This weekly roundup thread is intended for all culture war posts. 'Culture war' is vaguely defined, but it basically means controversial issues that fall along set tribal lines. Arguments over culture war issues generate a lot of heat and little light, and few deeply entrenched people ever change their minds. This thread is for voicing opinions and analyzing the state of the discussion while trying to optimize for light over heat.
Optimistically, we think that engaging with people you disagree with is worth your time, and so is being nice! Pessimistically, there are many dynamics that can lead discussions on Culture War topics to become unproductive. There's a human tendency to divide along tribal lines, praising your ingroup and vilifying your outgroup - and if you think you find it easy to criticize your ingroup, then it may be that your outgroup is not who you think it is. Extremists with opposing positions can feed off each other, highlighting each other's worst points to justify their own angry rhetoric, which becomes in turn a new example of bad behavior for the other side to highlight.
We would like to avoid these negative dynamics. Accordingly, we ask that you do not use this thread for waging the Culture War. Examples of waging the Culture War:
-
Shaming.
-
Attempting to 'build consensus' or enforce ideological conformity.
-
Making sweeping generalizations to vilify a group you dislike.
-
Recruiting for a cause.
-
Posting links that could be summarized as 'Boo outgroup!' Basically, if your content is 'Can you believe what Those People did this week?' then you should either refrain from posting, or do some very patient work to contextualize and/or steel-man the relevant viewpoint.
In general, you should argue to understand, not to win. This thread is not territory to be claimed by one group or another; indeed, the aim is to have many different viewpoints represented here. Thus, we also ask that you follow some guidelines:
-
Speak plainly. Avoid sarcasm and mockery. When disagreeing with someone, state your objections explicitly.
-
Be as precise and charitable as you can. Don't paraphrase unflatteringly.
-
Don't imply that someone said something they did not say, even if you think it follows from what they said.
-
Write like everyone is reading and you want them to be included in the discussion.
On an ad hoc basis, the mods will try to compile a list of the best posts/comments from the previous week, posted in Quality Contribution threads and archived at /r/TheThread. You may nominate a comment for this list by clicking on 'report' at the bottom of the post and typing 'Actually a quality contribution' as the report reason.
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
Notes -
It's not a perfect analogy, but it's useful because it separates the innate sexual attraction from acting on that attraction.
I think the word “want” is being used in a very vague way here. A pedophile is sexually attracted to children, but might not consciously want to fuck them.
Compare with a heterosexual man who has a crush on his neighbor, but he knows she is married, and since he considers having sex with married women beyond the pale, he won't pursue her. Does he want to fuck her? On some theoretical level yes, but on a more practical level no. What if instead of being married she is underage, and he ignores her for that reason? Same thing, as far as I'm concerned.
In the real world, there is a lot of difference between cravings and conscious desires. A recovering alcoholic might crave a drink, but simultaneously want to avoid drinking. It's not helpful to simplify that to “alcoholics want to drink” — it's much more complicated than that.
I don't think pedophilia can be cured, but it can be managed, just like alcoholism can be managed.
But even if it were true that alcoholics, pedophiles, philanderers, sociopaths and narcissists are utterly untreatable. What bearing does that have on whether they should be allowed to participate in the Olympics?
Seems like a distinction without a difference. What does it mean to be "sexually attracted" to someone if you don't wan't to have sex with them?
It's not that confusing a concept. Say you meet a hot woman, but want to be faithful to your wife. You're still attracted to the sexy lady, even though you are consciously deciding not to act on that attraction.
Psychiatry has some terms that are great for this kind of problem: egosyntonic and egodystonic.
Example: OCD bothers you. You don't want the impulses and urges. OCPD (Personality Disorder) doesn't bother you as much. You like being meticulous and double checking things.
Lots of pedophiles have egodystonic fixation, they are attracted to children and don't want anything to do with that and then slip up or whatever (or don't).
This exercises is useful in a variety of contexts and is generally a good way to assess the importance of cause of behaviors and can be used in assessing prognosis and so on.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Egosyntonic_and_egodystonic
More options
Context Copy link
The fact that you're choosing not to have sex with the hot woman (or choosing not to try to get her into bed with you) doesn't mean you don't want to. Just because a reformed alcoholic is choosing not to drink doesn't mean he doesn't want to: if he didn't, he wouldn't be an alcoholic.
Yes? That's exactly what I understood @MartianNight to be saying about celibate paedophiles.
No, @MartianNight said that (certain) paedophiles are sexually attracted to children, but don't want to fuck them. I'm saying that paedophiles do want to fuck children (duh, that's literally the definition of the word "paedophile"), but are choosing not to, in light of other considerations.
He said "consciously want". I interpret that to be equivalent to the higher-level decision making.
As far as I can tell you're in furious agreement about the underlying reality and just vehemently disagreeing about the words used to describe it.
Sure, maybe I'm misinterpreting. When I hear that someone "consciously wants" something, I take that to mean that they both want it and are consciously aware that they want it. Contrast that to someone who "unconsciously wants" something: they want it, but refuse to admit that they want it, even to themselves, or are in denial about it (a deeply closeted gay man); or aren't even aware that it's a thing that a person can want (a gay boy living in an Islamic theocracy so strict that he has literally never encountered the idea that men can have sex with other men, not even in a context in which such behaviour is condemned - and yet when he sees a shirtless man he feels something he can't explain).
Can someone unconsciously be a paedophile - experience sexual arousal when looking at or thinking about children, but refuse to acknowledge this, even to oneself? Sure, of course (I suspect the number of people meeting this description is very frightening). Can someone consciously be a paedophile, but deliberately choose not to act on one's desire to have sex with children? Again, of course. But can someone unconsciously be a paedophile, but consciously choose not to act on their desire to have sex with children? Well, I don't know about that. How can you choose not to act on a desire that you don't acknowledge that you have, not even to yourself? It just doesn't seem coherent to me.
I think the definition of "want"/"consciously want" @AshLael is using (and which I generally use as "want") is something akin to "weighted positively in decisions about what to do" or "latently intend to do barring external motivators". This is definitely a coherent and useful concept for things like game theory and working out compromises.
An obvious analogy is someone with anorexia nervosa. People with anorexia nervosa get hungry, but they frequently need to be force-fed; they apparently don't "want" to eat.
AshLael's point is that there exist paedophiles who, if you put them alone with a kid and gave them legal immunity (removing the external motivators), would not molest the kid.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
Then you're using a highly constrained meaning of "want". I think most people, when asked "do you want to steal food from the counter when you're hungry", say yes even though they more precisely mean "I want the food, but I choose not to steal it in light of other considerations".
I think most people recognise that they have multiple competing desires which cannot all be satisfied, and use the word "want" to refer to whichever of these is strongest or most important to them e.g. "of course I want to have sex with women other than my wife, but I also want to maintain a loving relationship with my wife based on mutual trust, which is incompatible with fucking other women behind her back".
I don't think my definition is "highly constrained" at all: even children understand the idea of desires that cannot or should not be acted upon, and that essentially everyone has such desires.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
This topic gets quite contentious and goes back at least to the Scholastics, with different 'levels' of will involved. Even the mere question of time-dependent tastes/desires gets a lot of hackles up. It doesn't help that different people often have different experiences, and we don't have much of a rigorous framework for objectively probing cognitive states. Some alcoholics do actually report that their habits and discipline have resulted in a 'reactionary' will that does not actually desire to consume alcohol, while others instead continue to struggle with desire and must rely on a second-order will to choose not to consume. Some people who have discovered that they have food intolerances say that they used to love such-and-such a food, and they really struggled with desiring it when they first decided to stop eating it, but later have an experience where they will see such a food and not even have a will to consume it. "Oh, that is a beautiful looking piece of food, masterfully crafted, and I'm sure someone will enjoy it, but I don't want it." A time-dependent example is pretty common; many kids don't like vegetables like broccoli, they have no first-order will whatsoever to consume it and must rely on a second-order will to choose to consume it anyway for other purposes. This may start out being a will to please and not anger parents, or to satisfy a rule that then allows them to consume other foods. This may later develop so that they actually have a first-order will to consume broccoli.
It gets complicated, and most people don't have a consistent sense for how it works. No fault of their own; we have very few tools for proper analysis. So, they tend to default to a handful of heuristics to explain how they think it might work.
Sure, I don't dispute that agents' first-order desires can change over time, or that they can have multiple competing and mutually exclusive first-order desires. But I think "John has a first-order desire to fuck kids, but his competing first-order desire not to harm children/not to go to prison/not to bring shame upon his family etc. overrides his desire to fuck kids and he chooses not to act upon it" is a coherent statement; likewise "John has a first-order desire to fuck kids, but after years of exercising control over this first-order desire and choosing not to act upon it, he finds that the desire itself has grown weaker over time, as a direct result of his self-control and discipline". By contrast, "John is sexually attracted to kids, but doesn't want to fuck them" is just a completely incoherent statement.
I think what's missing in this analysis is any role for higher-level will.
I acknowledge the importance of higher-level will. What is willpower if not the power to refuse to indulge in first-order desires which you undoubtedly have? If paedophiles didn't actually want to fuck children, no willpower would be required to refrain from indulging that desire. I just don't understand the conception of the issue as "John is choosing to exercise his higher-level will by refraining to fuck kids - ergo he doesn't actually want to fuck kids". If you don't want to do something, no willpower is required to refrain from doing that thing.
Willpower is not the only type of higher-level will. Indoctrination, for example, is another.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
Sure, most of us meet people we find sexually attractive but would never act on that attraction, for various reasons. But most people aren't doomed to be lifelong incels if they can't fuck any particular person. A pedophile is either a child molester or a literal incel. I can feel sympathy for someone who has desires he presumably did not want or ask for, but I can't say I'd trust him.
There's been a lot of debate in this thread about whether there is any line that would be too far to allow participation, with arguments that if someone has "done their time" and has valuable contributions to make, they should be allowed. I'm generally sympathetic to the argument that people who have done their time and been released should be allowed to make a living. I don't think they are necessarily entitled to make a living doing whatever they want, particularly something that uniquely bestows glory and fame.
I don't have very strong feelings about Steven van de Velde in particular, but for me there is a line, and 12 is pretty damn close to it. If he got caught banging a 16-year-old, I'd think he's kind of sleazy but eh, lots of athletes probably bang jailbait and don't get caught. If he got caught banging a 5-year-old, I'd definitely be okay with saying "No Olympics for you." Apparently some people would disagree with the latter, but there are also people who've been pretty explicit that they are defending van de Velde's "right" to participate in the Olympics just because he's making their enemies mad.
Being an incel does increase the chance of committing rape, yes, but it's not as if most incels are rapists.
I'd remind you that it's very hard to get statistics on non-molestor paedophiles because, well, most of them don't admit to it. So you only have a very-loose upper bound on P(molestation|paedophile). I seem to recall P(paedophile|molestation) is about 0.5, though I forget the source.
More options
Context Copy link
You do realize it is possible for a person who finds (some) children sexually attractive to also find (some) adults sexually attractive as well, right? Not to mention that it is possible for a person to choose to have sex with people they don't find sexually attractive.
More options
Context Copy link
There are plenty of lifelong incels.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link