Pedophilia: Inherited, Spiritual, Or Who The Hell Cares?

[_DankOpiAmp_]

^



My decision has nothing to do with being "weak minded", but more to do with applying discerning reason to the context of this "source" you somehow found. I consider credible source material to be that which is published in peer-reviewed or academic publications backed by research, not random internet posts. And I have no desire to argue against the content of a post on a gore website. Why should I do so? This is a debate on bluelight, in the thread right now. Its akin to me posting a youtube comment here and for some reason expecting you to refute it.



I am not making claims, you are. You are claiming the existence of certain facts, thus the onus is on you to substantiate them. My disagreeing with the veracity of your claims, given the paucity of evidence you provided, is totally legit.



Hmm, okay that is quite interesting. This doesn't neccesarily surprise me- given the facts of biology, it makes sense for human females to develop different methods for output of aggression then males. It doesn't, however, explain anything else that you have claimed. All it indicates is that, like males, females are also aggressive. No-one at all is disputing that and saying that woman are saintly and men are violent cunts. Anyone who does say such a thing is just as misguided.

FWIW, Dank, I am not trying to upset you or make you angry, and I hope you don't feel persecuted by my comments. I just feel that they need to be challenged in the same way that any misinformation should be. Its not meant to be taken personally at all.

Mods, forgive the excess of off topic discussion here. I imagine this thread could be split up and clarified in someway perhaps....?

Me mad? Never!

You asserted that what I said was misinformation. You are claiming that I am wrong then absolving yourself of that requirement to back it up while holding my statements to a higher standard. By denying what I have said you are making the counter claim by implication. I shouldn't have to explain it semantically, damn.

Weak mindedness is still a candidate for the cause of your avoidance of the page. If you had the mental fortitude to read it through you would understand that the points the article makes come from life and do not need a scholarly source other than the laws on the subject.

I will give you an example: In Canada a woman has the choice whether or not to carry a child to term while the father has no legal say in the matter. If the mother keeps the child and the relationship has ended the father does not not have a say in whether or not he has to pay child support. This is an example where women get extra rights. Many such examples are listed on the article and I wanted you to be aware of them because I felt that it summarized them nicely, irregardless of the content of the rest of the website.

It is as if you are afraid of being disproven as well as being to lazy to make it through a long article.

 

[swilow]

Yeah ok bro, you're right

 

[Lorne???]

Me mad? Never!

You asserted that what I said was misinformation. You are claiming that I am wrong then absolving yourself of that requirement to back it up while holding my statements to a higher standard. By denying what I have said you are making the counter claim by implication. I shouldn't have to explain it semantically, damn.

Weak mindedness is still a candidate for the cause of your avoidance of the page. If you had the mental fortitude to read it through you would understand that the points the article makes come from life and do not need a scholarly source other than the laws on the subject.

I will give you an example: In Canada a woman has the choice whether or not to carry a child to term while the father has no legal say in the matter. If the mother keeps the child and the relationship has ended the father does not not have a say in whether or not he has to pay child support. This is an example where women get extra rights. Many such examples are listed on the article and I wanted you to be aware of them because I felt that it summarized them nicely, irregardless of the content of the rest of the website.

It is as if you are afraid of being disproven as well as being to lazy to make it through a long article.

Irregardless isn't a word my friend

If it were, you basically just said the content of the website was extreme important and shouldn't be ignored.

Seriously though, can't we just get along???

 

[ebola?]

Perhaps we can route things around again. What do people think about the probable origins of pedophilia? And how does development of the 'orientation' relate to the genesis of sexual desire and orientation in general? Given the data cited by Pseudonym, I think we need to take into account the startling apparent commonality of pedophilic arousal in the general population as rather telling. It seems to me that sexually rooted desire (for Freud, eros), operates in a relatively non-specific manner, the unconscious informational processing related to the development of lust, love, general affinity, and so forth manifesting more specifically as conscious desires in capricious or sometimes seemingly inexplicable ways.

This can occur in both mundane and profound domains. Many have likely experienced close friendship spilling into romantic attraction which also next blurs into lust. Perhaps we could say that the amorphous nature of unconscious cognition of 'eros' is prone to varying in expression in surprising ways, often with little explanation. More generally, and looking at a lengthier developmental span, with the development of the 'normal', culturally dominant sexuality, we typically see heterosexual attraction to the culturally dominant performance of sexuality in the opposite sex, lust spilling over into various 'kinks', some found to be personally meaningful, some not. In the case of paraphilia, an individual will develop fixation on one or more kinks to the point of nearly abandoning attraction to culturally dominant practices of sexuality. This tends to occur early in one's sexual development. I think that we at this point starkly lack definitive knowledge of any of the key causal dynamics. How relevant is genetics in promoting proneness to paraphilia? Or are experiences in one's personal history far more causally relevant (or even unitarily important)? How does this compare and contrast with gendered aspects of sexual orientation (where genetics and prenatal development play an overwhelmingly important role)?

So the analogy holds with pedophiles. What is it that causes eros to spill over into prepubescent children? I honestly think we have no idea. In terms of policy, I don't think that this is particularly relevant (though it's honestly more interesting than questions of policy ), because at no point does one choose one's sexual desire (or even exercise remotely complete control over how to navigate sexual orientation), until one comes to the point of exercising choice over how to act, and in the case of pedophiles, whether to molest. So in attempting to combat molestation, we need provide pedophiles with mental tools to prevent molestation from occurring. However, current stigmatization of pedophilia prevents the vast, vast majority of them from seeking such tools. It finally bears noting that a large percentage of molesters are not pedophiles, so we must also explore the sexual politics of rape and their dynamics aside from actual sexual desire.

ebola

 

[One Thousand Words]

I think it is telling that you rarely see a submissive pedophile. By its very nature pedophillia is about domination and power of the perpetrator. You could argue whether or not this kink is "natural" but personally I feel it's a moot point. Having empathy and self control is an important trait of civilised human society and for me positive human evolution has rightly decided that pedophillia is unwanted.

 

[ebola?]

I think it is telling that you rarely see a submissive pedophile. By its very nature pedophillia is about domination and power of the perpetrator.

Well, as far as orientation along the dom/sub kink spectrum, I doubt that sufficient data have been collected on the matter. Yes, logistically and in terms of sexual politics, power dynamics, etc., molestation by definition has a dominating aspect, but who knows what drives the fantasies typical of pedophiles (and who would want to know)?

Having empathy and self control is an important trait of civilised human society and for me positive human evolution has rightly decided that pedophillia is unwanted.

Indeed, they are, but where does the pedophile who makes absolutely sure to preclude the possibility of going on to molest, consume child porn, etc. fit into this scheme? Wouldn't denying sexual urges, some of those strongest in directing human behavior, require extreme self-control? And wouldn't doing so to protect others from grave harm require the exercise of some sort of empathy as a motivation?

But yes, I don't think that anyone would argue that pedophilia is "wanted". But it's unfortunately not curable in any meaningful sense of the word.

ebola

 

[Lorne???]

I think it is telling that you rarely see a submissive pedophile. By its very nature pedophillia is about domination and power of the perpetrator. .

That is a red herring. By definition, someone practicing pedophillia cannot be with a willing victim, making any connection to "dominance" irrelevant and misleading. Not to mention, most acts of tape are considered to be about "power" as opposed to sex, again making this connection unimpressive.

But most of all, it brings up my previous point, that you cannot possibly know what the majority of pedophiles. think. Again, you're comment would apply to "sex offenders", and not necessarily pediphiles in general.(unless you can indeed read minds, and this price that all of them are uncontrollable rapists.)

r. You could argue whether or not this kink is "natural" but personally I feel it's a moot point. Having empathy and self control is an important trait of civilised human society and for me positive human evolution has rightly decided that pedophillia is unwanted.

Yes, pedophillia is an unwanted trait. No one likes pedophiles. What is your point?

Abd if you want to bring up evolution, then, strictly from a natural selection viewpoint, homosexuality is even less desirable than pedophillia, since, last time I checked, two men, or two women, together cannot continue our race. Yet, a 5 year old girl was once pregnant, and gave birth, quite normally, under the circumstances. If I recall, she had another kid, long before becoming an adult herself.
pedophillia was practiced and accepted long before gay rights was even recognized as an abstract concept.

Make no mistake, I am not the advocate for pedophiles, but I am for common sense, and with this sane logic, we could say society Doesn't accept many groups of people.

And as far as "empathy and self control", once again, you haven't the slightest clue how many "pedophiles" there actually are, and therefore any generalizations about a select portion(it unknown size) is completely, and utterly meaningless.


A
s Ebola implied, it would seem to take a lot of both of these traits to ignore your very sexual being.
s.

 

[Flickering]

By definition, someone practicing pedophillia cannot be with a willing victim, making any connection to "dominance" irrelevant and misleading.

Interesting point. I still think the size/strength advantage, difference in knowledge and naivety of the victim puts the child molester in an inherently dominating role, legal vernacular aside. In other words, the powerlessness of the victim would have to be part of what appeals to the offender just due to the circumstances.

I think this also goes right to the heart of why we find it so sickening. Where most are inclined to protect the vulnerable, some choose to exploit it instead, and not just for sexual gratification.

As to whether there are submissive pedophiles, believe it or not, this member at PsychForums confesses to have something like it.