Or better still, are pedophiles just mean evil people?
If we’re going to accept homosexuality is natural, should we also accept pedophiles impulses as natural too?
Also, shouldn’t falling to one’s own impulses, especialy sexual ones be taken into cosideration when violators of such crimes get caught?
There are lots of “natural” behaviours that cause harm to others; I don’t see why defining it (or not) as a sickness is relevant. Getting really really really angry is a natural and common experience, but we don’t give a guy who kills another guy in a bar-fight a free pass.
I’m okay with someone wanting to touch a child, who never actually does so. There’s quite a difference between this and homosexuality between consenting adults, though I admit there were times when no-one, even psychiatric professionals, made the distinction.
Wow. Comparing homosexuality and paedophilia is always a good idea…
Anyhow - no, it’s not appropriate to compare the two, if only because with homosexuality you have to adults consenting to something they’re both into, whereas with paedophilia you have a child being exploited by an adult.
Now, as to if it’s natural. Well, no, not really. Certainly a man cannot pass his genes on by having sex with a 2 year old. Or a 4 year old. Or a 6 year old, for that matter. Secondly, by having sex with a child of that age, it’s possible the child will be killed, or rendered infertile. If the child is the man’s own offspring, he’s just shot himself in the evolutionary foot, so to speak.
Are paeoophiles just “bad people” - no, I don’t think that’s right either. There are paedophiles that don’t act on their impulses, despite having them. Or find suitable adult substitutes for their desires. I went to jr high and high school with a girl who was a “late bloomer.” Her first boyfriend told her he was into her because she had no secondary sex characteristics. Was it a healthy relationship? Probably not, but she certainly went into it with her eyes open, was an adult and able to make her own decisions.
Finally, comparing homosexuality and paedophilia is really quite offensive. I’ll leave it to others to discuss why.
Did you really mean to say this, or are you trying to bait people into making the comparison you’re saying it’s “quite offensive” to make?
Did I mean to say what? Statement #1 was sarcasim. Statement number two was in regards to paedophilia. Statement #3 was in reference to the fact that most people, and certainly most people I’ve seen post on this board regarding the subject (myself included) find the comparison between homosexuality and paedophila offensive, inflamatory, and not particularly valid.
Well sure, but you happen to pick the ONE thing they do have in common (not being able to pass on your genes) as your first reason pedophilia is not natural?
I’ve got to admit it wouldn’t be the first time such occured to me. If both homosexuality and pedophilia are, as some say (and I don’t really have a means to judge) hard-wired then there is an equivalence to be made concerning the ‘luck of the draw’ issue and the fact that people aren’t responsible for their orientations.
But it’s also true that I never see a problem with homosexuality because, as Alice said, it’s between adults. And life is way too short to care what someone else is doing.
But the same can’t be said for those whose wiring is pedophilic. And it’s a case of tragedy in a sense. They’re oriented in such a way that this society will NEVER accept. It’s one of those hard breaks in life that some people get. I can certainly feel sorry for people whose natural inclination is one that will pretty much get them arrested, banished, shunned or killed.
Or, in other, more prosaic words: Shit happens.
Bubonic plague is perfectly “natural”, but it’s also a sickness. I’ve never thought we should accept homosexuality as being morally or ethically OK because it’s “natural” or even because homosexuals can’t help having that orientation; we should accept homosexuality as being morally and ethically OK because the sexual acts and love lives of consenting adults aren’t doing anybody else any harm and therefore really aren’t anyone else’s business.
A pedophile who cannot help his or her sexual attraction to pre-pubescent children, but who never acts on that attraction should be pitied. A child molester who harms children should be prevented from doing so by being incarcerated.
Shakes sent me an email saying it will be a couple days before he gets back to this but he will be back, this is not a post 'n run situation.
So far, most opinions seem to infer that paedophilia is a natural impulse, or ‘hard-wired’ in at least some of the people who act in that manner. Is that a fair summary?
I would point out that not all paedophiles are men, as recent news-worthy cases have shown us. And that indeed a woman can get pregnant from an underaged boy without there being anything to worry about physically.
Also, I believe the OP references the impulses as the point of consideration here. The term ‘natural’ often gets used in just the light described above, i.e. procreation, thus I wouldn’t get too ruffled Garfield226, as there is generally only that one point to compare when it comes to acting out. But as for the impulse, there is much more to paedophilia than the act (as there is to homosexuality). Wikipedia has a very good article on this.
-Tcat
Exactly. Whether something is natural or not has no bearing at all on whether is is morally or ethically ok; we judge that either by social norms or religious beliefs. Whether or not pedophilia is a sickness, though, would be a useful distinction to make because it suggests the possibility of a “cure”, or similar, which (as humans generally consider pedophilia to be wrong) would be very helpful.
If we accept that sexual orientation is something we don’t chose, I would have to say that pediphelia is as valid as homosexuality and hetrosexuality in that context.
As well as hetrosexuality
Bold mine
I think you hit it, it is **this **society we created that cause this sexual orinetation to be bad and evil, perhaps society could have developed in a way that would include children in sex, instead of just being a result of it - I don’t know.
Both are natural for the people who are wired that way, both are currently frowned upon by large segments of society and one does no harm.
Are pedophiles “wired that way?” Their unnatural attraction is not the result of receiving abuse themselves? I ask the question because of my understanding of other criminals where unnatural sexual urges play a part. Like mass murderers. They’re motivated in many cases by the urge to completely possess someone, to the point of taking their lives. (This is a generalization but I think accurate characterization of what I’ve read and seen in documentaries about them.) Many of them were abused, neglected or sexually molested as children.
I did read the Wikipedia article cited by Tomcat, which refers to a study where more than a third of men studied normally only attracted to adult females were aroused when viewing a nude female child. It is my understanding that men can have erections as a result of non-sexual stimuli. This is quasi-sexual; it seems to me that it’s not definitive proof of “natural” pedophelic urges in normal men.
I thought a bit before changing ‘society’ to ‘this society’.
While I’m not trying to be judgemental here I’m not well versed in the sexual predelictions of all societies, everywhere. Certainly there’s some evidence about young boys and some of the ancient Greek cultures. But I don’t know whether that’s a complete outlier or whether it’s just one more data point.
As I understand it, some, but not all pedophiles were abused as children. I’d venture to say many-to-most were. I suppose you could say they were “re-wired” by what ever abuse they experienced. I’d put that in the “natural” column as well if it’s a natural response to early stimuli.
It’s already been said, but ‘natural’ is not the criterion (at least not the sole criterion) on which the decision to permit or deny something is made. Cholera, malaria and tuberculosis are all 100% natural, but we make quite strenuous efforts to suppress them. Nylon socks, white bread and the internet are all somewhat artificial, and yet they continue largely without impediment.
Others have covered the false dichotomy of ‘natural/sickness’ all too well, so I’ll just throw out -
It’s probably hard-wired in most pedophiles; however, I bet it’s environmental in some of them. Anything that’s presented as ‘sexy’ enough times can become sexy - at the societal level, or home level. Aren’t a disproportinate number of pedophiles from abusive homes?
Of those who were abused as children, how many were by family members? If the vast majority were I would tend to lean towards more of a hardwired problem that is still being passed on. Claiming to abuse children because the pedophile was themselves a victim of abuse just feels like an attempt at blame shifting to me. If anyone understands the horrors of it, it is the abused minor. Someone who was sexually abused, who then abuses others has little if any excuse.
IIRC if the child is capable of sexual reproduction the person in question is not a true pedophile but a phebophile. A hefty percentage of the targets of phebophiles can be legally married in many states, but not legally partake in sexual activities outside of marriage even if they could be married to that person.