Jared Fogle & Subway

[Aractus]

No those personal attacks were completely out of line.

Fuck you, I'm never speaking to you again.

[DespondentFishdeathMasochismo]

I agree with you aractus about the stigmatization of pedophiles. I was talking with my dad and my cousin at dinner at my uncle's birthday party about this issue. They were under the impression that Jared Fogle is mentally ill. I contested that people are attracted to all sorts of things, and children just happens to be what Fogle is attracted to. What they contested was that once someone starts touching kids then that's when it becomes a matter of mental illness. I guess if they lack empathy towards kids then that could seem like it's a reason to say they lack some sort of basic fundamental trait. We seemed to reach the conclusion that it becomes a "mental illness" once you actually lay a hand on a kid. I don't really know why we're calling it a mental illness though.

Don't get me wrong, I am not trying to defend pedophilia. I don't think touching kids is right and I think it's very damaging to them, we've probably all heard the reports of the psychological damage to the kids. I also am of the opinion that someone's sexuality isn't something you can dictate, so I'm sort of lost for the reason why pedophilia is considered a mental illness. I'm not really a doctor, so I don't know how I can come to that conclusion, it seems pretty half baked. Then there's the other problem that people generally make pedophiles out to be the absolute scum of the earth. While it's true that touching kids is a horrendous act, I wouldn't hate someone for being a pedophile. I would probably be friends with someone if they were into kids but kept it to themselves. 

All that being said, I do think the Jarod Fogle issue is very fucked up. I don't necessarily think it's terrible that supposedly the minors he was having sex with were like what, 17? 16? I mean, that's a bit fucked up for a guy is age, but still that age range doesn't seem terrible for the kids involved. I think there's probably people of that age who are capable of consenting and knowing exactly what they're doing. I heard that he was involved in helping his friend in the filming of child pornography. I don't really know much about that issue so I can't really comment. Anyways I like to look at a situation from a lot of different angles, which are sometimes more taboo to look at. Doing anything with much younger kids is not right.

[Aractus]

I agree with you aractus about the stigmatization of pedophiles. I was talking with my dad and my cousin at dinner at my uncle's birthday party about this issue. They were under the impression that Jared Fogle is mentally ill. I contested that people are attracted to all sorts of things, and children just happens to be what Fogle is attracted to.

Well that's because it is listed as a mental disorder in the DSM. But I've decided to publish a blog post I wrote a couple of months back - Is mental illness a sham? Enjoy.

What they contested was that once someone starts touching kids then that's when it becomes a matter of mental illness. I guess if they lack empathy towards kids then that could seem like it's a reason to say they lack some sort of basic fundamental trait. We seemed to reach the conclusion that it becomes a "mental illness" once you actually lay a hand on a kid. I don't really know why we're calling it a mental illness though.

Well yes a person has the condition whether they act on it or not. I am operating under the belief that most people who are sexually attracted towards children exercise self-control, but I believe that's easier for some people (i.e. those who are also sexually attracted to adults) than it is for others who are only sexually attracted to kids.

All that being said, I do think the Jarod Fogle issue is very fucked up. I don't necessarily think it's terrible that supposedly the minors he was having sex with were like what, 17? 16? I mean, that's a bit fucked up for a guy is age, but still that age range doesn't seem terrible for the kids involved. I think there's probably people of that age who are capable of consenting and knowing exactly what they're doing. I heard that he was involved in helping his friend in the filming of child pornography. I don't really know much about that issue so I can't really comment. Anyways I like to look at a situation from a lot of different angles, which are sometimes more taboo to look at. Doing anything with much younger kids is not right.

I didn't read the specifics of his case, but a psychiatrist that examined him said he had "mild paedophilia" and to have paedophilia he must be sexually attracted to precedent children (not simply 16 and 17 year olds).

[DespondentFishdeathMasochismo]

Regardless of if pedophiles are attracted to younger children, my point still stands that I don't feel that's a reason to dislike them. If they act on that impulse, then that's unfortunate and there should definitely be laws to protect children from harm. Honestly though, I don't regard mere attraction towards kids as anything to be ashamed of. Human beings are very complex creatures when it comes to sexuality, our sexual preferences can range anything from sexual attraction to objects, to 2D cartoons, to different species. There's not a way to dictate whether people are attracted to simply male or female. Biology didn't build in a program that is responsible for "right and wrong" when it comes to attraction, so why should I act like there is? This is an ignorant notion that society in general has. It's this predisposition to making preconceived notions which leads to so much prejudice and hatred towards many things that aren't harmful, like LGBT for example. I'm sad that people think in such simplistic ways in our society.

---

Btw I was talking about the subjectivity of mental illness in my thread "subjectivity of the bible", Aractus. So I may find that you and I have similar points of view.

[Aractus]

The problem with mental illnesses that are not believed to have a physiological or bacterial or viral cause is that the cause of the illness is not defined. We understand a person gets gambling disorder from repeated exposure to gambling activities, if they happen to be at risk of an addictive disorder, and the theory of operant conditioning is fairly well established with lots of evidence; so as far as can be shown a person with 'gambling disorder' doesn't have a disorder at all: they have been conditioned into performing a behaviour through operant conditioning.

That's not to say that psychiatry isn't useful, it certainly is.

[robvalue]

Regardless of if pedophiles are attracted to younger children, my point still stands that I don't feel that's a reason to dislike them. If they act on that impulse, then that's unfortunate and there should definitely be laws to protect children from harm. Honestly though, I don't regard mere attraction towards kids as anything to be ashamed of. Human beings are very complex creatures when it comes to sexuality, our sexual preferences can range anything from sexual attraction to objects, to 2D cartoons, to different species. There's not a way to dictate whether people are attracted to simply male or female. Biology didn't build in a program that is responsible for "right and wrong" when it comes to attraction, so why should I act like there is? This is an ignorant notion that society in general has. It's this predisposition to making preconceived notions which leads to so much prejudice and hatred towards many things that aren't harmful, like LGBT for example. I'm sad that people think in such simplistic ways in our society.

---

Btw I was talking about the subjectivity of mental illness in my thread "subjectivity of the bible", Aractus. So I may find that you and I have similar points of view.

I agree. If I found out someone I knew was attracted to children, I'd think absolutely no less of them. I would consider it very brave of them to tell me, with society as it is right now. It's actions that matter. I don't judge anyone for their desires or thoughts.

[Cinjin]

No those personal attacks were completely out of line.

Fuck you, I'm never speaking to you again.

That is so very awesome and just like a Christian - so typical in your hypocrisy.

You come in here and champion child pornography and pedophilia as a whole, but when I ASK you if you're a pedophile and suggest that you COULD be protecting a pedophile you know, you go and get all butthurt about it.  Which is it man?  Stand by what you preach.  If pedophilia is just a disease that we should be tolerating with "approved child porn" than tell me ... WHY THE HELL are you so upset at SIMPLY BEING ASKED if you are one??

I think you're completely full of bull shit.  

...now lets see if you keep your word and never speak to me again.

u tool

[paulpablo]

Paedophilia has only been a crime in America for maybe 100-110 years.  In 1895 in Delaware the age of consent was 7 (seven).  During slavery times there was no minimum age at all.  

The Babylonian Talmud has whole sections devoted to how to have sex with babies.  

The outrage over sex with children is a very recent development.  In the past just about every did it or was a target of it.  It's still a fairly routine practice in some societies today.  Today in America the most common offenders are priests and women teachers.  Women usually get a slap on the wrist while men do serious prison time.

I was just listening to a podcast about childhood abuse coincidentally just as this thread was created. 

In the podcast the man talks about a study of childhood in the past and how it's only recently and in mainly western civilization that it isn't common for children to be used/abused sexually.

It's pretty much a barrage of information but it's pretty shocking.  It covers clitoris removal, cultures in India where wives don't leave their husbands in the house along with their daughters, incestuous tribes of Papua New Guinea, erotic punishments.  I've seen separate documentaries basically covering the same information, in Islamic countries men often have sex with boys because of some twisted logic that it's seen as being a taboo to be seen in public with an unmarried female, but it's easier to walk around with boys.

I think the stigma attached to sex with young children has way more good points than bad, a step forwards. 
I'm pretty sure there's an established link between abused/ neglected children and a whole load of mental illnesses, a lack of empathy and so on.

I think the difference between a homosexuality and a sexuality which is attracted to children is that the sexuality attracted to prepubescent children is, for the most part, evil.  It holds societies back and creates psychotic, illogical adults with a lack of empathy to fellow humans.

[Thumpalumpacus]

How does legality change the damaging nature of child porn?

Well it doesn't, but it wasn't produced in the same way as child abuse material. That is participants were willing.

This is a stupid point. Children aren't competent, legally or morally, to give consent for sex, whether that sex is filmed as part of a business transaction or a part of a personal relationship. That incompetence to give consent is precisely why we regard child molestation as immoral: it is inherently nonconsensual. In that sense, it is no different than rape.

Just like it doesn't change the damaging nature of American porn to performers today.

This is an irrelevancy, and a form of tu quoque. You're avoiding the point by yammering, "But other people are hurt by other things, too!"

The problem with your comparison is that you are comparing adults who are legally and morally competent to decide for themselves who gets to fuck them, and children who are neither legally nor morally able to consent getting fucked by anyone who can talk them -- or their parents --into it.

[Thumpalumpacus]

Paedophilia has only been a crime in America for maybe 100-110 years.  In 1895 in Delaware the age of consent was 7 (seven).  During slavery times there was no minimum age at all.  

The Babylonian Talmud has whole sections devoted to how to have sex with babies.  

The outrage over sex with children is a very recent development.  In the past just about every did it or was a target of it.  It's still a fairly routine practice in some societies today.  Today in America the most common offenders are priests and women teachers.  Women usually get a slap on the wrist while men do serious prison time.

So what? In the past all manner of behaviors were practiced that we find repulsive. Simply because something has historical precedent doesn't mean it has moral standing.