'Paedophilia is natural and normal for males'

[Nuclear Unicorn]

The words, "Shut up! Shut up! Shut up!" keep screaming in my head.

Not at the author of the article but at those he's profiling.

'Paedophilia is natural and normal for males'

How some university academics make the case for paedophiles at summer conferences

"Paedophilic interest is natural and normal for human males,” said the presentation. “At least a sizeable minority of normal males would like to have sex with children … Normal males are aroused by children.”

Some yellowing tract from the Seventies or early Eighties, era of abusive celebrities and the infamous PIE, the Paedophile Information Exchange? No. Anonymous commenters on some underground website? No again.

The statement that paedophilia is “natural and normal” was made not three decades ago but last July. It was made not in private but as one of the central claims of an academic presentation delivered, at the invitation of the organisers, to many of the key experts in the field at a conference held by the University of Cambridge.

Other presentations included “Liberating the paedophile: a discursive analysis,” and “Danger and difference: the stakes of hebephilia.”

Hebephilia is the sexual preference for children in early puberty, typically 11 to 14-year-olds.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/comment/10948796/Paedophilia-is-natural-and-normal-for-males.html

Sick, sick, sick people trying to make the rest us of approve of their sickness. What they do devastates their victims but they can't see past their own gratification. I'd swear it's a form of narcissism.

[FreakinDJ]

54. Bullshit Propaganda spewed by ...

Some one who has deep seated issues and a monitary incentive

Junk Science and Tabloid reporting

[redqueen]

60. Is this also tabloid reporting?

http://www.theguardian.com/society/2013/jan/03/paedophilia-bringing-dark-desires-light

I agree that it's junk science. Not science at all. Just desperate rationalization.

[pnwmom]

2. I think you're right about it being a form of narcissism.

Narcissists have a profound lack of empathy, and so do pedophiles for their victims. All they can see is their own need.

[Nuclear Unicorn]

4. "All they can see is their own need."

I wouldn't go so far as to call it a "need" -- and I assume you don't mean it in quite so strong a term. I think they want what they want and victims and society be damned.

[redqueen]

9. That is it exactly. nt

[onehandle]

3. ...named Rush Limbaugh. nt

[liberal N proud]

5. Excuse me but NO

Hell NO!

That is just sick!

[Nuclear Unicorn]

13. If you can stomach reading further down in the article you'll see lamentations that

paedophiles are driven into the shadows. Driven into the seas would be a better outcome.

[FrodosPet]

50. This

Greedy pieces of shit, worried far more about their boner than the precious children whose innocence they are stealing and replacing with fear and shame.

And the dipwads justifying them - thanks, but guys naturally do enough dumb and cruel shit to make ourselves look bad - we don't need any piling on.

[Warpy]

6. Somebody is projecting just a little too much

It figures that the Torygraph would publish this swill.

Real Dolls would seem to be a potential gold mine if they'd produce kiddie sex dolls for guys like this. Yeah, it's icky, but it might save a lot of real kids from abuse.

[malaise]

8. And here's why

http://www.theguardian.com/society/2014/jul/08/children-homes-supply-line-paedophiles-lord-warner
<snip>
Powerful people in the 1980s targeted children's homes that served as a "supply line" for paedophiles, a former health minister has claimed.

As a former child protection manager warned that a "powerful elite" of at least 20 prominent figures carried out the "worst form of abuse", the former health minister Lord Warner described the sexual abuse of children as a "power drive".

Warner, a health minister in 2003-07 who conducted an inquiry into child abuse in Birmingham in 1992, spoke out after the home secretary, Theresa May, announced a national inquiry into how the authorities may have ignored child abuse at Westminster.

---------------------
Dossiers disappeared - Thatcher's boys covered it all up and now it's back in the news.

[Warpy]

12. The same thing happened here

Sex romps with children in Bush the Smarter's White House were in the DC press then the whole business was hushed up.

Children are forbidden territory to decent people so of course the rich and powerful for whom the law doesn't exist are drawn to them. How else can they demonstrate their wealth and power?

[malaise]

14. And around the same time as well

This is huge in England right now. Once again the coverup will get them

[RadiationTherapy]

25. Aristocratic predation of children is, essentially, my only conspiracy theory.

Most of my other beliefs have evidence or systemic critiques in their details, but I "have faith" when it comes to the rich and powerful abusing children.

[Warpy]

42. And that extends to traveling middle class businessmen

when they go to a foreign country that has devalued its children, considering the homeless children expendable. Those nice, church every Sunday, married fathers will try out a "young chicken" to find out why it's forbidden here. It's quite well known throughout the poorer countries across this hemisphere.

With the rich and powerful, it's definitely a conspiracy as they set up a pipeline to keep bringing them fresh little kiddies as the current crop becomes jaded.

[RadiationTherapy]

57. Good grief that is disgusting.

[Laffy Kat]

101. "True Crime"

I felt as though there was more to that series than just a creepy story.

[stevenleser]

21. That is exactly it, Bullshit projection. nt

[Rex]

7. The average male does not get sexually arroused around children! Bullfuckingshit!

Whoever made up this bullshit and is spreading it around, should be dropped in a shark tank!

[Throckmorton]

136. As I would like to consider myself and average male,

Before I had children of my own, I considered other peoples children a Damn Nuisance, and something I tried to avoid if at all possible.

Now that I have had children, I still consider other peoples children a Damn Nuisance, and something I tried to avoid if at all possible.

Objects of Sexual Interest?, Jesus Tapdancing Christ, I just threw up in my mouth.

[MoonRiver]

10. Was this study funded by the Vatican?

Oh, and btw no normal man I've ever known has any sexual interest in children. Disgusting article.

[Erich Bloodaxe BSN]

11. 'Natural' or even 'normal' is not the same as 'good'.

As human beings, we have the intellectual capacity to move beyond simply doing 'natural' things. Violence of all sorts (not just towards children, not just sexual) is a 'natural and normal' part of the human condition, as are self-centeredness, greed, sloth, rage, etc, etc, etc. But as thinking beings, we can see that indulging in such 'natural' or 'normal' behaviours creates lasting harm to both ourselves and others that outweighs whatever ephemeral pleasure might be taken by those who engage in such behaviours, whether or not they are 'natural' or 'normal' for some subset of the population.

[DetlefK]

16. Ducks and Adélie penguins are necrophiliac rapists. That's totally natural and normal.

[Erich Bloodaxe BSN]

19. There ya go.

Natural things can be pretty darned disgusting.

And I like penguins, so I wish you'd left me in the dark about them, and just pointed out the ducks

[WCLinolVir]

123. Well we aren't ducks or penguins.

And that behavior is in the minority. An aberration.

[redqueen]

20. Did you read the article?

Normalizing this shit is the goal of these perverts.

[Erich Bloodaxe BSN]

22. No, I read the OP.

I'm of the opinion that if anyone writing such thinks they're going to 'normalize' such behaviours in modern nations, they're completely deluded. The 'arc of the moral universe' is against them. So I didn't see much point in bothering with the original article.

[redqueen]

23. Women's right to bodily integrity is slowly being whittled even further,

so we'll have to agree to disagree on the chances of assholes normalizing horrific shit.

[Erich Bloodaxe BSN]

27. I think that that to which you allude is a temporary condition.

Once demographics have shifted enough, women's rights will come roaring back, and we'll be able to to further nail them down. The Republican party knows it is in a death spiral, and is simply working to do as much damage thrashing around as it can while dying.

That's not to say that it won't take a generation or two to clean up the damage they're inflicting now. It will be a long slog, but they will NOT win in the long run.

[nomorenomore08]

103. I sure hope you're right... n/t

[WCLinolVir]

125. It's not just the republicans.

[Nuclear Unicorn]

32. I think the tone of the article itself is one of incredulity and disfavor.

[riqster]

15. So, then, is my desire to castrate pedophiles likewise "natural and normal?"

Christ in Cheeze Whiz, really?

Speaking as someone who was the victim of violent pedophiles, I can assure you that there is nothing natural or normal about it.

[bravenak]

28. Yes.

I have those urges towards them myself. I was treated pretty rough by a creature myself.. Nothing you can do with some people.

[freshwest]

117. Nicer than me. Growing up, to me rape was the same as murder. Bullet. Brain. Bye.

In the dark recesses of my soul, I still feel that way but have mellowed, learning I don't want to 'be' that person.

Personally knowing vulnerable victims of violent pedophiles unable to heal from it, I call bullshit when people say they should forgive.

Some victims want those pieces of work eliminated from the gene pool. Something inside was murdered, and they know it even if no one wants to know.

Not all will forgive:

Bullet. Brain. Bye:

I've listened to these songs for years and think my feelings are 'normal.'

Now you know me.

[riqster]

129. Bullet to the brain is far kinder than my proposed solution.

But then, I have anger to work out.

How long will it be before we see a "Pedophile Rights Movement", do you think?

[Erich Bloodaxe BSN]

132. They've been around all along.

The group you're looking for is called 'NAMBLA' - the 'North American Man-Boy Love Alliance' or somesuch. South Park had an episode about them.

[riqster]

133. Christ on a crutch.

Thanks. Christ on a fuckin' trailer hitch.

[redqueen]

17. This isn't new, and it isn't going away.

This is from last year, in the Guardian.

http://www.theguardian.com/society/2013/jan/03/paedophilia-bringing-dark-desires-light


Academia has to stop giving these sick fucks cover.

[lpbk2713]

18. Maybe not a coincidence but ...

until I kicked it this OP was right below another OP about OxyRush Limbaugh.

[zazen]

24. I think there are important differences between hebephilia and pedophilia from feminist POV

So, I find both really upsetting and gross yada yada yada, but to the degree sexual preferences (and deviations from what we consider non-abusive behavior) are hard-wired in people, it's useful from a research point of view to understand what's essentially immutable vs that which is more culturally constructed.

My sense from research so far is that offenders of pre-pubescents, whether hard-wired due to early victimization themselves or because of some genetic thing we haven't yet identified, are much less resistant to change (so far).

I'm not sure hebephilia exists on that same continuum, unless it's for the otherwise pedophiles who are just "getting by" with abusing pubescent/underage kids but would always prefer pre-pubescent.

Hebephilia to me seems more tractable, in that it reflects what may be "natural" urges for a greater subset of people to have sex with younger but barely sexually mature youth that are then enabled or disallowed depending typically on that society's degree of male dominance (which is just about all societies, all the time). Thus we see the odious child marriages with 11-13 year olds (sometimes younger) acceptable in some cultures, and sex with 12 year old boys considered a perfectly acceptable behavior by Socrates, et al, but fortunately at least overtly rejected in our culture.

In addition, I think hebephilia may be a distortion of adult sexual attraction based on a desire to impress, own, control, another human being who has reached puberty (so may "look" adult in some ways) but as a child is still easily manipulated (and thus reflecting back that person's narcissistic desire to see themselves a certain way).

Writ large, this entails the conditioning on most male sexuality on this planet toward youthful partners--not because of sociobiological imperative (I call BS on most of that) but as a result of nearly universal male dominance that is driven by and drives sexual objectification of females (and target males who are objectified to appear more feminine).

So, sexualizing "youth" in women results in constant power disparities between males and females in the most fundamental social relations, colonizes and marginalizes aging female adults who could otherwise really challenge the power structure because they no longer look youthful, and reinforces a version of sexuality in which one partner is less knowing, powerful, experienced, or active and the other is free to have full subjectivity, maturity, bodily age, power, etc.

Sociobiologists look at the above cultural construction and say, women have to accept that their worth declines past 28 and that men are biologically driven to want 14 year olds, but I think that's an effect of male dominance rather than a driving force.

I think this kind of pedophilia (hebephilia) is a very different kettle of fish than someone who's attracted to small children, the latter of which may also be symptomatic of patriarchy and intergenerational sexual abuse, but it also seems to be possibly a separate definable mental illness that might be there whether we lived under male dominance or not.

[Chemisse]

31. I agree.

And I think it is useful to distinguish between the 2, rather than lumping them together, since the way to address the problem behaviors could be very different, particularly since pedophiles appear to be more resistant to change.

[Reter]

36. Isn't hebephilia sexual attraction of 11-14 year olds?

And there is one more philia. I can't remember, but I think it's the attraction to 15-19 year olds.

[redqueen]

43. ephebephilia

Very popular topic among middle aged MRAs

[Iris]

142. ew. Really? So I guess they feel entitled to girls that age?

Admittedly, many girls that age are quite lovely, and I remember reactions I got on occasion that could have been inappropriate had the reactor not had enough maturity to self-monitor.

[redqueen]

145. They don't want anyone saying it's wrong for older men to lust after teens.

As a middle aged woman I don't feel sexual attraction to teenaged boys.

I don't know about other women, but I wasn't attracted to teenaged boys once I reached my early twenties. We're socialized to think it's acceptable for older men to lust after barely adult women and as of now very few seem to think much of it. IMO it's a direct result of the ubiquitous objectification of women.

[Iris]

147. yes, the objectification of girls is ubiquitous.

The Onion did excellent piece about this titled something like "neighborhood girl becomes beautiful object." It was really disturbing but got the point across. I'll try to find it and post it later if I have time.

[WCLinolVir]

122. Pedophilia, and hebephilia are child abusers.

Sex abusers are often very specific about what they find desirable, the traits of a particular age group. It has little to do with regular adult sexuality. They want a child who looks like a child, not having characteristics of an adult.

I edited my post as there is some controversy as to whether to keep hebephilia as part of pedophilia or a separate disorder.

[dilby]

26. Hmmm, I must be broken because I prefer women in the 35 - 55 age range.

Been like that my whole life and I have never been attracted to children or even girls in their 20s.

[Erich Bloodaxe BSN]

34. A behaviour being 'natural' or 'normal'

does not automatically imply that it is something that affects an entire population, or even a large part of the population. Just that it does occur in at least some subset. Left handedness occurs in what, 10% of the population? It is natural and normal, but so is right-handedness, at 90%. (Added caveat for those looking for a fight - No, I'm not suggesting pedophilia should be in any way acceptable, or that left-handedness should be considered unacceptable. What is morally or legally acceptable in any human society has little to do with what is 'natural'.)

Most of us (males) are attracted to women, not girls. And, as far as life goes, it's a useful thing to be attracted to older women - women live something like 7-8 years longer than men on average, so if you pair off with a woman roughly that much older than you, you're more likely to both die around the same time, rather than leaving one of you alone for years.

[WCLinolVir]

126. Pedophilia is not normal, i.e. a standard, conforming. It is an aberration.

[Erich Bloodaxe BSN]

131. My point is that it was semantics.

'Normal' is used in multiple ways. Yes, it is an aberrant behaviour when considered across the population - it is not normal for you, me, 98% (or whatever the number is) of the population. (And I had thought about adding an addendum to my prior post, but after several hours nobody had decided to go into the semantic weeds, so I didn't bother, but here you are now.) So no, it is not 'normal' in the sense that 'most of the population does it'. As I noted in my point about 'left-handed people', left handedness is not 'normal' in that sense either. In this usage, it's more 'normal' in the sense that it consistently occurs over time in the population, and does not seem to be a learned behaviour (Or else we'd be able to teach people to 'unlearn' it, which doesn't seem to be the case with many of the hardcore pedophiles who've been caught.) So you could consider it a more 'nature vs nurture' issue, which is the point of 'natural' as well. Peanut allergies are natural and normal, but by your usage, I could just call them an aberration as well, since they're 'not a standard, conforming'.

So pedophilia is 'normal', for instance, in the same sense that dogs eating their own crap is 'normal'. Some dogs do it, it's disgusting, and you really wish they'd stop, but in some cases it seems to be impossible to get them to.

[WCLinolVir]

137. Semantics? And comparing pedophilia to left-handed people is a fail in so many ways.

Which I am not going to bother innumerate. Along with dogs eating poo. Which is actually pretty common. Peanut allergies? Well along with hand dominance do not require a whole pathology of lying, covering up, threats, intimidation, etc,,, etc, all willfully done.
Your semantics are normalizing pedophilia, which it isn't.

[Erich Bloodaxe BSN]

139. Whatever.

I've stated, in multiple comments, my opposition to the behaviour. I have no interest in pointless continued argument.

[Arkana]

29. So basically this guy is a kiddy-fiddler

trying to justify his kiddy-fiddling by telling all of us we're kiddy-fiddlers too?

[Nuclear Unicorn]

33. I think the author of the article itself is as appaled as we are. He is exposing effots by others to

mainstream this behavior.

[unblock]

30. more important is that this is irrelevant to its morality. kids can't give consent

perhaps it is true, but even if we assume that those attracted to children are simply born that way, that doesn't have any bearing on the morality of the act.

the child victims can't give consent, so the grown-up can't do it without committing moral, and in most cases, legal rape.

whether the grown-up is doing it because of some "natural" instinct or some acquired preference or whatever doesn't change the lack of consent.


it may change our understanding of how to prevent such cases and how to treat offenders, though. this argument doesn't get them much sympathy; rather it suggests that their preference is difficult if not impossible to alter, which likely would lead to harsher, not more lenient, punishments.

[Nuclear Unicorn]

35. "...which likely would lead to harsher, not more lenient, punishments."

I'm OK with that.

[LittleBlue]

37. Normal? I thought it was unusual

IIRC it's a peculiar formation of the brain that only happens in a small % of people

[Kurska]

38. Oh jeez am I ever going to get flammed for this one.

Firstly, Pedophilia is wrong. Children't can't give consent and sex with children should be strictly punished by the legal system. No one is disputing these facts.

That said, I find it disturbing how many people here think they can argue against scientific evidence with their personal feelings and morality. Data doesn't really care what human beings think of it. I'm not going to claim to be well versed in this area of study, but based on what I've gathered data is starting to suggest that pedophilic urges are far more common than most of us would like to believe. That doesn't make acting on those urges right or just, but it is a fact that our society is going to have to grapple with at some point.

Personally, I would only ever hate someone with such urges if they were to act on them. I don't think they can help them and I believe that sadly there is probably no real way to get rid of them. We stigmatize these people deeply and I don't really think that is helpful. What they need is social support and inclusion. If they understand that they do have a place in society so long as they control themselves and avoid hurting children, I think they will be less likely to act on their dark urges. If we force them into hiding and self-denial, then all we do is make the crimes we wish to stop more likely.

[redqueen]

46. "pedophilic urges are far more common than most of us would like to believe"

That's a bold statement.

Many men (sadly) will line up to state how common these 'urges' are toward teens and adolescents ... but young children? Really?

[Kurska]

47. It is a bold statement, supported by an increasing amount of research.

And if it continues to be supported, it is a something we'll have to address as a society. My suggestion is inclusion, understanding and social support to help these people to deal with their dark urges in a hopefully constructive way. I think that is the best strategy to prevent them hurting children. It goes without saying that there still has to be very very strict punishments for people who do offend.

Personally, I'm a man who is attracted to other grown men, so I have no idea what some people find appealing about young children. Regardless, it is clear that some do find that appealing and the question is how to do we deal with it.

[stevenleser]

91. Are you counting under 18 as pedophelia, or just under 12.

I agree that adult male desire of girls ages 14-17 is unfortunately not as uncommon as I wish it were, but are you really saying you think there are a lot of adult men attracted to children 11 years old and younger?

I find that hard to believe.

[Kurska]

93. Define alot

Majority? No way, I really doubt that one.

Way more than most people suspect? That one wouldn't surprise me.

[stevenleser]

94. A lot in this case would be >5% nt

[Kurska]

97. Honestly?

Nothing would surprise me anymore.

I have a lot of friends involved in fetish communities and I've always tried to listen with an open ear.

Once you learn there is a single website with 50,000 users devoted to fantasy cannibalism. You start to realize that human sexuality trends a lot darker than most people would ever think.

[Puzzledtraveller]

56. I shudder to think

who and how many lurking and participating here may actually condone this in some way. I just had my first child, a baby girl. Few things make my blood boil. This is one of them. I also work in the Cabinet for Families and Children, sexual abuse and exploitation is a common element in many of the cases.

[redqueen]

61. I have the same reaction.

For years I have read about these sick fucks trying to legalise 'stimulated' child porn, to 'help' them with their 'urges'. They already have access to sex dolls that look like children. And no small amount of women who are willing to enact sexual abuse fantasies. These people think it's fine to simulate abuse for kicks. Abuse that ruins the lives of countless children every day. I don't even want to understand what kind of mind can find such shit acceptable.

[ismnotwasm]

64. One of the "treatments" is to "redirect" their fantasies

By using posters of objectified women.

At one time a friend of my husband sent him porn he thought was funny. One of these was what appeared to be a young girl (school girl skirt, hair in pigtails-- very young looking) sitting in some reddish liquid, touching a dog. I won't describe the scene further.

My husband was horrified and called the police, and his friend. We did some research and found that the 'girl' an 18 year old woman who made her living making pictures like that. There was nothing we or the police could do.

My husband was annoyed at the pictures anyway and made the guy stop with all of it-- it was mostly making fun of something, (weird sexual positions, overweight persons, bizarre genitals) but even this guy 'got' it when we called the cops.

[redqueen]

73. I wonder if it ever occurs to anyone that maybe the ubiquitous sexual objectification of women

isn't so much of a solution as part of the problem to begin with.

[ismnotwasm]

76. It should but it doesn't

And it should also be clear why it doesn't work

(My SIL sometimes works with "special offenders&quot

[redqueen]

82. She has my admiration

I couldn't deal with that shit. No way, no how.

[Kurska]

102. Personally, I don't condone jack

Attempting to understand the true extent and nature of something and approving of it are two very different things

[smirkymonkey]

112. This is extremely disturbing.

I really don't know how to respond to this.

[Silent3]

71. Thank you for the "Data doesn't really care what human beings think of it" perspective.

I was thinking about responding to the general reactions in this thread myself, but hadn't yet decided whether it was worth the inevitable grief, nor the effort I'd have to put into caveats, assurances, and disclaimers in a most likely vain attempt to forestall inevitable knee-jerk emotional reactions based on pretty much disregarding anything I'd actually say in favor of quick-skim, keyword-based anger.

[redqueen]

72. Are you upset about something?

Sure sounds like it. Do you actually see any of the posts you're apparently already aggravated about?

[Silent3]

83. I'm upset about the general anti-intellectual, emotion and agenda-driven...

...nature of so much DU discussion that characterizes so much of DU conversation these days.

As for this particular thread, this other response of mine to another post in this thread should fill in what I find aggravating here: http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=5212297

[ismnotwasm]

74. There is no particular Data in the OP

A lot of opinion, yes. What are you referring to? Did I miss something?

[Silent3]

81. The reactions are clearly mostly a fast and furious...

...immediate conclusion that there couldn't possibly be any such data, no matter what's in the article. Without getting into the specifics of this particular article, Kinsey data posted in this thread by others suggests that the thesis of the OP article isn't wildly improbable, something easily dismissed out of hand.

I'm not saying such studies will or won't pan out, but I can at least admit it's possible that they could, and that the act of studying such things shouldn't be immediately interpreted as having a nefarious goal or motivation.

I think too many people are so used to the gross oversimplification "natural = good" that they can't get there heads around the idea of a bad thing being natural too, can't understand that a person suggesting something might be "natural" isn't driven by an agenda to make that phenomena part of the "= good".

[RobinA]

92. I Absolutely

agree with your post. Not liking data doesn't make it wrong anymore than liking it makes it right. There is a truth to this situation and it would be better to know it than pretend it doesn't exist if it is something we don't like. Covering things up has a destructive history.

Not commenting on the factualness of this data, I don't know. I just feel that if it's real it needs to be dealt with in the light.

[qazplm]

39. yeah no

it's one thing to be attracted to a post-pubescent but under 18 year old girl.

18 isn't a biological number, it's a legal number (or 17 or 16 in some states). Good reason for having it mind you, and I'm certainly not encouraging lower the age of consent.

But speaking purely from a biological response, attraction to those girls is completely understandable (acting on it is not).

But attraction to a pre-pubescent child? There is nothing natural about that at all. There is nothing to be aroused by. That's a sickness, a deviant response. It may be "natural" that in any population a small group will have deviant responses, but I don't think that's the kind of natural these guys are talking about.

[Tetris_Iguana]

116. Exactly +100

[4Q2u2]

40. No Rational Equivalency?

They try to tie their deviation with how Homosexuality was thought of and treated. Stating how it was first thought of as perverse and unnatural, as they are treated now. Another Moral equivalent BS article.

I have a natural and normal homicidal tendency when a man touches a small child. A gift left over from a "Special Friend", this is what really lurks in the hidden shadows.

[nomorenomore08]

105. And of course idiot right-wingers still try to equate the two (homosexuality and child abuse).

Which makes me think, they're not too big on the whole "consent" thing, are they? Fucking creepy.

[closeupready]

41. I disagree, but separately, why the reference to "girls, girls, girls" rather than

"women, women, women", in x-rated films and live performances?

That one has always puzzled me.

[ryan_cats]

44. In five years, you're going to see lots more of this.

In five years, you're going to see lots more of this. These sick criminals are going to use the LGBT tactic to make it seems that to be a child molester is perfectly normal.

Let me clarify a point, LGBT is a normal group and they use their methods to eliminate the ugly and evil associations the right is trying to say is behind LGBT's efforts. They're trying (and succeeding!!!) in bringing folks into the twentieth century. Same sex couples mean nothing to me, I equate them with heterosexual couples and they deserve the same rights such as healthcare, visitation rights while one is in he hospital and on and on. If it's Ok for a heterosexual couple then the same rules should apply to same sex couples.

I'm pretty sure that the LGBT groups are looking on this pedophilia thing with horror, they know the mentally ill pedophiles will try to use the LGBT method of getting equality and I'm damn sure they are furious that these sleazebag child molesters are trying to associate themselves with LGBT groups in order to borrow their credibility. What goes on with two adults behind closed doors is no one's business but their own. Pedophilia, on the other had, affects everyone, with these sickos, no child is safe, and they want to make it legal for an adult to have sex with a preteen. Time for pitchforks and fire, studies have shown that even with chemical (or physical) they still have their sick desires.

I hate to make a blanket statement, but studies shows that recidivism among pedophiles is incredibly high. The only way to protct kids is to keep these monsters locked up. It sounds like cruel and unusual punishment but I'd rather have that than kids getting molested and killed.

Finally, I don't remember reading about female pedophiles, sure there's the teacher or two who has sex with their students but the kids are older and realize that adults do lie.

[DonCoquixote]

48. The Iron Wall between pedos and LGBT

Last edited Tue Jul 8, 2014, 01:22 PM - Edit history (1)

There may be a thousand different shades of the LGBT rainbow, but one thing permeates all of them, CONSENT. The Vast majority of LGBT seek out consenting adults, whether they are the mild mannered more "normal" looking types, to even the folks with the Leather and chains. The pedos are not looking for a RELATIONSHIP, because the very nature of a pedo relationship is explotng a younger person that cannot fight back. Whereas the LGBT, rangign from mild mannered to those way outside of the mainstream, do want a relationship. Many of them wants full blown marriages.

[nomorenomore08]

106. +1000

[AngryAmish]

130. NAMBLA was kicked out of the LGBTQ community in the 80s

Those sick fucks.

[alp227]

113. You are treading dangerously close

to a Rick Santorum slippery slope argument with the intro.

[mainer]

49. Since at least 15% of ancient humans died of homicide...

that would make homicide natural and normal, too. (Source: "Better Angels of Our Nature.&quot

"Natural and normal," however you define it, does not make it necessarily acceptable in society.

[Chan790]

51. Normal? No. Natural? No idea.

I'm reminded of a piece from earlier this year, I don't remember where, about people, mostly men, with paedophiliac and hebophiliac urges who got together to start a support group to support each other on not acting on those urges. I do think we would be better served to treat it as a psychological or neurological affliction in such a setting.

It seems most paedophiliacs and hebophiliacs do not exclusively have a sexual orientation towards youth, so the issue isn't one of altering their orientation as much as redirection (not in the same sense as the "reprogramming" efforts towards LGBTQ individuals, more along the lines of "role-play with appropriate partners okay, acting out sexual urges with non-appropriate partners not-okay.&quot and impulse control. Sadly, the previous article went on to explain there's a resistance by medical/psych professionals to approach this as a health issue; most of the people interviewed said they first broached the subject with a mental-health professional, having never acted upon it, only to be treated as a pariah or a criminal, most being dropped as a patient.

I wish I could find that article now...I think it was one of NPR radio shows. This American Life, perhaps.

[Frustratedlady]

52. 'Paedophilia is natural and normal for males' but it isn't natural or normal for children.

It only takes one article like this to give "permission" to those pedophiles out there to quit repressing their urges and go for it.

Shame on them for even hinting this horrid crime is normal.

[conservaphobe]

53. Perhaps, but acting on it is not legal.

Nor should it be.

[Xithras]

55. I believe that Kinsey found that 20+% of men are pedophiles...

...and that pedophilia occurs along a spectrum. At one end of the spectrum are otherwise typical hetero or homosexual men who are primarily attracted to adults, but who might be mildly turned on by a naked child running past at a pool or something (low probability that they would ever molest anyone). At the other end of the spectrum were heterosexual or homosexual men who were ONLY attracted to children, and who would actively pursue and groom them (high probability that they would offend). Most of the pedophiles were in the middle. They didn't have any defined sexual interest in children, but they didn't find it offensive either. They wouldn't necessarily groom a child with the intent to molest them, but given the opportunity might engage in sexual activity with them (their probability of doing so depends on their position on the spectrum).

The belief that pedophilia is part of the "normal" spectrum of human sexual interests isn't new. Saying that is NOT the same as saying that it should be acceptable or allowable. I'm all for adults having whatever consensual kinky sex they want to have, but children cannot consent, and without consent any sexual contact is rape. There is a HUGE difference between saying that something is a "normal" part of the human sexual spectrum, and saying that something should be permissible or allowed by society.

If you find children attractive, well, I'm sorry that nature did that do you. But if you touch a child, you should be locked away for a very long time. Keep your "normal" attraction in your head.

[redqueen]

59. Sorry but this:

normal hetero or homosexual men who are primarily attracted to adults, but who might be mildly turned on by a naked child running past at a pool or something

Turns my stomach. I hope I don't know any "normal" men like that.

[Xithras]

62. Statistically, you probably know several.

If Kinsey was right, roughly 80% of men have no sexual attraction to children at all. The spectrum only exists for the 20% who do. Statistically, unless you're a hermit who avoids people, you probably know more than one.

While I can't wrap my mind around that kind of attraction, I do draw a line between attraction and actions. I find redheaded women attractive, but that doesn't mean that I'm going to coerce or force them into nonconsensual sex. As a bisexual man, I also find Chris Hemsworth to be incredibly hot, but I'm not going to drug him or do anything to get him into bed against his will. There's a world of difference between thinking that something is attractive, and actually acting on those feelings.

I'm a parent, so I have to admit that I'd probably be pretty ooged out if I had a mindreading device and found out that someone was turned on by my 9 year old kid, but I don't know how I'd react if they did nothing to express it. On one hand, I wouldn't want my kid anywhere around them, but on the other hand we're essentially talking about "thoughtcrime". Nobody should be punished over a "thought".

This is just one of those subjects that there's no GOOD response to.

[Rex]

121. One in five? Yikes.

That number is pretty high, I hope it is inaccurate.

[jeff47]

63. And we try to move the lines.

At one end of the spectrum are normal hetero or homosexual men who are primarily attracted to adults, but who might be mildly turned on by a naked child running past at a pool or something

And there we try to move the lines towards pedophilia.

Hint: being mildly turned on by a naked 6 year old isn't where "normal" is.

[ismnotwasm]

65. Thank you

It's neither normal or 'natural'

[Xithras]

66. Context is everything.

"Otherwise typical" probably would have been a better choice of words in that sentence. I'll edit it to read that way.

[jeff47]

67. Nope. Still not where "normal" is. (nt)

[Xithras]

69. Define "normal"

That's really the problem with this discussion. The word "normal" is colloquially taken to mean "average" or "acceptable" in our society. Scientifically, as the article in the OP meant it, it simply means that it's an expected part of a distribution or curve. When you're talking about something like pedophilia, those two meanings imply very different things. Scientifically, something like pedophilia can be BOTH "normal" and "rare", in that it's an expected part of the curve, while only representing a small part of the overall curve.

I took "normal" the way the original article (and Kinsey) meant it. It simply means that in any cross section of society, you're going to have a certain percentage of individuals that conform to that type. It's a "normal and expected" portion of the curve. It's certainly not typical or common within society as a whole, and recognizing that it's an expected portion of the curve is not the same thing as making its expression acceptable.

[jeff47]

95. And there we go trying to move the lines again.

he word "normal" is colloquially taken to mean "average" or "acceptable" in our society. Scientifically, as the article in the OP meant it, it simply means that it's an expected part of a distribution or curve.

No, normal has a specific scientific definition that has nothing to do with yours.

This:

It simply means that in any cross section of society, you're going to have a certain percentage of individuals that conform to that type. It's a "normal and expected" portion of the curve.

is an attempt to make something abhorrent be "ok".

It is not at all expected that adults would find children sexually attractive. Yes, some do. But if you are someone who sees a naked 6 year old and has a momentary thought of "I'd like to tap that", you need psychological help. Not protest "I'm just in the tail of the distribution!!!"

[Xithras]

111. Ahem

Normality (behavior) Normality or normalcy is the state of being normal. Behaviour can be normal for an individual when it is consistent with the most common behaviour for that person. Normal is also used to describe when someone's behaviour conforms to the most common behaviour in society (conforming to the norm).

Normal (mathematics) A normal distribution describes a population whose characteristics centers around the average or the norm. In statistics, normal is often arbitrarily considered anything that falls within about 1.96 standard deviations of the mean, or the most average 95%

Normal (probability theory) The normal distribution is a very commonly occurring continuous probability distribution—a function that tells the probability that any real observation will fall between any two real limits or real numbers, as the curve approaches zero on either side. Normal distributions are extremely important in statistics and are often used in the natural and social sciences for real-valued random variables whose distributions are not known."

This was a university presentation by scientists, for scientists. As both a scientist and a former educator, I presume that they are using "normal" in the statistical sense, in that they're an expected part of the populations standard deviation, and not in the colloquial or behavioral "everybody does it" sense that would suggest that most men are pedophiles. It is not moving any "line" to acknowledge that there have always been pedophiles in the world, and that they may exist because pedophilia is part of humanities standard deviation. Recognizing that possibility doesn't make pedophilia any more acceptable, and actually improves our odds of identifying and coming up with solutions for pedophilia by encouraging research in the field. If it's just a "behavioral issue", then studying it is about as useful as studying the biological influences behind mugging (in other words, it would make no sense). If, however, pedophilia is an expected part of the human distribution, then it encourages research into the triggers and circumstances that lead to its expression, which would improve our ability to prevent, identify, and treat it.

Could some pedophiles use this in an attempt to "justify" their behavior? Sure, but I don't really care about the pedophiles or their opinions. I certainly wouldn't accept it as any sort of justification for abusing another person. Research by Kinsey and others suggest that the vast majority of men with pedophilic urges never molest anyone, so clearly it's an urge that can be controlled. Those who choose not to control it, and instead choose to harm others, deserve whatever punishment they get. I can accept the possibility that some people may be wired differently, but that's not a justification for acting on it and harming others.

FWIW, this particular topic has a bit of meaning for me. As I've discussed before on DU, my sister and I were both molested when we were little. When I grew older, the scientist in me began to wonder what drove people to do that kind of thing. As an adult and a parent, I can't even imagine harming a child, and I struggled with the fact that someone had seen me as little more than a sex toy.The scientist and engineer portions of my mind tend to to view problems as puzzles, and my therapist encouraged me to learn about it as a way to "solve" the puzzle (my puzzle at that time was basically "why me?&quot My own personal opinion is that pedophilia is a mental illness (and not a variation on the norm, as the OP suggests above) and that pedophiles should be viewed the same way that schizophrenics and people suffering from other mental illnesses are. They should be identified, treated if possible, kept away from situations where they might be tempted to offend, and locked up if they are untreatable and represent a threat. The situation today doesn't do any of that, and instead simply encourages them to hide. We usually don't have any way to identify them, or to treat them if they self-identify, until AFTER they have offended. That's a serious problem, and I believe that our current way of dealing with them actually leads to MORE children being victimized. If we create an environment where pedophiles can seek treatment BEFORE they harm anyone, then we stand a lot better chance of saving their future victims. Our current model, which is entirely reactive, simply encourages them to hide. The first step toward fixing that is deciding that we want to help them solve their illness, instead of simply branding them as pariah's to be killed or locked away. No pedophile is going to seek help if they think that doing so will destroy their life.

No lines were moved in the writing of this post

[ismnotwasm]

68. Here you go

This is what you're taking about, but I agree with Jeff, not natural or normal

According to the DSM-5, pedophilia “refers to a sexual orientation or profession of sexual preference devoid of consummation, whereas pedophilic disorder is defined as a compulsion and is used in reference to individuals who act on their sexuality,”


Read more: http://p.washingtontimes.com/news/2013/oct/31/apa-correct-manual-clarification-pedophilia-not-se/#ixzz36u5OuO49

[d_r]

79. I agree

That person isn't "normal" and as a society we want that person to get help now and never act on that and get treatment. That person who is "mildly turned on by a naked 6 year old" is sick, but lets get them help.

But the way we deal with that person - getting them treatment and help - is different than the way I think we should treat someone further down that line that is acting on that sickness and will not respond to treatment. We need to permanently remove those ppl from society, imho.

So I see the value in recognizing that continuum. Not to normalize that behavior, but to see how best to respond to it. Change it if it can be changed, remove/isolate it if it can not. So I think this kind of research has a value in being able to better understand and react to these types of behavior profile.

[d_r]

77. the reason for trying to understand

these different patterns is to better understand if recidivism and if "treatment" or rehabilitation is possible. There may be some patterns that can be rehab-ed after punishment and let back in to society but there may be other patterns that should be just locked away for ever because there is little chance of treatment being effective. So, in a way, this type of understanding is a good thing if it keeps those ppl locked away and stopped from hurting children.

[ismnotwasm]

58. Oh bullshit

A lot of men tend to like, or look at young women or teenagers which is cultural anyway, but a "natural" desire for children? That makes no sense whatsoever.

Someone explain the evolutionary percentage in this asinine statement? There is none. It's a maladaptive, serious sexual mental health issue. One that is extremely hard to treat-- so much so, a while back the APA came out and called it a "sexual orientation"-- which was immediately back pedaled on.

http://p.washingtontimes.com/news/2013/oct/31/apa-correct-manual-clarification-pedophilia-not-se/

This is just more crap to create free-for- all sperm receptacles. This time using children.

[MineralMan]

70. That's just a bullshit rationalization stated by a perverted asshole.

[Nuclear Unicorn]

80. The article's author or subjects? Honest question. n/t

[MineralMan]

84. The subjects, of course.

Anyone who says something like that.

[Nuclear Unicorn]

85. OK. Forgive me, but it seems a lot of commenters aren't distinguishing the two and *appear*

to be equating the author with advocacy.

[MineralMan]

86. Sorry if I wasn't clear.

I was responding to the quoted statement.

[Prophet 451]

75. No, Just no

Hebephilia is one that can theoretically be argued since age of consent and social norms vary by locality. But younger than that is not "natural and normal", it is a perversion in the absolute, true-est sense of the word.

And years of reading and studying sexual psychology and my (nearly finished) psych degree agree with teh above.

[redqueen]

78. Hebephilia is 11-14...

I'm not sure that can be rationally argued.

But then I don't even get why people argue that ephebephilia is normal or understandable. Once I was out of my early 20's, teenagers were simply not sexually attractive to me. I don't understand how anyone outside their early 20's can see teenagers as alluring. They are barely adults.

I can appreciate that a teenaged boy is a good looking kid. But actual attraction? That's just... no.

[Prophet 451]

90. I'm thinking the upper end of that age band

14 is legal in much of teh world and sexual attractiveness is as much culturally molded as anything. Here (UK), 16 is legal and it's not uncommon for girls to lose their virginity at 14 (although generally with a guy of around the same age).

[nomorenomore08]

107. Your use of terminology is a little sloppy there, but I see what you mean.

And I agree that attraction to a young, but sexually mature person (like later teens) is not the same thing as being attracted to pre-pubescent children. Where the latter comes from, I have no idea, other than (obviously) having been sexually abused by an adult oneself, nor do I have any good answers as to what to do with people who have these persistent urges but haven't (yet) committed a crime.

[ProfessorGAC]

87. Ridiculous

When i was 40 or so, i noticed this:

I'm watching a college basketball game and they showed one of the young women who were cheerleaders that i thought was amaingly cute.

Then i felt a bit like a dirty old man, because she was just a "kid". But, she was clearly a college student and almost certainly an adult.

So, i'm feeling wrong about finding a young woman attractive because she was too young for someone my age, and pedophilia is "normal".

Don't think so.

[Nuclear Unicorn]

88. I can't help but think there is an aspect that accounts for the maturity of the younger party.

If we were to discuss a 40 year old being involved with a 20 year old many people would be looking askance in spite of the fact a 20 year is considered old enough to make their own (poor) choices. Yet, poll people when the principles are 50 and 30 or 60 and 40 and attitudes may change considerably.

Just a point to contemplate.

[ProfessorGAC]

89. Oh, I Thought Of That

Still made me feel like a dirty old man. Obviously, since this was someone on TV i had no way of knowing how mature or not, this woman was. But, she was a student at a big school, so that might indicate some level of maturity.

And, yeah, she's clearly an adult, legally.

Didn't make me feel any less weird.

[AverageJoe90]

96. You have GOT to be FUCKING kidding me.

How this shit even passes the editorial stage is well beyond me.

[Nuclear Unicorn]

98. The article is not an endorsement but an expose of those who do advocate. n/t

[AverageJoe90]

100. Well, alright, then. I apologize for having jumped to conclusions, then. nt

[Initech]

99. I'm a white male, I have zero desire to see kids naked.

WTF is wrong with these people?

[nomorenomore08]

108. Agreed on all points. It honestly mystifies me. n/t

[nomorenomore08]

104. Question: have Ken Plummer or Tom O'Carroll ever been investigated for crimes against children?

If not, then maybe they should be.

[PasadenaTrudy]

109. Sadly, I'm not that surprised...n/t

[madinmaryland]

110. Hmmm. So they based their statement on comments from Jerry Sandusky??

EGADS!! No to all of the assertions made in the snippet.

[NaturalHigh]

115. Wow...just disgusting from beginning to end.

[aint_no_life_nowhere]

118. Even if the desire is widespread

and what they probably mean by calling it "normal", it has been deemed abnormal by civilized society. If we had no laws and no restraints, as if we were the Emperor in ancient Rome, we might have the desire to rape every man's wife we find attractive, but it would be highly unjust and improper. Men have to engage in self-control, no matter what perversions they harbor in the darkest places in their hearts. Widespread desires don't make them normal desires (if in fact they are widespread).

[Ken Burch]

119. Did anybody else read that quote and think this:

"Jesus...did Gary Oldman do ANOTHER interview?"

[WCLinolVir]

120. These people are pathological, sociopaths.

Just like any perp they will say anything to justify what they do. Power is what really gets them off. And children make great, low risk victims. They are not humans they are objects. They are the worst, next to violent psychopaths. Just put perp in front of their name and it comes into focus. Cambridge?? Really?? Oh no they don't.

[Skip Intro]

124. Where does it end?

There is a push for acceptance. The term sick struggles to define it. A justification of things currently found abhorrent. The people accosting children. violating children, should be in jail for life, at the least.

[applegrove]

127. They say the internet allows crazies

to get together when in the past the loonies would live alienated in their small cmunities. I guess now we can say the same for the worst form of non murdering criminals. They have found each other. Sick.

[Skittles]

128. I call BS on this

while I find it creepy that men seem to like seeing grown women dressed in schoolgirl clothes, I've never seen any evidence that most men would rather have the real thing

[ProfessorGAC]

135. A Thought On That

As one who grew up going to catholic schools (GS and HS) girls were wearing those uniforms when i started liking girls. So, i think the schoolgirl clothes thing is an extension of that time when a lot of guys first started finding girls attractive.

That's not science. Just speculating from personal experience.

[Skittles]

148. well thanks Professor

I'm glad women don't follow the same trend though, right?

[Nevernose]

134. Assuming that it is "normal and natural for a sizeable minority"

Cancer is also normal and natural for a sizeable minority. Schizophrenia. Suicidal ideation. Compulsive lying. Sociopathy. All kinds of shit.

That doesn't make any of it okay.

[Blue_Adept]

138. So little empathy

But such is the case with a great many liberals these days. With this area, it's still easy to be full of vitriol and hate.

Understandably so. What these people do is sickening. And it is a problem and it has to be dealt with.

But the solution mentioned in, what, 99% of the posts here is jail 'em or kill 'em.

I wish I could find the article, but there was a good piece recently about how there is almost no real research into why people that do this do. It's easy to just say they're evil. But hey, isn't that what was said about gays for so long? I know, I know, bad comparison. But an easy vilification for a predeliction many do not understand.

We really need to work on finding why people are wired like this and what can be done to ~help~ them so that they don't go down this very dark and bad path.

Or, you know, just stick with 2A remedies for them.

[Nuclear Unicorn]

140. "It's easy to just say they're evil. But hey, isn't that what was said about gays for so long?"

wow

That just happened. I'll offer what little empathy I have to allow you may not want to deliberately draw the gay-pedophile analogy but making the comparison still opens that door for others to do so. The difference between the two is even close. Children are pre-sexual. Adults hold emotional and physical power over children that means any sexual contact is

Either pedophiles can govern themselves or they cannot. If they can and they elect not to do so I have no pity. If they cannot then they should be removed. We can talk about forced therapy but therein lies yet another moral hazard. We might as well be discussing the virtue -- or lack thereof -- of rehabilitating a dangerous, rabid animal.

The first duty is the protection of innocence. Consideration for the predator is a distant, distant second.

[Blue_Adept]

141. Right

And I get that. I even put the caveat in that it wasn't the best analogy, but you could go back 50 years and find that a lot of people would put the two in the same category.

But again, there is no dialogue about how to help these people. There's no research into finding out why they're like this. We just react, react, react. We don't do what we can to figure it out, truly rehabilitate or do anything else. Jail 'em or kill 'em. If it's a disorder, then shouldn't it be researched? Shouldn't there be a way of finding out what can be done to help them?

Or is it just that they're evil and should be ended, as many here post.

[Nuclear Unicorn]

143. Many things can be labeled a disorder. First, that doesn't make it so and it can be abused.

Second, such therapy could / should only be administered with the consent of the patient. Yet, history shows a surprisingly high recidivist rate suggesting that, unlike many other types of crimes, the perpetrator does not want to reform.

Again, the first duty is to the innocent. I'm prepared to offer forgiveness and help for just about anything but not if it means putting innocents at greater risk.

[Blue_Adept]

144. And nowhere are we talking about putting innocents at greater risk

We're talking research and understanding. But we don't get that. We get just jail 'em or kill 'em.

http://www.brownpoliticalreview.org/2014/04/pulling-pedophilia-out-of-the-dark/

[Nuclear Unicorn]

146. "Understanding" is one thing. People "understand" psychotics. But many times

"understanding" is a cloak for sympathy and sympathy would be exploited for normalization. Anything that smacks too close to sympathy will have to remain disappointed.

[DonCoquixote]

149. a retort

"There's no research into finding out why they're like this. We just react, react, react. We don't do what we can to figure it out, truly rehabilitate or do anything else. Jail 'em or kill 'em. If it's a disorder, then shouldn't it be researched? Shouldn't there be a way of finding out what can be done to help them? "

It is one thing to do research, especially as these folks are different type of offenders, ones that resist rehabilation.

However, to say Pedo=LGBT, or even to pour oil on the slippery slope that the right wing uses to demonize gays, is criminal in and of itself. No child can consent, period. Consent, at the very least , is what seprates sex from rape.

As far as reacting, yes, we can and should be able to react where children are concerned. If nothing else, damage done to children tends to result in the children developing all sorts of problems, up to and including becomign pedos themselves. At the very least, they need to be dealt with in such a way where they cannot put children at risk. Not saying all of them need jail, but if they are not responsove to treatment, then yes, even if they are in an asylum.