The Gender, Sexuality, and Race Room
Yes.
Senior Member
Yes.
Senior Member
I didn't really think you were C.O. That just sounded very much like something he would have written.Originally Posted by Lummy
“Civilized men are more discourteous than savages because they know they can be impolite without having their skulls split, as a general thing.” - Robert E. Howard
"Only a rank degenerate would drive 1,500 miles across Texas and not eat a chicken fried steak." - Larry McMurtry
Lummy (08-09-2020)
tPF Moderator
An individual does not need to act on a paraphilia, necessarily, if they are experiencing the second component for a diagnosis - which could be discomfort, constant distraction from everyday things, and many other detrimental effects that arise when someone does not act on an impulse. They have the necessary components of the paraphilia and an impact on the quality of life. Saying that a fantasy involving control/trust is akin to a paraphilia makes it normal or acceptable is not probably what you meant when you brought it up because it would mean the opposite.
Generally, the cut-off age for pedophilia is 13 years of age, and sure, you can find sources that will wax poetic about different ages but the entire concept of pedophilia revolves around an attraction to prepubescent children. An attraction to a teenager is considered to be ephebophilia and is not in the DSM but would very much be illegal if someone got involved with that individual.
Sounds like that individual was probably motivated by sex (obsession, stalking), and given that a murder occurred it would make more sense to look at and submit his browsing history. However, most of the time it would not be very relevant unless tied to a specific crime (terrorists might Google how to build a bomb, or a murderer might Google how to poison someone, etc.).
FYIWDWYTM
TheOneOnly2 (08-10-2020)
Senior Member
When my son was 14 we were discussing what I considered to be the important issues involving sex. We saw a movie, Excalibur, and as we left I said, "Remember the scene where King Arthur's father raped his mother? Didn't even take his armor off." My son remembered. "Remember the scene with Lancelot and Guinevere in the forest?" He remembered.
"They both involved screwing. Did you see the difference?"
"They felt different."
"I know men who are fifty-years-old and have never learned that."
I've had enough violence and enough sex in my life so I tend to avoid both in movies.
Banned
See - the majority of people that read this thread may think I am a jerk and thats fine with me but this right here is an interesting and important discussion right? Sometimes it is healthy for people to face things that they find uncomfortable - I fully agree.
(: I will respond to your reply in a second.
Banned
Ok.
So - like I said - I had already written this script a few years ago and posted it on another forum and it was deleted right away - it was a few years ago actually. As you can see from my missing paragraph - which I decided to include to show that I already knew that according to the DSM a person can have sexual fantasies - even fantasies involving underage people do not equate to a disorder unless the fantasy is acted upon. I already knew this before my quick google search the other night when modifying this. I got this from reading what the DSM had to say on paedophilia at the time I was writing the script a few years ago. I hadnt even heard the word 'paraphilia' at that time - I just knew that DSM said that if you dont act on fantasy then there is no disorder. I was surprised by that to be honest. Anyway the point is that me saying rape fantasies are normal and not a disorder unless acted upon ( or causing individual a problem ) is exactly what I meant and not the opposite of what I am saying. People can indeed have fantasies without acting upon them, or the fantasies causing any "discomfort, constant distraction from everyday things, and many other detrimental effects that arise when someone does not act on an impulse". I wouldnt consider the majority of females that have rape fantasies once a month to not be normal and I think that them having the fantasies is acceptable - same goes for men having rape fantasies. The majority of us can have a fantasy without the fantasy consuming our lives and causing us personal problems - it would only be an extreme minority that would have a fantasy and then be diagnosed as having paraphilia but not the disorder - but even if you want to stretch it and say that any person that has a fantasy involving the paraphilia categories that the DSM decides to include is 'ascertained' the fact is that to be 'ascertained' does not mean that you have been diagnosed. Ascertainment does not equal diagnosis -
The problem is that the coined term ascertainment opens the door to permit the labeling of anyone with a sexual interest different from the examiner, including homosexuality. This concern is particularly troubling because of the recent tendency to refer to paraphilic disorders as orientations.7
Further, once a person is ascertained, it is hard to imagine that he will not be regarded as having been diagnosed. People ascertained with pedophilia will be grouped with people diagnosed with pedophilia.
http://jaapl.org/content/39/2/238
As far as forensics/law is concerned - say you have a weird dude like this Stephen McDaniel guy above and he kills his female neighbour that he is obsessed with - beyond using his internet history as evidence - it adds far more weight if the prosecution can argue that his internet history indicates paraphilia and that the crime he has committed is proof positive of the fact that this individual has an actual mental disorder. So for most of us it really is not helpful for individuals that experience taboo fantasies that are not acted upon to be grouped with individuals that have an actual disorder - for ascertainment to be regarded as diagnosis - but for legal purposes it most certainly is. Thats what I mean when I say that this kind of thing has a lot to do with law. Its political.
You may have noticed from some of my posts on this forum that I have little faith in the psychiatry industry or the DSM. The DSM is political and to me this 'ascertainment' horse%$%$ is an example of that.
What is the point of psychiatry if not to promote and justify the political and economic system that it exists within? The first time I really gave any serious thought to psychiatry was when I was 18 years old and studying diploma in childrens services at tafe - I remember reading about Freuds 'id' concept and being insulted by the idea that every action or thought that I have can be traced back to my own selfish needs. That really bothered me. It wasnt until years later when I had some time that I discovered Erich Fromm. Fromm is like the commie anti-Freud. Im not telling you that I am a communist but that fact is that the psychiatry industry of capitalist society is rooted in Freudian thinking even with them trying to distance - and justify themselves with so-called 'scientific psychiatry'. All of their bull%$%$ is simply designed to ensure the smooth running of capitalist society and to keep capitalist citizens either functional within it or if that is not possible then label them with disorder and medicate with the objective or getting them functional or ensuring that they do not cause any problems. The political DSMs paraphilia horse%$%$ is no different.
And on paedophilia - more than anything it comes down to culture - in places like the UK and Australia we can have sex with a 16 year old and its not illegal so as far as Prince Andrew goes he has not committed any crime by taking a 16 year old down to his sex dungeon - it is only if it can be proven that he paid the 16 year old girl to entertain him in his sex dungeon that he has committed a crime and has anything to answer for - this would not be the case in USA since your age of consent is apparently 18. In my opinion the conservative age of consent laws in USA are due to the fact that US society is heavily influenced by Christian thinking - which is odd if you think about it because what was age of consent back in the day of Jesus anyway? If we go to places like Asia, Africa, South America etc the age of consent laws can be as low as 14. So this probably limits what the DSM can say on the topic. Even though the DSM is American it presents itself as the authority on psychology for not just the west but the planet - but those in control of what is and is not included in the DSM must know that it does not have the power to change cultural thinking on this topic around the planet and to try would risk the DSM being discredited or it being simply rejected outright which is not what the people behind the DSM would want. Its all political.
edit - the main point of me writing this thread was to encourage people to question the DSM more than it was to hurt the little brains of the readers. Thats why original OP included missing paragraph. Even without it that was always the direction it was going to go though right? I do not like the DSM.
Last edited by TheOneOnly2; 08-10-2020 at 06:43 AM.
Senior Member
Okay, to be absolutely honest, full disclosure and all that, I just remembered an incredibly erotic rape scene. In the film The Name of the Rose, a young priest is raped by a peasant girl. I strongly suspect that if the priest had been the raper rather than the rapee I would view it quite differently.
“Civilized men are more discourteous than savages because they know they can be impolite without having their skulls split, as a general thing.” - Robert E. Howard
"Only a rank degenerate would drive 1,500 miles across Texas and not eat a chicken fried steak." - Larry McMurtry
TheOneOnly2 (08-14-2020)
Banned
Banned
I watched Titus 1999 last night. You do not see the rape of Lavinia - but the aftermath is quite $%$%ed up. Goodness.
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote