Discussion: Is pedophilia pseudoscience?

[scott3x]

As a Muslim, I believe in following the nafs, its anti-Islamic to subvert what is natural.

The discussion here is, what is "natural"?

This is an example of the [enc]Appeal to nature[/enc] logical fallacy.

Even if it can be established that pedophilia is "natural" for some people, it does not follow that it is morally acceptable or "good" or desirable - which was my previous point.

A good point. S.A.M. apparently wasn't discussing morality, but I am. Nevertheless, I think that she has brought up many points that could be applied to morality and I believe I have as well.

 

[scott3x]

Thanks a lot for taking the time to bring up these points S.A.M. I've discussed this issue ever since I was 22 or so; considering I'm now 33, that's about a third of my life. It can definitely get tiring to go against the flow of society for so long and I have definitely taken breaks to dedicate to other issues (you may have noticed that most of my earlier posts here had nothing to do with this subject, unless you count how many people have apparently been fooled into believing untruths, but instead with 9/11).

I should explain that I am not endorsing pedophilia.

That's fine; giving the conflictive meaning of the term, neither am I. ancientregime believes the term to be pseudoscience.

As someone who has lived in three different cultures with varying distinct and contradictory notions of sexuality, I am aware of the dominant role of society in defining sexual norms.

Definitely.

After spending some time last year on the emergence of homosexuality in Eastern culture as a separate and distinct expression of sexual preference, I have become interested in the extent to which society determines not only our sexual behaviour, but also our bias against sexual behaviour.

Cool

 

[leopold]

The collective will of the people is a shifting paradigm.

how do you feel about the AOC in your locality?
should it be lowered? raised? remain the same?
how do you feel about this issue sam?
in a like vein can we also put children to work in "sweat shops"?

 

[S.A.M.]

A side issue I have discovered in my reading is that this is a predominantly male "problem", a teen boy having sex with an older woman is seen as an entry into manhood and there have even been instances of such convicted female pedophiles getting out of prison and marrying their victims. Female registered sex offenders are rarely assaulted, beaten up or have their pictures pasted in the neighborhood as a warning to parents and children.

But that is not true for male pedophiles.

In the same issue of Archives of Sexual Behaviour [Dec 2002], there is an article, The Dilemma of the Male Pedophile, where the author Schmidt says of the male pedophile that he must "remain abstinent for significant periods of time" and "lead a life of self-denial at significant emotional cost." Schmidt calls for a new, "enlightened discourse on morality" with the recognition that "in view of the pedophile's burden, the necessity of denying himself the experience of love and sexuality," he deserves society's respect.


http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/12462477

There is a clear social, sexual, emotional cost to the individual which is often overlooked due to a natural concern for the children [e.g. there is a thread currently on a mother who assaults a registered sex offender for talking to her child a year ago].

I would even go so far as to say they are not treated like human beings and sometimes, worse than animals.

 

[James R]

But I'm not discussing the morality, or the legality.

For me, the morality of pedophilia is the most important aspect of it. The illegality of it can be put on a firm scientific footing by establishing that it harms the child victims - a point I made central in the Debate.

As an academic thing, it may be interesting to know if some people have a "natural" predisposition to pedophilia. But it is a huge step from acknowledging that to endorsing the sexual abuse of children.

The legal definition of a child is the same as a minor; that is, someone below the age of consent. If you want to only deal with prepubescent children, say so.

Ok. I only want to deal with pre-pubescent children, at least for now. Because if we can't agree that an adult having oral sex with a 4 year old is wrong, then we're not going to get very far arguing the ins and outs of an adult having sex with a 15 or 16 year old, are we?

If the 4 year old child was female, I think you may just be right in all cases in terms of the desiring penetrative sex. ...

Considering that they don't even know what that is, it would be hard for them to want it.

Not sure about males, who would be doing the penetrating instead of being penetrated.

Many cases of sexual abuse of young boys involve anal rape.

I personally am not sure how one would define the initiation of sex either.

Not surprised. Pedophiles, I'm sure, also commonly have trouble determining if children "want" sex with them or not. As I pointed out in the Formal Debate, a common rationalisation is that children are "asking for it".

[Children] dont know anything about sex the way adults know about sex. To them its not associated with a word or an act. Such thoughts only stay inside their brain as signals. And they are meant to figure it out naturally. I used to get into troubles at school when i was 6-9 yrs old for drawing pictures of naked female body. I knew nothing about sex. And ever since i was 3 yrs old, i was way too curious to closely examine a female genetial because it was looking way different than the one I had. I know how many times my teachers complained to my parents and they kept teasing me for years.

I covered this point in the Formal Debate, too.

A side issue I have discovered in my reading is that this is a predominantly male "problem", a teen boy having sex with an older woman is seen as an entry into manhood and there have even been instances of such convicted female pedophiles getting out of prison and marrying their victims. Female registered sex offenders are rarely assaulted, beaten up or have their pictures pasted in the neighborhood as a warning to parents and children.

But that is not true for male pedophiles.

Again, we need to be careful about the age of the children we're talking about. Pedophiles, of course, have a vested interest in blurring the lines, so that they talk in the same breath about a 17 year old and a 4 year old, as if there was no important difference.

In the same issue of Archives of Sexual Behaviour [Dec 2002], there is an article, The Dilemma of the Male Pedophile, where the author Schmidt says of the male pedophile that he must "remain abstinent for significant periods of time" and "lead a life of self-denial at significant emotional cost." Schmidt calls for a new, "enlightened discourse on morality" with the recognition that "in view of the pedophile's burden, the necessity of denying himself the experience of love and sexuality," he deserves society's respect.

I have no problem with pedophiles who recognise the necessity of denying themselves the experience of sex with children. I'm worried about the ones who don't see any such necessity.

 

[S.A.M.]

Again, we need to be careful about the age of the children we're talking about. Pedophiles, of course, have a vested interest in blurring the lines, so that they talk in the same breath about a 17 year old and a 4 year old, as if there was no important difference.

Are there any instances of female pedophiles with very young victims?

 

[scott3x]

Again, we need to be careful about the age of the children we're talking about. Pedophiles, of course, have a vested interest in blurring the lines, so that they talk in the same breath about a 17 year old and a 4 year old, as if there was no important difference.

I don't know about these mythological pedophiles, but I, for one, see a lot of differences between a 17 year old and a 4 year old.

 

[S.A.M.]

Pedophile by definition refers to prepubescent children. For pubescent children the word is hebephile. Unfirtunately general usage conflates the two.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hebephilia

 

[James R]

Are there any instances of female pedophiles with very young victims?

Yes. They don't get much press.

It is certainly not true that only men abuse children.

I don't know about these mythological pedophiles, but I, for one, see a lot of differences between a 17 year old and a 4 year old.

Of course you do, scott3x. You're not a pedophile. Are you?

 

[Stryder]

I disagree on both counts and believe that neither you nor anyone else has put up any evidence to the contrary.




I think that it can be a -good- thing for people to be stirred up, -especially- if it leads them to question their beliefs. I also believe that you are too quick on the trigger when it comes to shutting down threads you disagree with. After many people contributed hundreds of posts to the threads I started over in pseudoscience concerning 9/11, you shut them all down, stating that in your opinion the arguments were simply repeating themselves. While it's true that -some- arguments were repeating themselves, I would argue that the reason for this was because the issues are complex, new people were constantly coming in and people can forget arguments at times if the issue is rather large, as 9/11 certainly is. The solution isn't to shut all discussion down, but rather to try to find out which arguments have already been played out and then simply link to the relevant material everytime someone brings a certain issue up. I essentially did this a fair amount, only I'd excerpt a fair amount of the relevant material because few people like going to links to find responses to issues they raise.

You're missing the point Scott, it's all very well stirring people up on a forum, if of course that is your objective, however you should make it fully known that is your intention otherwise face the consequences of misinterpretation.

In this instances the misinterpretation itself is potentially identifying a poster as a felon. This is an understandable interpretation should they choose to dodge straight forward points with circular logic.

 

[Stryder]

This is an inappropriate way to do that. Send a PM. Quit posting off-topic discussion. YOU ARE TROLLING.

Stryder fails to understand the difference between a debate and a personality. He is a moderator who is making off-topic posts that are more appropriate for a PM.

Please discontinuing this unprofessional behavior. If you have a point to make about the subject matter that is under debate, feel free to chime in. I have an open mind to consider any emprically based statements that sway the arugment either way. Please review the thread topic.

If you are so interested in discussion of my debate method and whatever implication you believe that might indicate, maybe I'll start that thread for you if you don't.

Actually I've made my decision and it will likely upset some, but here it is.

You are the TROLL and I'm banning you for being one.
My evidence is quite simple, out of the entire forum all your posts have been on the subject of Paedophilia or some distorted reasoning in regards to sexuality and have nothing to do with Science or Debate. You are here just to TROLL this forum or because you are deeply disturbed. I see no reason for this forum to cater to you or your ilk.

I'm sure there will be people that complain (Feel free to express this to myself, James R or Plazma if you so choose to take this up), there always is but this is a decision that has to be made.

With that there is little need for this thread to continue as is, It will just have to be one of those things "That happened at sciforums" historically.