1
2
3

[ShitRedditSays]/u/NONONONO_FUCK explains in detail how sympathetic Internet posts can be counterproductive to pedophiles seeking help (reddit.com)

submitted by bsrk7

all 45 comments
sorted by:
best
best
トップ
新着
注目
論争中
古い順

[–]cafemachiavelli 4 ポイント5 ポイント

I don't understand why SRS has to be so combative about everything.

"Hey, pedophilia may not be as incurable as you think, check out OCD research" would have made for a far superior post.

Instead, we get this:

they are coming from lots of pedophiles, both the kinds that haven't done anything yet

Yeah, no. A|B isn't the same set as B|A (i.e. "child molesters are pedophiles" != "pedophiles are child molesters"). How many people would you try to rape assuming that you'd be absolutely certain no one would consent to sex with you, ever? If the answer is anything but "0", the problem is with you, not your sexual fetish/attraction/whatever, and we need to point that out.

"Yes, your dirty thoughts aren't an illness, it's natural and normal!" which could lead to "It's okay to look up porn!" to "it's okay to harm a child!".

How in the world is that a logical progression? Firstly, natural/normal are non-issues. Lots of bad stuff is both, lots of good stuff is neither. Some sympathize with pedophiles because the disorder seems to be largely incurable and they didn't choose to be this way. I assume that darthbone's "fulfill their urges in healthy ways" was meant to hint at erotic drawings, texts or CGI, which I think should be discussed openly in respect to pedophilia.

None of this opens any doors to CP or child abuse.

CP is bad because its production necessarily involves suffering. How would you like to have a traumatic episode of your life broadcast to strangers online? I don't see anyone on Reddit advocating for this, either.

"it's okay to harm a child" is a complete non-sequitur. We just expressed sympathy for one group, now we're to ignore the suffering of another group? What? How?

All in all, I didn't find much substance under all the rage.

[–]IHateHamlet 0 ポイント1 ポイント

What's logical is largely irrelevant. What matters is how a pedophile takes what is said. When someone say pedophilia is a "fetish/sexual attraction like any other", that can be taken to mean that it's okay to act on, like most other fetishes.

"Yes, your dirty thoughts aren't an illness, it's natural and normal!" which could lead to "It's okay to look up porn!" to "it's okay to harm a child!".

This definitely isn't logical, but psychology is a lot more complicated than pure logic. Pedophiles take "natural/normal" to mean good (or at least okay), and they may follow the illogical progression set forth in the OP.

Also,

I don't understand why SRS has to be so combative about everything.

It's because there are people on SRS who are actual victims of pedophilia, so this issue is intensely personal. Forcing these people to remove their emotions effectively silences them. Your idea of a "superior post" would be true in a philosophy 101 class, but not in SRS. The sub is a self-proclaimed circlejerk. It's purpose is not try to convince shitty people to stop being shitty. It's purpose is to give people a place to vent.

Besides that, anger and combativeness are effective rhetorical tools. They draw in readers better than pure logic (which is usually dry and boring) and force people to question assumptions they may otherwise try to rationalize. It's not bad just because you don't like it.

[–]Curates 9 ポイント10 ポイント

Oh come on. It's very easy to hate people, it's much harder to sympathize. The original post was basically just saying: don't hate innocent people. How could you disagree with that? SRS is such a circlejerk, of course this post was highly upvoted. Sympathy is counterproductive to people seeking help? That is complete nonsense, fuelled by the kind of hatred only possible in this hiveminded echo chamber.

[–]bsrk7[S] -5 ポイント-4 ポイント

The original post was basically just saying: don't hate innocent people.

Actually, the original post word-for-word said that pedophilia "needs to start being looked at as a form of fetish/sexual attraction like any other". Do you really agree with that?

Of course innocent people should not be harrassed just because they are afflicted with a disorder like pedophilia, and the comment I linked to does not say anything contradictory to that stance.

EDIT: Did you actually read the post I linked to? It's really not "hating" pedophiles at all in any way.

I think the "It's easy to hate, harder to sympathize" philosophy is the reason why so many people on Reddit bend over backwards to be comforting and "understanding" towards pedophiles--it makes them feel wiser or better than people who are not so compassionate when it comes to pedophilia. I think the post I linked to does a great job of actually understanding pedophilia and giving people a reality check.

[–]Sabbath90 4 ポイント5 ポイント

Do you really agree with that?

Yes, because it is. Pedophilia isn't inherently wrong, abusing people who can't give informed consent, like children, is.

If have a rape fetish, meaning I can only get off to the idea, feeling or experience of rape, that in and of itself isn't wrong, illegal or even immoral. Acting on it (unless we're talking about a planed scenes in a BDSM-context) is. Same thing with pedophilia. If someone really gets off to a scene where a young-looking girl, dressed up and pretending to be a little kid then that isn't wrong, illegal nor immoral. Acting on it, i.e violent or statutory rape of a minor, is.

The difference lies in punishing ideas, thoughtcrime, contrasted with punishing actions.

[–]WrenBoy 3 ポイント4 ポイント

Pedophilia isn't inherently wrong

Can you name something you do think is inherently wrong?

[–]Sabbath90 0 ポイント1 ポイント

Well, I'm a nihilist in the philosophical sense so no.

But in a more general way: doing harm to someone without their informed consent. Something that thoughts can't do until you act on them.

[–]WrenBoy 2 ポイント3 ポイント

You act on them because of the desires, or thoughts as you call it. Just because they cause harm indirectly instead of directly doesnt mean they are not wrong.

Your comments about punishing thoughtcrime makes me wonder whether you believe its impossible to feel that an idea or desire can be wrong without wanting to outlaw these clearly wrong ideas or desires.

[–]Sabbath90 2 ポイント3 ポイント

You act on them because of the desires, or thoughts as you call it.

You're presuming that the person will act on it, which isn't a certainty. I might dearly desire your car but just because I think of stealing it from you doesn't mean I'm guilty of stealing it. Furthermore, my thought of stealing it have caused you no harm, you probably wouldn't even know that the potential for harm ever existed.

Just because they cause harm indirectly instead of directly doesnt mean they are not wrong.

How is a thought causing harm? See the car analogy above, there is no harm what so ever involved, even if I'm contemplating committing a crime.

Your comments about punishing thoughtcrime makes me wonder whether you believe its impossible to feel that an idea or desire can be wrong without wanting to outlaw these clearly wrong ideas or desires.

You shouldn't outlaw thoughts, feelings or desires to begin with but that's beside the point. Other than that, of course I think that an idea or desire can be "wrong", just that it can't be punishable. I might think that it's wrong to think that people with a differing amount of melanin are inferior, mostly because it's an irrational belief, but the person is free to think so and even express his views without it being a crime. It becomes a crime when he acts on those views through discrimination, violent action or whatnot, that act is punishable.

[–]WrenBoy -2 ポイント-1 ポイント

of course I think that an idea or desire can be "wrong", just that it can't be punishable

Do you think that pedophilia is "wrong". If so what is the difference between "wrong" and wrong? If not why is racism more wrong that pedophilia?

Im not assuming anything by the way. The desire often leads to the act and the act is never committed without the desire. The fact that it doesnt necessarily lead to the act doesnt mean it doesnt cause indirect harm. If I were to suggest pushing a child into incoming traffic to you, I would need to be fairly brazen to suggest that it was no big deal since it was possible the cars would brake in time.

[–]Sabbath90 2 ポイント3 ポイント

Do you think that pedophilia is "wrong".

In the sense that I can't understand how you can find children sexually attractive, yes. In the sense that you should be punished simply for being one (rather than acting on it), no.

If so what is the difference between "wrong" and wrong?

The difference lies in whether it's an action or not.

If not why is racism more wrong that pedophilia?

It's not, one is simply more basic and uncontrolled than the other (I don't think anyone wants to be a pedophile while there are somewhat understandable reasons for being a racist).

The desire often leads to the act and the act is never committed without the desire. The fact that it doesnt necessarily lead to the act doesnt mean it doesnt cause indirect harm.

But here's where you misunderstand things. I like women, I desire women sexually, does this mean that it's possible that I'll rape a woman some day? Yes, yet it's not wrong to desire women sexually. So what's the difference between me sexually desiring women with the possibility of me acting on it without the informed consent of the woman and a pedophile sexually desiring children with the possibility of him acting on it without the informed consent of the child (setting aside the fact that children can't give informed consent)?

[–]WrenBoy -2 ポイント-1 ポイント

When you say you think racism is wrong "mostly because it's an irrational belief", what other reason do you have? Could it be that a small, almost completely supressed part of you considers it to be wrong in the moral sense?

Dont you think that the desire behind pedophilia is similarly wrong? I think you are being disingenuous when you imply that you meant "wrong" to mean difficult to understand.

For starters you think that racist ideas are wrong but then go on to say that you can somewhat understand it. Why dont you therefore find racism to be only somewhat wrong? You clearly didnt mean difficult to understand when you said that "wrong" ideas shouldnt be punishable. Noone is seriously claiming that marmite lovers should have their tongues cut off here. You know what you mean. Why are you fooling yourself?

Regarding your analogy there is nothing inherently wrong with desiring adult women as its perfectly possible for that desire to be acted on without harming them. Fantasing about rape is wrong in a similar sense however. Unless you think its possible for an adult male to act on his sexual desires towards children without causing harm?

Edit: Spelling

[–]bsrk7[S] -5 ポイント-4 ポイント

Yes, because it is.

Okay, so since you think pedophilia is a sexual orientation just like any other, then you must also think that they should be able to act on their sexual desires just like anyone else, right? After all, it would be a double standard to criminalize the porn and sex acts they enjoy if pedophilia is no different than any other sexual orientations.

If have a rape fetish, meaning I can only get off to the idea, feeling or experience of rape, that in and of itself isn't wrong, illegal or even immoral. Acting on it (unless we're talking about a planed scenes in a BDSM-context) is. Same thing with pedophilia. If someone really gets off to a scene where a young-looking girl, dressed up and pretending to be a little kid then that isn't wrong, illegal nor immoral. Acting on it, i.e violent or statutory rape of a minor, is.

As the post pointed out, many pedophiles are not able to be satisfied with adults acting like children, for various reasons.

I'm all for finding a healthy way to help them cope with their disorder, but their predilections are not "the same" as everyone else's.

I don't believe that your predilections are just like any other fetish either, but luckily for you yours is much easier to solve.

The difference lies in punishing ideas, thoughtcrime, contrasted with punishing actions.

Who said anything about punishing ideas? Not me and not the post I linked.

[–]Sabbath90 5 ポイント6 ポイント

Okay, so since you think pedophilia is a sexual orientation just like any other, then you must also think that they should be able to act on their sexual desires just like anyone else, right?

As long as everyone involved gives their informed consent then they can do whatever they want. Children can't give informed consent so it's kind of impossible for a pedophile to act on their desire. If children had been able to give informed consent then there wouldn't have been any problem.

After all, it would be a double standard to criminalize the porn and sex acts they enjoy if pedophilia is no different than any other sexual orientations.

Of course it would but again, children are not able to give informed consent.

As the post pointed out, many pedophiles are not able to be satisfied with adults acting like children, for various reasons.

That's not the point, the point is differentiating between being a pedophile and acting on your desires. One is fine, the other isn't.

Who said anything about punishing ideas? Not me and not the post I linked.

GOD DAMNIT STOP THIS SHIT, EVEN IF YOU DON'T MEAN TO, YOU ARE FUCKING CONTRIBUTING TO THE HARMING OF CHILDREN.

Apparently OP thinks that there's a real connection between being a pedophile and harming children, so there's that. Again, being a pedophile isn't harmful to anyone, acting on it is. There's a huge difference between having a rape fetish and actually raping someone, same thing with pedophilia.

Correction, it is most definitely harmful to the pedophile, mental torture and all that. Just the more reason for them to actually seek help in minimizing and controlling the desires.

[–]bsrk7[S] -2 ポイント-1 ポイント

Children can't give informed consent so it's kind of impossible for a pedophile to act on their desire.

Okay, I've been trying to lead you to the obvious conclusion here, but you're still avoiding it so I'm just going to lay it out now:

You originally stated that pedophilia is no different than other forms of sexuality, but that is impossible to reconcile with the fact that you just admitted to: pedophiles cannot act on their desires with consent, which makes their sexuality inherently different.

Of course it would but again, children are not able to give informed consent.

Again, this is what makes pedophilia inherently different and your claim that it is just the same blatantly incorrect.

That's not the point, the point is differentiating between being a pedophile and acting on your desires. One is fine, the other isn't.

But people of other sexualities are able to act on their desires without a problem, so that makes pedophilia inherently different.

I'm not sure how many times I'm going to have to state that before you acknowledge it.

Apparently OP thinks that there's a real connection between being a pedophile and harming children, so there's that.

What OP is saying is that posts that attempt to normalize pedophilia and say that it's healthy and OK are also going to discourage pedophiles (or in some cases people with OCD) from seeking therapy and help for their disorder.

Once you have convinced a pedophile that they don't need to have any concern for the urges they feel, you've just made it that much more likely that they will act on their urges. You don't see that connection? Really?

Correction, it is most definitely harmful to the pedophile, mental torture and all that. Just the more reason for them to actually seek help in minimizing and controlling the desires.

That is the entire point of OP's comment. OP is pointing out how convincing pedophiles that they are normal and okay and should feel no shame for having sexual desires for children will make them even less likely to seek help, when very few pedophiles seek help as it is.

[–]writingpromptsfan 1 ポイント2 ポイント

There are people with sexual desires for family members, for eating people, for minotaurs, and all sorts of physically impossible things. Pedophiles are not the only ones with sexual desires that can never be realistically fulfilled.

The original comment is saying 'You're not a monster for having these feelings. You're a monster if you act on them. Let's find a healthy way for you to live.'

Forcing sexual feelings underground is what causes pedophile communities, echochambers, and monstrous behavior. Letting them live as part of society, without suppressing part of their identity, gives them a reason to seek treatment.

[–]mathwhyusohard 1 ポイント2 ポイント

Okay, so since you think pedophilia is a sexual orientation just like any other, then you must also think that they should be able to act on their sexual desires just like anyone else, right?

Come on, you cannot seriously think that this is a valid conclusion?

Their main point is about understanding what pedophilia is, how it works, why it is there and what and how it affects within a person, etc. These questions can be asked and the viewpoint of understanding pedophilia as "basically working like a sexual orientation" can be adopted as an isolated topic. They are asked and discussed because the better your model of a phenomenon is, the better you can predict the phenomenon, and in this case, the better you can offer help to the people who need it.

The ethical matter - like "is it ok for a pedophile to abuse children?" - is sort of unambiguous, is it? How many people are there that actually even try to argue that abusing children is anything but a big no-go?

I think you're mixing these two matters. Just think about what happens due to pedophilia being stigmatised socially. Does it lower the number of pedophiles? no. Does it keep the criminal ones away from potential victims? no. Does it help these people cope with their problem, which they didn't chose to have? no, not at all. It's doing quite the opposite of all these! They're shoved into hiding. They can't even tell their close peers often. They cannot seek support from their peers, their family, their community. They're alone with this problem. (by the way, think about it - how do you know no one in your surroundings is a pedophile? if they were, they won't tell you for sure) Just read up about how helpful a stable support net is in a vast lot of personal problems of all different kinds. Pedophilia won't be an exemption from this.

So what is won by stigmatising pedophiles just because? It doesn't make the world any safer, it doesn't better the situation. The most promising attitute we as a society can take is the combination of finding out how it works, so we have the best ways of treating it available and creating a situation in which these people can seek help as easy and non-judgemental as possible, so more of them actually do so.

[–]bsrk7[S] -1 ポイント0 ポイント

Come on, you cannot seriously think that this is a valid conclusion?

If you want to believe that pedophilia is no different than any other sexual orientation, then you must draw that conclusion. It is the simplest logic:

  1. A is the same as B

  2. B can act on its desires without causing harm

  3. Therefore A can also act on its desires without causing harm

You cannot accept point 1 without also accepting point 3.

These questions can be asked and the viewpoint of understanding pedophilia as "basically working like a sexual orientation" can be adopted as an isolated topic.

The neurological model by which pedophilia manifests itself is entirely irrelevant. The neurological model for any number of personality disorders is no different than what we consider a normal and healthy personality. But clearly, people with a disorder cannot be considered "the same" as those without one.

This is precisely why defining disorders is subjective in the first place and psychology is considered a "soft" science.

We're not having a debate about neuroscience, we're having a debate about the psychology of pedophiles and how pedophilia should be managed.

Clearly, many people here think that we are obligated to give as much trust to pedophiles as we do to any other segment of the population and that they should be considered healthy and normal individuals until they act on their urges.

So what is won by stigmatising pedophiles just because?

"Just because". Wow. I guess the potential for child rape is just not a big deal, huh?

Anyway, the point is not to stigmatize pedophiles. The point OP is making is that encouraging pedophiles to think that their urges are healthy and acceptable will further discourage them from seeking help.

The key is to find a balance where pedophiles can seek help without fear of retribution or harassment all while fully understanding that they are not normal or healthy at all. They are afflicted with a serious disorder.

[–]Ostracized 1 ポイント2 ポイント

I have a close friend who suffers from that exact OCD. It's taken a terrible toll on his life.

[–]Haerdune 2 ポイント3 ポイント

Why are they all getting dwonvoted?

[–]bsrk7[S] 4 ポイント5 ポイント

They aren't, the subreddit just puts a negative sign next to karma.

[–]Haerdune 2 ポイント3 ポイント

Oh, I see, I'm not familiar with this subreddit.

[–]paparazzi_rider 4 ポイント5 ポイント

Nothing in SRS should EVER become Bestof.

[–]fimbulvntr 1 ポイント2 ポイント

It amazes me that SRS isn't autobanned considering that so many (non-default) subreddits are forbidden from being bestof'd

[–]bsrk7[S] -1 ポイント0 ポイント

I think the content of the comment rather than the source should be what's judged :)

I posted this expecting to get massive downvotes due to the source, though.

[–]picklemagnet -1 ポイント0 ポイント

Because nothing good can come from a subreddit you personally don't like, right?

[–]paparazzi_rider 1 ポイント2 ポイント

I personally don't mind that subreddit. They have their space. Just don't point them out as a source of great commentary. I don't expect to see /r/beatingwomen or /r/whateverjailbaitmovedto as a source either.

[–]HogtownHoedown 1 ポイント2 ポイント

comparing SRS to beatingwomen and candidfashion...

top kek.

[–]picklemagnet -2 ポイント-1 ポイント

hahahahahahahahahahahaha

[–]TiredPaedo -1 ポイント0 ポイント

I think they went to creepshots and are now on candidfashionpolice until someone gets tired if it and bans that sub too.

[–]apathyKing -2 ポイント-1 ポイント

Are you going to accept links posted from /r/TheRedPill, /r/MensRights, etc?

[–]thewoodenchair 1 ポイント2 ポイント

Eh, I find the post to be unsympathetic and overly judgmental. I think pedophiles should seek help mostly because there's almost nothing to slate a pedophile's sexual desires. They can't date a kid, they can't hook up with kids in a kidde bar, they can't hire kid prostitutes (Well, I guess they technically could, but it's not something that, you know, should). Pedophiles can't even slate their sexual desires by looking at kiddie porn because CP is build on the suffering and abuse of innocent children. The most they could do is fap to hentai with children in them or fuck MLP plush dolls. Pedophiles are condemned to be celebate for the rest of their lives, and as we all know, abstinence doesn't work. Without anyone to hold them accountable, it's only a matter of time before a pedophile snaps and taps dat kiddie ass.

[–]bigcalal 2 ポイント3 ポイント

Then they can be celibate, or they can kill themselves.

[–]LegionaresCZ 1 ポイント2 ポイント

Didn't you forget "/s"?

[–]bigcalal 2 ポイント3 ポイント

no

[–]AiurOG 1 ポイント2 ポイント

There's always <literally any anime>

[–]Vincenttb 1 ポイント2 ポイント

There is so much shit said in that post that I'm not even going to try to correct him.

[–]UmmahSultan -3 ポイント-2 ポイント

After the Aatrek incident I have to wonder if the SRS attitude about pedophilia isn't just projection.

[–]bsrk7[S] -1 ポイント0 ポイント

I'm not familiar with it, can you explain?

[–]UmmahSultan -2 ポイント-1 ポイント

Basically, most of the SRS people came in from SomethingAwful as a long invasion on the premise that Reddit were a bunch of degenerates. This was back when /r/jailbait was going on, so they nurtured this stereotype of the Redditor as a fedora-wearing neckbeard who was a pedophile or had some other unacceptable sexual proclivity.

So, they outed violentacrez as part of a social justice crusade against Reddit. This pissed off a lot of people, who responded by doxxing a bunch of prominent goons.

Just one problem: while violentacrez was ultimately just a regular guy who posted offensive shit to get under our skins, the goons really are degenerates. Aatrek, one of their moderators, was outed as actually being an active child predator during a time when he was policing language and behavior in order to further social justice warrior hypersensitivity. His was the worst case, but the pattern of goons claiming to be an enlightened elite compared to godless anime-watching Redditors while simultaneously engaging in behavior that is condemned by the mainstream (much less their SJW ilk) was established.

Mere hypocrisy would be understandable, but SRS takes it to an extreme. The unwillingness to distinguish between pedophilia and child molestation, the very authoritarian desire to control not only the behavior but the internal state of others (often relying on the incorrect and very illiberal belief that sexual orientation is a choice), the view that anyone who disagrees with them are unpersons to be shunned or destroyed, all suggest a warped mentality that comes from more than a mere opposition to child abuse (which itself is uncontroversial).

[–]bsrk7[S] 0 ポイント1 ポイント

I can't find anything on Google or Reddit that substantiates what you're saying about Aatrek or SRS. You're clearly very deep into the history/politics of these forums and subreddits, and you seem to have a vested interest in painting everyone on SRS as an evil hypocrite.

I really don't care about Internet politics or the Aatrek scandal (that I can find no information on), neither of which have anything to do with the post I just linked to.

[–]UmmahSultan 0 ポイント1 ポイント

Ever notice how the gay-bashing preachers seem to always end up with a boy on the side? That's what it has to do with it. Irrational hatred of pedophiles should be expected to come from closet pedophiles themselves, especially when the people in question are from a forum populated by child molesters.

[–]WrenBoy 0 ポイント1 ポイント

Aatrek, one of their moderators, was outed as actually being an active child predator during a time when he was policing language and behavior in order to further social justice warrior hypersensitivity.

What are you basing that on?

Edit: Nevermind. Literally the first thing that comes up when you google him.