Is there anything political about anything I’ve said in this thread? WTF does “left” have to do with anything?
Here, I googled pedohilia for you
The links look pretty safe to me, at least the first 10 of the several hundred thousand, so you can scratch that excuse off your list.
And just for fun, here’s pedophilia elf curse. 381 listings, so maybe you’re on to something there.
Cite? Notice that his cite so far has been “I got it from a human sexuality class in college”.
I suggest we take him at his word and simply ignore him when he does this.
Perhaps we could alter our manifesto to fighitng polite ignorance and ignoring the rest?
[/QUOTE]
Be my guest, bitch. I’m not forcing you to post in this thread.
So you did the work. Now show me the cites that prove me wrong.
It’s relatively difficult to come up with good citations on this subject using a regular Google search, so i made use of my status as a university student and went into the online medical databases available to me through my university account. I should note here that coverage of medical issues is, to put it mildly, pretty good in the Johns Hopkins library system.
There are literally hundreds of articles in medical, psychiatric and psychological journals covering the issue of pedophilia and paraphilia. Many of them deal with very specific issues of identification and treatment, or of correlation with other factors, or likely recidivism rates, or any one of hundreds of other factors.
The best overview article i could find on the subject came from the Journal of the American Medical Association. The full citation for the article is:
Peter J. Fagan, PhD; Thomas N. Wise, MD; Chester W. Schmidt, Jr, MD; Fred S. Berlin, MD, PhD, “Pedophilia,” JAMA, 288:19 (November 20, 2002), pp. 2458-2465.
I can’t give a link, because you need a JAMA account to view the article online.
The authors open their article with the following statement:
Some of the salient details from the article follow:
This is all the article has to say on the etiology of pedophilia. I did find another piece, Richard Green, MD, JD, “Is Pedophilia a Mental Disorder,” Archives of Sexual Behavior, 31:6 (December 2002), pp. 467-471 (again, no link possible), which had something interesting to say.
Green points out that the extant studies of pedophiles all suffer certain inherent biases that mitigate against a complete understanding of the problem:
Something worth thinking about.
Yes, it was disappeared. As was the guy’s second thread, after he came back as LadMirer2. I caught the second one (actually saved it because I knew it was about to be disappeared) but not the first. (Luckily, it seems.)
Right. But he wasn’t equating homosexuality with pedophillia, he was equating the inborn causes of the two–this is a much more specific equivocation then “equating homosexuality with pedophilia.”
Childhood trauma? Thats the biggest bunch of fucking shit I have ever heard.
Psychologist: Did you endure any childhood trauma?
Pedophile 1: Well I fell down the stairs when I was 5 and hurt my arm pretty bad.
Pedophile 2: Well I watched my dog get run over by a car when I was 8
Pedophile 3: I had glasses when I was 7 and all of the kids made fun of me.
Psychologist: AHA! Your pedophillia is clearly due to these traumas!
Is it also then insulting to heterosexuals to equate it with heterosexuality? 'Cause as it’s been pointed out, the OP did that too. Why are you singling out the homosexual comparison, here?
And if it IS just your opinion, instead of something you learned in a human sexuality class as you first asserted, it’s insulting to nobody, and you’re being offended and calling people fuckface just for the sake of being offended and calling people fuckface.
Fuck it. I’m going to bed now, I gotta get up early in the morning.
Thanks, mhendo. The relevant portion:
I notice there was nothing in your quoted material that cited any genetic factors.
Maybe, maybe not. Let’s hear the OP say it.
Well, it’s not exactly like the right is well known for hysterical over-reactions to perceived instances of homophobia.
On what basis?
Exploring the theory that there is a genetic vector for paedophilia insults neither homosexuals nor heterosexuals.
Arguing that we mustn’t consider the possibility paedophilia being transmitted genetically because it is insulting to homosexuals is ludicrous – You might as well argue that we shouldn’t look into a genetic cause of Epidermolysis Bullosa because it’s offensive to black people/white people/asian people/whatever. It must be environmental. Look, all of those kids have been exposed to cotton! Cotton is the answer! Case closed, look no further!
Not good science, dude.
The correlation to sexual abuse is consistent with several theories, all of which should be considered.
It’s important to weigh the data properly. There are studies that show largely-equivalent rates of childhood abuse between paedos and non-paedos. How is the methodology different?
One thing that ought to be considered is how many studies are dependent on self-reporting for their numbers, and under what circumstances the information is obtained. It’s not unreasonable to consider the possibility that studies using convicted child molesters may have more incidence of false reports of childhood abuse, since the offenders may be motivated to report data in the hopes that it might be considered exculpatory.
Personally, it seems to me that, since the jury is so emphatically out, it seems silly to pick one theory and cling to it as if it’s the gospel truth, insulting anyone who hesitates to accept it.
It may very well be that the transmisssion of paedophilia is a simple matter of an abuse cycle. We just don’t have enough data to make that determination yet, and if we decide we have, than it’s very possible that more children will come to harm as a result of our certainty.
That’s a really shitty gamble.
Not directly, but:
What, other than genetics, could account for these organic symptoms?
That’s true. There was no mention of genetics in that article.
I would add, though, that our incomplete understanding of the nature of genetic inheritance of certain traits, and the fact that some other articles were calling for more investigation into this issue, suggests that we might usefully stick with the old maxim: Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.
In retrospect, maybe I overracted to PaulFitroy’s Op and inferred what he did not intend to imply.
I should have just asked for a cite for his statement that pedophiles are born that way and left it at that.
I apologize to the OP.
Fuck you! You’re the one spouting the “facts” and then, when challenged, namby pamby about how you’re askeert to type a word into a search engine. I did what you were afraid to do. Now you do the research.
Brain chemistry can be changed by trauma. This is well known.
I don’t feel like it. So there. What are you going to do, sue me?
Reject my assertion. I don’t care.
Welcome back!