Is peadophilia genetic or aquired?

Quote:

---

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

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

How are we supposed to know?

We'll probably never know.

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

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

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Pindar

...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?

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.

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

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Pindar

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by KukriKhan

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Lemur

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.

Quote:

---

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

---

Why?

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.

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"

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 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"

---

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:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 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:

1. After claiming that paedophilia is genetically predisposed, Sarkozy has withdrawn that claim and said he merely wants to 'discuss' the possibility.
2. 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.
3. 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:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Adrian II

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' ?

Quote:

---

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.

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by LegioXXXUlpiaVictrix

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...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by LegioXXXUlpiaVictrix

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by doc_bean

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Adrian II

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 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:

1. After claiming that paedophilia is genetically predisposed, Sarkozy has withdrawn that claim and said he merely wants to 'discuss' the possibility.
2. 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.
3. 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.

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by LegioXXXUlpiaVictrix

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. ~;)

Quote:

---

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.

Quote:

---

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.

Quote:

---

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Adrian II

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.

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by doc_bean

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.

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: