Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
it's not a sexual orientation or genetic, it is a mental disease where something is wrong with the wiring upstairs coupled with abuse during childhood....just like transvestite people, or people who screw animals, or people who end up attracted to the same sex, or people who have sex with dead bodies.
It seems that there is some controversy about the genetic connection. Also the citations don't seem to discuss where epigenetics fits into it. Genetics can make a person more vulnerable to pedophilia, but my guess is that various life events still trigger those genes to express.
It clearly is a societal harm for adults to be sexual predators towards children, so no matter the cause, the appropriate response is to protect children and sanction predators. The only relevance of cause is in how we potentially prevent or treat the disorder. It is still a disorder. It still results in immoral acts.
It seems that there is some controversy about the genetic connection. Also the citations don't seem to discuss where epigenetics fits into it. Genetics can make a person more vulnerable to pedophilia, but my guess is that various life events still trigger those genes to express.
It clearly is a societal harm for adults to be sexual predators towards children, so no matter the cause, the appropriate response is to protect children and sanction predators. The only relevance of cause is in how we potentially prevent or treat the disorder. It is still a disorder. It is still immoral.
I tend to agree with you, at least when it comes to most in most societies today - however, when people follow the so-called 'teachings' of what they believe to be a representative of a god, and that person's teachings are that the practice of using children as sexual slaves is not only not condemned but encouraged ... and his followers take that as 'gospel' and act upon it .. in great numbers .. is that nature or nurture .. is it pedophilia or ? Is pedophilia the actual act or the thought pattern that causes one to act?
Some are 'normalizing' the act of doing the exact same thing as persons in the societies most of us still live in would call a mental illness and an aberration .. and/or having some genetic connection with or without 'triggers'. When people who would not normally engage in such thought and action do so because they are told that they SHOULD do that sort of thing in order to comply with a cult (or 'religion'), is that the exact same thing? If they do so act they too are sexual predators by our definition. I wonder if, in acting, over time they also begin to 'think' the same way what we have traditionally imagined a sexual predator (who engages with children) does?
Do we treat those people I am talking about for the actual act of pedophilia or for a mental illness that, if they even indeed have one, is likely not of the same ilk as we have traditionally imagined it might be. And how do you treat pedophilia initiated by 'groupthink' ... followers of a particular 'religion' for instance? Put them in jail or in treatment for mental illness?
(p.s. I could have been a lot less wordy if I had just said .. how the heck do we compare what we know many male Muslims are doing with young children with the average everyday western pedophilia 'practitioner' but hey, I am PC.)
how the heck do we compare what we know many male Muslims are doing with young children with the average everyday western pedophilia 'practitioner'
Or, how do we compare what Catholic priests are doing with young children.
Some of our thinking, ironically, is clouded with sexual repression and patriarchal notions. Technically a girl could go to jail on her 18th birthday for having sex with her 17 year and 11 month old boyfriend -- but would go scott free just a month later. But it's usually only ever enforced the other way around (18 year old boy having sex with a girl who is less than 18).
Of course those are just arbitrary legal lines that have been drawn. My hypothetical teen is not incapable of informed consent the day before they turn 18, and then magically capable at midnight that night. The real problem is some 40 year old guy boinking a 12 year old (or, worse, a 6 year old). The greater the age disparity and the younger the victim, the worse the harm and the greater the pathology involved.
Catholic priests and people like that 60 year old imam in Afghanistan who's in the news this week because he accepted a six year old child bride as a "religious offering", do normalize aberrant sexuality and encourage it in others to whom it wouldn't ordinarily occur. Similar to how Trump is normalizing xenophobia and white supremacy notions, bizarrely emboldening David Duke to make a political comeback. So I do agree with you ... it can't all be genetic. I'm sure genes are in the mix sometimes but it's probably a not-very-useful sideshow to put too much stock in genetics. And not terribly actionable either.
It increasingly looks like pedophilia has a genetic predisposition. So how should society, and the government, handle this sexual orientation?
There is a ton of debate what causes pedophilia. There definitely seems to be a cycle of the abused becoming the abuser (children who are molested may do the same as an adult), but that is not a 100% certainty either.
I have also heard childhood trauma can create a type of arrested development in your brain, so you're "locked in" some state where you find a certain age group attractive but you don't grow out of that age group even when you get older (example, a 10 year old may have a crush on another 10 year old, but when that 10 year old eventually turns 16 they find other peers attractive).
However, brain development issues are very, very difficult to correct. Therapy is probably the best resource, but believe it or not, there is remarkable little to no resources for those who haven't acted upon their urges. Basically our society waits until children are harmed rather than act upon prevention.
Mordant - I agree with your thought train and analysis right up to the point where you decided to bring Trump into the mix (where he as an individual, his words, meaning, intent, etc. do not really belong). Sorry .. that discussion is probably best conducted in a different thread/forum I think and not relevant here except by a very large stretch of the imagination.
I rated your post positively though, in part because what you said there, despite implying that a single person could be personally responsible for a whole spectrum of what it is obvious you view as evil actions, you raised a good point ... and perhaps there is a more general train of logic that illustrates why we should think carefully about where what might seem like a fairly uncommon (for our society) and innocuous thing .. in that it doesn't yet affect most of us personally .. could go if we let it.
I am going to post another of my 'stream of consciousness' rambles - my apologies. I don't think I can change anyone's opinion on any of the myriad of subjects it may seem to touch on .. but, maybe my thoughts will plant a seed, and someday that may make some difference. Who knows but all this does interest me .. from a macro point of view more than anything. You are welcome to ignore and go back to the basic question the OP presented ... whether there is (always?) a genetic involvement in pedophilia.
Part of the point I was trying to make in my previous post, a major part, is just that language ... and culture ... are getting in the way of determining what is even meant by the word pedophilia - and that may mean we can't ever even find the one true answer to the question about genetics being 'the' root cause or not. We may need a whole new dictionary/vocabulary (to describe every emergent act depending on a root cause and a myriad of root causes that may or may not lead to a particular act - and further to a degree of severity of that act or its results for any victims) ... just at a time when western societies are busy destroying the one we already have.
That said, we do probably have to start with looking at whether pedophilia is the ACT that is committed or the THOUGHT PATTERN that encourages that act to possibly happen.
I am sure there are people who THINK they would like to engage with young children but never actually do that ... ever. We can have no idea what is in the mind of strangers unless they act on it in some way, even by verbalizing. If someone has thoughts but there are no outward actions reflecting those thoughts, are they still (in this instance) pedophiliacs? Should we seek out all those who might ever entertain that kind of thought and 'treat' them somehow to ensure they never act? Should we even care if they have those thoughts, no matter what the root causes of those thoughts, but never act on them - unless they are bothered by them and ask for help? Even in the case that there is mental illness or a genetic component that might predispose one to eventually act on those thoughts, how can we reliably predetermine that in advance of action?
If we decide that the THOUGHT is the problem then do we really care if the THOUGHT came from being persuaded that this sort of act is normal and ok, or if it arises from a genetic defect which is triggered or not triggered by things we may or may not be able to control in one person, let alone in a whole group of people, even if we could afford to pursue that avenue, or is it a disease that can be just caught - and through what means/conditions?
On the other hand .. if there is a cult with many, many devout followers and the leader of that cult says ... go and commit what the rest of us commonly call 'pedophilia' (which we in our society view as a crime, and in many cases, rightly so - Mordant touched on a problem there when it comes to our legal definitions, etc.) .. and it seems that these followers feel compelled to 'obey' this edict for whatever their (warped) reasoning is .. do we condemn the leader for his edict or do we attack the followers because they do it in 'his' name or 'might do it' because they are 'good followers'? Are any in that pack of followers (or is the leader himself) true 'pedophiliacs' if they just 'say' people should commit that 'crime', whether they ever act on it or not? Or do we have to wait to see which ones actually do it and then do we blame the leader instead of the follower or along with the follower or the follower only?
And further, do we need to know if among that crowd of 'potential pedophiliacs' some already have a genetic predisposition and some may be much more environmentally propelled to commit an act of pedophilia, even if there is no genetic component? Do we need a multitude of words that correctly describe every 'potential' reason why someone might or might not commit an act we feel we should punish or does one word, no matter the reason the act was committed, suffice?
Laws and the punishments prescribed for violation of those laws (in our society) are intended to be arbitrary because people, by nature, are primarily subjective - and that includes judges despite what their form of law mandates they be. Arbitrary laws are theoretically the best and only real way we have to identify and control the inputs and outputs as much as practicable. And so we make MANY of them (because we see so many varying reasons why a crime might have been committed or why the crime might not be so severe even if it is named under the same banner as a similar crime, etc.) and the list of 'laws' grows longer and longer every year ... and in the process our lives become more complicated as we seek to be and remain, 'law abiding' citizens. Is this really 'progress' or will it lead somewhere we don't really want to go?
Under the current system, if you commit a burglary there is theoretically a clear definition for what that crime is, a clear path to determination of what constitutes proof you did it, and a prescribed punishment for having committed that 'crime'. And yet, not everyone who is caught committing a burglary (and proven to have done so) is given the same punishment .. sometimes because the judge/jury sees 'extenuating circumstances' or in the greater context there are differences between one burglary and the next, or sometimes, rightly or wrongly, just because a particular judge has a personal experience or bias that influences his/her decision. And not everyone who 'thinks about' being a burglar ever actually does steal (in the manner that the law says is 'burglary'). On the other hand we do often punish some of those who think and about 'intend to commit a murder' for instance, even if they never do it, if we can find any evidence whatsoever that they thought about it. Why not those who just 'think about' burglary (which 'intent' is not as commonly indicted, to my knowledge)? Is that not enough of a radical crime that we view it as we might view murder?
If not, why not? 'Intent' .. is that the operative word here or is it the severity of the crime they MIGHT commit that is the problem? Or is it just the sheer numbers of people we would have to prosecute if we take on the task of being 'thought police' - and the fact that, despite most of us having had at least one passing thought .. even if we know we really didn't mean it .. in our lifetimes .. and maybe we even talked about it .. that we 'would like to murder that guy/woman' for whatever behaviour they display that we take offense at.
(Side note - of course, 5 year olds have been known to steal a stick of gum at the corner grocery store too .. and that may be technically classed as burglary/robbery - I won't argue the legal semantics of degree and whether one is carrying or not, etc. - but that kind of crime is usually handled much differently than if an adult does the same thing. And all children may be 'predisposed' to try to commit some form of larceny as a 'learning' step on the road to being responsible adults. Again .. some will actually do it and others will think about doing it but something constrains them from actually 'acting'.)
In general though, for adults, if you THINK about committing a burglary/robbery however and never do it, are you actually a burglar/robber? Do we have to ask ourselves what the root cause of anyone even having a passing thought about being a burglar is - is it genetic or is it environmental .. is it a mental illness or is it something they cannot help .. is it innate and bound to happen no matter what or is it bound to a genetic flaw but if no triggers are presented will never be acted upon?
The point of this long ramble is ... does it really matter in the grand scheme of things if pedophilia is genetic or not - and how it manifests ... or do we just look at the end results and deal with those no matter how we got there?
I know, I know .. enquiring minds want to 'know' and that keeps some so busy they never have any other aim in life and never see beyond the box they locked themselves into through their micro-focussing and limited rhetoric .. but given so many root causes for some aberrant behaviors, are we really better off spending most of our time concentrating on the causes or the results?
And do we need a completely different lexicon to describe the roots of the behaviour (which I and most of us here see as anathema, but, it is obvious that some cultures do not) - and then we can make a whole set of new laws (that may or may not be interpreted/applied as intended) to deal with the results of that behaviour depending on its root causes? Do we treat the reason for the crime or the results of the crime?
If large groups limit the commission of the 'crime' we are talking about here to their own countries/societies where it may actually be (rightly or wrongly, legally or morally) a sanctioned behavior, do we condemn them for it? Do we go out and try to stop them from doing that - based on our societal beliefs that it is a wrong behavior or on our determination to treat its root causes rather than its results? Do we, because this is obviously a conundrum for us .. especially if those people migrate to our lands and try to do the same things here that they regard as ok and normal back 'home' .. treat the act or reasons for the act differently when they are here but not there?
Or do we throw up our hands and eventually grant a world body (in theory composed of people from a supposedly balanced but probably unelected group comprising a variety of 'religious'/cultural/ethnic/economic, etc. backgrounds and interests) to make the rules for all our societies so we can actually prosecute (or not) those people who stay where they are for doing what WE believe is wrong or they can come here and do what THEY think is right but which still may violate our more local laws and morals? What if we give our trust to that world body (made up of flawed people .. as all people are in one way or another - not to mention that its composition will vary no doubt over time as it reflects population growth and distribution) and they rule in favour of the society that thinks pedophilia is NOT wrong and is a very 'normal' and condoned thing .. and says WE are the ones wrong for even doing anything about what we see as a crime - which regardless of its origins has the exact same result?
How then do we protect our children? Or do we? Do we personally engage in what we may still see as an immoral act just because the law says it is now ok, even if we THINK it is not? How do our morals morph over time I wonder as we take on the beliefs of others who think that a crime against children (who we see as sacred and who we see as the most vulnerable) is not really a crime and a victim is not important. (PS we have, through the use of semantics and some, what I would view as, very crazy arguments already begun to make some into victims who are not and some who should be treated as innocent victims are being made into villains).
If we go the latter route - i.e. let's deal with this on a global basis, not local - who will actually care any more about the root causes of something that may become endemic in society, changing the societal mores of all people over time, allowing evil to become seen as legal and to take over basic goodness and logic? So what if our child, any child, is violated by anyone else .. deal with it, kiddies .. it is now allowable under the law .. and hey, it may even be good for everyone if it keeps them from doing a, b or c which some god or group may not want to see happen. At that point .. could we or will we even want to stop it any more .. much less if we knew its causes?
Are we looking for a cure for a 'disease' like muscular dystrophy or even a mental illness like schizophrenia or is this a different scenario entirely? Is the purpose of knowing the root causes of pedophilia for prevention or cure? If it is prevention, we have a multitude of issues there to pursue anyway .. since it is obvious these days that not ALL pedophilia is genetically based .. not when we see thousands doing it in the name of Allah or whatever god they worship.
Do we need to start simplifying things or do we continue to complicate them by dividing circumstances into smaller and smaller pieces and addressing each separately? I am not sure the human mind at this point in history can cope well with much further division.
In my opinion, in most instances, we should be looking for simplicity .. at the results (the act itself), not the causes. Anything else, especially in this particular instance, is just looking for failure in the long run and massive hard to swallow consequences for society if we ignore the act and the end results while focussing on the causes.
Death penalty on first offense until the gene is eliminated from gene pool.
Did you prove humans don't have free will already ? and every action is per-determined through their genes ?
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
