Is pedophilia natural?

Anthropology, Economics, History, Sociology etc.

Moderators: Calilasseia, ADParker

Re: Is pedophilia natural?

#61  Postby ScholasticSpastic » May 24, 2016 7:21 pm

Fallible wrote:And after macdoc's post can I also make the point that paedophilia is sexual attraction to children who are PRE-PUBESCENT - in other words, it is sexual attraction to male or female children precisely because they show no signs of the development of primary or secondary sexual characteristics brought about by puberty. There is a different term for those attracted to pubescent youngsters - ephebophilia.

Yeah, I take issue with quite a few of the OP's word choices. :doh:
"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

Ads by Google


Re: Is pedophilia natural?

#62  Postby laklak » May 24, 2016 8:34 pm

What about the inevitable CGI or even VR child porn? OK or not OK? Particularly when VR becomes more...immersive. No one is harmed in the production, it's all just pixels, or perhaps later direct neural stimulation. Would this make pedos want the real thing, or keep them from doing it IRL?
A man who carries a cat by the tail learns something he can learn in no other way. - Mark Twain
The sky is falling! The sky is falling! - Chicken Little
I never go without my dinner. No one ever does, except vegetarians and people like that - Oscar Wilde
User avatar
laklak
RS Donator
 
Name: Florida Man
Posts: 20878
Age: 66
Male

Country: The Great Satan
Swaziland (sz)
Print view this post

Re: Is pedophilia natural?

#63  Postby ScholasticSpastic » May 24, 2016 8:48 pm

laklak wrote:What about the inevitable CGI or even VR child porn? OK or not OK? Particularly when VR becomes more...immersive. No one is harmed in the production, it's all just pixels, or perhaps later direct neural stimulation. Would this make pedos want the real thing, or keep them from doing it IRL?

This is an interesting question, and a problematic consideration when considering morality from harm. How far removed do we take harm? Does this work just like violence in movies and games? Or adult sex in movies and games? Or is there something special about underage sex which makes it work differently in media? Is this an enabling exposure or a surrogate exposure?

My personal stance is that, when there has been no harm, and there is no explicit link between something and harm, we're venturing into problematic territory when making laws. Especially where an "ick factor" is concerned. I've seen enough of people making laws against things because they think they're icky even though there's no demonstrable harm. Even when I agree that a thing is icky, I think we need a more robust reason for making it illegal.

ETA: There is no statute of limitations for making a thing illegal. By which I mean, should new data come along which shows a link between exposure and acting out on children, it's never too late to change our minds and make the icky thing illegal. Preemptive lawmaking and legislating morality are something I'm always skeptical of, though. What if it were to turn out that VR child rape was an effective surrogate for the real thing? I'd rather these people bugger pixels than children, at least until we find a way to humanely redirect their paraphilia.
"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

Re: Is pedophilia natural?

#64  Postby Macdoc » May 24, 2016 9:11 pm

Fallible
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.


who are you talking about?? ....either quote the specific post or say something cogent instead of inane generalizations. If YOU are confused I can't help that.
I have no confusion at all about pre and post pubescent attraction. One is easily within human sexuality ...one is outside the norms enough to be pathological. :coffee:
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?

#65  Postby tuco » May 24, 2016 9:16 pm

laklak wrote:What about the inevitable CGI or even VR child porn? OK or not OK? Particularly when VR becomes more...immersive. No one is harmed in the production, it's all just pixels, or perhaps later direct neural stimulation. Would this make pedos want the real thing, or keep them from doing it IRL?


Not only that, how about robots?

I was told it depends, for some it is sufficient replacement for the real thing.
tuco
 
Posts: 15544

Print view this post

Re: Is pedophilia natural?

#66  Postby Macdoc » May 24, 2016 9:33 pm

Sounds like one of the video game arguments the MM crowd want to foster about leading to violence etc etc
I''d say the full range of virtual sex will be extensively taken up.
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?

#67  Postby ScholasticSpastic » May 24, 2016 10:49 pm

Macdoc wrote:
I''d say the full range of virtual sex will be extensively taken up.

"In tonight's episode of Dirty Jobs, we'll be working alongside a VR Rig Cleaning Crew!"

:shock:
"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

Ads by Google


Re: Is pedophilia natural?

#68  Postby Boyle » May 25, 2016 5:34 am

laklak wrote:What about the inevitable CGI or even VR child porn? OK or not OK? Particularly when VR becomes more...immersive. No one is harmed in the production, it's all just pixels, or perhaps later direct neural stimulation. Would this make pedos want the real thing, or keep them from doing it IRL?

Yeah, this is the problem: We don't know. There's not even enough data to make an informed decision because who the hell wants to study that? The methodology will be garbage because no research group is gonna go "Well, we created all these pedophilic images, distributed them to randomly selected pedophiles around the country, and later check to see how many raped kids over a 20 year period, all while protecting their identities. Comparing their rates to the rates of the control, we found that the control group offended x% more with a p value of tell my husband and kids I love them I can't believe I've done this."

Alternatively, we can check whether people that are into other paraphilias, like coprophilia, are satisfied by niche porn or if they really want to smear shit on themselves/others instead. That's obviously imperfect because, while pretty fuckin' weird, being into swap.avi or 2 Girls 1 Cup is harmless.
Boyle
 
Posts: 1632

United States (us)
Print view this post

Re: Is pedophilia natural?

#69  Postby Fallible » May 25, 2016 6:19 am

Macdoc wrote:Fallible
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.


who are you talking about?? ....either quote the specific post or say something cogent instead of inane generalizations. If YOU are confused I can't help that.
I have no confusion at all about pre and post pubescent attraction. One is easily within human sexuality ...one is outside the norms enough to be pathological. :coffee:


I'm talking to you (you can tell by the way my comment comes directly after yours and refers to what you said in your previous post), and I am referring to this post:

http://www.rationalskepticism.org/social-sciences/is-pedophilia-natural-t52374-20.html#p2419661

You start off talking about how ''it's'' illegal, one can only assume you're referring to paedophilia. But then you slide onto puberty, and you use a 14 year old girl as an example of how such children are ''sexual creatures''. In fact the vast majority of your post focuses on pubescent children, which as I am trying to point out, has nothing to do with paedophilia, which is sexual attraction towards pre-pubescent children. Therefore if you yourself are not confused, this does not come across in your post.
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?

#70  Postby OnkelCannabia » Jun 05, 2016 2:46 pm

I've been sick for a while and abandoned my thread for a long time. Now that I read some of the answers, I see that I need to clarify what I meant. I'm out of practice with actual scientific discussions and lack the rigorous use of vocabulary I once had.

There were to main questions in my OP. One pertaining to the study I mentioned, because I couldn't find any info on it and it just seemed unlikely to me. So I was wondering if anyone heard more about it.

The study lead me to my second question. In our society having an interest in underage children is considered disgusting, perverse, abnormal, creepy, you name it. The ages both parties can have vary from each persons viewpoint. Some would find an interest of a 30-year-old in a 20-year-old unnatural (vague definition of the word following later), some 30 and 15, some 40 and 12. Where people draw the line varies, but mostly there is a point where they find an interest in a female ready for sexual production unnatural. Like a 40-year-old in a 15-year-old. The way society treats it is that evening the sexual interest alone, without any further action is deemed unnatural. Unnatural meaning in the context I've seen it used in such situations as something that can only arise when you have a mental disorder or are extremely perverted (not that perversion is a bad thing. I reject the concept of sexual morality. An action is either deemed right or wrong by whatever moral paradigm you have. Sexual actions should be judged by the same standards as all other actions). What I was, unsuccessfully, trying to ask is this: Considering what we know today about psychology, biology and history, doesn't it seem normal that a mentally healthy individual would find a minor sexually appealing if there was no social pressure not to? Without social pressure, would that attraction expand to children before their puberty? It would certainly be of no evolutionary benefit, but then the processes that lead our brain to feel attraction to certain members of the human species might cause an attraction simply as a side effect.

Basically the aforementioned study got me thinking that there seems to be a chasm between how society reacts to people who show an interest in minors and what our current understanding of the human mind and biology tell us.
User avatar
OnkelCannabia
THREAD STARTER
 
Posts: 395
Age: 37
Male

Germany (de)
Print view this post

Re: Is pedophilia natural?

#71  Postby igorfrankensteen » Jun 06, 2016 1:37 am

OnkelCannabia wrote:I've been sick for a while and abandoned my thread for a long time. Now that I read some of the answers, I see that I need to clarify what I meant. I'm out of practice with actual scientific discussions and lack the rigorous use of vocabulary I once had.

There were to main questions in my OP. One pertaining to the study I mentioned, because I couldn't find any info on it and it just seemed unlikely to me. So I was wondering if anyone heard more about it.

The study lead me to my second question. In our society having an interest in underage children is considered disgusting, perverse, abnormal, creepy, you name it. The ages both parties can have vary from each persons viewpoint. Some would find an interest of a 30-year-old in a 20-year-old unnatural (vague definition of the word following later), some 30 and 15, some 40 and 12. Where people draw the line varies, but mostly there is a point where they find an interest in a female ready for sexual production unnatural. Like a 40-year-old in a 15-year-old. The way society treats it is that evening the sexual interest alone, without any further action is deemed unnatural. Unnatural meaning in the context I've seen it used in such situations as something that can only arise when you have a mental disorder or are extremely perverted (not that perversion is a bad thing. I reject the concept of sexual morality. An action is either deemed right or wrong by whatever moral paradigm you have. Sexual actions should be judged by the same standards as all other actions). What I was, unsuccessfully, trying to ask is this: Considering what we know today about psychology, biology and history, doesn't it seem normal that a mentally healthy individual would find a minor sexually appealing if there was no social pressure not to? Without social pressure, would that attraction expand to children before their puberty? It would certainly be of no evolutionary benefit, but then the processes that lead our brain to feel attraction to certain members of the human species might cause an attraction simply as a side effect.

Basically the aforementioned study got me thinking that there seems to be a chasm between how society reacts to people who show an interest in minors and what our current understanding of the human mind and biology tell us.


Your way of expressing all this hasn't improved with time.

You are still artificially lumping all manner of very different kinds of attraction and relationships and attitudes together under self-contradictory categories.

You have added that you "reject the concept of sexual morality." This doesn't help your cause, especially since you present it as an excuse to make some nonsensical statements which misrepresent the facts about society, and which continue in your plot to purposely conflate pedophilia with fluctuating opinions about what the age of consent ought to be.

All you've really done with this latest post, is to repeat your question based on the insulting idea that the only reason why anyone opposes pedophilia, is a mutual social self-delusion.

I am beginning to wonder. A while back now, there was an admitted pedophile here, who ran threads trying to get others to support his "choices" and his imagined "love" for very small children as sex objects, until he was kicked out forcibly. Is this a return of that person, or are you really so insistently naive, that you can continue to refuse to understand the MANY repetitions here, pointing out your thoroughly defective "reasoning"?
User avatar
igorfrankensteen
 
Name: michael e munson
Posts: 2114
Age: 67
Male

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

Previous

Return to Social Sciences & Humanities

Who is online

Users viewing this topic: No registered users and 1 guest