Is peadophilia genetic or aquired?

[Louis VI the Fat]

Row over Sarkozy's paedophilia comment refuses to go away

The French rightwing presidential hopeful Nicolas Sarkozy defended himself on television today after widespread criticism of an interview in which he said paedophiles are born, not made.
Mr Sarkozy defended his view, outlined in a philosophy magazine, that individuals might be genetically predisposed to molest children. "What part is innate and what part is acquired? At least let's debate it, let's not close the door to all debate," he said.

He added: "I'm inclined personally to think that you are born paedophile and it's a problem that we don't know how to treat this pathology."

Referring to young people killing themselves, Mr Sarkozy also spoke of a "genetic fragility, a preconditioned pain".
"I don't want to give parents a complex. It's not exclusively the parents' fault every time a youngster commits suicide," he said.

The archbishop of Paris, Monsignor André Vingt-Trois, led criticism of Mr Sarkozy.

"What seems most serious to me is the idea that you can't change the course of destiny," he said.

Marie-George Buffet of the Communist party said Mr Sarkozy's remarks were "extremely serious" and from another era.

"It goes back on everything that has evolved through science in our society," she said. "That is to recognise that every man and every woman is free and not that their whole life is already written in their genes and there's nothing they can do about it."

Philippe de Villiers, another rightwing candidate, also affirmed the principle of man's "liberty" and excluded all idea of "predetermination".

François Bayrou, third in the polls behind frontrunner Mr Sarkozy and the Socialist candidate Ségolène Royal, had already declared the comments to be worrying. Link (http://www.guardian.co.uk/france/story/0,,2053956,00.html)

What are your thoughts? Is peadophilia genetic, aquired or a combination of the two?

[Sasaki Kojiro]

How are we supposed to know?

[Csargo]

We'll probably never know.

[Redleg]

I think its best for me to leave this subject alone for now

[CBR]

Well I think its positive that Nicolas Sarkozy appears to have an open mind on the reasons and wants to debate it. Its the critics who appears close minded.


CBR

[Pindar]

Sarkozy has simply expressed the logical parallel position that follows the argument that a traditionally taboo behavior is in fact genetic i.e. homosexuality. If a given sexual appetite is genetic then it must be OK seems to be the refrain. This is then taken by some advocates to mean natural minority status and thus entitlement to receive state recognition.

[KukriKhan]

...This is then taken by some advocates to mean natural minority status and thus entitlement to receive state recognition.

Now, there's a slope quite slippery - and one trod more frequently of late.

@Pindar, do you see a correlation between class-action lawsuits as a vehicle for redress against well-funded corporations and government, and the increasing tendancy for folks to now identify themselves with some (perhaps many) classes, seeking legitimacy for those classes through the courts?

That was clumsily put; sorry. Has the intent of the class-action mechanism been subverted or converted into an agency for social change, you think?

edit: I'd better get back on-topic; what is the French presidential candidates motive in expressing an opinion on paedophilia? Does he have any medical or scientific background? Or was he ambushed by the press?

[HoreTore]

It doesn't really matter to me... And it is, as everyone should know, completely different from homosexuality when it comes to legal issues. There's a difference between whatever two adults choose to do, and what an adult and a child does... The child hasn't developed enough to understand anything about anything.

Simply being a pedophile shouldn't be illegal of course, but any sexual relations between adults and minors should always be illegal, and punished very hard.

[Adrian II]

Oh, and he has discovered that juvenile suicide is genetic, too.
Nobel Prize material, this Sarko.

[TevashSzat]

Even if you are genetically disposed to pedophilia, it does not mean that there will even be a high chance of you becoming a pedophile. Enviornment always plays the predominant role in how a mind develops and how one's behavior develops.

[Lemur]

If a given sexual appetite is genetic then it must be OK seems to be the refrain. This is then taken by some advocates to mean natural minority status and thus entitlement to receive state recognition.
I haven't heard anyone saying that all natural appetites are "OK." It's perfectly natural to group into tribes and throw rocks at people who look different from you; nobody in their right mind argues that this is a good idea in the 21st century.

It's quite likely that certain forms of recidivist criminality are caused by a damaged part of the brain. This is a known issue. Nobody is arguing that those criminals should be treated with "minority status." If some pedophiles are found to have a genetic component, I don't think any respectable person will say that they should be awarded with special legal dispensations.

The conflation of homosexuality with pedophilia is an old ruse, most visibly practiced by Rick Santorum. I find it abhorrent.

[Pindar]

That was clumsily put; sorry. Has the intent of the class-action mechanism been subverted or converted into an agency for social change, you think?

The Courts in general have been subverted into an agency for social change.

[Pindar]

I haven't heard anyone saying that all natural appetites are "OK."

Quite. Most are content to advocate their pet appetite or whatever appetite is socially in vogue. Even so, the base logic remains: to argue genetic predilection constitutes acceptability or natural minority status opens the flood gates.


The homosexuality with pedophilia is an old ruse, most visibly practiced by Rick Santorum. I find it abhorrent.

Why?

[doc_bean]

I'm going to agree with him.


Everything is in part due to our genes, and in part due to our environement. I'm not saying everyone with a certain gene is going to be a peadophile, but certain people are probably more likely to become one. At least, that's how i currently view the issue. Paedophila isn't completely unlogical/unnatural either, it's a pretty well know fact that we (men at least) are attracted to certain traits in women that are qualities of children. Hairlessness being a very obvious one. Look at how anime portrays women (okay, Japanese, but still) most are essentially kids with breasts.

I believe there is a biological term for a species thate volves so that the adults start looking like the infants, and I've heard it theorized (by serious biologists) that humans are such a species. I've also read geneticists who think that qualities like rape, incest and paedophila form some sort of 'survival strategy' and are thus (also) have a genetic cause.

I feel the quote in Pape's sig sums it up pretty well : just because our genes are in the basement doesn't mean we can't view things from the top (or something like that). We all must overcome our limitations, our 'unfavorable' desires, whether they be rage issues, an unhealthy appetite, paedophila or something else. We still have free will, but it just isn't as easy as everyone used to assume.

EDIT: Pindar: about the minority issue, I've always been in favour of giving free councelling (anonymous paedophiles) to people struggling with paedophilic desires who want to keep themselves from acting on it. Of course usch a thing would be totally unacceptable in most societies, so now we just have people trying to deal with their repressed desires by themselves, and often failing.

Though i'm not entirely sure bringing a bunch of paedophiles together won't occasioanlly lead to some *very* bad situations, I'm not a psychologist or anything, but I think the idea can have merit.

[Ser Clegane]

A while ago I actually read an interesting article in Der Spiegel that fits into this context.
There is an English version of this article on their website:

"I Hate My Desires - They Make Me Sick" (http://www.spiegel.de/international/spiegel/0,1518,441199,00.html)

[Husar]

A while ago I actually read an interesting article in Der Spiegel that fits into this context.
There is an English version of this article on their website:

"I Hate My Desires - They Make Me Sick" (http://www.spiegel.de/international/spiegel/0,1518,441199,00.html)
Interesting, now please excuse me, I gotta go and look for that blonde on the right side of the pic, I just hope she's old enough.:sweatdrop:

[Adrian II]

Sarkozy has simply expressed the logical parallel position that follows the argument that a traditionally taboo behavior is in fact genetic i.e. homosexuality. If a given sexual appetite is genetic then it must be OK seems to be the refrain. This is then taken by some advocates to mean natural minority status and thus entitlement to receive state recognition.You are making three mistakes:

After claiming that paedophilia is genetically predisposed, Sarkozy has withdrawn that claim and said he merely wants to 'discuss' the possibility.
The refrain that all genetically predisposed sexual behaviour is 'OK' is to be found nowhere in the world. If you can show me one black swan, so to speak, I will eat my virtual hat.
State recognition of the right of homosexuals to marry and raise children does not hinge on genetic claims, it emanates from a particular civil rights view

P.S. Sarkozy also states that juvenile suicide might be genetically predisposed. I wonder what Richard Dawkins would say to that.
Is genetic attribution of unwanted behaviour a meme? :laugh4:

[doc_bean]

The refrain that all genetically predisposed sexual behaviour is 'OK' is to be found nowhere in the world. If you can show me one black swan, so to speak, I will eat my virtual hat.



Sorry, Adrian, but the 'gay movement' or at least a lot of gay people have gone through considerable effort to try and obtain proof that homosexuality is a genetic trait. If this should/would have absolutely no influence on society then why is it so important to 'them' ?




State recognition of the right of homosexuals to marry and raise children does not hinge on genetic claims, it emanates from a particular civil rights view

True, but the 'I can't help it, it's genetic' claim is often used as a reason why they should be allowed to marry and such, instead of the argument that it's a free world and if they want to **** someone of their own gender than it's their business, and if they want to marry them, that's their business too, freedom and all that.

I don't want to derail this thread into a homosexual rights debate (they can do whatever the fuss they want as far as I'm concerned), but I find it weird that people accept that homosexuality is genetic but when it's suggested that paedophila is too there's a wave of protest. That gets a big 'Huh ?' from me.

[Rodion Romanovich]

Child molesting isn't common among other species, so I'd say it's mostly cultural, and little or not all all genetical. If it was genetical, it would still not justify doing it - it's our morals what defines what actions are right and aren't, not whether you can help it or not. If you have an urge to molest children and can't resist that urge, then society can provide good methods for helping your resist it: chemical castration through medicines which temporarily remove all sexual urges, or physical castration, which is permanent. Another option is putting the molestor in prison and guarding the molestor away from little children. These are perfectly harmless, painless methods of helping them control their urge even if they're born with it. If society provides free chemical castration for all citizens, the fault and responsibility for the action clearly lies in the hands of the molestors, if they didn't take the opportunity to use freely available chemical castration.

[doc_bean]

Child molesting isn't common among other species,

It certainly happens.

EDIT: does castration really remove sexual urges ? I've read some stories about some quite active eunuchs...

[Fragony]

If you have an urge to molest children and can't resist that urge, then society can provide good methods for helping your resist it: chemical castration through medicines which temporarily remove all sexual urges, or physical castration, which is permanent. Another option is putting the molestor in prison and guarding the molestor away from little children. These are perfectly harmless, painless methods of helping them control their urge even if they're born with it. If society provides free chemical castration for all citizens, the fault and responsibility for the action clearly lies in the hands of the molestors, if they didn't take the opportunity to use freely available chemical castration.

I am more of the two bricks type, but other then that I 100% agree.

[Adrian II]

Sorry, Adrian, but the 'gay movement' or at least a lot of gay people have gone through considerable effort to try and obtain proof that homosexuality is a genetic trait.I was answering Pindar's point that there was a 'refrain' that any and all genetically predisposed sexual behaviour is OK. This refrain is non-existent. You will find no refrain that says sadist serial killing, rape, incest, bestiality, necrophilia &cetera are OK if they are shown to be genetically predisposed.

The genetic claim about homosexuality is mostly raised as a counter-argument to the claim that homosexuality is a trauma or pathology curable by therapy. I don't subscribe to either claim.

[Rodion Romanovich]

Sarkozy has simply expressed the logical parallel position that follows the argument that a traditionally taboo behavior is in fact genetic i.e. homosexuality. If a given sexual appetite is genetic then it must be OK seems to be the refrain. This is then taken by some advocates to mean natural minority status and thus entitlement to receive state recognition.

You are making three mistakes:

After claiming that paedophilia is genetically predisposed, Sarkozy has withdrawn that claim and said he merely wants to 'discuss' the possibility.
The refrain that all genetically predisposed sexual behaviour is 'OK' is to be found nowhere in the world. If you can show me one black swan, so to speak, I will eat my virtual hat.
State recognition of the right of homosexuals to marry and raise children does not hinge on genetic claims, it emanates from a particular civil rights view

P.S. Sarkozy also states that juvenile suicide might be genetically predisposed. I wonder what Richard Dawkins would say to that.
Is genetic attribution of unwanted behaviour a meme? :laugh4:

Actually, I know what Pindar refers to, and think I agree to some extent. The truth is that most people need morality ideas to be built on an axiomatic theory in order that it can be fair and logical, since an illogical and inconsequent morality would be both unfair and irrational. As a result, people try to form their own axiomatic model behind their opinions in individual matters of morality, in order to achieve this consistency and fairness. Sometimes this modelling and building of an axiomatic system doesn't coincide with what was intended, resulting in a model that implies certain behaviors originally intended to not be accepted being accepted by the rules of the system, and/or certain behaviors originally intended to be accepted not being accepted by the rules of the system. People more or less subconsciously try to make such an axiomatic theory of the currently accepted moral values of society. When no such axiomatic theory exists behind the individual moral ideas, people make up such a system - accurate or not. When it is inaccurate (as in very different from the ideas underlying the opinions of the original advocates of a particular moral idea), it results in things such as the "political correctness" phenomenon, as well as cases of the opposite, in which perfectly harmless behaviors are considered dangerous and forbidden. To me it would seem that in most parts of the western world, in the public mind, it's considered absolute taboo to claim that genetically predisposed behaviors aren't ok, due to the form of the axiomatic model made by people in general of the moral ideas presented by modern culture and law. Thus, what you point out as mistake no. 2 in Pindar's post isn't really a mistake. In fact I'd say most of western society has this taboo present in the public mind, even if that wasn't the idea behind when certain artists, politicians and philosophers decided that homosexuality should be accepted. In general, presenting a morality system without axiomatic theory behind it, tends to result in problems of this type. It can be called irrational, but so can the practise of presenting morality ideas or systems without presenting a decent axiomatic underlying model, to guarantee consistency and fairness of the morality system, and emphasizing that model as much as the presented opinion. For the public to avoid ending up with the problems of the political correctness phenomenon, the phenomenon of overly harsh and intolerant behavior, and other consequences of incorrect axiomatic modelling of a presented set of moral ideas, the moral ideas must initially be presented along with a correct and accurate such theory. Now what you present in point no. 3 above is probably the correct axiomatic theory behind rights of homosexuals according to most who currently advocate and in the past advocated these ideas, but due to above mentioned phenomena no. 2 is the idea held by the public mind. To cure this, people need sufficient examples that such a system implies things they don't want (Sarkozy's attempt at arguing based on no. 2 is one such example), and also show that it is acceptable to break the taboo in no. 2 without being called ugly things. This could be done by letting influential and charismatic persons take initiatives to show that breaking no. 2 is considered acceptable by society, and that the ideas of homosexual rights are instead of being based on no. 2 being based on something else, such as the idea that people are free to do what they want if they don't hurt anybody else. Such a model implies that acceptance should be shown towards homosexuals, without implying acceptance to pedophilia.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

Peadophilia is a social convention, it varies from country to country depending on the age of consent. To a certain extent homosexuality is alos a convention because in reality are large number of people are to one regree or another bi-sexual.

Today it is just more acceptable to be either homo- or hetero- and in the same way most countries people don't want you having sex with children but the wide ranging variety of what constitutes a child rather undermines the arguement.

That doesn't mean I think it's in any way acceptable for a 40 yr old to have sex with 10 yr old, I'll be first in line with the axe, but an arguement for genetics as the root cause holds little water.

Which doesn't mean it's not a component, but then alchoholism is partly genetic as well so they say.

[Adrian II]

To me it would seem that in most parts of the western world, in the public mind, it's considered absolute taboo to claim that genetically predisposed behaviors aren't ok, due to the form of the axiomatic model made by people in general of the moral ideas presented by modern culture and law.I understand your point (and your well-considered post) but I disagree with this. In my view most of the western world accepts that lust is to a large extent genetically predisposed, but that we are equipped to contain it if it's exercise is socially harmful. Socialisation reinforces the latter.

Generally speaking, I think Papewaio's view is right that we are genetically equipped to deal with our genes. ~;)

[English assassin]

P.S. Sarkozy also states that juvenile suicide might be genetically predisposed. I wonder what Richard Dawkins would say to that.

Although apparently counterintuitive, actually there is no difficulty to this in theory, any more than there is to the idea that the is a genetic component to homosexuality (which also impacts on your prospects of reproductive success, although perhaps not to quite the same extent as death.) All that is necessary is for a set of genes to confer reproductive benefits when present individually, but predispose the carrier to suicide when they are all present.

Sickle cell anemia being a well known and simple to understand example of the phenomenon, as it involves a single gene. Heterozygotes have reporductive benefit over "wild type" homozygotes. "Mutant" homozygotes have the hude disbenefit of sickle cell. Yet the mutant gene persists through its benefits to the heterozygotes.


Is genetic attribution of unwanted behaviour a meme?

Possibly. I never really understand why people care. No one of any inteligence thinks that genetic = good, or genetic = inevitable, so really, unless you have some clear idea about how you might treat peadophilia that depends on its being genetic, or not, or as seems most likely a bit of both, its a boring non-question.


In my view most of the western world accepts that lust is to a large extent genetically predisposed, but that we are equipped to contain it if it's exercise is socially harmful. Socialisation reinforces the latter.

Bingo.

[doc_bean]

I was answering Pindar's point that there was a 'refrain' that any and all genetically predisposed sexual behaviour is OK. This refrain is non-existent. You will find no refrain that says sadist serial killing, rape, incest, bestiality, necrophilia &cetera are OK if they are shown to be genetically predisposed.

The genetic claim about homosexuality is mostly raised as a counter-argument to the claim that homosexuality is a trauma or pathology curable by therapy. I don't subscribe to either claim.

Fair enough. I do think a lot of gay people seek reassurance in genetics though, I've been convinced of that every since I saw an interview with one of the 'top' researchers on the subject. I think the 'gay lobby' (not some sort of conspiracy, but more emergent behaviour without (m)any people knowingly contributing) has tried to use the 'natural' argument to try and force legislation, claiming oppression not just of a lifestyle, but of a significant portion of society who were born a certain way (indeed, a claim which connects their cause to the civil rights movement in a much more direct way). Unfortunately this has caused some people to think that 'genetic=natural=good'. The first part is of course obviously true, but the second part natural=good is something only (dumb) hippies subscribe to.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

I think Adrian is right to a point, that the genetic arguement is used to reflect any idea of a "cure" but that extends to "I can't help it, so put up with me." The same arguement is used by disabled people, they need wheelchairs, therefore they need ramps, therefore we should fit ramps.

The problem with that viewpoint as regarding any psychological state is twofold, if it is genetic (or perhaps more likely just biological), it can be "cured" in the same way as vertigo, or the same way they are trying to cure Cystic Fibrosys, with drugs or gene therapy.

The other problem is that if you apply the arguement to homosexuals and accept their stance on it then logically the same arguement applie to any "devient" behavior, with the norm being defined by Leviticus pretty much.

Just as a note, it has been put foward that gender is decided in the first six weeks of life it has to do with your hormone balance. That could be strictly genetic or it could be because of what your mum ate.

[Adrian II]

Unfortunately this has caused some people to think that 'genetic=natural=good'. The first part is of course obviously true, but the second part natural=good is something only (dumb) hippies subscribe to.Like Pindar, I challenge you to come up with one 'hippie' who holds that every genetic predisposition is OK.
NB: This is not meant as some sort of lame dicussion technique. I am genuinely curious what that person's argument would be.

[Devastatin Dave]

Does this mean that peadophilia will be accepted in modern society like other perversive behaviours have become? Not only that will it be a "protected" subculture like other perversive behaviours have become, especially if they find a so called "bang little kids" gene. We'll have to wait and see i guess.


...don't touch my sheep!!!:laugh4:

[Fragony]

We'll have to wait and see i guess.

No you won't have to wait for that one, it's basicly already here, they even tried to found a political party. A scholar in gayness (yes I am serious) already stated how he loves SM because it's finding out what is nice by force, he is a firm supporter for that understanding thingie, and so is a senator of the biojugend party. Ah well never mind change as long as it changes right?

[doc_bean]

NB: This is not meant as some sort of lame dicussion technique. I am genuinely curious what that person's argument would be.

I can't speak for Pindar, and I will not argue that anyone will speak for paedophilia if it turns out to be genetic.

There seems to be at the very least the fear that something natural will be accepted as good, as Dave just proved, he as well as a couple of others expressed their fear that if it would be considered natural it would be considered acceptable.

Of course, I claimed that that fear actually holds ground, which is a whole lot more difficult I must admit. I doubt anyone will make the explicit argument that natural=good, they'd pretty much lose all credibility if they do, yet implicitly natural=good is a powerful meme in society, you can see this with bio food, with the 'acceptance of homosexuality' where 'they can't help it' is often said by people who support their cause while being unable to identify with the people themselves. I haven' seen eh movie 'march of the penguins' but wasn't something about christian ideals in the natural world ? A lot of christian groups supported it anyway.

Clearly referring to something as 'natural' is a powerful tool to make it seem acceptable, though in the case of pedophilia this would be taking things to the extreme.

[Lemur]

Does this mean that peadophilia will be accepted in modern society like other perversive behaviours have become? Not only that will it be a "protected" subculture like other perversive behaviours have become, especially if they find a so called "bang little kids" gene. We'll have to wait and see i guess.


...don't touch my sheep!!!:laugh4:
Dave, you know I love you, but you're late to the party, and your post makes it sound as though you haven't read the thread.

[Devastatin Dave]

I can't speak for Pindar, and I will not argue that anyone will speak for paedophilia if it turns out to be genetic.

There seems to be at the very least the fear that something natural will be accepted as good, as Dave just proved, he as well as a couple of others expressed their fear that if it would be considered natural it would be considered acceptable.

Of course, I claimed that that fear actually holds ground, which is a whole lot more difficult I must admit. I doubt anyone will make the explicit argument that natural=good, they'd pretty much lose all credibility if they do, yet implicitly natural=good is a powerful meme in society, you can see this with bio food, with the 'acceptance of homosexuality' where 'they can't help it' is often said by people who support their cause while being unable to identify with the people themselves. I haven' seen eh movie 'march of the penguins' but wasn't something about christian ideals in the natural world ? A lot of christian groups supported it anyway.

Clearly referring to something as 'natural' is a powerful tool to make it seem acceptable, though in the case of pedophilia this would be taking things to the extreme.
Hmmm, maybe JAG can give us a little insight. If I remember correctly, he's a big supporter of child molestors' rights (not for thier "right" to molest children, but their rights after their bhavious has resulted in the screwing of a child) and could add a lot to this conversation I'm sure. But I would almost think that he WOULD be supportive of these "people" if there was a genetic connection to their "life choice".

[Devastatin Dave]

Dave, you know I love you,
Does this means we're going steady?:turtle:
Do I have to be the turtle?

[Lemur]

The conflation of homosexuality with pedophilia is an old ruse, most visibly practiced by Rick Santorum. I find it abhorrent.
Why?
Man, I shouldn't have been typing last night. I've already caught myself in something like three major typos. Ugh. Anyway:

I dislike the conflation of pedophilia with homosexuality because it is intellectually dishonest, and is usually made for the sole purpose of making gay people look bad. Pedophiles practice a form of sex that by definition is non-consensual. I'm not aware of a country on earth where intercourse with, say, a six year old is considered consenting. Likewise, pedophilia is universally illegal. Homosexuality, on the other hand, is mostly legal in this world of ours, and involves consenting adults. You're conflating the illegal and non-consenting with the legal and the consensual.

The victims of pedophilia require counseling and treatment, and rarely get it. The victims of gayness require fabulous parties and sparkling conversation, and usually get it. They couldn't be more different.

Do I have to be the turtle? :turtle:
Do you have to ask?

[Adrian II]

There seems to be at the very least the fear that something natural will be accepted as good, as Dave just proved, he as well as a couple of others expressed their fear that if it would be considered natural it would be considered acceptable.All sides in the debate over homosexuality dabble in naturalist fallacies which is quite amusing. After being shown the prevalence of homosexual acts in the animal kingdom, the anti-gay naturalists mostly switched to moral or pseudo-medical arguments, but the Christian naturalist position can still be found. For instance in this Catholic brochure (http://www.tfp.org/TFPForum/online_library/Defending_A_Higher_Law.pdf) from the The American Society for the Defense of Tradition, Family and Property:


This supreme ordering of human conduct, this moral “blueprint” inscribed by the Creator in man’s very nature, is called “natural law.”
This natural law reflects in man the eternal law, which is simply the Divine Wisdom ruling the universe and establishing a supreme order and governance of all things, visible and invisible, living and inanimate.
As its name indicates, natural law flows from human nature. It is that law which man can know with the light of reason without the aid of Divine Revelation, since God inscribed it in the depths of all hearts as Saint Paul teaches. Since it is inscribed on the hearts of all men, it is the same for everyone, everywhere and throughout time. Thus, natural law is universal.
It is also immutable; time does not affect it. Moreover, there is no dispensation from natural law. All men must observe it.
I doubt anyone will make the explicit argument that natural=good, they'd pretty much lose all credibility if they do (..)I agree with you. Christian naturalist teaching is irrational and has no credibility at all. ~;)

[Xiahou]

agree with you. Christian naturalist teaching is irrational and has no credibility at all. ~;)
I would think that it depends on how someone is using "natural". I can't think of any biological/evolutionary purpose to homosexuality- in that regard, it would seem like unnatural behavior. OTOH, if by "natural", someone means 'occurs in nature', then homosexual behavior certainly would be natural under that criteria.

[Adrian II]

I would think that it depends on how someone is using "natural". I can't think of any biological/evolutionary purpose to homosexuality- in that regard, it would seem like unnatural behavior. OTOH, if by "natural", someone means 'occurs in nature', then homosexual behavior certainly would be natural under that criteria.Don't you ever wonder what got into the Good Lord when he instilled his 'supreme order and governance of all things, visible and invisible, living and inanimate' into bonobos? :dizzy2:

[Devastatin Dave]

In this arguement, peadophilia would be natural because many sexually mature animals have sex with non sexually mature animals. Not to mention "rape", "murder", and many other "natural" behaviours. So Adrian, are we being intolerant to rapists, murderers, and, as the subject of the thread , peadophilia. My, are the rosey glasses a little too thick.

[Adrian II]

In this arguement, peadophilia would be natural because many sexually mature animals have sex with non sexually mature animals.So you're opposed to Christian naturalism? You never cease to surprise us.

[Xiahou]

Don't you ever wonder what got into the Good Lord when he instilled his 'supreme order and governance of all things, visible and invisible, living and inanimate' into bonobos? :dizzy2:
No. I'm sure I must be missing your point though...

[Fragony]

Don't you ever wonder what got into the Good Lord when he instilled his 'supreme order and governance of all things, visible and invisible, living and inanimate' into bonobos? :dizzy2:

Aww common, from a christian point of view: human + soul +free will, and thus above all choice to do good or wrong, how hard can it be.

[Devastatin Dave]

So you're opposed to Christian naturalism? You never cease to surprise us.
Yes I am. Be surprised. Just because I don't think humans should do what animals do doesn't make me a nutcase. Do you sell red herrings cold or fresh BTW...

[Adrian II]

Aww common, from a christian point of view: human + soul +free will, and thus above all choice to do good or wrong, how hard can it be.Whoa, I was talking about bonobos. Bonobos would be included in 'all things, visible and invisible, living and inanimate' that are subject to God's 'supreme order and governance of all things'.

Are you telling me bonobos are humans with a soul and a free will?

[Adrian II]

Do you sell red herrings cold or fresh BTW...Fresh, and by the dozen cause everybody's buying them. I'm having a hell of a thread here. How's yours? ~D

[Devastatin Dave]

Fresh, and by the dozen cause everybody's buying them. I'm having a hell of a thread here. How's yours? ~D
Too many bones.:beam:

[ICantSpellDawg]

The definition of "Child" is arbitrary.
This definition will change over time to consist of fewer and fewer years of an inability to consent.
You can see a parallel with younger childrens voting, drinking, decision-making lobbying here in the states.
This will be the next to go after the polygamy ban is overturned.

The thought is consitant with the legislation going throught in certain states.
These bans only require legal challenges to fade away.

[doc_bean]

The definition of "Child" is arbitrary.


There's quite a difference between a prepubescent child and an adult, even purely physical, and certainly with boys.

[Samurai Waki]

Perhaps it is genetic, perhaps not. The point is, is that you should know it's wrong, wether you have a predisposition for it, or not. You will always be held liable for what you do, and how society judges you, not how you're built genetically. That is an inferior excuse, and I would refuse to base any law on that. You do the crime, you do the time... and maybe, just god be mercifully maybe you'll get scissored in the eyes when you're in prison, so that I don't have to know that you exist.

[Pindar]

Sarkozy has simply expressed the logical parallel position that follows the argument that a traditionally taboo behavior is in fact genetic i.e. homosexuality. If a given sexual appetite is genetic then it must be OK seems to be the refrain. This is then taken by some advocates to mean natural minority status and thus entitlement to receive state recognition.


You are making three mistakes:

After claiming that paedophilia is genetically predisposed, Sarkozy has withdrawn that claim and said he merely wants to 'discuss' the possibility.
The refrain that all genetically predisposed sexual behaviour is 'OK' is to be found nowhere in the world. If you can show me one black swan, so to speak, I will eat my virtual hat.
State recognition of the right of homosexuals to marry and raise children does not hinge on genetic claims, it emanates from a particular civil rights view



You have made three mistakes:

Sarkozy withdrawing a claim does not impact the rhetoric of the original claim. The rhetoric of that initial claim does tie a traditional taboo to genetics.
There is no categorical mentioned. You have misread: note the use of the article 'a' and verb 'seems'. As regards the one specific mentioned: gay advocates have opted for a genetics equals OK posture.
Gay marriage is not mentioned. The point speaks to a larger posture of homosexuality vis-a-vis the government though this does inform gay marriage. Moreover, this is simply ignorant of the issue in the U.S. (I can't speak to European gay rhetoric). To assert there is a right of or to homosexuality alone begs the question. A rights claim needs to be grounded. For example, one claiming they have a right to conduct X in and of itself is neither convincing nor coherent. The rights language for much of the Gay Lobby is to ground any rights appeal through natural minority status. This rhetoric attempts to conflate homosexuality with the larger civil rights movement ala. the Black Community (which is a natural minority and given State endorsement). Thus, minority status is seen to turn on identity not simply conduct. The argument is government endorsement is warranted because this is a community that has no choice regarding their identity.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

I would think that it depends on how someone is using "natural". I can't think of any biological/evolutionary purpose to homosexuality- in that regard, it would seem like unnatural behavior. OTOH, if by "natural", someone means 'occurs in nature', then homosexual behavior certainly would be natural under that criteria.

Ah ha, but in the past "homosexuals" had children. This is why I say homosexuality and it's seperation from heterosexuality, is a construct. Under sufficient environmental presure gay men and women will have sex together (i.e. stuck on an island with no one else.) So if a sexually transmitted disease ripps through your population those who have less heterosexual sex are less likely to wind up dead.

Theoretically.

Back on topic: If we decide that natural doesn't = good then does that make in ok to be homophobic?

Or do we apply a double standard to preserve our inconsistant moral stance?

[Pindar]

Man, I shouldn't have been typing last night. I've already caught myself in something like three major typos. Ugh. Anyway:

That happens to me too.


I dislike the conflation of pedophilia with homosexuality because it is intellectually dishonest, and is usually made for the sole purpose of making gay people look bad. Pedophiles practice a form of sex that by definition is non-consensual.

Pedophilia is not by definition non-consensual. Pedophilia refers to adult-child sex. Child under the law usually means minor (which would also include any non-adult, peripubsecent and prepubescent children). Thus Catholic priests charged with molesting teenagers were breaking pedophilia laws.



Likewise, pedophilia is universally illegal. Homosexuality, on the other hand, is mostly legal in this world of ours, and involves consenting adults. You're conflating the illegal and non-consenting with the legal and the consensual.

Is your abhorrence tied to legal status then?

[Pindar]

Perhaps it is genetic, perhaps not. The point is, is that you should know it's wrong, wether you have a predisposition for it, or not.

Does 'it' mean homosexuality?

[Lemur]

Pedophilia is not by definition non-consensual. Pedophilia refers to adult-child sex. Child under the law usually means minor (which would also include any non-adult, peripubsecent and prepubescent children). Thus Catholic priests charged with molesting teenagers were breaking pedophilia laws.
That's a quirk of the legal system. Have sex with a sixteen-year-old and you're a pedo; have sex with a six-month-old and you're a pedo. Same law broken, even though the difference is massive and obvious.

Most nations peg the age of informed consent somewhere between eighteen and thirteen. Go under that and there's not a place on earth where you're okay. I don't want to get too deep into age of consent, but it's reasonable to say that a five-year-old cannot give informed acceptance of sex, and that any messing with that child is non-consensual. I would extend that moral stance at least through puberty.

When people talk about pedophilia in the abstract, they're usually referring to the pre-pubescent variety, since that is the most horrible and memorable. Associating consensual sex with rape is, to my mind, misleading. Thus my irritation when homosexuality and pedophilia are conjoined by Rick Santorum or our esteemed Pindar.

Is your abhorrence tied to legal status then?
The legal code attempts to reflect and reinforce a moral standard, in its blunt, clumsy way. Thou shalt not kill and all of that. You work in int'l law, correct? Then you're only too aware that what's illegal in Denmark may be perfectly okay in Singapore. This is not the case with child rape. It's illegal everywhere. This speaks to a civilized consensus on the subject.

[ICantSpellDawg]

Just a thought, why do you conclude that consent shouldn't be given regarding sex until after puberty? Are you attempting to define sex as a procreative act only? Legally you have no standing there. When I was a young kid I had my hands down my pants incessantly. Im sure it felt pretty good, otherwise I would'nt done it as much. I was intelligent for my age. my age of reason was said to have been lower than some of my peers. I did impulsive things, but I do impulsive things now and many teenagers were even more impulsive. This may be seen as an arguement? Noooooo... It is banned or shunned by both written law, judicial precedent, most Religious texts and most traditions around the world. I can't even think of one practice that has broken down all of these walls.

[Suraknar]

The problem I see with the claims that say this behavior or that behavior are 'natural', is that they forget that Humans are not 100% instinctual beings like animals.

Humans are characterised by both genetics but also Socially aquired traits.

So, wither it is proven or not that pedophilia is genetic or not, it is bound to follow social constraints and the individuals that feel are part of the genetically inclined pedophiles, should make a very conscious choice to take care of their genetic impulses.

That being said, as someone mentioned here, the age of children, that is considered "ok" or not, varies in different nations.

An example: http://www2.hu-berlin.de/sexology/BIB/pedochin.htm

I think a safer approach here, in this discussion, to agree that pedophilia is the act between an adult and a child that has not reached puberty.

In many ancient cultures pederasty was not prohibited, and in some, like Spartan culture, it was promoted.

However, that was between adults and children that had reached puberty, not with pre-pubescent children, even in ancient cultures. The athenians sent their children to school from the age of 6-7, yet there were strict laws to insure the safety of these children aswell, 2500 years before our times.

Homosexuality should be left out of the Picture all together, in the discussion, its an intirelly different thing. And it does happen in animals too suggesting strongly its genetic nature.

All in all I agree with this as well.


In my view most of the western world accepts that lust is to a large extent genetically predisposed, but that we are equipped to contain it if it's exercise is socially harmful. Socialisation reinforces the latter.

[Lemur]

Just a thought, why do you conclude that consent shouldn't be given regarding sex until after puberty? Are you attempting to define sex as a procreative act only?
I'm not attempting to "define" sex at all. My focus is on what behavior is appropriate for adults. Grown ups. The big people. We should not, under any circumstances, be having sex with children. If a kid wants to have his hands down his pants and think naughty thoughts, that's entirely outside of my argument.

Even if a pre-pubescent child asks you, politely, to have sex with him or her, it is your obligation as an adult to not have sex. The child is below the age that is considered reasonable for informed consent. I can't believe I have to spell this out ...

[ICantSpellDawg]

I'm not attempting to "define" sex at all. My focus is on what behavior is appropriate for adults. Grown ups. The big people. We should not, under any circumstances, be having sex with children. If a kid wants to have his hands down his pants and think naughty thoughts, that's entirely outside of my argument.

Even if a pre-pubescent child asks you, politely, to have sex with him or her, it is your obligation as an adult to not have sex. The child is below the age that is considered reasonable for informed consent. I can't believe I have to spell this out ...

It is our obligation as adults to not have sex... because of the law, which can be changed.

"We should not" implies that you have moral knowledge that the good folks at NAMBLA and other organizations simply do not. You are imposing your sexual predilections onto others. Just because the law and the majority of the planet says that it is wrong now does't mean that can't change in a few years with lobbying and the right legal precedents.

[Lemur]

"We should not" implies that you have moral knowledge that the good folks at NAMBLA and other organizations simply do not. You are imposing your sexual predilections onto others. Just because the law and the majority of the planet says that it is wrong now does't mean that can't change in a few years with lobbying and the right legal precedents.
Well, I already pointed out the singular consistency with which nations abhor adult/child sex. It's a bit of a global norm. So implying that a touch of lobbying here and a lawsuit there will change things is naive to the point of infantility.

And yes, I do have superior morals to the folks at NAMBLA. Most people do. I assume you're going somewhere with this?

[Xiahou]

The conflation of homosexuality with pedophilia is an old ruse, most visibly practiced by Rick Santorum. I find it abhorrent.
Now that I think about it, it occurs to me that Rick never said anything of the sort...

"If the Supreme Court says that you have the right to consensual (gay) sex within your home, then you have the right to bigamy, you have the right to polygamy, you have the right to incest, you have the right to adultery."

-Pedophilia wasn't mentioned. Not entirely germane to the discussion- just a point of order.

[Lemur]

You're quite right, based on some Googling. He equated homosexuality to bestiality, polygamy, incest and bigamy. He saved pedophilia for the big guns: he blames liberalism (http://www.catholic.org/featured/headline.php?ID=30). And Boston. The town, not the band.


While it is no excuse for this scandal, it is no surprise that Boston, a seat of academic, political and cultural liberalism in America, lies at the center of the storm.

[edit]

Although he comes within kissing distance (http://www.sodomylaws.org/santorum/snnews006.htm) here:


Yes, but it destroys the basic unit of our society because it condones behavior that’s antithetical to strong, healthy families. Whether it’s polygamy, whether it’s adultery, where it’s sodomy, all of those things, are antithetical to a healthy, stable, traditional family. Every society in the history of man has upheld the institution of marriage as a bond between a man and a woman. Why? Because society is based on one thing: that society is based on the future of the society. And that’s what? Children. Monogamous relationships. In every society, the definition of marriage has not ever to my knowledge included homosexuality. That’s not to pick on homosexuality. It’s not, you know, man on child, man on dog, or whatever the case may be.

[edit of the edit]

And I'm guessing that this (http://www.sodomylaws.org/santorum/snnews025.htm) is where TuffStuff is going, even if he's taking the long way around the barn:


Santorum, R-Pennsylvania, was questioned about his comments at a town hall meeting by a 23-year-old man who identified himself as “a proud, gay Pennsylvanian” and said he was offended by the remarks—part of an interview with The Associated Press—in which Santorum appeared to compare homosexuality to incest, bigamy and adultery.

“You attacked me for who I am .... How could you compare my sexuality and what I do in the privacy of my home to bigamy or incest,” the man asked Santorum.

Santorum, however, stood by his comments, even as he said they had been taken out of context. He said that if states were not allowed to regulate homosexual activity in private homes, “you leave open the door for a variety of other sexual activities to occur within the home and not be regulated.”

Santorum, a lawyer, said that was not an expression of intolerance. “It is simply a reflection of the law,” he said, saying Justice Byron White articulated that view in a 1986 Supreme Court ruling that dealt with homosexuality.

[Adrian II]

You have made three mistakesWe have both made three mistakes. ~;)

Sarkozy's original words were these: 'Speaking for myself, I would be inclined to think that paedophiles are born. And what bothers me most is that we have no cure whatsoever for this pathology.' Similar for his statement on juvenile suicide which he supposed is often tied to a genetic 'weakness'. So he hasn't stated the genetic origin categorically, and he has not withdrawn his words either.
You seemed to say that there seemed to be a refrain that all genetically predisposed behaviour is OK. I am glad we have cleared that up and established that there is no such refrain.
Some posters seem to think that Sarkozy wants to legalize paedophilia on the grounds that it is genetically predisposed. He did not say or suggest anything of the kind. Not a single French commentator has made this connection as it speaks for itself that this is not the case.
I didn't mention a 'right to homosexuality' or a natural minority status. Those issues don't bother me at all. But you are right that I'm interested in the full application of article 16 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights as it extends to homersekshules.

[Adrian II]

Lemur, how about I come over and shoot both Al Sharpton and Rick Santorum for you?

Two for da price a one, eh? C'mon, my cousin Vinnie's dental plan is killing me. :beam:

[Reenk Roink]

Human "Rights"... :laugh4:

[rory_20_uk]

Sadism is genetically predisposed. As are sociopaths.

So, the above groups are more likely to kill and torture because they either actively desire to, or see no reason why they shouldn't.

Is that OK because it has a genetic link? I'd go inclined to do the opposite. If such individuals are removed from the gene pool we can reduce the incidence of these pathologies occurring.

As with most things in the nature vs nurture debate there is in most cases an element of both. People are extremely adaptable as to what is "normal". At medical school almost everyone started human dissection fairly horrified. By the 3rd week most were joking as they flensed human flesh.

~:smoking:

[Adrian II]

Sadism is genetically predisposed. As are sociopaths. Is that OK because it has a genetic link?Who said it's OK? Sarkozy didn't say so, nobody in this thread said so. Heck nobody in his right mind says so.
If such individuals are removed from the gene pool we can reduce the incidence of these pathologies occurring. Not all behaviour is hereditary, you know; not all hereditary traits are dominant, etcetera etcetera. Besides, our gene pool needs maximum variety if we want to hold up our pants as a species. If we start to clip and crop our own gene pool because we think we know what's best for ourselves, mankind may be headed for God's on Darwin Award if you catch my drift.

In other words, naturalism doesn't cut it. It is a moral issue.

[ICantSpellDawg]

what about polygamy, Adrian? or incest? are those "morally wrong"?

[Adrian II]

what about polygamy, Adrian? or incest? are those "morally wrong"?No, I think they are not as long as they occur between consenting adults. If the incest leads to childbirth with all the known risks there may be a moral issue. But all this is off-topic. If we are going to explore all conceivable moral issues we might as well throw in the death penalty, abortion and drunk driving and watch the entire thread collapse.

[Rodion Romanovich]

Sadism is genetically predisposed. As are sociopaths.

So, the above groups are more likely to kill and torture because they either actively desire to, or see no reason why they shouldn't.

I doubt being a sociopath is entirely genetical and am quite curious as to what proof you have of that statement. Some of our worst historical characters had gone through quite horrible childhoods, for instance, and children of many bloodthirsty maniacs have come out as wise and just rulers, while their children have in turn ended up maniacs etc. To claim general evilness is 100% genetical is IMO a huge fallacy, since there's a lot of things speaking against that statement. Like periods of wars being able to brutalize entire populations, who have, though initially peaceful, ended up quite bloodthirsty.

[Lemur]

what about polygamy, Adrian? or incest? are those "morally wrong"?
TuffStuff, as I asked earlier, where are you going with this? Do we need to catalog and debate every perversion known to man? Is there a destination in this Q&A session?

I think you're trying to agree with Santorum's slippery slope (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slippery_slope) argument, but you haven't really come out and said so.

In other words, if we allow men to walk their dogs in the park, it's only a matter of time before they walk their tigers and bears as well. So let's discuss tigers and bears, and maybe sharks, 'cause that's what this really boils down to.

[edit]

1. A has occurred (or will or might occur); therefore
2. B will inevitably happen. (slippery slope)
3. B is wrong; therefore
4. A is wrong. (straw man)

Which in this case reads as:

1. Homosexuals would like to be treated with respect; therefore
2. Pedophiles, sadists, sociopaths and polygamists will want the same thing. (slippery slope)
3. Pedophiles, sadists, sociopaths and polygamists are wrong; therefore
4. Threating homosexuals with respect is wrong. (straw man)

[Kralizec]

My dad is a psychotherapist, he told me that the majority of child molestors (wich ≠ pedophiles) were victims of molestation in their youth.

I always figured that people turn pedophile for different reasons; some because of nature, some because of nurture, most through a combination of the two. I'm just giving my uneducated take on it, just as Sarkozy was- I don't see the big deal.

[Suraknar]

Yes, but it destroys the basic unit of our society because it condones behavior that’s antithetical to strong, healthy families. Whether it’s polygamy, whether it’s adultery, where it’s sodomy, all of those things, are antithetical to a healthy, stable, traditional family. Every society in the history of man has upheld the institution of marriage as a bond between a man and a woman. Why? Because society is based on one thing: that society is based on the future of the society. And that’s what? Children. Monogamous relationships. In every society, the definition of marriage has not ever to my knowledge included homosexuality. That’s not to pick on homosexuality. It’s not, you know, man on child, man on dog, or whatever the case may be.

Please define Traditional Familly?

According to whose traditions?

Polygamy has been practiced for a longer time than monogamy in History...which one is the traditional then?

Monogamy is a modern Familly standard.

That being said, I agree that the institution of marriage a heterosexual bond, that has as one of its main reasons to procreate, by that definition the institution does not apply to Hommosexuality, in the sence of a religious mariage, civil mariage is a different thing, and the union of a hommosexual couple in that fashion and with all the civil rights that apply to a heterosexual couple in relation to such a union is a better proposition.

Now, society maybe based upon one thing: the future of that society, however, that future is not necessrilly confined within the bounds of procreation. There is many other things that insure the future of society not only making babies. At least in a Human society, in animal society I would agree it is procreation, but we are not animals anymore.

-------------

Now I have to agree with Adrian here about Sarkozy, he does not suggest a legalisation of pedophilia, and only recognises that there is a problem, and by doing so suggests that our view of that problem maybe misplaced. If we see pedophilia as a social construct our solutions to minimised it are then social in nature, while if we see pedophilia as a biological condition, our solutions to it take a whole new dimension and it maybe the way to come to a way to "fix" it by helping those that suffer from it.

And please lets not generalise. Some people have this insatiable habit to put everything in the same boat, whatever seems to go against some social or religious morals is conviniently shoved in the same box. Personally I think each behavior is its own case, and should be approached differently within its own context with its own evaluation of available data.

So lets stick to pedophilia subject, and avoid arguments that put it in line with other behaviors. Each behavior is distinct. And I personally think that Pedophilia (Adult on pre-pubescent children) is not right neither from a biological view neither from a social one. And solutions are needed for it.

[Adrian II]

My dad is a psychotherapist, he told me that the majority of child molestors (wich ≠ pedophiles) were victims of molestation in their youth.

I always figured that people turn pedophile for different reasons; some because of nature, some because of nurture, most through a combination of the two. I'm just giving my uneducated take on it, just as Sarkozy was- I don't see the big deal.Oh no, here come the sibling studies. Clear the deck!

No offense, Fenring, I appreciate your remarks and this has nothing to do with you. It's just that sibling studies make me seasick, and I feel one coming up. It is just a matter of time now. One mention of a sibling study and I'm out. :dizzy2: :sweatdrop:

[rory_20_uk]

I doubt being a sociopath is entirely genetical and am quite curious as to what proof you have of that statement. Some of our worst historical characters had gone through quite horrible childhoods, for instance, and children of many bloodthirsty maniacs have come out as wise and just rulers, while their children have in turn ended up maniacs etc. To claim general evilness is 100% genetical is IMO a huge fallacy, since there's a lot of things speaking against that statement. Like periods of wars being able to brutalize entire populations, who have, though initially peaceful, ended up quite bloodthirsty.

You are aware of what the word "predisposed" means, yes?
Where did I say 100% genetics?

Sibling studies are about as good as it gets in determining cause for conditions, since searching for one gene is very tough.

~:smoking:

[Adrian II]

Sibling studies:stare:

[Rodion Romanovich]

You are aware of what the word "predisposed" means, yes?

hm, maybe not. Please explain

[rory_20_uk]

Basically an increased susceptibility to an outcome - but far from a forgone conclusion.

~:smoking:

[Suraknar]

Just out of curiosity here, what do you mean by "sibling studies"? Experiments with children?

[Husar]

1. Homosexuals would like to be treated with respect; therefore
2. Pedophiles, sadists, sociopaths and polygamists will want the same thing. (slippery slope)
3. Pedophiles, sadists, sociopaths and polygamists are wrong; therefore
4. Threating homosexuals with respect is wrong. (straw man)
I can treat Homosexuals with respect and still think it's wrong, where exactly is the problem?
I do the same to people who pirate software, so I don't really see an issue here.~;)

[ICantSpellDawg]

No, I think they are not as long as they occur between consenting adults. If the incest leads to childbirth with all the known risks there may be a moral issue. But all this is off-topic. If we are going to explore all conceivable moral issues we might as well throw in the death penalty, abortion and drunk driving and watch the entire thread collapse.

If two people with downs syndrome can get married, with the risks of DS and all of the accompanying mortal illnesses between 40% and 90% depending on the variable, why can't incestuous couples? You have to consider precedent otherwise you will be unprepared for the future.

Also, in your tautology a bit further down, your premise is flawed. The argument is not that the practice is ok but the consequences are dire, it is that the practice is abhorent as are the consequences. Just a reminder that if you let one wolf in, just because it talks like a lamb and listens to showtunes, it may jam a legal foot in the door to let other wolves in. Soon enough you don't know why you live there with all the wolf crap. Ok, the end wasnt part of the analogy.

[Pindar]

That's a quirk of the legal system. Have sex with a sixteen-year-old and you're a pedo; have sex with a six-month-old and you're a pedo. Same law broken, even though the difference is massive and obvious.

Most nations peg the age of informed consent somewhere between eighteen and thirteen. Go under that and there's not a place on earth where you're okay. I don't want to get too deep into age of consent, but it's reasonable to say that a five-year-old cannot give informed acceptance of sex, and that any messing with that child is non-consensual. I would extend that moral stance at least through puberty.

When people talk about pedophilia in the abstract, they're usually referring to the pre-pubescent variety, since that is the most horrible and memorable.

You mentioned a five year cannot give informed consent. Do you think an eighteen year old can? I'm interested in your statement that pedophilia is by definition non-consensual. This seems problematic.


Associating consensual sex with rape is, to my mind, misleading. Thus my irritation when homosexuality and pedophilia are conjoined by Rick Santorum or our esteemed Pindar.

I don't know that Santorum has done this. I know I haven't done this. My comments concern associating a social taboo with genetics and that that trope has been used to justify behavior.


The legal code attempts to reflect and reinforce a moral standard, in its blunt, clumsy way. Thou shalt not kill and all of that. You work in int'l law, correct? Then you're only too aware that what's illegal in Denmark may be perfectly okay in Singapore. This is not the case with child rape. It's illegal everywhere. This speaks to a civilized consensus on the subject.

The legal code that constitutes the 'civilized consensus' is by in large a product of the West ala Pax Britannica/Americana. If you move beyond the Modern Western Model things change. Child brides in India or Arabie are two simple examples both of which reflect old cultural norms (and thereby value systems) that predate any Western imposed jurisprudence.

[Pindar]

We have both made three mistakes. ~;)

~:grouphug:

My comment concerned the rhetoric where social taboo X is seen as genetic. This stance then is and has been used to constitute a justification for that X.

Note: Article 16 doesn't mention homersekshules. Further, the Declaration has no authority. It is simply rhetoric.

[KukriKhan]

No, I think they are not as long as they occur between consenting adults. If the incest leads to childbirth with all the known risks there may be a moral issue. But all this is off-topic. If we are going to explore all conceivable moral issues we might as well throw in the death penalty, abortion and drunk driving and watch the entire thread collapse.

AdrianII's instincts are correct here, I think.

Let's keep to the topic: "Is peadophilia genetic or aquired?", and eshew any journey into other territory, however interesting it might be (I confess that I earlier explored such a tangent; sorry). Such journeys will be better served by separate threads, with appropriate links, citations, and expressed opinions.

So far, by my unscientific estimate, we have a redux of the predestination vs free will debate.

If paedo-ism is genetic, and a 'sufferer' is then predisposed to a stronger temptation to act on his affliction, and does so... how should society react to this violation of its stated (or impled) rules?

[Suraknar]

Well personally I make a distinction between genetic nature and genetic Defects.

While some sexual behaviors can be genetically natural, confirmed by their existance in the animal kingdom others maybe genetical defects, and if this is the case with Pedophilia, then the first step towards a given remedy would be to confirm that it is genetic or not.

If it is proven that it is genetic defect (to my knowledge Pedophilia does not exist in the animal kingdom) it changes the way we view it socially, and will cause some sort of legal reform as well as prescription to treatment when that is found.

[Rodion Romanovich]

Basically an increased susceptibility to an outcome - but far from a forgone conclusion.

~:smoking:
In that case, I had the right idea on what the word meant. My comment on 100% genetical was about moral responsibility, mostly. You seem to imply that if someone has a few percent increased risk of becoming mad if having a horrible childhood, the solution should be to remove them from the gene pool so we can keep horrible childhoods. I'd rather go with the opposite: remove bad childhoods. People who DON'T get mad from a horrible childhood are the odd people. The moral responsibility for triggering madness in people who become mad from having horrible, inhumane childhood lies mostly with society, not with those persons, and most people get mad under such conditions. Your suggestion seems to imply you'd like to see a removal of 99% of all humans from the gene pool. :dizzy2:

Now to have any moral defense at all for the idea of removing people from the gene pool as you suggest, it would be required that that person has genes that would make them say pedophiliacs, sociopaths or similar even when treated humanely during their childhood and the rest of their lives, i.e. that the moral responsibility for triggering the undesired acts lie with the genes, and not with society. This means we first have the problem of defining what is an acceptable childhood and what isn't. Should we base this on rationality regarding physical damage alone? Probably not, since that would mean a girl growing up with an incestuous father in most cases would be considered irrational for later becoming mad, because most incestuous fathers are eager to not be discovered and therefore try to minimize the physical damages done to the daughter. :dizzy2: It would seem to me that this example is enough to demonstrate, that rationality and physical damage risks alone aren't enough to define an unacceptable childhood. We must probably define bad/good childhood based also on existing psychological characteristics of humans - people with behaviors that aren't rational under all circumstances, but rational in our evolutionary background, namely pre-civilization society, must be accepted. In pre-civ society, you had a situation where most things we have instincts to perceive as threats were indeed dangerous or required a defensive action, whereas in modern society these threat-perceptions occur frequently without a need for a defensive action. So a girl getting abused by her father during childhood feels bad because of the sexual abuse, because such can be dangerous in pre-civilization society and there you also have methods for escaping it, and that is enough reason for us to consider incest to be immoral, and a horrible, inhumane childhood. Nobody is justified to behave evil because they had a bad childhood, but the guilt isn't theirs. I'm not quite sure what logic and moral axioms you're basing your statements of removal from the gene pool on, but if the moral responsibility for horrible actions isn't 100% genetical, I don't think there's any justification for removing people from the gene pool, especially as that would imply removing around 99% of all living humans from it.

[Adrian II]

If two people with downs syndrome can get married, with the risks of DS and all of the accompanying mortal illnesses between 40% and 90% depending on the variable, why can't incestuous couples?You are confusing law, morality and biology. Such confusion is invariably tied to Christian naturalist reasoning, as I tried to demonstrate elsewehre in this thread. The idea that God's moral precepts are somehow embedded in the natural order and discernible by man does not take into account (1) man's incomplete understanding of nature, (2) variety and contingency in natural patterns.

I know this sounds pompous, as if I have copied it from a website. That is not the case. It is my own argument. It is also Adrianspeak, the result of a good command of Dutch which doesn't quite translate into English.

@ Suraknar A sibling study (http://www.dnatestingcentre.com/sibling.htm) is a study that compares outcomes in children with an identical (or near-identical) genetic make-up. Suppose that identical siblings grow up in different environments: one in a caring, safe family environment, the other in a totally dysfunctional family. By comparing outcomes (IQ, social intelligence, character traits, attitudes) one can attempt to establish how much IQ or certain behaviours, traits or attitudes depend on genetic make-up.

@ Pindar My point is obviously that Article 16 should acquire authority, preferably by being incorporated into national law. It does not mention homersekshules and it doesn't have to, it is sufficient that it does not exclude them.

[ICantSpellDawg]

You are confusing law, morality and biology. Such confusion is invariably tied to Christian naturalist reasoning, as I tried to demonstrate elsewehre in this thread. The idea that God's moral precepts are somehow embedded in the natural order and discernible by man does not take into account (1) man's incomplete understanding of nature, (2) variety and contingency in natural patterns.

I know this sounds pompous, as if I have copied it from a website. That is not the case. It is my own argument. It is also Adrianspeak, the result of a good command of Dutch which doesn't quite translate into English.


I don't fully understand your response or what you have just accused me of.

Law attempts to amalgamate certain types of morality with biology. When law does this, It creates precedents against which similar issues can be weighed.

The law in this issue attempts to allow people with reproductive handicaps to enjoy the relationships enjoyed by traditionally accepted couples. "Fairness" is the moral measuring stick. This fairness can also be applied to other couples that have been considered taboo due, mostly, to the probability of birth defects and religious condemnation. Other qualms with a practice like incest come from personal belief and emotional response rather than legal rationalism.

I'm probably missing something.

[doc_bean]

(to my knowledge Pedophilia does not exist in the animal kingdom)

It does, there's some sort of sea lion-ish creature where the males start raping the kids if they can't get a female. There are probably other examples, keep in mind that pedophilia is pretty rare even for humans, it's just that there are six billion of us, so even a tiny fraction can be a lot of people, and quite visible.

Actually this example can be somewhat related to pedo priests, sexual frustration leading to child abuse (assuming the priests didn't join because they were pedo's). Perhaps the issue is a bit more complex than we've debated in this thread.

[rory_20_uk]

Many animals are able to detect when the females are in their reproductive phase, and don't bother if the female isn't. Physical maturity is the only variable.

~:smoking:

[ICantSpellDawg]

Now we are making life standards based on what other animal species are doing? that is even worse than using European courts... or maybe not.

[Suraknar]

Many animals are able to detect when the females are in their reproductive phase, and don't bother if the female isn't. Physical maturity is the only variable.

~:smoking:

It has been observed in Lions that a Male can force a female to go in a reproductive phase by killing her young, specially when these are not his own.


Now we are making life standards based on what other animal species are doing? that is even worse than using European courts... or maybe not.

Not exactly, we are informing ourselves about how nature deals with these issues, by observing animals. And nature is unbiassed, no politics, no religion, no money involved.



It does, there's some sort of sea lion-ish creature where the males start raping the kids if they can't get a female. There are probably other examples, keep in mind that pedophilia is pretty rare even for humans, it's just that there are six billion of us, so even a tiny fraction can be a lot of people, and quite visible.

Woudn't that be categorised under "Rape" behavior? I mean, isnt Pedophilia characterised by Adult-Child sex, while Adult-Adult sex is available? Or at least under normal circomstances? because as far as animal are concerned (which do not have moral judgement, just instincts), taking a mature sea lion and throwing it in the middle of children sounds like extreeme circomstances, and the sea lion is driven by instinctual needs, rather than a conscious choice. No?

[rory_20_uk]

It has been observed in Lions that a Male can force a female to go in a reproductive phase by killing her young, specially when these are not his own.

Lactation produces oxytocin which prevents ovulation. Remove the stimuli for lactation and ovulation will occur. Same thing occurs in humans.

~:smoking:

[ICantSpellDawg]

Not exactly, we are informing ourselves about how nature deals with these issues, by observing animals. And nature is unbiassed, no politics, no religion, no money involved.


Unbiased? No politics? How do you define politics? Suits, Lies and Adultury?
Power struggles, Loyalty benefits, are just a more primitive form of politics.

I've seen Elephant bulls give sexually receptive females better watering holes for their efforts. Ive seen power struggles of turf and herd across the board; mammals, insects, birds etc. Ive seen apes and monkeys reciprocate behavior and be thrown out of families for disruptive behavior againts the interests of the alpha troops. I've seen female elephants fight other females and kidnap a calf to prove a point.

Animals don't tend to create computers, farm, create flying vehicles, explore the moon. That, in effect means those things are unnacceptable?

Animal activity is nearly irrelevant except to gain greater insight into the patterns of the animal and its environment.

[Suraknar]

Unbiased? No politics? How do you define politics? Suits, Lies and Adultury?
Power struggles, Loyalty benefits, are just a more primitive form of politics.

I've seen Elephant bulls give sexually receptive females better watering holes for their efforts. Ive seen power struggles of turf and herd across the board; mammals, insects, birds etc. Ive seen apes and monkeys reciprocate behavior and be thrown out of families for disruptive behavior againts the interests of the alpha troops. I've seen female elephants fight other females and kidnap a calf to prove a point.

Animals don't tend to create computers, farm, create flying vehicles, explore the moon. That, in effect means those things are unnacceptable?

Animal activity is nearly irrelevant except to gain greater insight into the patterns of the animal and its environment.

I dont want to stray too much from the topic here, but what you describe about animal actions is within the boundaries of their instinctive behavior, in the goal of insuring the propagation of their genes. These are mechanicsms that we as humans when we observe we may have a tendency of attributing them to our own conscious and abstract way of thinking but the animals behave that way out of instinct, they dont plan their behavior.

Humans are animals too, at least we evolved from the animal kingdom and side-steped off many natural selection rules.

That being said, we function with reason, we function with abstract thinking we plan things, and we are able to shape our invironment to suit our needs. We are also able to be creative and albeit being creative is not only a human trait we can be creative in an abstract manner.

When a questions about a certain behavior move in to the realm of genetics and biology, observing the animal kingdom is more than a curiosity, it is a good source of insight and information gathering to the issue.

We may have become different from the rest of the animal kingdom, but lets not forget that as Hommo Sapiens we have been around only 200 thousand years compared to an evolutionary journey of 3 Million years.

Lets not also forget that we have been sedentary for about 7-10 thousand years compared to a nomad hunter/gatherer life style of 190 thousand years.

Do you realise that even today in the modern world that we live in Humans still posses Pre-hestoric Brains? Our brains are adapted to the Hunter/Gatherer lifestyle still, and there is no genetic evolution that separates them from our ancestors of pre-history.

If indeed pedophilia exists in the animal kingdom then it is a mechanism that serves a specific purpose, that purpose gives us insight in to understanding why it occurs to Humans.

To my knowledge it does not happen in nature, so for now the way I see it, if it proves to be genetic, it can be more of a defect than a "natural" behavior.

And this has consequences, as our approach towards such behavior changes, instead of dismay and urges to punish, we can instead understand and try to help.

[IrishArmenian]

Define peadophilia.
When one is underage, and has sex with a person of the same age, isn't that, by definition peadophilia?
Doesn't one generally outgrow (yes, I mean that literally) this?
But I assume this is for small children. There might be some predisposed standing on this from genetics, but I think it is mostly choice.

You are going to hate me for saying this, but ask a peadophile.

If this is proved true, it will change me a lot because I view peadophilia as one of the most disgusting acts one can commit.

[ShadeHonestus]

nurture over nature

Unless of course my constituency demands protection for an action contrary to traditional morality by stating man is bound in action by biology alone.

As the politics turn, so does the debate and its supporting science.

[monkian]

I imagine, as with rape, there a various reasons why people commit peadophilia (anf Im not talking having sex with a 15 old - not checking her ID in a club for example)

* They are actively attracted to children - i.e their physical form

* They arent attractive to adults - its the only way they can have sexual gratification with another person without paying for it.

* They were abused themselves and are repeating a cycle.

* They have explored other sexual taboos and the taboo of sexually assualting a child is a turn on rather than the child itself