Is it time to REDEFINE PEDOPHILES?

[Zero Sum 305]

The question is, what is society willing to give to protect both parts of society. Those who are born with this feeling and those who might be potention victims. At the end of the day, you have to protect both.

They often take adult models and use software to age them down for people who are attracted to really young boys and girls. A lot of people are against that because they feel it's 'encouraging' something, but you have to ask at the same time, wouldn't you rather someone be happy in the privacy of their own home with some images, rather than going out and staring at your kids in the park? You cause more of a danger to young children by creating a scenario in which there is not 'outlet' for that sexual frustration. I say give them everything in the world that possibly keeps them from acting on a real child. Give them images, videos, child-like dolls, etc. Whatever it takes to keep a certain sector of soceity at least satiated, so the liklihood of actually interacting with a child in that manner is smaller.

Trying to control is though, like the Christians try and control homosexuality with drugs, camps, etc. is non-realistic. Just as it's unrealistic to give someone a scarlet letter who has never committed a crime in their life.

But wait... are you saying then that trying to 'treat' pedophilia is not worth it? Are you in effect stating beyond a reasonable doubt that there is no biological basis for this behavior?

The real issue here is that because it's stigmatized they have to live in hiding, being told that they are shameful and evil. At the end of the day that doesn't make anyone safe and in fact it makes everyone less safe.

Maybe pedophiles, once identified need to be completely removed from modern society for their own protection, in addition to protecting the victims of their behaviors.

If that would work, I'd be all for it. Unfortunately you don't seem to take into account that those altered images might not be enough aanymore at some point. You can almost compare it to a grug addict who will have to increase his dosages or go to stronger drugs to satisfy the addiction.

For a Pedophile that can mean looking at those altered pictures at some point will lead to looking at pictures of children, if that's not enough, they will go out and look at children. Once that doesn't do it anymore.................

If all Pedophiles would be able to control their desires like you mention or want to believe, nobody would give two shits about them- but that's not the reality.

Exactly. The behavior in this case indeed becomes pathological. That is not by any stretch of psychological terms, 'normal.'

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

I haven't seen much focus here on the victims of these heinous acts: the children victimized.

While some may argue that there is a degree of opportunism involved, as we see with some blurry relationships between 13 year olds and 20 year olds... the idea that an 8 year old is being opportunistically permissive of a 54 year old's advances is something I'd say quite different.

What focus is needed? It's a given that it's heinous for an adult to have sex with young children. The point was made earlier that some people who have pedophiliac tendencies don't act upon them. That may well be true, I just doubt that many people (regardless of their preferences) can be sexually celibate. If that were the case, we wouldn't see the sorts of scandals that have beset the catholic church.

[SMOKE 1,426]

so, if a 30 something year old drives past an automatic car wash to go to the local HS cheerleaders fundraising car wash....yanno to help the kids out. does that make him a pedo?

[Zero Sum 305]

What focus is needed? It's a given that it's heinous for an adult to have sex with young children. The point was made earlier that some people who have pedophiliac tendencies don't act upon them. That may well be true, I just doubt that many people (regardless of their preferences) can be sexually celibate. If that were the case, we wouldn't see the sorts of scandals that have beset the catholic church.

By our modern standards, of course. I am a bit interested how we see a focus on the behavior by the offending adults here without really justifying it in the real terms that would create it in the first place- not just the psychological effect itself, which would be the sign of something in the function of the brain.

[Obama 2012 1,714]

Could you elaborate more on that apparent organic predilection then? Obviously it would affect the psychology in such a way that you'd have a causal relationship.

But would you elaborate more on the organic mechanism underlying this sort of behavior? If there's nothing wrong with the brain itself, then no, it wouldn't be an illness. Is this the case?

Well, the key when it comes to pedophilia is finding appropriate test subjects. There honestly hasn't truly been a wide enough study done on 'non-offending' individuals. So right now everyone kind of gets lumped into the same catagory. Which at the end of the day is unfortunate.

There have been studies on certain people that show decreased activity in the frontal cortex when it comes to trying to stimulate them with 'adult' sexual images. As well as lower activity in the hypothalamus. The activation of the sensory mechanisms just isn't there in some cases that they have done.

Conclusions are the people are probably predisposed to being sexually attracted, though there are a few who have said that is might be 'treatable' with medication to try and 'stimulate' those parts of the brain. Which in many ways is trying to say that homosexuals can be 'stimulated' the be attracted to females.

The studies are half-arsed though because it's near impossible to do the study necessary test that part of the brain without violating many moral codes of soceity.

There's also a difference in people who grew up normal lives as kids versus people who were abused in some way as a child. Most people who are 'caught' were abused themselves as a kid and obviously were mentally effected by what happened to them. This is a big difference and should not be confused with those who only have desires who lived normal/healthy lives.

[Zero Sum 305]

so, if a 30 something year old drives past an automatic car wash to go to the local HS cheerleaders fundraising car wash....yanno to help the kids out. does that make him a pedo?

See my earlier comment on 'blurry relationships.'

Teenage 'hotties' I'd say have a composition closer to that of 20-something ladies. Beware of the jailbait, old man.

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

I'm not a neuroscientist

so, if a 30 something year old drives past an automatic car wash to go to the local HS cheerleaders fundraising car wash....yanno to help the kids out. does that make him a pedo?

Pedophilia refers to young children, not adolescents.

[SMOKE 1,426]

See my earlier comment on 'blurry relationships.'

Teenage 'hotties' I'd say have a composition closer to that of 20-something ladies. Beware of the jailbait, old man.

i'd never...i was just asking, on behalf of a friend.

Pedophilia refers to young children, not adolescents.

good. i'll let my friend know.

[Zero Sum 305]

Well, the key when it comes to pedophilia is finding appropriate test subjects. There honestly hasn't truly been a wide enough study done on 'non-offending' individuals. So right now everyone kind of gets lumped into the same catagory. Which at the end of the day is unfortunate.

There have been studies on certain people that show decreased activity in the frontal cortex when it comes to trying to stimulate them with 'adult' sexual images. As well as lower activity in the hypothalamus. The activation of the sensory mechanisms just isn't there in some cases that they have done.

Conclusions are the people are probably predisposed to being sexually attracted, though there are a few who have said that is might be 'treatable' with medication to try and 'stimulate' those parts of the brain. Which in many ways is trying to say that homosexuals can be 'stimulated' the be attracted to females.

The studies are half-arsed though because it's near impossible to do the study necessary test that part of the brain without violating many moral codes of soceity.

There's also a difference in people who grew up normal lives as kids versus people who were abused in some way as a child. Most people who are 'caught' were abused themselves as a kid and obviously were mentally effected by what happened to them. This is a big difference and should not be confused with those who only have desires who lived normal/healthy lives.

Thanks Paul. I'll use my memory of neuro class (Medical School Neuro as an elective...)

Prefrontal cortex: the seat of most memory process storage, as well as rationalization in higher-order thinking, including the basis for what constitutes sexually-attractive forms. Lower activities in these areas when compared to control subjects would indeed spell a biological basis for a pathological condition.

Hypothalamus: a huge mess of neuronal clusters focused on everything from day/night cycles, food metabolism, energy balance, an important relay center for the fight/flight reflex, temperature regulation, sexual development and behavior... and indeed, common scans for depression using MRI that show decreased neuronal activation here is correlated with depressive pathologies. Some injuries to the hypothalamus also result in hypersexuality in more than just human subjects. Again, all this points to there being a pathology involved.

Depression in itself results in damage to brain cells. Did you know that? This includes abusive behavior on children that later go on to commit socially unacceptable behaviors. Eventually, given enough damage to the brain, the brain itself becomes inefficient at functioning.

This is why you shouldn't whine and complain so much on the internet... you'll eventually internalize all that depressive behavior unless its already got you.

But finally-

The studies are half-arsed though because it's near impossible to do the study necessary test that part of the brain without violating many moral codes of soceity.

Not sure what you mean here. Plenty of non-invasive tests can be accomplished with human subjects without doing Nazi Germany experiments.

And, as I alluded to above, many behaviors involving physiological functions such as sexual arousal can be completed in other mammals. And have been done, such as in non-human primates, dogs, cats, and rodents. All studies that would have controlled conditions, appropriate test groups, and verifiable statistical analysis with sufficient power. But if I step on your expertise in the neurosciences, please disregard my humble opinion as someone with an actual degree in a scientific discipline.

I'm not a neuroscientist

Pedophilia refers to young children, not adolescents.

But you can be one if you spend enough time on the internet.

i'd never...i was just asking, on behalf of a friend.

good. i'll let my friend know.

He has to ask for ID.

[Deputy Purple 1,294]

I think the question I put to Paul would be well asked of you then. Could you elaborate on the likely brain biology that underlies this inclusive behavior of certain adults when being attracted to children? In your opinion what determines this?

I can't answer your question because I honestly don't know.

Bob, how can society legitimise pedophilia? It's one thing to not label individuals (by which I mean things like the various "is a sex offender living in your neighbourhood?" websites) but it's another thing entirely to endorse it as an acceptable sexual preference.

Who said society needs to legitimize anything? My point is that by ostracizing ALL Pedophiles and making the assumption that they will sexually abuse a child society is actually making the "problem" worse than it is.

Look at how differently we treat people with mental illnesses. Sure there is still a lot of negative stereotyping but we are at a point where society can (somewhat) accept that a person with a mental illness can be functional and not dangerous in everyday society.

Honestly the whole idea of what is a "normal" sexual attraction is rooted in the biblical/religious notion that sex is only for procreation and not for recreation. By that definition an lot of sexual practices become perverse.

Again I'll say that just because someone is a Pedophile that doesn't exclude them for having fulfilling relationships with adults partners (including sexual). There are other reasons people sexually abuse children and most offenders aren't pedophiles. The children are the victims because they are easier to manipulate or control physically than adults and offenders are coming from a position of weakness seeking to be the stronger one in the interaction.

[Zero Sum 305]

I can't answer your question because I honestly don't know.

Who said society needs to legitimize anything? My point is that by ostracizing ALL Pedophiles and making the assumption that they will sexually abuse a child society is actually making the "problem" worse than it is.

Look at how differently we treat people with mental illnesses. Sure there is still a lot of negative stereotyping but we are at a point where society can (somewhat) accept that a person with a mental illness can be functional and not dangerous in everyday society.

Honestly the whole idea of what is a "normal" sexual attraction is rooted in the biblical/religious notion that sex is only for procreation and not for recreation. By that definition an lot of sexual practices become perverse.

Again I'll say that just because someone is a Pedophile that doesn't exclude them for having fulfilling relationships with adults partners (including sexual). There are other reasons people sexually abuse children and most offenders aren't pedophiles. The children are the victims because they are easier to manipulate or control physically than adults and offenders are coming from a position of weakness seeking to be the stronger one in the interaction.

I think you're being honest in your approach to this question. Thanks. I disagree though with what defines the modern idea of normalcy in sex. What you attribute to religious doctrine may certainly be a part of the Western view of sex- but it certainly doesn't describe all of it. Not even in our Western culture.

In all truthfulness, if there was a biological (genetic) component to pedophilia, the case for its inheritance can only be made if pedophiles have offspring. I'd say a huge majority of these do so with more age-appropriate partners.

[The_Dude 1,142]

so, if a 30 something year old drives past an automatic car wash to go to the local HS cheerleaders fundraising car wash....yanno to help the kids out. does that make him a pedo?

A pedo? No. A creepy old guy? Yes, very much so.

[Obama 2012 1,714]

Not sure what you mean here. Plenty of non-invasive tests can be accomplished with human subjects without doing Nazi Germany experiments.

And, as I alluded to above, many behaviors involving physiological functions such as sexual arousal can be completed in other mammals. And have been done, such as in non-human primates, dogs, cats, and rodents. All studies that would have controlled conditions, appropriate test groups, and verifiable statistical analysis with sufficient power. But if I step on your expertise in the neurosciences, please disregard my humble opinion as someone with an actual degree in a scientific discipline.

What I'm saying is that a conclusive test cannot be done in modern society. No matter how controlled it might be. There is no one in their right mind who is going to allow people with pre-pubscent desires to stare at pictures and/or moving children in a sexual way. Using adult poronography is one thing. Using a child in the same manor is very unacceptable.

So while you might not see the same activity in the hypothalamus and frontal cortex as you would with a 'normal' heterosexual male and/or female, that's not to say that same activity (or lack there of) would not be there upon arousal by a child put in the same scenario.

We're talking about something being a mental/biological defect/illness when we're talking about it being pathological. We're defining something as 'different' in being an illness. This is where we get in trouble with homosexuality as well, as many in the scientific community label it as pathological. This is why we end up with so many of these insane groups that try and say it's 'treatable.' Pathology is something that is used and abused far too often when activity in the brain is different amongst certain behaviors. The question becomes at what point as a percentage of the population, does something stop being considered as an actual defect/illness. Just because the activity in certain behavioral sectors of the brain is 'different' in certain people, does not necessarily mean it's a defect/illness. That kind of language needs to be steered away from, especially when we are talking about people who are otherwise 'normal' in every day life.

I'll use an example in homosexuality. You might use pathology as a way to describe someone who is homosexual and at the same time uncharacteristic of their sex. For instance the homosexual males who act overly feminine and homosexual females who act overly masculine. Then you take and compare them with homosexual male and females who look and act like their traditional gender mates, and the only difference is what they are attracted to.

I'm not arguing against the idea that pathology comes into play. It absolutely does in certain circumstances. My argument and has been throughout this thread is on normal every day people otherwise, who have different attractions than the rest of soceity. We spend too much time grouping people into one big lump sum, that soceity and even science tends to ignore inherent differences in other behavioural patterns.

[Zero Sum 305]

What I'm saying is that a conclusive test cannot be done in modern society. No matter how controlled it might be. There is no one in their right mind who is going to allow people with pre-pubscent desires to stare at pictures and/or moving children in a sexual way. Using adult poronography is one thing. Using a child in the same manor is very unacceptable.

Pictures? Can be done in a controlled setting, because if you knew what a control was, your study would be comparable for statistical reasons.

Gathering subjects is and can be done in much the same way as any other clinical trial, clinical experiment, etc, is done in the recruiting stage. You may just be unfamiliar with how these things are done.

So while you might not see the same activity in the hypothalamus and frontal cortex as you would with a 'normal' heterosexual male and/or female, that's not to say that same activity (or lack there of) would not be there upon arousal by a child put in the same scenario.

Activity in neurons is a sign of proper function. MRI scans are quite specific, and other scanning technology is slowly moving towards using metabolism as a marker for cell activity. This very clearly will differentiate between normal and not normal (pathological) in terms of how well the cells are functioning.

We're talking about something being a mental/biological defect/illness when we're talking about it being pathological. We're defining something as 'different' in being an illness. This is where we get in trouble with homosexuality as well, as many in the scientific community label it as pathological. This is why we end up with so many of these insane groups that try and say it's 'treatable.' Pathology is something that is used and abused far too often when activity in the brain is different amongst certain behaviors. The question becomes at what point as a percentage of the population, does something stop being considered as an actual defect/illness. Just because the activity in certain behavioral sectors of the brain is 'different' in certain people, does not necessarily mean it's a defect/illness. That kind of language needs to be steered away from, especially when we are talking about people who are otherwise 'normal' in every day life.

That's right, Paul- I am inquiring as to the biology underlying these behaviors. If its pathological, its not biologically normal. Its not about abusing the semantics, its about getting it right. Is the brain functioning normally or is it not? Your own previous post indicates that NO is the correct answer.

I'll use an example in homosexuality. You might use pathology as a way to describe someone who is homosexual and at the same time uncharacteristic of their sex. For instance the homosexual males who act overly feminine and homosexual females who act overly masculine. Then you take and compare them with homosexual male and females who look and act like their traditional gender mates, and the only difference is what they are attracted to.

The studies showing scans of homosexuals do not show decreased neuron activities. They show activation patterns in the brains of homosexuals that are different, not decreased, than heterosexuals. In that case, we are not talking about a pathology by any means, so avoid confusing yourself.

I'm not arguing against the idea that pathology comes into play. It absolutely does in certain circumstances. My argument and has been throughout this thread is on normal every day people otherwise, who have different attractions than the rest of soceity. We spend too much time grouping people into one big lump sum, that soceity and even science tends to ignore inherent differences in other behavioural patterns.

And my inquiry to you was very specific- do you believe there is a biological basis for that behavior that makes them different from non-pedophiles. Your own postings here seem to suggest as much. When pushed a little more, the data indicates that the underlying causal factors are pathological. That is nothing to do with being people who get lumped; and at least the whole point of the scientific approach to treating these behavioral patterns is to precisely locate the basis for the patterns themselves. You do this by comparing, contrasting, and classifying these analyses as they become available.

Society, on the other hand, classifies the behaviors as destructive to the victims, for obvious reasons.

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

I can't answer your question because I honestly don't know.

Who said society needs to legitimize anything? My point is that by ostracizing ALL Pedophiles and making the assumption that they will sexually abuse a child society is actually making the "problem" worse than it is.

Look at how differently we treat people with mental illnesses. Sure there is still a lot of negative stereotyping but we are at a point where society can (somewhat) accept that a person with a mental illness can be functional and not dangerous in everyday society.

Honestly the whole idea of what is a "normal" sexual attraction is rooted in the biblical/religious notion that sex is only for procreation and not for recreation. By that definition an lot of sexual practices become perverse.

Again I'll say that just because someone is a Pedophile that doesn't exclude them for having fulfilling relationships with adults partners (including sexual). There are other reasons people sexually abuse children and most offenders aren't pedophiles. The children are the victims because they are easier to manipulate or control physically than adults and offenders are coming from a position of weakness seeking to be the stronger one in the interaction.

How does it not? If your sexual preferences are for young children, how can you have a fulfilling sex life if the law prevents you from indulging it? Would a gay person be happy if they could only legally have sex with someone of the opposite sex? I doubt it, and no I am not suggesting that pediphilia and homosexuality are equivalent - I'm addressing the contention that sexual preferences are not mental illnesses. If you are wired to be attracted to kids, would be satisfied with anything less. I don't believe so.