Should pedophiles use lucid dreaming to live out their fantasies?

**Hukif** · 06-01-2011 03:34 PM

Ok, did even more research. Mayo clinic seems to have bias towards pedophilic people, also in their article, the 240+ average derives from people in jail + people not in jail, whose numbers is MUCH lower. Also, all of their subjects, or most of their subjects are from people who are child-molesters and pedophilic who had a legal issue already, so it is no surprise that their % is so high.

In fact, if we put their numbers together with this: Catholic sex abuse cases - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia even at the high number of 95%, it would plummet down to 33%, so they either have bias, or did their maths wrong, everyone knows that in statistics the target subject must be random for an accurate statistical study.

Also, study by "Psychologist Vernon Quinsey rejects the hypothesis that sexual abuse as a child turns someone into a pedophile." because of the study subjects used, the information can not be trusted according to him, and thus the theory is very weak.

Another thing, the study by mayo clinic reports that a primary cause for the perpetrators is the stress, I wonder what kind of people, public shaming and constant insults over their sexual orientation lead to this?

Now then, I guess this should stop the nonsense using the mayo-clinic numbers.

Another thing, someone on my family was molested as a child, and they still refuse to insult someone over their sexual orientation, according to them, it is best to teach them why it is wrong to act on their desires and ways to get rid of the sex drive, since they know I can control dreams, they think it is safe for them to use dreaming as a way to erase such desires, because they don't want other people passing through the same as them. Hm... not using he/she is a bother, oh well.

**Maeni** · 06-01-2011 07:39 PM

Originally Posted by Jakob

It is not relevant that "you" don't view it as a disease.

"Mental health professionals agree that pedophilia should never be considered normal but is a disease." Dr. Herbert Wagemaker, a biological psychiatrist who is the author of many books and videos on mental illness

"The International Classification of Diseases (ICD) defines pedophilia as a "disorder of adult personality and behaviour" in which there is a sexual preference for children of prepubertal or early pubertal age.[8] The term has a range of definitions as found in psychiatry, psychology, the vernacular, and law enforcement." Pedophilia - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

"Mental health professionals agree that pedophilia should never be considered normal, because it is truly a disease. None of the things that make homosexuality a normal variation of human sexuality apply to pedophilia." Pedophilia (child molestation) Information on MedicineNet.com

This is simply flawed. Quick google definition of "disease":

Disease: A disorder of structure or function in a human, animal, or plant, esp. one that produces specific signs or symptoms or that affects a specific location and is not simply a direct result of physical injury

Continuing on, quick definition of "disorder"

Disorder: A disruption of normal physical or mental functions; a disease or abnormal condition

and again;

Normal: Conforming to a standard; usual, typical, or expected

Sure, by this definition, pedophilia is a disease. It is a disruption of the usual mental function in a human, and it also produces specific symptoms (attraction to kids)
But oh wait, homosexuality is also a disruption of the usual mental function in a human, and it also produces specific symptoms (attracted to same gender)

In short, it doesn't make a lick of difference whether you call it a disease, a mental disorder, a sexual orientation or a burger, you still can't cure it.

On top of that, the argument is flawed in itself. It says that pedophilia should never be considered normal. Normal is just something that the majority of people does. It is objective. Having 2 ears is normal, because most people have it. You cannot "consider" something normal or abnormal. Either it is or it is not.
The same goes for homosexuality. They claim that homosexuality is a "normal" sexual oriention. If the majority of people in the world are homosexuals, then yes, it is the normal sexual orientation. If not, then it is not normal.
And you know what difference that makes?
None at all.

Did you know that homosexuality was only fully removed from the list of mental disorders in 1986?

I never claimed that most pedophiles are child molesters. I claimed that many pedophiles are not to be trusted, and backed it up with sources. You have to this day not produced one single citation.

are the majority of pedophiles decent people, statistically speaking? The answer is no,

“The average pedophile will victimize 244 children in their lifetime,

the fact that statistically speaking pedophiles are not to be trusted.

First quote literally says "the majority" implying exactly that most pedophiles aren't decent people. (I.e. child molesters)
The second says that the average (average: An amount, standard, level, or rate regarded as usual or ordinary (I.e. the majority)) are not only child molesters, but child molesters who molest at least 244 kids.
The last one implicitly implies that all pedophiles are not to be trusted.

Yes you did.

They do have the right to dream as they see fit. Where have I ever claimed they should be forbidden from dreaming about these things? I only said it shouldn't be encouraged as some sort of solution. I said the first thing a pedophile with lucid dreaming skills should do is attempt to cure himself through lucid dreams. If he really tries and is unable to do so, then I have no problem with him dreaming about his fantasies. Of course, they would have to remain nothing more than fantasies.

With this, I can't see how our discussion got this far out. I agree with most of this.
I think it should be encouraged. I also disagree with your use of "should", but if the pedophile felt the need to cure himself, improve himself or learn more about himself, lucid dreaming could be a very good way to do that. If the person wanted to try to cure himself of pedophilia through lucid dreaming, I'd tell him good luck and that he shouldn't kick himself too hard if he doesn't succeed. But other then that, I agree.

**Empedocles** · 06-02-2011 04:11 AM

Originally Posted by tommo

It is completely normal to be attracted to someone who has hit puberty. Why do you think there are obvious signs of puberty? Because it shows they are ready to start having children, or fertilising eggs.

Just because a person is grown older, doesn't mean their taste in people has changed to older people too. It's perfectly normal.

And no government agency or psychologist who is receiving funding is ever going to admit that pedophilia is normal.

Please shut up.

I am not and would never be sexually attracted to a 13 year old girl, just because she might have large breasts. And if a 17 or 18 year old looks many years younger than her real age, then to me personally, this is a turn off. Even in porn when I see female performers trying to look young with ponytails and school-girl outfits, I simply cannot get aroused. This is the truth, and I would be willing to go on a polygraph.

Furthermore, just because a woman is physically able to have sexual intercourse doesn't mean she is mentally capable of handling such a thing. So if you try to justify pedophilia by saying a woman is physically ready for sex at age 13, then this is simply despicable.

Either way, speak for yourself please.

I prefer women, thank you.

Originally Posted by Maeni

Sure you can. The thing is that people have already tried. There's been tons of attempts to "cure" homosexuals. It never worked. All it ever achieved was making those people ashamed of themselves.
But either way, you're right. We don't actually know whether we can change people's sexualities. We just haven't found a way to do it yet.

Now tell me why I should continue this discussion when you basically label people who claim they've been cured as liars.

As I said, there are those who claim it is possible, and those who claim otherwise. Maybe you tried, and it didn't work for YOU.

Why can't you get outside of your box and grasp the fact that some might have had success, and aren't liars? The opinions of you and Mario92 are facts, and all other claims by other people are opinions. It seems that you, as well as Mario92 are just going around in circles:

Originally Posted by Mario92

That's a nice set of opinions.

Just like your opinion that it is NOT a disease, except these are mental health professionals. What are your qualifications?

That's my problem: that they should try to "cure" themselves before doing as they please. Silly bullshit.

It is only silly because you are sympathetic to them. I have never in my life seen someone try to discourage pedophiles from trying to change their ways. Until this discussion, that is.

I don't care if he can or can't control his urges, has already molested children, is serving time behind bars, is waiting on death row, is insane, whatever. His dreams, his rights.

Unfortunately it is not that simple. The fact that he CAN'T control his urges makes him a dangerous person, and that alone should make you question whether using lucid dreaming this way is a good thing. But you just said "you don't care", therefore the discussion is useless. You also don't care if he has already molested children in the past. No comment really.

We're arguing a general matter. That statistic is a survey of only convicted pedophilic child molesters (and a remarkably busy lot, at that). It speaks nothing of the general population we are discussing. It is entirely and utterly irrelevant. What's more, it is a dubious claim at best.

Of course, everything I cite is dubious, says the pedophile.

As I've said, dreams don't mean a goddamn thing. If I can trust this bro, I don't have a problem.

You are being dishonest, unlike Maeni, who said he wouldn't allow it. I mean really, letting a pedophile babysit your child just because he "seems a nice person"? This is unbelieveably stupid.

And it's official, you've run out of valid arguments. We can argue my sexuality all day long, but it will serve no purpose. You're not worth my time.

Your argument is basically this: I don't care whether he is a danger to society. Let him dream whatever he wants, it can't do any harm, no matter if he's already molested someone before, or is insane and/or can't control his urges. Having sex with children in lucid dreams is good for all pedophiles.

**Maria92** · 06-02-2011 04:49 AM

Originally Posted by Jakob

Just like your opinion that it is NOT a disease, except these are mental health professionals. What are your qualifications?

Ad hominem. A logical fallacy. Once again attacking my qualifications and not my arguments. SOME medical experts claim it's a disease. I respectfully disagree.

It is only silly because you are sympathetic to them. I have never in my life seen someone try to discourage pedophiles from trying to change their ways. Until this discussion, that is.

If a pedophile wants to change, great. If not, I don't fucking care. They are who they are. As we have seen through countless studies with homosexuals, bisexuals, pedophiles, straight people, whatever, changing one's sexual attraction is difficult at best, impossible at worst. I don't care who or what anyone is attracted to. It's not my business and not my place to decide what they should do with their lives.

Unfortunately it is not that simple. The fact that he CAN'T control his urges makes him a dangerous person, and that alone should make you question whether using lucid dreaming this way is a good thing. But you just said "you don't care", therefore the discussion is useless. You also don't care if he has already molested children in the past. No comment really.

My word, you really are remarkably bad at getting the point (oops, that's some ad hominem, isn't it?). What I said was, I don't care who a person is or what they've done, they can dream however the hell they see fit. Their actions in reality and mental conditions determine what we ought to do with their physical selves for their own good, as well as the public's (e.g. imprisonment, mental institutions, therapy).

Of course, everything I cite is dubious, says the pedophile.

*sigh*

You are being dishonest, unlike Maeni, who said he wouldn't allow it. I mean really, letting a pedophile babysit your child just because he "seems a nice person"? This is unbelieveably stupid.

As I've said, if I can trust the babysitter, I have no reason to suspect he would molest my child. Plain and simple.

Your argument is basically this: I don't care whether he is a danger to society. Let him dream whatever he wants, it can't do any harm, no matter if he's already molested someone before, or is insane and/or can't control his urges. Having sex with children in lucid dreams is good for all pedophiles.

Chop off that last sentence and you've got it. I don't really see any one way of dreaming being better than another. How we deal with the insane, the public threats, the criminals, is entirely different from dreaming. Trying to regulate how they dream will solve absolutely not a god damned thing.

**kyzz** · 06-02-2011 07:27 AM

Originally Posted by Jakob

No, that's definitely not a fact, but an opinion. Some claim it can be cured, some claim it can't be cured. You can easily find sources for each position.

Only an idiot could ever believe that homosexuality can be cured, and if you're part of such a group, then you too are an idiot.

You can't DISPROVE that it CAN be cured the same way you can't DISPROVE Santa Clause, that DOES NOT mean you give credibility to the idiots that say homosexuality can be cured. Show me those sources you claim to have cured homosexuality and I'll show you their religious and/or pseudo-scientific connections.

I'm not on either side of these debate (besides clearly think pedophilia is mentally unstable), I am however against blind ignorance and downright stupidity, so don't fall into that camp.

**WhatIsX** · 06-02-2011 08:09 AM

Originally Posted by Aelexe

pe·do·phile/ˈpedəˌfīl/
Noun: A person who is sexually attracted to children.

Just to clarify for those suggesting rape constantly.

I disagree. Pedo = child, phile = love of. Pedophile = one who loves children.

What most people are talking about are pedosexuals. Yes, semantics, but I think it's an important distinction to make.

**Daydreamer14** · 06-02-2011 08:18 AM

This topic sort of came up once before... someone was lucid and they raped someone; I think... anyway, I still think it's wrong. Very wrong. The fact that you would take away someone's freewill in your lucid dream, means that you'd be willing to do the same thing in real life. And if the pedophile hadn't heard of lucid dreaming, they'd be raping real people. Just my opinion, but I think it is very sick. Rape is rape. Even the thought of rape is wrong. If you lucid dream with the intention of rape, then you are almost as bad as someone who does it in waking life.

**Maria92** · 06-02-2011 08:38 AM

Originally Posted by Daydreamer14

This topic sort of came up once before... someone was lucid and they raped someone; I think... anyway, I still think it's wrong. Very wrong. The fact that you would take away someone's freewill in your lucid dream, means that you'd be willing to do the same thing in real life. And if the pedophile hadn't heard of lucid dreaming, they'd be raping real people. Just my opinion, but I think it is very sick. Rape is rape. Even the thought of rape is wrong. If you lucid dream with the intention of rape, then you are almost as bad as someone who does it in waking life.

>implying dream characters have free will

**Daydreamer14** · 06-02-2011 08:39 AM

Originally Posted by Mario92

>implying dream characters have free will

I don't mean DC's have freewill, I mean that, real people do, and if a pedophile is to rape a person in a dream, who's to say they won't in reality..?
It just seems wrong to me. :\

**Maria92** · 06-02-2011 08:52 AM

Originally Posted by Daydreamer14

I don't mean DC's have freewill, I mean that, real people do, and if a pedophile is to rape a person in a dream, who's to say they won't in reality..?
It just seems wrong to me. :\

Alright, so DC's don't have free will. No actual crime is being committed. Nothing with consequences. As opposed to real crime, which consists entirely of consequences. See you not the problem in your reasoning? Apples to oranges. There is no comparison.

**Reclypso** · 06-02-2011 11:00 AM

You guys have to forget about this happening in real life, the question is, is it ok for them to act it out in a lucid or non lucid dream. It's not real, do you guys think it will increase his intent to do this in real life or suppress it? It probably varies from person to person, so there wont be a clear answer ever..

**JussiKala** · 06-02-2011 11:09 AM

Originally Posted by Reclypso

You guys have to forget about this happening in real life, the question is, is it ok for them to act it out in a lucid or non lucid dream. It's not real, do you guys think it will increase his intent to do this in real life or suppress it? It probably varies from person to person, so there wont be a clear answer ever..

Check my earlier post. It does not matter if it increases the temptation to do something IRL. The choice of doing that or not IRL is still his. He has the right to do it in lucid dreams, regardless of whether it increases the temptation or not. It's his CHOICE to do that. That choice should be his right, regardless of if it increases the temptation or not. If it increases the temptation or not, it's still his choice to do it IRL if he decides to do it, and not yours. It is not our place to try and prevent them from dreaming. From IRL assault, yes.

Originally Posted by JussiKala

Bingo. Trying to justify otherwise is just trying to break other peoples rights. Who cares if the person is dreaming about it? "OOh, it might encourage him/her to act out the fantasies IRL!!!11 zomg!". What? It does not matter at all if he / she dreams about it or not here, it is not your place to decide which may or may not increase the temptation for the person. If it increases the temptation, it's still none of your business. It's that persons choice if he / she decides to go out and attack children. It is not the result of him / her dreaming about it. It's the result of the choice made by that person to attack that chlid, and that's that. There is a possibility that some motivation came out of dreaming about it, but it doesn't matter, the person still has a choice to make on whether or not to attack the children.

It's actions, not thoughts/dreams, that matter.

Why would increasing the temptation be that bad? Why do you feel as if you should intervene even if it does? The people still have to make a concious choice to attack children. If they make that choice, they're bad people. If they don't, they can refrain themselves for doing so, even if they dream or not.

**Maeni** · 06-02-2011 11:56 AM

Originally Posted by Jakob

Now tell me why I should continue this discussion when you basically label people who claim they've been cured as liars.

As I said, there are those who claim it is possible, and those who claim otherwise. Maybe you tried, and it didn't work for YOU.

Actually, again you're right.
I was more referring to the time when people practically forced gay people to become normal, and that only lead to shame and sexual repression.
But you're right, people who tried on their own volition using whatever means they could, I am very willing to believe that they could do that. But I would still not encourage or discourage it. Perhaps if I was asked, I would suggest it as an option to try.
But I think it should be up to the pedophile himself. Whether he chooses to try and cure himself, or keep entertaining his fantasies in a dream makes no difference to anybody except himself, so there is none of the two options that he "should" use.

Why can't you get outside of your box and grasp the fact that some might have had success, and aren't liars? The opinions of you and Mario92 are facts, and all other claims by other people are opinions. It seems that you, as well as Mario92 are just going around in circles:

See above.

Just like your opinion that it is NOT a disease, except these are mental health professionals. What are your qualifications?

Keep in mind that not many years ago, homosexuality was also regarded as a mental disorder. They changed their minds, they are human beings.
Also see my earlier post where I explain how the differences between mental disorder, disease and sexual orientation are inexistent.

It is only silly because you are sympathetic to them. I have never in my life seen someone try to discourage pedophiles from trying to change their ways. Until this discussion, that is.

Again, there is a difference between discouraging and not encouraging. Mario is not discouraging anything, he's just saying that there isn't anything the pedophile "should" do with his dreams.

Unfortunately it is not that simple. The fact that he CAN'T control his urges makes him a dangerous person, and that alone should make you question whether using lucid dreaming this way is a good thing. But you just said "you don't care", therefore the discussion is useless. You also don't care if he has already molested children in the past. No comment really.

If he cannot control his urges, he is indeed a dangerous person. One would hope that the situation would be discovered and he would get help before it got out of hand and something bad happened. But what he does in his (lucid) dreams are completely irrelevant to that whole issue.

Of course, everything I cite is dubious, says the pedophile.

For a statistic about pedophiles to be trustworthy, you need to have a large amount of randomly selected pedophiles to work with. The problem is that you cannot get a large amount of randomly selected pedophiles. You have to pick all the ones that are on the sex offenders registry and in jail. That means that the statistics are indeed dubious. Not because we're pedophiles, but because the statistics don't have accurate test groups.
(Besides, "scientists" tend to have a bad habit of confusing child molesters and pedophiles and making them into one group)

You are being dishonest, unlike Maeni, who said he wouldn't allow it. I mean really, letting a pedophile babysit your child just because he "seems a nice person"? This is unbelieveably stupid.

I probably wouldn't let anyone I only knew 1 detail about babysit my children anyways. It's a strange hypothetical situation anyways, you'll never have to choose a babysitter where you only know one thing about them, and that thing being that he is a pedophile.

Your argument is basically this: I don't care whether he is a danger to society. Let him dream whatever he wants, it can't do any harm, no matter if he's already molested someone before, or is insane and/or can't control his urges. Having sex with children in lucid dreams is good for all pedophiles.

Hmm.. Actually I don't see anything wrong with that, I think you summed it up pretty well. I'm sorry, but if you're trying to set up his argument in a way that makes it sound stupid, then that's strange because I agree.
What he dreams doesn't have anything to do with what he does in real life. If he has molested someone before, is insane and/or can't control his urges, then sure that is a problem and should be dealt with appropriately. But his lucid dreams are still completely irrelevant.

EDIT:

Spoiler for Slightly off-topic replies:

**Empedocles** · 06-02-2011 12:14 PM

Originally Posted by Maeni

Actually, being sexually attracted to people in early puberty is called hebephilia, and being attracted to people in late puberty is called ephebophilia.
To be a pedophile, you have to be attracted to children that have not entered puberty.

I agree though, hebephilia and ephebophilia is completely normal, for instinctive reasons.

Read my earlier post: http://www.dreamviews.com/f11/should...ml#post1671182

Then I am abnormal, and everyone in my family, and close friends. But then again, I can only speak for myself, and not for others.

**Maeni** · 06-02-2011 12:17 PM

Of course you are abnormal.
Normality is a stupid concept, so why is that bothering you?

EDIT:

But! I also must add that of course I don't know whether it is normal or not. I just know that in past times when people didn't live as long, it was important for people to have children as early as possible, which is why people are the most fertile in the teenage years. And which is also why people are attracted to teenagers.

**Empedocles** · 06-02-2011 12:22 PM

Originally Posted by Maeni

Of course you are abnormal.
Normality is a stupid concept, so why is that bothering you?

I like women, not kids. The poster wanted to say that once a girl reaches puberty, it's perfectly normal to be attracted to her. It's bullshit.

**Maeni** · 06-02-2011 12:26 PM

No, that is normal.
I don't think the majority of people will admit it, but instinctively we are wired to like people that show signs of being fertile. Teenagers are at the peak of fertility, and show clear signs of it.
People just wont admit it because it is looked down opun, and because we don't actually need to be attracted to teenagers anymore, evolution have just not followed us yet.

**Empedocles** · 06-02-2011 12:28 PM

Originally Posted by kyzz

Only an idiot could ever believe that homosexuality can be cured, and if you're part of such a group, then you too are an idiot.

You can't DISPROVE that it CAN be cured the same way you can't DISPROVE Santa Clause, that DOES NOT mean you give credibility to the idiots that say homosexuality can be cured. Show me those sources you claim to have cured homosexuality and I'll show you their religious and/or pseudo-scientific connections.

I'm not on either side of these debate (besides clearly think pedophilia is mentally unstable), I am however against blind ignorance and downright stupidity, so don't fall into that camp.

It has nothing to do with disproving a negative as you claim, so in other words, the idiot here is you. Basically this is your reasoning:

Claim #1: Homosexuals cannot change their ways. Homosexual named X tried hard, and failed. Therefore it's impossible.
Claim #2: Homosexuals can change their ways. Homosexual named Y tried, and succeeded. Your conclusion: He is a liar, because if X failed, then this other guy couldn't have done it either.

So you, just like many others, simply dismiss anyone who says they turned straight as liars and frauds. How then, can we have an intelligent discussion?

**Maeni** · 06-02-2011 12:31 PM

He said that he would show you their religious and/or pesudo-scientific connections.
I.e. he would provide reasons as to why Y is a 'liar'.

**Empedocles** · 06-02-2011 12:33 PM

Originally Posted by Maeni

No, that is normal.
I don't think the majority of people will admit it, but instinctively we are wired to like people that show signs of being fertile. Teenagers are at the peak of fertility, and show clear signs of it.
People just wont admit it because it is looked down opun, and because we don't actually need to be attracted to teenagers anymore, evolution have just not followed us yet.

Am I lying then? No, "young" doesn't equal "attractive" to me. You are basically saying I am being dishonest.

**Maeni** · 06-02-2011 12:42 PM

What? No. I am sorry if it seems I implied that. I do believe that you are not attracted to young people.
I'm just saying that it is normal to be attracted to young people. Obviously, I cannot provide statistics to that because such a statistic would have to assume that nobody would lie about their attractions, but I think it is reasonable to believe that being attracted to at least 16-18 year olds is normal. (Because they have all the traits that normal heterosexual attractions are based around; hour-glass shape, breasts, hip, etc)

EDIT:

I just noticed that you did pretty much say outright that you can find 17 or 18 year olds attractive.

Originally Posted by Jakob

And if a 17 or 18 year old looks many years younger than her real age, then to me personally, this is a turn off.

Doesn't that mean that if she does looks her age, you could find her attractive?

**Hukif** · 06-02-2011 02:23 PM

Oh my, so surprised Jakob totally ignored the fail stats from the sources he cited, all info I took was from their very site and article, so it seems to me he isn't even reading what he cites.

**Maeni** · 06-02-2011 04:13 PM

Yep, I'm still waiting for a reaction to posts: #101, #102, #105 and the rest of #114.

**ClouD** · 06-02-2011 04:15 PM

For all the idiocy in this thread:

Should fat people eat ice-cream in their dreams?

**Empedocles** · 06-02-2011 04:17 PM

Originally Posted by Maeni

What? No. I am sorry if it seems I implied that. I do believe that you are not attracted to young people.
I'm just saying that it is normal to be attracted to young people. Obviously, I cannot provide statistics to that because such a statistic would have to assume that nobody would lie about their attractions, but I think it is reasonable to believe that being attracted to at least 16-18 year olds is normal. (Because they have all the traits that normal heterosexual attractions are based around; hour-glass shape, breasts, hip, etc)

16-18 is different from 12-13. It might seem "only 3 years" older, but there is a difference.

I just noticed that you did pretty much say outright that you can find 17 or 18 year olds attractive.

Doesn't that mean that if she does looks her age, you could find her attractive?

Yes, that's right. 17 or 18 is something else, as long as she looks her age. Any girl that has a "child-like" appearance is unattractive to me. If a girl is 14 but looks much older than her age(around 20), I would find her attractive, except that for moral reasons I wouldn't take advantage of such a person.