Asperger's and Pedophilia??

scepticalblahblah wrote:

How the news media uses the term is irrelevant, since they are just as guilty of conflating all sorts of sexual acts of those underage (18 in many cases) with paedophilia, and it doesn't help AT ALL.

^^ I think the way the media uses the term is really really relevant to this and STMs point actually.

His "point" is a refusal to be educated about what words mean. I am a pedophile, and I'm not going to stand for him or anyone else telling me the distinction between pedophiles and child molesters is splitting hairs.

It is not a crime to be a pedophile, and I'm not just going to ignore bad behavior because it comes from someone who's willfully ignorant.

scepticalblahblah wrote:Until i came to this site and realised that a paedophile is someone with an attraction towards children, I assumed that paedophile meant ''child molester''
Now of course, i know differently but only due to the few times where i've approved posts for this section or been a participant in a thread that has been moved to here.

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?

scepticalblahblah wrote:The word ''paedophile'' in much of society is used to mean a person that abuses children..
would you be okay standing in the middle of the street holding a sign that says ''hi, i'm a paedophile''
and know that people will understand that you mean you are attracted to rather than abusing?

I consider doing just that on a regular basis, actually. Being an invisible minority sucks, and there are days I'd rather just put it out there and face what comes. Yeah, idiots won't know what the word means, but then again, idiots won't care what the word means, and will want me dead for the thoughts anyway. Hell, they've tried to murder pediatricians because they don't so much as know how to spell "pedophile".

So if I'm holding that sign, I'm inviting people to give it their best shot knowing full well that even if they know the term, they might want to try to kill me.

You were going somewhere with this line of argument?

scepticalblahblah wrote:I don't think any will.. and this in a nutshell is STMs point, it is of utmost importance that thoughts of someone being a paedophile are kept quiet due to the potential consequences..

Wrong. His point is a basic unwillingness to learn terminology. If he'd expressed concern about spreading rumors that he was attracted to children, then you'd be right about what his point is, but his only problem is that he thinks calling him a pedophile is inaccurate, which it isn't. .

scepticalblahblah wrote:these are more than thoughts however; he was sacked from a job,

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

scepticalblahblah wrote:he gets erections when around children,

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

The state of sex education...

scepticalblahblah wrote:admits to attraction towards them,

That is a thought.

scepticalblahblah wrote:his friend states that he had cp on his computer (have you asked this man about this? he sounds fairly open so asking him may be a better idea than just believing his friend).

Or you could recognize that asking him that question is asking him to admit to a crime, make himself more vulnerable to prosecution, and as such, you'll never trust a negative answer anyway, so there's no point bothering.

scepticalblahblah wrote:anyway.. i'm wandering quite a way off why i popped in to comment on this one so i'll quit now..

DeepThinks

You say that your relationship with this man is one of a reciprocal, mature and supportive adult relationship in every way except for sexual or physical affection..
However; your relationship really can't be that of reciprocal, mature and supportive adults unless we assume that this quoted part of your post is untrue..

With his Asperger’s I could understand the explanation that he feels like he relates most with children around that age because he is sexually and socially developed on the same level as a young child would be. Another explanation that seems rational is that as a virgin (with Asperger’s) he might still be "stuck" in the same phase as first having sexual thoughts and feelings towards other children that age and he has not progressed forward from

and if we assume that this part must be untrue then we must also assume that his aspergers does not hamper his ability to have a relationship as your equal.. nor does it draw him to be attracted to children.

Therefore; either you dismiss his Aspergers as playing any sort of role here and walk away from him as you would do to any non aspie
Or, you need to assume that if you stick by him, you are in a position of power over him and please make sure that you realise just how large his limitations are.. be there to advise him and everything but a relationship at any stage would be very much out of the question.

He is either a child in a mans body or a man with an attraction to children.. either way, it can't work out for you.

I honestly think all the time that you've spent together is serving to blind you to what is going on here..
my advice is to stay away from him for a period of at least a week and see how your thoughts are looking at the end of this point.. right now you're riding on emotions - pick logic back up.

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.

He's probably enjoying the validation of this experience, since even if we aren't attracted to adults, we still get messages that we should be in relationships that are hard to ignore. But this isn't going to work out in the long run, and frankly the kind thing to do is simply tell him that you can't have a relationship with someone who isn't as attracted to you as you are to him, and that being emotionally intimate with someone who isn't capable of reciprocating physically is painful for you, so you need some space to get past those feelings if you ever want to be friends again.

Mind you, that's the kind thing to do. And even among people who don't know I'm into little kids, I find people rarely do the kind thing for me.

having read the original post over again, i still can't help thinking that if everyone were held responsible for every single thought or feeling that they ever had, we'd all be serving pretty heavy gaol sentences.

of him getting an erection during a game with an 11 year old girl, such things are involuntary. it doesn't imply any intent whatsoever. and any man, if he's entirely honest, would admit to having some such awkward moments in his life.

of his crush on a highschool girl, again, these things happen. it doesn't necessarily mean that he behaved inappropriately towards her. and let's not forget that teenaged girls are well known for having crushes on teaches and other such adults. i can't help wondering a little if there mightn't have been a little complicity on the girl's behalf here, especially as she was clearly friendly towards him.

of the computer child pornography, this certainly sounds more serious until it's realised that this is based on a third hand account and was only in the form of searches, which might well be subject to interpretation. it really isn't evidence of anything.

on balance, i see nothing more here than a man that has little sexual experience and maturity.

YouthRightsRadical wrote:

scepticalblahblah wrote:

How the news media uses the term is irrelevant, since they are just as guilty of conflating all sorts of sexual acts of those underage (18 in many cases) with paedophilia, and it doesn't help AT ALL.

^^ I think the way the media uses the term is really really relevant to this and STMs point actually.

His "point" is a refusal to be educated about what words mean.

... words mean what people believe them to mean. languages evolve, and this evolution takes place through common usage. tell someone that you're gay and they won't think you mean happy and carefree. tell someone that you're a paedophile and they won't think that you just like children either. candidly, i think scepticalblahblah made a lot of sense. but maybe that's because i'm an idiot!!!

oh, and i did a bit of digging on the formal definition of paedophile and even certain experts believe it would be better used as a term which describe just those that sexually abuse children, as it's difficult to consistently define in the absence of any deviant behaviour. but what do that know either!!!

I think Asperger's could have a connection to the development of paraphilias in general. An aspie focuses on precise detail or concepts related to sex and they can feel less connection to the actual other person in the situation.

shock_the_monkey wrote:

YouthRightsRadical wrote:

scepticalblahblah wrote:
^^ I think the way the media uses the term is really really relevant to this and STMs point actually.

His "point" is a refusal to be educated about what words mean.

... words mean what people believe them to mean. languages evolve, and this evolution takes place through common usage. tell someone that you're gay and they won't think you mean happy and carefree. tell someone that you're a paedophile and they won't think that you just like children either. candidly, i think scepticalblahblah made a lot of sense. but maybe that's because i'm an idiot!!!

I know quite a bit about how language evolves, and about the history of the term pedophile in particular. The previous term for an adult who was attracted to children became hopelessly corrupted by misuse so that it became a mere synonym for child molester. Thus the term pedophile was coined to fill the void. In time, the word pedophile too has gradually been corrupted in the same way by the same ignorant assholes who are unable to separate thought from action, and as a result, the common use of the term has begun to shift yet again.

Frankly, I tire of the perpetual retreat, and since I'm inclined to confront the bigots who despise us anyway, I see no reason to ever give ground on the terminology they're misusing any more than I'll allow such common but ignorant assertions as "the thought leads to the action".

shock_the_monkey wrote:oh, and i did a bit of digging on the formal definition of paedophile and even certain experts believe it would be better used as a term which describe just those that sexually abuse children, as it's difficult to consistently define in the absence of any deviant behaviour. but what do that know either!!!

I love how you reference experts without identifying them. That's really convincing of you.

Look, people like me, who are attracted to but do not molest children, aren't commonly acknowledged to exist because there's been a rather concerted effort to obliterate the very language for describing us. You are part of the problem, though I'm sure you don't really care one whit the damage you do.

YouthRightsRadical wrote:

shock_the_monkey wrote:... words mean what people believe them to mean. languages evolve, and this evolution takes place through common usage. tell someone that you're gay and they won't think you mean happy and carefree. tell someone that you're a paedophile and they won't think that you just like children either. candidly, i think scepticalblahblah made a lot of sense. but maybe that's because i'm an idiot!!!

I know quite a bit about how language evolves, and about the history of the term pedophile in particular. The previous term for an adult who was attracted to children became hopelessly corrupted by misuse so that it became a mere synonym for child molester. Thus the term pedophile was coined to fill the void. In time, the word pedophile too has gradually been corrupted in the same way by the same ignorant assholes who are unable to separate thought from action, and as a result, the common use of the term has begun to shift yet again.

Frankly, I tire of the perpetual retreat, and since I'm inclined to confront the bigots who despise us anyway, I see no reason to ever give ground on the terminology they're misusing any more than I'll allow such common but ignorant assertions as "the thought leads to the action".

shock_the_monkey wrote:oh, and i did a bit of digging on the formal definition of paedophile and even certain experts believe it would be better used as a term which describe just those that sexually abuse children, as it's difficult to consistently define in the absence of any deviant behaviour. but what do that know either!!!

I love how you reference experts without identifying them. That's really convincing of you.

Look, people like me, who are attracted to but do not molest children, aren't commonly acknowledged to exist because there's been a rather concerted effort to obliterate the very language for describing us. You are part of the problem, though I'm sure you don't really care one whit the damage you do.

... you don't know me. you've no idea of my views about anything. you're just angry. feel free to vent but i won't be taking it personally.

shock_the_monkey wrote:... you don't know me. you've no idea of my views about anything.

And who's fault is that? If you feel misunderstood, learn to communicate. You can start by learning how words work.

shock_the_monkey wrote:you're just angry. feel free to vent but i won't be taking it personally.

I do love the condescension here. But yeah, I'm angry. You've come into our space, called me and mine criminals, been a complete asshole to multiple people who've been politely trying to correct your mistakes, and generally made things difficult for someone who originally came to this board looking for advice and help.

You aren't ignorant. You aren't misinformed. Your behavior is deliberate.

I don't give a ###$ if you want to pretend to be above it all because I'm capable of human emotion. Only trolls fool themselves into thinking they've scored a victory by pissing other people off.

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..

You were going somewhere with this line of argument?

^^ aside from explaining how society understands the word paedophile.. no.

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.

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.

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.
But, she's doing all the processing of everything while the friendship is ongoing.. aspie dude is going to have to do all this when the friendship ends (if it does)
He'll definitely end up hurt though.. if he's attached at all to her and he does sound like he is at this point, aspies in general don't get close to many people but once they do they are heavily attached.

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. 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. 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. but my detractors, naturally, don't want to acknowledge that because that wouldn't serve their purpose. instead, they assume that i am in some way attacking them. this post isn't about them. they can't make that distinction, or just don't want to. 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.

Welcome to the Paraphilias Forum, shock_the_monkey.

It's an easy place to stick your foot in it. Even I do from time to time, and I'm someone who's always appealing to people to understand that the propensity to be an abuser is a separate thing to the object of an individual's attractions.

The word 'paedophile' does not mean 'child molester' on this forum. That's not splitting hairs. It's because the majority of people who have that attraction are no more inclined to abusive behaviour than anyone from hundreds of other orientations that you could pull out of a hat.