Are pedophiles an oppressed sexual minority?

[Yet_Another_Boring_Marxist]

Recently some scientists have begun to speculate that Pedophilia is an actual sexual orientation. I was reading this in a newspaper article the other day but unfortunately it was on paper so I can't link it.

Now, while we all know that pedophilia is illegal I don't think most people understand the level of persecution that pedophiles go through. Here are a couple examples:

http://gawker.com/5989749/cities-are-building-tiny-parks-to-get-sex-offenders-to-move?post=58154584

Cities Are Building Tiny Parks to Get Sex Offenders to Move

Max Rivlin-Nadler

Taking advantage of strict laws that dictate where a sex offender can live while on parole, cities across the country are building little parks for the sole purpose of making offenders move. Residents of the Harbor Gateway neighborhood in Los Angeles have pushed community leaders to buy a small lot that will serve the singular purpose of making it nearly impossible for the group of 30 paroled sex offenders to continue living in their apartment complex up the street.

The tactic is not uncommon, as "one playground installation company in Houston has even advertised its services to homeowners associations as an option for keeping sex offenders away."

Naturally, this hasn't helped the massive problem of sex offender homelessness, which has increased dramatically in places like California, a state that recently tightened its laws governing where paroled sex offenders can live. This further compounds the problem, as homeless offenders are much more likely to commit another crime than ones with stable housing.

"Putting in parks doesn't just break up clusters - it makes it impossible for sex offenders to find housing in the whole city," Janet Neeley, a member of the California Sex Offender Management Board to The Times. "It's counterproductive to public safety, because when you have nothing to lose, you are much more likely to commit a crime than when you are rebuilding your life."

But hey, at least they're not offending in my backyard — thanks to this little, itty bitty park.

Here's an excerpt from a Cracked article:

http://www.cracked.com/article_18600_6-laws-that-were-great-paper-and-insane-everywhere-else.html

Sex Offender Laws Make Them Harder to Track

If a stampede of pedophiles running rampant through the streets sounds like a nightmare, you might not be sleeping. You might just be in Iowa.

It all seemed like such a great idea on paper: The good legislators of Dubuque, Iowa, in an attempt to keep pedophiles and other degenerates as far away from their children as possible made it illegal for a registered sex offender to live within 2,000 feet of a school. Seems like a no-brainer, right? But then someone remembered that kids also congregated at other places besides schools. There were libraries, daycare centers, swimming pools and parks to think about too. In the end, sex offenders were forbidden to live within a half-mile of any place where adolescents might gather.
How Did it Backfire?
Somebody took a map of Dubuque and drew 4,000-foot diameter circles around every "predator free" landmark in town. They quickly realized that with dozens of overlapping circles covering the entire city, there was literally no place that a sex offender could legally live. Like some alternate-universe version of the Book of Exodus, the county's molesters had no choice but to pack their shit, sing "Let My People Go" and head for the Promised Land. The Promised Land, in this case, being the town of Galena, right across the Mississippi River in Illinois, where no such restrictions were in place.

When the good people of Galena realized that a herd of dudes named Chester was headed for its borders, they in turn passed their own Draconian residency laws. The next town down the line did the same thing, as did the town after that. A frenzied passing of sex offender residency legislation swept across the entire region and now, presumably, there is a tidal wave of homeless child molesters thousands strong that is going to crash into the Atlantic Ocean at any moment.

Iowa lawmakers reluctantly came to understand that while having sexual predators living in your town is not very appealing, knowing where they live is an important part of policing them and making sure they are controlled and accounted for. Once everyone on the sex offender registry became basically homeless, a good number of them went underground and disappeared off the police radar altogether. The end result: Like a sexually deviant remake of Predator, Iowa is now being stalked by legally invisible child molesters scattered throughout the state.



So, are pedophiles an oppressed sexual minority, or should they continue with the current treatment or something worse.

[goalkeeper]

Peodophilia is not a sexual orientation, it is a paraphelia

While I think the idea of "kill the pedo's" (I'm sure some Marxist-Leninist tough guys will say this) is rather vulgar and should be opposed, we should not afford them a status of an oppressed group. Lest we forget, the expression of this paraphelia is inherently oppressive and destructive itself

[Brutus]

Paedophiles should be treated, not punished. Punishing does nothing whereas remedying it ensures it does not happen again.

[Skyhilist]

Well, if pedophilia is genetic then I think they at least don't deserve the level of persecution that they do now, although it doesn't make them any less dangerous. However, even it is genetic, it doesn't excuse acting on those urges (e.g. raping kids). I can only hope that perhaps some future technology will be able to eliminate pedophilia without punishing pedophiles (as long as they don't forcibly act on their urges) for something genetic. Right now it seems like a pretty difficult situation. If it's not genetic though, then I have no sympathy for them.
Oh and by the way I tried to make a post that was similar to this a few months ago and it got immediately trashed.

[Rafiq]

Pedophilia is NOT genetic, nor is it a "choice". It is a result of early childhood trauma (though this does not mean that they were victims or witnesses to it), just experiences which rendered them unable to develop an actual sexual orientation.

They should not be "punished" but treated.

Sent from my SPH-D710 using Tapatalk 2

[Sasha]

The problem is that people equal pedophilia (the atraction to pre-pubescents) with pedosexuality (having sex with pre-pubescents).. Even if pedophilia would be genetic or in other ways a "orientation"and can't be "cured" a child can never consent. As such pedosexuality should not be allowed. The best way to prevent pedophiles from becoming pedosexuals though is not stigmatizing "good" pedophiles (pedophiles who don't act on their urges), to not haunt them out of the communities, to not prevent them from seeking help and support etc).

[Sasha]

I think if both people consent, it's fine. Although I think the age of consent should be reduced to 14. When it's with 5 years olds, that's just plain sick. I've kind of rambled here though. I do not think it is an orientation though

Advocating the lowering of the age of consent is not allowed here, verbal warning. The next person to bring this kind of stuff in this thread will see adminstrative sanctions and this thread will be closed and trashed.

[Skyhilist]

Why is everyone so quick to arrive at the conclusion that pedophilia is not genetic? There may be evidence for multiple viewpoints on the matter, but it certainly is not a closed case within science. http://worldcrunch.com/there-pedophilia-gene/tech-science/is-there-a-pedophilia-gene-/c4s4032/#.UTzZzuh5HoA

[Paul Pott]

Yes, and I'd love the opportunity to oppress them further.

[Labor Aristocrat Killer]

The issue of "age of consent" seems to be a red-herring to me.

I mean, if children "play doctor" with each other, I don't think anyone would advocate throwing them in jail. Rather than an "age of consent" law, there should be a law regarding where individuals can't be prosecuted for sexual activity with someone younger than them.

A rough formula might be something like: if both sexual participants are under the age of 10, then there is no crime committed. Otherwise, the formula could be something like half the age of the older participant, plus 7. So a 20 year old could be prosecuted for having sex with someone under the age of 17 (20 divided by 2 is 10, plus 7, gives 17). However, if both participants are under 18, and this formula is violated, only a juvenile punishment would be allowed (say if a 17 year old had sex with an 11 year old).

I mean, if the issue is actually about not restricting the sexual desires of young people, and not about allowing old perverts to rape other people's children, then the laws have to be changed to allow for sexual experimentation of minors with other minors, and not adults.


The problem is that people equal pedophilia (the atraction to pre-pubescents) with pedosexuality (having sex with pre-pubescents).. Even if pedophilia would be genetic or in other ways a "orientation"and can't be "cured" a child can never consent. As such pedosexuality should not be allowed. The best way to prevent pedophiles from becoming pedosexuals though is not stigmatizing "good" pedophiles (pedophiles who don't act on their urges), to not haunt them out of the communities, to not prevent them from seeking help and support etc)

This line of reasoning seems to have the effect of normalizing pedophilia, if taken to its logical conclusions.

[Labor Aristocrat Killer]

Why is everyone so quick to arrive at the conclusion that pedophilia is not genetic? There may be evidence for multiple viewpoints on the matter, but it certainly is not a closed case within science.

This isn't really an argument to say pedophilia is genetic. What is the mechanism that makes someone with "a defective growth factor called pleiotropic protein Progranulin" start to rape children? Does everyone who suffers from a "a defective growth factor called pleiotropic protein Progranulin" start raping children?

Even if this one instance is taken at face value, it certainly doesn't account for all the other cases of pedophilia. This case seems very abnormal anyway, as most pedophiles start early on molesting children, not at 50, and not with their own children.

[Geiseric]

There are some people who are only attracted to old people I suppose, so wouldn't that be genetically a trait as well? Are there alleles and actual chromosomes which determine age based sexuality?

I don't condone rape, and I would stop a pedophile if I ever saw one trying to rape a kid. I just want to understand more.

[Skyhilist]

This isn't really an argument to say pedophilia is genetic.

I wasn't arguing that pedophilia is genetic in the first place though. I was arguing that whether it is or not is not a closed case to science; which it isn't.

[Labor Aristocrat Killer]

The idea that pedophilia could have a biological origin, I think, is related to the idea that homosexuality has a biological basis.

Myself, I support the social-constructivist approach to understanding how people adopt sexual identities. The work of Michael Foucault is probably the best on it. Foucault was himself a homosexual (who died of AIDS), and his book The History of Sexuality (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_History_of_Sexuality) is very good. I also recommend people read this article:

The Formation of the Homosexual Identity: Moving Beyond Essentialism to Constructionism (https://portfolio.du.edu/portfolio/getportfoliofile?uid=14308). It is a brief overview of the debate.

[Skyhilist]

Myself, I support the social-constructivist approach to understanding how people adopt sexual identities.

Alright, so could you please explain to me how animals that display homosexuality such as weevils and fleas only do so because of the "social construction" of homosexuality then?

[Labor Aristocrat Killer]

Alright, so could you please explain to me how animals that display homosexuality such as weevils and fleas only do so because of the "social construction" of homosexuality then?

The sexual behavior of animals doesn't seem to really have much bearing on the debate. If you could unpack your reasoning of why you think it does, I think that would be helpful.

There are plenty of videos on Youtube of animals attempting to mate with completely different species as well. Does this necessitate an evolutionary explanation for the behavior?

Ij-AQIw4bl8

Humans also engage in this behavior. There is a great documentary on the Mr. Hands guy called Zoo. Here is a trailer for it:

M0l1Z3sZCf4

Surely no one would suggest there is a biological basis for wanting to have sex with animals?

[The Garbage Disposal Unit]

Yeah, I feel like "age of consent" is fraught with problematics. Interestingly, here in Canada, the age of consent was fourteen until Harper's Conservatives came to power, but I digress. While obviously preventing the individual rape of children is of great importance, neither treating nor punishing individual paedosexuals will adress the systemic and systematic reduction of children to property implicit in capitalist heteropatriarchy. Ending all abuse of children (coded sexual or coded "discipline") is dependent on a fundamental change in the order of "the family", etc.

[Skyhilist]

The sexual behavior of animals doesn't seem to really have much bearing on the debate. If you could unpack your reasoning of why you think it does, I think that would be helpful

Well we all know that humans and animals both share the same type of genetic coding. So if homosexuality (amongst other things) is genetic in the animals that it occurs is, why wouldn't it be in humans. Speaking from an evolutionary biology standpoint, we are not that special.

[LeonJWilliams]

Advocating the lowering of the age of consent is not allowed here, verbal warning. The next person to bring this kind of stuff in this thread will see adminstrative sanctions and this thread will be closed and trashed.

That's a very interesting approach.

Is there an appropriate place I can start a thread about it? (not lowering the age of consent but the fact that it cannot be discussed)

I thought the board was a place where all aspects of society, including laws could be discussed and debated. Getting peoples opinions, understanding them and coming to some sort of conclusion.

For example, are we allowed to advocate gun control? What about revolution?

Is there a list of what can be discussed/advocated and what can't?

[Labor Aristocrat Killer]

Well we all know that humans and animals both share the same type of genetic coding. So if homosexuality (amongst other things) is genetic in the animals that it occurs is, why wouldn't it be in humans.

Not everything an animal does is hardwired into their genetic makeup, unless you want to explain to us why evolution hardwired that dog in the video to hump the cat.


Speaking from an evolutionary biology standpoint, we are not that special

I'd disagree. Humans appear to be the only species capable of complex language use (and not merely mimicking human language, as in the case of attempts to teach primates sign-language, or parrots).

[l'Enfermé]

Yes, people that rape children are an oppressed minority.

sarcasm

[Skyhilist]

Not everything an animal does is hardwired into their genetic makeup, unless you want to explain to us why evolution hardwired that dog in the video to hump the cat.

But we already have evidence that things like homosexuality is wired into animals like the ones I mentioned earlier. Certain animals like insects that act only based on instinct are really just a projection of the genetics that they are made of (not to say that they aren't complex).



I'd disagree. Humans appear to be the only species capable of complex language use (and not merely mimicking human language, as in the case of attempts to teach primates sign-language, or parrots).

That's incorrect, actually. Recent studies have revealed for example, that dolphins even call each other by name.

[Labor Aristocrat Killer]

But we already have evidence that things like homosexuality is wired into animals like the ones I mentioned earlier.

Are you claiming scientists have isolated gay genes in weevils and fleas?


Certain animals like insects that act only based on instinct are really just a projection of the genetics that they are made of (not to say that they aren't complex).

Even if this claim were true, it doesn't mean every instance of homosexual behavior in every species is due to genetics. It could even be the case that homosexual behavior in certain insects is not genetic at all, but some sort of response to certain stimuli that induces them to attempt to mate with males of their own species, just as they would with a female of their own species.


That's incorrect, actually. Recent studies have revealed for example, that dolphins even call each other by name.

What studies are this? Can you cite them? And what does naming another dolphin have to do with complex use of language anyway?

[Luís Henrique]

Advocating the lowering of the age of consent is not allowed here, verbal warning. The next person to bring this kind of stuff in this thread will see adminstrative sanctions and this thread will be closed and trashed.

Errr... the age of consent in Brazil is 14; could I express approval of the Brazilian law in such aspect, if hypothetically I agree with it, or would that be punishable too?

Luís Henrique

[Art Vandelay]

Errr... the age of consent in Brazil is 14; could I express approval of the Brazilian law in such aspect, if hypothetically I agree with it, or would that be punishable too?

Luís Henrique

I don't know to be honest, an admin will have to answer your question. I believe here in Canada the age of consent is 16, but one must be 18 to have a child with an adult.

[Luís Henrique]

Alright, so could you please explain to me how animals that display homosexuality such as weevils and fleas only do so because of the "social construction" of homosexuality then?

I very much doubt that homosexual behaviour in fleas or weevils or any other species can be described as "homosexuality" in the same way homosexual behaviour among people in human industrial societies...

Luís Henrique

[Let's Get Free]

I would say pedophilia is more of a weird sexual fetish than a sexual orientation.

[Luís Henrique]

Well we all know that humans and animals both share the same type of genetic coding. So if homosexuality (amongst other things) is genetic in the animals that it occurs is, why wouldn't it be in humans. Speaking from an evolutionary biology standpoint, we are not that special.

All dogs are promiscuous, and all parrots are monogamic. I suppose that such behaviours are genetic.

But humans can be promiscuous, or monogamic, or celibatary, or anything in between. More, one human individual can be promiscuous for years, then be in a monogamic relationship for some years more, then revert to promiscuous behaviour, etc.

We are that special, I suppose.

Luís Henrique

[Luís Henrique]

That's incorrect, actually. Recent studies have revealed for example, that dolphins even call each other by name.

Are they able to use subordinate clauses? (Not a rhetoric question, I have indeed no idea.)

Luís Henrique

[Luís Henrique]

I don't know to be honest, an admin will have to answer your question. I believe here in Canada the age of consent is 16, but one must be 18 to have a child with an adult.

That's beyond weird. What happens if a 17 year old young lady becomes pregnant from an 30 (or 19) year old man? She is jailed for the crime? Forced by the State to have an abortion?

Luís Henrique

[Le Libérer]

I would say pedophilia is more of a weird sexual fetish than a sexual orientation.

As someone who has worked as a child protection worker and HIV counselor, we are trained to realize that pedophilia is a sexual orientation, though not so much as a legal definition. One of the reasons is because it is not a curable condition. We counsel predators to control their urges because they are harmful but ironically, attempted suppression may actually result in a worse situation compared to no attempts being made.

Another thing to consider is the definition of pedophilia. From what I understand qualifies as the definition is, Pedophiles prefer children who do not have an adult body shape, not to be confused with fully developed young adults. With this definition, it is easier for me to differentiate what constitutes pedophilia and age of consent issues.

Meanwhile, pedophilia is illegal under the law to protect those who do not fully understand consent. And because people are able to consent at different ages and stages in life, there are no set rules to apply when writing laws and policy and most age of consent laws are based further out than what would be considered normal, especially by people in their teens.

[Le Libérer]

I would say pedophilia is more of a weird sexual fetish than a sexual orientation.

As someone who has worked as a child protection worker and HIV counselor, we are trained to approach pedophilia as a sexual orientation, though not so much as a legal definition. One of the reasons is because it is not a curable condition. We counsel predators to control their urges because they are harmful but ironically, attempted suppression may actually result in a worse situation compared to no attempts being made.

Another thing to consider is the definition of pedophilia. From what I understand qualifies as the definition is, Pedophiles prefer children who do not have an adult body shape, not to be confused with fully developed young adults. With this definition, it is easier for me to differentiate what constitutes pedophilia and age of consent issues.

Meanwhile, pedophilia is illegal under the law to protect those who do not fully understand consent. And because people are able to consent at different ages and stages in life, there are no set rules to apply when writing laws and policy and most age of consent laws are based further out than what would be considered normal, especially by people in their teens and early 20's who are sexually active.

[Art Vandelay]

That's beyond weird. What happens if a 17 year old young lady becomes pregnant from an 30 (or 19) year old man? She is jailed for the crime? Forced by the State to have an abortion?

Luís Henrique

Ahh I definitely worded that weird ha, no it would be the adult who would be in trouble. For instance my mother was 16 when I was born and my father was 18, he could have been charged with statutory rape, had my grandparents pressed charges.

The reason I think that age of consent laws should be able to be discussed is because of personal experience. I've been with my girlfriend for 4 years now, there was a point in our relationship where I became an adult and she remained a minor for a little under a year, meanwhile the entire time we continued to have sex. Does this make me some sort of rapist? I mean obviously this case is slightly different then most and there are people who use discussions on age of consent laws to push the conversation in the direction of trying to make their sexual fantasies more acceptable (I'm thinking predominantly of people who are attracted to young children), but that shouldn't stop us from having a rational conversation on the matter. We just need to be willing to call those type of people out on their bullshit.

[Skyhilist]

Are you claiming scientists have isolated gay genes in weevils and fleas?

They've shown that they exhibit homosexuality. Since the actions of these insects are merely projections of genetics and instincts, they must have homosexual genetics, as they are not only homosexual under some conditions.


Even if this claim were true, it doesn't mean every instance of homosexual behavior in every species is due to genetics. It could even be the case that homosexual behavior in certain insects is not genetic at all, but some sort of response to certain stimuli that induces them to attempt to mate with males of their own species, just as they would with a female of their own species.

Well if we have evidence of some and no evidence against others, would it not be more plausible that all would be due to genetics seeing as all species are related?


What studies are this? Can you cite them? And what does naming another dolphin have to do with complex use of language anyway?

Here: http://www.digitaljournal.com/article/345278
And naming specific individuals is a trait of complex language. If that's not enough though, they have thousands of different noises that they use to communicate, so that's obviously complex.

[Skyhilist]

Are they able to use subordinate clauses? (Not a rhetoric question, I have indeed no idea.)

Luís Henrique

I'm not sure that we know enough about dolphin language to determine whether or not they do yet. It doesn't seem unreasonable though seeing as they have thousands of different words and can speak to each other in sentences, at least according to this article:

http://www.dolphin-institute.org/resource_guide/animal_language.htm

[Skyhilist]

All dogs are promiscuous, and all parrots are monogamic. I suppose that such behaviours are genetic.

But humans can be promiscuous, or monogamic, or celibatary, or anything in between. More, one human individual can be promiscuous for years, then be in a monogamic relationship for some years more, then revert to promiscuous behaviour, etc.

We are that special, I suppose.

Luís Henrique

Again, I don't really think there have really been any conclusive studies done on other animals that we consider at least somewhat intelligent (e.g. dolphins) to conclude that this behavior must be special to humans.

[Danielle Ni Dhighe]

I'm averse to the idea that pedophiles are an oppressed sexual minority. If a sexual minority is oppressed, we should support an end to their oppression, but if we took that approach with pedophiles, it would mean supporting child rape.

[Le Libérer]

Hitting on the discussion that homosexuality and pedophilia are related, my experience and education shows this to be false. Homosexuality and pedophilia are defined by completely different variables. The example would be linking pedophilia to heterosexuality as part of the definition. In fact, more pedophiles identity as heterosexual than homosexual.

I would caution confusing homosexuality with pedophilia. Predators who offend against prepubertal boys, typically are not sexually interested in older men or in women.

[Sasha]

Actually, most sexual predators that target children for penatrative sex are not pedophiles but sadists or sociopaths going for an easy target.

[Luís Henrique]

I'm not sure that we know enough about dolphin language to determine whether or not they do yet. It doesn't seem unreasonable though seeing as they have thousands of different words and can speak to each other in sentences, at least according to this article:

http://www.dolphin-institute.org/resource_guide/animal_language.htm

Maybe I'm misreading it, but I don't see the claim that they speak to each other in sentences. What I read is that, when taught to, they can understand simple sentences signaled by humans, and even distinguish grammatical sentences from agrammtical ones. Which is more or less what trained apes can do, too.

Anyway, what seems to me to be peculiar human behaviour is the use of subordinate clauses. I don't doubt that dolphins can "talk" to each others in sentences, even if the article doesn't say that; but until the case is made that they use subordinate clauses, I would say that human language complexity is a quite distinctive trait of humankind.

Luís Henrique

[Jimmie Higgins]

They've shown that they exhibit homosexuality. Since the actions of these insects are merely projections of genetics and instincts, they must have homosexual genetics, as they are not only homosexual under some conditions.



Well if we have evidence of some and no evidence against others, would it not be more plausible that all would be due to genetics seeing as all species are related?



Here: http://www.digitaljournal.com/article/345278
And naming specific individuals is a trait of complex language. If that's not enough though, they have thousands of different noises that they use to communicate, so that's obviously complex.i'm also skeptical of arguments for inherent human sexual attractions. It's only been a hundred years or so since the concept of "types" of sexuality, rather than simply types of sexual behavior and attractions... And we should all know that homosexual acts are found throughout known societies and throughout recorded history. So in that sense homosexual attraction or acts are no more or less natural than male-female acts and attractions.

I think the only inherent thing about human sexuality is that people enjoy sex. Unlike bugs and most mammals even, humans can decide who to have sex with and when. We also have to be aroused, rather than just seasonally in heat, which suggests choice and mutual-ness (if that's a word:lol:) are part of human sexuality. We may not consciously choose a preference or orientation, but I really don't think specific expressions of sexuality are programmed.

[Quail]

Someone can be a paedophile without being a child rapist, and someone can be a child rapist without being a paedophile. Just throwing that out there.

As to the question, "Are paedophiles an oppressed sexual minority?" I'd have to say no. Children cannot consent to sex, so paedophilia isn't a "sexuality" where an actual consensual relationship could ever exist. I think the way that we deal with paedophiles in our current society is wrong. I don't think anyone would dare try to get help or counselling for an attraction to children because paedophiles are so demonised by the tabloids, which I suppose means that paedophiles don't get the chance to get some help in dealing with and controlling their urges until it's too late and they've already committed an assault.

[Anglo-Saxon Philistine]

There does seem to be persecution of paedophiles, but they are not oppressed because there are laws forbidding sexual contact with children. However, the paedo-hunt mentality that surrounds this issue is sickening, and it is as likely to help catch actual child molesters as MacCarthyism was likely to help catch actual spies.

As for the ability of paedophiles to express their sexual preferences in a non-harmful manner, not with children. But if they find a consenting adult that has childlike features, perhaps they could satisfy their urges in some limited way, I suppose.

Anyway, child molestation is very real, very ugly, and anyone that thinks about condoning it needs to seriously rethink what they're doing in life, but we shouldn't ostracise someone just because they find prepubescent children sexually attractive, as long as they do not think about acting on that attraction.

[Lowtech]

Short awnser: dafuq? No.

Long awnser: dafuq? children are not suitable for procreation and cannot consent to sex. it's predatory, because the individual cannot function sexually with his/her peers so they prey on children. No.

[Kenco Smooth]

Are you claiming scientists have isolated gay genes in weevils and fleas?


This is a classic strawman that's almost always drawn up when people don't want to recognise that important characteristics in humans and animals are heritable. It's by no means necesary to identify candidate genes to establish a genetic component. Twin studies are more than adequate and more and more molecular work is confirming the findings of such studies.



Even if this claim were true, it doesn't mean every instance of homosexual behavior in every species is due to genetics. It could even be the case that homosexual behavior in certain insects is not genetic at all, but some sort of response to certain stimuli that induces them to attempt to mate with males of their own species, just as they would with a female of their own species.


If it were true it wouldn't mean every case within species was 'due to genetics' (that kind of language wouldn't be used for this reason). Establishing heritability simply means that a group of people vary in terms of genes and some measured trait (homosexuality, paedophilia, political views, etc.) and that we can explain a certain percentage of those differences in traits using genetic information. In terms of individual outcomes such figures can only be interpreted probabilistically at this point in time.

A paper on the thread topic was actually just published a month or so ago (http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/jsm.12067/abstract?deniedAccessCustomisedMessage=&userIsAuthenticated=false) that found an estimated heritability of paedophilia at 14% which is a pretty low value but still a genetic component. Study wasn't perfect though and ideally more work would be done here.

[Labor Aristocrat Killer]

This is a classic strawman that's almost always drawn up when people don't want to recognise that important characteristics in humans and animals are heritable. It's by no means necesary to identify candidate genes to establish a genetic component. Twin studies are more than adequate and more and more molecular work is confirming the findings of such studies.It's not a "strawman" to point out that no one has ever isolated any "gay gene," the removal of which would cause the cessation of homosexual behaviors.

Even in the case of twin studies, if homosexuality were actually caused by genetics, one would think one twin being a homosexual would give a 100% chance of the other twin being a homosexual. The study done by J. Michael Bailey and Richard Pillard only shows a 52% chance of that being the case. This study was also redone by Bailey more recently, and showed only a 20% chance, which further shows that genetics is not really at play when someone adopts the homosexual identity.


A paper on the thread topic was actually just published a month or so ago that found an estimated heritability of paedophilia at 14% which is a pretty low value but still a genetic component. Study wasn't perfect though and ideally more work would be done here.I would suggest, perhaps what this study is actually measuring is the heritability of being a sociopath that thinks raping children is fine.

[Kenco Smooth]

It's not a "strawman" to point out that no one has ever isolated any "gay gene," the removal of which would cause the cessation of homosexual behaviors.



Yes it is. That's not how behavioral genetics works at all and pretty much every trait so far identified to have a significant genetic component has found that it is the additive effect of a great many seperate genes that causes variation in behaviours. Asking for a "gay gene" is on par with asking why there are still monkeys if man evolved from monkeys.



Even in the case of twin studies, if homosexuality were actually caused by genetics, one would think one twin being a homosexual would give a 100% chance of the other twin being a homosexual. The study done by J. Michael Bailey and Richard Pillard only shows a 52% chance of that being the case. This study was also redone by Bailey more recently, and showed only a 20% chance, which further shows that genetics is not really at play when someone adopts the homosexual identity.


No, again no. Get this genes/envirionment dichotomy out of your mind. In every case I can think of a combination of genes and environoment (usually not the home environment) is responsible for the differences we see in a population. And if you're trying to report a 52% heritability then that's big! Really quite big, that'd mean that the majority of the differences in sexual orientation in the studied population can be explained by genetic factors alone. A drop to 20 still leaves a sizable chunk up to genetic influences but I'm not familiar enough with the area to take a stab at the actual heritability.




I would suggest, perhaps what this study is actually measuring is the heritability of being a sociopath that thinks raping children is fine.

Whatever you want to call it they found a heritable component.

[Labor Aristocrat Killer]

Yes it is.

No, it isn't.


That's not how behavioral genetics works at all and pretty much every trait so far identified to have a significant genetic component has found that it is the additive effect of a great many seperate genes that causes variation in behaviours.

Sure. There could be many different genes that cause someone to be a homosexual. No one has found any of them that have any influence on whether or not someone becomes a homosexual.



Asking for a "gay gene" is on par with asking why there are still monkeys if man evolved from monkeys.

This sounds like defensive hyperbole to me.

I would think asking for a "gay gene" is like asking for a gene which causes people to have sex with animals.


No, again no. Get this genes/envirionment dichotomy out of your mind. In every case I can think of a combination of genes and environoment (usually not the home environment) is responsible for the differences we see in a population.

You must have a very limited imagination then.


And if you're trying to report a 52% heritability then that's big!

Except it isn't 52%, according to even the same researcher.


A drop to 20 still leaves a sizable chunk up to genetic influences but I'm not familiar enough with the area to take a stab at the actual heritability

Perhaps what is "heritable" is the willingness to adopt sexual identities like homosexuality.

[Tenka]

As for the ability of paedophiles to express their sexual preferences in a non-harmful manner, not with children. But if they find a consenting adult that has childlike features, perhaps they could satisfy their urges in some limited way, I suppose.


I have heard that in Australia, adult women below a certain (surely large) cup size are banned from pornography--EDIT:

The ban (RC) on small breasted women in adult publications has been made by the Australian Classification Board allegedly on the grounds that such images could be construed as child pornography, even where those publications comply with American law and keep certification that performers are over 18.

Stupid as fuck, anyway, and discriminatory towards flat-chested women.

[Skyhilist]

Maybe I'm misreading it, but I don't see the claim that they speak to each other in sentences. What I read is that, when taught to, they can understand simple sentences signaled by humans, and even distinguish grammatical sentences from agrammtical ones. Which is more or less what trained apes can do, too.

Anyway, what seems to me to be peculiar human behaviour is the use of subordinate clauses. I don't doubt that dolphins can "talk" to each others in sentences, even if the article doesn't say that; but until the case is made that they use subordinate clauses, I would say that human language complexity is a quite distinctive trait of humankind.

Luís Henrique

From the article: "Syntactic rules, based on word order, governed how sequences of words could be arranged into sentences to extend meaning. The vocabulary of some 30 to 40 words, together with the word-order rules, allowed for many thousands of unique sentences to be constructed."

So they could at least understand sentences that humans taught them. Given that some dolphins are known to make over ten thousand different sounds, call each other by name, and can understand human sentences, it seems highly unlikely that they themselves do not use sentences (I mean they know more words than man pre-teen kids do... and those are only the words of their language that we know about), although I think right now we know to little about their language to actually conclude this. But again, it seems far more likely than not, based on the evidence we have.

[Skyhilist]

Unlike bugs and most mammals even, humans can decide who to have sex with and when.

What leads you to believe that no other mammals can make these decisions?

[Kenco Smooth]

Sure. There could be many different genes that cause someone to be a homosexual. No one has found any of them that have any influence on whether or not someone becomes a homosexual.


There's a difference between identifying candidate genes and identifying varience which can be accounted for by genetic differences. This seems to be the point you're stuck on. We know height to be have an approximate heritability of .8 but only about 5-10% of the variation in height can currently be explained with reference to specific genes.



This sounds like defensive hyperbole to me.

It's not. You're displaying a bafflingly poor grasp on the subject considering the nature of the statements you're willing to make.



I would think asking for a "gay gene" is like asking for a gene which causes people to have sex with animals.

No single gene "causes" people to do anything. It's the complex interaction of a huge number of genes and environmental factors. Without massive genetic studies it's impossible to estimate the effects of individual genes, this work hasn't yet been done for homosexuality (but like I said headway is being made for traits like height).


You must have a very limited imagination then.


IQ, political belief, personality of any reliable measure, height, digit span, tendency to any number of diseases (physical and mental), homosexuality and, if recent research is reliable, paedophila. That's a list right of the top of my head. Now you list factors with no genetic component.



Except it isn't 52%, according to even the same researcher.


Oh lord. If these are the only two values then its far from clear what the value really is. It's called sampling error and it's practically required knowledge when talking about statistical measures like heritability.



Perhaps what is "heritable" is the willingness to adopt sexual identities like homosexuality.
Given that questionnaires don't include options for "I reject your tripartite system of orientation" that seems unlikely.

[AConfusedSocialDemocrat]

I think the opposition to pedophilia comes from a utilitarian basis. Homosexuality is tolerated since both parties are capable of giving consent, and no one gets harmed, so even if homosexuality wasn't genetic, there would be no cause for banning it. Pedophilia on the other hand does not involve informed consent, and is physically and psychologically damaging for one of the partners involved.

[Labor Aristocrat Killer]

There's a difference between identifying candidate genes and identifying varience which can be accounted for by genetic differences.

Sure. And there is no need to "account" for homosexuality by "genetic differences." And no one has ever identified any genes that contribute to a person becoming a homosexual.


This seems to be the point you're stuck on.

I'm not "stuck" on any "point." You have no "point," just a faith in the idea that homosexuality can be accounted for by genetics.



We know height to be have an approximate heritability of .8 but only about 5-10% of the variation in height can currently be explained with reference to specific genes.

Height isn't a behavior.


It's not.

What's your sexual orientation then?


You're displaying a bafflingly poor grasp on the subject considering the nature of the statements you're willing to make.

Well, I don't claim to be an expert, but I'm familiar enough with the literature. I think people hold to the essentialist understanding of human sexuality largely for political reasons and not much else. Some people (falsely) perceive the social-constructivist approach as a threat to their chosen sexual identities, unfortunately.


No single gene "causes" people to do anything.

Do a group of genes cause people to have sex with animals?


IQ

This is laughable, and getting into rather nasty territory for someone who believes genetics accounts for everything, especially for something like IQ and the every elusive "g" factor, lol.


political belief

I can only assume you subscribe to the rather bizarre notions about genetic predispositions to "conservatism," which is quite hysterical.


Now you list factors with no genetic component.

Pretty much any behavior modern humans engage in, like reading and watching movies.

[Riveraxis]

I live across the street from a pedo.
I do not and will not ever feel sympathy for anything he went through.
He molested a 5 year old girl. I don't care if he was "legitimately sexually attracted" to her or not. That's hardly the point. The point is that it's disgusting. And I don't think there's much to gain from a more objective analysis.

[Kenco Smooth]

Sure. And there is no need to "account" for homosexuality by "genetic differences." And no one has ever identified any genes that contribute to a person becoming a homosexual.


except there is a need if you want to understand the behaviour. Which anyone with an honest commitment to a scientific world view will do.

I'll try once again. If genetic variation can explain variation in any trait it follows that, in the lack of serious confounding variables, genetics play a causal role in the observed outcome.



I'm not "stuck" on any "point." You have no "point," just a faith in the idea that homosexuality can be accounted for by genetics.


You have yourself reported two heritibility estimates for homosexuality! The only way you can maintain that there is not a genetic influence is by blind ignorance of genetic research and slavish submission to your pet ideology.



Height isn't a behavior.

Unless we're regressing 300 years to a dualistic view of mind and body this makes no difference. Mind is body and vice versa.



Well, I don't claim to be an expert, but I'm familiar enough with the literature. I think people hold to the essentialist understanding of human sexuality largely for political reasons and not much else. Some people (falsely) perceive the social-constructivist approach as a threat to their chosen sexual identities, unfortunately.

No, you are not familiar with the literature. That statement suggests an understanding of the procedures employed and how conclusions made follow from it. You have no understanding of heritability, no concept of sampling error and I doubt the issue of statistical power whilst preventing type I errors (an absolutely central issue in identifying candidate genes) is one you grasp. How could you possibly be familiar with the literature if you don't know the basic rationale for what is being carried out?

The "social-constructivist approach" taken as the denial of genetic influences in behavioural traits isn't an approach, it's a denial of science tantamount to creationism in it's ignorance.



Do a group of genes cause people to have sex with animals?

Possibly. I'm 98% certain no research has been done on this area because gathering a large enough sample would be pretty much impossible but it cannot be ruled out.



This is laughable, and getting into rather nasty territory for someone who believes genetics accounts for everything, especially for something like IQ and the every elusive "g" factor, lol.

I don't care if you think it's nasty territory I care about if it's true. The debate over the heritability of IQ is done and over (http://www.nature.com/mp/journal/v16/n10/abs/mp201185a.html). It should have been so over a decade ago but ideologues like you refuse to see what is laid out in front of them. Also the g factor is the single most replicated finding in the entirety of the social sciences (potentially barring economics), hardly elusive.

And I do not believe gentics accouts for everything. Try reading what I post or maybe educating yourself on the subject matter. Nowhere have I said genetics accounts for everything. I've said significant (often majority) proportions of the population variance in pretty much all physical and behavioural traits is explained by genetic factors. If you're so statistically illiterate as to read this as saying everything is genetics then there's no hope here.



I can only assume you subscribe to the rather bizarre notions about genetic predispositions to "conservatism," which is quite hysterical.


I subscribe to the mainstream view (http://www.thepsychologist.org.uk/archive/archive_home.cfm?volumeID=26&editionID=223&ArticleID=2238) that genetic variance explains significant individual differences in political ideology. Same as above.



Pretty much any behavior modern humans engage in, like reading and watching movies.

Can't help but notice the lack of supporting data here, not to mention the fact that you didn't state anything clearly? More time spent on these activities? I can pretty much guarantee that they will given the significant genetic factor that influence the personality traits that can predict these types of behaviours.

Do you seriously think that because a behaviour is evolutionarily novel that genetic factors don't influence the variation there?

[Labor Aristocrat Killer]

I don't care if you think it's nasty territory I care about if it's true. The debate over the heritability of IQ is done and over (http://www.nature.com/mp/journal/v16/n10/abs/mp201185a.html). It should have been so over a decade ago but ideologues like you refuse to see what is laid out in front of them. Also the g factor is the single most replicated finding in the entirety of the social sciences (potentially barring economics), hardly elusiveThere really isn't much point arguing with you anymore, other than speculating on your actual political beliefs, which I'm sure isn't actually a polite thing to do.

Interested readers, of course, should know this is a pack of lies. I suggest the book The Mismeasure of Man (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Mismeasure_of_Man) as a refutation to the racist nonsense about IQ and "g" factors that the user Kenco is peddling on this forum.


except there is a need if you want to understand the behaviour.Except there isn't.


Which anyone with an honest commitment to a scientific world view will do.Lots of people, like white supremacists, like to pretend they are committed to a "scientific world view," when they peddle their nonsense.


I'll try once again. If genetic variation can explain variation in any trait it follows that, in the lack of serious confounding variables, genetics play a causal role in the observed outcome.I suppose the important word in this nonsense you're passing off as a sentence is "trait." Lots of "traits" people possess have nothing to do with genes, but this is rather obvious to anyone, isn't it?


You have yourself reported two heritibility estimates for homosexuality!Yes, two studies, done by the same researcher, with wildly different outcomes. People with identical genes don't become homosexuals, though there is a correlation. Which could mean anything.


The only way you can maintain that there is not a genetic influence is by blind ignorance of genetic research and slavish submission to your pet ideology.There isn't "slavish submission" to anything going on. Methinks you do protest too much.


Unless we're regressing 300 years to a dualistic view of mind and body this makes no difference. Mind is body and vice versa.This is clearly nonsense. Perhaps you'll tell me next certain people have genetic predispositions to watching Star Wars.


No, you are not familiar with the literature. That statement suggests an understanding of the procedures employed and how conclusions made follow from it.I don't need someone who thinks the "g" factor is a real thing telling me anything about what conclusions follow from any research.


You have no understanding of heritability, no concept of sampling error and I doubt the issue of statistical power whilst preventing type I errors (an absolutely central issue in identifying candidate genes) is one you grasp.And you base this on what? The existential threat you feel for someone questioning the idea you weren't born that way? :laugh:


The "social-constructivist approach" taken as the denial of genetic influences in behavioural traits isn't an approach, it's a denial of science tantamount to creationism in it's ignorance.That you would even say this shows your complete ignorance of the debate itself. Perhaps you should do some Googling on the topic.


Possibly. I'm 98% certain no research has been done on this area because gathering a large enough sample would be pretty much impossible but it cannot be ruled out.Perhaps you'd like to tell us some just-so story about how the "trait" of zoophilia evolved in humans, lol.

You're a joke.


I subscribe to the mainstream view (http://www.thepsychologist.org.uk/archive/archive_home.cfm?volumeID=26&editionID=223&ArticleID=2238) that genetic variance explains significant individual differences in political ideology. Same as above.That view isn't mainstream. It's pop-psychology nonsense, meant for idiots.

[Kenco Smooth]

There really isn't much point arguing with you anymore, other than speculating on your actual political beliefs, which I'm sure isn't actually a polite thing to do.

Interested readers, of course, should know this is a pack of lies. I suggest the book The Mismeasure of Man (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Mismeasure_of_Man) as a refutation to the racist nonsense about IQ and "g" factors that the user Kenco is peddling on this forum.


Gould's been torn to pieces by anyone who knows the first thing about the field. He didn't grasp the importance of oblique factor rotation, completely ignored Vernon's synthesis of multi-factor models with g and outright refused to add to the revised edition of his book MRI data confirming the link between IQ and brain size even when it was sent directly to him. Oh and the small issue of fudging Morton's numbers (http://www.plosbiology.org/article/info%3Adoi%2F10.1371%2Fjournal.pbio.1001071) to prove his point. But it doesn't suprise me you'd cite it. No doubt you know as little about psychometrics as you do genetics.

And yeah lets throw around some pejoratives. Because who cares about who's right or wrong when you get to call your opponent a racist (even though I've made no mention of race whatsoever).




Except there isn't.

traits such as homosexuality are explained via statistical analysis for shared variance. This is how such explanation functions. Be it environmental or genetic this analysis is essential to understanding human behaviour.


Lots of people, like white supremacists, like to pretend they are committed to a "scientific world view," when they peddle their nonsense.

One of us is making an effort to appropriately cite their claims. Remind me whose peddling nonsense here?


I suppose the important word in this nonsense you're passing off as a sentence is "trait." Lots of "traits" people possess have nothing to do with genes, but this is rather obvious to anyone, isn't it?

Again you fail to back that up. Do lots of traits have no genetic role? Show me the twin studies, show me the genome wide association studies. Show me anything to make me believe that a wide range of measurable human traits lack any genetic component whatsoever.


Yes, two studies, done by the same researcher, with wildly different outcomes. People with identical genes don't become homosexuals, though there is a correlation. Which could mean anything.


You really don't have a clue do you? A heritability of .5 and .2 across two different studies is so within the boundary of sampling error it barely merits mentioning without further data to establish a more accurate value.

And of curse people with identical genes don't display identical orientations. See the last post where I said not everything is genetics. But the fact remains, people who share all their DNA are more similar in orientation than people who share half their DNA and they are in turn more similar than those who share less.




I don't need someone who thinks the "g" factor is a real thing telling me anything about what conclusions follow from any research.

How is the g factor produced? Can you tell me? Do you have any clue what an eigenvalue is and what it's relevance to factor analysis is? What about the term 'predictive validity', and for what reason would a cronbach's alpha value be employed? Why can't you factor analyse an identity matrix and what is the cattell-horn-carroll theory of mental ability? What does factor invariance in test comparisons imply?

Just wanted to try and drive home that you don't know what you're talking about.


And you base this on what? The existential threat you feel for someone questioning the idea you weren't born that way? :laugh:

Born what way? exactly what assumptions about me have you made and why do you think them relevant?


That you would even say this shows your complete ignorance of the debate itself. Perhaps you should do some Googling on the topic.

Thanks but I'll stick to keeping up to date with behavioural genetics as opposed to "googling".


Perhaps you'd like to tell us some just-so story about how the "trait" of zoophilia evolved in humans, lol.

That'd be evolutionary psychology you're trying to misrepresent, not behavioural genetics.

Swing and a miss but nice try.


You're a joke.

That view isn't mainstream. It's pop-psychology nonsense, meant for idiots.
It's an article published this month in the in house journal of the British Psychological Society, the official body of psychologists in Britain. Want to talk to me again about this "googling" you use for your information?

[Labor Aristocrat Killer]

Gould's been torn to pieces by anyone who knows the first thing about the field.

A very common thing for Stormfront types to say.


traits such as homosexuality are explained via statistical analysis for shared variance.

Except nothing at all is "explained."


One of us is making an effort to appropriately cite their claims.

And it isn't you.


Again you fail to back that up. Do lots of traits have no genetic role?

Perhaps you should try to define what a "trait" is, in a way that isn't meaningless gibberish.


Thanks but I'll stick to keeping up to date with behavioural genetics as opposed to "googling".

You mean, you prefer the crude biologism that basically all other scientists think is a joke, rather than actually studying anything about the topic.

[Althusser]

I know by typing this comment, I'm going against what I'm about to say, but ...

I want this thread off the front page in case we get visitors.

[Yuppie Grinder]

Rape is oppression.

[Althusser]

The exact same could be said for people who have psychological inclinations to rape people who are above the age of consent. Does this apply to them to?

Well, if they reach out for help I do. If someone with rape fantasies goes to a therapist or something, I can support that. Find out things about why they have these feelings. (hatred for women?/anger?)

Same goes with pedos. If someone actually rapes a kid though, I wouldn't mind seeing that pedo face a wall. I think in a more progressive society, people would be more open to coming out with their deviant sexual fantasies to get help, the people around him/her being more supportive. I think a lot of the S&M insecure anger torture humiliation shit will disappear with the destruction of capitalism. Call me utopian.

[Os Cangaceiros]

There's nothing wrong with being a "sexual deviant". Victimizing people is wrong, of course, but that's seperate from having sexual interests that diverge from the norm.

As long as people find acceptable outlets for what they like sexually, I really don't care honestly.

[melvin]

Well, if they reach out for help I do. If someone with rape fantasies goes to a therapist or something, I can support that. Find out things about why they have these feelings. (hatred for women?/anger?)

Same goes with pedos. If someone actually rapes a kid though, I wouldn't mind seeing that pedo face a wall. I think in a more progressive society, people would be more open to coming out with their deviant sexual fantasies to get help, the people around him/her being more supportive. I think a lot of the S&M insecure anger torture humiliation shit will disappear with the destruction of capitalism. Call me utopian.I deleted that post because I felt it was a bit off-topic after I said it, but I didn't realize someone responded to it. This is a very good answer.

[melvin]

There's nothing wrong with being a "sexual deviant". Victimizing people is wrong, of course, but that's seperate from having sexual interests that diverge from the norm.

As long as people find acceptable outlets for what they like sexually, I really don't care honestly."Deviant" was probably a bad word choice but I think that he or she was referring to people with serious inclinations to engage in sexually abusive behavior.

[Yuppie Grinder]

I've got a problem with pedophilia in general. It's an inherently exploitative power relationship that appeals to a sadistic sort of people. The derive sexual gratification from wielding despotic power over someone. It's impossible for children and adults to be equals in the sphere of sexuality. Even if they don't act on it, the sort of person who has pedophile tendencies is going to be exploitative, sadistic, and manipulative in general. You find people's true nature in their sexuality.

[Danielle Ni Dhighe]

we shouldn't ostracise someone just because they find prepubescent children sexually attractive, as long as they do not think about acting on that attraction.
So if you have a child, you would feel safe in letting a known pedophile babysit them as long as they swear they would never think of acting on their attraction?

[Os Cangaceiros]

I think his point was that condemning someone to be a social outcast because of something they don't have control over isn't right. Actually what he said is pretty much how I feel about the matter, too. Not being comfortable with a pedophile looking after your children is a specific situation and doesn't really speak to the larger point. Although I definitely do understand why people just don't feel comfortable with pedophiles. But like I said, the notion of punishing someone over something that's as engrained and uncurable as their sexuality seems unfair.

[Labor Aristocrat Killer]

I don't see any reason to believe pedophilia is "engrained [sic] and uncurable [sic]." It's not a condition pedophiles "suffer" from.

Speaking about it this way, you might as well speak of the desire to rape and murder women as a "sexual orientation."

"Why, it's not the rapists fault they want to terrorize and hurt women. As long as they don't act on their 'incurable' desires, society shouldn't persecute them for something they can't help!"

[Anglo-Saxon Philistine]

So if you have a child, you would feel safe in letting a known pedophile babysit them as long as they swear they would never think of acting on their attraction?

I would not; it could potentially be extremely bad for the child and it would be bad for the paedophile. What of it, though? I wouldn't drink in front of a recovering alcoholic, but that doesn't mean such people should be harassed.


Speaking about it this way, you might as well speak of the desire to rape and murder women as a "sexual orientation."

Some men and women have rape fantasies. As long as they do not desire to act on those fantasies, I don't think they should be harassed either.


"Why, it's not the rapists fault they want to terrorize and hurt women. As long as they don't act on their 'incurable' desires, society shouldn't persecute them for something they can't help!"

Again, no one is condoning child molestation. Why do people insist on this ridiculous strawman? We are talking about people that are sexually attracted to prepubescent children; not all of them are molesters and not all molesters are sexually attracted to children.


I have heard that in Australia, adult women below a certain (surely large) cup size are banned from pornography[.] Stupid as fuck, anyway, and discriminatory towards flat-chested women.

Of course; the focus of the laws has shifted from (ostensible) protection of children to simply banning anything that a paedophile might get enjoyment from. Better ban porn stars from licking lollipops too.

[Jimmie Higgins]

What leads you to believe that no other mammals can make these decisions?Biology involved in reproduction. I don't know about ALL other animals, but generally many mamals have either physical signals or "seasons" that are more or less set. Humans just have "puberty" and after that we can pretty much have sex anytime - even multiple times. Other than flushed skin and penial errections, we don't give off as much biological symbols and female genitalia are not even on display like many mamels including other apes.

Both men and women have to be aroused for there to be satisfying sex and so all this suggests that we are only programmed to enjoy sex, not how or who we do it with or when. I think circumstances (including social attitudes and pressures) plays a much more determining role than biology in the specific kinds of sexual acts and relationships people have.

[The Red Comet]

No. They are far from an oppressed minority. Their attraction is to individuals who are not fully capable of reciprocating and if a pedophile is to engage in sexual relations with the child... It's usually against the child's will. Therefore, they are oppressing the child. Most of their pleasure comes from dominating a defenseless individual. Akin to the way rapist reap pleasure from dominating others too.

If someone is attracted to prepubescent boys and girls. They should seek some type of help. At this point I remain apathetic whether it is a "sexual orientation" or not. Their actions will /destroy/ a child for the rest of their life. It's predatory as previous posters have mentioned.

[Os Cangaceiros]

I don't see any reason to believe pedophilia is "engrained [sic] and uncurable [sic]." It's not a condition pedophiles "suffer" from.

Speaking about it this way, you might as well speak of the desire to rape and murder women as a "sexual orientation."

"Why, it's not the rapists fault they want to terrorize and hurt women. As long as they don't act on their 'incurable' desires, society shouldn't persecute them for something they can't help!"

Look, there is no evidence whatsoever that someone's sexuality can be altered through conscious effort. You might as well believe that gay people can be made straight. :rolleyes: Pedophilia is not something that's curable, it can only be repressed.

[Jimmie Higgins]

No. They are far from an oppressed minority. Their attraction is to individuals who are not fully capable of reciprocating and if a pedophile is to engage in sexual relations with the child... It's usually against the child's will. Therefore, they are oppressing the child. Most of their pleasure comes from dominating a defenseless individual. Akin to the way rapist reap pleasure from dominating others too.

If someone is attracted to prepubescent boys and girls. They should seek some type of help. At this point I remain apathetic whether it is a "sexual orientation" or not. Their actions will /destroy/ a child for the rest of their life. It's predatory as previous posters have mentioned.

Yeah and I think the key to something being an orientation is that it's a mutual sexuality, not a one way street where the other participant is pressured through force or because they are inexperienced. When it's a predatory act, it's generally a family member or someone in a position of authority. In the cases where there is more of a mutual attraction today (say a post-puberty teenager and someone in their 30s) I wouldn't be surprised if part of the attraction for the younger participant is the freedoms and relative independance of "adulthood" and a desire to get away from a restrictive home-life. So I suppose in a society where there weren't these hierarchical power dynamics, and there wasn't the economic pressure of children being dependant on some provider, then maybe a teenager who has a relationship with someone older wouldn't be a big deal - I'd guess it would be rareer, but not unheard of, and in a liberated society, there wouldn't be some of the pressures that cause people to be in exploitative personal relationships of all kinds: abusive parents, abuse of the elderly, abusive relationships.

[Futility Personified]

Paedophiles are akin to psychopaths, in that they are naturally predatory individuals. If they act out on their urges, it's fucked. Some might be aware that they aren't right, and seek help. Kudos to them, they understand the damage they can do. If it's possible to rehabilitate them, then it must be done for the benefit of everyone, including them.

[Mauve Osprey]

We must keep a level head when it comes to dealing with this. Pedophiles, can rape children and that is a bad thing. However, since it is things beyond their control we must keep these factors in mind as well. Since pedophilia does lead to sexual violence it is necessary to find a way to treat them. This is a really hard issue to handle properly.

[Labor Aristocrat Killer]

Look, there is no evidence whatsoever that someone's sexuality can be altered through conscious effort.

Of course there is. Lots and lots of 'straight' people have had consensual homosexual encounters at one point in time, and then no longer engage in the behavior at later points in time. Even people who completely adopt the homosexual identity sometimes change their minds later. Those who cling to an essentialist understanding of human sexuality would have to claim these people were never actually gay in the first place, or that they are still gay (and thus denying them their new chosen sexual identity).


You might as well believe that gay people can be made straight.Straight people can be made gay and gay people can be made straight. Happens all the time. Heterosexuality and homosexuality are modern social-constructions, along with the rest of the spectrum of sexual identities, like bisexuality and transgenderism.


Pedophilia is not something that's curable, it can only be repressed.Pedophilia is not a sexual orientation. It is child rape.

[bcbm]

Of course there is.


According to the American Psychological Association and the Royal College of Psychiatrists' Gay and Lesbian Mental Health Special Interest Group, there is no sound scientific evidence that sexual orientation can be changed.


Lots and lots of 'straight' people have had consensual homosexual encounters at one point in time, and then no longer engage in the behavior at later points in time.sounds like they aren't necessarily straight then, doesn't it? hell even you put it in quotation marks.


Even people who completely adopt the homosexual identity often change their minds later.

'often?' gonna have to ask for a cite on that one


Those who cling to an essentialist understand of human sexuality would have to claim these people were never actually gay in the first place, or that they are still gay (and thus denying them their new chosen sexual identity).there is a continuum and people slide around on it, but generally sexual orientation is pretty fixed, especially more for men than women.


Straight people can be made gay and gay people can be made straight.so the religious right argues, but i have yet to see much of anything to suggest they're correct. in fact the number of 'ex-gays' who go back to being gay or end up killing themselves suggests something much different.


Happens all the time.oh?


Heterosexuality and homosexuality are modern social-constructions, along with the rest of the spectrum of sexual identities, like bisexuality and transgenderism.sexuality was more 'fluid' in some places in the past, but there were still people who today we would view as 'gay' 'straight' etc.


Pedophilia is not a sexual orientation. It is child rape.having feelings of sexual attraction towards children is not the same thing as raping them.

[black magick hustla]

i like how people talk about pedophiles and the supposed terrible things they always do but nobody ever brings out sources etc. plenty of people are attracted to a lot of really fucked up things (isnt some aspects of bdsm an outlet for that?), doesn't mean they engage in them

[Labor Aristocrat Killer]

sounds like they aren't necessarily straight then, doesn't it? hell even you put it in quotation marks.They considered themselves straight at one time, and now no longer do.


'often?' gonna have to ask for a cite on that oneMy bad. That should be "sometimes."


so the religious right arguesSo do these people:

http://www.queerbychoice.com/


in fact the number of 'ex-gays' who go back to being gay or end up killing themselves suggests something much different.That people have horrible experiences with 'conversion therapy' is nothing controversial. You can't "pray the gay away," but if someone wants to no longer accept the homosexual identity, they don't have to. There is nothing wrong with being gay, straight, transgender, etc, and no one is forced by their biology into one of these categories until they die.


oh?Yes, though granted, it is often more in one direction than the other.


sexuality was more 'fluid' in some places in the past, but there were still people who today we would view as 'gay' 'straight' etc."We would view" these people as homosexuals, but they wouldn't view themselves that way. It's sorta like how many people around the world only see the 'receiver' as gay, but not the 'pitcher.' The medieval world just saw it as buggery.


having feelings of sexual attraction towards children is not the same thing as raping them.Sure. But the pedophile chooses to be sexually attracted to children, and then almost always proceeds to act on their desires to harm children.

[Anglo-Saxon Philistine]

This dichotomy between strict genetic determinism and free personal choice is ridiculous; I would not have expected someone on RevLeft to completely ignore cultural and ideological factors. I mean, one's first language is not genetically determined, but it is not the result of a "free choice" by the individual either.

There seems to be a genetic component to all sexual orientations and fetishes - but it tends to be overstated, in my view, particularly by homophobic liberals that try to appear supportive of LGBT people. But how we articulate these biological impulses into a sexuality is determined by culture.

And it seems ridiculous to state that someone could just, *snap* decide to be sexually attracted to children. I mean, could any of us do that? I certainly can't.

But you know what? Even if someone chooses to be sexually attracted to children, that is still no reason to harass them unless they molest children.

[Labor Aristocrat Killer]

I mean, one's first language is not genetically determined, but it is not the result of a "free choice" by the individual either.Even at this level of discourse, there is still an element of something perceived to be negative causing someone to be gay, such as the Freudian notion that homosexuality is caused by an overbearing mother and a distant father causing someone not to be able to resolve the Oedipus complex (a notion I reject as pseudo-scientific nonsense).

But yes, I would say, obviously, a person's prior experiences do have a huge influence on the choices they make, but people still ultimately choose to adopt the homosexual identity. A large part of what keeps people from ever deciding to discard the identity and re-identify themselves as heterosexuals is itself the essentialist notion of human sexuality. The idea that if you were ever sexually attracted to someone of your same gender forever and always marks you as a non-heterosexual seems to make the idea of going backwards, so to speak, impossible by definition. But these categories are modern social-constructions, created by a highly homophobic society, in order to even further demonize people who engage in sexually 'deviant' practices. It's like a more hard-coded version of the idea of "Once you go black, you never go back."


But you know what? Even if someone chooses to be sexually attracted to children, that is still no reason to harass them unless they molest childrenThe former almost always follows the latter.

[Anglo-Saxon Philistine]

Even at this level of discourse, there is still an element of something perceived to be negative causing someone to be gay, such as the Freudian notion that homosexuality is caused by an overbearing mother and a distant father causing someone not to be able to resolve the Oedipus complex (a notion I reject a pseudo-scientific nonsense).

As do I; but it does not follow that everyone who thinks that homosexuality is not the result of a free choice thinks that homosexuality is bad. That something is caused does not mean that it is "bad"; consistent social constructionists, in fact, have little justification in differentiating heterosexuality from non-heterosexuality, since heterosexuality seems to be a cultural construct as well (and probably did not exist in, for example, ancient Rome).


But yes, I would say, obviously, a person's prior experiences do have a huge influence on the choices they make, but people still ultimately choose to adopt the homosexual identity. A large part of what keeps people from ever deciding to discard the identity and re-identify themselves as heterosexuals is itself the essentialist notion of human sexuality. The idea that if you were ever sexually attracted to someone of your same gender forever and always marks you as a non-heterosexual seems to make the idea of going backwards, so to speak, impossible by definition. But these categories are modern social-constructions, created by a highly homophobic society, in order to even further demonize people who engage in sexually 'deviant' practices. It's like a more hard-coded version of the idea of "Once you go black, you never go back."

People chose to adopt the homosexual (or bisexual or queer...) identity, but not freely - do you think it is possible for a man who has sex with men to identify as heterosexual in the Anglo-American cultural circle? And it seems highly unlikely that someone could choose what section of the population they are attracted to.


The former almost always follows the latter.

Do you have any evidence for this claim?

[Labor Aristocrat Killer]

As do I; but it does not follow that everyone who thinks that homosexuality is not the result of a free choice thinks that homosexuality is bad.Yes, most homosexuals subscribe to their own notions of sexual essentialism. But in the context of this thread, I think it becomes a serious issue, because people want to interpret pedophilia through the framework used by most homosexuals to understand themselves.


consistent social constructionists, in fact, have little justification in differentiating heterosexuality from non-heterosexuality, since heterosexuality seems to be a cultural construct as well (and probably did not exist in, for example, ancient Rome).Indeed. As a socially-constructed category, heterosexuality came after homosexuality.


People chose to adopt the homosexual (or bisexual or queer...) identity, but not freely - do you think it is possible for a man who has sex with men to identify as heterosexual in the Anglo-American cultural circle?The idea of being 'gay for pay' seems to suggest that people are capable of perceiving such a thing in a limited way, but generally, no.


And it seems highly unlikely that someone could choose what section of the population they are attracted to.But that is exactly what is being discussed here.


Do you have any evidence for this claimI would have to say, any 'empirical' evidence would probably not be forthcoming, given the very nature of the subject. But how often do you hear of pedophiles seeking therapy regarding their sexual inclinations without ever having acted on them?

[Anglo-Saxon Philistine]

Yes, most homosexuals subscribe to their own notions of sexual essentialism. But in the context of this thread, I think it becomes a serious issue, because people want to interpret pedophilia through the framework used by homosexuals to understand themselves.

First of all, social constructionism is rather different from the sort of biological essentialism that some people assume.

Second, why does this debate become serious only when the competing theories are applied to paedophilia? No one on this thread, or on this site, would dream of justifying child molestation. And even is paedophilia is a choice, how does that justify harassing and hounding someone who has not done anything wrong?


The idea of being 'gay for pay' seems to suggest that people are capable of perceiving such a thing in a limited way, but generally, no.

What remains of free choice, then?


But that is exactly what is being discussed here.

And I would ask for evidence; I mean, I simply don't see how I could start being sexually attracted to children, or to stop being sexually attracted to adult men or women.


I would have to say, any 'empirical' evidence would probably not be forthcoming, given the very nature of the subject. But how often do you hear of pedophiles seeking therapy regarding their sexual inclinations without ever having acted on them?

I doubt they would tweet about that; the nature of the subject means that collecting evidence is difficult at best. But in the absence of evidence, should we not give them the benefit of doubt? Especially when many child molesters are not attracted to prepubescent children as such.

[Labor Aristocrat Killer]

First of all, social constructionism is rather different from the sort of biological essentialism that some people assume.

Obviously...


Second, why does this debate become serious only when the competing theories are applied to paedophilia?

Because applying the essentialist framework to the pedophile normalizes pedophilia in a way that just should not be acceptable.


And even if paedophilia is a choice, how does that justify harassing and hounding someone who has not done anything wrong?

It's comparable to Nazism in that regard. In an abstract sense, if a pedophile or a Nazi never does anything 'wrong,' including ever discussing these horrendous ideas with another person, then they shouldn't be persecuted for it (and can't be, since it is a private idea that is never discussed and can never be discovered in order to persecute them).


What remains of free choice, then?

It's a matter of being able to see past your own culture, if I am understanding your question correctly.


And I would ask for evidence; I mean, I simply don't see how I could start being sexually attracted to children, or to stop being sexually attracted to adult men or women.

I'd recommend the queerbychoice website to get an idea of how people choose to start being attracted to members of the same sex, and then applying a similar logic to children.

[Anglo-Saxon Philistine]

Because applying the essentialist framework to the pedophile normalizes pedophilia in a way that just should not be acceptable.

Proclaiming things wrong by fiat - and then acting indignantly when someone dares to question your fiat - is hardly convincing. Materialists should drop the petty bourgeois moralising and analyse phenomena dispassionately.


It's comparable to Nazism in that regard.

No, it really isn't. Nazism isn't an attraction, a preference, but an ideology. We hold people responsible for their beliefs; we do not usually hold them responsible for their preferences.


It's a matter of being able to see past your own culture, if I am understanding your question correctly.

As if people can simply opt out of the entire framework of ideology.


I'd recommend the queerbychoice website to get an idea of how people choose to start being attracted to members of the same sex, and then applying a similar logic to children.

Anecdotal evidence means precisely nothing; and even if it did, the "indirect decisions" that the site talks about do not pertain to attraction, but to choosing not to repress same-sex urges.

[ellipsis]

Re:op

The problem of homeless sex offenders is real. Around these parts homeless folks camp in the woods, and one of the camps is behind a boarding school for kids with developmental and emotional disabilities. long story short, a small statues young girl wandered into the woods, I think she was 10, and these homeless sex offenders ended up tying her to a tree with a jump rope and holding a knife to her throat.

[bcbm]

They considered themselves straight at one time, and now no longer do.

so they weren't straight


My bad. That should be "sometimes."

would enjoy some hard evidence


So do these people:

http://www.queerbychoice.com/

' no queer can go back to being a hetero any more than we can go back to being a virgin'


but if someone wants to no longer accept the homosexual identity, they don't have to. There is nothing wrong with being gay, straight, transgender, etc, and no one is forced by their biology into one of these categories until they die.

well some of the big names in psychology seem to strongly agree with you. have any hard evidence?



Sure. But the pedophile chooses to be sexually attracted to children,

no scientific evidence suggests this is the case


and then almost always proceeds to act on their desires to harm children.

hard to say with any certainty what the percentage is, i doubt most of those who harbor these feelings and don't act on it are claiming as much

[Labor Aristocrat Killer]

so they weren't straightThey were, and then they were not.


would enjoy some hard evidenceThere is no need of "hard evidence." A single case is all that is needed to prove the point I am making.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ex-gay_movement


' no queer can go back to being a hetero any more than we can go back to being a virgin'The full quote from their FAQ:



Could you choose to turn heterosexual if you wanted to?

Saying that people can choose to become queer does not necessarily imply that people can also choose to become heterosexual. It might be that in a society where girls and boys are raised to have so little in common, exclusive homosexuality is really the healthiest option for any of us, in which case anyone who's already discovered the joys of same-sex attraction could hardly be expected to ever develop much interest in dealing with all the inequalities and communication difficulties of opposite-sex attraction. Or it might be that bisexuality is the natural state of all people, in which case discovering our ability to feel same-sex (or opposite-sex) attraction would be much easier than trying to repress that attraction after we've discovered it.

Some queer by choice people do believe it's possible to choose to turn heterosexual—which most definitely does not mean we'd ever care to do it! Others of us believe it's not possible. Some of us simply have no opinion on (or interest in) the subject.

But even if we could block out our same-sex attraction and develop exclusively hetero attraction again, what would be the point? In most people's minds, heterosexuality is something like virginity: once you've experienced being queer, they're not going to let you get away with reclaiming your former heterosexual privileges even if you do want to reclaim them. Heterosexuality and queerness are not really defined symmetrically as "attraction to the other sex" and "attraction to the same sex." Instead, you might say that heterosexuality is defined as the state of "never having been attracted to the same sex" and queerness is defined as the state of "ever having been attracted to the same sex." So at least in that sense, no queer can go back to being a hetero any more than we can go back to being a virgin.

Notice how the people at queerbychoice decide to answer the question, and how you decide to quote them out of context.


well some of the big names in psychology seem to strongly agree with you. have any hard evidence?
I don't really care if some psychologists disagree with me. Others agree with me completely. The evidence is what matters, and all the evidence indicates homosexuality is a socially-constructed identity that can be abandoned, just like heterosexuality.


no scientific evidence suggests this is the case
I'm not aware of any attempts to refute social-constructionism as it relates to the motivations of child-rapists. Could you provide me with any such studies?


hard to say with any certainty what the percentage is, i doubt most of those who harbor these feelings and don't act on it are claiming as much
Yes, which was my point exactly. No one who decides to develop attraction toward children is ever gonna admit it to anyone. No one "seeks help" for their pedophilia. No one 'stumbles upon' their pedophilia after their teen years.

Applying the essentialist framework to understanding pedophilia, which homosexuals use for themselves in a political context, can only lead to disaster for LGBTQ people.

---------

Here is a good historical overview of sexual orientation research in the last 200 years or so. I recommend people read it and understand it, to get a better idea of exactly how homosexuality is a social-construction of Western society.

http://www2.rz.hu-berlin.de/sexology/GESUND/ARCHIV/SEXOR4.HTM

[bcbm]

They were, and then they were not.

how do we know?


There is no need of "hard evidence."

thats sort of how science works


A single case is all that is needed to prove the point I am making.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ex-gay_movement

i don't think posting a link to a movement primarily associated with the religious right with a lot of 'ex-ex-gay' folks and full of remarks from various psychological professionals suggesting their methods are both unlikely to work and potentially harmful makes your point very well.


Notice how the people at queerbychoice decide to answer the question, and how you decide to quote them out of context.

thats fair. further reading the site just seems to confuse the issue even more though, with talk about people 'desperately wanting to choose to be hetero' but not being able to due to 'indirect choices?' seems to still suggest for an element outside their control


I don't really care if some psychologists disagree with me. Others agree with me completely. The evidence is what matters, and all the evidence indicates homosexuality is a socially-constructed identity that can be abandoned, just like heterosexuality.

i don't think the evidence for that is very strong at all


I'm not aware of any attempts to refute social-constructionism as it relates to the motivations of child-rapists. Could you provide me with any such studies?

so who suggests it is a choice?


Yes, which was my point exactly. No one who decides to develop attraction toward children is ever gonna admit it to anyone. No one "seeks help" for their pedophilia.

actually they do



Applying the essentialist framework to understanding pedophilia, which homosexuals use for themselves in a political context, can only lead to disaster for LGBTQ people.

they're separate issues




Here is a good historical overview of sexual orientation research in the last 200 years or so. I recommend people read it and understand it, to get a better idea of exactly how homosexuality is a social-construction of Western society.

http://www2.rz.hu-berlin.de/sexology/GESUND/ARCHIV/SEXOR4.HTM


thanks bookmarked it