Is it time to REDEFINE PEDOPHILES?

[Deputy Purple 1,294]

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.

The definition of "Normal" sex has of course evolved over time but I core of it does come from religious doctrine especially in Western (Christian) society.

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.

I don't believe we can so easily quantify personality traits and such as having a solid biological root. Of course there are a lot of things that are genetic and inherited but are there things that are simply part of the randomness that is the development of our own brain chemistry?

If the vast majority of people having children (not adopting) are heterosexual them why are there so many gay people in the world? Wouldn't homosexuality eventually become extinct due to evolution and the "gay gene" going the way of the DoDo bird?

If homosexuality isn't a choice then couldn't the same be true for other sexual orientations?

[Zero Sum 305]

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.

But they might also be fulfilled with the variety.

I contend that fulfillment is secondary to the neurological state that creates the impulsivity. And I don't think pedophiliac impulsivity is normal psychologically or biologically.

[Zero Sum 305]

The definition of "Normal" sex has of course evolved over time but I core of it does come from religious doctrine especially in Western (Christian) society.

I don't believe we can so easily quantify personality traits and such as having a solid biological root. Of course there are a lot of things that are genetic and inherited but are there things that are simply part of the randomness that is the development of our own brain chemistry?

If the vast majority of people having children (not adopting) are heterosexual them why are there so many gay people in the world? Wouldn't homosexuality eventually become extinct due to evolution and the "gay gene" going the way of the DoDo bird?

If homosexuality isn't a choice then couldn't the same be true for other sexual orientations?

Right. The moral doctrine may have had its religious roots, at some point. Now we are somewhere else.

The biological roots (particularly those that may be genetic) certainly can't guarantee the behavioral outcome, and should obviously never be used to single out behaviors before they're actually carried out. There will always be combinatorial causes acting on what one already has inside, just as much as having the biological predisposition to something might just mean that its never manifested.

Your gay gene has a simple answer- over time enough gays have had offspring. As I stated previously with pedophiles.

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

Well I don't think many heterosexual would be happy abstaining from sex or having sex with anyone other than an opposite sex partner. I have no idea if it is secondary to neurology or not. Pedophilia is officially classed as a mental illness. Of course homosexuality used to be too.

However there are clear reasons why homosexuality has become acceptable in society but pedophilia hasn't.

Edited August 24, 2011 by fishdude

[Zero Sum 305]

Well I don't think many heterosexual would be happy abstaining from sex or having sex with anyone other than an opposite sex partner. I have no idea if it is secondary to neurology or not. Pedophilia is officially classed as a mental illness. Of course homosexuality used to be too.

However there are clear reasons why homosexuality has become acceptable in society but pedophilia hasn't.

Kind of like needing the alphabet to create words and sentences. Without it, you have nothing. Behaviors are only permitted by the underlying neurology, although the neurology does not guarantee the execution of a certain behavior 'coded' by the neurology. Such is the magic of having the ability to use one's mind.

[Deputy Purple 1,294]

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.

So homosexuality is a mental illness also?

If you read my post you would see that I've given clear examples.

Is sex the only thing that defines your relationships? For me it's a part of my larger relationship with my wife.

FWIW, there is a whole cottage industry that caters to Homosexual Pedophiles (doesn't that just blow your mind!?), Google TWINKS. Similarly there is no shortage of "Barely Legal" Hetro porn. Who do you think is paying for that stuff hand over fist?

Why has shaved pubic region on women come into style? Because lack of pubic hair is a trait of younger females should that be considered perverse?

If large breasts are natures way of advertising I'm a good potential mate because I can feed our offspring then why does small breasted porn exist?

If sexual preferences can be defined as a mental illness how long until I'm committed because I prefer Short Asian Women (who shave their pubes) or will I just get labeled as a Pedophile and be required to register with the local mental health board?

The only reason we care is because we need to protect our children and honestly classifying someone by their sexual preference won't do that. Like I said, the vast majority of Child Sex Offenders are primarily adult attracted. The kids are victims because of the things that make them easier targets than an adult, sad but true.

If you want to protect your kids you need to learn what to look for. The Stranger Pedophile Serial Child Rapist who lives down the street is a myth. Over 90% of Sex Offender arrests are first time offenders and over 90% know their victims personally and are in fact either related or considered close family friend/trusted person such as babysitter. Most are people in a never ending cycle of despair who feel out of control and are grasping for something they can control. Many of them were victimized as a child. either sexually, physically or mentally.

[Zero Sum 305]

So homosexuality is a mental illness also?

If you read my post you would see that I've given clear examples.

Is sex the only thing that defines your relationships? For me it's a part of my larger relationship with my wife.

FWIW, there is a whole cottage industry that caters to Homosexual Pedophiles (doesn't that just blow your mind!?), Google TWINKS. Similarly there is no shortage of "Barely Legal" Hetro porn. Who do you think is paying for that stuff hand over fist?

Why has shaved pubic region on women come into style? Because lack of pubic hair is a trait of younger females should that be considered perverse?

If large breasts are natures way of advertising I'm a good potential mate because I can feed our offspring then why does small breasted porn exist?

If sexual preferences can be defined as a mental illness how long until I'm committed because I prefer Short Asian Women (who shave their pubes) or will I just get labeled as a Pedophile and be required to register with the local mental health board?

The only reason we care is because we need to protect our children and honestly classifying someone by their sexual preference won't do that. Like I said, the vast majority of Child Sex Offenders are primarily adult attracted. The kids are victims because of the things that make them easier targets than an adult, sad but true.

If you want to protect your kids you need to learn what to look for. The Stranger Pedophile Serial Child Rapist who lives down the street is a myth. Over 90% of Sex Offender arrests are first time offenders and over 90% know their victims personally and are in fact either related or considered close family friend/trusted person such as babysitter. Most are people in a never ending cycle of despair who feel out of control and are grasping for something they can control. Many of them were victimized as a child. either sexually, physically or mentally.

In the 'why' questions above there seem to be a lot of assumptions... you were clarifying and separating behavioral patterns earlier... don't backtrack now.

As for homosexuality, I think we've covered that enough, and the fishdude doesn't appear to be defining an opinion that it is a pathology.

The biology of known pedophilia, from a neurological point of view, appears to indicate its something quite different from homosexuality in brain function.

[Deputy Purple 1,294]

I do want to say that I'm impressed with how few "Kill all of the Perverts" posts we have seen in this thread.

Regardless of agreement with my views, I appreciate healthy discussion of difficult topics like this one.

[Zero Sum 305]

I do want to say that I'm impressed with how few "Kill all of the Perverts" posts we have seen in this thread.

Regardless of agreement with my views, I appreciate healthy discussion of difficult topics like this one.

If you haven't done anything wrong, there's no reason to kill you.

Victimize an innocent child... and well... I'd feel sorry for you in the consequences you'd likely face.

[Deputy Purple 1,294]

In the 'why' questions above there seem to be a lot of assumptions... you were clarifying and separating behavioral patterns earlier... don't backtrack now.

I'm not looking to backtrack, simply trying to illustrate how difficult it really is to draw hard & fast lines on these things. If you'll notice my "assumptions" were questions.

As for homosexuality, I think we've covered that enough, and the fishdude doesn't appear to be defining an opinion that it is a pathology.

This is addressed in my next comment.

The biology of known pedophilia, from a neurological point of view, appears to indicate its something quite different from homosexuality in brain function.

How can we be certain of that if the only (or the vast majority of) subjects are other wise inflicted. If you follow my assertions that an otherwise mentally healthy Pedophile wouldn't commit a sexual offense then wouldn't you agree that we need to be able to study a healthy group of subjects and compare those results/findings with the abhorrent group before such finding can be made? I remember a time when the debate about homosexuality was similar, "The biology of known homosexuality, from a neurological point of view, appears to indicate its something quite different from normal {heterosexual} in brain function."

[Obama 2012 1,714]

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.

The studies are flawed. The lack of activity in the hypothalamus in those studies specifically states a lack of activity when showing 'adult' subjects in a certain manner. We're not talking about the activity of when they are shown images of children in the same manner. That's the problem. If we base a conclusion off of those studies and those alone, then yeah, you might have an argument. However, I cannot accept a half-arsed study as any type of proof that there's an inherent difference. It's the same dishonesty of the 1991 study on homosexuality in which the test groups details were flawed and assumptions were made on limited data.

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.

However there have been recent studies that show an neurochemical imbalance in homosexual test subjects. So pathology can derive from differences in neurochemical characteristics. Again, I think lumping everyone into a group based on one difference is still absurd. It's a big mistake actually.

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.

The underlying factors being pathological is no where near conclusive at this point. Again, the problem here is calling it pathological in the first place without a complete understanding of the individuals whose molecular and neurological builds are otherwise normal. You'd have to have a test group of 'abused' individuals and 'non-abused' individuals and then draw conclusions of the results. We're no where near a complete understanding though on a biological level as we'd like to be. Probably won't be for some time.

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

So homosexuality is a mental illness also?

If you read my post you would see that I've given clear examples.

Is sex the only thing that defines your relationships? For me it's a part of my larger relationship with my wife.

FWIW, there is a whole cottage industry that caters to Homosexual Pedophiles (doesn't that just blow your mind!?), Google TWINKS. Similarly there is no shortage of "Barely Legal" Hetro porn. Who do you think is paying for that stuff hand over fist?

Why has shaved pubic region on women come into style? Because lack of pubic hair is a trait of younger females should that be considered perverse?

If large breasts are natures way of advertising I'm a good potential mate because I can feed our offspring then why does small breasted porn exist?

If sexual preferences can be defined as a mental illness how long until I'm committed because I prefer Short Asian Women (who shave their pubes) or will I just get labeled as a Pedophile and be required to register with the local mental health board?

The only reason we care is because we need to protect our children and honestly classifying someone by their sexual preference won't do that. Like I said, the vast majority of Child Sex Offenders are primarily adult attracted. The kids are victims because of the things that make them easier targets than an adult, sad but true.

If you want to protect your kids you need to learn what to look for. The Stranger Pedophile Serial Child Rapist who lives down the street is a myth. Over 90% of Sex Offender arrests are first time offenders and over 90% know their victims personally and are in fact either related or considered close family friend/trusted person such as babysitter. Most are people in a never ending cycle of despair who feel out of control and are grasping for something they can control. Many of them were victimized as a child. either sexually, physically or mentally.

Well Bob, if you'd read my post you wouldn't have asked that question. The statement was that pedophilia IS officially classified as a mental illness (e.g. by the ICD-10 and DSM) and that homosexuality USED TO BE classified as one too. To a layman (all of us here are, unless there are any neuroscientists or psychiatrists posting here) the logic is that that if one sexual preference (homosexuality) is not a mental illness, then another (pedophilia) can't be either. That may seem fine as far as it goes, but people do draw distinctions between homosexuality and things like like pedophilia (which is so far removed from anything that most people understand) and people who are sexually attracted to corpses, bin bags or animals etc. That has nothing to do with whether these things are or aren't classed as mental illnesses, since these determinations are made by research and by qualified people - however it does beg the question why homosexuality is no longer considered to be mental illness but pedophilia is. Is that the result of research or a shift in social attitudes towards it?

Sex isn't what defines a relationship, but a pedophile can't indulge any relationship of that kind with any child whatsoever - it is strictly prohibited by criminal law, a 40 year old can't date a 5 year old, nor can they have penetrative (or any other type of sex) with a child, nor can they look at pictures of naked kids on the internet, nor jerk off at home looking at the neighbours kids. It's all illegal. There is no middle ground on this at all.

Edited August 24, 2011 by fishdude

[Zero Sum 305]

The studies are flawed. The lack of activity in the hypothalamus in those studies specifically states a lack of activity when showing 'adult' subjects in a certain manner. We're not talking about the activity of when they are shown images of children in the same manner. That's the problem. If we base a conclusion off of those studies and those alone, then yeah, you might have an argument. However, I cannot accept a half-arsed study as any type of proof that there's an inherent difference. It's the same dishonesty of the 1991 study on homosexuality in which the test groups details were flawed and assumptions were made on limited data.

Now you'd probably have to share those studies. Links would be best.

Just for clarity, if the study and discussion and conclusions were about pedophiles, with those methodologies you describe above, then yes, the study would have a fundamental flaw. Is this the case? I doubt it. You may be obfuscating your own judgement here.

However there have been recent studies that show an neurochemical imbalance in homosexual test subjects. So pathology can derive from differences in neurochemical characteristics. Again, I think lumping everyone into a group based on one difference is still absurd. It's a big mistake actually.

Yes, Paul. Neurotransmitters, synthesis, reuptake upregulation/inhibition, excess antagonism/agonism, etc. You are treading into areas where you are clearly at odds with the studies themselves, unless you can point to the actual methodologies, results, discussions.

The underlying factors being pathological is no where near conclusive at this point. Again, the problem here is calling it pathological in the first place without a complete understanding of the individuals whose molecular and neurological builds are otherwise normal. You'd have to have a test group of 'abused' individuals and 'non-abused' individuals and then draw conclusions of the results. We're no where near a complete understanding though on a biological level as we'd like to be. Probably won't be for some time.

I agree. I have an opinion that the behavioral patterns may have a biological causal factor. I have nowhere stated my opinion was fact.

See why its better to use opinions instead of broad statements of fact that are in reality, just opinions?

[Sofiyya 1,687]

I don't have the stomach to read this whole thread, but I want to know, so, what if the definition of pedophilia is redefined? What changes? No one in their right mind wants those folks around their children, nor is child porn acceptable.

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

I don't have the stomach to read this whole thread, but I want to know, so, what if the definition of pedophilia is redefined? What changes? No one in their right mind wants those folks around their children, nor is child porn acceptable.

Nothing, changing the names of things does not change underlying attitudes. Nor does it guarantee that those terms will enter popular lexicon - they will of course end-up on E&Q statements.

It's like how students now must be referred to as "learners". Why? What is the difference?