Paraphilia - psychological disorder, or just a different preference?
 

Here's a list of them

The most commonly known are zoophilia (animals), necrophilia (corpses) and of course paedophilia. But are they psychological disorders, things that need to be treated, or are they simply different preferences that are deemed disorders because they're socially unacceptable and against standard moral codes?

Not only that, but a few other questions for you to think about:

Which on the list (most specifically those that are more well known though) are you more or most open-minded about?

Which of them should be considered illegal?

And perhaps a controversial question - is there anything wrong with most of them so long as they are not carried out in practice?

All of them are pretty vile but I disagree with the idea of something being illegal. As sick as it may seem to the vast majority, people should be free to do whatever they want as long as it doesn't infringe on anyone else's rights.

Paedophilia and necrophilia should obviously be illegal, though. The former's quite obvious and the latter...that's just wrong.

Zoophilia seems extreme and totally abnormal to me but I wouldn't quite classify that as a psychological disorder. It's just an odd preference.

Psychological disorders.

What about zoophiles acting on their urges though? Read this and let me know what you think. I started with quite a horrified view (and still have one to an extent, but I'm trying to be open minded about this, that's the point of this thread) but after reading a couple of the replies questioned my stance slightly.

And what about if paedophiles didn't act on their urges and just kept their attractions to themselves? Would you have a problem then?

Surely that's just hypocritical to accept some but not others, why should they not be free to do what they want?
(just saying i think all are disgusting and should be illegal tbh(

I can't dictate someone's thoughts for them and if paedophiles have urges, then there isn't really anything anyone can do about it. It's downright disgusting but seeing as people don't choose their sexual urges, acting on that sort of thought should be scorned upon. The thought is slightly different.

Zoophilia is a pretty horrifying urge as well, particularly given that an animal obviously has no say regarding the matter. I would never judge someone for it though. Nobody chooses their sexuality. It may not be exactly normal but they'd obviously rather have more widely accepted sexual attractions.

I dunno. :/ It's a difficult subject. I'd have to look far more into it to form a more valid opinion on it.
I see what you're saying but I think we could all agree that those thoughts are probably best not acted on. :p

This is something I've often pondered: what if in a hundred years time that the things that are considered sexually abnormal or depraved by current societal standards are something that are considered normal and healthy?

I mean it was only a few decades ago that homosexuality was removed from the DSM-IV.

The only issue I believe there should be with sexuality is consent. If both parties consent it's fine. You can't really get that with a dead guy, a kid or a donkey so it's fairly acceptable for them to be illegal. I do sympathise for paedophiles/zoophiles/etc. though... it's surely just a natural impulse. Maybe some damage, sure, but it's not intentional "oh let's rape a badger today" business.

Sums up my views entirely, only better-worded than I've been able to convey so far.

I have a similar view to Shaun's, I can't get my head around these things but as long as the people involved give their consent and are legal then it's their own business.

This is pretty much my entire thoughts on the matter I guess.

Exactly. After all, 'right' and 'wrong' are only concepts created and constructed by humans.

This is pretty much my view as well, especially where consent is concerned. I've really no issue if people wish to inflict pain on each other for sexual gratification so long as everyone involved agrees to it. Similarly, stuff like agalmatophilia (statues, mannequins and immobility) from that list really doesn't bother me...live and let live.

However, and I'm not saying I totally agree with it, but they are thought-provoking opinions and ones which require quite a fair bit of open-mindedness, some of the posts on that forum thread I posted pose some interesting ideas - if the animal in question of that OP came onto the person themselves, and was clearly enjoying it, could that not be considered 'consent' in animal terms? Of course if someone just started raping an animal against its will (I think beastiality differs from zoophilia in that with the former the person gains sexual pleasure from the animals pain) then that's not acceptable - but if the animal doesn't refuse and comes onto the person themselves, is it more acceptable? It's totally strange and alien to be pondering these things and like I said it requires a lot of open mindedness but it certainly raises a lot of interesting questions.

The problem, of course, is defining consent: a hell of a lot of underage teenagers are sexually active and it would appear pretty consensual. A dog with an erection is arguably pretty uh... up... for it. And what about the mentally ill? Are they of sound enough judgment? Some of these are legal and some aren't. Sex is just too taboo.

Sorry, posted that before I saw your reply :laugh:

Shaun: speaking my exact thoughts before I ever thought them :worship:

mmm corpses

No Good

They are Cold

I think it's nature too, I don't have any sympathy for deviants unless the obects of their desire are inanimate.. like buildings.Nothing that is or was living.

all should be illegal, honestly the most acceptable out of that list imo is pedophilia

Don't you mean the most unacceptable?

no way. God I hate it when people place more importance on animals over humans, I remember a thread from ages ago where a cat and baby were fighting and people were on the cat's side saying the baby shouldn't have hit it first :bored: If I had the choice of saving one person from a fire or ten dogs, I would choose the person.

Please say you're not referring to the act of paedophilia. :bored:

sorry for having an opinion, at least the attraction in that case is attracted to a living human, not a dead person or something of another species :S

Well of course it was the baby's fault if it hit it first

and i'd save the dogs, i prefer animals to humans anyway and would probs save one dog over one person :shrug:

Having a sexual attraction to statues, trees and hair is worse than having a sexual attraction to children? :o