Paedophilia = Genetic

[Sephic]

One argument I will make most forcefully against any (as yet unsubstantiated) statistics used to make paedophilia appear ‘normal’ is the effect it has on its victims. Often the children grow up believing they’re different, feeling dirty, still being angry or bitter even decades afterwards, blaming themselves even, and can have great problems forming a ‘normal’ relationship as they get older.

I know several people who were abused, usually by a family member or friend of the family in a position of authority. They’ve all grown up to be strong, capable people, but all find it incredibly difficult to talk about… and some, despite being well into their thirties now, are still running from their horrible childhood, and can’t face up to it.

Paedophilia ruins lives. That makes it a hideous crime that no statistics can ‘normalise’.

[JRDelirious]

*Originally posted by Hazel *
**
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. **

Don’t forget “person subject to their power” (e.g.: employee, patient, defeated enemy civilian)

And yes, even if you had a majority of the population experiencing what someone defined as “sexual abuse”, the conduct of the predator does not become “common everyday behavior” unless it turns out that 51+% of the population committed the sexual assault.
If it turns out pedophilia is a genetic disorder it mandates no change in the social and legal position on the act of child molestation, which IS harmful to the actual child. It mandates a change in the way that you treat and manage the condition. Who knows, it may even allow some pedophiles to seek help before they molest.

[Guinastasia]

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?

What I am objecting to is the comparison to homosexuality, because I do NOT think you can equate the two. We’re talking apples and oranges-in fact, with pedophilia, we’re talking rotten apples.

Even if we cannot “heal” pedophilia, are people asking if one day, it will be considered harmless? I highly doubt it.

Also, remember that many people who abuse were abused themselves, IIRC.

[Ms2001]

Originally posted by Sephic
One argument I will make most forcefully against any (as yet unsubstantiated) statistics used to make paedophilia appear ‘normal’ is the effect it has on its victims. Often the children grow up believing they’re different, feeling dirty, still being angry or bitter even decades afterwards, blaming themselves even, and can have great problems forming a ‘normal’ relationship as they get older.

The question is, how much of that shame can be attributed to the act itself, and how much is a result of the stigma that our society associates with pedophilia?

Obviously, if you tell a child “what happened was BAD, that guy is a VERY BAD MAN, and you have been HARMED FOREVER”, s/he is going to come away feeling terrible, regardless of the feelings caused by the act of molestation.

[Ms2001]

Originally posted by Sephic
One argument I will make most forcefully against any (as yet unsubstantiated) statistics used to make paedophilia appear ‘normal’ is the effect it has on its victims. Often the children grow up believing they’re different, feeling dirty, still being angry or bitter even decades afterwards, blaming themselves even, and can have great problems forming a ‘normal’ relationship as they get older.

The question is, how much of that shame can be attributed to the act itself, and how much is a result of the stigma that our society associates with pedophilia?

Obviously, if you tell a child “what happened was BAD, that guy is a VERY BAD MAN, and you have been HARMED FOREVER”, s/he is going to come away feeling terrible, regardless of the feelings caused by the act of molestation.

[fluiddruid]

*Originally posted by kambuckta *
**

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. **

I challenge you to prove that sexual acts between adults and prepubescent children are far more prevalent than homocides.

Besides which, theft is overwhelmingly common. Does that make it acceptable? Being widespread does not mean a thing is legal or moral.

**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. **

Looking back in this thread, I do not see any cites that prove this. Can you point to your ‘current stats’?

**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. **

I’m afraid your personal anecdotes are not cites.

Things are not acceptable or unacceptable based on commonality. I do not know why you think this is the case. If that were so, then crimes would cease to be crimes if they reached a certain level of incidence. This is not the case.

Murders, thefts, and rapes are illegal because they cause harm. Something is not more or less moral because of what other people are doing.

**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. **

I sincerely doubt child molestation is so prevalent that the majority of people have engaged in it, and yet our societal taboos are so clearly in place against it.

**

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

I really would not care one way or the other if an action is ‘normal’ or ‘deviant’. War is a normal human condition. That does not necessarily make it moral, positive, or pleasant. Compassion and love are often less common than greed and selfishness. Does that make them less respectable?

However, this is more or less a moot point. You have not given supporting evidence to the cornerstone of your argument – that there is an epidemic of child molestation, and that the majority of people participate in child molestation. I do not think it is possible to continue this discussion without some support for this very contentious point.