Paedophilia = Genetic

Great Debates
1

Assumption:

Homosexuality is genetic and you can’t be ‘made’ gay by watching Channel 4 or that silly spiderman-will-make-you-gay website.

This thread (if anyone answers) goes along with that assuption.

In our not-too-distant past homosexuality was classed as a mental illness. It’s not now, it’s much more accepted by the general population and being gay isn’t something to be ashamed of or to hide from - though I know there are still many obstacles to get over. Anyway, this is not my question…
Question: What if paedophilia turns out to be a genetic trait?

Now what?

2

Um…well, homosexuality doesn’t really hurt anyone. It’s neutral.

Paedophilia IS harmful.

Alcoholism, schizophrenia and such are also genetic.

3

So what happens?

I have no idea what society would do.
It’s a crime, but alcoholics arn’t sent to prison - they’re offered help, support or shelter if necessary. Schizophrenia is dealt with drugs that offer many side-effects.

What would society do with paedophiles if they /really/ couldn’t help it?

4

We would find a way to treat them. Same as we do someone who has a severe problem that can’t be helped.

5

Pedophilia is not a crime. Child molestation is a crime.

Alcoholism is not a crime. Drunk driving is a crime (as are bar fights, spousal abuse, etc.).

Homosexuality is not a crime. Is there any reason why gay sex should be illegal? (As it still is in a few states, and in the U.S. military.) Also, is there any reason why “unnatural” acts between consenting heterosexual adults should be illegal (as they are in most states which still ban gay sex, and in the U.S. military)? I would say no. Who does gay sex (or “unnatural” heterosexual sex) harm? If you don’t like it, don’t do it.

Is there any reason why sex with children below the age of consent should be illegal? I would say yes. Human beings below a certain age can’t meaningfully give their consent to having sex (or to a lot of other things), and should be protected by society until they can actually make up their own minds about what they want to do and who they want to do it with.

6

There is another similar question that has puzzled me for quite some time. If the sexual abuse of children is as pervasive as has been suggested in recent decades, with the taboo about talking about personal experiences being lifted somewhat, can it in fact be considered ‘deviant’ behaviour?

I have heard it proposed that up to 70% of the population have experienced sexual abuse as children. (Sorry that I cannot provide a cite…tried ‘googling’ but could not come up with a specific enough reference). It occurs in all cultures and has been around since the ‘dawn of time’ so to speak.

Now, IF this is the case, and abuse is widespread, then it would have to be considered ‘normal’ behaviour rather than deviant. Should this then have an impact upon the way that perps are dealt with by the community? I have spent many hours pondering the implications of this, and have yet to come up with an answer.

7

The best thing is to try and find out who are paedophiles and try to help them before they do anything. I suspect a lot of them know they have a problem but are currently scared to admit it.

8

No **The Griffen, ** what I am asking is can paedophilia/sexual contact with children be considered abnormal when it appears (if the stats etc are correct) that it is the ‘norm’?

9

Whether or not pedophelia is ‘normal’ is irrelevant. Violent behavior and homocide are present in every human society, but there are no more acceptable because of that. If tomorrow we knew for sure that most, even all, murders were done by people who carried a ‘violence gene’ , what would it matter? Would we suddenly embrace murder?

All the existence of a gene for pedophelia will do is create different ways of treating this disorder, just as it is for alcoholism. Harmful activities are not legitimized by genetics.

I am sure you bring this up in part because the argument over homosexuality is often waged about genetics and what is natural. I guarantee you that if homosexuality was determined to have a genetic or otherwise pre-birth cause in 100% of cases, the argument over homosexuality being ‘natural’ or acceptable would not end. IMHO, the argument about whether or not homosexuality is natural is a red herring. Saying “I think homosexuality is unnatural” tends to really mean “thinking about homosexuality grosses me out and I just don’t like it”.

10

—I have heard it proposed that up to 70% of the population have experienced sexual abuse as children. (Sorry that I cannot provide a cite…tried ‘googling’ but could not come up with a specific enough reference). It occurs in all cultures and has been around since the ‘dawn of time’ so to speak.—

This cite is highly dubious. I’ve never heard such an incredibly high figure quoted before, save once: during the “recovered memory” debacle.

11

fluiddruid, I think there is a great difference between a trait that is *present * in society (like murder) which only a minority of people perpetrate, and one like sexual contact with children, which, by current measurements, could be considered a ‘normal’ practice.

What I am suggesting, is that if the current stats are to be believed, and sexual contact is not only common but something that the MAJORITY of the population has experienced, then such behaviour is not an abberation. This would then raise the issue of WHY it is unacceptable. This is especially true in the case of contact between fathers and daughters. The media and welfare authorities would have us believe that there is a veritable epidemic of incestuous relationships. In talking to my friends, it is the rare person who does not have a story of being abused at the hands of a family member or close family friend.

Please understand that the mere thought of a child in the hands of an ‘abusing’ adult fills me with abhorent dread too. I do not understand the minds of people who could find children sexually attractive, and worse, act-out on those attractions. However, it may be that I am in the minority, again IF and only IF we are to believe the ‘epidemic’ proportions of the problem.

And again, if it is so common, why are paedophiles etc considered ‘deviant’? They are not the deviants, it is the rest of us!

12

kambuckta, I, too, find that 70% stat hard to believe. Maybe someone made it up. Or maybe you missed part of what was being said. Maybe it was really, “70% of this, that, or the other specific group were molested as children.” Maybe someone fudged it by defining “child” too broadly. That is, adding in, say, cases of consensual sex between teenagers in order to inflate the total.

13

Apos and Hazel, I too find the figures unbelievable, and in some ways, I guess that is part of my point.

Society can’t have it both ways. You can’t say that sexual abuse is an epidemic, and that the majority of children have been subject to abuse without ALSO acknowledging that it must therefore be MORE NORMAL to be abused than not. It would also follow that the approaches to treating perpetrators of a ‘normal’ behaviour would be very different to those that address deviance. Except at the moment we employ the punish/remove from society/ rehabilitate models. It just doesn’t make any logical or moral/social sense to do that iff the incidence of sexual molestation of children is so high.

While efforts to bring such issues to the publics attention have been admirable, I wonder whether the problem is as widespread as suggested. I also query whether the ‘criteria’ for abuse is far too flexible.

I’m going ‘googling’ to see if I can come up with something a bit more authoritative!! :slight_smile: Be back soon!!

14

When he says “now what?” I think he is aiming at “if this sexual disorder can be treated (perhaps forcibly) why not this one?”

15

Society isn’t saying that child molestation is both an epidemic and that most children have been sexually abused; You are. And you have yet to back your claim up.

And you are basing your statement on the victims, while you should be looking at the criminals. Even if 51% of all children have been sexually abused, that does not make it the normal state of affairs! You need to look at what percentage of adults are sexually abusing children. (Whatever the percentage, it is too high).

And I am not quite sure what you meant with your ’ punish/remove from society/ rehabilitate’ bit. Are you saying that if most people are abusers (or abused?), that we should simply let them go? Please clarify that last point for me.

16

I’m no expert on the subject but here are some of my thoughts:

Pedophiles are people who are sexually attracted to prepubescent girls (the age 13 being the most common limit).

Anything over that is NOT pedophilia. It’s not a disease or a genetic defect. It’s simply people that like very young “women”. I remind you that marrying 14 and 15 years old girls was still considered normal 100 years ago. (and still is today in quite a few countries)

17

Not young “women” - “girls” really is the appropriate term.

And young boys as well.

And toddlers, and infants, and babies.

I find “older” men that continually go out with very young “women” (eg he’s in his thirties, she’s 15/16/17) disturbing and somewhat unpleasant, but I would agree with you that that’s not paedophilia, just DOM syndrome. (Dirty Old Man).

18

But with what level of success? Yes, there are alcoholics, and schizophrenics, etc, who do not respond well to treatment, or refuse it entirely, but there is effective treatment available for these problems, as well as a whole host of other genetic psychological disorders. Pedophilia, however, is something that we have been trying to treat, for several years, both in private practice(admitted pedophiles, who have not acted upon their impulses, yet seek out treatment), and through rehabilitative treatments in the prison system, with very little success. Yes, there may be some success stories, but by and large, pedophiliacs(those who have been incarcerated, and put into rehabilitation), have the lowest rehabilitative success rates of all the criminal catagories.

Something else to consider, as far as “treating” pedophiles, the “same as we do someone who has a severe problem that can’t be helped”, as you stated above, that bring us back to the analogy in the OP is to compare it to something like homosexuality. Ok, so homosexuality, in itself, is not criminal(homosexual pedophilia is), but if the underlying cause of pedophilia is genetic, in the same manner as homosexuality, while criminal, is it something that can, or should be “treated”? People have tried to “treat” and heal homosexuals for years, unsuccessfully, who is to say that the same wouldn’t be true for a pedophile, or already is true, considering the low success rate of rehabilitation that is already occuring?

There are genetic diseases, and there are genetic traits, diseases can be treated, many times with at least some level of success, genetic traits, however, are not an illness, even if it causes one to commit a (socially mandated) crime.

~V

19

You are looking at things backwards. The children are the victims in this situation, and a high number of victims does not normalize a crime. You could perhaps make a case that a high number of perpetrators does (although I would disagree), but so far I have seen no evidence that child molestation is not, like murder, a crime that “only a minority of people perpetrate”.

20

I think there are two factors that tend to create the appearence that pedophilia is more common then it actually is. One factor has already been pointed out, and that’s calling it (incorrectly calling it, IMO) pedophilia when an adult has a sexual relationship with a 13 to 17 year old.

IMO, the other factor is making the assumption that all men who rape or molest pre-pubescent children are pedophiles. My guess is, some of them are pedophiles (sexually attracted to pre-pubescent children/no interest in anyone who has passed puberty), while others are opprotunists. An opprotunist being a sexual predator who does not care one way or the other about the age/status of his victims. He wants someone who can’t fight back effectively. Child, small adult, easily dominated retarded person; it makes no difference to him. If Kinsey was right that genuine pedophiles are very rare, then perhaps most of the men committing sex crimes vs. children are not actually pedophiles. I think this may be something we need to take into account in dealing with people who commit crimes vs. children. If we ever do come up with any effective way to treat pedophilia, I would guess it won’t work if the person it’s applied to is not actually a pedophile.