Well those are your definitions, and of course under them I am wrong and you are right. But I don’t think they are correct.
Would you be able to find a definition of “sexuality” or “sexual orientation” that says it’s not inherently abusive? I’ll wait but I don’t think you will.
You can’t control who you are attracted to, and to be fair I think saying otherwise would be rather reactionary.
If you are attracted to people or things who can consent to your intimacy - or even to objects - that’s great. If you are attracted to kids or animals it’s not great at all. But they are all sexual orientations, and you don’t get to decide through legality which ones are not.
I don’t disagree with you on the disgust for pedo behaviour and the attempts of tbe “MAPs” to make it acceptable. I disagree with the stigma on those who have that attraction BECAUSE of the attraction itself rather than their actions.
Legality has nothing to do with it. Abuse is abuse whether or not it’s legal.
And you don’t need that to be explicitly excluded from the formal definition of sexuality for it to be obvious. Asking for a definition mentioning that is like asking for a definition of strawberries that explicitly mentions they’re not cyanide.
If sexualities included mental illnesses and abusive behaviors, we would treat them as such. Putting pedophilia and beastiality in the same category as normal sexualities is not only wrong, it’s harmful and disparaging to LGBTQ+.
You need it in the definition if you want to claim it as such. If cyanide strawberries were found in nature they would be part of the definition of a strawberry, and claiming otherwise would be silly.
Generally speaking what may seem obvious to you may very well not be. I could claim that donkeys are fish, and should you complain that nowhere is said that, I would reply “that’s because it’s obvious”. Not the best of arguments.
If sexual orientation is the classification of what you are attracted to then men, women, everything in between, kids, horses and warplanes are a - semantically - “valid” sexual orientation.
As for harming LGBTQ+ I disagree with that. Whenever someone says “I don’t care who or how you fuck” they generally add “as long as they are consenting adults” - clearly it’s not that obvious.
With this said I think I did my best to make my case and I do not think I can do more if this is not enough, so I will disengage from further discussion.
The core issue in your argument is being unable to define pedophilia as either a sexuality or a mental disorder.
Either pedophilia is an inherent part of a persons sexual identity that is uncontrollable and unable to be changed, or it is a disorder that requires treatment which can lead to beneficial outcomes for the individual.
That is a fair objection, and I don’t know why you got downvoted - here is my upvote for what that matters.
First of all I would argue that the difference between a “quirk” and a mental illness is whether it messes with your life, and pedophilia very much does - in that sense a sexuality can be a mental illness if it interferes with your mental wellbeing.
Secondarily would say that whether pedophilia can be “cured” through therapy - making it a mental illness in your definition - or it can only be mitigated, is something that therapists know and I don’t.
Regardless, it makes no difference towards the point I was trying to make: people who suffer from it should not be stigmatised because of it, as it makes it harder and scarier for them to seek help.
Well those are your definitions, and of course under them I am wrong and you are right. But I don’t think they are correct.
Would you be able to find a definition of “sexuality” or “sexual orientation” that says it’s not inherently abusive? I’ll wait but I don’t think you will.
You can’t control who you are attracted to, and to be fair I think saying otherwise would be rather reactionary.
If you are attracted to people or things who can consent to your intimacy - or even to objects - that’s great. If you are attracted to kids or animals it’s not great at all. But they are all sexual orientations, and you don’t get to decide through legality which ones are not.
I don’t disagree with you on the disgust for pedo behaviour and the attempts of tbe “MAPs” to make it acceptable. I disagree with the stigma on those who have that attraction BECAUSE of the attraction itself rather than their actions.
Legality has nothing to do with it. Abuse is abuse whether or not it’s legal.
And you don’t need that to be explicitly excluded from the formal definition of sexuality for it to be obvious. Asking for a definition mentioning that is like asking for a definition of strawberries that explicitly mentions they’re not cyanide.
If sexualities included mental illnesses and abusive behaviors, we would treat them as such. Putting pedophilia and beastiality in the same category as normal sexualities is not only wrong, it’s harmful and disparaging to LGBTQ+.
You need it in the definition if you want to claim it as such. If cyanide strawberries were found in nature they would be part of the definition of a strawberry, and claiming otherwise would be silly.
Generally speaking what may seem obvious to you may very well not be. I could claim that donkeys are fish, and should you complain that nowhere is said that, I would reply “that’s because it’s obvious”. Not the best of arguments.
If sexual orientation is the classification of what you are attracted to then men, women, everything in between, kids, horses and warplanes are a - semantically - “valid” sexual orientation.
As for harming LGBTQ+ I disagree with that. Whenever someone says “I don’t care who or how you fuck” they generally add “as long as they are consenting adults” - clearly it’s not that obvious.
With this said I think I did my best to make my case and I do not think I can do more if this is not enough, so I will disengage from further discussion.
The core issue in your argument is being unable to define pedophilia as either a sexuality or a mental disorder.
Either pedophilia is an inherent part of a persons sexual identity that is uncontrollable and unable to be changed, or it is a disorder that requires treatment which can lead to beneficial outcomes for the individual.
It cannot be both.
That is a fair objection, and I don’t know why you got downvoted - here is my upvote for what that matters.
First of all I would argue that the difference between a “quirk” and a mental illness is whether it messes with your life, and pedophilia very much does - in that sense a sexuality can be a mental illness if it interferes with your mental wellbeing.
Secondarily would say that whether pedophilia can be “cured” through therapy - making it a mental illness in your definition - or it can only be mitigated, is something that therapists know and I don’t.
Regardless, it makes no difference towards the point I was trying to make: people who suffer from it should not be stigmatised because of it, as it makes it harder and scarier for them to seek help.