Is pedophilia natural?

Anthropology, Economics, History, Sociology etc.

Moderators: Calilasseia, ADParker

Re: Is pedophilia natural?

#41  Postby crank » May 22, 2016 8:57 pm

igorfrankensteen wrote:
And since with pedophilia, we DO outlaw more than just direct attacks on real children, I would suggest that if we ever reach the point where we can detect pedophilia in the mind directly, that we will outlaw that as well.


Are you 'suggesting' meaning you think this will happen, or are you advocating we should do this? Such a thing would be thought control. A society allowing though control would be seriously ugly. Dissent would disappear, not because there wouldn't be any, they'll just disappear the offenders.

You're right in that we do outlaw more than direct attacks on children, Texas law on child porn outlaws 'simulation' of sex involving minors. I am not familiar with how this is used, but as written, there are shitloads of teen movies that would fall under this. The guy cutting out the catalog pictures would fall under this. There was a story, in another state, about a guy getting arrested for child porn because he had those Japanese anime or manga cartoons, hentai is a term for the more erotic variety, I think, there a mess of terms I can't keep straight, many have very young looking characters with hyper-sized genitals, all very stylized, but cartoons. It's very hard to imagine who is harmed in the drawing of these cartoons, even harder for mere possession.
“When you're born into this world, you're given a ticket to the freak show. If you're born in America you get a front row seat.”
-George Carlin, who died 2008. Ha, now we have human centipedes running the place
User avatar
crank
RS Donator
 
Name: Sick & Tired
Posts: 10413
Age: 5
Male

Country: 2nd miasma on the left
Pitcairn (pn)
Print view this post

Ads by Google


Re: Is pedophilia natural?

#42  Postby crank » May 22, 2016 9:06 pm

John Platko wrote:
Spinozasgalt wrote:No, pedophilia is unnatural, because it frustrates the proper ends of the sexual organs. Or some Catholic shit.


:nono: That's not how our Catholic "shit" works. :picard: Post menopause women can still have sex without offending God- according to Catholic doctrine- as long as sex ends in the approved way of course. And I see no reason why symmetry wouldn't hold on the other end of the spectrum. So, it is not final cause that protects children from such abuse but rather the Sacrament of Marriage which Catholic doctrine prescribes all sex must be shrouded in.

Interesting term you use, 'shrouded'. Due to all the sex-hatred engendered by religion, anything sexual is often shrouded, because of the shame dictated by the unnatural and insidious dogmas and creeds of religion, especially Christian and Islamic, possibly the greatest source of suffering in countries afflicted with a religion of the book other than disease. It's why religion is a disease.
“When you're born into this world, you're given a ticket to the freak show. If you're born in America you get a front row seat.”
-George Carlin, who died 2008. Ha, now we have human centipedes running the place
User avatar
crank
RS Donator
 
Name: Sick & Tired
Posts: 10413
Age: 5
Male

Country: 2nd miasma on the left
Pitcairn (pn)
Print view this post

Re: Is pedophilia natural?

#43  Postby I'm With Stupid » May 22, 2016 10:42 pm

Fallible wrote:This is a non-sequitur, as far as I can see. What does doing more than outlawing direct attacks on real children have to do with outlawing thoughts? Secondly, I'd be interested to see you come up with anything which is outlawed regarding paedophilia that is not an action/behaviour. I can't, but perhaps I'm missing something.

The only one I can think of specifically would be owning cartoon child pornography, which as far as I can tell, is justified purely as a thought crime. Real child pornography is rightly banned because allowing a market for it encourages its production, and that necessitates children being abused to make it. A drawing eliminates any actual abuse from the process, but they are typically banned because of the unsubstantiated belief that they will encourage genuine child abuse. Whether this is true or not, it's definitely the case that this has been a reason throughout history to implement thought crimes and ban things purely on the grounds that certain people find them distasteful.
Image
User avatar
I'm With Stupid
 
Posts: 9618
Age: 36
Male

Country: Malaysia
Jolly Roger (arr)
Print view this post

Re: Is pedophilia natural?

#44  Postby I'm With Stupid » May 22, 2016 10:52 pm

crank wrote:You're right in that we do outlaw more than direct attacks on children, Texas law on child porn outlaws 'simulation' of sex involving minors.

I assume the purpose of that law is to ban explicit sex scenes in films involving children. For example, I know that in the scene in Taxi Driver, where a 13 year old Jodie Foster is required to slow dance with her pimp, they used her 18 year old sister as a stand in. And that's just dancing. Although there are actually a number of films from the 70s that do involve sexualized images of young teenagers and explore teen sexuality with a certain amount of nudity involved.

But yeah, more recently, a more hysterical version of such a law has appeared, which I now assume is what you're referring to, banning pornography that attempts to simulate sex involving minors. A similar law has been introduced in the UK, I believe, and the suggestion is that it could ban, for example, someone dressed as a school girl in a sex scene (although you could quite easily get around this by pointing out that there are plenty of people who still wear a school uniform when they're 18). The other concern I remember reading about was from porn stars who are young looking for their age, saying that they could effectively be banned from their jobs because while they are over 18 years old, they don't look it, and could be accused of "simulating sex involving minors." I'm unaware of anyone actually being prosecuted over these laws though. You wonder if it was the law that was hysterical or the reaction to it, and if so, what exactly is it that's intended to be banned.
Image
User avatar
I'm With Stupid
 
Posts: 9618
Age: 36
Male

Country: Malaysia
Jolly Roger (arr)
Print view this post

Re: Is pedophilia natural?

#45  Postby igorfrankensteen » May 22, 2016 11:15 pm

crank wrote:
igorfrankensteen wrote:
And since with pedophilia, we DO outlaw more than just direct attacks on real children, I would suggest that if we ever reach the point where we can detect pedophilia in the mind directly, that we will outlaw that as well.


Are you 'suggesting' meaning you think this will happen, or are you advocating we should do this? Such a thing would be thought control. A society allowing though control would be seriously ugly. Dissent would disappear, not because there wouldn't be any, they'll just disappear the offenders.

You're right in that we do outlaw more than direct attacks on children, Texas law on child porn outlaws 'simulation' of sex involving minors. I am not familiar with how this is used, but as written, there are shitloads of teen movies that would fall under this. The guy cutting out the catalog pictures would fall under this. There was a story, in another state, about a guy getting arrested for child porn because he had those Japanese anime or manga cartoons, hentai is a term for the more erotic variety, I think, there a mess of terms I can't keep straight, many have very young looking characters with hyper-sized genitals, all very stylized, but cartoons. It's very hard to imagine who is harmed in the drawing of these cartoons, even harder for mere possession.


I was suggesting that I would expect it to happen, not taking sides about it myself. Since there's no hint now that we will be able to do anything like this any time soon, I'm also confident we don't need to worry right now about making decisions about it.

I usually don't like to go anywhere near "what if" kinds of things, but this particular area, and the post that I was responding to, seemed to warrant it.

Personally, because of my own life experience, I don't think that people who were NOT pedophiles, or any other sort of dangerous criminal, would be turned into one by coming in contact with such materials. That's not the reason to ban them.

The reason to ban them, is to keep a significant distance between children, and what people are allowed to do with them/to them.

If materials depicting abuse of children are permitted, I fear that those who need to defend children, might lose track of how early to draw the line.

Like the application of violence as a "training" tool. People have died, or been permanently damaged in situations which were allowed to occur, because violence was allowed, up to a certain point, and that point became too murky for authorities to step in in time.

Stalking has become a crime only recently, and it is still being parsed out, exactly where a person's freedom of expression ends, and their target's freedom from having to worry about or deal with them begins.

I will continue to favor erring on the side AGAINST child abuse.
User avatar
igorfrankensteen
 
Name: michael e munson
Posts: 2114
Age: 67
Male

Country: United States
United States (us)
Print view this post

Re: Is pedophilia natural?

#46  Postby Spinozasgalt » May 23, 2016 1:46 am

John Platko wrote:
Spinozasgalt wrote:No, pedophilia is unnatural, because it frustrates the proper ends of the sexual organs. Or some Catholic shit.


:nono: That's not how our Catholic "shit" works. :picard: Post menopause women can still have sex without offending God- according to Catholic doctrine- as long as sex ends in the approved way of course. And I see no reason why symmetry wouldn't hold on the other end of the spectrum. So, it is not final cause that protects children from such abuse but rather the Sacrament of Marriage which Catholic doctrine prescribes all sex must be shrouded in.

Thank you for that lecture. As long as we're here...

You'll notice my joke was about the naturalness of pedophilia, rather than protections or offense to God. Clearly you don't think pedophilia is contrary to the ends of the sexual organs (hopefully you just don't have any truck with that sort of view), but then you've left the status of pedophilia in Catholicism, as natural or unnatural, unclear. Marriage offers a philosophical protection because it excludes pedophilia as ordered towards a marital good. That doesn't tell us why pedophilia is so excluded or in what sense it's a perversion.
When the straight and narrow gets a little too straight, roll up the joint.
Or don't. Just follow your arrow wherever it points.

Kacey Musgraves
User avatar
Spinozasgalt
RS Donator
 
Name: Jennifer
Posts: 18769
Age: 34
Male

Country: Australia
Australia (au)
Print view this post

Re: Is pedophilia natural?

#47  Postby Darwinsbulldog » May 23, 2016 1:55 am

Calilasseia wrote:I'm tempted to suggest that from a scientific standpoint, paedophilia could be a paraphilic by-product of the tension between two different male organismal goals. The first being to mate with as many females as possible, the second being paternity assurance of offspring. That second goal is most simply solved by being the first to impregnate a female. All you need is for the cognitive wiring for this to be skewed, and hey presto.

Add to this the tendency exhibited in a range of organisms toward what's known as paedomorphosis (i.e., juvenile features to persist in the adult), and I'd say there's the foundations for some serious research to investigate this.


That depends really. One bout of sex doesn't necessarily end in pregnancy, and while you are off making cuckolds of other males, they can do the same to you. And a string of pregnant females doesn't really guarantee your genes into the future either, because the children need to survive towards adulthood and mate themselves.
"Staying home" and "guarding" the female [or choosing a faithful one], and contributing to nurture the children is a pretty good strategy. Even in social fidelity [where the parents stay together for the young], but are not exclusive, works better, even though the average male has been cuckolded. So long as the majority of the chicks are his, he is still ahead in all species where parental care is vital. Two parents are better than one in species have a prolonged "helpless" stage in development.
And the "stud" male strategy is not without risk. Females have fathers and brothers. etc, who might reward a seduction or rape with a club to the head.
Jayjay4547 wrote:
"When an animal carries a “branch” around as a defensive weapon, that branch is under natural selection".
Darwinsbulldog
 
Posts: 7440
Age: 66

Print view this post

Ads by Google


Re: Is pedophilia natural?

#48  Postby crank » May 23, 2016 2:04 am

That reminds me of studies showing up to 30% of children not fathered by the husband of the mother. The poorer you are, the more likely this is the case. One Out Of Ten People Weren’t Fathered By The Man They Believe Is Dad

The 10% figure is some kind of broad average.
“When you're born into this world, you're given a ticket to the freak show. If you're born in America you get a front row seat.”
-George Carlin, who died 2008. Ha, now we have human centipedes running the place
User avatar
crank
RS Donator
 
Name: Sick & Tired
Posts: 10413
Age: 5
Male

Country: 2nd miasma on the left
Pitcairn (pn)
Print view this post

Re: Is pedophilia natural?

#49  Postby Darwinsbulldog » May 23, 2016 2:32 am

crank wrote:That reminds me of studies showing up to 30% of children not fathered by the husband of the mother. The poorer you are, the more likely this is the case. One Out Of Ten People Weren’t Fathered By The Man They Believe Is Dad

The 10% figure is some kind of broad average.


So say a couple has four kids, but one is sired by another male, the nurturing father is still ahead as far as his efforts to project his own genes into the future is concerned.
Jayjay4547 wrote:
"When an animal carries a “branch” around as a defensive weapon, that branch is under natural selection".
Darwinsbulldog
 
Posts: 7440
Age: 66

Print view this post

Re: Is pedophilia natural?

#50  Postby Fallible » May 23, 2016 7:49 am

I'm With Stupid wrote:
Fallible wrote:This is a non-sequitur, as far as I can see. What does doing more than outlawing direct attacks on real children have to do with outlawing thoughts? Secondly, I'd be interested to see you come up with anything which is outlawed regarding paedophilia that is not an action/behaviour. I can't, but perhaps I'm missing something.

The only one I can think of specifically would be owning cartoon child pornography, which as far as I can tell, is justified purely as a thought crime. Real child pornography is rightly banned because allowing a market for it encourages its production, and that necessitates children being abused to make it. A drawing eliminates any actual abuse from the process, but they are typically banned because of the unsubstantiated belief that they will encourage genuine child abuse. Whether this is true or not, it's definitely the case that this has been a reason throughout history to implement thought crimes and ban things purely on the grounds that certain people find them distasteful.


In order to own cartoon child pornography, one has to acquire it. Acquiring such stuff is an action. Owning something isn't a thought crime - it is the possession of something, a thing, an image, whatever, which is the crime. We do this for other items such as guns and drugs. I'm not making any comment on whether this is the right way to do things or not.
She battled through in every kind of tribulation,
She revelled in adventure and imagination.
She never listened to no hater, liar,
Breaking boundaries and chasing fire.
Oh, my my! Oh my, she flies!
User avatar
Fallible
RS Donator
 
Name: Alice Pooper
Posts: 51607
Age: 48
Female

Country: Engerland na na
Canada (ca)
Print view this post

Re: Is pedophilia natural?

#51  Postby zoon » May 23, 2016 11:23 am

Fallible wrote:
I'm With Stupid wrote:
Fallible wrote:This is a non-sequitur, as far as I can see. What does doing more than outlawing direct attacks on real children have to do with outlawing thoughts? Secondly, I'd be interested to see you come up with anything which is outlawed regarding paedophilia that is not an action/behaviour. I can't, but perhaps I'm missing something.

The only one I can think of specifically would be owning cartoon child pornography, which as far as I can tell, is justified purely as a thought crime. Real child pornography is rightly banned because allowing a market for it encourages its production, and that necessitates children being abused to make it. A drawing eliminates any actual abuse from the process, but they are typically banned because of the unsubstantiated belief that they will encourage genuine child abuse. Whether this is true or not, it's definitely the case that this has been a reason throughout history to implement thought crimes and ban things purely on the grounds that certain people find them distasteful.


In order to own cartoon child pornography, one has to acquire it. Acquiring such stuff is an action. Owning something isn't a thought crime - it is the possession of something, a thing, an image, whatever, which is the crime. We do this for other items such as guns and drugs. I'm not making any comment on whether this is the right way to do things or not.

The trouble here, is that this runs into free speech and banning books. As you say, thoughts are not crimes, largely because they can be concealed, so the historic arguments have been around freedom of speech and writing. Banning comics with child porn may be justifiable, but it would then be one of the exceptions (along with shouting "fire" in a crowded theatre) to the general principle of free speech which is vital to healthy democracies.
User avatar
zoon
 
Posts: 3230

Print view this post

Re: Is pedophilia natural?

#52  Postby John Platko » May 23, 2016 12:41 pm

Spinozasgalt wrote:
John Platko wrote:
Spinozasgalt wrote:No, pedophilia is unnatural, because it frustrates the proper ends of the sexual organs. Or some Catholic shit.


:nono: That's not how our Catholic "shit" works. :picard: Post menopause women can still have sex without offending God- according to Catholic doctrine- as long as sex ends in the approved way of course. And I see no reason why symmetry wouldn't hold on the other end of the spectrum. So, it is not final cause that protects children from such abuse but rather the Sacrament of Marriage which Catholic doctrine prescribes all sex must be shrouded in.

Thank you for that lecture. As long as we're here...

You'll notice my joke was about the naturalness of pedophilia, rather than protections or offense to God.


I was dealing with the "Or some Catholic shit" part of your "joke" - as I made pretty clear.


Clearly you don't think pedophilia is contrary to the ends of the sexual organs (hopefully you just don't have any truck with that sort of view), but then you've left the status of pedophilia in Catholicism, as natural or unnatural, unclear.


I don't recall ever being taught anything about pedophilia during my formal Catholic education, however, the proper/natural way to end a sexual encounter was taught; and I don't seem to be able to forget it. This they divine from natural law/ metaphysics not the bible. But perhaps there is something in the dogma that I am not aware of - it is rather long and complicated.

I did notice that some folks over at the Catholic World Report were rationalizing away priests having sex with young boys not as pedophilia but as homosexual acts- that may be the most disturbing sort of thing I read over there- they weren't joking.


Marriage offers a philosophical protection because it excludes pedophilia as ordered towards a marital good. That doesn't tell us why pedophilia is so excluded or in what sense it's a perversion.


Marriage offers more than a philosophical protection. You're not supposed to have sex until you're married and, at least these days, the Church isn't marrying children.

Edit:

There does seem to be Canonical law against having sex with children.
from
CANONICAL ISSUES

7. Sexual Abuse By Priests

The sexual abuse of or contact with a minor under the age of 16 is a violation of a priest’s obligation of celibacy. This obligation is clearly set forth in both the 1917 and 1983 Codes of Canon law (canons 132 and 277). Because sexual acting out with a minor by a cleric is particularly heinous, it has also been enumerated as a crime or delict in Canon Law. This crime is mentioned in the 1917 Code in Canon 2359, 2 and in the 1983 Code in Canon 1395. This is not the first time sex by clerics with minors is mentioned in the law of the Church. The Canon in the 1917 Code, repeated in the 1983 Code, was based on earlier specific legislation enacted by the Church. This legislation, specifically mentioned sex with minors because of its particularly reprehensible nature, goes back to the earliest days of the Church and is found repeatedly in collections of ecclesiastical laws.

The canons mentioned above state that clerics guilty of sex abuse of minors are to be punished with appropriate penalties not excluding dismissal from the clerical state.

In addition to the canons directly related to sexual abuse, there are other related offenses. One canon for instance, states that an offense is aggravated if the offender used his office or position to aid in the perpetration of the offense.

The Code does not mention homosexuality or homosexual acts specifically. However, it is clear that homosexual acts whether with age-appropriate persons or underage persons, are forbidden by the obligation of chastity. The 1917 Code stated that clerics who committed any crime against the sixth commandment, especially if they had care of souls, were to be punished with severe penalties.

A crime against the “sixth commandment” is, in ecclesiastical parlance, any act of a sexual nature with members of one’s own or the opposite sex. This can include various forms of sexual intercourse, touches, embraces etc. The Canon in the 1917 Code stresses that the offense is particularly serious if committed by one who had the “care of souls.” This too is canonical language or Church parlance and it refers directly to priests who have pastoral duties as pastors or assistant pastors.

In Sum: Sexual abuse or contact with adults and children is strictly forbidden by Church law. Sex with children is considered in Church law to be an especially grave offense.
I like to imagine ...
User avatar
John Platko
 
Name: John Platko
Posts: 9411
Male

Country: US
United States (us)
Print view this post

Re: Is pedophilia natural?

#53  Postby Fallible » May 23, 2016 5:07 pm

zoon wrote:
Fallible wrote:
I'm With Stupid wrote:
Fallible wrote:This is a non-sequitur, as far as I can see. What does doing more than outlawing direct attacks on real children have to do with outlawing thoughts? Secondly, I'd be interested to see you come up with anything which is outlawed regarding paedophilia that is not an action/behaviour. I can't, but perhaps I'm missing something.

The only one I can think of specifically would be owning cartoon child pornography, which as far as I can tell, is justified purely as a thought crime. Real child pornography is rightly banned because allowing a market for it encourages its production, and that necessitates children being abused to make it. A drawing eliminates any actual abuse from the process, but they are typically banned because of the unsubstantiated belief that they will encourage genuine child abuse. Whether this is true or not, it's definitely the case that this has been a reason throughout history to implement thought crimes and ban things purely on the grounds that certain people find them distasteful.


In order to own cartoon child pornography, one has to acquire it. Acquiring such stuff is an action. Owning something isn't a thought crime - it is the possession of something, a thing, an image, whatever, which is the crime. We do this for other items such as guns and drugs. I'm not making any comment on whether this is the right way to do things or not.

The trouble here, is that this runs into free speech and banning books. As you say, thoughts are not crimes, largely because they can be concealed, so the historic arguments have been around freedom of speech and writing. Banning comics with child porn may be justifiable, but it would then be one of the exceptions (along with shouting "fire" in a crowded theatre) to the general principle of free speech which is vital to healthy democracies.


No argument here.
She battled through in every kind of tribulation,
She revelled in adventure and imagination.
She never listened to no hater, liar,
Breaking boundaries and chasing fire.
Oh, my my! Oh my, she flies!
User avatar
Fallible
RS Donator
 
Name: Alice Pooper
Posts: 51607
Age: 48
Female

Country: Engerland na na
Canada (ca)
Print view this post

Re: Is pedophilia natural?

#54  Postby Spinozasgalt » May 24, 2016 5:20 am

John Platko wrote:I don't recall ever being taught anything about pedophilia during my formal Catholic education, however, the proper/natural way to end a sexual encounter was taught; and I don't seem to be able to forget it. This they divine from natural law/ metaphysics not the bible. But perhaps there is something in the dogma that I am not aware of - it is rather long and complicated.

It doesn't feature very often in natural law arguments against same sex marriage, either. Incest and polygamy do, but not pedophilia. Whether that's largely due to recent history or the different argumentative basis for such things as the marital good or perverted faculty, I don't know. Because it's difficult to find philosophical interest in it. I can think of how I'd go about this topic as a Catholic, but that's not to say Catholics think as I do.

John Platko wrote:Marriage offers more than a philosophical protection. You're not supposed to have sex until you're married and, at least these days, the Church isn't marrying children.

Sure. Legal and so forth, too. But, still: "That doesn't tell us why pedophilia is so excluded or in what sense it's a perversion."
When the straight and narrow gets a little too straight, roll up the joint.
Or don't. Just follow your arrow wherever it points.

Kacey Musgraves
User avatar
Spinozasgalt
RS Donator
 
Name: Jennifer
Posts: 18769
Age: 34
Male

Country: Australia
Australia (au)
Print view this post

Re: Is pedophilia natural?

#55  Postby Ven. Kwan Tam Woo » May 24, 2016 7:10 am

OnkelCannabia wrote: Marrying underage girls seemed to be the norm in many societies throughout history


So were slavery and capital punishment.

It seems that sex with minors is also rather common in many tribal societies


As are superstition, tribal warfare, physical abuse, and infanticide.

We stigmatize somebody who has these urges to be a pervert or much worse, but is the interest in a minor actually a perversion or do most people just convince themselves they have no interest because of the social repercussions.


I'd say the opposite is true - the sexual saturation of contemporary culture in general and the sexualisation of children in particular insidiously normalizes and provokes a sexual interest in minors which wouldn't exist otherwise.

I've heard from many people who grew up thinking gay sex is disgusting only to later in life find out they are bisexual. Could the same thing be happening here?


No. Gay sex (i.e. between adults) does not have the same problems of consent, power imbalances and child well-being. And unlike gay sex, a person is probably going to be less inclined to think that pedophilia is okay as they get older and become aware of the full implications of it.

Why else would it have been common in the past and considered a perversion today?


Because most societies throughout human history didn't given a shit about human rights.

Because the lower life expectancy of pre-modern societies was a strong incentive to commence procreating at the earliest signs of fertility.

Because environmental factors in the modern world are causing children to enter puberty at younger ages, even as certain other influences of the modern world retard their psychological development.
"A nation can survive its fools, and even the ambitious. But it cannot survive treason from within."
- Cicero

The Terrifying Brilliance of the Islamic Memeplex
Ven. Kwan Tam Woo
 
Posts: 556

Australia (au)
Print view this post

Ads by Google


Re: Is pedophilia natural?

#56  Postby Fallible » May 24, 2016 7:22 am

And again - paedophilia is the sexual attraction to pre-pubescent children. Sexual attraction to pubescent children is called ephebophilia.
She battled through in every kind of tribulation,
She revelled in adventure and imagination.
She never listened to no hater, liar,
Breaking boundaries and chasing fire.
Oh, my my! Oh my, she flies!
User avatar
Fallible
RS Donator
 
Name: Alice Pooper
Posts: 51607
Age: 48
Female

Country: Engerland na na
Canada (ca)
Print view this post

Re: Is pedophilia natural?

#57  Postby Macdoc » May 24, 2016 7:25 am

- the sexual saturation of contemporary culture in general and the sexualisation of children in particular insidiously normalizes and provokes a sexual interest in minors which wouldn't exist otherwise.


Rather it caters to what is already there. Also you are treating pre-pubescent and pubescent but not legal age in the same spectrum. They are not.
Prepubescent sexual attraction is relatively rare and legimately ostracized as mental illness,
Pubescent attraction is common and catered to....with pubescence arriving earlier and in some cases age of consent increasing despite the of sexual activity descreasing....this represents a sizeable problem.
Travel photos > https://500px.com/macdoc/galleries
EO Wilson in On Human Nature wrote:
We are not compelled to believe in biological uniformity in order to affirm human freedom and dignity.
User avatar
Macdoc
 
Posts: 17156
Age: 73
Male

Country: Canada/Australia
Australia (au)
Print view this post

Re: Is pedophilia natural?

#58  Postby Fallible » May 24, 2016 7:34 am

Your whole previous post confused pubescent and pre-pubescent children, talking about puberty onset, and how at this point children are sexual creatures. You used a 14 year old as an example.
She battled through in every kind of tribulation,
She revelled in adventure and imagination.
She never listened to no hater, liar,
Breaking boundaries and chasing fire.
Oh, my my! Oh my, she flies!
User avatar
Fallible
RS Donator
 
Name: Alice Pooper
Posts: 51607
Age: 48
Female

Country: Engerland na na
Canada (ca)
Print view this post

Re: Is pedophilia natural?

#59  Postby Beatsong » May 24, 2016 5:40 pm

Ven. Kwan Tam Woo wrote:
We stigmatize somebody who has these urges to be a pervert or much worse, but is the interest in a minor actually a perversion or do most people just convince themselves they have no interest because of the social repercussions.


I'd say the opposite is true - the sexual saturation of contemporary culture in general and the sexualisation of children in particular insidiously normalizes and provokes a sexual interest in minors which wouldn't exist otherwise.


What's this sexualisation of children I keep reading about?

I work in two primary schools, so with kids up to 11. I also have a 15-year-old and a 10-year-old kid of my own. I must admit I've never observed kids generally to be any more sexual than they were when I was one (ie, not really at all until somewhere around 13 - 15).
NEVER WRONG. ESPECIALLY WHEN I AM.
User avatar
Beatsong
 
Posts: 7027

United Kingdom (uk)
Print view this post

Re: Is pedophilia natural?

#60  Postby ScholasticSpastic » May 24, 2016 7:15 pm

igorfrankensteen wrote:
ScholasticSpastic wrote:
igorfrankensteen wrote: It is not biologically logical, to have sexual attraction specifically to beings who cannot bear children. Nor is it common. So it is not "natural," in the sense you mean.

While I understand what you are trying to say, homosexuality appears to be quite natural, which is to say that we can find a lot of examples of it in other species of animals, including entire species of only one sex that have sex with each other in order to stimulate parthenogenesis. But homosexuality is sexual attraction specifically to beings who cannot bear children.


I wasn't clear enough for your purposes. I didn't say what you think I said.

The thread starter used "natural" to mean two unsupported things, simultaneously. You are using "natural" in reference to "occurs occasionally in nature without intervention." And I agree with you, and I also suspect we will one day find a biological cause of pedophilia.

The OP, however, was using it to mean "normal and common to most or all members of a species," as well as implying the socio-political meaning "therefore should be considered okay." It is to those definitions of "natural" that I was referring, when I said "in the sense you mean."

The OP uses "natural" in a way which is freighted with bullshit. So I refuse to consider the issue in those terms. It harks back to the naturalistic fallacy, which harks back to Catholic bullshit about animals being free of original sin. Since the advent of modern ethology, we have generous helpings of evidence that "natural" includes every sort of atrocity we can think of, and should not be used to argue for or against a particular moral stance. It's natural to rape babies to death. It's even natural to eat them afterwards. Nature is nasty, sometimes, and so are we, being ourselves natural.

Whether a behavior is normative or not is also insufficient means for deciding whether we ought to consider it moral. There were persons in the Southern United States who rightly recognized slavery to be immoral despite the fact that it was common and accepted practice. I feel the same way about the common subject which has reared its head in this thread regarding reproductive viability being a cue for determining the "naturalness" (or whatever) of a coupling. Perhaps we could call it the fitness landscape of mate selection. In an organism which is highly and complexly social, I don't feel that reproductive viability can be measured so simply. If a male pairs up with another male, but then contributes to his sibling's children's well-being, we can consider this a measure of reproductive success even though the male does not engage in direct reproduction. His extended capacity and availability for care helped pass on some fraction of his genes.

To sum up, I don't think any of the OP's mechanisms for determining whether something ought to be okay are terribly helpful, and I think this stems from false assumptions regarding how nature works, how societies work, and probably a few others besides, which we have yet to identify.

Pedophilia is a paraphilia because it has the capacity to cause distress in the pedophile and to harm the target of the pedophile's attraction. Not because it is not natural. Not because it is not reproductively useful. Just because it is harmful. If we could remove the harm from pedophilia, there would be no reason to continue to consider it a paraphilia. As I see no way for that to happen, please do not consider this any sort of attempt to justify attraction to children. I do not consider it justifiable.
"You have to be a real asshole to quote yourself."
~ ScholasticSpastic
User avatar
ScholasticSpastic
 
Name: D-Money Sr.
Posts: 6354
Age: 45
Male

Country: Behind Zion's Curtain
United States (us)
Print view this post

PreviousNext

Return to Social Sciences & Humanities

Who is online

Users viewing this topic: No registered users and 1 guest