It was the remains of fish which we ground into powder and fed to other fish and sheep, whose remains we ground into powder and fed to other sheep and cows, whose remains we ground to powder and fed to other cows.

Just because the mode of payment changes with the technical abilities of the medium doesn’t change that.

Not according to German, French, and I suspect most of other european countries laws. Only torrenting copyright-protected content is against the law because you’re uploading the content (distributing) while downloading.

Would you call it piracy to yank out the ad insert from a free newspaper and throw it into the trash without looking at it? Because that’s the exact analog from the non-digital world. Just because the mode of payment changes with the technical abilities of the medium doesn’t change that.

And you never will.

Well, not by accident.

I just dabbled in javascript again, and that description is spot on!

console.log(‘javascript operators are b’ + ‘a’ + + ‘a’ + ‘a’);

You’re attacking this from the wrong angle. Tinkering every few weeks with something new on linux can keep your ADHD occupied ;-)

Thanks. I looked for it but was too stupid to find it.

The reverse isn’t really true […]

If heterosexual people could learn to enjoy homosexual stuff why shouldn’t homosexual people be able to learn to enjoy heterosexual stuff? In your words: they only have to put their mind to it.

There’s solid evidence that homo-/heterosexuality in men strongly correlates with androgen hormone levels of the mother during pregnancy. Of course that is not binary. But if you are on either end of the spectrum you will not learn to enjoy the other. For women homosexuality is not as well (medically/biolgically) understood. But all research I know points to there being a deciding predisposition just like in men. Now, if of course you’re on one side but not an end of the spectrum and have not had exposure/opportunity to discover that you might enjoy something that runs contrary to your perceived sexuality, it might feel like you’re making an active effort to change/expand on your sexuality when the opportunity arrives and you decide to take it. The truth is, that for a substantial amount of men you can predict with 100% certainty that they will either be exclusively heterosexual or exclusively homosexual simply by measturing their mothers androgen hormone levels during pregnancy. Again, you can discover, and also nurture and develop, your sexuality, but you cannot change it; only repress it.

[…] as repressing innate desire requires neurosis, […]

I don’t think so. Somebody repressing or hiding his (for example) homosexuality doesn’t require neurosis. “Only” an environment that’s out to kill them for it, like parts of Africa.

[…] while learning to enjoy something you don’t instinctively enjoy very much doesn’t.

I think our main issue might be language. You keep talking about learning and I keep talking about discovering. I never made a decision to like big tits. I didn’t “learn” to enjoy them. Thanks to the internet I was presented with a buffet of almost all the porn industry has to offer. I saw everything, but big tits particularly appealed to me, so then I saught out that content deliberately. No doubt reinforcing that taste of mine, but the wiring was already there, before I knew it. You might say that I learned to love big tits. And to that I’d say: wrong. I discovered that I like big tits! Learning requires intent, and there was no intent whatsoever in me realizing I like big tits.

You can’t go down the road of neurosis open-eyed and that “setting your mind to it” bit requires insight into your own mind so the two are at odds with each other. If it happens then that’s ordinary repression, not a voluntary choice.

That’s too esoteric for me or I do not understand at all what you’re trying to say here

And even if it was true then conversion therapy would still be psychological torture:

Yes.

Nothing about conversion therapy is “setting one’s mind to it”, just like setting out to not dislike cleaning the toilet is not the same as someone flushing your head.

I guess I agree? I don’t see how this relates to anything I said, though.

Or, differently put: Don’t shove something down someone’s throat that they don’t already enjoy inhaling. SCNR.

Exactly my point. Predisposition and discovery. SCNR ;-)

And then of course there’s the whole issue of why. Why change that stuff?

See, I’d say that’s the wrong question. At least to begin with. Is change possible? If the answer is no, there’s no point in asking why you would want that change.

Of course people might have individual reasons (which might be as simple as learning a psychological circus trick for the heck of it), but that doesn’t mean that a social norm to have a particular sexuality (short of consent issues) makes any amount of ethical sense.

I fear you’ve lost me again. I really don’t know what you’re trying to convey here.

You valued it negatively all those years and presumably never tried to do the opposite, it’s no wonder you continue to dislike it. And why would you, there’s no reason to.

You’re missing the point. Out of the wonderful bouqet of pornography I picked what I liked. That way I found out what I liked. I am absolutely sure that even if I tried to like foot fetish porn I would fail. The “set your mind to it part” is nonsense in this context. That’s not how sexuality works.

All I’m saying is that the plasticity is there, not that it’s particularly common that people use it.

I agree to some extent. Everybody has some basic sexual wiring (read orientation) whithin which one can take different routes to develop ones own sexuality. The end result could be very distinct but the way to it is not a conscious process. You can consciously choose to try something new, but you can’t choose whether you like it or not.

Nothing is 100% reliable, and the purely sexual can only be a part of the overall solution. Additional things include making affected recognise the impossibility of consent, the amount of damage their behaviour would cause, and if that alone doesn’t convince them that they should gladly distract themselves there’s some ways to get a bit of a handle on dark triad traits though TBH the bigger bully argument works most reliably: Criminalisation. OTOH it would be naive to only crack the whip of criminal law without offering people aid in how to avoid it.

Partly to mostly agree. I think we’re on the same page that criminalizing being pedophile helps noone, though. CSAM already is illegal. Long arc back to the beginning: I doubt the measures described in the article have any meaningful impact.

I 99% agree with what you’re saying here, so I’m not going to comment it line by line ;-)

[…] if someone were to compare heterosexuality to zoophilia as a means to justify watching animated animal abuse […]

You see, that’s the trouble with our conversation: I did nothing to that effect. Not analogously, not figuratively, not between the lines, not at all.

You keep arguing against things I’m not saying.

I doubt we have much more to say than is already said. Have a good <insert time of day>

Yes, have a good one.

Nice rephrasing of what I said (mostly). Homosexuality - and heterosexuality, and any sexuality for that matter - are only acceptable as long as there is consent. The only difference is, as I’ve pointed out, that with pedophilia there is no scenario which can have consent. That doesn’t matter though, as long as it stays in somebody’s mind or the virtual realm.

If you strictly distinguish between desire and action, it is an absolutely fair comparison. I do, and I do so explicitly. Some people don’t, ignore that I do, and then get wound up about what they think I said.

Btw, you might want to read that wiki page in full yourselves.

Yah, this feels more like a legal protection measure and virtue signaling. There’s absolutely no assessment of efficiency or even efficacy of the measures. At least not in the article or the ones it links to and I couldn’t find anything substantial on it.

Only a very, very small percentage of paedophiles are exclusive paedophiles. This is more like a bi person becoming more gay (or straight) by exposing themselves to more gay (or straight) porn. People can focus in on particular aspects of their sexuality or ignore others, and that’s before fetishisation comes into play where the mind projects sexual meaning onto stuff that’s not primitively (as in instinctively) sexual.

I completely agree with that.

Yes. Even if you’re a 110% straight dude, if you set your mind to it, with enough practice, you can learn to enjoy sucking dick, […]

And I think that is complete nonsense. If it had any merit, the reverse would also be true and could be used as an argument for conversion therapy. I think we can’t proactively develop our sexuality, only discover it. Expressive nuance is happenstance that can be enforced, but is not a deliberate decision. If I see foot fetish stuff it is an instant turnoff and has been for 30 years. My dislike of foot fetish stuff is certainly not due to lack of exposure.

[…] or at least having your dick sucked by a cute femboy.

Possibly. When it comes to sex I’m pretty visually fixated. If a femboy satisfied all the visual cues I see no problem in getting going by a femboy’s blowjob. Though, I have a thing for really big natural tits, so I think that’s rather unlikely.

At the same time mere exposure to gay porn doesn’t do the same and that’s not a contradiction as your usual 110% straight dude has no interest whatsoever to setting their mind to learn how to enjoy sucking dick, there’s neither inclination nor reason to, the porn is just going to go straight past them.

Same as above. I don’t think you can consciously shift your sexuality. You can only force yourself to act against your sexual nature, but not change it. If you could, conversion therapy would have merit. If you had a heterosexual “life style” and then discovered that you enjoy some homosexual interaction, it would be just that: discovering the predisposition that was already there.

90% straight? Much more likely. Neither is going to lose their original attraction to women, though, the most you get is nothing happening on that front because they’re occupied elsewhere. And that’s exactly where we want the sexuality of paedophiles to be: Occupied elsewhere.

Almost agree. I think it’s naive to assume that you could reliably prevent people from exploring their sexuality by keeping them (pre-)occupied with something else. The mind wanders, and where it goes there are no barriers. What I wonder is if barriers in real life (like the ones described in the article) are the best way to handle pedophiles’ desires or if it wouldn’t be more effective to guide them on a prepared way that makes them steer clear of harming others. We’ve seen how well sexual supression works out with church celibacy. I’d say we should at least explore/research options for pedophiles to “express” their sexuality without harming others.

EDIT: I’ll assume the downvotes come from people not realizing just how plastic our mind is and not random reactionaries. Not on my lemmy.

For what it’s worth, you got my upvote, because I think this is one of the most coherent and reasonable comments in the discussion - even if I do not agree with every point.

Like hydrophile, right? Those damned immoral water molecules *shakes fist at heaven*

You use some weird definitions.

Now, I bet if megaupload added an AI that checked users uploads for copyrighted titles and gave everyone trying to upload them a warning about possible jail time, we’d see a hell of a lot less roms and movies on mega.

It would simply obsolete megaupload. Sharing platforms come and go. If one distribution channel stops working, people will use (or create) another.

sexual attraction to children is as acceptable as being attracted to rape and other sexually abusive behaviors, […]

That equation is plain wrong unless you equate thoughts to actions. First of all, not even imagined rape is actual rape. And your premise of being attracted to children being similar to being attracted to rape is also false. There likely are people for whom that is true, but it is not a prerequisite. The problem with pedophilia is, that it cannot be fulfilled in real life without abuse/rape.

Sexual relationships with children are definitionally abusive, […]

Yes. Where did I say anything else?

[…] and its depiction in media is as acceptable as depictions of rape (e.g., not particularly).

Yes. Where did I say anything else?

If you disagree with that claim, then fucking say so, but don’t whine about me misinterpreting you when I’m direct-fucking quoting you.

You direct quoting me is evidently not the same as you understanding what I am saying.

The sexual preference you’re comparing with homosexuality is not the same as homosexuality.

It’s also not the same as heteosexuality. It would be pretty moot to use different words if they all were identical. What they all have in common is their sexual nature and that nobody chooses them. I’m consistently pretty clear about the distinction of sexual desire and its application in the real world; you keep conflating them. Saying sexual desire A is better or worse than sexual desire B is hypocritical. Fill in A and B arbitrarily - don’t forget pedophilia. I think we agree that there can’t be a consenting relationship between a child an an adult. And there can’t be acceptable pornographic material with actual children.

I don’t know how many times I need to say that before you either acknowledge it or amend your comparison.

I don’t know how many times I have to repeat and clarify what I said. You keep on ranting against things I didn’t say or even hinted at.

The point being, that pedophilia is a sexual orientation/preference (call it whatever you want, denying it is a sexual thing is plain stupid). The comparison could just as well have been to heterosexuality. Abuse of children is as wrong as rape between heterosexuals. Being heterosexual doesn’t make you a rapist and neither does pedophilia. Again, the qualitative difference being that pedophile sex cannot have consent. I deliberately made the comparison with homosexuality because it widely has been, and sadly still is, demonized. If it wasn’t clear until now (it should be), I have no problem whatsoever with homosexuality.