And if it turned out that it's only the other side that stops thinking and goes into "hulk...smash" mode, that might say something in itself.

It wouldn't be the first topic to produce that result. There are some subjects that I have ended up conceding it is better not to discuss at all (if the alternative is disgraceful conversation).

One way to diagnose it would be to start discussing a topic and waiting for the mind-killing dialog to begin.

But we aren't interested that much into diagnosis.

that might say something in itself.

Yes, but what that "something" is, depends. Sometimes it only says who has better trolling skillz.

I will say up front that my intention in writing it is primarily to reduce the likelihood of you abusing any children; and only secondarily to help you feel any better.

No offense taken. My priorities are the same as yours. I've got the non-offending bit covered completely, but I'll here take the viewpoint of someone who doesn't, because it's interesting. The idea that thinking about something makes you more likely to do it is addressed (as an indirect consequence) in an "open thread" comment I made titled "Assertion: Child porn availability does not increase child sex abuse". Some thoughts are pleasant. If a person cannot achieve romantic or sexual satisfaction in the real world, spinning some fantasies about it may be about the best one can do. There is no evidence it makes offending against children more likely; it might make it less likely.

It also means that people who notice that they have intrusive thoughts of this nature should not draw the conclusion, "Aha! These thoughts mean that I must adopt a 'pedophile' identity!"

When young teens are worried they might be pedophiles, among my initial advice is that it might go away, and I always advise people to think about their attraction to appropriate-age partners and think about that most. I do not engage in recruiting.

Pedophilia is different from homosexuality in one very important way: it is not something that can be followed through ethically to a consummation in the real world. In that sense, homosexuality is just fine and pedophilia is not good. However, they are both sexual orientations. It's right in the new DSM5: If individuals "report an absence of feelings of guilt, shame, or anxiety about these impulses and are not functionally limited by their paraphilic impulses (according to self-report, objective assessment, or both), and their self-reported and legally recorded histories indicate that they have never acted on their impulses, then these individuals have a pedophilic sexual orientation but not pedophilic disorder." It's controversial, but sufficiently mainstream in psychiatry that it made it into the official handbook.

Now, few people (other than heavy-duty social conservatives) would suggest that gay people just stop having those intrusive thoughts. The class of people one is attracted to sexually is just too important to be relegated to "intrusive thoughts".

I'm not just saying, "Have you tried not being a pedophile?"

PC poo-pooing of this phrase aside, the quoted phrase is actually a good summary of your point and good advise.

to the point of being amateur psychoanalysis

That's a relief. If it was professional psychoanalysis I'd be more concerned.

That saying contains a long chain of unsupported inferences. Each transition can happen, but each step can easily not happen. The referenced post has to do with habits of discipline, and that's quite different from the kinds of thoughts I have in mind.

Suppose I'm really mad at my mother and I find myself wishing that she were dead. I can berate myself for having such a terrible thought. But instead I might recognize that such thoughts are natural. If I find myself enjoying the thought and going back to it again and again, I don't think that's going to lead me to happiness -- though it might well not lead me one iota closer to harming my mother. But just noting that I wished my mother was dead is not something I feel guilty about or vow to never think again. I'd instead focus on why I'm angry at my mother, remember all her good qualities, and think about the situation from her point of view.

When I'm done thinking about it, I might decide to talk with my mother about what she did if I think that might improve the situation, or I might decide to say nothing. When I look back on the incident, it is on the basis of what I actually did that I will judge my morality, not the thoughts I went through to get there.

This is just one example, but hopefully it conveys some sense that we are in a different realm.

In the sexual realm, suppose there's some celebrity that an ordinary guy finds hot. He freely fantasizes about having sex with her because it's fun. Is he in danger of getting so obsessed that he starts stalking her and attacks her? No. It might happen and it will make the news, but from personal experience we know he's a rare and disturbed exception. If a pedophile does it, you might conclude that many or most pedophiles are in danger of doing that because you don't know all the celibate pedophiles who don't.

Well, I suspect that in practice people take care in expressing their thoughts in these sorts of contexts primarily because expressions of thoughts are frequently treated by others as evidence of otherwise-imperceivable actions, which isn't quite the same thing.

We could end up with a society of only straight people -- or the opposite -- depending on our meta-level preferences. In fact, it would also probably be feasible to turn anyone who wants completely asexual

Arguably, the opposite of straight is asexual. At least, not wanting sex with anyone is more clearly opposed to wanting sex with members of the opposite sex than wanting sex with members of the same sex (which is what I assume you meant) is. One person can do both of the latter, but not both of the former.

Anyway, as far as meta-preferences go, by the time all of these parameters can be fiddled with at will my preference is that we be primarily concerned with something else, such that your question feels roughly equivalent to "should we prefer to peacefully coexist with people who mix stripes and plaids, and whatever other combination comes up, or should we settle on something boring like all-leaopard-print or all-sequined?"

There is no edit link when I do that, and I have an idea what might be going on. My karma is no longer sufficient to post in the Discussion area, so perhaps it has also removed my ability to edit the post. If so, this isn't a problem I can solve on my own.