Is peadophilia genetic or aquired?

[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.

[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!!!

[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?

[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!!!

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]

Dave, you know I love you,

Does this means we're going steady?
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?

Do you have to ask?

[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

You have made three mistakes:

1. 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.
2. 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.
3. 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.

[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]

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?

[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.

[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

[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.

[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.

[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".

[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 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?

[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?

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?

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]

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.

[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?