It is harmful to either/both the ****** and child.Even when not acted apon then its just the bleeding ******]
Still no. ***** is not harmful when not acted on. Even to the ***** himself it's other issues present that are the problem and should be addressed, not the ***** itself.
Quote:
Sexual attraction to be typical kinda require some sort of attraction to someone that has sexual sighns that are atleast developing. Otherwise it is a paraphilia.
This seems like an arbitrary distinction to me. Paraphilia is defined as sexual arousal that falls outside of the normative spectrum. However that normative spectrum is defined and shaped by culture and society. If we were a society that accepted ***** it wouldn't be called a disorder. For example look at homosexuality; when it was not accepted by society and even put on the same level as ***** it was described as a disorder. What has changed other than our acceptance of homosexuality?
Quote:
Since it is a paraphilia, and since the first two apply, it can be considered clinical.
I'm still not convinced that the first two apply, or that the term paraphilia is anything more than an arbitrary distinction.
Quote:
since it is a clinical paraphilia it is a disorder.
This is wrong. Paraphilia is not diagnosed as disorder unless it causes distress to the individual or harm to others.
Quote:
of the mental process. None of these have fallen short. None.
They really have. Even if I am willing to agree that paraphilia is more than an arbitrary distinction and ***** qualifies for classification as a paraphilia, the fact is that a paraphilia is not necessarily considered a disorder.
Quote:
You ARE sick for comparing this to gender orientation. Whatever gender you are attracted to you can act on your attraction without harming someone.
With ******? No you bloody can't. Don't bring this loli s**t into it because it is not necessarily ******, its more similar to people having fantasies of sleeping with a woman is schoolgirl dress, but not with an actual schoolgirl.
My point about bringing orientation into this was that homosexuality was a paraphilia, until society began to accept homosexuality. This points to paraphilia as an arbitrary distinction.
Quote:
Say you had a kid, about 6, would you let a ****** babysit? If yes I hope you get sterilized.
I'd have to be able the trust the person around my child on an individual level, as I'm not ready to render judgment against an entire group of people from behind a computer screen.
Quote:
DSM rejected homosexuality as a mental disorder as it does not necessarily cause harm. ****** does. At least to someone.
No, no it does not. ***** can be dealt with in a way that does not cause distress to the individual or harm to others around them. I don't know why you keep insisting otherwise.
Quote:
Consider this, if the attraction wasn't taboo, but it was still illegal to do ANYTHING of the sort with a child, would a ****** really feel good? No.
There's always a taboo around doing something illegal. I'm not sure what you're driving at.
Quote:
Especially considering there is even more of a drive to act out on their desires than in a typical person (statistical average definition).
Care to provide a source for that claim.
Quote:
Please prove that it is not a disorder.
How about the fact that it isn't a disorder unless it causes distress and/or harm? You know, the actual definition of a "paraphilic disorder"?
Alternatively, how about you actually prove that it is a disorder, since you're the one that made the claim? Or would you like me to explain to you how burden of proof works?
100
250
100
