Welcome to Gaia! ::

Goldgato's avatar

Blessed Phantom

5,600 Points
  • Gender Swap 100
  • Signature Look 250
  • Friendly 100
The loving face
Oh My God.

Cognitive dissonance.

Look it up you sick muppet.

****** either causes at least that, or harm to child. Or als guilt and so forth, which you say are only due sociatal norms but the first two aren't.

Its harmful.


Everyone experiences cognitive dissonance. Cognitive dissonance occurs when we experience two or more conflicting cognitions, and everyone does at some point. That doesn't make those conflicting cognitions a mental disorder.

Quote:
Are you stupid?


That would at least make us even.

Quote:
"***** can be described as a disorder of sexual preference, phenomenologically similar to a heterosexual or homosexual sexual orientation because it emerges prior or during puberty, and because it is stable over time.[51] These observations, however, do not exclude ***** from the group of mental disorders because ***** acts cause harm, and ***** can sometimes be helped by mental health professionals to refrain from acting on their impulses.[52]"


So ***** is a sexual orientation? I guess I'll have to disagree on what defines a disorder, because I'm still not convinced it's anything more than an arbitrary distinction.
The loving face
CH1YO
The loving face
CH1YO
The loving face



Somehow I doubt it. And then trying to hide it by asking how I would define normal...err. just eurgh.

That or they are a ******
etc.


Zoophile would be the word.

Out of curiosity how do you define normal?


As i said before three ways to look at it. Statistically, current social norms and biological standard.

First normal is statisctical mode or mean. The second one is something that adheres to current sociatal morals and standards. The last one, well, if all the genes are correctly coded, without atypical bits in it, and then go up in scale if hormones are normal (stats) organs in the generally accepted place and form so forth.


The third one is the only which is appropriate in this context; specifically in that it represents a functional ideal.


No, the third one is the only one that is least biased through opinion. The others are still appropriate due to psychological and cultural definitions being appropriate to society.


Where they are useful they are covered by the third anyway.
Goldgato
The loving face
Oh My God.

Cognitive dissonance.

Look it up you sick muppet.

****** either causes at least that, or harm to child. Or als guilt and so forth, which you say are only due sociatal norms but the first two aren't.

Its harmful.


Everyone experiences cognitive dissonance. Cognitive dissonance occurs when we experience two or more conflicting cognitions, and everyone does at some point. That doesn't make those conflicting cognitions a mental disorder.

Quote:
Are you stupid?


That would at least make us even.

Quote:
"***** can be described as a disorder of sexual preference, phenomenologically similar to a heterosexual or homosexual sexual orientation because it emerges prior or during puberty, and because it is stable over time.[51] These observations, however, do not exclude ***** from the group of mental disorders because ***** acts cause harm, and ***** can sometimes be helped by mental health professionals to refrain from acting on their impulses.[52]"


So ***** is a sexual orientation? I guess I'll have to disagree on what defines a disorder, because I'm still not convinced it's anything more than an arbitrary distinction.
Different cognitions, or cognition and action, or cognition and knowledge.

What to you defines disorder?

Why is your definition more accurate then dsm or other psychological health classification journals?
Can I just add that a mental disorder is not defined by posibility of curing it.

For instance, someone may be able to be rehabilitated from an eating disorder and manage their thoughts, and can be managed.

Using your train of thought and making a parallel, there are no distinctions between eating preference, anorexia, bulimia, binging and ednos?
Goldgato's avatar

Blessed Phantom

5,600 Points
  • Gender Swap 100
  • Signature Look 250
  • Friendly 100
The loving face
Goldgato
The loving face
Oh My God.

Cognitive dissonance.

Look it up you sick muppet.

****** either causes at least that, or harm to child. Or als guilt and so forth, which you say are only due sociatal norms but the first two aren't.

Its harmful.


Everyone experiences cognitive dissonance. Cognitive dissonance occurs when we experience two or more conflicting cognitions, and everyone does at some point. That doesn't make those conflicting cognitions a mental disorder.

Quote:
Are you stupid?


That would at least make us even.

Quote:
"***** can be described as a disorder of sexual preference, phenomenologically similar to a heterosexual or homosexual sexual orientation because it emerges prior or during puberty, and because it is stable over time.[51] These observations, however, do not exclude ***** from the group of mental disorders because ***** acts cause harm, and ***** can sometimes be helped by mental health professionals to refrain from acting on their impulses.[52]"


So ***** is a sexual orientation? I guess I'll have to disagree on what defines a disorder, because I'm still not convinced it's anything more than an arbitrary distinction.

Different cognitions, or cognition and action, or cognition and knowledge.

What to you defines disorder?

Why is your definition more accurate then dsm or other psychological health classification journals?




It's not just my definition. The current version of the the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, which is published by the American Psychiatric Association, does not consider any paraphilia (***** included) to be a disorder unless it causes distress to the individual and/or harm to others.
Goldgato
The loving face
Goldgato
The loving face
Oh My God.

Cognitive dissonance.

Look it up you sick muppet.

****** either causes at least that, or harm to child. Or als guilt and so forth, which you say are only due sociatal norms but the first two aren't.

Its harmful.


Everyone experiences cognitive dissonance. Cognitive dissonance occurs when we experience two or more conflicting cognitions, and everyone does at some point. That doesn't make those conflicting cognitions a mental disorder.

Quote:
Are you stupid?


That would at least make us even.

Quote:
"***** can be described as a disorder of sexual preference, phenomenologically similar to a heterosexual or homosexual sexual orientation because it emerges prior or during puberty, and because it is stable over time.[51] These observations, however, do not exclude ***** from the group of mental disorders because ***** acts cause harm, and ***** can sometimes be helped by mental health professionals to refrain from acting on their impulses.[52]"


So ***** is a sexual orientation? I guess I'll have to disagree on what defines a disorder, because I'm still not convinced it's anything more than an arbitrary distinction.

Different cognitions, or cognition and action, or cognition and knowledge.

What to you defines disorder?

Why is your definition more accurate then dsm or other psychological health classification journals?




It's not just my definition. The current version of the the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, which is published by the American Psychiatric Association, does not consider any paraphilia (***** included) to be a disorder unless it causes distress to the individual and/or harm to others.

You can shorten it you know.
Untill then DSM and ICD and so forth, and many psychologists don't class it as true ******.

Either way likening it to gender sexual orientation is illogical and frankly wrong. Homosexuality not being seen as a disorder wouldn't increase the risk of possible harm to someone. Accepting relationships, sexual and romantic ones, between children and adults is.
Goldgato's avatar

Blessed Phantom

5,600 Points
  • Gender Swap 100
  • Signature Look 250
  • Friendly 100
The loving face
Goldgato
The loving face
Goldgato
The loving face
Oh My God.

Cognitive dissonance.

Look it up you sick muppet.

****** either causes at least that, or harm to child. Or als guilt and so forth, which you say are only due sociatal norms but the first two aren't.

Its harmful.


Everyone experiences cognitive dissonance. Cognitive dissonance occurs when we experience two or more conflicting cognitions, and everyone does at some point. That doesn't make those conflicting cognitions a mental disorder.

Quote:
Are you stupid?


That would at least make us even.

Quote:
"***** can be described as a disorder of sexual preference, phenomenologically similar to a heterosexual or homosexual sexual orientation because it emerges prior or during puberty, and because it is stable over time.[51] These observations, however, do not exclude ***** from the group of mental disorders because ***** acts cause harm, and ***** can sometimes be helped by mental health professionals to refrain from acting on their impulses.[52]"


So ***** is a sexual orientation? I guess I'll have to disagree on what defines a disorder, because I'm still not convinced it's anything more than an arbitrary distinction.

Different cognitions, or cognition and action, or cognition and knowledge.

What to you defines disorder?

Why is your definition more accurate then dsm or other psychological health classification journals?




It's not just my definition. The current version of the the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, which is published by the American Psychiatric Association, does not consider any paraphilia (***** included) to be a disorder unless it causes distress to the individual and/or harm to others.


You can shorten it you know.
Untill then DSM and ICD and so forth, and many psychologists don't class it as true ******]

Don't classify what as true *****?

Quote:
Either way likening it to gender sexual orientation is illogical and frankly wrong. Homosexuality not being seen as a disorder wouldn't increase the risk of possible harm to someone.


Neither will ***** not being seen as a disorder.

Quote:
Accepting relationships, sexual and romantic ones, between children and adults is.


Realizing that ***** is not a disorder and that treating it like a disorder does more harm than good is not equivalent to accepting relationships between children and adults. You really can't make that distinction?
If, like homosexuality, ****** becomes equally as acceptable, would that not lead to abolishment of age regulations in these terms?
Anyway, if you would accept this, I would like to come to some sort of (broad and full of hills) middle ground, seeing as our views are polar opposites so none of us are going to convince each other, and it is useless for me to get emotive. I would like to simply state my basic views on and around the matter (and discussion)

- I do not believe ****** should be demonized for being born this way, or ending up this way.
- It is hard to argue this subject without bias, completely. The general definition for ****** I used is different to yours, it is more anchored in sociological views on it.
- My main bias is that I find attraction to children disgusting. I have been brought up to see children as something holy, not in a religious sense but this is the best way I can word it.
- Main reason for that is issue of consent. I recognise that far from all ****** will act on their desire, or will facilitate someone doing so ( in reference to child pornography).
-However this is where the more pragmatic issue ( and difference) that I personally see comes in to play. Treating age orientation the same as gender based sexual orientation to me would mean legalising sexual and romantic relationships between, at least in biological sense, children and adults. Whilst even far from all cases would be detrimental, In general from a developmental standpoint children do not have fully developed capacity for judgement and understanding, and there for hinders consent. In this sense ****** can not be equated to sexual orientations involving two consenting adults.
-Because of this, with current understanding of the issue and technology of understanding thought processes and so forth, it is pragmatically more viable to treat it differently. As we can not determine which ****** would approach a child and which wouldn't, I believe attraction to children should be treated as a risk increasing factor.

Hope that made any sense.
it is considered a paraphilia.
furry is a fetish. (basically they are weird sexual things, but you're still attracted to other humans in your age group)
gay is an orientation(you're with people your own age; there's no weird sexual activity)
***** is a paraphilia(paraphilia is the ******** up s**t, where you are having sex with either non humans, like your pets, or humans you shouldn't be attracted to(like children, as evolutionarily you are attracted to people with good genes to breed with, and you cannot breed with children))
Legendary Fop's avatar

Original Gaian

7,300 Points
  • Forum Sophomore 300
  • Signature Look 250
  • Tycoon 200
It all comes down to expression--is there any way that the paraphilia can be acted upon without hurting somebody?
...
...
No. What in the name of rock is wrong with you?
I think labeling it as an orientation makes ***** sound less immoral than it actually is. It's a disorder. It's not the same as an attraction or love between grown adults, whether those adults are a man and woman or woman and woman.
When Pigs Flew's avatar

Salty Wench

mcdiabesity
paraphilia is the ******** up s**t, where you are having sex with either non humans, like your pets, or humans you shouldn't be attracted to

and you cannot breed with children


Some people would say you "shouldn't be attracted' to other people of the same gender. You can't breed with people of the same gender, either. By that logic, homo/bisexuality is paraphilia.
Legendary Fop's avatar

Original Gaian

7,300 Points
  • Forum Sophomore 300
  • Signature Look 250
  • Tycoon 200
But they're all just paraphilias--they seem to have similar causes (when we can identify a cause at all), incidence rates, and forms of expression. The thing that makes certain people's sexuality pathological is that, by coincidence, their fully realized sexual behavior is intrinsically destructive. I feel like I'm not expressing this as cogently as I'm thinking it... simply put, as far as I can tell the only difference between any of these expressions of human sexuality is that some of them have particular destructive results. Clinically, mentally, that righteous killing urge rising in the back of your head notwithstanding, the only thing that seems to distinguish a man who is attracted to men from a man who is attracted to little girls is not the form, but the function of their respective sexualities--that is, the difference isn't in how their attractions work, but in what happens when they act on them.

For example, I have a laundry list of fetishes, and I act on them. Some of them creep most other people out. Some of them creep me out. As a liberal, as a feminist, the fact that my ultimate sexual fantasy basically boils down to a woman with an off switch is a little distressing to me at times. But there are healthy, fulfilling ways to act on all of these kinks, just as with most other alternative sexualities--gay men can fall in love and have families just like anyone else, and I'm blessed with a number of wonderful friends who enjoy having their minds messed with as much as I enjoy messing with them.

But there's no healthy outlet for the ***** they do want them, or at least some do. I have a very dear friend, one of the aforementioned submissive kink-buddies who was molested as a child and still fantasizes about both sides of the experience. What she wants, more than anything else, is a partner she can engage with on equal terms--she doesn't as much fantasize about molesting a child as she does about falling in love with one, having a mature, "consensual" sexual relationship with one. But, well... do I need to explain the problem? I hope not.

***** is the only kink other than bestiality that has no conceivable healthy expression, no responsible-adults-in-the-privacy-of-their-homes aspect to fall back on--and there never will be, because the social taboo is based not on St. Augustine's butthole fixation, but on the cognitive inability of any prospective partner to fully understand or consent to sex. Consider what that means for the patient--what her choices are once she realizes she's attracted to girls about the same age she was. Repress her sexuality--a part of her very identity--for the rest of her life, quietly tamping down her urges and watching literally every other kink and peccadillo slowly emerge into the public eye demanding recognition and respect? Or give in and ruin her life and at least one other person's? It's no wonder so many of the ***** that act on their urges are also stark raving nuts--imagine how screwed up we'd be if we had to live like that.
EnglishTrain's avatar

Familiar Genius

A fetish is being turned on by something non-human, ***** being turned on by humans makes it an orientation. Remember when homosexuality was a disorder? I'm not saying I'm all right with ***** though!

Quick Reply

Submit
Manage Your Items
Other Stuff
Get GCash
Offers
Get Items
More Items
Where Everyone Hangs Out
Other Community Areas
Virtual Spaces
Fun Stuff
Gaia's Games