Is peadophilia genetic or aquired?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Adrian II

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Lemur

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.

Quote:

---

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.

Quote:

---

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Adrian II

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Adrian II

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?

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by rory_20_uk

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by TuffStuffMcGruff

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 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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Adrian II

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Suraknar

(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.

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:

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 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:

---

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by TuffStuffMcGruff

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by doc_bean

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?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Suraknar

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:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Suraknar

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by TuffStuffMcGruff

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.

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.

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.

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