next »

[Guest]

...loading shoutbox...

[A Popular Lie]

Psychiatry.. woopsie =D I thought you said psychology cause that's the topic we were on. Sheesh!

Yes there is a difference (for those who don't know). Depending on the field of psychology, it can have as much medical knowledge as a psychiatrists (though not usually because psychiatrists have medical degrees in order to treat disorders medicinally). =D Psychologists = PhD., Psychiatrists = M.D.

I personally have a higher degree of respect for the psychologists who through intense mental treatment, cure/treat those with psychological disorders. All too often I think people are more messed up by docs who want the cash, and just slap a perscription on someone's kid.

[Wilder]

I personally have a higher degree of respect for the psychologists who through intense mental treatment, cure/treat those with psychological disorders. All too often I think people are more messed up by docs who want the cash, and just slap a perscription on someone's kid.

I agree with you wholeheartedly. As a culture we are overmedicated, and psychiatry should be a last resort reserved for those who pose a risk to themselves or others. However, it is also a legetimate field, which is why I used to to respond to your laughter at the concept of bio-psychology.

[A Popular Lie]

It's not that I laugh at the field or the scientists, just the debates that arrise (nature/nurture). BSers (haha... funny abrreviation ^_~)are the ones who usually start something because they have a "new finding".

All my psych professors are in other fields of psychology sept one, who happens to be a Psychiatrist who does science testing and treatment for the DSM series manuals, so I get some crossfire here and there when I ask questions about behavioral psychology lol.

I'm on the fence though, cause biologically, behavior can be altered, but even altered biology can be overridden by certain stimulus during the first 7 years of life. All except genetic mental disorders (such as bi-polarism, which is passed on by parents mostly, and uncurable at the moment).

I believe it can go both ways, but still haven't seen any concrete evidence that people are born gay. Just speculation and random charts. I'd like to see something, got any links? (no not an antagonistic request, just curious)

[Wilder]

It's not that I laugh at the field or the scientists, just the debates that arrise (nature/nurture). BSers (haha... funny abrreviation ^_~)are the ones who usually start something because they have a "new finding".

That's not really going on new findings, but I do agree with you. It's the thing that "they" just found out that tends to be 90% shit with some creativity sprinkled in for good measure.

I believe it can go both ways, but still haven't seen any concrete evidence that people are born gay. Just speculation and random charts. I'd like to see something, got any links? (no not an antagonistic request, just curious)

I'll have to do some research, I'm logging after this. I'm not saying that I have proof, I'm just saying that for a lot of the psychological community, the jury's still out. You can't really assert one way or the other with much certainty.

[Christie]

Personally I feel that it doesn't really matter whether a homosexual was born with his/her orientation or not; it is still undeniable that they did not consciously bring it upon themselves and therefore cannot be blamed for it.

As for psychology... to be frank I feel that the subject receives more acclaim, power and trust than it truely deserves. Possibly not the case with bio-psychology (as it is more biologically based and makes fewer presumptions) but nevertheless all psychology is, fundamentally, is a useful (and I don't deny that it is useful) means by which human behaviour & nature can be categorised. However the ability to categorise humanity - handy and 75% effective as it may arguably be - does not come with any greater understanding of it and I feel that the general assumption is that it does. We learn that from growing up with people and seeing them wherever we go for our entire lives.

Also, taking it back a few steps here and maybe going slightly off topic;

Just like it's true that a heterosexual male pedophile is just as likely to rape a boy as he is a girl, because it's about power, not sex.

Forgive me if I've gone and misinterpreted what you have said. I took it to imply that paedophilia is purely power based and that consensual adult-child 'relationships' are therefore not possible.

I've don't a fairly sizeable amount of research into paraphilias, sexual abnormalities etc. and consequently know a number of people with such problems. I even personally know a paedophile - as a good friend in fact, for he knew of my interests and told me about it - and amongst the general mirth & triviality of standard 17-year-old conversation in the smoky pit that is Cafe Nero he divulged to me that he has only ever been attracted to pre-pubescent boys. Nor does the concept of rape appeal to him in any way.

[Wilder]

I agree with pretty much everything you've said.

The pedophile point is a sticky one. For the rape of a child, I believe that it generally is about power, though (as with any cause of any behavior), this is not always the case. I was referring to the fact that in that situation, gender doesn't really matter, because the rapist is striving for something other than the physical.

I believe that it is possible to have a consensual relationship between a child and an adult, and I don't think that it is always detrimental to the child (this, however, depends on many factors, and I really don't have a whole lot of conviction behind the stance - there's quite a bit of ambivalence. The question then becomes how much of that is legitimate and how much is false logic or social conditioning).

[Christie]

I agree entirely. I think the degree of harm that can be dealt to a child having been in a consensual relationship with an adult is still a total mystery and once again I feel that it's something with which the masses tend to make ungrounded assumptions. I believe - I don't claim to know - that it may give the child a perspective or opinion on life which is considered abnormal by most (ie. that adult-child relationships are OK) but how damaging to the child is having a unique point of view?
           Other than that, more serious harm may or may not be caused and as far as I can see there's not a great deal of evidence to support either direction. I personally don't believe consensual adult-child relationships are justified; not because I'm sure it would be detrimental to the child but because it isn't known whether it would be or not and the risk shouldn't be taken. As well as that I don't think any child is fully informed enough to make such a mature agreement. I am not, however, remotely disgusted when I hear about men - and surprisingly enough, more women than is generally expected - fantasising about children.

[Wilder]

As well as that I don't think any child is fully informed enough to make such a mature agreement.

That's my main point with child/ adult relationships - I'm fine with anything as long as everyone involved gives informed consent, but a child can't do that.

The question then becomes when can a child give informed consent?

[Christie]

Which is impossible to answer, unfortunately. I'm not sure what the laws are outside of the United Kingdom but here 16 is supposedly the age when an individual is capable of consenting to sex. I think that's slightly over the top; I know thirteen year olds who are more intelligent and self-controlled than many people my own age. Then again it varies drastically from individual to individual, I'm sure. Perhaps some kind of sex licensing system is in order, rather than a general law which lumps everyone into the same category regarding their levels of responsibility. A slightly comical idea, perhaps, but one that could potentially work don't you think?

[Wilder]

I agree that the problem lies in the fact that age is not a universal indicator of maturity - different people mature at different times. I think that a sex licensing system would be too much red-tape and whatnot, and ultimately I'm wary of any standardized test's ability to guage if someone is mature enough to have sex with a 40-year-old or not. I'd rather go with a system where the parents have to be notified if it is found out that the child is having sex, and it's up to them to prosecute or not, since the child is legally dependant on them. It's certainly not perfect, but it appears to be the most gain for the least effort and the best idea overall right now.

Of course, my opinion might change quite a bit when I'm sober.

[Christie]

Yes, the thought occured to me: it would be the thin end of a wedge etc.

Well that would of course depend on how much alcohol you've actually taken into your system. :lol: You can still construct coherent sentences, which is a good sign.

[Wilder]

My sentance structure worked, but it also took me about ten minutes to write. I'm back to baseline, and my stances remain the same.

[A Popular Lie]

1.) Both rape and pedophillia are "power enforced actions". That's what it all boils down to.

2.) The age of "knowing" is usually around 7-11 (when children are in the final stages of brain development, and are able to logically make such a decision -later age 10,11-) biologically, but if one is to take the nurture side of things, a child can be aware and have the means as early as 6 if raised correctly. I wouldn't suggest anything before 11 though, because it is really setting them up for something based on an inflicted bias. Such as.. since they aren't really finished developing, it's more manipulation than anything. I would like to make it known that tribes in china/india/afghanistan have marriage around the age of 9-11 still, and these couples usually grow to be deeply rooted as a strong family unit... beside the fact that it's a "servant - master" relationship.

3.) Sex licensing is a dumb way to handle the situation, but very profitable for the government should they want to take that route. I doubt conservatist america would take the step. But Age of concent around here is usually 13 in most states. I think if the modern "fear" of parents was taken out of the equation, and people could bring the subject before them without fear... well I believe it should ultimately be up to the parents if before 16 years old. 18 if you want to get fundamental.

4.) Psychology. I've heard the argument alot that it's presumptuous, but I always think back to it's base in scientific quest for the facts. All of its findings are based on scientific method of research, so "guess and accept" just don't fly there. Why do people still think it's presumtuous when this community can point out how and why it happens according to (once again) scientific research? I haven't heard a claim that hadn't been backed by a mountain of evidence, and accepted by the psychological community. It's like saying Geologists are a bit off, cause it's geology, not a field of science. Lol!

[Christie]

1.) Both rape and pedophillia are "power enforced actions". That's what it all boils down to.

I agree in the case of rape but I disagree when it comes to paedophilia for reasons previously stated.

2.) The age of "knowing" is usually around 7-11 (when children are in the final stages of brain development, and are able to logically make such a decision -later age 10,11-) biologically, but if one is to take the nurture side of things, a child can be aware and have the means as early as 6 if raised correctly. I wouldn't suggest anything before 11 though, because it is really setting them up for something based on an inflicted bias. Such as.. since they aren't really finished developing, it's more manipulation than anything. I would like to make it known that tribes in china/india/afghanistan have marriage around the age of 9-11 still, and these couples usually grow to be deeply rooted as a strong family unit... beside the fact that it's a "servant - master" relationship.

The human brain continues to develop up until around the age of 21, biologically speaking. This is why it's generally considered worse for teenagers to use drugs than it is for adults; they could potentially hinder and/or effect the brains physical development. I agree that a relationship between an adult and a child is most likely the result of manipulation on the behalf of the adult, however I do not believe that that is necessary the motive/appeal/turn-on which drives it a) because I've spoken to such people and they do not think so and b) because there's no real evidence to suggest as such.

3.) Sex licensing is a dumb way to handle the situation, but very profitable for the government should they want to take that route. I doubt conservatist america would take the step. But Age of concent around here is usually 13 in most states. I think if the modern "fear" of parents was taken out of the equation, and people could bring the subject before them without fear... well I believe it should ultimately be up to the parents if before 16 years old. 18 if you want to get fundamental.

a) Back up your statement that it is 'dumb', please. No protagonism, I'm just interested in how you gather your opinions. I agree that it is a thin end of a wedge in certain respects (ie. where do you draw the line on governmental control over whether or not people can have intercourse), however it does take into account individual differences; which the current system, in either of our countries, disregards. Perhaps a licensing system could be only applicable to those below a certain age? Ie. you can legally have intercourse if you are above 16 but between the ages of 13 and 15 you need a license. I shall stick with this concept until it's arguments are suitably maimed, I'm afraid.

4.) Psychology. I've heard the argument alot that it's presumptuous, but I always think back to it's base in scientific quest for the facts. All of its findings are based on scientific method of research, so "guess and accept" just don't fly there. Why do people still think it's presumtuous when this community can point out how and why it happens according to (once again) scientific research? I haven't heard a claim that hadn't been backed by a mountain of evidence, and accepted by the psychological community. It's like saying Geologists are a bit off, cause it's geology, not a field of science. Lol!

I suggested that the attitude towards psychology was presumptuous, not the subject itself; in so meaning that people tend to assume it has higher grounding than it really does.

I will explain: The reason I said that it is simply a system of categorisation is because all it effectively does is group people into respective categories. 'Depression' is a category. 'Normal' and 'abnormal' are categories. 'Anorexic', 'obsessive compulsive', 'anti-social', 'paranoid' etc. etc. etc. are all categories of behavoir. If you consider this you will note that all of psychology works in this way.

So in a simple comparison to the trivial jollity of teenage stereotyping; 'goth' is a category. If Bob dresses in such and such a way then I can place him in this 'goth' category and therefore make an educated guess (based upon the laws of this category) that he likes THIS type of music. Similarly... Hannah smokes, never smiles and self harms. I am therefore going to place her in the 'depression' category and make the educated guess (based, once again, on the laws of this category) that she is attention seeking - by the by, for anyone reading this who does not/has not studied psychology, being attention seeking is supposedly a trait of a depressed individual.

Now, as you say, the categories in psychology are gained from scientific observations and statistics gathered by specific individuals. However you could argue that the stereotyping of teenagers (which most people with any definition of intelligence consider to be rather inane) are also gathered from observation. Constant and accumulative observation from the entire teenage sub-culture.

My argument was not that psychology was invalid (because categorisation can be and is useful) but that being able to lump people into groups does not provide some profound depth of human understanding, to any degree. People - particularly psychologists, in my experience - seem to imagine that it does and consequently give it more trust and respect than it should receive. Categorisation does always work, it merely allows one to make 'educated guesses'. Someone can self-harm and not be unhappy for example. A teenager can dress in black with studded belts, died hair, piercing etc. while listening to ABBA & Frank Sinatra, hating rock/metal & drinking White Lightning (a cliche 'chav' drink, in this country).

I shall now dash.

[spandex]

I agree entirely with regards to everything Christie has just said. End communication.

[Christie]

Good. Then thou art my new slave.

[spandex]

Yes sir! Where can I obtain the shackles and gimp costume specified in my application form?

[Christie]

Up your arse.

Now let's move away from this inane nonsense, it lowers the sincerity of the topic at hand.

[A Popular Lie]

Pedophila. What are the fundamental reasons for adults to be interested in relationships with children?

The Child's brain is developed at the age of 11, further development isn't in the category of Child, but there is pubesent, and adult development. Maybe I should have clarified.

Sex licensing being dumb follows along the lines of what wilder said about red tape, more effort than reward, etc. etc. I just may be too lazy to accept the concept of more americans working to license something they may not want to be registered with the government, or known by their parents. That's just social politics though, but moving more towards human right, sex isn't something to be governed by the masses, it's an individual affair that would be best left out of many privacy acts. Here in america we're big on personal security and privacy, me being an advocate of these two rights, I find this would be sort of a movement against them.

I agree that many are lumped into differing categories, but a good psychologist can effectively "categorize" someone's behavior within a few sessions. I wouldn't agree with categorization unless it was 1+1=2... which alot of these are. Such as schizophrenia, severe depression, any form of mania... I don't agree with psuedo psychologists and "bought" psychologists.

Gotta go

[Christie]

Pedophila. What are the fundamental reasons for adults to be interested in relationships with children?

Unfortunately neither of us know that. There probably isn't even be a single answer, once again due to individual differences. I feel that I have enough experience to say that - at least in some cases - paedophilia is not power based, but physically based.

The Child's brain is developed at the age of 11, further development isn't in the category of Child, but there is pubesent, and adult development. Maybe I should have clarified.

Yes, I understand what you mean now (and thank you muchly). Nevertheless the brain still isn't fully physically developed when one reaches the age of around 11, even if it does transgress a boundry of human terminology; so the point more or less remains the same.

Sex licensing being dumb follows along the lines of what wilder said about red tape, more effort than reward, etc. etc. I just may be too lazy to accept the concept of more americans working to license something they may not want to be registered with the government, or known by their parents. That's just social politics though, but moving more towards human right, sex isn't something to be governed by the masses, it's an individual affair that would be best left out of many privacy acts. Here in america we're big on personal security and privacy, me being an advocate of these two rights, I find this would be sort of a movement against them.

Sex is still restricted by your law regardless of licensing... It's probably true, however, that no one pays attention to that (nobody does here, I can tell you).

I agree that many are lumped into differing categories, but a good psychologist can effectively "categorize" someone's behavior within a few sessions. I wouldn't agree with categorization unless it was 1+1=2... which alot of these are. Such as schizophrenia, severe depression, any form of mania... I don't agree with psuedo psychologists and "bought" psychologists.

Quite so. As I said before - and will emphasise further - I do not suggest that psychology is a pointless area of study (I would not be studying it otherwise), nor that it is irrelevant or useless to the benefit of society. What I'm saying is that I feel people have an unjustly grandiose conception of it. The fact remains that it is a greatly beneficial science though, certainly.

However, I don't see how categorisation of this sort can add up as neatly as '1+1=2'. For one thing there is an incomprehensible amount of variables, large and small, that affect a single individuals behaviour which - no matter how many sessions take place - can never be ascertained by any psychologist unless perhaps if they themselves were that individual (in which case it is still highly doubtful). So simplistically I would say it's more like "1+?+?+3+?+1+?+...=97 FILL IN THE BLANKS in as clean a way as possible, using other similar examples as a comparative guide." (fun, no?)

Vithee well.