Pedophilia is not a mental disease.

[Sucumbio]

what numbers said.

@mike it's been clearly shown in legal cases that "children" aren't able to consent until they're adolescents or past. Of course there are rare cases of kids who are well beyond their years, mentally and emotionally, and so the physical aspects of having sex with them is a distant afterthought, considering. Plus, we can't forget that only a century or two ago it wasn't uncommon for 9-12 year olds to get married. Young people still get married in "underdeveloped" countries.

But that's not what we're talking about, lol. We're talking children. The kind that watch sesame street and pick their nose and believe in santa clause. Toddlers, infants, elementary school kids. As I said above there's no need to even mention age, because it is definitely too broad. Instead we look at developmental stage. Most kids are not able to have sex safely with adults until they reach puberty or beyond. Most. Some kids may have the capacity to do it, but there's so few of them that it's irresponsible to let that few number be a justification for pedophilia, nor is it a proper basis for comparing it to homo/hetero sexuality, nor is it a good demonstration to lead to the conclusion that pedophilia is not a mental disease.

 

[Savon]

@Sucumbio

I wish I had starting posting in this thread a lot sooner, but w/e. I totally agree with you

Pedophilia in itself is not something that suggests something being wrong with the mind of the pedophile. I think we can all agree that pedophilia is wrong, but the question at hand is whether or not it is a mental disease. One can claim that pedophilia is unnatural because it is sex with a person at an age when their bodies are biologically unprepared for sex of any sort.

I look at pedophiles the same way I look at any person who likes something. Person A likes girls with long hair, Person B likes girls with big noses, and Person C likes little kids. Besides one being legally and socially unacceptable, what makes them different mentally? If there are any differences, do they warrant saying that one person has a mental disease? I don't think anybody can honestly give a valid statement suggesting that these people are mentally diseased. If that were the case pedophiles as a whole would have brains that had noticeable differences from people who are not pedophiles. Pedophiles can be created socially under the "right" conditions, but this does not necessarily "disease" the persons brain.

 

[Sucumbio]

You raise some good points. Let us consider the following excerpt from one of my previous sources:

Although what causes pedophilia is not yet known, beginning in 2002, researchers began reporting a series of findings linking pedophilia with brain structure and function: Pedophilic (and hebephilic) men have lower IQs poorer scores on memory tests, greater rates of non-right-handedness greater rates of school grade failure over and above the IQ differences, lesser physical height,[56] greater probability of having suffered childhood head injuries resulting in unconsciousness, and several differences in MRI-detected brain structures. They report that their findings suggest that there are one or more neurological characteristics present at birth that cause or increase the likelihood of being pedophilic. Evidence of familial transmittability "suggests, but does not prove that genetic factors are responsible" for the development of pedophilia.

Another study, using structural MRI, shows that male pedophiles have a lower volume of white matter than a control group.

Functional magnetic resonance imaging (fMRI) has shown that child molesters diagnosed with pedophilia have reduced activation of the hypothalamus as compared with non-pedophilic persons when viewing sexually arousing pictures of adults. A 2008 functional neuroimaging study notes that central processing of sexual stimuli in heterosexual "paedophile forensic inpatients" may be altered by a disturbance in the prefrontal networks, which "may be associated with stimulus-controlled behaviours, such as sexual compulsive behaviours." The findings may also suggest "a dysfunction at the cognitive stage of sexual arousal processing."

Blanchard, Cantor, and Robichaud (2006) reviewed the research that attempted to identify hormonal aspects of pedophiles. They concluded that there is some evidence that pedophilic men have less testosterone than controls, but that the research is of poor quality and that it is difficult to draw any firm conclusion from it.

Now of course this is only looking at the biological differences which is what you we're talking about. Less right handed-ness? Pft. As you can see the research is way in it's infancy, I'm reminded of 19th century lobotomies or the like. I don't doubt however that this area of science will advance as technology advances.

This is where Cheap Peach and I actually agree to an extent... most (not all, but most) pedophiles that are studied in these groups are also convicted sex offenders. It's extremely difficult if not impossible to segregate the brain differences going on in a convicted child rapist pedophile. So basically what you end up with is a mish-mash of medical findings and you have to try and weed out the common denominators. Are all pedophiles rapists? Lets ignore the semantic "yes" for a moment, because it's obligatory. Do they all have the capacity to force themselves onto a child brutally? No I don't think so. Are they all sociopaths? Psychopathic? No... and no. They're not all one thing except pedophile. And it's arguable whether even THAT's true, considering many convicted felons will admit what they did was for the power trip and not for the sexual gratification (in **** cases) meaning that classically they're not even pedophiles.

Now on the flip side to this, there are neurological disorders, or diseases of the brain as you've said, that are either caused, exacerbated or brought out due to molesting as children. This has also been sourced above, but it goes back to the health effects of adults and kids having sex. So it's not entirely accurate to say that pedophilia is not ever a mental disease exclusively, nor is it accurate to say it's always a mental disease, even if environmentally caused.

 

[Savon]

I understand exactly where you are coming from, and I see your point, but it still does not entirely answer my question about what separates pedophilia from any other sort of preference a person might have.
In the information you posted you stated " Functional magnetic resonance imaging (fMRI) has shown that child molesters diagnosed with pedophilia have reduced activation of the hypothalamus as compared with non-pedophilic persons when viewing sexually arousing pictures of adults. A 2008 functional neuroimaging study notes that central processing of sexual stimuli in heterosexual "paedophile forensic inpatients" may be altered by a disturbance in the prefrontal networks, which "may be associated with stimulus-controlled behaviours, such as sexual compulsive behaviours." The findings may also suggest "a dysfunction at the cognitive stage of sexual arousal processing.", however are these small differences enough to classify them into a category of mentally ill people?

edit: I will try to format my posts better than this in the future. Still new to this

 

[SuperBowser]

I think it's useful to look at mental illness from a more pragmatic point of view. Is it necessary for there to be a physically detectable difference? Several medical conditions diagnosed are only diagnosed through the history and examination rather than on tests. If there was no observable abnormality would you consider schizophrenia any less of a mental illness?

Does the problem cause notable distress to the subject?
Does this problem cause notable distress to those around the subject?
Does this problem cause notable disability to the subject?
Does this problem seem abnormal, given the cultural background of the subject?

Personally I don't see why paedophilia can't fall under the category of mental illness.

 

[1048576]

Well by that definition so can being short (or being bad at math, or having a temper).

It's also troubling to think that anything society deems as a bad thing is something people are supposed to be treated for. First they came for the Communists and whatnot.

 

[Solaris1110]

You raise some good points. Let us consider the following excerpt from one of my previous sources:

The information on how the hypothalamus is different is very interesting. There are studies on lambs that show that aromatase (and it's receptor), the enzyme that converts testosterone to estrogen, is deficient in homosexual males in the hypothalamus and tissue. In addition, the hypothalamus of homosexuals were much smaller, similar to female brains.
http://www.unl.edu/rhames/courses/readings/homofinger/homo_finger.html
http://endo.endojournals.org/cgi/content/abstract/145/2/478/
http://endo.endojournals.org/cgi/content/full/145/2/475
There is also research that shows that mothers highly stressed during the first stage of pregnancy cause more pre-natal testosterone to be produced in the womb, causing the person to develop more masculine features. (such as a longer ring finger)

Some related information:
http://viewzone2.com/fingers.html
http://viewzone2.com/homosexualx.html
http://www.unl.edu/rhames/courses/readings/homofinger/homo_finger.html

You could argue that everything is biological. Your thoughts, sensations and memories all depend on every neurotransmitter and glia cell's functioning. But I think that's beside the point and i'm probably getting the wrong idea of what you mean by "only the biological differences".

I dont think pedophilia is any more of a mental illness than someone who gets pleasure from killing someone. Is that a mental illness? If a person slowly progressed from killing bugs for pleasure to killing small animals for fun, and then to large animals, and finally people, (with each step making the next one seem less far off) would that be considered a mental illness? Compared with someone who had no prior pleasure or even thoughts of killing something, who acted on an impulse to kill or molest a child?
What if someone who's inner desire were to attack or molest someone, unintentionally ate a food product that coulld subtly alter his hormones(such as a can of oysters, loaded with extremely high amounts of zinc, which temporarily lowers cortisol thus putting him into a relaxed yet impulsive mood) then had an impulse to attack someone or perhaps molest someone? Would you blame the biology? I imagine that "mental illness" implies a biological imbalance in neurotransmitters or hormones, but acute changes in biology happen all the time depending on daily stresses or what you consume.

I recall someone posting about how SSRI's could reduce impulses from pedophiles or rapists. Again, this is something biological, where the extra serotonin messes with dopamine levels (which is one of the main chemicals involved with sexual desire, along with testosterone, estrogen, oxytocin, vasopressin) and significantly reduces the person's desire to commit the act in the first place.

I dont think having a difference in "brain chemistry" is a "mental illness". If the person was intelligent enough to realize his desires were inappropriate, could he not intervene by trying to do whatever possible to decrease dopamine levels, for example?

 

[SuperBowser]

Well by that definition so can being short (or being bad at math, or having a temper).

It's also troubling to think that anything society deems as a bad thing is something people are supposed to be treated for. First they came for the Communists and whatnot.

If being short causes notable distress to somebody, there might well be a body image issue. You could criticize such criteria for being subjective, but that's why trained medical professionals do the diagnosing. Context is important.

e.g. You are assessing a patient for schizophrenia. They disclose jealous family members have tried to poison them in the past and have cursed them through witchcraft. If this is a Caucasian male from an upper class background, you are going to worry. If this is an elderly immigrant Asian female, it may be culturally acceptable to hold such a belief.

To your second point: surely society must deem something bad for society to recognize it as a disease? If a disease displays no consequence to society, is it really a disease? I think this has already been covered.

An interesting case would be the deaf community. Some have no interest in restoring their hearing or are disappointed in giving birth to children with hearing because, in their own culture, deafness is not viewed as a negative thing at all.


There's also several mechanisms in place to prevent abuse of the medical system - you can't just invent a new disease!

 

[Savon]

I think it's useful to look at mental illness from a more pragmatic point of view. Is it necessary for there to be a physically detectable difference? Several medical conditions diagnosed are only diagnosed through the history and examination rather than on tests. If there was no observable abnormality would you consider schizophrenia any less of a mental illness?

Does the problem cause notable distress to the subject?
Does this problem cause notable distress to those around the subject?
Does this problem cause notable disability to the subject?
Does this problem seem abnormal, given the cultural background of the subject?

Personally I don't see why paedophilia can't fall under the category of mental illness.

In reference to the part about schizophrenia, yes I would NOT consider it to be a mental illness if there were no significant differences between the brain of somebody with schizophrenia.(http://www.brainexplorer.org/schizophrenia/Schizophrenia_Aetiology.shtml More info about that particular illness in general in terms of the brain) That particular illness along with many others however, are shown to result in brains that are noticeably different from those without said illnesses. Unless the same can be applied to pedophilia, I don't think it is enough to classify it as a mental disease.

Well by that definition so can being short (or being bad at math, or having a temper).

It's also troubling to think that anything society deems as a bad thing is something people are supposed to be treated for. First they came for the Communists and whatnot.

That too. Would we be having this conversation if our society had no issue with pedophiles?
What if our society looked at people bad at math the way we looked at pedophiles? Would subtle differences in the brain be enough to justify calling them mentally diseased?

I dont think pedophilia is any more of a mental illness than someone who gets pleasure from killing someone. Is that a mental illness? If a person slowly progressed from killing bugs for pleasure to killing small animals for fun, and then to large animals, and finally people, (with each step making the next one seem less far off) would that be considered a mental illness? Compared with someone who had no prior pleasure or even thoughts of killing something, who acted on an impulse to kill or molest a child?
What if someone who's inner desire were to attack molest someone, unintentionally ate a food product that coulld subtly alter his hormones(such as a can of oysters, loaded with extremely high amounts of zinc, which temporarily lowers cortisol thus putting him into a relaxed yet impulsive mood) then had an impulse to attack someone or perhaps molest someone? Would you blame the biology? I imagine that "mental illness" implies a biological imbalance in neurotransmitters or hormones, but acute changes in biology happen all the time depending on daily stresses or what you consume.

I recall someone posting about how SSRI's could reduce impulses from pedophiles or rapists. Again, this is something biological, where the extra serotonin messes with dopamine levels (which is one of the main hormones involved with sexual desire, along with testosterone and even estrogen) and significantly reduces the person's desire to commit the act in the first place.

I dont think having a difference in "brain chemistry" is a "mental illness". If the person was intelligent enough to realize his desires were inappropriate, could he not intervene by trying to do whatever possible to decrease dopamine levels, for example?

I totally agree with your definition of what a mental illness is. When it is not something that is a biological issue, it is hard to truly classify as a disease because you are opening doors that are VERY subjective nearly impossible organize.

I will continue to stress the question of what separates a pedophile from a person who likes the color red or the taste of flaming hot Cheetos.

 

[Sucumbio]

however are these small differences enough to classify them into a category of mentally ill people?

This goes back to a previous post of mine as it is definitely a recurring question in this debate. Essentially the difference between homosexuality and pedophilia that matters is that pedophiles are harming children when they act on their desires, so it's classified as a mental illness. This is also true for someone with a predisposition to kill indiscriminately - (sociopaths) or for pleasure (psychopaths).

I dont think having a difference in "brain chemistry" is a "mental illness". If the person was intelligent enough to realize his desires were inappropriate, could he not intervene by trying to do whatever possible to decrease dopamine levels, for example?

Well traditionally speaking mental illnesses such as clinical depression are substantiated as such due to the chemical imbalances present in the brain, and are treated with SSRI's. The obsessive disorders are also treated with high success rates with SSRI's. Since some pedophiles suffer from both depression and obsessive compulsive disorder, SSRI's have been known to help them. It doesn't normally reduce their sexual preference, or change it to hetero or homo, it just helps them deal with the side effects of being pedophiles. That is not to suggest that they suffer this way because pedophilia is so taboo. It's because it's abnormal and this abnormality manifests itself in several ways, including depression and OCD. But to address your point, mental illness is essentially a combination of bad brain chemistry and emotional damage/trauma.

Here is a classical definition: A mental disorder or mental illness is a psychological or behavioral pattern generally associated with subjective distress or disability that occurs in an individual, and which are not a part of normal development or culture. -source

I bolded the weasel word because I for one hate it. Culture should have nothing to do with it. This is a weasel word because the document wishes to frame a broad sense of the word, taking into account the fact that some geographically unique populations of humans differ from others at a biological level, and so too their psychosis. However it would not be uncommon for someone to see this definition and immediately assume it means that if society deems it bad, then it's not "normal" and that's NOT what that's intended to portray. As I said earlier, there are cultures on Earth where "children" are married at ages 9-12. These are not victims of pedophilia. Pedophilia is an obsession of immature young humans, who have not yet reached the age of reason. It's the fact that they've not reached that level of consciousness that elicits the sexual gratification. The chance to take advantage, the power, the manipulation, the chance to guide them down a path of sexual discovery... child grooming, etc. This is what pedophilia is, it's totally different when you're talking about a Nigerian 10 year old who's about to start a family. They're already well mature enough, and wouldn't exactly be considered that attractive to a true pedophile because of their maturity level. I have not really gotten into this yet, but that's because a lot of this is sourced in that book I mentioned, whose text is not available online. But it's a fascinating read and I highly recommend it to anyone who's really interested in this subject matter.

 

[SuperBowser]

In reference to the part about schizophrenia, yes I would NOT consider it to be a mental illness if there were no significant differences between the brain of somebody with schizophrenia.(http://www.brainexplorer.org/schizophrenia/Schizophrenia_Aetiology.shtml More info about that particular illness in general in terms of the brain) That particular illness along with many others however, are shown to result in brains that are noticeably different from those without said illnesses. Unless the same can be applied to pedophilia, I don't think it is enough to classify it as a mental disease.

Interesting. Schizophrenia has been a long and well established disease, before we ever had the ability to show minute differences within the brain. We still don't understand this disease fully. Were all the poor souls diagnosed with schizophrenia in the early 1900s actually healthy?

Showing a physical abnormality is not a necessity in medicine. When you see a group of patients with a problem like schizophrenia, you don't need a test to acknowledge they suffer an illness. It's often the other way around.

 

[Mike]

It's totally different when you're talking about a Nigerian 10 year old who's about to start a family. They're already well mature enough, and wouldn't exactly be considered that attractive to a true pedophile because of their maturity level.

Hold on, I was under the impression that pedophilia was understood by everyone to simply mean "sexual attraction to children". But you seem to be working under very different and more specific definitions than one would find in a dictionary. It would be clearer if you listed the definitions you're using for such words.

 

[Sucumbio]

It's not so hard to understand... in Africa a child of 10 has reached the developmental stage of an American at 15, for example. Those aren't factual numbers, just a means to better outline the point. The key is developmental stage. I tend to focus more on this definition rather than age-specific because it's too broad otherwise, and leaves out a lot.

As a medical diagnosis, pedophilia (or paedophilia) is typically defined as a psychiatric disorder in adults or late adolescents (persons age 16 and older) characterized by a primary or exclusive sexual interest in prepubescent children (generally age 13 years or younger, though onset of puberty may vary). -source

This definition may work, but there's no guarantee that a young woman in the 3rd world has actually surpassed puberty, and yet she'd still be fully capable as an adult in terms of informed consent.

 

[Mike]

It's actually very hard to understand your arguments when we are working under different definitions. If you are going to go against the dictionary definition, you should inform us first so we can first have a debate over whether we want to accept your definition before we get into the main issue.

 

[Sucumbio]

Instead of complaining why don't you just try to refute what I said in response to you. What of the difference between a 15 year old American and a 10 year old African?

 

[Savon]

Instead of complaining why don't you just try to refute what I said in response to you. What of the difference between a 15 year old American and a 10 year old African?

I'll take a shot at it. Mentally it depends ENTIRELY on their culture and upbringing. I have met 10 year olds who showed extreme amounts of maturity that 15 year olds have never shown.

The only other difference that is guaranteed to exist is the biological differences from puberty. Some people consider pedophiles be those who have a strong interest in prepubescent children. Other than that I cannot really find any other differences between a 15 year old American and a 10 year old African.

 

[Mike]

Instead of complaining why don't you just try to refute what I said in response to you. What of the difference between a 15 year old American and a 10 year old African?

Again, you don't seem to understand that you structured your argument by conveniently redefining your words in a way that your argument cannot be countered. I do not agree with your definition of pedophile or child. Unless you redefine your words, i cannot have a debate with you.

 

[_Keno_]

Ugh, most pedophiles dont care about whether the child has actually passed puberty or not, but only whether the child appears like it hasn't passed puberty. A person who has passed puberty yet still looks childish would be a perfect partner for a pedophile (given that the person consents).

From now on why don't we use the word "child" for a person who has not passed puberty, and the word "kid" for a person under the age of thirteen. You two can debate on the definition of pedophile.

By Sucumbios definitions, a child is a person who does not have enough mentally maturity to consent to sex, a pedophile is a person who is attracted to a child (not kid). Obviously, using the two definitions shows us that it is impossible for a pedophile to fulfill his/her sexual desires with children (though it is still possible through porn/erotic literature/etc).

However, Sucumbio is the only person actually arguing these things, and nobody actually is trying to argue against what Sucumbio is saying. Everyone else is just talking about "kids" consenting to sex with adults. Legally all "kids" are considered "children," (which is where a crapload of confusion seems to be coming in) and realistically pedophiles are attracted to all "kids" that look like "children," regardless of whether they are actually children or not.

 

[Claire Diviner]

Pedophilia isn't a mental disorder, it seems more like a habit or a fetish to me. Mental illnesses are oddities in brain activity that cannot be controlled, like schizophrenia or autism. Now, I do believe that pedophiles exist not because they're simply born that way, but instead, I believe they are around for various reasons including:

- Experience at a younger age that may have conditioned them to be pedophiles. This ranges from simply seeing children as attractive, to having been sexually abused themselves.
- They simply want a feeling of control. Let's face it, children are easy to influence and manipulate. Pedophiles know this. They groom the child into believing they are their friends and when that trust is established, they oftentimes fool the child into believing that sex is okay. The child, not knowing any better, then agrees - giving the illusion of consent - and, well you know the rest.

There is no connection between pedophilia and mental illness, I'm sorry. It's merely a bad habit they have picked up and refuse to break it, in much the same way smokers can't give up their cigs. There are differences in certain countries though. Some countries have an age of consent as low as 12 (maybe even 10). But that's simply their culture; it's not like people try to abuse that and use that as an excuse to sleep with a child (well, this pertains to people who live in said society). All the while, actual pedos will leave their countries to abuse this fact, they do it all the time. There was an episode of America's Most Wanted that went over men from America, Europe and other countries who would travel to Asia (I forget what country, but I think it was Malaysia or something) to exploit the poor law enforcement. Thankfully, their law enforcement has gotten progresively better and have started cracking down
on child predators. If pedophiles are willing to go that far to have sex with a child, then it clearly isn't a mental illness if they have shown pre-meditation to go out and act on their fetish.

 

[1048576]

So can you change who you're attracted to, or is that power reserved only for those who don't share your particular sexual attitudes?

Also, by your definition being bad at math is a mental disorder.

Your making some pretty big claims about what causes pedophilia. The kind that really should be backed up by scientific evidence.

 

[Claire Diviner]

So can you change who you're attracted to, or is that power reserved only for those who don't share your particular sexual attitudes?

Also, by your definition being bad at math is a mental disorder.

Your making some pretty big claims about what causes pedophilia. The kind that really should be backed up by scientific evidence.

Being bad in math isn't a mental disorder as it can easily be "remedied" with studying. As for scientific evidence, are you kidding me? What's so scientific about a man liking little boys and girls? They say that science has found that pedophiles have different brain activities from "normal" people:

Although what causes pedophilia is not yet known, beginning in 2002, researchers began reporting a series of findings linking pedophilia with brain structure and function: Pedophilic (and hebephilic) men have lower IQs,[54][55][56] poorer scores on memory tests,[55] greater rates of non-right-handedness,[54][55][57][58] greater rates of school grade failure over and above the IQ differences,[59] lesser physical height,[60] greater probability of having suffered childhood head injuries resulting in unconsciousness,[61][62] and several differences in MRI-detected brain structures.[63][64][65] They report that their findings suggest that there are one or more neurological characteristics present at birth that cause or increase the likelihood of being pedophilic. Evidence of familial transmittability "suggests, but does not prove that genetic factors are responsible" for the development of pedophilia.[66]

Another study, using structural MRI, shows that male pedophiles have a lower volume of white matter than a control group.[63]

Functional magnetic resonance imaging (fMRI) has shown that child molesters diagnosed with pedophilia have reduced activation of the hypothalamus as compared with non-pedophilic persons when viewing sexually arousing pictures of adults.[67] A 2008 functional neuroimaging study notes that central processing of sexual stimuli in heterosexual "paedophile forensic inpatients" may be altered by a disturbance in the prefrontal networks, which "may be associated with stimulus-controlled behaviours, such as sexual compulsive behaviours." The findings may also suggest "a dysfunction at the cognitive stage of sexual arousal processing."[68]

Blanchard, Cantor, and Robichaud (2006) reviewed the research that attempted to identify hormonal aspects of pedophiles.[69] They concluded that there is some evidence that pedophilic men have less testosterone than controls, but that the research is of poor quality and that it is difficult to draw any firm conclusion from it.

Now, I personally do not buy this for several reasons: I had poor grades in school, got hit in the skull many times, and yet you don't see me eyeballing little girls. This is just their excuse to lower the standards on the law and possible consequences on those who are child predators. MRI scans shows different brain activity than normal people as well: Of course! The minds of normal people don't find kids sexually attractive, so trying to say that scientific proof in brain activity for pedos vs. normal people exists is pointless, since the way they think in terms of sexual arousal will always read differently!

You expect me to believe there's science behind pedophilia? I cannot and will not believe it, as pedophiles are not insane: they're perfectly aware of what they do, and they even know what they do is wrong, yet they insist on going through with their desires. If they know what they do and how they feel is wrong and illegal, then you know there's something wrong. The only people who has the right to be excused are those who really are clinically insane. But those are few and far between, and unlike pedophiles, some parts of their brain are either missing or do not function. Some might argue, "ohhh, but pedophiles can be insane", but I say "nay!", because the insane always lean towards a life of destructive behavior, and not sexual behavior for the sake of sexual satisfaction!

Honestly, they can preach all they want, but to say that pedophilic behavior is the result in some quirk in the brain is asinine, as they may as well say the same for every other person who commited a crime. What? That man robbed a woman and then shot her in cold blood? He must have less white matter in his brain, be left-handed, and have poor grades in math and social studies than the control group. No! Just no!

 

[Sucumbio]

...they even know what they do is wrong, yet they insist on going through with their desires. If they know what they do and how they feel is wrong and illegal, then you know there's something wrong.

This is a poor argument, due to over-generalization about pedophiles by assuming that they believe what they're doing is wrong. Not all pedophiles believe their actions are harmful.

the insane always lean towards a life of destructive behavior, and not sexual behavior for the sake of sexual satisfaction!

Yet another generalization. There is no proof that all people that are declared insane, criminal or otherwise, are also destructive to the self or others, nor is there any indication that their sexual behavior is not for gratification.

Honestly, they can preach all they want, but to say that pedophilic behavior is the result in some quirk in the brain is asinine, as they may as well say the same for every other person who commited a crime.

Not at all. That's not what the science is saying. The science, which is still in its infancy compared to other clinical studies due to social taboo, attempts to isolate the parts of the brain that are different, and to examine why. The goal of this research is to hopefully one day emerge with a cure, which will correct the abnormalities in the brain. The studies take into account the fact that people arrive at being pedophiles differently. Ultimately the research should show that a person who is sexually attracted to a child instead of a person of proper breeding age will have marked differences in brain chemistry or physiology (or both). As has been stated previously, current treatments only address the symptoms, not the cause. For a proper treatment to be found, the cause is what must be unraveled, and that is what the science is attempting to do. Left-handed-ness and other seemingly nonsensical data is a result of the stage of the research. Once the research has passed this primary phase, more important findings will emerge, which should lead to a proper cure.

 

[Claire Diviner]

This is a poor argument, due to over-generalization about pedophiles by assuming that they believe what they're doing is wrong. Not all pedophiles believe their actions are harmful.

Yet another generalization. There is no proof that all people that are declared insane, criminal or otherwise, are also destructive to the self or others, nor is there any indication that their sexual behavior is not for gratification.

Perhaps you have a point there, but the fact that pedophiles are aware of the illegality of their actions should put up red flags nonetheless. Whether they believe their actions are harmful or not, they are oftentimes more than aware that their actions will lead them to prison time.

Not at all. That's not what the science is saying. The science, which is still in its infancy compared to other clinical studies due to social taboo, attempts to isolate the parts of the brain that are different, and to examine why. The goal of this research is to hopefully one day emerge with a cure, which will correct the abnormalities in the brain. The studies take into account the fact that people arrive at being pedophiles differently. Ultimately the research should show that a person who is sexually attracted to a child instead of a person of proper breeding age will have marked differences in brain chemistry or physiology (or both). As has been stated previously, current treatments only address the symptoms, not the cause. For a proper treatment to be found, the cause is what must be unraveled, and that is what the science is attempting to do. Left-handed-ness and other seemingly nonsensical data is a result of the stage of the research. Once the research has passed this primary phase, more important findings will emerge, which should lead to a proper cure.

You can't really expect me to believe that there is a "cure" for pedophilia. As I stated before, and at the risk of generalizing to the extreme here, I find pedophilia to be no different than a fetish - albeit a rather odd one. People are attracted to various things based on experiences they have had in their past and with what they saw as attractive at the time, and usually that attraction stays with them.

It is my hypothesis that pedophiles at a young age (around their early teens) saw children more attractive for some reason than older people and that mindset stood with them as they grew older, effectively failing to up their age preference with their own age (if that part doesn't sound complicated). It seems everything nowadays that isn't considered "normal" can be considered a mental illness, and for what? As I said, it merely lowers the standard for what we can consider a criminal act - not that pedophilia isn't considered a criminal act already - but at the rate this "research" is going, and depending on what it says, it may come to a point where the law becomes lenient on pedophiles and sentencing them to serving a mere slap on the hand rather than hard prison time.

 

[_Keno_]

it may come to a point where the law becomes lenient on pedophiles and sentencing them to serving a mere slap on the hand rather than hard prison time.

Unlikely, you can be sentenced longer for having under aged consensual sex than for killing a child.

And studies of pedophiles were probably never progress very far, as only convicts are used in studies. No pedophiles would ever volunteer.

 

[Claire Diviner]

Unlikely, you can be sentenced longer for killing a child than for having under aged consensual sex.

What on Earth does that have to do with anything? We're not talking about killing children, we're talking about pedophiles who want to sleep with children.

 

[_Keno_]

What on Earth does that have to do with anything? We're not talking about killing children, we're talking about pedophiles who want to sleep with children.

I'm saying that the law will never become lenient on them. And oops, i just realized that I reversed the words of my previous post. It should make more sense now.

 

[Sucumbio]

It is my hypothesis that pedophiles at a young age (around their early teens) saw children more attractive for some reason than older people and that mindset stood with them as they grew older, effectively failing to up their age preference with their own age (if that part doesn't sound complicated).

This is actually only one type of pedophilia, so-called "Lolita Syndrome." It occurs due to a sexual obsession at an early age which transcends puberty. The object of affection remains a child instead of progressing with the age of the person.

It seems everything nowadays that isn't considered "normal" can be considered a mental illness, and for what? As I said, it merely lowers the standard for what we can consider a criminal act - not that pedophilia isn't considered a criminal act already - but at the rate this "research" is going, and depending on what it says, it may come to a point where the law becomes lenient on pedophiles and sentencing them to serving a mere slap on the hand rather than hard prison time.

Not at all. There's been plenty of research done on the criminal mind, and it is true that "insanity" can be used as a defense in court to avoid jail time in lieu of admission to a mental health facility. But now you're treading on a different subject, which is whether or not people who are incapable of controlling their actions due to their mental illness or incapacity should still be held accountable the same as anyone else.

In terms of pedophiles, it is disingenuous to call it simply a fetish. Homosexuality and Heterosexuality are not simply fetishes, so neither is Pedophilia. This of course ends up leading back to what is the difference then between the three other than sexual preference, and if you read back you'll see that it's the harm that is caused, Notice this has nothing to do with social taboo or laws, really. It's the medical research that has shown that prepubescent children engaging in sex acts with adults are physically, emotionally and/or mentally harmed during the process, regardless of whether or not the child has made an honest decision to participate freely and willfully.

 

[Claire Diviner]

Unlikely, you can be sentenced longer for having under aged consensual sex than for killing a child.

I believe in both cases, depending on the severity of the latter, the term is life imprisonment, which makes no difference in how many years a person must serve if they're destined to die in prison, but I can understand what you're saying.

And studies of pedophiles were probably never progress very far, as only convicts are used in studies. No pedophiles would ever volunteer.

Another valid point. The problem is, pedophiles that are caught or who even "come out of the closet" will probably be labeled as potential threats to children, and in this case, may as well be treated as convicts as they become labeled with the "sex offender" tag. The only way for fair, unbiased research is for more people to accept pedophilia as a mental quirk/illness, and with the way the world is, that may very well never happen anytime soon. I mean, I'm one of those who do not see it as a mental illness myself.

This is actually only one type of pedophilia, so-called "Lolita Syndrome." It occurs due to a sexual obsession at an early age which transcends puberty. The object of affection remains a child instead of progressing with the age of the person.

So then in this sense, there is no "cure". It's up to the person to realize that they should simply forgo their attraction to children and try to go with people their own age. Whether they try or not, it will probably do very little good, since their attraction has become a habit that would be quite hard to break. As the saying goes, "old habits die hard". I could advise therapy or maybe hypnosis, but then they'd probably be reported to the authorities, making said suggestions rather pointless.

Not at all. There's been plenty of research done on the criminal mind, and it is true that "insanity" can be used as a defense in court to avoid jail time in lieu of admission to a mental health facility. But now you're treading on a different subject, which is whether or not people who are incapable of controlling their actions due to their mental illness or incapacity should still be held accountable the same as anyone else.

Perhaps "insanity" was a bit of an extreme example. In the case of pedophilia, the pedophiles can control their actions and urges. It's my opinion to say that if they can keep their behavior in check and reason with themselves, but still act out on their carnal desires, then it really isn't much of an illness as it is more of a cumpulsive habit that they feel they have to fulfill, for whatever reason that may be.

In terms of pedophiles, it is disingenuous to call it simply a fetish. Homosexuality and Heterosexuality are not simply fetishes, so neither is Pedophilia. This of course ends up leading back to what is the difference then between the three other than sexual preference, and if you read back you'll see that it's the harm that is caused, Notice this has nothing to do with social taboo or laws, really. It's the medical research that has shown that prepubescent children engaging in sex acts with adults are physically, emotionally and/or mentally harmed during the process, regardless of whether or not the child has made an honest decision to participate freely and willfully.

Therein lies the problem. In heterosexuality and homosexuality, other than **** cases, no one is really harmed if everything is consensual. In the case of pedophilia, regardless of whether the child "consented" or not, their minds and bodies are not exactly prepared for such an extreme experience, and their "consent" is oftentimes the result of grooming from the pedophile, which then makes the child believe the person in question is trustworthy and that sex is okay to participate in. Later on in life, when the child learns about common sense, they realize what has happened, and the damage start to affect them like a tickng time bomb, if you will.

It is for that reason pedophilia can't be seen as a sexual preference if sexual intercourse with said child oftentimes require manipulation through grooming to do so, rather than letting the child decide for themselves. In the case of the latter, those moments - from my understanding - are too rare and far between to tack on pedophilia onto the same list as heterosexuality, homosexuality, or bisexuality.

 

[1048576]

You can't remedy being bad at math with studying. Some people just have less aptitude and intuition. So, mental disorder?

And no, childhood trauma doesn't cause pedophilia, and wanting control doesn't cause it. To claim otherwise, you need something called evidence.

God it's like ****ing pulling teeth some of the people in here.

 

[Claire Diviner]

You can't remedy being bad at math with studying. Some people just have less aptitude and intuition. So, mental disorder?

Of course you can remedy it with studying, but that's also provided the person is even interested in math. I - for one - suck at math. I like the idea of it, but the subject doesn't interest me enough, so if I try to study it, math becomes more of a chore than it does interesting and fun, and therein lies the problem with your so-called "less aptitude and intuition".

And no, childhood trauma doesn't cause pedophilia, and wanting control doesn't cause it. To claim otherwise, you need something called evidence.

So where is your evidence?

God it's like ****ing pulling teeth some of the people in here.

Yeah, that's the Debate Hall for you, and we're not even in the actual hall; we're in the Proving Grounds.

 

[Sucumbio]

So then in this sense, there is no "cure". It's up to the person to realize that they should simply forgo their attraction to children and try to go with people their own age. Whether they try or not, it will probably do very little good, since their attraction has become a habit that would be quite hard to break. As the saying goes, "old habits die hard". I could advise therapy or maybe hypnosis, but then they'd probably be reported to the authorities, making said suggestions rather pointless.

Well, no. Not a habit so much as "bad wiring." Your line of reasoning can be compared to a "pray away the gay" initiative. There IS a cure for pedophiles, that's the premise. There's been some debate on whether or not the discovery of such a cure may lead others to try the same treatments on homosexuals to see if it also cures their "aberration." This is a real slippery slope, and can honestly be one of the reasons the research is moving along so precariously. But ultimately you have to look at numbers. Of all adults who are sexually attracted to children, how many of them are actually in love with the child, vs. some other lesser attachment... in many cases it is ****, not just because the child can't consent, or failed at even getting a chance to try to consent, but because the adult is literally a rapist, feeding off the child's fear, etc. Comparing the psychologies of a rapist and a pedophile yields specific results, and the two often meet somewhere in the middle. Can a rapist be cured of wanting to ****? Or is this also just a bad habit they can't seem to break?

Therein lies the problem. In heterosexuality and homosexuality, other than **** cases, no one is really harmed if everything is consensual. In the case of pedophilia, regardless of whether the child "consented" or not, their minds and bodies are not exactly prepared for such an extreme experience, and their "consent" is oftentimes the result of grooming from the pedophile, which then makes the child believe the person in question is trustworthy and that sex is okay to participate in. Later on in life, when the child learns about common sense, they realize what has happened, and the damage start to affect them like a tickng time bomb, if you will.

It is for that reason pedophilia can't be seen as a sexual preference if sexual intercourse with said child oftentimes require manipulation through grooming to do so, rather than letting the child decide for themselves. In the case of the latter, those moments - from my understanding - are too rare and far between to tack on pedophilia onto the same list as heterosexuality, homosexuality, or bisexuality.

Well yes, this is the general consensus among doctors. Pedophilia is not considered a valid sexual preference because of the harm it causes. This is also, however why it's considered a mental disease/disorder.

Also I think you misunderstand; just because something is labeled a mental disease does not necessarily excuse the person on some grander level... the insanity plea in court is no walk in the park. Depending on the severity of the crime, you may very well end up a ward of the state. And unlike parole, there's no guarantee you'll be considered for release. Television often paints the insanity defense as this golden path to getting away with murder, and in all truth, it's sometimes better to get life in prison. Pedophiles if convicting of child **** can claim that they suffer from a mental illness, but they're still guilty of ****, so there's little to be said about what their excuse will bring in terms of court leniency. The goal of science in this, is to find a cure, so that they don't **** in the first place, not so they can get an easy out from jail time.

 

[1048576]

Dude, citation. Show some stats of cured pedophiles.

I don't even know how you'd support the claim that pedophiliac love isn't real, but just born of a desire to ****.

Fapping to 4chan causes no harm. It's the actual **** that's the problem. If someone's just doing the former, it seems like an egregious violation of that person's freedom to demand that they be effectively castrated.

 

[Sucumbio]

Dude, citation. Show some stats of cured pedophiles.

Well that's why I said "the premise" of the research is that it's curable. Right now the only treatments focus on the symptoms, but the research's goal is of course to isolate the cause in biological terms, and eliminate it.

I don't even know how you'd support the claim that pedophiliac love isn't real, but just born of a desire to ****.

Well this is tricky. It's quite possible that an adult who's fallen in love with a prepubescent child really believes what they're feeling isn't necessarily wrong, regardless of whether or not they feel it is abnormal, and ignoring that it's illegal. Acting on this desire, however, is where the line gets crossed (as you've pointed out) and so a conflict arises. The goal of finding a cure is two fold in this instance: to alleviate the suffering of the adult who will ultimately be conflicted over their position, and preventing the results of the untreated illness, in this case child ****. In the issue of conflict, and though it may be easy for us "normal" people to dismiss as "yeah too bad just keep it to 4Chan") from their perspective it can become a living hell, with no hope. This is essentially what all psychiatry and medicine endeavor to address, quality of life.

Fapping to 4chan causes no harm. It's the actual **** that's the problem. If someone's just doing the former, it seems like an egregious violation of that person's freedom to demand that they be effectively castrated.

Well I see a few problems with this... child porn unless faked, is harmful to the child participant. If it's fake, then it can potentially exacerbate the symptoms (though not always, of course). Unless it's really well done, most fake child porn is obviously not real, too obviously for those seeking that sort of thing. Now I'll grant that some Hentai is going to work. Though there is a disclaimer on most stating that the images depicted are that of 18 year old girls, when you look at them, they look 12. This may "do it" for some pedophiles, and I'm sure there's a number of these where it'd be enough. But you don't make policy for a minority, and it's simply untrue that most pedophiles will be content to masturbate in private to La Blue Girl.

The other problem is that you seem to be suggesting a false dichotomy. The castration initiative is not meant for porn watchers. It's meant for child rapists. I will agree with you that if all they do is watch kiddie porn, they should not be castrated. But I find that they should not be castrated anyway... it seems a barbaric solution to a real problem that deserves a better response from the medical community, not to mention it doesn't always work as intended.

 

[Thino]

Sorry If I'm joining this debate late and addressing something that has been already discussed , but is sex with children assumed to be **** just because it's impossible for court to determine whether a child , aka someone under 18 years old in law's terms , is consenting to sex or not?

If yes , is it "right" to proceed that way to proceed that way ?

I believe **** =/= pedophilia , even if one can easily include the other , and only **** is "wrong" and should be condemned.

 

[1048576]

So you take someone who's only attracted to children, and you remove that attraction. Now they're asexual. Effective castration, whether it's a pill or surgery or just a stern talking-to.

My life is a lot better fapping to furries than not being attracted to them at all. I imagine it would be much the same with children.

Everything else I'll just disagree with out of hand since you have no evidence.

 

[JeKartaN1]

Being a homosexual or a pedophile is not related at all in any way to genetics. One has to make the decision mentally. In most cases it is not even a mental disorder. Why do you think there are so many gay supporters and activists. You don't see drug addicts going on marches to make illegal drugs legal. Homosexuality and Pedophilia are choices the person makes, even if it does not seem like a choice. Homosexuality and Pedophilia are not natural forms of sexuality, the homosexual or pedophile has to make the decision to be gay or a pedophile .

 

[1048576]

hahahahahahaha



ha

 

[Dre89]

I don't agree with Jekartan's post, but if sexuality was genetic, then our genetic make-ups must be able to fluctuate, and must be changeable by enrivonmental factors and psychological states.

 

[_Keno_]

One has to make the decision mentally.

Homosexuality and Pedophilia are choices the person makes, even if it does not seem like a choice.

the homosexual or pedophile has to make the decision to be gay or a pedophile .

People like this always me a little depressed. They just come in here with with strong, baseless worldviews, and then state them like fact, expecting others to be like "yeah, that makes so much sense now" when in reality they have no idea what they are talking about.

 

[3mmanu3lrc]

Homosexuality and Pedophilia are choices the person makes, even if it does not seem like a choice.

Not in all cases.
Why? There're some chemicals that produces females hormones (such as the chemicals in the plastic) which is the material of almost all the child toys and stuffs.
When a child spend excessively time with those things he/she gets more females hormones that what he/she should, it is more developed in some children than others because When a mother is pregnant, she keeps using all this products that make the females hormones get faster developed, the boy born with too many of them, which makes him like boys, because of boys having males hormones, and that's what this new borned will feel attraction for because all the female hormones he has.

So, sometimes it's a choice, but sometimes it's not.

But Pedophilia, That is a mental disease imo.