Is Pedophilia Just Another Sexual Orientation?

Homepage Forums Science Is Pedophilia Just Another Sexual Orientation?

This topic contains 7 replies, has 3 voices, and was last updated by  Unseen 2 months, 2 weeks ago.

Viewing 8 posts - 1 through 8 (of 8 total)
  • Author
    Posts
  • #25402

    Unseen
    Participant

    This scientist sees it as basically the way some people are born, just like you and I were born hetero or gay. She does not argue that they should be allowed to molest children but rather that the stigmatization they must endure for something they cannot help cannot be justified. Is she right, or does this open the door to bestiality, necrophilia, and other disgusting “orientations”? (For some reason, the link isn’t inserting the video, so just click on the link.)

    https://tinyurl.com/y5mwfy6g

    • This topic was modified 3 months ago by  Unseen.
    • This topic was modified 3 months ago by  Unseen.
    • This topic was modified 3 months ago by  Unseen.
    #25406

    PopeBeanie
    Moderator

    From the very first paragraph that describes the video on the youtube page Unseen linked to:

    A disgusting TEDx Talk trying to normalize pedophilia by declaring that “pedophilia is a natural sexual orientation, just like heterosexuality”.

    In fact “normalize” is used deridingly in the (youtubed) TEDx Talk title itself. Note the ignorance shown even in the  misspelling of the video title, “normalise”. This person doesn’t even know how to use the word without spinning emotional misconstruance into it.

    And then the “top” comments are emotionally-laden, finger-pointing blame at liberals for (e.g.) “normalization” of dysfunctional behavior. (OK, poor quality of comments should be no surprise on YouTube.)

    Largely by definition, conservatives tend to conserve status quo and traditions, while liberals consider investment in social progress against the enemy of institutionalized, short-term profit policies.

    Clearly, that word normalize is misconstrued, for the purpose of demonizing anyone with empathy. But clearly, in the video, the presenter differentiates more than once the difference between empathizing (e.g. for the sake of understanding pedophilia) vs accepting pedophilic behavior.

    I have objective questions about this topic: In the animal kingdom, what is the neurological basis of sexual preferences, and how might they vary within each species? To me, the cogent questions are why do we humans have any sexual preferences at all, and why do we tend to be so judgmental about other people’s sexual behavior? To me, the answers are easy, surely because I’ve made what I consider to be a some objective assumptions. Off the top of my head, here they are, more or less from most to least obvious (albeit yes, debatable in some circles):

    • The biggest, elephant-in-the-room question of all is not about whether we should be blindly judging pedophiles, but about how to reduce or eliminate any sexual abuse, but especially to children. The TEDx presenter proposes that we all need to remain open to communication with pedophile so that we can address this kind of abuse head-on instead of forcing pedophiles to hide their preferences.
    • Heterosexual behavior is fundamental for every species, serving the purpose of procreation in those species.
    • Sexual behaviors have therefor indisputably naturally evolved within all animal neural circuitry.
    • Sexual behaviors are typically, regulated socially to various extents, depending on species; look at the differences between (say) bonobos and gorillas. Male dominance is a key factor. (Note that in the TEDx presentation, the speaker claims that 99% of all pedophiles are men. Regardless of its accuracy, I regard this observation as mostly valid across the animal kingdom, with few exceptions.)
    • Human sexual behaviors in recent civilizations have varied, in spite (or regardless) of naturally built-in preferences, because that’s what frontal lobes do, which are also influence by current cultural norms. Frontal lobes can override (to varying extents) natural behaviors. But frontal lobes have a lot less control over naturally deep, underlying preferences.
    • In evolutionary terms across the animal kingdom, the various ages of female sexual maturity vs variance of male behavioral dominance most naturally drives sexual behavior, and social pressures regulate those behaviors to various extents.
    • The question (to me) that arises here is how in the hell do people not even consider the possible variance of preferences and behaviors that have naturally evolved? And keep in mind, this is related to yet a separate question from what cultures feel should be acceptable behaviors. Also note that there exist many kinds of neurologically-based pathologies and variation in preferences, especially among recently-rapidly-evolved humans, and it should be assumed that it’s up to us to presume possible neurological causes before pronouncing any human guilty of crimes of feeling anything.

    Finally, quite simply cutting to the chase but most controversial, I conclude that the only way to effectively address the possibly harmful aspects of pedophilia is to dispassionately address its underlying neurological causes, and find new ways to encourage pedophiles to find therapy, and allow them to verbally express their feelings in public without reprisal.

    Problem, of course, is that this requires the majority of culture to let go of their prejudices regarding sexual behaviors in general, which requires them to think objectively instead of judgmentally, which we all (here) know is near impossible to accomplish under the eyes and wagging fingers of (mostly conservative!!) authoritarians and religionists of various denominations.

    • This reply was modified 3 months ago by  PopeBeanie. Reason: tons of typos
    • This reply was modified 3 months ago by  PopeBeanie. Reason: other fine tunes
    #25412

    Unseen
    Participant

    Here’s a question: Today’s computer graphics is so realistic (and will be getting even better) that it can be impossible to tell synthesized from real. The point being that perhaps if they had pornographic masturbation material that satisfied their urges their urge to act out would be reduced.

    Feminists and conservatives argue that porn encourages rape. My belief is that, much to the contrary, porn prevents rape. I don’t worry about the guy who masturbates. I worry about the guy who wouldn’t be satisfied by masturbation. THERE is your rapist/abuser.

    As most heterosexual women have observed, typically the first thing that happens after a male has an orgasm is for the male to roll over and go to sleep.

    • This reply was modified 3 months ago by  Unseen.
    #25472

    Matt
    Participant

    I’m inclined to agree with her. I can’t help my sexual tastes, and I don’t think anyone else can either. So why should someone else’s tastes (that they can’t control) be of any concern to me?

    To be clear, the issue I have with pedophilia is that the child is unable to consent to it. Likewise with bestiality and necrophilia… the real issue (for me at least) is that there is not, and can never be, informed consent.

    Today’s computer graphics is so realistic (and will be getting even better) that it can be impossible to tell synthesized from real. The point being that perhaps if they had pornographic masturbation material that satisfied their urges their urge to act out would be reduced.

    That’s not technically a question, but I’d have no problem with it. Why? No ones consent is violated.

    #25478

    PopeBeanie
    Moderator

    Short digression, finally got me a decent phone, but still learning tweaks like how to stop it from feeding audible alerts to me, especially during sleeping hours, like when I accidentally set the sleep time for podcasts to 75 hours instead of 75 minutes, and so I’m alerted and wake up in the middle of a loooong Joe Rogan and Sam Harris discussion a couple of hours before I was planning to wake up. And because of the topic, now I can’t fall back asleep, as they’re discussing free will and how to understand people in terms of how we can still mend flaws in human nature rather than eternally shame and punish them, like in the case of Liam Neeson coming out about wanting and preparing to kill a [random] black man because a black person raped someone close to him.

    Long sentences there, lack of sleep here, but point being I think this business of understanding and then dealing with human flaws (like pedophilia and racist tendencies) has reasonable “original sin” vs “free will” (i.e. lack thereof) aspects to them that can point us toward some workable solutions to some extent. Yes, I’m creatively equating (more or less) the religious conjecture of original sin with human flaws originally emerging from recently unplanned-but-uber-rapid-with-a-few-flaws-homo-sapiens natural evolution plus uber-rapid human-cultural evolution and I’m corrupting the religious conjecture of free will with a more modern (hopefully sans “post-modern”) understanding of nurture (i.e. culture) in nature vs nurture regarding each human being’s personal evolution/formation over years of their life, from pre-natal to breastfeeding to early family experiences to friends and enemies in the neighborhood experiences to sensitive adolescent or wartime experiences (with or without embedded traumas), to fitting into society and defining one’s identity or over-defining political identity to the point of hating out-group political identities… where were we?

    Oh yeah, pedophilia. I just can’t help but emphasize [short, atheistic rant coming] that–in the big picture–the coming science of consciousness is going to shed a lot of light on a lot of issues our civilizations are facing. We (here) just have to fight off the creationist fictions like young earth and Adam and Eve definitions of human nature and good and evil and other mystical “everything happens for a reason” speculations and divinations and get down to the science of figuring out how/why humans think and behave like they think and behave. Let’s define consciousness, declare what we want “free will” to be like, and entertain some creative rehabilitations and solutions to mitigate some of our most serious, human and cultural pathologies. (Like, technology-induced sleep deprivation?)

    • This reply was modified 2 months, 2 weeks ago by  PopeBeanie. Reason: omG accidentally said "why" instead of "how". FIXED
    • This reply was modified 2 months, 2 weeks ago by  PopeBeanie. Reason: ok maybe "why" can work too
    #25479

    PopeBeanie
    Moderator

    Likewise with bestiality and necrophilia… the real issue (for me at least) is that there is not, and can never be, informed consent.

    It took a second reading to hit me: Is it really necessary to get consent from a dead person?

    • This reply was modified 2 months, 2 weeks ago by  PopeBeanie. Reason: decided it's better to keep post short and sweet
    #25484

    Unseen
    Participant

    It took a second reading to hit me: Is it really necessary to get consent from a dead person?

    Of course. Before they die! “After you’re gone, if you please, may I roger your bum?”

    • This reply was modified 2 months, 2 weeks ago by  Unseen.
    #25486

    Unseen
    Participant

    BTW, as I often have to inform or remind people, pedophilia is a predilection to having sex with prepubescent persons. So, to have sex with an 1 or 11 year old is a pedophilic act while to have sex with a 15 year old may be a crime but is not pedophilia. People often use the term pedophilia in a confused and/or inaccurate way, applying it overly broadly.

Viewing 8 posts - 1 through 8 (of 8 total)

You must be logged in to reply to this topic.