too frightening/threatening.

I'm so sorry you went through that.

I don’t believe that paedophilia is an orientation you are born with, like hetero or homosexual

Apparently true paedophiles (exclusively attracted to children) do have brain differences that are observable.

I don't know what the solution to it is. Some people look forward to replacing malfunctioning brain parts in people like this (and pschopaths) in the future, but that is currently science fiction.

I don't think any kinds of bad desires make people monsters, if they did we'd all be in trouble. The real tragedy even of people who are monsters, who do terrible things, is that they are in fact human beings.

Antisocial sexual attraction must be very stressful I think. There are a large proportion of people who have at one time or another in their lives done something sexually they are not proud of, it's a very powerful drive and over years it's pretty common to make a mistake. To have your desire be something so very wrong that even one slip up would be grossly immoral, I think I'd go crazy.

We really could use a lot more research into it, but it's difficult, they don't really even have a very good idea how many people with such feelings actually offend.

(I still wouldn't call that an orientation, someone above said disorder, that's more accurate to me).

One of the problems is the fluidity of language and meaning both at a social level and legally. I really think we have to differentiate between 'neutral' sexual orientation and 'harmful' sexual orientation. Paedophilia would be the latter because it causes distress if not acted on and harm if acted on.
For example outlawing conversion therapy. This is fine for homosexuals but it is being extended to trans under the total acceptance banner. If this was extended to paedophiles it would mean treatment could be difficult. A way round this of course is specifying homosexuality rather than the general term sexual orientation in law.

It seems like you think that people can't be born with a sexual orientation that would be in some way negative or anti-social because that would undermine the idea that sexual orientation should be protected

This is the dictionary definition of 'sexual orientation': "a person's sexual identity in relation to the gender to which they are attracted; the fact of being heterosexual, homosexual, or bisexual." Nothing ideological. That is the definition. However, you do seem to believe that it is some sort of in-born tendency ( which I could argue is ideological). Why?I'm suggesting that paedophilia is not something you are born with, but something which develops.

If people were 'born with it' how might it manifest at age 4, 5, or 6 years of age, for example? It is often said that many nascent gay children often identify, or see themselves as the opposite sex when young. As children are not sexualised beings in the way that adults are, this is how their 'gayness' manifests.

It is possible to prove or show almost anything with science - and these days everything has to be shown to have some sort of biological or genetic cause. However, my feeling is that developmental and environmental issues are the biggest triggers most certain conditions and tendencies.

Trans activists are desperate to show, for example, some biological reason for their trans-ness, and there are plenty of vested interests keen to fund studies that show this to be the case. How would that explain, though, people who go on to desist and de-transition? If something is in-born, and inevitable, then desistance would not occur.

My understanding, as someone said above, is that peadophiles seem to have an imnborn reason for being that way. It's possible of course that it is something else, but I'm not sure that matters, simply because it really could be the case that they are. At this point there are no clear answers but some indications that inborn tendency is a real possibility.

That's what I mean by ideological I suppose - it seems to be working backward from not wanting to see it as similar to other orientations, so concluding that it isn't biological in origin.

I don't think "being trans" as it's understood now is actually inborn , and there is good reason to think it's not. It's its own consideration, apart from whether any sort of sexual orientation is inborn, we have to look at them all on their own merits. Dysphoria might be some sort of inborn problem in some people, though I suspect it's much more complicated than that.

As far as whether we see some of these as illnesses or not, or harmful or not, again, I think that's fine, and comes down to questions of how it affects people's lives. Being a psychopath seems to be an inborn genetic thing, and so does propensity to some mental illnesses, all of which can clearly affect people's ability to live in the world. There is likely to be some disagreement about what things are a problem and what aren't though, we can see that historically.
I am not sure about what I think about bans on conversion therapy in general. In some cases they seem to be based on the idea that we can't change things which are inborn, but that seems like it might not always be the case to me. People talk about trying to do this with problems like autism. On the other hand it's controversial, people with autism and Downs have reacted rather negatively to the idea of prevention. I suspect really dysphoric people might prefer to avoid that, if it was a similar type of situation. The idea of preventing paedophilia or psychopaths maybe seems like a good thing, but it does seem to create some of the same questions about changing who people are at the most basic level. In all of these cases, I wonder, if we could make these changes in people who were adults, would it be right to impose them on others, and would it be right to withhold them if people wanted to change themselves?