# Article on Pedophelia



## orni (Sep 19, 2012)

https://medium.com/matter/youre-16-...o-hurt-anyone-what-do-you-do-now-e11ce4b88bdb

Any thoughts about this?
Should pedophelia be recognised as a valid sexual orientation? (assuming the definition does not include acting on it & abusing children)
Do they deserve a support system?


----------



## Ubuntu (Jun 17, 2011)

I think it should be considered a legitimate sexual orientation, discrimination against non-active pedophiles should be discouraged and simulated child pornography should be legalized. 

I also think child molesters in prison should be protected and no one should have to be a registered sex offender once their sentence is finished (I'm not as strong about that but I'm assuming people who commit other crimes, very serious crimes, aren't registered criminals for the rest of their lives once they've completed their sentences).


----------



## Antiloop (Feb 10, 2014)

I agree with Ubuntu that discrimination against non-active pedophiles should be discouraged. It's equal to discrimination against homosexuals, and I think most would agree that it's wrong. Though there's a big dilemma in the fact that it's about children, consent, and liberation of one's sexual desires. I suppose simulated CP is a partial solution, but I doubt it works for all people. I absolutely think they deserve a help line just as any one else. I cannot see why.

There is an interessting american PSA from the 50's (search "50s psa homosexual" on YouTube), where homosexuals are warned of, and portrayed as pedophiles. What will it be like in another 60 years?


----------



## conscius (Apr 20, 2010)

Ubuntu said:


> I think it should be considered a legitimate sexual orientation, discrimination against non-active pedophiles should be discouraged and * simulated child pornography * should be legalized.
> 
> I also think child molesters in prison should be protected and no one should have to be a registered sex offender once their sentence is finished (I'm not as strong about that but I'm assuming people who commit other crimes, very serious crimes, aren't registered criminals for the rest of their lives once they've completed their sentences).


I don't want to know yet I'm curious, what is that mean? The thought is bothersome to me, almost too close to the real thing or as encouragement of it.


----------



## NotGettingAny (Aug 11, 2014)

No it should not be considered a valid sexual orientation, because sexual orientation is concerned with gender rather than age. It is dangerous to lump homosexuality and paedophilia in the same category. Homosexuals have loving relationships. A grown paedophile and a child cannot. A paedophilic fantasy is ultimately a fantasy of rape. The paedophile must be aware that in no possible realm can a child be emotionally mature enough to make a rational decision to have sex with them and any attempt to do so would be inflicting abuse. If this does not deter the paedophile and they continue to fantasize about having sex with a child then ultimately they are engaging in a rape fantasy.Now I can't make a definite claim that when a paedophile is fantasizing about having sex with a child they are fantasizing about raping them. They may in their very ill mind be thinking the child wants it, which concerns me even more.

I am completely against simulated child pornography. I find the idea of making a video where a simulated 5 year old girl is acting slutty giving blow jobs to a dirty old man as if she is somehow enjoying it extremely disturbing and not the kind of help a paedophile needs.


----------



## reptilian (Aug 5, 2014)

It seems natural to me, not normal. A child also fantasises about having sex with adults, he is told not to. So he may seek sexual arousal in his young peers, if not successful it may haunt him.
What I dont believe that they are only attracted to the young bodys, they seem to rationalize what they feel.

I think it must have something to do with growing up and the tabu is an undercover reinforcement. When they start to feel the urge they say to themselves NO! And society says NO! So the need grows unconsciously bursting out when in a bad state making people perverts to the extreme of raping an inocent child.


----------



## Ubuntu (Jun 17, 2011)

NotGettingAny said:


> No it should not be considered a valid sexual orientation, because sexual orientation is concerned with gender rather than age.


That's true if you define sexual orientation in a way that refers to gender and not other things like age but the point is that pedophiles are sexually and romantically attracted to prepubescent children and they are hardwired for this, it's beyond their control. Even if it weren't beyond their control, there would be nothing pathological about the attraction itself. 



> It is dangerous to lump homosexuality and paedophilia in the same category. Homosexuals have loving relationships. A grown paedophile and a child cannot.


I think it can be dangerous to lump actual man-man or woman-woman sex in the same category with actual child-adult sex but attraction is something else. Whether or not the attraction itself is appropriate has nothing to do with whether or not children can meaningfully consent to sex or the pragmatic issues regarding child-adult sex in real life.




> A paedophilic fantasy is ultimately a fantasy of rape.


No, rape is forced sex or sex against someone's will. The child in a pedophile's fantasy can enjoy the act and fully consent to it. Whether or not they can consent to it in real life is irrelevant to what pedophile's fantasize about.



> The paedophile must be aware that in no possible realm can a child be emotionally mature enough to make a rational decision to have sex with them and any attempt to do so would be inflicting abuse.


I disagree. I think children can consent to sex. In practice, it should still be discouraged because adults can (even unintentionally) use being in a position of authority to coerce children into unwanted sexual contact and children can be negatively affected by it in the long run even the act was not coerced and they did meaningfully consent to it. Children are literally capable of making informed decisions about sex even if they aren't as capable of making relatively _rational_ or _wise_ choices about sex. I'm not in the mood to expand on what meaningful consent involves and why I think children are capable of it but the ultimate justification for allowing or discouraging child-adult sex is their well-being, and not their capacity to consent (children don't consent to being brought into the world and they don't consent to many other things adults do to them - for their benefit). I wouldn't see anything wrong with a pedophile initiating sexual contact with a child- who, for the sake of my argument, can not meaningfully consent to sex-if they could somehow know that they would not be directly or indirectly harmed by the act and I would see something wrong with having sex with someone whom you had every reason to believe would be negatively affected by the act despite their fully consenting to it.




> They may in their very ill mind be thinking the child wants it, which concerns me even more.


I remember thinking about sex when I was 7 or 8 years old but attraction doesn't depend on thinking that the other person wants it.



> I am completely against simulated child pornography.


Simulated child pornography would give pedophiles an outlet to express their sexuality and probably minimize the temptation to act on their feelings in real life. There's some evidence of violent pornography helping to curb rape.



> I find the idea of making a video where a simulated 5 year old girl is acting slutty giving blow jobs to a dirty old man as if she is somehow enjoying it extremely disturbing


How you feel about it isn't an altruistic or child-centric reason to oppose it. No children are harmed in the production of simulated child pornography. If simulated child pornography does indirectly harm children then that should be the justification for opposing it.



> and not the kind of help a paedophile needs.


Assuming that pedophilia is not the result of some medical condition that directly or indirectly impairs their felt quality of life, pedophiles only need help because of cultural and societal attitudes toward their sexual orientation. Even in a more pedo-tolerant society where they were allowed some outlet to express their sexuality, they would still be disadvantaged by being probably the only sexual orientation restricted from fully acting on their urges for moral, or at least legal, reasons but, again, that's not a problem inherent to their attraction itself.


----------



## Psychophant (Nov 29, 2013)

I think it should be considered a mental illness and we should try to treat it (but of course they should have support). Unfortunately, although they're put in a bind, I don't think that behavior can be condoned by society, as it's just too damaging.


----------



## krentz (Feb 28, 2010)

That article basically confirms what I've intuitively suspected for a long time. It made for a very emotionally challenging read. 

Is it wrong or strange that on some level my heart was almost breaking for these people? Perhaps it's because, on some level, I understand what it's like to feel as though someone is living in a prison from which they can't escape and for which there is no support. The attractions themselves are distinct from the desire to act on them, and fantasies are often very different from reality. Not all paedophiles are abusers. I'm aware of that. I also think that not all abusers are paedophiles; many are simply intoxicated by the feeling of power and control, and not attracted to children either preferentially or at all. And while it may be true that some people are mentally dysfunctional after suffering abuse, I also think that in some people it can be an inherited genetic trait, or emerge as a result of traumatic brain injury (TBI), among numerous other factors. I don't have much hard data to substantiate these claims, but I have an underlying sense of it based on studies I've read and people I've spoken with.

To put it succinctly, I'm not sure I would consider paedophilia as a 'valid sexual orientation' in itself being that as far as I am aware, preference in attraction between the sexes does exist, although it seems to be more common for attractions to overlap. However I also don't think it can be considered a mental illness any more than any other paraphilia. If paraphiliacs are considered mentally ill, then sure. That's not my definition, though.

I think they _deserve_ support as much as any other marginalised folk, but they are not liable to receive it and especially not from society at large. Let's be honest: homophobia still exists. Racism still exists. As long as we cannot move past these comparatively petty and ridiculous forms of bigotry, how in the flying fuck are we supposed to be attentive to the subtleties of such an emotionally contentious subject as paedophilia? (Especially when police investigations currently seem to be discovering a lot of high-profile abusers...)

I would dispute Ubuntu's claim that children can make informed decisions about sexual matters or, more accurately, I would dispute the notion that this is a relevant factor in the long term. If only because I have read of studies that claim people with childhood sexual experience, even if it was considered to be consensual at the time, are still more likely to develop mental health issues such as depression, etc. And I say this as a person who normally always acts as an advocate for the agency and individuality of children and young people.

Whether this is as a result of social conditioning and shame, complex feelings of attachment to the adult, or psychological disturbance as a result of having experienced too much too young, I cannot say. The fact remains however that there is still a large risk and because children are so sensitive and the risk is so inherently dangerous, that it must be discounted as a viable possibility. I do believe that there may be a minority of children who are able to grow up healthily after such an experience but also that they are a definite minority.

I also don't think that legalising it any form - even simulated - is a good idea, either - not that it would ever happen. I can't even begin to articulate how emotionally confusing that would be for a child growing up if they were exposed to it, nor do I believe I have to explain why the gut level, emotional responses many people have when confronted by such prospects ensures it would never happen.

I think it is an unfortunate aspect of humanity that will probably never go away, but... I also don't see any way it can be satisfactorily addressed. Perhaps I'm a little fatalistic, but I'm just trying to be rational too.


----------



## tanstaafl28 (Sep 10, 2012)

orni said:


> https://medium.com/matter/youre-16-...o-hurt-anyone-what-do-you-do-now-e11ce4b88bdb
> 
> Any thoughts about this?
> Should pedophelia be recognised as a valid sexual orientation? (assuming the definition does not include acting on it & abusing children)
> Do they deserve a support system?


The social stigma against this taboo is extremely strong in Western society. It's going to take a long time to get people to see it as a legitimate sexual orientation because children cannot give consent.


----------



## spylass (Jan 25, 2014)

I think they deserve support, and shouldn't be ostracized if they are non-active. It's a very sad thing, to be attracted to someone that you cannot engage with ever. Even more sad- many people who develop sexual attraction to children, were sexually abused as children, themselves. 

But there is a problem with calling it it a "valid" sexual orientation. Legally, they are not allowed to act on their orientation, so how could it be "valid"? I guess it is more of a paraphilia, and I hope that people with pedophilic desires find other ways to be satisfied without dong anything sexual with a child. If there was less stigma around the word "pedophile" people would probably more open to support groups, and finding other ways to deal instead of acting on their desires. Just the way the therapist in the article became cold, and shouted at him after he admitted that he's addicts to child porn, angers me. He was trying to get help for his problem, but the therapist only added to the problem. 

I'm glad that he chose to start a support group, that's the healthiest thing to do. Hopefully someday society will catch up an offer more support to pedophiles instead of hatred.


----------



## Laguna (Mar 21, 2012)

Oh please. Dear God. Are any of you parents? It's a demented sickness that has to be taken very seriously and suffer consequences. The victims of this sickness are not in a position to be consentual and suffer all their lives / lives are destroyed.


----------



## Grandmaster Yoda (Jan 18, 2014)

Hypothetically I am able to imagine a child consenting to have sex with an adult. That's taboo and against the law so it is unlikely to be accepted any time soon. Given the some of this demographic is prepubescent it wouldn't seem to make sense. But based on that reasoning you can also say homosexuality makes no sense because one person doesn't have the hole to the slot into. The argument "it's about love" worked fine there. So if the adult and the child/teen agrees to it then go ahead. It's not implausible to say a teen would want to have sex with an older adult. Before that it sounds less sensible both because the children have not developed their sexuality nor is it likely that they would have matured personalities to engage in a relationship such as that.


----------



## Psychophant (Nov 29, 2013)

Laguna said:


> Oh please. Dear God. Are any of you parents? It's a demented sickness that has to be taken very seriously and suffer consequences. The victims of this sickness are not in a position to be consentual and suffer all their lives / lives are destroyed.


Did you read the article..? No one is condoning the act of having sex with children, but recognizing that it's desire you are born with and powerless to remove. The point is that demonizing these people for being who they are is silly, assuming they have not acted on their impulses. If you care about your children and others, you should try to make it easier for these people to receive help without a massive stigma attached so that they won't ever rape anyone.


----------



## Michael82 (Dec 13, 2010)

I think the best what you can do is stop bullying, because that is what I hear most when talking about people who weren't born with paedophilia but acqured it: that they were bullied as a child. I think it's a form of mental abuse and that it is time to be more involved with families so actions can be taken when something goes wrong.


----------



## RobynC (Jun 10, 2011)

1. I care what people do, not what they think: There should be no thought crimes

2. A person who molests children should not be tolerated in society


----------



## NotGettingAny (Aug 11, 2014)

Sex and children should not exist together at all, in this world or a simulated one. Feeding a paedophile simulated child pornography when he is trying to steer away from his desire is not productive, it is fuelling that desire from my point of view. If you honestly think that simulated child pornography is going to curb child sexual abuse then you may be missing part of the picture. Paedophiles already have access to the real thing, yet they still consider themselves at risk of offending. 

Back to those saying that paedophilia should be a valid sexual orientation, comparing it to homosexuality. It should not. Real love for somebody does not cease to exist once their childlike body has developed into that of an adult's. That is not real love. I am not claiming that love is part of the definition of sexual orientation but it certainly sets paedophilia apart from homosexuality and heterosexuality. 

It is the paedophile's responsibility not to act upon his desire, just as we all have a responsibility not to act upon our anger and kill each other. You don't get to say "Help me otherwise I may rape your kids, and you shall be partially to blame for not helping me"

However I am for the ethical treatment of non-offending paedophiles who have had the courage to seek help and truly want help, and my empathy may even slightly stretch to those who have offended and sincerely regret what they have done and are also seeking help..


----------



## Riptide (Feb 13, 2014)

One's thought about paedophilia depends on one' upbringing and culture. The act of paedophilia is quite a common practice in remote villages in India, China, Africa, there aren't much social stigma toward paedophiles, but I think this happens because people there are generally uneducated and much less civilised. I personally think the act of paedophilia should be prohibited under all circumstances. 

While it comes to the sexual attraction per se, I do not think it should be recognised as a valid sexual orientation. I see it as another disorder (in neurological and psychological sense, i.e. natural) that worth scientific analysis; is it genetic, is it abnormality during pregnancy, How does the brain react to the photos of a child, how does the reaction different from others etc. In other words, no negative or positive attitude attached to it, it is neutral.

I don't think an extra support system is needed just for paedophiles. As I said, to me it is one of the many disorders, paedophiles should go to psychologists or therapies or psychiatrists when they think their affection or fantasies are affecting their daily life, i.e have a uncontrollable urge to carry out the impulse on a child.


----------



## tanstaafl28 (Sep 10, 2012)

Truth be told, we've all had thoughts and urges to do things we would rather the rest of the world never know. Most of us have the wherewithall and self-control to contain them. Anyone who says otherwise is either lying to themselves, lying to others, or both. 

I was molested by an older boy when I was four. Truthfully, I have no recollection of the act itself. Apparently, I blocked it out, or disregarded it as not worthy of being remembered. What I do remember is that I was neither ashamed or afraid to tell my mother (who was all of 23 at the time) that it had happened. I told her when she was putting me down for a nap. It turned out this boy was molesting other children in the house, 2 boys and 1 girl, and because I spoke up, I put a stop to it once and for all. I carry no hatred for this person. There was obviously something very small, very fragile, and very broken, within him. 

Even though a pedophile is the worst sort of bully: the kind who not only preys on the fears and weaknesses of defenseless children, but desires to exploit them for sexual gratification, I can still find some pity for such people. If we can convince them to step forward _before they act _on their urges and get help, I think that's far better than afterwards. If someone were to come to me and ask me for help because they have a sexual attraction to children and they desperately do NOT want to act upon it, I'd be damned if I wouldn't try do whatever I can to see that they get the help they need.


----------



## GurrenZero (Aug 6, 2011)

If the individial isn't practicing or indulging in child pornography then whether or not it's considered valid or not is largely inconsequential. 

If we're talking about "non-practicing pedophiles", we're talking about the majority of men. If men didn't have the legal barrier and had opportunity do so, very few pass up the opportunity to sleep with and underage girl; considering she's physically capable of "doing it" without risk of injury.


----------



## Psychophant (Nov 29, 2013)

Chained Divinity said:


> Before I reply, I'm going to point out that Gurren Zero defined "prepubescent" in a way that at least implied anything under 16 was meant. In thinking about it that could've been an incorrect interpretation, so I'm going to ask you what _you_ mean.
> 
> I _will_ say though, that having been a child of 12, 13, 14, nothing about my understanding of relationships has changed save maybe some of the finer points of what _I_ am entitled to. Plus maybe some clarification on what BDSM meant. So...


I was defining it as someone under.. say 13 or 14, since that's around when puberty hits. And, I think you're a rare case, since I know I could have probably been manipulated by an older women into doing something stupid when I was.. say 12 or 13. Sure, maybe in some cases the person is very mature, understands consent, and could be in a healthy relationship, but I'd say that's very uncommon, and allowing these relationships could be very damaging to a lot of kids. Honestly, I'm not in a great place to speculate on it, but talk to some parents and see what they think...


----------



## Loaf (Mar 27, 2014)

Yomiel said:


> @La Li Lu Le Lo Because it's not... later in its life its brain developes those urges, however what it finds attractive is still dependent the DNA it was born with.
> 
> and @Loaf it's not an opinion, it's your uninformed speculation on a scientific process. Also, given your 'opinion' you then acknowledge that the pedophile still doesn't have a choice in how his or her brain develops, no? So I still find it bizarre that you would demonize someone purely for his or her thoughts if you don't think the person is responsible for having them


I'm demonizing them for their actions not thoughts. In my post I was refering to those that act on the thoughts.


----------



## Psychophant (Nov 29, 2013)

Loaf said:


> Theorys are just theorys, what's to say these theorys are correct, for all you know they could wrong.


Theories are credible assertions about reality (which require evidence). They're labeled as such because scientists realize that our knowledge is constantly evolving and that nothing is known for sure. Gravity is a theory. When used colloquially, it's often meant as hypothesis, or speculation. And yeah, they could be wrong, but so could someone who can't spell "theories." If you'd like to show some reasoning or evidence behind your assertions, perhaps I'll consider them, but you've presented nothing. And sure, if they've acted on the urges then the discussion shifts, but that wasn't what the article was about.


----------



## La Li Lu Le Lo (Aug 15, 2011)

Yomiel said:


> @_La Li Lu Le Lo_ Because it's not... later in its life its brain developes those urges, however what it finds attractive is still dependent the DNA it was born with.


Where's the science that supports this? You do realize perversions are called perversions for a reason, right? It's because they are a distortion of the natural order of things. There's no "pedophile gene" and I'd like to know just how a pedophile gene even develops.


----------



## Loaf (Mar 27, 2014)

Yomiel said:


> Theories are credible assertions about reality (which require evidence). They're labeled as such because scientists realize that our knowledge is constantly evolving and that nothing is known for sure. Gravity is a theory. When used colloquially, it's often meant as hypothesis, or speculation. And yeah, they could be wrong, but so could someone who can't spell "theories." If you'd like to show some reasoning or evidence behind your assertions, perhaps I'll consider them, but you've presented nothing. And sure, if they've acted on the urges then the discussion shifts, but that wasn't what the article was about.


In all honesty I didn't read the article, because I couldn't be arsed. I just gave my views on paedophiles. If you dont like it tough shit. So what if I spelt theories wrong.


----------



## Psychophant (Nov 29, 2013)

La Li Lu Le Lo said:


> Where's the science that supports this? You do realize perversions are called perversions for a reason, right? It's because they are a distortion of the natural order of things. There's no "pedophile gene" and I'd like to know just how a pedophile gene even develops.


Pedophiles: born that way? - Gene Expression | DiscoverMagazine.com

There's plenty of evidence to suggest this. This in particular attributes it partially to "poor wiring" in white matter, which mixes up parental feelings with sexual ones... but think about yourself for a minute. Are you attracted to small children? Guessing not, and I'm guessing you couldn't be if you wanted to. Given that your own sexual preferences are so clearly hardwired, why would you believe that a pedophile's are not? And why on earth would anyone want to be a pedophile?
@Loaf Ah, so you felt like giving a poorly worded and irrational response to something you didn't read. Good job.


----------



## Loaf (Mar 27, 2014)

Its a free world, can do what I like.


----------



## Psychophant (Nov 29, 2013)

Loaf said:


> Its a free world, can do what I like.


Made me chuckle. You're free to be as much of a dumbass as you like, and I'm free to be critical of it.


----------



## Loaf (Mar 27, 2014)

Yomiel said:


> Made me chuckle. You're free to be as much of a dumbass as you like, and I'm free to be critical of it.


Exactly, feel free to be as critical as you like, means nothing.


----------



## La Li Lu Le Lo (Aug 15, 2011)

Yomiel said:


> Pedophiles: born that way? - Gene Expression | DiscoverMagazine.com
> 
> There's plenty of evidence to suggest this. This in particular attributes it partially to "poor wiring" in white matter, which mixes up parental feelings with sexual ones... but think about yourself for a minute. Are you attracted to small children? Guessing not, and I'm guessing you couldn't be if you wanted to. Given that your own sexual preferences are so clearly hardwired, why would you believe that a pedophile's are not? And why on earth would anyone want to be a pedophile?


First, let's just grant that the article is actually right and not wrong. That's not caused by genes, it's caused by poor brain development. So no, you're not "born that way" as if it is a part of your essence. Again, this is only granting that the science is right. It's likely not. Pedophiles aren't exclusively attracted to children and they're not incapable of parenting.

Nobody "wants" to be a pedophile. Nobody wants to be an alcoholic. Nobody wants to be a glutton. But they all have an addiction to something. And I know what the pedophile is addicted to. Porn.

So far none of these articles have ever mentioned the effect that porn has on the brain. I am willing to bet that ALL pedophiles are addicted to pornography. I am sure that some were exposed to it at a young age. Some may have been molested at a young age as well. Whatever happened, they were exposed to sex at an age when they shouldn't have (not that anybody should ever be exposed to porn at any age.)

Sexual preferences are not so "hardwired" as you think, thanks to porn. Porn is absolutely saturated with fetishes that no normal person would ever think of doing and getting pleasure out of it. When people become addicted to pornography, things they once found disgusting slowly start to become more and more normal. There is an entire genre of cartoon porn that depicts children in sexual acts and it is not hidden or hard to access. It's available with a quick Google search. And it's popular.

Pornography is probably the biggest influence of sexual perversion. The answer to why there is such widespread perversion in modern times is right under our noses.


----------



## Psychophant (Nov 29, 2013)

La Li Lu Le Lo said:


> First, let's just grant that the article is actually right and not wrong. That's not caused by genes, it's caused by poor brain development. So no, you're not "born that way" as if it is a part of your essence. Again, this is only granting that the science is right. It's likely not. Pedophiles aren't exclusively attracted to children and they're not incapable of parenting.
> 
> Nobody "wants" to be a pedophile. Nobody wants to be an alcoholic. Nobody wants to be a glutton. But they all have an addiction to something. And I know what the pedophile is addicted to. Porn.
> 
> ...


Yeah, no. You've got the cause and the effect way backwards. Pretty much anything you can find in porn has existed long before porn was actually around. S&M, pedophilia, you name it. They've existed much longer than the internet or magazines have. 

And what do you think poor brain development is caused by..? You have this silly notion that if it happens after birth than you can somehow attribute it to something someone did or that somehow we can control or fix it and that's not true. Retarded people are born with genetic defects and their brain doesn't develop fully. It's not the fault of the parents (or porn lol) it's a natural process not working correctly.


----------



## La Li Lu Le Lo (Aug 15, 2011)

Yomiel said:


> Yeah, no. You've got the cause and the effect way backwards. Pretty much anything you can find in porn has existed long before porn was actually around. S&M, pedophilia, you name it. They've existed much longer than the internet or magazines have.
> 
> And what do you think poor brain development is caused by..? You have this silly notion that if it happens after birth than you can somehow attribute it to something someone did or that somehow we can control or fix it and that's not true. Retarded people are born with genetic defects and their brain doesn't develop fully. It's not the fault of the parents (or porn lol) it's a natural process not working correctly.


Porn has been around a lot longer than the internet or magazines. Porn has existed since people could "write" about "prostitutes." That's what "pornography" means.

The first step any pedophile needs to take to live normally is kick their pornography addiction. I never saw that mentioned in the articles. Even then, the temptations to relapse will very often never go away. Everyone is tempted by concupiscence. But whether we entertain our temptations or not is another story entirely. A pedophile can live normally if they do not entertain their temptations and live a porn-free life. Attempting to say that they're born that way and can't help it is exactly how the problem will not only not be fixed but will be exacerbated.


----------



## stiletto (Oct 26, 2013)

krentz said:


> That article basically confirms what I've intuitively suspected for a long time. It made for a very emotionally challenging read.
> 
> Is it wrong or strange that on some level my heart was almost breaking for these people? Perhaps it's because, on some level, I understand what it's like to feel as though someone is living in a prison from which they can't escape and for which there is no support. *The attractions themselves are distinct from the desire to act on them, and fantasies are often very different from reality.* Not all paedophiles are abusers. I'm aware of that. I also think that not all abusers are paedophiles; many are simply intoxicated by the feeling of power and control, and not attracted to children either preferentially or at all. And while it may be true that some people are mentally dysfunctional after suffering abuse, I also think that in some people it can be an inherited genetic trait, or emerge as a result of traumatic brain injury (TBI), among numerous other factors. I don't have much hard data to substantiate these claims, but I have an underlying sense of it based on studies I've read and people I've spoken with.
> 
> ...


----------



## Psychophant (Nov 29, 2013)

La Li Lu Le Lo said:


> Porn has been around a lot longer than the internet or magazines. Porn has existed since people could "write" about "prostitutes." That's what "pornography" means.
> 
> The first step any pedophile needs to take to live normally is kick their pornography addiction. I never saw that mentioned in the articles. Even then, the temptations to relapse will very often never go away. Everyone is tempted by concupiscence. But whether we entertain our temptations or not is another story entirely. A pedophile can live normally if they do not entertain their temptations and live a porn-free life. Attempting to say that they're born that way and can't help it is exactly how the problem will not only not be fixed but will be exacerbated.


I'm really curious what you consider an evil of pornography now, because I don't watch it lol, but I'm curious how many boxes I'd still tick off (also not a pedophile, luckily).


----------



## AmandaLee (Aug 13, 2014)

La Li Lu Le Lo said:


> Porn has been around a lot longer than the internet or magazines. Porn has existed since people could "write" about "prostitutes." That's what "pornography" means.
> 
> The first step any pedophile needs to take to live normally is kick their pornography addiction. I never saw that mentioned in the articles. Even then, the temptations to relapse will very often never go away. Everyone is tempted by concupiscence. But whether we entertain our temptations or not is another story entirely. A pedophile can live normally if they do not entertain their temptations and live a porn-free life. Attempting to say that they're born that way and can't help it is exactly how the problem will not only not be fixed but will be exacerbated.


First of all, it is mentioned in the article the OP linked to. 

Here's a quote that addresses that particular issue:

"His group has two rules. The first is that you can’t have offended or harbor any intention to do so; those who question the concept are banished if they can’t be convinced otherwise. The second is a commitment to stopping the use of child pornography. Adam told me it’s okay if you come into the group as a user, but you must be devoted to quitting."

Second of all, if viewing porn can stop these pedophiles from offending IRL, which is de facto worse: that they remain addicted to porn or bottle up with no means of satiating their urges, until their need becomes too great and they end up molesting an actual child? Please do not believe that a particular paraphilia will go away because it's ignored. There is absolutely no research to suggest it works that way. Some doctors believe that a sexual inclination can be "redirected" if there is any interest in a more socially acceptable subject (in the case of pedophiles, this would be their peers rather than children), but if it's their primary target... there's not much to be done except try and convince the pedophile that pursuing sexual relations with children is harmful and not in his or the child's best interest.


----------



## ForsakenMe (Aug 30, 2010)

Growing up, I knew of underage children and teenagers who had sex with full grown adults. I knew of one girl who at the age of 15 and 16 was sleeping with one of her father's 40-something friend. She did it with another grown man too, can't remember, but she had severe issues before and afterward. People are against pedophilia because the child doesn't grow into a better person after coming in sexual contact with an adult- in fact, research has shown that victims of pedophilia end up going on drugs, alcohol, violence, raping other people, and having careless sex to escape the pain.

Homosexuals have consensual sex, at least, most of the time they do, and having gay sex doesn't mentally screw you up like it does with sleeping with someone twice your age while you're still practically a baby.


----------



## Ubuntu (Jun 17, 2011)

Riptide said:


> One's thought about paedophilia depends on one' upbringing and culture. The act of paedophilia is quite a common practice in remote villages in India, China, Africa, there aren't much social stigma toward paedophiles, but I think this happens because people there are generally uneducated and much less civilised.


The only cultures I've heard of that tolerate child-adult sex are the Siwa Berbers of Egypt (?) and some Melanesian cultures that have rituals involving it (rites of passage that children undergo to become adults, if I remember correctly). I know that child brides are common in some cultures but I don't think they have sex with their husbands until they're mature. 




> Ephebophillia (16+) is more palatable.





AmandaLee said:


> Once the individual is past puberty, it's technically no longer a question of pedophilia, but ephebophilia. Attraction from an adult male toward a 16-year-old girl, even though she is underage, is a far cry from pedophilia. Whether or not it's morally reprehensible to act on such a desire can be discussed ad infinitum, but it's a different psychological classification altogether.


I think adolescence is largely a social idea so 'ephebophilia' isn't really a meaningful classification to me (off topic - apparently women's fertility peaks at 24 and begins to decline as early as 27). A pedophile is someone who is attracted to prepubescent children, a hebephile is someone who is attracted to pubescent children ; children with some secondary sex characteristics but still in the process of maturing and a teleiophile is someone who is attracted to sexually mature adults and adolescents. The average girl begins puberty (thelarche) during her 10th year (before 8, some researchers say 7, is precocious and normally it happens before 13) and begins menstruation around 2 years after that. (Medically normal) girls finish maturing during their 15th year.


----------



## Noelle (Apr 25, 2012)

I don't doubt that, sadly, they are born that way and hard wired to have these desires, but it does not make it a legitamate sexual orientation. Most serial killers are hard wired to kill people, but that does not make it a 'lifestyle choice.' Anorexics are hard-wired with the ability to starve themselves, and that also is not a lifestyle choice. It is a disordered trait because they are harming themselves or others. Things that cause you to harm yourself or others is a disorder and/or mental illness. Homosexuality, asexuality, heterosexuality etc does not harm anyone. Children cannot consent or understand the ramifications of a sexual encounters with an adult unless they are some sort of prodigy.

But of course they deserve support. Anyone with a disorder deserves support, though simulated child porn is way too far.


----------



## DarthSkywalker (Jul 24, 2011)

Maybe there should be a support group for serial rapists, serial killers, and cannibals too... No. let's purge them from society.


----------



## Mutant Hive Queen (Oct 29, 2013)

ForsakenMe said:


> Growing up, I knew of underage children and teenagers who had sex with full grown adults. I knew of one girl who at the age of 15 and 16 was sleeping with one of her father's 40-something friend. She did it with another grown man too, can't remember, but she had severe issues *before* and afterward. People are against pedophilia because the child doesn't grow into a better person after coming in sexual contact with an adult- in fact, research has shown that victims of pedophilia end up going on drugs, alcohol, violence, raping other people, and having careless sex to escape the pain.



You sure pedophilia _caused_ those issues, given the bold?


----------



## AmandaLee (Aug 13, 2014)

Noelle said:


> I don't doubt that, sadly, they are born that way and hard wired to have these desires, but it does not make it a legitamate sexual orientation. Most serial killers are hard wired to kill people, but that does not make it a 'lifestyle choice.' Anorexics are hard-wired with the ability to starve themselves, and that also is not a lifestyle choice. It is a disordered trait because they are harming themselves or others. Things that cause you to harm yourself or others is a disorder and/or mental illness. Homosexuality, asexuality, heterosexuality etc does not harm anyone. Children cannot consent or understand the ramifications of a sexual encounters with an adult unless they are some sort of prodigy.
> 
> But of course they deserve support. Anyone with a disorder deserves support, though simulated child porn is way too far.


I don't think anyone is hard-wired to commit murder. If anything, people with certain disorders or brain development issues (such as frontal lobe damage) are hard-wired to have problems with impulse control, empathy, and predicting the consequences of their actions. However, taking someone's life is always a conscious choice on the individual's part (unless it's an accident, like vehicular manslaughter). 

Same thing with pedophiles. They don't choose to be attracted to children, but they always choose whether or not to act on those desires. Because we have very little data on non-offending pedophiles, it's a group that understandably hasn't been subjected to much research. For all we know, it _could _be much more common than we believe at present.


----------



## ForsakenMe (Aug 30, 2010)

Chained Divinity said:


> You sure pedophilia _caused_ those issues, given the bold?


She had daddy issues. Her father was abusive, emotionally and physically. Sorry I am sleep deprived. :bored: But she definitely got way worse after having sex with these older men.


----------



## INFJRoanna (Dec 20, 2012)

orni said:


> https://medium.com/matter/youre-16-...o-hurt-anyone-what-do-you-do-now-e11ce4b88bdb
> 
> Any thoughts about this?
> Should pedophelia be recognised as a valid sexual orientation? (assuming the definition does not include acting on it & abusing children)
> Do they deserve a support system?


*No* to all questions. Just no. Speaking from the point of view of a parent, these people should be kept far away from society, especially children. I don't see why they need a support network.

Edit: Actually, I don't even know why I wrote from the point of view of a parent because even when I wasn't a parent I wouldn't have agreed with the questions that were asked. 

I don't mean to offend anyone, I just don't have anything kind to say about pedophiles.


----------



## Psychophant (Nov 29, 2013)

INFJRoanna said:


> *No* to all questions. Just no. Speaking from the point of view of a parent, these people should be kept far away from society, especially children. I don't see why they need a support network.
> 
> Edit: Actually, I don't even know why I wrote from the point of view of a parent because even when I wasn't a parent I wouldn't have agreed with the questions that were asked.
> 
> I don't mean to offend anyone, I just don't have anything kind to say about pedophiles.


That's not cruel at all...


----------



## INFJRoanna (Dec 20, 2012)

Yomiel said:


> That's not cruel at all...


Is that sarcasm? It's difficult to read tone on the internet.


----------



## Psychophant (Nov 29, 2013)

INFJRoanna said:


> Is that sarcasm? It's difficult to read tone on the internet.


Yes.


----------



## INFJRoanna (Dec 20, 2012)

Yomiel said:


> Yes.


I can assure you, i'm certainly not a cruel person. 

Pedophilia is cruel. I'm never going to agree with it or sympathize with pedophiles. I didn't comment on this thread to get into a debate with anyone, I was simply stating my opinion. I have no interest in debating.


----------



## Psychophant (Nov 29, 2013)

INFJRoanna said:


> I can assure you, i'm certainly not a cruel person.
> 
> Pedophilia is cruel. I'm never going to agree with it or sympathize with pedophiles. I didn't comment on this thread to get into a debate with anyone, I was simply stating my opinion. I have no interest in debating.


Having attraction you can't control is cruel? If you'd read the article you'd realize these people haven't acted on their impulses. And if you want to toss an opinion into a public space, get used to getting responses.


----------



## INFJRoanna (Dec 20, 2012)

Yomiel said:


> Having attraction you can't control is cruel? If you'd read the article you'd realize these people haven't acted on their impulses. And if you want to toss an opinion into a public space, get used to getting responses.


I never said I don't want responses, what I said was I don't care for debate. You're right, it is a public space - and like everyone else here I have every right to comment if I'd like. I don't really need validation, and you can't make assumptions about me based on one opinion. Either way, I'm not going to continue replying, you seem to be giving off a negative attitude towards me and I think that's unnecessary


----------



## Psychophant (Nov 29, 2013)

INFJRoanna said:


> I never said I don't want responses, what I said was I don't care for debate. You're right, it is a public space - and like everyone else here I have every right to comment if I'd like. I don't really need validation, and you can't make assumptions about me based on one opinion. Either way, I'm not going to continue replying, you seem to be giving off a negative attitude towards me and I think that's unnecessary


I'm going to read that as "I have no rebuttal." And I'm sick of people acting like their opinions are sacred and can't be harmful to others. I think your attitude towards the issue is misinformed and harmful.


----------



## AmandaLee (Aug 13, 2014)

INFJRoanna said:


> I can assure you, i'm certainly not a cruel person.
> 
> Pedophilia is cruel. I'm never going to agree with it or sympathize with pedophiles. I didn't comment on this thread to get into a debate with anyone, I was simply stating my opinion. I have no interest in debating.


Hmm. My conviction is that the punishment should come _after_ the crime. So according to you, a person who, probably in their teenage years, to his great horror discovers that he has a sexual attraction to children should be removed from society indefinitely with no help or support ever offered, even though he has never done anything to hurt anyone? I'm sure that attitude will convince many non-offending closet pedophiles whose lives are a daily struggle to come forward and seek help... or not. 

If you present an opinion on a public forum, you should be prepared to defend it.


----------



## Caged Within (Aug 9, 2013)

orni said:


> Any thoughts about this?


I can tell that the wording and art were designed to help paint a more human picture of these people, but I honestly didn't feel anything for them. Interesting read though. It reminded me of horror novels, where vampires and werewolves would struggle day-by-day not to dine on the flesh of mortal men. 



orni said:


> Should pedophelia be recognised as a valid sexual orientation? (assuming the definition does not include acting on it & abusing children)


With what little data is available, it seems that pedophilia is at least partly biological. 



orni said:


> Do they deserve a support system?


For what? There is no cure for it. Meh. At least that could lead to help fix the sampling bias that is happening with pedophile research.


----------



## Psychophant (Nov 29, 2013)

Caged Within said:


> I can tell that the wording and art were designed to help paint a more human picture for these people, but I honestly didn't feel anything for them. Interesting read though. It reminded me of horror novels, where vampires and werewolves would struggle day-by-day not to dine on the flesh of mortal men.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Most mental disorders have no cure, but we try to mitigate the effects through therapy and in some cases medication. The support system would be to help people with those urges find ways to avoid acting on them through whatever means necessary. If you demonize them and don't help them better themselves then those people are more likely to give up and act on their impulses.


----------



## Caged Within (Aug 9, 2013)

Yomiel said:


> Most mental disorders have no cure, but we try to mitigate the effects through therapy and in some cases medication. The support system would be to help people with those urges find ways to avoid acting on them through whatever means necessary. If you demonize them and don't help them better themselves then those people are more likely to give up and act on their impulses.


Most people with mental illnesses don't hurt other people, and are in fact more likely to hurt themselves than others. We don't know for sure if that's the case for pedophiles, for the samples are limited to pedophiles that have been caught. I would support them getting a less stern shake, but I honestly mostly feel that way, because I want better research to be done on the subject of pedophilia. If the data reveals that that they're, on average, not like the ones we've currently studied, then I will yield and will say that they should be treated better.


----------



## conscius (Apr 20, 2010)

AmandaLee said:


> Because we have very little data on non-offending pedophiles, it's a group that understandably hasn't been subjected to much research. For all we know, it _could _be much more common than we believe at present.


Why do you keep saying "we"? Are you a pedophilia researcher at a university?


----------



## Mutant Hive Queen (Oct 29, 2013)

ForsakenMe said:


> She had daddy issues. Her father was abusive, emotionally and physically. Sorry I am sleep deprived. :bored: But she definitely got way worse after having sex with these older men.



How so? Couldn't it have been more related to her own thought process than the act itself?


----------



## Caged Within (Aug 9, 2013)

conscius said:


> Why do you say "we"? Are you a pedophilia researcher at a university?


The person is correct. Research on pedophilia suffers from sampling bias.


----------



## conscius (Apr 20, 2010)

Caged Within said:


> The person is correct. Research on pedophilia suffers from sampling bias.


That was not my question.


----------



## Caged Within (Aug 9, 2013)

conscius said:


> That was not my question.


Fair enough.


----------



## Psychophant (Nov 29, 2013)

Caged Within said:


> Most people with mental illnesses don't hurt other people, and are in fact more likely to hurt themselves than others. We don't know for sure if that's the case for pedophiles, for the samples are limited to pedophiles that have been caught. I would support them getting a less stern shake, but I honestly mostly feel that way, because I want better research to be done on the subject of pedophilia. If the data reveals that that they're, on average, not like the ones we've currently studied, then I will yield and will say that they should be treated better.


I guess what I don't understand here is why you'd want to immediately demonize someone for their thoughts. I don't think anyone here is disputing that we need to take acts of pedophilia seriously since actually having sex or some inappropriate relationship with a prepubescent child is a terrible and damaging thing, but helping those who are unfortunate enough to have this attraction avoid acting on it would be a win win for society.
@conscius What do you mean? We, as in the general public, don't have access to much knowledge on the subject. I'm confused as to how the wording used implies some tie with pedophile related academia.


----------



## conscius (Apr 20, 2010)

Yomiel said:


> @conscius What do you mean? We, as in the general public, don't have access to much knowledge on the subject. I'm confused as to how the wording used implies some tie with pedophile related academia.


Why are other people answering this? I'm asking that person in particular, who seems to speak from a kind of expertise in the posts that person made (not just the last one) and I just wanted to know if they are an academic. Usually when someone who is not an academic says something about a topic, they use lot more words like "maybe" or say things like "I read in this magazine or that website, etc", that kind of thing, and don't say "we" as often. 

If a person says multiple times, for instance, "we have been seeing a lot of patients lately" or "we have been running short of medications last little while", I may be curious if they work in a hospital. Normally people would not talk like that. 

Again, I'm not asking other people, I'm asking that person this question. Thank you.


----------



## AmandaLee (Aug 13, 2014)

conscius said:


> Why do you keep saying "we"? Are you a pedophilia researcher at a university?


To answer your question: no, I am not a pedophilia researching academic. I do, however, read plenty of scientific articles (the peer reviewed kind) and I used "we" to refer to both the researchers and the general populace, ie. "the rest of us". Sorry if that was unclear.


----------



## DarthSkywalker (Jul 24, 2011)

La Li Lu Le Lo said:


> Porn has been around a lot longer than the internet or magazines. Porn has existed since people could "write" about "prostitutes." That's what "pornography" means.
> 
> The first step any pedophile needs to take to live normally is kick their pornography addiction. I never saw that mentioned in the articles. Even then, the temptations to relapse will very often never go away. Everyone is tempted by concupiscence. But whether we entertain our temptations or not is another story entirely. A pedophile can live normally if they do not entertain their temptations and live a porn-free life. Attempting to say that they're born that way and can't help it is exactly how the problem will not only not be fixed but will be exacerbated.


Just wondering, would you be okay with your family living next door to a convicted pedophile if he/she claimed to be 'in porn-free therapy' and promised to never do it again?


----------



## GFY (Aug 21, 2014)

It's good that we're talking about this at least. I have two daughters and I have seen a lot of damage done to people from childhood sexual abuse. I'm not sure we can consider it a sexual orientation yet until we've studied it more thoroughly. A lot of the information we have on human sexuality comes from Kinsey who REALLY, REALLY dropped the ball when it comes to paedophilia. He relied on a sexual predator (800 victims) for much of his information on this particular issue. There is no doubt that the way we are dealing with paedophiles now isn't working. We need to support them more, but how we do that and protect our children in the process. It's a very, very complicated issue that a lot of people on here really haven't thought about. The idea that we should somehow allow simulated child sex is abhorrent to me and I would fight any such decision with vigour. I consider myself very, very liberal but this is one area where I seem to be a bit more conservative than some of the other posters. Perhaps others have never seen the damage or don't have children of their own.


----------



## skyrimorchestra (Jul 23, 2014)

Pedophilia is _not_ a sexual orientation. It is a _paraphilia_. And paraphilias can be just as consumptive, they can take over your life, they can make it so you can't be aroused by anything else. But it's not an orientation. It is fractured sexual development. 

Nevertheless, I agree that pedophiles should be treated with compassion. Our justice system is focused on revenge and punishment, and revenge and punishment haven't worked for millions of years. Revenge and punishment is not going to fix this problem. There are always going to be pedophiles. It has to be met with understanding, and learning, and the willingness to accept that these people exist and we need to find ways of helping them that don't involve locking them up and throwing away the key, or murdering them, or driving them to commit suicide through constant messages of loathing. 

That being said, this new trend online of saying how pedophiles aren't harmful or experiencing harm as long as they don't act, I don't think that's very helpful either. _You're totally fine as long as you don't act_- well obviously pedophiles are not totally fine. They hate themselves, they resent themselves and others who don't understand them, they struggle with the urges, and those urges are slippery slope. Looking at child pornography _is acting on an urge_, it's actively participating in the degradation and abuse of minors. 

So no, I don't think pedophilia has a "benign" state, not at all. It is something that a pedophile constantly has to be aware of, and has to treat, and has to work at, to avoid causing harm to another human being. It is _not_ like homosexuality, because homosexuality occurs between two normally, sexually developed adults who comprehend the meanings of their choices. They can _consent_. Children have neither of those things, and they cannot consent.


----------



## ForsakenMe (Aug 30, 2010)

Chained Divinity said:


> How so? Couldn't it have been more related to her own thought process than the act itself?


Sleeping with someone, for the sole purpose of finding a father figure, and finding out that they just want to use you and throw you away, is very traumatizing to a young girl. Then we have children whose parents rape them and they become traumatized because, aside from the fact that rape in itself is horrible in nature, we also have a child who cannot form healthy trust or relationships with people anymore because the people who he trusted the most shattered that.

Children look up to us to protect them. Fucking them is the exact opposite of that.


----------



## Mutant Hive Queen (Oct 29, 2013)

ForsakenMe said:


> Sleeping with someone, for the sole purpose of finding a father figure, and finding out that they just want to use you and throw you away, is very traumatizing to a young girl.


When you have the sort of history that person did, couldn't that be traumatizing even as an adult woman? 

I mean, as a younger individual personally, I did desire sexually numerous adults, and frankly the role I'd have preferred them to fill was closer to "fucktoy" than parental figure. A person I once knew who had sex with an adult when he was younger basically _did_ "use her and throw her away"--though admittedly she was well aware that's what would happen from the get-go. 



> Then we have children whose parents rape them and they become traumatized because, aside from the fact that rape in itself is horrible in nature, we also have a child who cannot form healthy trust or relationships with people anymore because the people who he trusted the most shattered that.


Well, obviously (non-statutatory) rape is a traumatizing experience, I agree--in fact, I agree that sex acquired through manipulation can be bad. But not all sex with minors falls into either category. 



> Children look up to us to protect them. Fucking them is the exact opposite of that.


Obviously, I disagree with both of these ideas.


----------



## ForsakenMe (Aug 30, 2010)

Chained Divinity said:


> When you have the sort of history that person did, couldn't that be traumatizing even as an adult woman?


The difference would be that adults, on average, understand that most casual encounters will end at just that- casual. Children are usually idealistic and think that all sex will end in some kind of romantic attachment on both sides. This is why society is so against pedophilia, you are taking advantage of a child's naive nature and innocence for your own selfish desires.



Chained Divinity said:


> I mean, as a younger individual personally, I did desire sexually numerous adults, and frankly the role I'd have preferred them to fill was closer to "fucktoy" than parental figure. A person I once knew who had sex with an adult when he was younger basically _did_ "use her and throw her away"--though admittedly she was well aware that's what would happen from the get-go.


How old was he at the time?



Chained Divinity said:


> Well, obviously (non-statutatory) rape is a traumatizing experience, I agree--in fact, I agree that sex acquired through manipulation can be bad. But not all sex with minors falls into either category.


I think the biggest question is why you would have sex with somebody so young when there are numbers of people around your age who would be down with having sex with you? You might ask "why not?", but I just don't see a lot of children with as much sexual prowess and confidence as you can with somebody 18+.



Chained Divinity said:


> Obviously, I disagree with both of these ideas.


We'll agree to disagree, then.


----------



## Caged Within (Aug 9, 2013)

Yomiel said:


> I guess what I don't understand here is why you'd want to immediately demonize someone for their thoughts. I don't think anyone here is disputing that we need to take acts of pedophilia seriously since actually having sex or some inappropriate relationship with a prepubescent child is a terrible and damaging thing, but helping those who are unfortunate enough to have this attraction avoid acting on it would be a win win for society. @_conscius_ What do you mean? We, as in the general public, don't have access to much knowledge on the subject. I'm confused as to how the wording used implies some tie with pedophile related academia.


I've said how I'm in favor of giving them their groups, but mostly for research purposes. I don't know whether these groups would be effective in helping most of them, for many caught pedophiles, that have completed therapy, have reoffended. I want better data, so we can come to better conclusions on what to do. I admit that I don't feel much for these people, though that doesn't mean I want to hang them all high, like most people.


----------



## INFJRoanna (Dec 20, 2012)

AmandaLee said:


> Hmm. My conviction is that the punishment should come _after_ the crime. So according to you, a person who, probably in their teenage years, to his great horror discovers that he has a sexual attraction to children should be removed from society indefinitely with no help or support ever offered, even though he has never done anything to hurt anyone? I'm sure that attitude will convince many non-offending closet pedophiles whose lives are a daily struggle to come forward and seek help... or not.
> 
> If you present an opinion on a public forum, you should be prepared to defend it.


I don't have to defend my opinion to a bunch of people that have nothing to do with me. I don't start arguments with random people for their opinions. It is what it is. I said nothing about people that haven't acted on their thoughts. And as i have already stated I won't be debating this further.


----------



## INFJRoanna (Dec 20, 2012)

AmandaLee said:


> Hmm. My conviction is that the punishment should come _after_ the crime. So according to you, a person who, probably in their teenage years, to his great horror discovers that he has a sexual attraction to children should be removed from society indefinitely with no help or support ever offered, even though he has never done anything to hurt anyone? I'm sure that attitude will convince many non-offending closet pedophiles whose lives are a daily struggle to come forward and seek help... or not.
> 
> If you present an opinion on a public forum, you should be prepared to defend it.


I don't have to defend my opinion to a bunch of people that have nothing to do with me. I don't start arguments with random people for their opinions. It is what it is. I said nothing about people that haven't acted on their thoughts. And as i have already stated I won't be debating this further. 

I will however say that I think people lose sight of what this is. It's just a forum, if you don't agree with what someone says then why not just leave it. It makes no difference to you what I think.


----------



## conscius (Apr 20, 2010)

AmandaLee said:


> To answer your question: no, I am not a pedophilia researching academic. I do, however, read plenty of scientific articles (the peer reviewed kind) and I used "we" to refer to both the researchers and the general populace, ie. "the rest of us". Sorry if that was unclear.


No problem, I was unsure whether it means researchers or general population, so you meant both. Thanks.


----------



## monemi (Jun 24, 2013)

Wow! That was a difficult article to read. It isn't easy to attempt empathy for them. Adam wasn't so difficult to sympathize with but teaching preschoolers while wrestling with an attraction to children isn't something I'm managing to empathize with. I don't know if I'm just closed minded and having a knee jerk reaction due to my own personal biases. But I plugged through it anyway. 

There isn't proof that paedophilia is something people are born with. That was just the angle the writer approached the topic with. One of the statistics included head trauma during childhood as a risk factor. Head trauma indicates to me that there it's a combination of factors. I think there is a lot more research to do before we start declaring that some people are born with an attraction to children. 

I don't think any validity should be given to paedophilia as a sexual orientation in any form. Powerful engines make me hot but I'm not about to hump an engine or seek status for a sexual orientation due to my attraction. I do think support for paedophiles to prevent them from hurting children is an excellent idea. As long as it lacks the ambiguity that one "support" group had.


----------



## DAPHNE XO (Jan 16, 2012)

I'm not sure what "support" can realistically be given to a paedophile though. If they believe that the attraction is against their will, and there's no reason for me not to believe them, then no amount of "help" can completely alleviate their urges. So really they will battle their urges every day of their lives.

I honestly don't buy it for a second that it's something they are "born" with. There's no logical, nor rational, heck even no natural reason for people to be attracted to something that would cause such repulsion in most people and a lot of harm to their preferred sexual partner. It seems much more like something is going wrong/went wrong in their development as opposed to they were forever destined to develop wrongly.

I think what's happening is cultural as opposed to biological: touching children is forbidden so naturally some people will want to do it more.

It's the attraction to innocence and something that's coveted seemingly more at play in my opinion. All paedophiles are honestly morally weak people anyway: the rationalisations they come up with to justify their depravity defies any semblance of coherent thought.

It's just easier to be with children, because children are easier to be with but you're not supposed to be with them. <- That seems to be it I believe, and any man who gets caught in such a thought pattern isn't going to easily escape it as male sexuality is not naturally as fluid as female sexuality.

Plus, the reasons for paedophilic activity seems to be as varied as the number of paedophiles themselves. Some do it because it's easy, because they get a sense of power, because they're convinced they want to be with children etc etc.

Sorry, I have not a shred of sympathy for a paedophile, not just because of the physical abuse, but the psychological effects on the child as a result of the paedophile's actions.

My pitchfork will always be at the ready. No fucks given. No regrets.


----------



## AmandaLee (Aug 13, 2014)

> I'm not sure what "support" can realistically be given to a paedophile though. If they believe that the attraction is against their will, and there's no reason for me not to believe them, then no amount of "help" can completely alleviate their urges. So really they will battle their urges every day of their lives.


What kind of help? Offering emotional support and reassurance that there is someone understanding what they're going through and by doing this, dissuade them from offending? A non-offending pedophile who has an sexual attraction to children will not become a more stable individual if he's ostracized by all of society and has nowhere to turn when his urges threaten to overcome him. Chances are he'll develop a "fuck it" attitude toward society in general and some poor child will have to pay a high price. 



> There's no logical, nor rational, heck even no natural reason for people to be attracted to something that would cause such repulsion in most people and a lot of harm to their preferred sexual partner. It seems much more like something is going wrong/went wrong in their development as opposed to they were forever destined to develop wrongly.


Except there is no conclusive evidence to suggest either. Until there is, the best we can do is to keep an open mind and accept that some people are going to end up getting these urges no matter what, and as far as proactive measures go, the best way is to catch them before they offend. And by "catching" I mean bringing them to the attention of health care professionals, not subjecting them to punishment before they have committed any crimes. 

Most paraphilias do not make sense from a purely rational or logical point of view, and most people who have them did not choose to. Some are relatively harmless, while others are a threat both to themselves and others. Most reported cases pertain to male subjects, but whether it has to do with male sexuality being "less fluid", I don't know.


----------



## DAPHNE XO (Jan 16, 2012)

AmandaLee said:


> What kind of help? Offering emotional support and reassurance that there is someone understanding what they're going through and by doing this, dissuade them from offending? A non-offending pedophile who has an sexual attraction to children will not become a more stable individual if he's ostracized by all of society and has nowhere to turn when his urges threaten to overcome him. Chances are he'll develop a "fuck it" attitude toward society in general and some poor child will have to pay a high price.


You cannot dissuade people from offending. What you are trying to do in that case is use reason to overpower their sexual urges. From most people's point of view this is a very pointless task. Urges win out every time.

If a paedophile knows he has truly no interest in offending, then he will shut his mouth and get on with life. When he goes for help, he does so because the urge to offend is strong, in which case, he's not necessarily beyond hope, but it's naive to think that reason will trump sexual urges. If it did, people would not cheat.

I'm in favour of putting paedophiles on lie detector tests periodically during these "support" meetings. I'm sure if we did that, we would see how useless it is to help people who's primary problem isn't discouraging their depravity, rather controlling it. In which case, there are plenty of medical treatments for that.

The paedophile already has a "fuck it" attitude, that's why they ever decided to contemplate sex with a child in the first place. You don't just randomly discover you are attracted to children unless you have to either be exposed to it/discover it of your own volition first and then feed the desire by going back to it or doing it.

I can say that with confidence because most children who were sexually abused do not go on to be abusers themselves. So, controlling such an urge even though one is exposed to it is possible, but for some reason a certain population do not do this. We need to figure out why.

My money is on lack of ability to control impulses - they just do whatever comes up in their mind without thinking through the consequences.



> Except there is no conclusive evidence to suggest either. Until there is, the best we can do is to keep an open mind and accept that some people are going to end up getting these urges no matter what, and as far as proactive measures go, the best way is to catch them before they offend. And by "catching" I mean bringing them to the attention of health care professionals, not subjecting them to punishment before they have committed any crimes.


That's by nature of the fact sexuality is not a black or white subject. It's a psychological issue and there's never really any clear cut answers to anything psychology. The best we can go on is information given from the paedophiles (both offenders and non-offenders themselves) and the majority of that information points to: repeated abuse/neglect as a child.

The problem with this though is, most paedophiles do not usually open up anything about their lives when they feel they are going to be judged for it. Even in a supportive environment.

It will take a long time/hopeless situation for a paedophile to truly trust anyone enough to give out such information about their childhood - especially if it was really abusive.



> Most paraphilias do not make sense from a purely rational or logical point of view, and most people who have them did not choose to. Some are relatively harmless, while others are a threat both to themselves and others. Most reported cases pertain to male subjects, but whether it has to do with male sexuality being "less fluid", I don't know.


It's a biological fact male sexuality is less fluid than female sexuality. This could account for why many true paedophiles remain true paedophiles for their entire lives even after tonnes of "treatment."

Paraphilias that do not harm others, or cause much harm to the offender are non-issues even more so than smoking. There's no need for them to be hated to the extent paedophiles are, which is usually why they are not. Paedophiles on the other hand are a different ball game because adults always know sex with a child, or soliciting sex from a child, is wrong, always, but they do it anyway. Why?

And when you read up on non-issue paraphilias, the reasons always usually point to something the person was exposed to in the past at some point, and for some reason they just got stuck with that attraction. This is why it's very common for people diagnosed with paraphilias to be male - they do get "stuck" being attracted to certain things. In which case the best they can do is control their urge if the act will lead to something harmful.


----------



## AmandaLee (Aug 13, 2014)

> If a paedophile knows he has truly no interest in offending, then he will shut his mouth and get on with life.


Your entire hypothesis is built on the assumption that most, if not all, pedophiles go on to offend. With the current data available, we have no way of knowing, because there is _so little data_ on non-offending pedophiles. Practically none at all. All the ones that have been studied have been individuals who had already gone on to offend and thus were caught in the justice system. 

What if, let's say, only 1% (made-up percentage!) of all pedophiles that experience these harmful urges on a daily basis go on to offend? Would you still attribute it as an impulse control issue?



> The best we can go on is information given from the paedophiles (both offenders and non-offenders themselves) and the majority of that information points to: repeated abuse/neglect as a child.


Can you show me the research that points to such conclusions? Particularly when it comes to non-offending pedophiles, there's so little data available on them that any general conclusions are impossible to make. 



> It's a psychological issue and there's never really any clear cut answers to anything psychology.


Not entirely; if a pedophile "gene" that affects brain development was to exist, it's not unlikely that it would be a subject for neuro-science.


----------



## DAPHNE XO (Jan 16, 2012)

AmandaLee said:


> Your entire hypothesis is built on the assumption that most, if not all, pedophiles go on to offend. With the current data available, we have no way of knowing, because there is _so little data_ on non-offending pedophiles. Practically none at all. All the ones that have been studied have been individuals who had already gone on to offend and thus were caught in the justice system.


No you misunderstood that quote. What I meant by it is, when a paedophile seeks help for his attraction it's _because_ the urge to offend is so strong. Kinda like how a junkie seeks intervention before another hit because they don't want to be a junkie anymore.

I agree with you on the rest.



> What if, let's say, only 1% (made-up percentage!) of all pedophiles that experience these harmful urges on a daily basis go on to offend? Would you still attribute it as an impulse control issue?


Yes, because they know the associated risks of being caught. But they do it anyway. The most prolific abusers, like Jerry Sandusky or even Jimmy Savile are a testament to individual with serious issues who could not control their impulses.



> Can you show me the research that points to such conclusions? Particularly when it comes to non-offending pedophiles, there's so little data available on them that any general conclusions are impossible to make.


I'm not sure where you are, but in the UK there are charities that have opened specifically dealing with non-offending paedophiles. I have forgotten the name of it off the top of my head but I will dig it up now and post some of their website deets/research. Please bear with me because I'm not sure how I'm supposed to find it.



> Not entirely; if a pedophile "gene" that affects brain development was to exist, it's not unlikely that it would be a subject for neuro-science.


We know for a fact there is no biological paedophile gene - if there was the solution to end paedophilia would simply be to get every paedophile to kill themselves to stop their genes from being passed on. That does nothing to solve the problem though, so it's not biological. Plus true paedophiles wouldn't exist then because the majority of them are attracted to young males.... and no babies can ever come from that. So there's that theory out the window.

In which case, if a paedophile gene did exist - which I can say with some certainly it possibly cannot because you cannot have a gene that hardwires behaviour(*) firstly, and secondly, you certainly wouldn't have one that isn't tolerated by an environment, makes no logical sense - the issue would be one of environment mainly anyway. And there is an entire field of Neuropsychology, biopsychology, etc that would be interested in such issues, so it would not strictly be a Neuroscience issue.

Neuroscience is pretty much the birth child of biology and psychology anyway.

note:
(*) You can't have a gene that hardwires any sexual preference either. And the search for the elusive "gay gene" is still inconclusive.

edit: The charity is called "Stop it Now!" and here's a report (from 2010) based on their findings. They don't really give details about the abusers, but what they say about the people who contacted the services and had been abused themselves in the past is telling - about 5% struggled with their own urges to abuse children. Here's the report. They are others, but I cba to dig them all out.

edit2: This is from another report. Here's a quote from someone who contacted the service in the past and left a message about the nature of his abuse:



> *An adult who had sexually abused a child, North Wales said:*
> “Men need somewhere that they can go to get support and friendship when they are in
> emotional crisis.”


Suggesting some men, at the very least, only reach out when the urge to abuse is strong.


----------



## AmandaLee (Aug 13, 2014)

> We know for a fact there is no biological paedophile gene - if there was the solution to end paedophilia would simply be to get every paedophile to kill themselves to stop their genes from being passed on. That does nothing to solve the problem though, so it's not biological. Plus true paedophiles wouldn't exist then because the majority of them are attracted to young males.... and no babies can ever come from that. So there's that theory out the window.


You _don't_ know that. Nobody does. This segment of yours actually suggests that you don't know a whole lot about genetics or how genes are expressed or passed on. There are recessive genes as well as spontaneous mutations. You don't know if it's biological (nature) or environmental (nurture). You can believe the one or the other, but please don't state it as a fact. 

Most pedophiles are actually _not_ attracted to young males (the ratio of female to male victims is roughly 3:1) and non-exclusive pedophiles outnumber the exclusive ones (whose only sexual interest are children) by far. These people can appear fully normal on the outside and have wives and children. 



> Suggesting some men, at the very least, only reach out when the urge to abuse is strong.


That report is very interesting, but we cannot be sure what "an emotional crisis" refers to. It can be interpreted an urge to live out their fantasies, but it could also be a feeling of hopelessness and suicidal thoughts that stems from being so fundamentally different and inability to relate to the rest of the world.


----------



## DAPHNE XO (Jan 16, 2012)

AmandaLee said:


> You _don't_ know that. Nobody does. This segment of yours actually suggests that you don't know a whole lot about genetics or how genes are expressed or passed on. There are recessive genes as well as spontaneous mutations. You don't know if it's biological (nature) or environmental (nurture). You can believe the one or the other, but please don't state it as a fact.


Actually, yes it does because I knew you would give this exact argument.... A recessive paedophile gene is dormant therefore you wouldn't act on it nor feel the need to - hence you'd be normal. But if you have a gene that's dominant enough to hardwire sexual attraction to children, it would have been found by now. If the only sample of paedophiles that have been included in reports/research are those that have committed sins against children, surely, amongst the many psychiatrists, scientists, doctors, psychologists, and other set of professionals these people have come in contact with we should have found this gene. Our entire pool of participants are supposed to possess it. From the so-called dominant gene we can then start doing experiments to locate the recessive gene and then find some kind of medication to cure it. Like we do other diseases that can be screened out before birth.

But this scenario seems highly unlikely because like I said, you cannot have genes that hardwire behaviour. You can have a gene that might hardwire sexuality, at best, but it doesn't seem like we're very close to finding that yet, if ever.



> Most pedophiles are actually _not_ attracted to young males (the ratio of female to male victims is roughly 3:1) and non-exclusive pedophiles outnumber the exclusive ones (whose only sexual interest are children) by far. These people can appear fully normal on the outside and have wives and children.


I know that most paedophiles are not attracted to young males. I have never said otherwise, anywhere.

This I highly doubt, but do you have a source for that? 

Just because they have a "normal life" on the outside, doesn't mean that they don't exhibit weird behaviours. The only ones that are for sure not suspicious in their behaviours are ones that keep their depravity to online child porn. But the fact of the matter is, watch enough child porn and eventually, you'll get the urge to act on it.



> That report is very interesting, but we cannot be sure what "an emotional crisis" refers to. It can be interpreted an urge to live out their fantasies, but it could also be a feeling of hopelessness and suicidal thoughts that stems from being so fundamentally different and inability to relate to the rest of the world.


That was probably just part of the paedophile's statement that was actually printed in the report. The charity probably has much more data and I'm sure they probably would have done a report on that, I just don't have the patience to sit through and scan all their media releases. But if I ever do, I'll be sure to post it on here.

edit: But I did find this quote from a newspaper called the Guardian in the UK:


> Child protection agencies and many who work with sex offenders dislike this. "Broadly speaking, in the world of people who work with sex offenders here, [paedophilia] is learned behaviour," says Donald Findlater, director of research and development at the Lucy Faithfull Foundation, a charity dedicated to preventing child sexual abuse, and, before it closed, manager of leading treatment centre the Wolvercote Clinic. "There may be some vulnerabilities that could be genetic, but normally there are some significant events in a person's life, a sexually abusive event, a bullying environment … I believe it is learned, and can be unlearned."
> 
> Chris Wilson of Circles UK, which helps released offenders, also rejects the idea that paedophilia is a sexual orientation: "The roots of that desire for sex with a child lie in dysfunctional psychological issues to do with power, control, anger, emotional loneliness, isolation."


The underlined bit is why I said it seems a lot of abuse must occur in someone's life before they develop fully blown paedophilic tendencies.


----------



## AmandaLee (Aug 13, 2014)

> I know that most paedophiles are not attracted to young males. I have never said otherwise, anywhere.


Yes, you did. Post #98, by you. 



> Plus true paedophiles wouldn't exist then because the majority of them are attracted to young males.... and no babies can ever come from that.





> Actually, yes it does because I knew you would give this exact argument.... A recessive paedophile gene is dormant therefore you wouldn't act on it nor feel the need to - hence you'd be normal. But if you have a gene that's dominant enough to hardwire sexual attraction to children, it would have been found by now. If the only sample of paedophiles that have been included in reports/research are those that have committed sins against children, surely, amongst the many psychiatrists, scientists, doctors, psychologists, and other set of professionals these people have come in contact with we should have found this gene. Our entire pool of participants are supposed to possess it. From the so-called dominant gene we can then start doing experiments to locate the recessive gene and then find some kind of medication to cure it. Like we do other diseases that can be screened out before birth.
> 
> But this scenario seems highly unlikely because like I said, you cannot have genes that hardwire behaviour. You can have a gene that might hardwire sexuality, at best, but it doesn't seem like we're very close to finding that yet, if ever.


Your deductive reasoning here is so flawed that I see no point in continuing this debate. You're going to continue to believe that it has to be environmental and come up with strange, pseudo-scientific theories as to why it has to be so. 



> This I highly doubt, but do you have a source for that?


The study that had the 3:1 ratio between male and female juvenile victims was conducted in my country (Sweden) and is thus in my language. This one here is an American study and shows a 2:1 ratio.


----------



## DAPHNE XO (Jan 16, 2012)

AmandaLee said:


> Yes, you did. Post #98, by you.


Your ignorance is showing. A "true" paedophile, is a fixated/exclusive paedophile. Most of them do report to seeing themselves as homosexuals.



> Your deductive reasoning here is so flawed that I see no point in continuing this debate. You're going to continue to believe that it has to be environmental and come up with strange, pseudo-scientific theories as to why it has to be so.


No, it's really you that has no idea what you are talking about. The reasoning was MEANT to be flawed because paedophilia is not a biological trait. That was the point. 

No one who actually works in the field thinks that either.

I don't know how up to date you are with the field, but they have done tonnes of brain scans on paedophiles for ages now and time and time again they have said, it's not exclusively genetic.

My point was, in order to say paedophilia is biological, then a paedophile must contain both alleles. Exclusive paedophiles certainly would and because they are exclusive, they are more likely to be caught. So paedophiles in the system would have met the professionals who could study them, and have been doing for a very long time now.

But paedophiles do have less grey matter and sometimes less white matter in their brains. So this suggest some kind of neuro-developmental disorder at the very least.

I'm sorry, you don't really seem to know what you're talking about. You dismiss my claims because you think the reasoning is flawed but you don't even seem to understand what I'm saying. Almost as if you don't follow it, so it must be wrong, according to you.



> The study that had the 3:1 ratio between male and female juvenile victims was conducted in my country (Sweden) and is thus in my language. This one here is an American study and shows a 2:1 ratio.


Oh I see what you're saying now. 

But I'm still not sure I agree. Exclusive paedophiles (who are caught) usually have victims in the hundreds. And most of them will be boys... And socially boys/men are less open about rape.

I think, because of the nature of the crime and the way society doesn't really talk about male sexual abuse, I doubt that figure is true.

Recently, a documentary in Pakistan said that most victims of childhood sexual abuse were males for example. And most of them were street boys, i.e., boys that had run away from home/were orphans/etc.

edited!!!!


----------



## AmandaLee (Aug 13, 2014)

> My point was, in order to say paedophilia is biological, then a paedophile must contain both alleles. Exclusive paedophiles certainly would and because they are exclusive, they are more likely to be caught. So paedophiles in the system would have met the professionals who could study them, and have been doing for a very long time now.


You seem oddly fixated on this "one gene" theory. I suggest you look up the word "biological" and find out its meaning, because it doesn't seem as though you know what it means. Biological =/= genetic. The human genome is largely an unexplored area. _One gene_ is likely not responsible for a deviant sexual inclination, but to steadfastly deny the cause as being anything BUT biological and completely disregard the possibility of genetic influence on brain development shows your ignorance on this topic in general. 

Instead you should try to be more open to the fact that _researchers don't know the etiology_ to a complete or even satisfying extent. What is so difficult to understand in this simple statement? Corelation does not mean causation. 

A quote from an actual researcher:


> The etiology of pedophilia can be attributed to both biological and environmental factors. Case studies indicate that cerebral dysfunction may be a contributing or dominant factor of pedophilia (Scott, 1984), including problems with self-control, extreme urges, and cognitive distortions.


Funny how the article you linked to heavily disputes your own claim.

_Even though previous neuropsychological studies and clinical case reports have suggested an association between pedophilia and frontocortical dysfunction, our knowledge about the neurobiological mechanisms underlying pedophilia is still fragmentary._

The writer of this article explicitly states that the causation is not known at this point. All they've managed to do is state a vague corelation between pedohilic tendencies and frontocortical dysfunction, but corelation does not mean causation, or the absence of it. 



> No, it's really you that has no idea what you are talking about. The reasoning was MEANT to be flawed because paedophilia is not a biological trait. That was the point. No one who actually works in the field thinks that either.


"The ones who work in the field" at least admit they don't have enough conclusive data to either confirm or deny a biological or environmental causation. My suggestion to you would be to try and show some humility and consider the possibility that you could be wrong.

I see no point in continuing this discussion. I clearly can't make you reconsider your viewpoint, and you will never be able to convince me to cave in to yours. We're both wasting our time.


----------



## DAPHNE XO (Jan 16, 2012)

AmandaLee said:


> You seem oddly fixated on this "one gene" theory. I suggest you look up the word "biological" and find out its meaning, because it doesn't seem as though you know what it means. Biological =/= genetic. The human genome is largely an unexplored area. *One gene is likely not responsible for a deviant sexual inclination,* but to steadfastly deny the cause as being anything BUT biological and completely disregard the possibility of genetic influence on brain development shows your ignorance on this topic in general.


Yes, I know what biological means. That's why I use different words in different places?

That's the point!

Not really, it's you that doesn't seem to get what epi-genetics is about, but that's beside the point. Lol. You were the one that said scientists don't know if it's biological... and I have said most scientists affirm, it's not solely a biological trait at all. There is absolutely no way it can be.

What could be biological is a group of certain traits that might lead to paedophilia in the right circumstance, but then if we say that, we are immediately saying environment plays a larger factor than genes.



> Instead you should try to be more open to the fact that _researchers don't know the etiology_ to a complete or even satisfying extent. What is so difficult to understand in this simple statement? Corelation does not mean causation.


Now you're just insulting my intelligence. If I argue that environment plays a larger factor (which I do) then I know for a fact, and I have already said, that we don't know what the exact cause is. But a biological genetic one has been ruled out. This is certain.



> A quote from an actual researcher:
> The etiology of pedophilia can be attributed to both biological and environmental factors. Case studies indicate that cerebral dysfunction may be a contributing or dominant factor of pedophilia (Scott, 1984), including problems with self-control, extreme urges, and cognitive distortions.
> 
> Funny how the article you linked to heavily disputes your own claim.


Are you being serious right now? That's exactly what I argue. It's not solely biological. That's exactly what I have said throughout. What are you even on about?



> *The writer of this article explicitly states that the causation is not known at this point.* All they've managed to do is state a vague corelation between pedohilic tendencies and frontocortical dysfunction, but corelation does not mean causation, or the absence of it.


I think you need to show me where I've said otherwise? 



> "The ones who work in the field" at least admit they don't have enough conclusive data to either confirm or deny a biological or environmental causation. My suggestion to you would be to try and show some humility and consider the possibility that you could be wrong.


They have denied a biological causation, in the link above where the researcher said: "The etiology of pedophilia can be attributed to both biological and environmental factors."

So if it's both. It can't be one... I'm not sure what you think my position is, but I really don't think you understand it.



> I see no point in continuing this discussion. I clearly can't make you reconsider your viewpoint, and you will never be able to convince me to cave in to yours. We're both wasting our time.


I don't even think you know what my viewpoint is....?

edit: I'm going to have to let you off because it seems Swedish is your first language but you clearly do not know what I'm saying at all. But that's fair enough. Language barrier and all.


----------



## AmandaLee (Aug 13, 2014)

I had to address what you said here. 



> But I'm still not sure I agree. Exclusive paedophiles (who are caught) usually have victims in the hundreds. And most of them will be boys... And socially boys/men are less open about rape.


If you don't believe the test results are accurate, there is obviously not much I can do to convince you. You mentioned Jimmy Savile earlier, and conincidentally most of his victims were juvenile females (although there were a few boys mixed in there). 



> Your ignorance is showing. A "true" paedophile, is a fixated/exclusive paedophile. Most of them do report to seeing themselves as homosexuals.


Can you cite a source that says most fixated pedophiles view themselves as homosexuals? According to the studies I have viewed, that is not true at all. Homosexuality is defined as an adult sexual orientation, and fixated (true) pedophiles don't have an adult sexual orientation. 

_As an expert panel of researchers convened by the National Academy of Sciences noted in a 1993 report: "The distinction between homosexual and heterosexual child molesters relies on the premise that male molesters of male victims are homosexual in orientation. Most molesters of boys do not report sexual interest in adult men, however" (National Research Council, 1993, p. 143, citation omitted). _

The child's _age_ rather than _gender_ is what primarily attracts these men. 

_The distinction between a victim's gender and a perpetrator's sexual orientation is important because many child molesters don't really have an adult sexual orientation. They have never developed the capacity for mature sexual relationships with other adults, either men or women. Instead, their sexual attractions focus on children – boys, girls, or children of both sexes. Over the years, this fact has been incorporated into various systems for categorizing child molesters. For example, Finkelhor and Araji (1986) proposed that perpetrators' sexual attractions should be conceptualized as ranging along a continuum – from exclusive interest in children at one extreme, to exclusive interest in adult partners at the other end. _

The ones with absolutely zero interest in their adult peers would obviously be the "true" pedophiles, but in comparison with the ones that also have an adult sexuality, they are rare. The victims of fixated pedophiles are predominantly male, I'll give you that, but the victims of the regressed pedophiles, that are typically young females, still outnumber them.

_For the present discussion, the important point is that many child molesters cannot be meaningfully described as homosexuals, heterosexuals, or bisexuals (in the usual sense of those terms) because they are not really capable of a relationship with an adult man or woman. Instead of gender, their sexual attractions are based primarily on age. These individuals – who are often characterized as fixated – are attracted to children, not to men or women. _

Following this reasoning, it would thus not be accurate to describe a pedophile whose sole interest is young boys as homosexual. If he _also_ has adult male partners, he is one, but if not, he's just a pedophile.


----------



## amanda32 (Jul 23, 2009)

And the Satanic agenda pushes forward.
Welcome to the New World Order.


----------



## AmandaLee (Aug 13, 2014)

> Yes, I know what biological means. That's why I use different words in different places?
> 
> That's the point!
> 
> Not really, it's you that doesn't seem to get what epi-genetics is about, but that's beside the point. Lol. You were the one that said scientists don't know if it's biological... and I have said most scientists affirm, it's not solely a biological trait at all. There is absolutely no way it can be.


_No_, they are saying they have no way of knowing if it is, or how much is biological/genetic/environmental. Hence the continued research done on the subject. 



> Now you're just insulting my intelligence. If I argue that environment plays a larger factor (which I do) then I know for a fact, and I have already said, that we don't know what the exact cause is. But a biological genetic one has been ruled out. This is certain.


Show me the studies where researchers explicitly state that non-evironmental causes have been ruled out. 



> I think you need to show me where I've said otherwise?


Will do. Were these not quotes by you? You explicitly state that a pedophilic inclination can not in any way be something that someone is "born with" or predestined to develop at a certain age. 



> I honestly don't buy it for a second that it's something they are "born" with.





> I think what's happening is cultural as opposed to biological: touching children is forbidden so naturally some people will want to do it more.





> In which case, if a paedophile gene did exist - which I can say with some certainly it possibly cannot because you cannot have a gene that hardwires behaviour(*) firstly, and secondly, you certainly wouldn't have one that isn't tolerated by an environment, makes no logical sense


You say _one_ gene cannot hardwire behavior, and you're probably right on that (I'm not a geneticist, after all, and I hazard to guess neither are you) but how about a bunch of genes interacting with each other? If we followed your reasoning on other behavior patterns seen as aberrant by some societies, we would also have to rule out genetic components being responsible for homosexuality (very much frowned upon in certain environments), psychopathy (same thing here), autism, etc. 



> edit: I'm going to have to let you off because it seems Swedish is your first language but you clearly do not know what I'm saying at all. But that's fair enough. Language barrier and all.


Who is insulting the other's intelligence now? I know perfectly well what you are _saying_, but I'm not sure if I know what you mean. Funny that you would automatically assume it has to do with my ability to understand rather than your own ability to express yourself. Food for thought.


----------



## DAPHNE XO (Jan 16, 2012)

AmandaLee said:


> If you don't believe the test results are accurate, there is obviously not much I can do to convince you. You mentioned Jimmy Savile earlier, and conincidentally most of his victims were juvenile females (although there were a few boys mixed in there).


No, what I'm saying is: we can't say that for sure because male sexual abuse is not something we are open about. Even in the study you posted it says this:


> This suggests that the resulting proportion of true pedophiles among persons with a homosexual erotic development is greater than that in persons who develop heterosexually.


And of all true paedophiles that have been caught, most have had victims in the hundreds. Non-exclusive paedophiles do not usually have that many victims. Jimmy Savile is a very, very peculiar case. (But he did have adult victims so his profile speaks more of someone with psychopathic tendencies rather than pure paedophilic ones.)

So this suggests that men do not speak up about abuse as much as women. In which case, it shouldn't be surprising that the figures suggest 2:1.



> Can you cite a source that says most fixated pedophiles view themselves as homosexuals? According to the studies I have viewed, that is not true at all. Homosexuality is defined as an adult sexual orientation, and fixated (true) pedophiles don't have an adult sexual orientation.


Maybe you should try reading the studies you post before asking questions?



> The child's age rather than gender is what primarily attracts these men.


I don't think you know what you are talking about at all. A true paedophile is attracted to boys because they look androgynous before they hit puberty. Some have explicitly said this, and this can be easily found through a google search on pro-paedophilia websites; that they like the look of a young boy's body.



> but the victims of the regressed pedophiles, that are typically young females, still outnumber them.


There is no way to prove this especially _because_ true paedophiles, like I have said, usually have victims in the hundreds, and many men do not come forward.

A true paedophile, by nature of his affliction, will naturally have more victims because that's all he's into. Just because he's outnumbered in real terms does NOT mean they will not have MORE victims thus cancelling out the relationship.

In fact, a true paeodphile is more likely to have more victims because they recycle victims as the boys hit puberty. See Jerry Sandusky.



> Following this reasoning, it would thus not be accurate to describe a pedophile whose sole interest is young boys as homosexual. If he also has adult male partners, he is one, but if not, he's just a pedophile.


This contradicts what the other report said, so I'm going to have to dismiss it. True paedophiles ARE attracted to boys because of their body.

The reason this report says this is political, not biological. By this I mean, if you class true paedophiles as mostly homosexual, then it would suggest homosexuality is also a brain dysfunction. This is a very tricky topic for most people, and rightly so, that's why they focus on age as opposed to gender.

If you watch a documentary on men who abuse boys, the documentaries are always filled with them saying how much they love boys and how much they find women repulsive. There was a documentary I watched on YouTube (I only got 10 minutes in before I couldn't watch any longer) but the guys on the film talked about their love of the young boy physique.



> _No_, they are saying they have no way of knowing if it is, or how much is biological/genetic/environmental. Hence the continued research done on the subject.


I don't understand how you can quote something and then say the complete opposite. If your own quote says this:


> The aetiology of pedophilia can be attributed to both biological and environmental factors. *Case studies indicate that cerebral dysfunction may be a contributing or dominant factor of pedophilia *(Scott, 1984), including problems with self-control, extreme urges, and cognitive distortions.


Then we know it's mainly environmental. We KNOW this because anyone can have "problems with self-control, extreme urges, and cognitive distortions," still display severe psychological issues and NOT be a paedophile.

Cerebral dysfunction is not exclusive to paedophiles. What is exclusive to paedophiles is their interest in young children. If the cause is attributed to BOTH biological and environmental, then something in the environment has had significant influence on the development of a paedophile.



> Show me the studies where researchers explicitly state that non-evironmental causes have been ruled out. Will do. Were these not quotes by you? You explicitly state that a pedophilic inclination can not in any way be something that someone is "born with" or predestined to develop at a certain age.


I don't think you understand how to interpret what your own quote says. If the aetiology is both environmental and biological, then this suggests that both are the cause. This is why we cannot 100% refer to any one thing as the cause because environment is not set.

By this I mean: you can have two people with the same cerebral dysfunctions and in one person that dysfunction will manifest in ways that have nothing to do with paedophilia, but in another, they may develop full blown paedophilia. In which case, even though the biological factors are present which are purported to be the predominant cause, to say that it naturally leads to paedophilia is incorrect.

Another reason is this: cerebral dysfunction can be inherited or caused as a result of the environment (i.e. severe accidents when young). So, even when the cerebral dysfunction is inherited, to say that it will lead to paedophilia is highly, highly unlikely.



> You say _one_ gene cannot hardwire behavior, and you're probably right on that (I'm not a geneticist, after all, and I hazard to guess neither are you) *but how about a bunch of genes interacting with each other?* If we followed your reasoning on other behavior patterns seen as aberrant by some societies, we would also have to rule out genetic components being responsible for homosexuality (very much frowned upon in certain environments), psychopathy (same thing here), autism, etc.


Right but how genes interact with one another is largely due to the environment...hence, epigenetics.



> Who is insulting the other's intelligence now? I know perfectly well what you are _saying_, *but I'm not sure if I know what you mean*. Funny that you would automatically assume it has to do with my ability to understand rather than your own ability to express yourself. Food for thought.


That's exactly what I meant.... that language barrier effects how the meaning is translated.... Thanks for proving my point. :dry:


----------



## AmandaLee (Aug 13, 2014)

> I don't think you know what you are talking about at all. A true paedophile is attracted to boys because they look androgynous before they hit puberty. Some have explicitly said this, and this can be easily found through a google search on pro-paedophilia websites; that they like the look of a young boy's body.


Use of anecdotal evidence. A true/fixated pedophile is exclusively attracted to _children_. It can be male children, female children, or both. 



> Right but how genes interact with one another is largely due to the environment...hence, epigenetics.


It is obviously still a _biological_ aspect. The genes have to be present in order to be expressed, even if the environment affects the process. In your first ever response in this thread, you said, and I quote. 


> I think what's happening is cultural as opposed to biological: touching children is forbidden so naturally some people will want to do it more.


In what way do you figure culture would influence the development of a paraphilia? _This_ is what I'm curious about, and something that you conveniently refrain from answering. In this statement you deny biology having any sort of relevance on the development of sexual inclination. 



> This contradicts what the other report said, so I'm going to have to dismiss it. True paedophiles ARE attracted to boys because of their body.


So... just making sure the "language barrier" doesn't prevent me from understanding you now... A pedophile who is only attracted to pre-pubescent females is not a "true" pedophile, even if he's incapable of feeling any kind of attraction whatsover for women his own age? If this is not a "true"/fixated pedophile, what should he be labeled? And more importantly, what relevance does this have to whether or not his inclination was caused by nature, nurture, or both? 



> Cerebral dysfunction is not exclusive to paedophiles. What is exclusive to paedophiles is their interest in young children. If the cause is attributed to BOTH biological and environmental, then something in the environment has had significant influence on the development of a paedophile.


The inevitably nature vs. nurture dichotomy. Does it frighten you so much to even _consider_ the possibility that someone's genetic make up might enforce certain behavioral patterns with little or no influence from the environment? You staunchy argue against this being possible, and my problem with you in this thread is not your conviction, but rather your dismissiveness of anything that does not support your worldview. 

I have studied biochemistry and molecular biology on university level, and when it comes to the expression of genes in ourselves and whether or not genetic components can be used to dictate or predict human behavior... it is an unexplored field, and the only thing we can be certain of at this point is how little we know.


----------



## DAPHNE XO (Jan 16, 2012)

AmandaLee said:


> Use of anecdotal evidence. A true/fixated pedophile is exclusively attracted to _children_. It can be male children, female children, or both.


No, you just have selective reading. Even the study *you* put forward says this:


> *This suggests that the resulting proportion of true pedophiles among persons with a homosexual erotic development is greater than that in persons who develop heterosexually.*





> It is obviously still a _biological_ aspect. The genes have to be present in order to be expressed, even if the environment affects the process. In your first ever response in this thread, you said, and I quote.


These genes are NOT paedophilic genes though. The genes that might have been present and thus expressed are: poor self-control, poor reasoning ability etc...but genes that say: "you will be a paedophile" do NOT exist.



> In what way do you figure culture would influence the development of a paraphilia? _This_ is what I'm curious about, and something that you conveniently refrain from answering. In this statement you deny biology having any sort of relevance on the development of sexual inclination.


Because you NEVER asked. In societies where casual male and female interaction is strictly forbidden, you will get more homosexual paedophilic behaviour by way of the fact all that is around for men to abuse are young males, and not young females. In some really strict muslim countries, a man seen with a female who is not his wife/close family can be heavily punished.

Also, because sexual activity is tightly controlled in these places too, men develop more aggressive tendencies so the nature of their paedophilia is more violent. It's basically male aggression coming out in harmful ways. 



> So... just making sure the "language barrier" doesn't prevent me from understanding you now... A pedophile who is only attracted to pre-pubescent females is not a "true" pedophile, even if he's incapable of feeling any kind of attraction whatsover for women his own age? If this is not a "true"/fixated pedophile, what should he be labeled? And more importantly, what relevance does this have to whether or not his inclination was caused by nature, nurture, or both?


This is absolutely rare. We know this because, and for the fifth time now, seeeeeeesh....


> *This suggests that the resulting proportion of true pedophiles among persons with a homosexual erotic development is greater than that in persons who develop heterosexually.*


If they are a true paedophile, then they are more likely to be a homosexual. If they are interested in girls, they are more likely to be a non-exclusive paedophile. 

This would make sense because women are more readily available than girls for a non-exclusive paedophile, and non-exclusive paedophiles are more likely to be in adult relationships because if they are exclusively into young girls, then it's easier to find a young girl to abuse if you are in a relationship with a single woman.



> The inevitably nature vs. nurture dichotomy. Does it frighten you so much to even _consider_ the possibility that someone's genetic make up might enforce certain behavioral patterns with little or no influence from the environment? You staunchy argue against this being possible, and my problem with you in this thread is not your conviction, but rather your dismissiveness of anything that does not support your worldview.


You need to stop assuming you know shit, because consistently within this debate you have been flat out wrong or just grossly misinformed or plainly woefully ignorant. 

The brain is highly plastic, so the excuse that there's no influence from the environment in intrapersonal behaviour is pure bull.



> I have studied biochemistry and molecular biology on university level, and when it comes to the expression of genes in ourselves and whether or not genetic components can be used to dictate or predict human behavior... it is an unexplored field, and the only thing we can be certain of at this point is how little we know.


I'm sorry your education seems to have been a waste of time.

I study Psychology and Philosophy, with particular emphasis on the Neuroscience and Cognitive Psychology and Biopsychology, I think I know what I'm talking about.


----------



## RobynC (Jun 10, 2011)

tanstaafl28 said:


> Truth be told, we've all had thoughts and urges to do things we would rather the rest of the world never know. Most of us have the wherewithall and self-control to contain them. Anyone who says otherwise is either lying to themselves, lying to others, or both.
> 
> I was molested by an older boy when I was four. Truthfully, I have no recollection of the act itself. Apparently, I blocked it out, or disregarded it as not worthy of being remembered. What I do remember is that I was neither ashamed or afraid to tell my mother (who was all of 23 at the time) that it had happened. I told her when she was putting me down for a nap. It turned out this boy was molesting other children in the house, 2 boys and 1 girl, and because I spoke up, I put a stop to it once and for all.


I realized I was bisexual pretty early on... I was attracted to both and the whole thing was confusing as hell though I kind of realized that I was attracted to both guys and girls rather than just guys. I generally kept it under my hat of course.

When I was 12, my friend had a 16 year old sister who was kind of nerdy and socially awkward and basically we became friends at first, then she came onto me as time went on.


----------



## tanstaafl28 (Sep 10, 2012)

RobynC said:


> I realized I was bisexual pretty early on... I was attracted to both and the whole thing was confusing as hell though I kind of realized that I was attracted to both guys and girls rather than just guys. I generally kept it under my hat of course.
> 
> When I was 12, my friend had a 16 year old sister who was kind of nerdy and socially awkward and basically we became friends at first, then she came onto me as time went on.


I'm not terribly surprised about this, to be honest. Of course, I'm not exactly sure what this has to do with that, but I'm sure there's something I'm not getting.


----------

