« For example, your butt wasn’t designed for sitting, and when you sit on your butt for several hours per day, you get out of shape and can develop back pain from sitting down too much. »
Yup. Sitting is for degens :)
Thanks for reminding me to stand up.
«Key Takeaway #4: If people can exercise some control over their sexual inclinations, then bad sexual inclinations should not be dealt with by support groups - quite the opposite: they should never be spoken of.»
Can't you make the same reasoning work for alcoholics and AA support groups? Some people do make that claim and may advocate non-acknowledgement of "the problem" as a strategy. But I also think that AA groups would kick you out, if you start discussing the wonderful emotional experience of the alcohol drinking experience in vivid detail. That'd make people thirsty. AA people also strongly discourage their members from drinking "alcohol free"-beer, because it never fully is and even if it were, it would stir up the memories/associations you want to suppress. If a particular pedo support group make these mistakes, then they may be counterproductive and should be repressed.
It ends up being an empirical question, of how good/bad these groups are, though. And it would depend on the specific group, the people that participate in them and their particular dynamic.
As to whether pedophilia being openly discussed legitimizes the preference and shapes more people into pedophiles. I kinda doubt it would have a non-negligible effect, whereas I don't doubt the same memetic effect being obviously a factor for shaping people into gays, furries and anorexics. I may be wrong, but don't know if there's good evidence either way and then there's an argument for what the base assumption ought to be, that I probably would have to make to justify my position.
In general, I believe that trying to logically reason from ideological premises (and it doesn't even matter which) is a fools' errand. Ideologies are cookie-cutter simplifications, useful for trying to build lowest-common denominator consensus for running a mass movement or cult (and which rarely are a force for good) and occasionally they have some explanatory value. But if taken too seriously end up distorting your view of reality in a highly detrimental way.
I think the Roman Catholic view of buttsex isn’t that it’s perverted because of its reliance on an unnatural orifice for pleasure it’s because it cannot result in conception. The same principle regards masturbation and oral sex as perversions. The difficulty is that oral sex has good evolutionary pedigree. Buttsex is very enjoyable and masturbation has its upside.
The religious view of sex (pace Bill Clinton) that isn’t directly procreative held by Roman Catholics isn’t determinative of the morality of sex acts carried out by consenting adults, it’s just one view. A better view is that sex acts which help in the formation of stable pair bonds are desirable and those that aren’t are undesirable.
« For example, your butt wasn’t designed for sitting, and when you sit on your butt for several hours per day, you get out of shape and can develop back pain from sitting down too much. »
Yup. Sitting is for degens :)
Thanks for reminding me to stand up.
«Key Takeaway #4: If people can exercise some control over their sexual inclinations, then bad sexual inclinations should not be dealt with by support groups - quite the opposite: they should never be spoken of.»
Can't you make the same reasoning work for alcoholics and AA support groups? Some people do make that claim and may advocate non-acknowledgement of "the problem" as a strategy. But I also think that AA groups would kick you out, if you start discussing the wonderful emotional experience of the alcohol drinking experience in vivid detail. That'd make people thirsty. AA people also strongly discourage their members from drinking "alcohol free"-beer, because it never fully is and even if it were, it would stir up the memories/associations you want to suppress. If a particular pedo support group make these mistakes, then they may be counterproductive and should be repressed.
It ends up being an empirical question, of how good/bad these groups are, though. And it would depend on the specific group, the people that participate in them and their particular dynamic.
As to whether pedophilia being openly discussed legitimizes the preference and shapes more people into pedophiles. I kinda doubt it would have a non-negligible effect, whereas I don't doubt the same memetic effect being obviously a factor for shaping people into gays, furries and anorexics. I may be wrong, but don't know if there's good evidence either way and then there's an argument for what the base assumption ought to be, that I probably would have to make to justify my position.
In general, I believe that trying to logically reason from ideological premises (and it doesn't even matter which) is a fools' errand. Ideologies are cookie-cutter simplifications, useful for trying to build lowest-common denominator consensus for running a mass movement or cult (and which rarely are a force for good) and occasionally they have some explanatory value. But if taken too seriously end up distorting your view of reality in a highly detrimental way.
Wish I could convince everybody of that.
I think the Roman Catholic view of buttsex isn’t that it’s perverted because of its reliance on an unnatural orifice for pleasure it’s because it cannot result in conception. The same principle regards masturbation and oral sex as perversions. The difficulty is that oral sex has good evolutionary pedigree. Buttsex is very enjoyable and masturbation has its upside.
The religious view of sex (pace Bill Clinton) that isn’t directly procreative held by Roman Catholics isn’t determinative of the morality of sex acts carried out by consenting adults, it’s just one view. A better view is that sex acts which help in the formation of stable pair bonds are desirable and those that aren’t are undesirable.
Not sure how that's relevant.