![[dr. bob]](/dr-bob-sm.gif)
Dr. Bob is Robert Hsiung, MD,
bob@dr-bob.orgShown: posts 12 to 36 of 36. Go back in thread:
Posted by lostforwards on November 24, 2004, at 10:50:16
In reply to Re: Frontal Lobe Tumor causes Pedophilia in a Man, posted by linkadge on November 23, 2004, at 19:06:38
That's a sound conclusion and one I would probably submit to.
But do you think there's any chance that the location of the tumor in that part of the brain would've have made any difference? Is it possible that there's some specificity involved, even if it's a bit more general the pedophillia.
Posted by lostforwards on November 24, 2004, at 10:58:39
In reply to Re: Frontal Lobe Tumor causes Pedophilia in a Man » lostforwards, posted by cubbybear on November 24, 2004, at 5:14:28
And yes, they had better be careful on all fronts when it comes to diagnosing and prescribing treatments for mental conditions.
Posted by linkadge on November 24, 2004, at 12:23:23
In reply to Re: Frontal Lobe Tumor causes Pedophilia in a Man, posted by lostforwards on November 24, 2004, at 10:34:14
I think that a simple brain scan should accompany any case of agressive, illegal behavior. A man in my neighbourhood's emotional state deteriorated over the period of two years. He was prescribed everyting under the sun, but nothing controlled his behavior.
He eventually killed his family and kids,
an autaupsy revealed that hea had a large tumor in the area around his amygdala.Linkadge
Posted by linkadge on November 24, 2004, at 12:30:55
In reply to Re: Frontal Lobe Tumor causes Pedophilia in a Man » lostforwards, posted by lostforwards on November 24, 2004, at 10:58:39
There are also some reports that suggest that pedophilia may be caused by imballences in the release of oxytocin.
The hormone oxytocin, is invoved in the natural bonding between a parent and a child. In animals if receptors for oxytocin are blocked, a parent will competely disregard the presence of its young.
If oxytocin is injected into the brains of animals without offspring, the animal will start nurturing and caring for the young of other animals.
There were some trials of a oxytocin antagonist for use in persons with pedophellia tendencies with some sucess.
Would a sound scientific/neural basis for some our most shunned offendor's behavior be of any consolation to future courtroom sentencing?
Linkadge
Posted by cubbybear on November 24, 2004, at 23:46:44
In reply to Re: Frontal Lobe Tumor causes Pedophilia in a Man, posted by linkadge on November 24, 2004, at 12:30:55
> Would a sound scientific/neural basis for some our most shunned offendor's behavior be of any consolation to future courtroom sentencing?
>
>
> LinkadgeI very much doubt if even the most unequivocal scientific explnation would elicit calm, rational, and conciliatory behavior among people who have been conditioned to react as they do, thanks to a society that's gone mad amid this generation's moral panic. They believe in their hearts that paedophilia is worse than murder, so solidly scientific explanations and words like "oxytocin" mean absolutely nothing to people who can not and won't be reasoned with.
>
Posted by cubbybear on November 25, 2004, at 2:06:55
In reply to Re: Frontal Lobe Tumor causes Pedophilia in a Man, posted by linkadge on November 24, 2004, at 12:23:23
This is a very "hot" thread because it touches on extremely controversial issues. I think you've finally come upon the major problem here that society must deal with. If we are going to have certain individuals submit to a simple brain scan for aggressive, illegal behavior, it's rather cut and dry to determine what is currently illegal and what isn't. But the difficulty with paedophilia is that a large number of people instinctively associate paedophilia with physical torment, when in fact only a tiny handful of the individuals who engage in this behavior, actually resort to violence, physical aggression or brutaility. It has frequently been shown that the great majority of paedophiliacs do not exhibit violent or physically hurtful behavior. If anything, it appears to be quite the contrary.
So you can see the difficulties inherent in ordering a brain scan for any behavior that we might erroneously consider to be aggressive. And, imagine the implications for society if everyone deemed to be aggressive toward his/her spouse was carted off by the police and forced to submit to a brain scan.
Posted by lostforwards on November 25, 2004, at 6:45:01
In reply to Re: Frontal Lobe Tumor causes Pedophilia in a Man, posted by linkadge on November 24, 2004, at 12:30:55
I like to think in most cases that an individual should be held responsible for there actions unless they have a severe mental illness.
How are people with personality disorders treated in the court room? Can they say, it was their illness. Often things I've done have been pegged by others as a result of my bipolar illness, but I don't feel that's true and I find it very dehumainzing. I'm usually fully aware of what I'm doing.
Pedophilia, as with homosexuality in the past, might be wrongly considered an illness when it's actually a choice.
*********************
STILL, in this case there was an undeniable correlation between the growth of the tumor and his thoughts. A tumor is not a natural in the brain. It's visibly a problem....but then you could say all human behaviour is subject to any pertubation in the human brain. That it's malfunctioning when it is in fact not and you could label any number of things illness.
Which just leads to the good old debate about where to draw the line with mental illness.
Manipulating oxytocin could be useful for any number of purposes. I can think of one: A parent who's bothered "excessively" losing custody of a child.
Posted by lostforwards on November 25, 2004, at 6:47:45
In reply to Re: Frontal Lobe Tumor causes Pedophilia in a Man, posted by linkadge on November 24, 2004, at 12:23:23
I think a brain scan's a good idea, just to rule out obvious physical problem and especially before someone is treated with psychiatric medications. However, I'm not sure if it's worth the money and time. How often do people who end up in hospital for mental problems have something like a tumor?
Posted by cubbybear on November 25, 2004, at 8:55:19
In reply to illness or the thoughts of a rational human being? » linkadge, posted by lostforwards on November 25, 2004, at 6:45:01
>
> Pedophilia, as with homosexuality in the past, might be wrongly considered an illness when it's actually a choice.There is still no proven"cause" of homosexuality and maybe there never will be. Perhaps it's a confluence of genetic pre-disposition and conditioning. But whatever it is, it is NOT an illness and the prevailing thinking is that it is NOT a choice.
> Manipulating oxytocin could be useful for any number of purposes. I can think of one: A parent who's bothered "excessively" losing custody of a child.
I had never heard of oxytocin before and its alleged role in parent-child bonding is quite interesting. But I can only hope that our culture does not resort to forced behavior modification via hormones and other chemicals.
>
>
>
Posted by lostforwards on November 25, 2004, at 9:59:01
In reply to Re: illness or the thoughts of a rational human being? » lostforwards, posted by cubbybear on November 25, 2004, at 8:55:19
I'm sorry about that. I was wrong in saying homosexuality was a choice.
However, regardless of whether it's considered a choice or not, it was a mistake to place it in the DSM as an illness. Similarly considering pedophillia an illness is a mistake. Though, now that you mention homosexuality as not a choice, it makes me wonder whether pedophillia might have a genetic component. I don't know.
Finding little kids sexually attractive in itself is not a crime.
Oxytocin is also involved in love and attachment in general. There was a time I wanted injections of that stuff.
Your fears are being realized. Behaviour modification is well underway, antidepressants and stimulants are already being prescribed needlessly - to younger and younger age groups, inevitably having an impact on who they turn out to be.
Parents of "hyperactive" children get distressed and give them Ritalin so they can sit still in school. Though I don't see hyperactivity as necessarily a bad thing. School is the problem. I couldn't sit still when I was a kid....I was arguably hyperactive. I didn't have bipolar then. : ) I'm glad I wasn't put on stimulants though.
People use nootropics to boost their IQs.
Finally, sometimes I wonder whether or not people on SSRIs have an edge ( **only in some ways**, there is a downside IMHO )that I don't that would be beneficial for me especially with all the things I have to do in my life.
Apparently they soften negative affect, give people a burst of energy AND they take away your need for romance and supposedly get rid of unrequited love syndrome too. VERY GOOD for getting good grades in school. I hate it ( but love it ) when I get lovesick, but it costs me in school.
You can see why it might be tempting to take any psychotropics for the sake of a little boost or a change in prespective every now and then.
You could choose your tempermant.
Maybe we'll soon be a bunch of drug addicts, taking what we need when it's appropriate in our life for all sorts of artificial conditions that are really just a natural part of being human.
I don't think it'll get that far, but it seems the net of mental illness is getting bigger.
Disclaimer: I'm not saying these drugs have absolutely no place in society, just that they're sometimes used when they don't need to be.
Posted by linkadge on November 25, 2004, at 12:23:41
In reply to Re: illness or the thoughts of a rational human being? » lostforwards, posted by lostforwards on November 25, 2004, at 9:59:01
Let me see if I have this straight. Pedophilia is not a choice, it's not a mental illnes, but acting upon it is illegal. We certainly have a connundrum. We've got thousands of people who have to live very difficult lives.
If an oxytocin blocker (we're not talking oxycontin the pain reliever notice the subtle spelling difference) can deminish the drive of these people then it is obviously diminishing the suffering of them as well.
Currently pedohpiles are routinly administered high doses of SSRI's and sexual hormone blockers to deminish their sex drive.
We, as a society really have no way of approaching the problem. We know it is biological just like half of the other diseases for which men and woman have strived decades for which to gain acceptance and credability.
A turmor is something we can accept, but in one way or another we still can't accept chemical imballences.
If we could give these people a pill to make them attracted to a man/woman instead, then society would be extatic, but lest we forget this was the same idea we had for homosexuals a while ago.
Linkadge
Posted by lostforwards on November 25, 2004, at 13:17:06
In reply to Re: illness or the thoughts of a rational human being?, posted by linkadge on November 25, 2004, at 12:23:41
I know the difference between oxytocin and oxycontin. I don't think I made any statements to the contrary. Thank you for pointing out the difference in spelling.
> We know it is biological just like half of the other diseases for which men and woman have strived decades for which to gain acceptance and credability.
Everything mental has some biological component. There's no question. Depression, Schizophrenia, and Bipolar are much more clear than Pedophillia.
It seems that they're just trying to treat the symptoms. Have any of these people tried psychotherapy?
Posted by linkadge on November 25, 2004, at 13:39:37
In reply to Re: illness or the thoughts of a rational human being? » linkadge, posted by lostforwards on November 25, 2004, at 13:17:06
I don't know what kind of impact therapy could have on such situations.
Linkadge
Posted by cubbybear on November 26, 2004, at 0:06:35
In reply to Re: illness or the thoughts of a rational human being? » lostforwards, posted by lostforwards on November 25, 2004, at 9:59:01
>
> However, regardless of whether it's considered a choice or not, it was a mistake to place it in the DSM as an illness.That was the case up until the early 70s, then the designation was removed.
Similarly considering pedophillia an illness is a mistake. >
> Finding little kids sexually attractive in itself is not a crime.I am not disagreeing with you but I find it amazing that anyone these days would be courageous enough to make these assertions. On what basis have you come to believe this?
> >
Posted by cubbybear on November 26, 2004, at 0:19:32
In reply to Re: illness or the thoughts of a rational human being?, posted by linkadge on November 25, 2004, at 12:23:41
> Let me see if I have this straight. Pedophilia is not a choice, it's not a mental illnes, but acting upon it is illegal. We certainly have a connundrum. We've got thousands of people who have to live very difficult lives.
>
> If an oxytocin blocker (we're not talking oxycontin the pain reliever notice the subtle spelling difference) can deminish the drive of these people then it is obviously diminishing the suffering of them as well.Very well put--except that paedophiles in the Western nations are suffering --not because of their sexual inclination per se, but because they are continuously being vilified, spat upon, run out of their communities, denied employment, denied the right to own a computer, threatened with death--you name it. That's where the suffering would come from.
>
>
Posted by cubbybear on November 26, 2004, at 0:28:04
In reply to Re: illness or the thoughts of a rational human being? » linkadge, posted by lostforwards on November 25, 2004, at 13:17:06
>> Everything mental has some biological component. There's no question. Depression, Schizophrenia, and Bipolar are much more clear than Pedophillia.
>
> It seems that they're just trying to treat the symptoms. Have any of these people tried psychotherapy?For the paedophiliacs who wish to seek counselling, there is a vicious Catch-22 involved. Thanks to the mandatory reporting laws that were enacted in this great country of ours, nothing is "sacred" anymore. A psychiatrist, psychologist, social worker, or other professional is required by law to report to the police any client who openly admits to harboring thoughts that involve real or fantasized "child abuse." If the therapist does not report, he/she risks going to jail. If he/she does report, it's bye-bye for the client, who will probablty be incarcerated. Tragically, those who need help the most are not being treated for fear of being arrested and charged.
>
>
>
Posted by lostforwards on November 26, 2004, at 6:00:38
In reply to Re: illness or the thoughts of a rational human being? » lostforwards, posted by cubbybear on November 26, 2004, at 0:06:35
I believe it isn't a crime because I believe people have a right to think or dream about whatever they want, whether it be killing 100s of people or saving 100s of people. There's no gurantee they'll act on these thoughts, and if we start arresting people for having thoughts then we'll place ourselves in 1984.
A person thoughts don't infring on anybody elses freedom. Their actions do.
Posted by lostforwards on November 26, 2004, at 6:04:35
In reply to Re: illness or the thoughts of a rational human being? » lostforwards, posted by cubbybear on November 26, 2004, at 0:28:04
Are you serious? They get arrested for admitting it? That's beyond ( and I'd rather throw a profanity in here) sick.
Posted by lostforwards on November 26, 2004, at 6:19:07
In reply to Re: illness or the thoughts of a rational human being? » lostforwards, posted by cubbybear on November 26, 2004, at 0:06:35
Oh, and when I said it's okay to fantasize about anything, including illegal activities like killing people. I did NOT say it was okay to actually go about planing it or obtaining materials with the intention of actually carrying out something like that. That's the action.
People have a right to those thoughts though whatever they are, however twisted.
Nobody ( or do they? ) questions peoples sexual fantasize whether or not they involve domination or rape. At least I don't. They're fantasies.
It doesn't mean the person is going to rape someone. That would infringe on another persons rights.
It's very different to say "I'm going to do this..." versus "I think about doing this...".
Does a person who feels enraged, like they want to hurt someone, who goes to a psychotherapist get arrested? I don't think so. They're coming to them for help.
I have a very libertarian philosophy in most cases in all things.
A lot of people may disagree with me on the basis that if a person has a thought it means that person is guilty even if they haven't commited any crimes.
Note: this thread is quickly is turning into a philosophy.
Posted by linkadge on November 26, 2004, at 11:27:42
In reply to Re: addendum to my post about thought crime » cubbybear, posted by lostforwards on November 26, 2004, at 6:19:07
I think we have a long way to go seing as homosexuality in the US is not fully accepted.
Linkadge
Posted by cubbybear on November 26, 2004, at 11:44:24
In reply to Re: illness or the thoughts of a rational human being? » lostforwards, posted by lostforwards on November 26, 2004, at 6:00:38
> I believe it isn't a crime because I believe people have a right to think or dream about whatever they want, whether it be killing 100s of people or saving 100s of people. There's no gurantee they'll act on these thoughts, and if we start arresting people for having thoughts then we'll place ourselves in 1984.
>
> A person thoughts don't infring on anybody elses freedom. Their actions do.Of course, you know this and I know this, but the 50 governors who signed the bills legalizing mandatory reporting in 50 states don't quite see it rationally. They've perpetuated the hysteria about paedophila, so that now, certain THOUGHTS and FANTASIES must be construed as the warning signs of would-be child molesters. The once-confidential relationship between therapist and client went out the window with these laws and one's own therapist can theoretically be forced to betray that relationship if the client divulges more than he/she should. I know this is all hard to believe and many people are not even aware of these laws, but it pays to be informed.
Posted by cubbybear on November 26, 2004, at 11:58:59
In reply to Re: illness or the thoughts of a rational human being? » lostforwards, posted by lostforwards on November 26, 2004, at 6:04:35
> Are you serious? They get arrested for admitting it? That's beyond ( and I'd rather throw a profanity in here) sick.
Yes I am serious. (You can also read my response to lostforward) Arrest might not be likely or imminent, especially if the therapist chooses to take a chance and not report the "secret." Numerous draconian laws have been enacted over the past 15 years or so, some actually dating back to the early 80s, in regard to real or imagined sex with minors. In Canada, it's been illegal to publish FICTION depicting sex with minors. The federal government is still fighting a Supreme Court decision exonerating the producers of child pornography that was created digitally, i.e. where no real models were ever depicted. The government is clearly on the path of THOUGHT CONTROL, and the mandatory reporting laws for therapists, social workers, and other people who can get wind of another person's fantasies in this area go beyond anything that we consider fair and reasonable. I'd be curious to know what people following this thread find out from their therapists if they simply ask what the mandatory reporting laws are all about. If I've overstated the case, then somebody please tell me.
Posted by cubbybear on November 26, 2004, at 12:03:45
In reply to Re: addendum to my post about thought crime » cubbybear, posted by lostforwards on November 26, 2004, at 6:19:07
> Oh, and when I said it's okay to fantasize about anything, including illegal activities like killing people. I did NOT say it was okay to actually go about planing it or obtaining materials with the intention of actually carrying out something like that. That's the action.
>
> People have a right to those thoughts though whatever they are, however twisted.
>
> Nobody ( or do they? ) questions peoples sexual fantasize whether or not they involve domination or rape. At least I don't. They're fantasies.
>
> It doesn't mean the person is going to rape someone. That would infringe on another persons rights.
>
> It's very different to say "I'm going to do this..." versus "I think about doing this...".
>
> Does a person who feels enraged, like they want to hurt someone, who goes to a psychotherapist get arrested? I don't think so. They're coming to them for help.
>
> I have a very libertarian philosophy in most cases in all things.
>
> A lot of people may disagree with me on the basis that if a person has a thought it means that person is guilty even if they haven't commited any crimes.
>
> Note: this thread is quickly is turning into a philosophy.It's OK, I think this subject should definitely be aired. And don't get me wrong. I fully agree with what you've said.
>
Posted by linkadge on November 26, 2004, at 14:16:14
In reply to Re: addendum to my post about thought crime » lostforwards, posted by cubbybear on November 26, 2004, at 12:03:45
It's a problem that nobody wants to deal with. It's kind of an "Emperors new Cloths" type of situation where people are afraid to show even the slightest sympathy lest they be pichforked into the fire with the rest of them.
Has anyone ever seen the movie American Beauty?. Chris Cooper plays the neighbour's father who spends every waking moment criticizing homosexuals, and in the end we find that he himself is a homosexual.
It was mentioned that most pedophilles are not violent, and yet many times they've been given death threats. I would not be surprised if some of these bandwagon chastizers are not struggling with their own issues.
Linkadge
Posted by lostforwards on November 26, 2004, at 15:28:04
In reply to Re: addendum to my post about thought crime » lostforwards, posted by linkadge on November 26, 2004, at 14:16:14
I've posted a reply here: http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/social/20041122/msgs/420569.html
Hopefully, if this threat gets any bigger it'll grow over there.
This is the end of the thread.
Psycho-Babble Medication | Extras | FAQ
Dr. Bob is Robert Hsiung, MD,
bob@dr-bob.org
Script revised: February 4, 2008
URL: http://www.dr-bob.org/cgi-bin/pb/mget.pl
Copyright 2006-17 Robert Hsiung.
Owned and operated by Dr. Bob LLC and not the University of Chicago.