Pedophilia: sexual orientation or disorder?

Status
Not open for further replies.
Orayn said:
This is true. Even under-informed posters groping around for a point to make, like gtp_daverytimes, can spark interesting discussions.
Click to expand...

What I want to know is why are you so hurt or upset?

Isn't that what people are saying to me? That wanting them in jail is not right, etc.
 
Zaraki_Kenpachi said:
So the only reason you don't do something is due to fear of an asskicking? I'm not sure what your post has to do with that.
Click to expand...

was just pointing out the obvious flaw in your comparison :)
 
Londa said:
What I want to know is why are you so hurt or upset?

Wanting them in jail is not right, etc.
Click to expand...
I think people should be punished for their actions, not their thoughts and feelings. Many people, not just pedophiles, have wanted to commit a crime but not acted on those urges. Should they all serve the sentences for those potential crimes?
nVidiot_Whore said:
I think he meant in the context of a google search, that a search for moe might lead to more pedo stuff.

Either way, I was kidding.. I'm not going to be searching this.
Click to expand...
Fair enough. I prefer a different type of animated "Moe" myself.

WMiVM.jpg
 
Londa: People are arguing that it's conceptually flawed to go after people merely for their thoughts, no matter what those thoughts are. Or attractions for that matter.

Anyone who would cross the line into downloading CP for instance? I don't see anyone defending that actual crime, nor the crime of molestation. What I do see is you and many other posters assuming that's what the word pedophile means.

If we define "pedophiles" as people who have acted on an attraction to children by way of viewing CP or molestation.. then by all means.. lock them up.

But arresting people for their thoughts? Aside from being impossible.. it's just a concept a lot of people will be against.. no matter what those thoughts are.

In the end it's rather pointless.. we'll never know most people are pedophiles until they comitt some sort of related crime anyways.
 
I did some research. The best scientific explanation of male pedophilic behavior and preferences I could find is located in a chapter by Vernon Quinsey in the Cambridge Handbook of Forensic Psychology (http://books.google.com/books?id=8bjZ_ngPpLgC&lpg=PP1&pg=PA43#v=onepage&q&f=false). I'll post the most important parts here:

Because of the asymmetry in the costs of reproduction borne by the sexes, women are much choosier than men (except where men provide long-term investment in offspring). As noted above, there is much greater variation in reproductive success among men than among women – men therefore compete more among themselves in a wide variety of ways and exhibit higher mating effort than do women (i.e. expend more effort and accept more risk in acquiring status and mating opportunities).
With that as background, we come to the first application of evolutionary theory to adult male sexual interactions with children – as a by-product of high mating effort and relative indifference to mate quality in short-term sexual interactions. This sort of an explanation does not apply to paedophilic preferences, only to behaviours. These behaviours are more likely in this instance to involve pubescent, rather than very young, girls and relatively antisocial men.
Click to expand...
In over-simple terms, omega males try to get with pubescent and sometimes (though less frequently) pre-pubescent girls because they can't compete with alpha males for older, more fertile females. You'd think they'd be deterred by the fact that pubescent girls are poor mates, but for evolutionary reasons, men don't really care that much about mate quality in short-term sexual interactions. Note: this is an explanation for behavior, not preferences. Non-pedophiles do sexually abuse children sometimes, and the evolutionary dynamics described by Quinsey are the best ultimate (as opposed to proximate) explanation for this behavior.

As to other applications, the male sexual preference system is an adaptation and thus ultimately an effect of genes. These genes, however, do not act at one point in time or act as a blueprint (who is there to read the blueprint?). Rather, genes participate with the rest of the organism throughout development – the organism must make itself. This is a tricky business because there are genes the effects of which are beneficial to one sex and harmful to the other, and all of these genes (save the sex-determining gene) exist in both male and female bodies.

There is thus a complex process of sexual differentiation that is driven by hormones (there are also recently discovered direct genetic effects). Perhaps the most complex part of this involves the masculinization of the brain. The brain, as the organ of behaviour, contains structures that are responsible for sex differences in reproductive behaviour and preferences. Darwinian theory and a growing body of comparative neuroscientific literature suggest that the sexual preference system involves separate structures that relate to different problems of reproduction in ancestral environments (these involve for males such things as attending to the correlates of female fertility, such as youthfulness and secondary sex characteristics). This modular organization is determined by the spatial and temporal distribution of in utero sex hormones in the brain.
Because these modules are more or less distinct, they can hyperfunction or not function separately, raising the possibility that cues signalling youthfulness can become dominant over body shape cues signalling female fertility.
Click to expand...
Basically, evolution has given the brain several independent modules for assessing female fertility. One assesses gender, another youthfulness, another body shape (in particular, waist-to-hip ratio), etc. If the body shape module of a male malfunctions without the youthfulness module malfunctioning, then he'll be sexually attracted to females with smooth skin, lustrous hair, and a sprightly gait -- all traits associated by youth -- but not by the hourglass figure associated with post-pubertal girls.

Although the latter possibility is simply speculation, the general outline of how the sexual preference system develops is not. A theory of the development of typical and anomalous sexual preferences in men must take into account the ultimate causes of male-typical sexual preferences and the proximal causes of their development within individuals through which these ultimate causes manifest themselves.

Talking about an evolutionary or Darwinian account of paedophilia is not to suggest that paedophilic sexual preferences have been directly selected for, but rather that any explanation of these preferences must be related to the design features of the male sexual preference system. It is necessary to understand what the system has been designed to do and what stimuli it uses. The theory makes strong predictions in this regard and even suggests something about how the system might be organized in the brain.
Click to expand...
A nice word of caution to all those who want to explain pedophilia simply through the convenient "cycle of abuse" narrative.

The term ‘anomalous’, when applied to sexual preferences, means that the preferences do not serve the reproductive functions for which they were designed. What are the possible explanations for anomalous preferences? It could involve pathology – the affected individual was anoxic in utero, infected with a virus, adversely affected by toxins ingested by the mother and so forth (the evidence, although scant with respect to paedophilia, generally supports the view that sexual preferences are developed very early (in utero)). Note that any explanation involving pathology must still appeal to the design features of the mechanism (for example, why an interest in children as opposed to trees?).

Another possibility is that the anomalous preferences are a by-product of some other characteristic that has been selected for. In this case, paedophilia would have at least some genetic basis (regrettably there have been no genetic studies of paedophilia to my knowledge). How could this work? One possibility is that the mother’s immune system becomes sensitized to some aspect of the male fetus (e.g. the HY antigens expressed on the surface of all male cells save those in the placenta) and interferes with the hormonal process that masculinizes the brain. This sensitization would increase with each male child the mother carries. There is thus a trade-off here – the mother and her relatives benefit from sensitive immune systems at the cost of the mother’s later born male children being more likely to have anomalous sexual preferences. Strong evidence for the neurohormonal theory of sexual preference development comes from the fraternal birth-order effect, in which the probability of a man preferring other men as sexual partners increases with each older brother he has borne to the same mother (e.g. Bogaert 2006).
Click to expand...
This part can be briefly summarized by the bolded line in the subsequent paragraph:

Note that these explanations are not mutually exclusive. The final common path in the development of anomalous sexual preferences is a perturbation of brain development – this could be due to pathological causes, genetic causes, or both. For a more complete account of a Darwinian theory of paedophilia see Quinsey (2003).
Click to expand...
A link to referenced article [Quinsey, V. L. (2003) Etiology of anomalous sexual preferences in men. Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences, 989: 105–17]: http://www.queensu.ca/psychology/Quinsey/publications/sexoffenders/QuinseyNYASetiology2003.pdf

----

Summary: So there you have it, pedophilic behavior observed in males has a plausible evolutionary explanation: intense competition among males leads the least successful to try their chances with younger, possibly not as fertile girls. And pedophilic preferences observed in males are most likely caused by "perturbations of brain development" (a malfunctioning waist-to-hip ratio module, perhaps?) that could have pathological or genetic causes, but more research is required to sort this out.
 
@ londa
the thought itself isn't a crime, but i would recommend their hard-drives/website history get checked out
 
Pedo's who are attracted to those who have reached sexual maturity but are not old enough to consent - preference that needs to be discouraged and treated harshly but rationally if acted upon with an underage but consensual partner.

Pedo's who are attracted to little children under 13/14 etc - disorder but I wish them nothing but the worst in every way possible despite my beliefs.
 
Goya said:
So there you have it, pedophilic behavior observed in males has a plausible evolutionary explanation. And pedophilic preferences observed in males is most likely caused by "perturbations of brain development" (a malfunctioning waist-to-hip ratio module, perhaps?) that could have pathological or genetic causes, but more research is required to sort this out.
Click to expand...

Makes sense.. basically what I theorized myself in this thread. Although I didn't include the idea that some molesters aren't actually pedophiles.. but that makes sense as well.
 
nVidiot_Whore said:
Londa: People are arguing that it's conceptually flawed to go after people merely for their thoughts, no matter what those thoughts are. Or attractions for that matter.

Anyone who would cross the line into downloading CP for instance? I don't see anyone defending that actual crime, nor the crime of molestation. What I do see is you and many other posters assuming that's what the word pedophile means.

If we define "pedophiles" as people who have acted on an attraction to children by way of viewing CP or molestation.. then by all means.. lock them up.

But arresting people for their thoughts? Aside from being impossible.. it's just a concept a lot of people will be against.. no matter what those thoughts are.
Click to expand...

Someone who accepts that they are a pedophile doesn't think liking children is wrong, they only think its wrong to act on it because they would go to jail/get in trouble. If they didn't feel that way, then why let them play with child dolls in sexual ways and view material that gets them off?
 
LuchaShaq said:
Pedo's who are attracted to those who have reached sexual maturity but are not old enough to consent - preference that needs to be discouraged and treated harshly but rationally if acted upon with an underage but consensual partner.

Pedo's who are attracted to little children under 13/14 etc - disorder but I wish them nothing but the worst in every way possible despite my beliefs.
Click to expand...

Attracted to teens that have reached sexual maturity = Ephebophilia
 
cutmeamango said:
As of now neither pedophilia or homossexualism has been tied to a gene or genes.

But homossexuality has been linked to hormone balances but (and this next is my view) generally it is a choice commitment.
Click to expand...

Wow. I can't believe he got away with that without a single quote (posted on page 4).

As a gay man I tell you: fuck you, you POS.
 
LuchaShaq said:
Pedo's who are attracted to little children under 13/14 etc - disorder but I wish them nothing but the worst in every way possible despite my beliefs.
Click to expand...
I too wish the worst upon the mentally ill. It is opinions like yours...
bangladesh said:
Who gives a shit whether or not it's orient or disorder. That shit is the act of ass fucking little children. Fuck pedophiles.
Click to expand...
...and yours that'll make it so these people stay hidden until they can't control their urges and abuse children.

Perhaps it would be more productive to get these people treatment so that they can get help to stifle these unhealthy thoughts?
 
NinjaKixx said:
Consensual sex between 2 men or 2 women is not at all comparable to non-consensual sex w/ a pre-pubescent child. The end.
Click to expand...
I still don't think I've seen anyone make the argument that those are reasonably comparable. I'm just poking fun at Londa wanting to legislate thoughtcrime.
 
Goya said:
In over-simple terms, omega males try to get with pubescent and sometimes (though less frequently) pre-pubescent girls because they can't compete alpha males for older, more fertile females.
Click to expand...

Goddammit, that's like 80% of GAF.
 
Londa said:
I don't feel accused of anything. I'm saying wow because you basically lumping homosexuality with pedophilia.
Click to expand...
No, I'm making a point about you wanting people to go to jail despite not having committed any crimes. I tried to use a little irony and a played-out argument from earlier in the thread to accomplish this.
 
I thought Omega males were the ones poisoning your food, sleeping with your wife, and plotting your accidental death in 5 years. The guy you met once, and never even registered, but he's marked you for death.

The guys so lame that they have to pick on little kids for sex, I wouldn't call them Beta or even Omega. They are not men.
 
I wonder if a race of people, perhaps from some make believe island
japan for example
, that looked exactly like 12 year olds but were fully developed, mature, so on, would that satisfy the pedos or would they still seek out children?

I guess I'm asking is it the body type they want or the age?
 
A recent article about this topic:
Pedophilia a ‘sexual orientation’ experts tell (Canadian) Parliament

OTTAWA, Ontario, February 28, 2011 (LifeSiteNews.com) – In a recent parliamentary session on a bill relating to sexual offenses against children, psychology experts claimed that pedophilia is a “sexual orientation” comparable to homosexuality or heterosexuality, a definition that was questioned by one Member of Parliament who was present.

Bill C-54, an Act to Amend the Criminal Code, seeks to increase or impose mandatory minimum penalties or punishment on sexual offenders of children for particular crimes.

Parliamentary discussion on February 14 centered on the mandatory minimum imprisonment and how offenders respond to treatment. Dr. Vernon Quinsey and Dr. Hubert Van Gijseghem, experts on the issue, were called to witness.

“When we speak of therapy or when individuals get therapy and we feel as though everyone is pacified, the good news is often illusory,” said Van Gijseghem, psychologist and retired professor of the University of Montreal.

“Pedophiles are not simply people who commit a small offence from time to time but rather are grappling with what is equivalent to a sexual orientation just like another individual may be grappling with heterosexuality or even homosexuality,” emphasized Van Gijseghem.

“True pedophiles have an exclusive preference for children, which is the same as having a sexual orientation. You cannot change this person’s sexual orientation.” He added, however: “He may however remain abstinent.”

MP Serge Ménard later praised the witnesses. “Mr. Van Gijseghem and Mr. Quinsey,” said Ménard, “corrected some of our impressions.”

However, MP Marc Lemay of the Bloc Quebecois challenged Van Gijseghem’s definition. “I have to admit that I was not expecting, on this Valentine’s Day, to be talking about this inappropriate type of love. It is not really love. It has more to do with violence and control. I am concerned, Professor Van Gijseghem … because you say, if I am not mistaken, that pedophilia is a sexual orientation.”

“That is what I said,” continued Van Gijseghem.

Lemay pursued the point, asking if it therefore should “be compared to homosexuality.”

“Yes, or heterosexuality,” responded Van Gijseghem. “If, for instance, you were living in a society where heterosexuality is proscribed or prohibited and you were told that you had to get therapy to change your sexual orientation, you would probably say that that is slightly crazy. In other words, you would not accept that at all. I use this analogy to say that, yes indeed, pedophiles do not change their sexual orientation.”

During his witness, Quinsey, professor emeritus of psychology at Queen’s University, said that pedophiles’ “sexual interests” “prefer prepubescent children.” “There is no evidence,” he said, “that this sort of preference can be changed through treatment or through anything else.”

“You can manage the risk that sex offenders present - even pedophiles,” added Quinsey, “It’s not necessarily that they need to change their sexual orientation; they need to learn to control themselves, with our help.”

“In my opinion, society and no one around this table will accept pedophilia, even if it is a sexual orientation,” said Lemay, “I recall a period, not too long ago, when homosexuality was treated as an illness. It is now accepted, society has accepted it … I cannot imagine pedophilia being accepted in 2011. You are telling me that even if we were to impose a five-year minimum on people it would not solve the problem. Once they get out of jail, they reoffend. That is worrisome.”

One columnist in the Toronto Sun, Brian Lilley, expressed shock at Van Gijseghem’s testimony: “what really shocked me was the Universite de Montreal professor, Dr. Hubert Van Gijseghem, who showed up to tell MPs pedophilia was a sexual orientation just like heterosexuality or homosexuality.” He argued that “it’s time to take our country back by ignoring the ‘experts.’”
Click to expand...
Source: http://www.lifesitenews.com/news/pedophilia-a-sexual-orientation-experts-tell-parliament/

To read the entire parliamentary session, click here.
 
neutralgamer02 said:
The primary function of sex is reproduction. Bonding, and that other stuff are secondary functions in some mammals like humans. The notion that the main evolutionary reason for sex is bonding is a load of crap, and something any evolutionary professors would disagree with.
Click to expand...

You equivocate between "evolutionary reason for something's existence," and "something's primary function."
 
Stabbie said:
I am amazed you even have to ask. I'm not gonna bother, you won't change your mind anyway.
Click to expand...

I'm honestly asking what was wrong with that post and why are you offended. Not bothering to answer just leaves me ignorant, which I don't think it is cool.
 
MetalAlien said:
I wonder if a race of people, perhaps from some make believe island
japan for example
, that looked exactly like 12 year olds but were fully developed, mature, so on, would that satisfy the pedos or would still seek out children?

I guess I'm asking is it the body type they want or the age?
Click to expand...
This is an interesting, thorny issue. You could potentially check someone who's been accused of being pedophile by administering a test for sexual arousal, and using suggestive pictures of people who appear to be fully developed, but are under the age of consent. By the same token, you could show pictures of legal adults who are under-developed physically and get the test-taker in big trouble as well.
 
cutmeamango said:
I'm honestly asking what was wrong with that post and why are you offended. Not bothering to answer just leaves me ignorant, which I don't think it is cool.
Click to expand...

You're saying being gay is a choice and that is a very ignorant thing to say.
 
MetalAlien said:
I wonder if a race of people, perhaps from some make believe island
japan for example
, that looked exactly like 12 year olds but were fully developed, mature, so on, would that satisfy the pedos or would they still seek out children?

I guess I'm asking is it the body type they want or the age?
Click to expand...

im guessing its the age, or there would be a lot more demand for midget porn

“True pedophiles have an exclusive preference for children, which is the same as having a sexual orientation. You cannot change this person’s sexual orientation.” He added, however: “He may however remain abstinent.”

abstinence lol
if true, this is just more reason to be afraid.
like telling someone they're never allowed to ever have sex, eventually you will cave in and have a one night stand with that ugly chick thats into you
 
Uchip said:
im guessing its the age, or there would be a lot more demand for midget porn
Click to expand...

Midgets don't look like kids, however there is a lot of "petite girls" porn out there, where they really do manage to look like kids despite being +18.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

Antartica Research Station: send help (violence, threats, and sexual assult)
2
56
4K
poodaddy replied
Borderliine Personality Disorder. Anybody living with it, or with anybody that has it?
2
75
6K
Azelover replied
  • Locked
Coping with body dismorphic "disorder"
24
3K
EviLore replied
MrBeast, Amazon Sued by Contestants on ‘Beast Games’ Competition Show, Including Allegations of Sexual Harassment
News 
25
3K
DKehoe replied
  • Poll
Do you prefer manual or automatic ?
2 3
126
1K
fallingdove replied
Top Bottom