rbruma said:
Anyway, many reasons like the one you mentioned can be coined to support the view that necrophilia is equally normal and acceptable. Come on, you will say, this is too much... The same was thought, however, about homosexuality not so many years ago.
Actually, it's not so much, "Come on, this is too much." In the fifteen years I've heard homosexuality compared to necrophilia, among others, the one question never satisfactorily answered is where a certain idea enters the equation and how it influences the outcome:
consent.
Necrophilia isn't sex. It's really complex masturbation. Aside from the fact the object is a corpse, it's no different than humping up on an apple pie or the sofa cushions. A dead animal or person cannot give proper consent to sexual intercourse. (On that note, if you include as some gonzo provision in your will that willing mourners are supposed to have sex with your corpse,
I won't stand in the way. However, society ought to object if you make it a prerequisite of inheritance.)
I fail yet to find one convincing reason to differentiate psychotic or neurologic disorders and homosexuality.
Well, a significant portion of the difference is noted in the APA material: "For a mental condition to be considered a psychiatric disorder, it should either regularly cause emotional distress or regularly be associated with clinically significant impairment of social functioning."
Even considering ego dystonia, the emotional distress and impairment of social function associated with homosexuality cannot be shown to originate with homosexuality itself. Additionally, the APA notes that there is no documented effective reparative therapy, and a lack of evidence suggesting such therapy is even possible. The problem is simply expressed: "Clinical experience suggests that any person who seeks conversion therapy may be doing so because of social bias that has resulted in internalized homophobia, and that gay men and lesbians who have accepted their sexual orientation positively are better adjusted than those who have not done so." In December, 1992, calling for a repeal of the criminalization of homosexuality, the APA noted, "Whereas homosexuality per se implies no impairment in judgement, stability, reliability, or general social or vocational capabilities ...."
This repeating theme makes all the difference in the world. The same phrase comes up as early as 1973, when the AP considered homosexuality and civil rights.
• • •
Ironically, I've encountered this issue recently, peripherally, in the gay debate. It's almost, but not quite a footnote. In a long-running topic, a poster offered a study in support of the traditionalist position. This is in itself notable, since that rarely happens. I took issue with the report, and among the points of contention was the following:
Look there at that third paragraph, "This type of behavior ...."
First of all, the two exclamation points are exceptionally unscientific. Secondly, the phrase, "And women are not raping them," is phrased for political impact, not scientific communication. MOre substantially, however, Baldwin has misrepresented the APA in order to sound the alarm:
•
The new definition defines sex with children as a psychological disorder only if it causes "clinically significant distress" for the molester! Under that definition, most molesters are perfectly normal people! A June 17, 2003 press release from the APA reads:
The American Psychiatric Association Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders,
Fourth Edition Text Revision (DSM-IV-TR) criteria for Pedophilia (302.2) are:
A. Over a period of at least 6 months, recurrent, intense sexually arousing fantasies, sexual urges, or behaviors involving sexual activity with a prepubescent child or children (generally age 13 years or younger);
B. The person has acted on these sexual urges, or the sexual urges or fantasies cause marked distress or interpersonal difficulty;
C. The person is at least age 16 years and at least 5 years older than the child or children in Criterion A.
American Psychiatric Association
Baldwin, strangely, opts for a more restricted definition of pedophilia. As it is, the criteria includes people who never lay a sexual finger on a child. Part A establishes both behavior and period; Part B establishes the psychological stake of action or internal conflict; Part C defines the relationship between pedophile and target.
Part B is the important part, as that's what Baldwin throws an exclamation point or two for. On the one hand, we have the active predator, one who has
acted on the pedophiliac urge. To the other, we have the tormented soul, one who
may eventually seek to act. It is this latter part of the criterion with which Baldwin takes issue. Should we construe him as opposing pre-assault intervention in what could be a manageable psychological distress? Should we construe him as saying we ought to wait until the tormented soul decides to act and takes a victim?
(Click for
post,
topic.)
It strikes me as ironic because, while you do so differently, you are, in fact, overlooking the significance of internal distress (e.g. "regularly cause emotional distress or regularly be associated with clinically significant impairment of social functioning", "impairment in judgement, stability, reliability, or general social or vocational capabilities"). This is a very important factor to keep in mind. Mr. Baldwin's mistake led him to a possibly-embarrassing position. In your case, I would merely assert that what you're overlooking is perhaps the resolution to your confusion. After all, lots of people would think Christianity a mental disorder, but it's rather hard to assert the social dysfunction of a prevailing paradigm
because people socialize well enough for the most part, and those that don't stand out for their dysfunction.
is