Asperger's and Pedophilia??

scepticalblahblah wrote:

And when corrected, did you argue with those people that your ignorant position was superior because a lot of news personalities make the same conflation?

^^ not at all.. I adjusted my mental dictionary instead..

Which was my point.

scepticalblahblah wrote:

That's not his action. That's someone else's action, because of his thoughts.

^^ do people with an attraction to children get sacked for their thoughts?
I was going to ask that in my last post but had a brief google instead and didn't find much.. forgive the ignorance here. It's not a question that i've ever needed to find out the answer to before.

We're one of the most hated groups out there, and we are explicitly not protected by anti-discrimination laws. The only reason I have a job is I've been successful at keeping my orientation secret.

scepticalblahblah wrote:

Are you really one of those people who thinks erections are voluntary? Really?

^^ nope.. not quite.. although since i'm female, i have far less understanding of this than a male would.
My point was based on the op saying that the man in question had erections around children but not around adults.
I guess i could also point out to myself that feeling happy can lead to all the body experiencing pleasure, whether it's linked to thoughts or not.
Therefore, I guess if the man is more relaxed and happy around children, even if he isn't actually attracted to them, his body could simply be responding to this.
Bodily responses aren't thoughts..
Okay.. i'm pretty much sold on that point.

For the record, erections happen as a result of stimulation of one sort or another, and are a completely involuntary reaction. The most control men have is attempting to either apply or remove stimulation. It's basically the same issue as women who orgasm during rape. It doesn't mean they wanted it, but the body isn't under their conscious control.

I really wish our sex education in this culture were good enough to cover this sort of thing, since it's kind of important.

scepticalblahblah wrote:

I'd just point out that it's sort of stupid to get into a romantic relationship with someone who isn't attracted to you. It isn't complex. If she's thinking she can change him, she's in for disappointment, and he's going to end up more hurt in this than she is.

^^ not sure i agree with who will be more hurt here.. Op seems really attached to him and is already finding things really difficult.

Keep in mind, I said he's going to end up more hurt if she's thinking she can change him. The things that get done to us in the name of that goal are pretty horific.

shock_the_monkey wrote:the original post first appeared in the asperger's syndrome forum, where i, being an aspie, replied to it. then it got moved here. out of curiosity i thought i'd follow it up, only to find sarcastic comments about my reply. naturally, i defended myself. i don't give ground to those that gratuitously attack me.

There was nothing gratuitous about the attacks made against you. They were all quite restrained given the level of offensive you were being.

And really, you wouldn't be less pissed if we were making the same sort of insinuations about your kind.

shock_the_monkey wrote:and in this instance, had my detractors understood me at all, they'd have realised that my concern was for the man described in that original post and the damage it could do him if he were labelled a paedophile.

We read you just fine. The fact of the matter is, if he's attracted to children, a pedophile is precisely what he is. That's still potentially very damaging if it gets spread around, but your unwillingness to recognize that it's not the same thing as being a child molester reflects WHY it's so dangerous for our orientation to be known.

shock_the_monkey wrote:on several occasion i've tried to make it clear that in terms of criminality, it's only the sexual abuse of children that is a crime.

Which is not what pedophilia is.

shock_the_monkey wrote:but my detractors, naturally, don't want to acknowledge that because that wouldn't serve their purpose.

My purpose is to prevent idiots and bigots from hyjacking the conversation about my sexual orientation. Decide for yourself which you want to qualify as, or just stop trying to tell me who I am.

shock_the_monkey wrote:instead, they assume that i am in some way attacking them. this post isn't about them.

Just because your words were thoughtless doesn't make them less harmful. Own up to your mistakes and learn to do better.

shock_the_monkey wrote:they can't make that distinction, or just don't want to.

Says the guy who refuses to make the distinction between pedophiles and child molesters. ###$ off.

shock_the_monkey wrote:instead, they just plough on with their sarcasm and derogatory remarks. be bitter and twisted. keep on deliberately misunderstand people's true intentions and creating a lot of anger and resentment, if that's what you enjoy. it won't get you anywhere in life.

As the feminist movement is frequently pointing out, intent isn't magic. You ###$ up. You earned every one of those licks you recieved, so don't start playing pity party for us now.

And frankly, what won't get me anywhere in life is rolling over and showing my belly to every asshole who wants to define me and mine.

FACT: common usage of the word "paedophile" does indeed mean to a greater majority of people a person that sexually abuses children.

FACT: as i have already stated, this post first appeared in the AS forum and i replied to it within that and the above context.

FACT: there is no distinction between the term 'paedophile' being applied to those that don't act on their sexual inclinations and those that do. some 'paedophiles' DO sexually abuse children, otherwise the above common usage would simply not have come about. it may indeed be unfortunate that no such distinction exists but that is not my personal responsibility and those that refuse to recognise this are just as ignorant as i. however, my ignorance stems from the way the term 'paedophile' is commonly used rather than any desire to score points.

FACT: i actually have a lot of sympathy for any group of people that are discriminated against. however, i simply will not tolerate being the subject of abuse. that speaks for itself. those that abuse others in the manner that i have been abused here will never have my sympathy.

I don't give a monkey's what the common usage is, when that common usage is erroneous. 'Paedophile' does not mean 'child molester'. No more than 'heterosexual man' means 'rapist'.

It's hard enough to go through life with a sexuality that society deems unacceptable, without having to constantly contend with the assumption that just because you're attracted to X, you must be a predatory abuser.

FACT: The overwhelming majority of sex crimes are committed by straight heterosexuals.

Graveyard76 wrote:I don't give a monkey's what the common usage is, when that common usage is erroneous. 'Paedophile' does not mean 'child molester'. No more than 'heterosexual man' means 'rapist'.

... it is not erroneous. it is ambiguous. there is a world of difference ...

In a 1993 review of research on child sexual abuse, Sharon Araji and David Finkelhor stated that because this field of research was underdeveloped at that time, there are "definitional problems" resulting from lack of standardization among researchers in their use of the term pedophilia. They described two definitions, a "restrictive" form referring to individuals with strong and exclusive sexual interest in children, and an "inclusive" definition, expanding the term to include offenders who engaged in sexual contact with a child, including incest. They stated that they used the wider definition in their review paper because behavioral criteria are easier to identify and do not require complex analysis of an individual's motivations.

... you will not find a definition of the term 'paedophile' that explicitly excludes those that do sexually abuse children, as the above quote attests. what they are saying here is that it is easier to identify 'paedophiles' through their actions rather than their inclinations.

Similarly, the term: 'heterosexual man' does not exclude rapists, but you wouldn't use it to describe that type of person, would you?

Let's go back to the point of this thread, and say for the sake of argument that the chap described by the OP is indeed attracted to children. Let's say he finds himself labelled within his community as a paedophile, even though he would never do anything to a child in a million years.

It wouldn't be very fair if his life was ruined because people automatically interpret the word 'paedophile' to mean 'child molester', would it?

You probably know plenty of 'closet' paedophiles. You might even know a necrophile or two. By the law of averages though, if somebody you know is a sex offender, they're more likely to be a straight heterosexual than anything else.

for whatever reason, there is a disparity between what you think the term 'paedophile' means and what most other people think it means ...

In popular usage, the word pedophilia is often used to mean any sexual interest in children or the act of child sexual abuse.

... that is another quote. you can fight against this as much as you like but it will almost undoubtedly be futile. if i were you, i'd accept things as they are and coin a new term, such as 'paedosexual', in order to make the distinction that you desire.

shock_the_monkey, if this was about the definition of any typical word I could possibly understand your point of view as words tend to be defined by their popular usage over time even when that popular usage is erroneous and ignorant.

However, There is no commonly accepted word for pedophile at this moment that doesn't conjure up an association with child molesters. This is about far more than just the redefining of words, this is about the public's inability to accept that there are indeed people who are attracted to children that do not act on those desires. Until that happens we will never have words that separate the two in the mind of the general public.

In the end. I fight for the intelligent educated definition of pedophilia over the common ignorant pseudo-definition because being a decent humane pedophile is part of who I am. I will not sit by and watch my loving identity be turned into a word for people who rape and torture the children that I love anymore than I would sit by and let the word 'Asperger' develop into some word for narcissistic sociopaths who don't even have the disorder as originally defined.

shock_the_monkey wrote:for whatever reason, there is a disparity between what you think the term 'paedophile' means and what most other people think it means ...

In popular usage, the word pedophilia is often used to mean any sexual interest in children or the act of child sexual abuse.

... that is another quote. you can fight against this as much as you like but it will almost undoubtedly be futile. if i were you, i'd accept things as they are and coin a new term, such as 'paedosexual', in order to make the distinction that you desire.

We know what it means, the general public don't.

I'll not add anything more to what others have said, other than that the original post came from the Aspie forum, and therfore there has been some confusion as a result. Here, as on many of the other support forums, we would use the generally accepted scientific or medical use of terms, such as Paedophile. No more needs be said. You, I fear, are just arguing from your Aspie nature, and trying to bolster your case by any means. We know how the term is (mis)used in general, but as pointed out, it doesn't help at all, and just maintains the same old misconceptions. Would you have the same happen to those with Asperger's, or any of the personality disorders? I think not.

i would not use the term 'paedophile' to describe someone that was not guilty of sexually abusing children. in my opinion, that would be too insensitive and just plain inflammatory. that ought to have been apparent from my original reply to the original post.

it does not helps any by trying to deny reality, and reality is as i have quoted. until there is some form of terminology that differentiates between those that act on their sexual impulses towards children and those that do not, this problem in terms of definition will always exist. and, as far as the general public are concerned, they will always associate the term 'paedophile' with child sexual abuse, much as they associate the term 'rape' with a man forcing himself sexually on a woman. that is the world we live in.

We do have different terms, you ######6 jackass.

Pedophile - An adult who is sexually attracted to children.

Child molester - An adult who molests children.