Discussion: Is pedophilia pseudoscience?

Status
Not open for further replies.
other than the fact it contains at least one lie, nothing.

fine, agreed.
nice to know you consider "licking the genitals of newborns" such a desirable topic.
sick.

I am willing to discuss about anything that involves human behavior. There is no such thing as personal desire when it comes to discussions. Every topic is important and I don't consider it as wise to think that my existing set of knowledge is sufficient enough and true.
 
ancientregime said:
I'm adding two more names to the list of people who claim child sex causes harm, but haven't provided a case studying explaining in laymens terms the progression of child sex to mental disorder, like I did with verbal abuse in this case study. It's a fairly easy thing to do, I did it.

This naturaly gives the impression they only believe harm occurs, but really don't know that it actually does. This is not science. This would be faith.

visceral instinct
Stryder
Randwolf
leopold99
phlogistician
James R.

i reported this post but apparently the mods seen nothing wrong with it.

Why on earth would they? Has he used the f word or an f word derivative, called someone stupid, an idiot or some other base insult of this nature in the post?


leopold99 said:
for the record i never, at no time, stated an adult/minor relationship would harm the minor.

For the record, I will state that -some- adult/minor relationship will -certainly- harm the minor. Some minor/minor and adult/adult relationships will also hurt one or both parties involved. Does this mean that we should ban all relationships because someone might get hurt?
 
scott3x said:
The definition of child varies, but legally, one is a child until one reaches the age of majority. By this definition, Vili was indeed a child and Mary Kay Letourneau was imprisoned because of this legal definition.

and again for about 10,000th time, you do not interpret the law in this area scott, the common will does.

Not exactly leopold. Judges are the people who interpret the law. I got my legal definition of a child straight from wikipedia. I'll quote it for you:
The legal definition of "child" generally refers to a minor, otherwise known as a person younger than the age of majority.
 
Does this mean that we should ban all relationships because someone might get hurt?
scott, listen.
neither you, nor i, can interpret the law in this area.
it doesn't matter what you or i "think" the law means.
only the collective will of the people can determine what that interpretation is.
 
scott3x said:
For the record, I will state that -some- adult/minor relationship will -certainly- harm the minor. Some minor/minor and adult/adult relationships will also hurt one or both parties involved. Does this mean that we should ban all relationships because someone might get hurt?

scott, listen.
neither you, nor i, can interpret the law in this area.

Sure we can. However, considering the fact that I'm not a judge and I don't believe you are either, our voices may not have as much of an affect as you or I might like. Nevertheless, I am content to do what I can in an attempt to get far more then judges interpreting the law in a more favourable way on this issue, but for the laws themselves to be changed.


leopold99 said:
it doesn't matter what you or i "think" the law means.

Again, I disagree.


leopold99 said:
only the collective will of the people can determine what that interpretation is.

Judges don't exactly work that way, although they can certainly be influenced by the people. However, in western countries like Canada and the U.S., the people elect politicians who -make- the laws and select the top judges, and who are therefore much more important then who interprets said laws.
 
science, nor pseudoscience, has anything to do with this.
neither one is a requirement for our nations sex laws.

You should not enter such discussions if its difficult for you to debate a point of view without accepting it.

How do you think this stuff is studied? :)
 
You should not enter such discussions if its difficult for you to debate a point of view without accepting it.

How do you think this stuff is studied? :)
don't you mean "accepting the possibility of it"?

If so how did they changed the laws for homosexuality? Because of collective will?
possibly because what goes on between two consenting adults is their business.
 
Moderator message:

I am worried that, with multiple threads going on essentially the same topic, sciforums may be inviting pedophiles to grandstand. Therefore, I have decided to restrict the discussion to this single thread.

The following threads are now closed:

[thread=91065]Delete the pedophilia threads[/thread]
[thread=91128]Delete the "Delete the paedophilia threads" thread.[/thread]
[thread=91145]Delete the "Delete the 'Delete the paedophilia threads' thread." thread.[/thread]
[thread=91146]delete the delete the delete the huh?[/thread]
[thread=91013]gluon's ban/phlogistician's complaint [/thread]
 
Maybe you should delete the threads, since they will still be searchable?

Anyway, in response to your question:

How old are bonobos before they engage in sexual activity with adults?

(At what age is a bonobo considered an "adult", anyway?)

There is an interesting article in the Archives of Sexual Behaviour Dec 2002 issue, by Richard Green, entitled "Is Pedophilia a Mental Disorder?"

The article requires academic access, but its salient points are discussed here.

There is a book I am waiting on, [spurred by this discussion at an earlier point in sciforums], called Pedophilia: Biosocial Dimensions reviewed here

In general, academic consensus seems to be moving away from defining it as a mental or behavioural disorder.

To answer your question, there does not appear to a boundary of age or sex in bonobos.

According to this blog author:

Bonobos, also called pygmy chimps, are close genetic relatives of chimpanzees and humans. In fact, bonobos are as closely related to humans in terms of DNA as they are to chimpanzees. Although they look a lot like chimps to the untrained eye, there are some marked differences between the them. They've got more human-like faces and expressions, including bright red lips. Bonobos are also gentler with each other. Unlike chimpanzees, bonobos have never been known to engage in gang warfare or organized hunts. They live relaxed lives by comparison even though they also live in the same large social groups as chimpanzees, along with all of the stressors - food competition, social hierarchy, and the like.

Rather than allowing competition to boil over into aggression, bonobos "make love, not war" as one well-known primatologist (Frans de Waal) has said of them. Basically bonobos are a very physically affectionate bunch. They kiss each other open-mouthed, including with tongue. They have sex, including oral, with each other without regard to age or who is male and who is female. In other words, homosexuality and pedophilia are the norm.


Some scientists have speculated that bonobos are "paedomorphic" which is to say that they retain infantile or youthful traits into adulthood. Paedomorphic traits are those that are characteristic of infants and children. Humans are also believed by some to be paedomorphic. For a comprehensive understanding of the issue, Stephen Jay Gould's 1977 book Ontogeny and Phylogeny is a must read.

I believe there is no underlying evolutionary difference between open-mouth exploration of other's bodies, including "French kissing" and erotic kissing, and that of the non-erotic "affectionate" kissing done with closed lips. I think we begin life prepared to do the first and only learn later that our culture reserves that form of affectionate expression and sensation-seeking for those we are romantically involved with. The rules of display vary immensely from culture to culture and even in sub-cultures. Some allow open-mouthed kissing in public; others expressly forbid even closed-mouth kissing in public. Some allow open-mouthed kissing between people of the same sex; others forbid it and punish it with death. Most forbid open-mouthed kissing between an adult and a child. Yet, it still occurs.

http://newfoundlandnews.blogspot.com/2007/10/origins-of-affectionate-kissing-vs.html
 
This post is in response to the 1st part of James' post 256 in the Delete the paedophilia threads thread:

James R said:
scott3x said:
As long as the minor enjoys them as a -life- event, not just in the moment.

All the evidence I presented in the Formal Debate says that minors do not enjoy sexual abuse as a life event.

The way I define sexual abuse, I'd heartily agree. I would also state that adults never enjoy sexual abuse either. I personally was speaking of a wanted sexual interaction, however, and have presented evidence that makes it clear that some wanted adult/minor sexual interactions are beneficial to all involved, -despite- society's general condemnation of such interactions.
 
In general, academic consensus seems to be moving away from defining it as a mental or behavioural disorder.

That appears to be the case. In my opinion, describing pedophiles as mentally deranged is unhelpful. They are not insane; they know exactly what they are doing when they molest children.

I'm not sure about the definition of "behavioural disorder", as opposed to "mental disorder".

Of course, even if pedophilia is "normal" for a segment of the human population, it doesn't follow at all that society should allow or accept the sexual abuse of children by pedophiles. The harms to the child victims obviously vastly outweigh any good that might come from permitting pedophiles their freedom to exploit the innocent.
 
scott3x,

I note that you ignored me when I informed you that children neither initiate nor desire sex with adults. You appear to be living in a pedophile fantasy land.
 
That appears to be the case. In my opinion, describing pedophiles as mentally deranged is unhelpful. They are not insane; they know exactly what they are doing when they molest children.

I'm not sure about the definition of "behavioural disorder", as opposed to "mental disorder".

Of course, even if pedophilia is "normal" for a segment of the human population, it doesn't follow at all that society should allow or accept the sexual abuse of children by pedophiles. The harms to the child victims obviously vastly outweigh any good that might come from permitting pedophiles their freedom to exploit the innocent.

Clearly, you're not interested in an objective discussion on sexuality, so I'll just leave it here.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top