zapatos Posted February 22, 2011 Share Posted February 22, 2011 In Ancient Greece, it was not only considered normal for adult males to have sex with adolescent boys, but it was even regarded as exercising a positive, mentoring influence on the young boys to help introduce them to adult society. Since this style of upbringing produced what many cultural historians regard as the greatest development of human culture ever achieved -- the Age of Pericles -- it doesn't seem that there is anything transculturally harmful about adult-young adolescent sexual relations, though no doubt if the society goes into a panic over those activities, it would make them psychologically harmful. While the adults may have considered it normal, and the culture thrived, I wonder how the young boys felt about it. If I were a 12 year old and being penetrated I don't believe my response to that violation would be greatly influenced by what society felt about it. The effects of child sexual abuse include depression,[5] post-traumatic stress disorder,[6] anxiety,[7] propensity to further victimization in adulthood,[8] and physical injury to the child, among other problems.[9] Sexual abuse by a family member is a form of incest, and can result in more serious and long-term psychological trauma, especially in the case of parental incest. Child sexual abuse can result in both short-term and long-term harm, including psychopathology in later life.[9][21] Psychological, emotional, physical, and social effects include depression,[5][22][23] post-traumatic stress disorder,[6][24] anxiety,[7] eating disorders, poor self-esteem, dissociative and anxiety disorders; general psychological distress and disorders such as somatization, neurosis, chronic pain,[23] sexualized behavior,[25] school/learning problems; and behavior problems including substance abuse,[26][27] self-destructive behaviour, animal cruelty,[28][29][30] crime in adulthood and suicide Depending on the age and size of the child, and the degree of force used, child sexual abuse may cause internal lacerations and bleeding. In severe cases, damage to internal organs may occur, which, in some cases, may cause death.[62] Herman-Giddens et al. found six certain and six probable cases of death due to child sexual abuse in North Carolina between 1985 and 1994. The victims ranged in age from 2 months to 10 years. Causes of death included trauma to the genitalia or rectum and sexual mutilation Child sexual abuse may cause infections and sexually transmitted diseases.[64] Depending on the age of the child, due to a lack of sufficient vaginal fluid, chances of infections are higher. Vaginitis has also been reported Research has shown that traumatic stress, including stress caused by sexual abuse, causes notable changes in brain functioning and development.[65][66] Various studies have suggested that severe child sexual abuse may have a deleterious effect on brain development. The term "pedophilia" refers to persistent feelings of attraction in an adult or older adolescent toward prepubescent children, whether the attraction is acted upon or not.[111][112][113] A person with this attraction is called a "pedophile".[114] According to the Mayo Clinic, approximately 95% of incidents of sexual abuse of children age 12 and younger are committed by offenders who meet the diagnostic criteria for pedophilia;[15] and that such persons make up 65% of child molestation offenders.[15] Pedophilic child molesters commit ten times more sexual acts against children than non-pedophilic child molesters.[ http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Child_sexual_abuse Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Remunigerin Posted February 22, 2011 Author Share Posted February 22, 2011 (edited) That only took me about 30 seconds, I'm sure I can find more after you provide sources for these. Ok... Men are a category of persons.Women are a category of persons. Little girls are a category of persons. Little boys are a category of persons. The main characteristics, which define the basical form of body of a human, are two: male/female AND prepubescent/adult. There are four possible combinations: prepubescent female, prepubescent male, adult female and adult male (teenagers are the "middle way"). Dr James M. Cantor wrote: ""The basic tenet behind describing the human sexual interests under discussion here is that erotic interest in children versus adults is just as integrated into a person as is erotic interest in males versus females" So the discrimination of male/female is as important as the discrimination of prepubescent/adult. So, if the preference of women/men is a sexual orientation, then the preference of prepubescent/adult is too, because the two preferences are equally strong and defined. Did I say "equally strong"? Well: to homosexuals and heterosexuals are equally important, but to many pedophiles the discrimination of "prepubescent/adult" is more important than the discrimination of male/female: the preference of sex to them is only secondary. Dr James M Cantor wrote: "Also embedded in this belief about etiology is that gender-orientation overrides age-orientation. That is, that homosexual pedophilia is most closely linked with homosexual teleiophilia (and that heterosexual pedophilia is most closely linked with heterosexual teleiophilia). The evidence suggests, however, that homosexual pedophilia is most closely linked with heterosexual pedophilia; pedophiles differentiate less between males and females than do teleiophiles, when they receive a psychophysiological test of erotic preference (Freund & Langevin, 1976; Freund et al., 1991)." Pedophiles have usually a preference between little girls and little boys. Some prefer little girls, some prefer little boys. If you ask pedosexuals attracted to little boys what they prefer sexually between men and little girls, some will tell you that prefer little girls, some will tell you that prefer men and some others will tell you that both options are disgusting. To some pedophiles the sex of the partner is more important than the developement (adult/child) and to others the most important thing is that the partner is a child. Dividing human sexuality only into heterosexual/homosexual/bisexual is a scientifical error: the wrong assumption is, that human sexuality is primarily or exclusively based on the SEX. This is true for androsexuals (attracted to adult males) and gynesexuals (attracted to adult females), because their attraction is based on secondary sex carachteristics, and so their attraction is primarily based on features which are directly related with the sex. But to many pedophiles the sex is practically immaterial, because their attraction is primarily based on "a state of developement": they are attracted to features which are ralated with childhood (low stature, high voice, lack of body hair, childish behaviour, and so on...) and not with the sex. Adults and prepubescent children are very different: they have a different voice, a different basical form of body, a different manner, different interests, and so on... The three things I underlined are VERY IMPORTANT in human sexuality: human sexuality is primarily based on these three things. If you are attracted to a person, is because you like his/her voice and his/her body and his/her manner. Men and women have a different voice, a different body and a different manner. That's why homosexuals are attracted to men but not to women and heterosexuals to women but not to men. Little boys (little girls) and men (women) have a different voice, a different body and a different manner. That's why pedophiles are attracted to children but not to adults of the prefered sex and androphiles/gynephiles to adults but not to children of the prefered sex. The two preferences are perfectly specular. Corps are not a category of persons. Corps are organic material. They are like objects: they don't eat, they don't shit, they don't piss, they don't speak, they don't think. They are not persons, but they USED to be. A person thinks, eats, pisses, speaks... this the difference between a living (a person) and an object. A corpse is only organic material, an object! The meaning of the word "person" 1. A living human. Often used in combination: chairperson; spokesperson; salesperson. 4. The living body of a human: searched the prisoner's person. http://www.thefreedi...nary.com/person A corpse is NOT a person. Corpse are not a category of persons. So, necrophilia is not a sexual orientation. 2.)Yes, and pedophilia is not a fetish, is a sexual orientation. A fetish is complementary to a sexual orientation. Pedophilia is not complementary to a sexuality... it's an independent sexuality. I have well explained that attraction to adults and attraction to children are two separate sexualities. Do I have to add something? You cold say that they are not separate sexualities, and in that case, I would ask you why are attraction to men and women two separate sexualities. And unlike a fetish, which is only sexual arousal, pedophilia means also "romantical attraction", so pedophilia it's a sexual orientation, and not a fetish! Pedophiles also are romantically attracted to children: they fall in love with children in the same way that heterosexuals fall in love with women and homsoexuals with men. Coprophiles don't fall in love with shit. Coprophilia is only a sexual arousal and it's complementary to the sexual orientation (a coprophiles who is heterosexual like shit of women). not a from a web dictionary, from a reputable scientific source "Sexual orientation" is a social definition, and not a scientific one. Humans invented sexual orientations because they feel the need to catagorize persons. Homosexuality in the last centuries was not accepted, and the labels "straight" and "homosexual" are a way like an other to ghettoize homosexuals and create stereothypes around them, for example that they are sissies who are more females than males (thing that in many/most cases is not true). It's like to say: "homosexuals are different persons and we need to label them". Then people discovered that exist pedophiles, and they tryed to put them in subcategories. "Well, the population is divided in heterosexuals and homosexuals ("true men" and "sissies") and so pedophiles should be subcategories of them.... oh yes, heterosexual pedophiles are heterosexuals who can't get women, and homosexual pedophiles are homsoexuals who can't get men." Edited February 22, 2011 by Remunigerin Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Marat Posted February 22, 2011 Share Posted February 22, 2011 The fact that the 'abused' young males of Ancient Greece grew up to be the greatest, most creative, productive, intellectually brilliant people the world has ever seen concentrated in one place, producing the foundational works in philosophy, mathematics, ethics, law, drama, architecture, sculpture, history, and military science, casts doubt on the assumption that adult sexual contact with younger people necessarily produces harm in cultures where it is regarded as normal. Also, since for the first million years or so of human existence on this planet humans were sexually interacting with each other on the basis of spontaneous lust rather than elaborate systems of social mores, no doubt child-adult sexual relations were common during all of that time, as they still are today in primitive cultures such as among the sexually promiscuous Kalahari Bushmen or among the South Sea Islanders, such as the inhabitants of Pitcairn Island. The generally normal psychological adjustment of people in the Kalahari tribes or among the South Sea Islands -- documented by the anthropologist Margaret Mead -- suggests that child-adult sexual contact there as well is not harmful. If such interaction between adults and children during the first million years of human existence had been harmful prior to residence in cities where moral principles and strictures on mating and marriage developed, then the human race -- consisting necessarily of a universe of psychopaths as a result of sexual trauma -- would have been so incapable of responding creatively to the stresses of life in those primitive conditions that it would have died out long before now. Since it hasn't then we have proof that such activity was not harmful. Social mores can make anything inconsistent with them have a traumatizing effect on people, which is all the studies you cite attest to. Just look at all the deaths from bulemia and anorexia and psychopathy which now result from the prescription that women must be as thin as possible. This purely arbitrary cultural assumption makes fatness much more harmful than it needs to be on purely physiological grounds. The type of intercourse practised between adult males and young boys in Ancient Greece did not involve penetration, which was considered demeaning since it implicitly reduced men to the status of women. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ringer Posted February 22, 2011 Share Posted February 22, 2011 Ok... The main characteristics, which define the basical form of body of a human, are two: male/female AND prepubescent/adult. There are four possible combinations: prepubescent female, prepubescent male, adult female and adult male (teenagers are the "middle way"). Dr James M. Cantor wrote: ""The basic tenet behind describing the human sexual interests under discussion here is that erotic interest in children versus adults is just as integrated into a person as is erotic interest in males versus females" So the discrimination of male/female is as important as the discrimination of prepubescent/adult. So, if the preference of women/men is a sexual orientation, then the preference of prepubescent/adult is too, because the two preferences are equally strong and defined. I said equally strong? Well: to homosexuals and heterosexuals are equally important, but to many pedophiles the discrimination of "prepubescent/adult" is more important than the discrimination of male/female: the preference of sex to them is only secondary. Dr James M Cantor wrote: "Also embedded in this belief about etiology is that gender-orientation overrides age-orientation. That is, that homosexual pedophilia is most closely linked with homosexual teleiophilia (and that heterosexual pedophilia is most closely linked with heterosexual teleiophilia). The evidence suggests, however, that homosexual pedophilia is most closely linked with heterosexual pedophilia; pedophiles differentiate less between males and females than do teleiophiles, when they receive a psychophysiological test of erotic preference (Freund & Langevin, 1976; Freund et al., 1991)." Pedophiles have usually a preference between little girls and little boys. Some prefer little girls, some prefer little boys. If you ask pedosexuals attracted to little boys what they prefer sexually between men and little girls, some will tell you that prefer little girls, some will tell you that prefer men and some others will tell you that both options are disgusting. To some pedophiles the sex of the partner is more important than the developement (adult/child) and to others the most important thing is that the partner is a child. Dividing human sexuality only into heterosexual/homosexual/bisexual is a scientifical error: the wrong assumption is, that human sexuality is primarily or exclusively based on the SEX. This is true for androsexual (attracted to adult males) and gynesexual (attracted to adult females), because their attraction is based on secondary sex carachteristics, and so their attraction is primarily based on features which are directly related with the sex. But to many pedophiles the sex is practically immaterial, because their attraction is primarily based on "a state of developement": they are attracted to features which are ralated with childhood (low stature, high voice, lack of body hair, childish behaviour, and so on...) and not with the sex. Adults and prepubescent children are very different: they have a different voice, a different basical form of body, a different manner, different interests, and so on... The four things I underlined are VERY IMPORTANT in human sexuality: human sexuality is primarily based on these three things. If you are attracted to a person, is because you like his/her voice and his/her body and his/her manner. Men and women have a different voice, a different body and a different manner. That's why homosexuals are attracted to men but not to women and heterosexuals to women but not to men. Little boys (little girls) and men (women) have a different voice, a different body and a different manner. That's why pedophiles are attracted to children but not to adults of the prefered sex and androphiles/gynephiles to adults but not to children of the prefered sex. The two preferences are perfectly specular. You didn't provide any sources that help your arbitrary categories. Corps are organic material. They are like objects: they don't eat, they don't shit, they don't piss, they don't speak, they don't think. They are not persons, but they USED to be. A person thinks, eats, pisses, speaks... this the difference between a living (a person) and an object. A corpse is only organic material, an object! The meaning of the word "person" 1. A living human. Often used in combination: chairperson; spokesperson; salesperson. 4. The living body of a human: searched the prisoner's person. http://www.thefreedi...nary.com/person A corpse is NOT a person. Corpse are not catagories of persons. So, necrophilia is not a sexual orientation. I, and others, have asked for reputable sources. Not a free dictionary on the web, it means nothing. I have well explained that attraction to adults and attraction to children are two separate sexualities. Do I have to add something? You cold say that are not separate sexualities, and in that case, I would ask you why are attraction to men and women two separate sexualities. I think most would agree that none of us believe what you say, indeed any of us could explain anything and perhaps make it sound somewhat believable. That's why we ask for sources and you still fail to provide anything but an opinion. Pedophiles also are romantically attracted to children: they fall in love with children in the same way that heterosexuals fall in love with women and homsoexuals with men. Coprophiles don't fall in love with shit. Coprophilia is only a sexual arousal and it's complementary to the sexual orientation (a coprophiles who is heterosexual like shit of women). Source? "Sexual orientation" is a social definition, and not a scientifical one. Humans invented sexual orientations because they feel the need to catagorize persons. Homosexuality in the last centuries was not accepted, and the labels "straight" and "homosexual" are a way like an other ghettoize homosexuals. It's like to say: "homosexuals are different persons and wee need to label them". I think it's funny I gave you a definition of sexual orientation from a text book of human sexuality. I think I'll go with that definition over the one in a free dictionary and your interpretation of it. Then people discovered that exist pedophiles, and now they are tryed to put them in subcategories. "Well, the world is divided in heterosexuals and homsoexuals, so pedophiles whould be subcategories of them". Finding sources attempt 1 = fail. Would you like to play again? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
zapatos Posted February 22, 2011 Share Posted February 22, 2011 The fact that the 'abused' young males of Ancient Greece grew up to be the greatest, most creative, productive, intellectually brilliant people the world has ever seen concentrated in one place, producing the foundational works in philosophy, mathematics, ethics, law, drama, architecture, sculpture, history, and military science, casts doubt on the assumption that adult sexual contact with younger people necessarily produces harm in cultures where it is regarded as normal. Do you know if the 'abused' young men were the ones who grew up to be so wonderful, or are you simply making an assumption? If such interaction between adults and children during the first million years of human existence had been harmful prior to residence in cities where moral principles and strictures on mating and marriage developed, then the human race -- consisting necessarily of a universe of psychopaths as a result of sexual trauma -- would have been so incapable of responding creatively to the stresses of life in those primitive conditions that it would have died out long before now. Since it hasn't then we have proof that such activity was not harmful. So sexual abuse necessarily results in psycopathy in all cases? And I'm not a scientist, but it seems a bit of a stretch to claim that since the human race is intact, sexual interaction between adults and children was not harmful. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Moontanman Posted February 22, 2011 Share Posted February 22, 2011 (edited) The type of intercourse practised between adult males and young boys in Ancient Greece did not involve penetration, which was considered demeaning since it implicitly reduced men to the status of women. Could you be a bit more explicit? What type of sexual intercourse doesn't involve penetration? Edited February 22, 2011 by Moontanman Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Marat Posted February 23, 2011 Share Posted February 23, 2011 Since we can infer from modern primitive societies that there were probably no sexual mores at all during the first million years of human existence, then it also seems to follow that all young people would have been found attractive at least by some people, so probably everyone would have come to adulthood after having experienced child-adult sexual relations. Pedophiles today don't confine themselves to one underage partner, so probably just a few people interested in younger partners would suffice to expose the entire population to this sort of contact. But further, since cavemen would not even recognize sexual limitations as having any particular moral value, and since young people can be seen to have some sexual features, why wouldn't adult-child sexual interactions have been universal? Similarly, since in Ancient Greece the bonding between young males and older males in sexual liasons with each other was viewed as a positive, mentoring experience which promoted the maturation of the younger partners, and such relationships were celebrated in literature (Socrates in one of his dialogues flirts with a young student and many Greek vases depict such sexual relations), then probably all males experienced those interactions while growing up. The accepted form of sex between adult males and young boys in Ancient Greece was interfemoral (also called intercrural) intercourse. It was an insult directed at Sparta that they didn't observe this restriction (and this was probably an unfair criticism of them by their Athenian enemies) and some comedic plays made fun of other Greek city-states for not upholding the rule against penetrative intercourse in such cases. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DrmDoc Posted February 23, 2011 Share Posted February 23, 2011 Ok... The main characteristics, which define the basical form of body of a human, are two: male/female AND prepubescent/adult. There are four possible combinations: prepubescent female, prepubescent male, adult female and adult male (teenagers are the "middle way"). Dr James M. Cantor wrote: ""The basic tenet behind describing the human sexual interests under discussion here is that erotic interest in children versus adults is just as integrated into a person as is erotic interest in males versus females" So the discrimination of male/female is as important as the discrimination of prepubescent/adult. So, if the preference of women/men is a sexual orientation, then the preference of prepubescent/adult is too, because the two preferences are equally strong and defined. Did I say "equally strong"? Well: to homosexuals and heterosexuals are equally important, but to many pedophiles the discrimination of "prepubescent/adult" is more important than the discrimination of male/female: the preference of sex to them is only secondary. Dr James M Cantor wrote: "Also embedded in this belief about etiology is that gender-orientation overrides age-orientation. That is, that homosexual pedophilia is most closely linked with homosexual teleiophilia (and that heterosexual pedophilia is most closely linked with heterosexual teleiophilia). The evidence suggests, however, that homosexual pedophilia is most closely linked with heterosexual pedophilia; pedophiles differentiate less between males and females than do teleiophiles, when they receive a psychophysiological test of erotic preference (Freund & Langevin, 1976; Freund et al., 1991)." Pedophiles have usually a preference between little girls and little boys. Some prefer little girls, some prefer little boys. If you ask pedosexuals attracted to little boys what they prefer sexually between men and little girls, some will tell you that prefer little girls, some will tell you that prefer men and some others will tell you that both options are disgusting. To some pedophiles the sex of the partner is more important than the developement (adult/child) and to others the most important thing is that the partner is a child. Dividing human sexuality only into heterosexual/homosexual/bisexual is a scientifical error: the wrong assumption is, that human sexuality is primarily or exclusively based on the SEX. This is true for androsexuals (attracted to adult males) and gynesexuals (attracted to adult females), because their attraction is based on secondary sex carachteristics, and so their attraction is primarily based on features which are directly related with the sex. But to many pedophiles the sex is practically immaterial, because their attraction is primarily based on "a state of developement": they are attracted to features which are ralated with childhood (low stature, high voice, lack of body hair, childish behaviour, and so on...) and not with the sex. Adults and prepubescent children are very different: they have a different voice, a different basical form of body, a different manner, different interests, and so on... The three things I underlined are VERY IMPORTANT in human sexuality: human sexuality is primarily based on these three things. If you are attracted to a person, is because you like his/her voice and his/her body and his/her manner. Men and women have a different voice, a different body and a different manner. That's why homosexuals are attracted to men but not to women and heterosexuals to women but not to men. Little boys (little girls) and men (women) have a different voice, a different body and a different manner. That's why pedophiles are attracted to children but not to adults of the prefered sex and androphiles/gynephiles to adults but not to children of the prefered sex. The two preferences are perfectly specular. Corps are organic material. They are like objects: they don't eat, they don't shit, they don't piss, they don't speak, they don't think. They are not persons, but they USED to be. A person thinks, eats, pisses, speaks... this the difference between a living (a person) and an object. A corpse is only organic material, an object! The meaning of the word "person" 1. A living human. Often used in combination: chairperson; spokesperson; salesperson. 4. The living body of a human: searched the prisoner's person. http://www.thefreedi...nary.com/person A corpse is NOT a person. Corpse are not a category of persons. So, necrophilia is not a sexual orientation. I have well explained that attraction to adults and attraction to children are two separate sexualities. Do I have to add something? You cold say that they are not separate sexualities, and in that case, I would ask you why are attraction to men and women two separate sexualities. Pedophiles also are romantically attracted to children: they fall in love with children in the same way that heterosexuals fall in love with women and homsoexuals with men. Coprophiles don't fall in love with shit. Coprophilia is only a sexual arousal and it's complementary to the sexual orientation (a coprophiles who is heterosexual like shit of women). "Sexual orientation" is a social definition, and not a scientific one. Humans invented sexual orientations because they feel the need to catagorize persons. Homosexuality in the last centuries was not accepted, and the labels "straight" and "homosexual" are a way like an other to ghettoize homosexuals and create stereothypes around them, for example that they are sissies who are more females than males (thing that in many/most cases is not true). It's like to say: "homosexuals are different persons and we need to label them". Then people discovered that exist pedophiles, and they tryed to put them in subcategories. "Well, the population is divided in heterosexuals and homosexuals ("true men" and "sissies") and so pedophiles should be subcategories of them.... oh yes, heterosexual pedophiles are heterosexuals who can't get women, and homosexual pedophiles are homsoexuals who can't get men." You have not replied to my post...have you abandon our discussion? In Ancient Greece, it was not only considered normal for adult males to have sex with adolescent boys,... Adolescent boys, perhaps it was considered normal; however, prepubescent boys, it was likely not. Is it your opinion that it is acceptable for the adult members of a civilized society to engage prepubescent children in behaviors that exceed their sexual maturity? If so, what affect, if any, might this behavior have on the overall wellbeing of the society's youngest, most vulnerable members? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Remunigerin Posted February 23, 2011 Author Share Posted February 23, 2011 (edited) I said that pedophiles fall in love with children in the same way that heterosexuals fall in love with women and homosexuals with men, and you asked me for a source.... Every person who has a minimal knowledge about the topic knows the thing I said. It's obvious that you don't know ANYTHING about pedosexuality. Go to the library, buy 5-10 books about the topic, and then you'll be ready to discuss with me and understand what I'm saying. How can I explain mathematik to a person who doesn't know numbers? You didn't provide any sources that help your arbitrary categories. The labels "homosexual", "heterosexual" and "bisexual" are arbitrary categories too. They are only labels invented by humans to approximatively describe human sexuality. Kinsey explained well that categories in human sexuality don't exist, because sexuality is not black and white. I, and others, have asked for reputable sources. Not a free dictionary on the web, it means nothing. The dictionary explains the meaning of the words. The original meaning of the word "sexual orientation" is not "the prefered sex"; every kind of preference is a part of sexual orientation. The fact that humans have decided to divide "sexual orientation" in three categories based on the preference of sex is absolutely arbitrary. If you think that what I say is not true... well, I wait for citations, or at least a logic argument. The preference between prepubescents/adults is as integrated in a person as the preference of one sex. That's why the preference between prepubescents/adults can be considered one of the main discrimination in human sexuality, exactly like the preference between males and females. I think it's funny I gave you a definition of sexual orientation from a text book of human sexuality. I think I'll go with that definition over the one in a free dictionary and your interpretation of it. A book is written by a person with her personal opinions. Not all people think the same thing! I'll cite some parts of a text written by Michael Bailey. Who is Michaely Bailey? ----------> "I am Professor of Psychology at Northwestern University. I study sexual orientation and related traits such as sex atypicality and gender identity. In 2003 I published a popular science book, that evoked a great deal of controversy, including libel. Here, for now, to help set the record straight." Michael Bailey, in his articles, wrote: "Hebephilia and pedophilia are sexual orientations, just like normal heterosexuality and homosexuality. Also like normal sexualities, they are not just sexual. Not only do straight men have sex with women, they also fall in love with them, court them, bond with them, and sleep in the same bed with them, often without anything overtly sexual occurring. There is no reason why hebephiles and pedophiles would not also have feelings of love and attachment, as well as sexual attraction, towards children." "The word for sexual attraction to pubescent children is "hebephilia" (pronounced "heebuhfeelia"). Hebephilia appears to be a distinct sexual orientation from pedophilia, and it is somewhat more common. If the rumors and accusations are true, then Jackson appears to have preferred pubescent boys, and so would have been a homosexual hebephile. Homosexual hebephiles and pedophiles are not gay. Gay men are sexually attracted to physically mature men and are no more aroused by male children than straight men are by female children. Furthermore, unlike gay men, homosexual hebephiles and pedophiles did not tend to start out as feminine boys. (As far as we can tell, all hebephiles and pedophiles are men. The rare woman who molests children is more likely to have a mental illness than a stable sexual preference for children.)" http://www.science20...ckson_pedophile I reassume what Michael wrote: - He wrote that pedophilia is a sexual orientation like homsoexuality and heterosexuality - He wrote that homosexual pedophilia and homosexuality are two difefrent sexual orientations, that means that the discrimination of "prepubescents/adults", according to him, is a part of the sexual orientation. - He wrote that pedophilia (attraction to prepubescent children) and hebephilia (attraction to children who are reaching puberty) are two distinct sexual orientations. So, not only he thinks that attraction to adults and attraction to children are two separate sexual orientations, but he also thinks that attraction to children can be divided in more sexual orientations. It seems that not all experts think that sexual orientation is simply: heterosexual, bisexual, homosexual. Would you like to play again? No, I want that you play the game too. You think that homosexuality is a sexual orientation and pedosexuality is not. Why don't you cite an expert who explains why the preference of one sex is a sexual orientation and the preference between adults and children can't be considered a sexual orientation too? And finally; I have a question for you: which is, according to you, the sexual orientation of a man who is exclusively attracted to female dogs, BUT NOT to women? Is he straight? And if he's straight, could you explain me what exactly have in common a man who is attracted to a woman and an other man who is attracted to female dogs? The preference of one sex is the exclusive thing that caracterizes human sexuality, according to you, right? Edited February 23, 2011 by Remunigerin Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Marat Posted February 23, 2011 Share Posted February 23, 2011 Since this thread is talking about human sexual orientations, the fact that the object of some human sexual orientations is not also another human -- as in the case of fetishes and necrophilia -- should not put them out of the range of human sexual orientations. A shoe fetish is still a human sexual orientation by virtue of its being a disposition/desire of humans, even if the object of the desire is not human. DrmDoc seems also to worry about prepubescent boys engaging in sexual activities beyond their current level of maturity, but this excursion of young people into areas ahead of their developmental age is only likely to be a problem if we already assume what has not been proved, that is, that sex is bad for young people, or for people generally. When young people engage in other activities far beyond their developmental maturity, such as running their own business, doing something heroic, playing chess like a master, playing the piano with a symphony orchestra, starting university studies at 14, etc., no one goes into a panic over the fact that they are reaching beyond their normal level and pace of maturation. It is only because society retains a covert, irrational presumption that sex is bad that we worry about children enjoying sex 'too soon.' Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
zapatos Posted February 23, 2011 Share Posted February 23, 2011 DrmDoc seems also to worry about prepubescent boys engaging in sexual activities beyond their current level of maturity, but this excursion of young people into areas ahead of their developmental age is only likely to be a problem if we already assume what has not been proved, that is, that sex is bad for young people, or for people generally. When young people engage in other activities far beyond their developmental maturity, such as running their own business, doing something heroic, playing chess like a master, playing the piano with a symphony orchestra, starting university studies at 14, etc., no one goes into a panic over the fact that they are reaching beyond their normal level and pace of maturation. It is only because society retains a covert, irrational presumption that sex is bad that we worry about children enjoying sex 'too soon.' Please clarify for me the following. Is it your position that there is no proof that adults having sex with prepubescent boys is harmful? You don't take any of the following as proof? "The effects of child sexual abuse include depression,[5] post-traumatic stress disorder,[6] anxiety,[7] propensity to further victimization in adulthood,[8] and physical injury to the child, among other problems.[9] Sexual abuse by a family member is a form of incest, and can result in more serious and long-term psychological trauma, especially in the case of parental incest. Child sexual abuse can result in both short-term and long-term harm, including psychopathology in later life.[9][21] Psychological, emotional, physical, and social effects include depression,[5][22][23] post-traumatic stress disorder,[6][24] anxiety,[7] eating disorders, poor self-esteem, dissociative and anxiety disorders; general psychological distress and disorders such as somatization, neurosis, chronic pain,[23] sexualized behavior,[25] school/learning problems; and behavior problems including substance abuse,[26][27] self-destructive behaviour, animal cruelty,[28][29][30] crime in adulthood and suicide Depending on the age and size of the child, and the degree of force used, child sexual abuse may cause internal lacerations and bleeding. In severe cases, damage to internal organs may occur, which, in some cases, may cause death.[62] Herman-Giddens et al. found six certain and six probable cases of death due to child sexual abuse in North Carolina between 1985 and 1994. The victims ranged in age from 2 months to 10 years. Causes of death included trauma to the genitalia or rectum and sexual mutilation Child sexual abuse may cause infections and sexually transmitted diseases.[64] Depending on the age of the child, due to a lack of sufficient vaginal fluid, chances of infections are higher. Vaginitis has also been reported Research has shown that traumatic stress, including stress caused by sexual abuse, causes notable changes in brain functioning and development.[65][66] Various studies have suggested that severe child sexual abuse may have a deleterious effect on brain development." http://en.wikipedia....ld_sexual_abuse Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Remunigerin Posted February 23, 2011 Author Share Posted February 23, 2011 (edited) Since this thread is talking about human sexual orientations, the fact that the object of some human sexual orientations is not also another human -- as in the case of fetishes and necrophilia -- should not put them out of the range of human sexual orientations. A shoe fetish is still a human sexual orientation by virtue of its being a disposition/desire of humans, even if the object of the desire is not human. I don't agree with you! A sexual arousal with an object is a fetish. Fetishes and sexual orientations are two different things. 1) Pedophiles fall in love with children. Heterosexual men fall in love with women. Homosexual men fall in love with men. Do fetishists fall in love with shoes? 2) A fetish is complentary to a sexual orientation, right? A man who is pedophile and he has the foot fetish, he likes feet of children, right? Or are there fetishists who are exclusively attracted to objects? It's an important point, because many pedophiles are exclusively attracted to children. That's why pedophilia is a sexual orientation, and not a fetish 3) Sexual orientations describe a preference of body features. An object is an object, it has not a body. Child sexual abuse You are speaking about sexual abuse, which is traumatic for adults too. Marant was speaking about consensual sex. Edited February 23, 2011 by Remunigerin Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DrmDoc Posted February 23, 2011 Share Posted February 23, 2011 (edited) DrmDoc seems also to worry about prepubescent boys engaging in sexual activities beyond their current level of maturity, but this excursion of young people into areas ahead of their developmental age is only likely to be a problem if we already assume what has not been proved, that is, that sex is bad for young people, or for people generally. When young people engage in other activities far beyond their developmental maturity, such as running their own business, doing something heroic, playing chess like a master, playing the piano with a symphony orchestra, starting university studies at 14, etc., no one goes into a panic over the fact that they are reaching beyond their normal level and pace of maturation. It is only because society retains a covert, irrational presumption that sex is bad that we worry about children enjoying sex 'too soon.' You did not answer my question, so I will ask again. Is it acceptable for an adult to engage a prepubescent child in sexual behaviors exceeding that child's level of physical, mental, and emotional maturity? I've underlined adult because prepubescent children do not willingly engage this behavior without the influence, urging, or coercion of an adult. This is unlike a child able to engaging in business endeavors. These are children who are clearly vulnerable to adult authority and influence. Child sexual abuse You are speaking about sexual abuse, which is traumatic for adults too. Marant was speaking about consensual sex. Although I'm still waiting on your reply to my prior post, perhaps you could answer: When is a prepubescent child able to consent to sex with an adult? In other words, can a person who is physically, mentally, and emotionally immature, whether adult or child, willingly consent to sex without influence, urging, or coercion from an adult? Edited February 23, 2011 by DrmDoc Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Marat Posted February 23, 2011 Share Posted February 23, 2011 Why does a sexual orientation have to involve a desire for sexual connection with something which is a 'body' in the specific sense in which a human being is a body, rather than in the more general sense in which a shoe is a body? Why does it have to involve a desire for something you can fall in love with, like a human being or a dog (is bestiality included?), rather than in something you can't possibly fall in love with, like a corpse or a Republican? This whole debate seems rather sterile, something like the preoccupations of Medieval philosophy over whether God was a body or not, or whether Christ was a corporeal part of the Holy Spirit and God the Father, or just compresent with them in some more unusual sense of the term. This was once a major issue dividing Protestants and Catholics over the nature of communion, but such terminological fuss about where the 'essences' of things force us to divide our categories are distinctly antique. Now we just subdivide and arrange categories to suit whatever we find useful for our analytical processes, and in this approach I would urge that we just accept that a desire for sexual connection with something non-human can be admitted to be a sexual orientation, given the very close link between the notions of 'desire for connection with' and 'orientation to.' As for all the self-serious psycho-social 'studies' purporting to show the objective harmfulness of whatever our arbitrary social system has now contingently decided is bad, I think those are undermined by the more open-minded anthropological research conducted by Margaret Mead which showed that the lack of age-related sexual taboos in the South Sea Islands actually had a beneficial effect in making teenagers there more normal than they were in developed cultures having such a taboo. Generally, psycho-social 'science' is a fairly arbitrary shill for whatever arbitrary values any society has adopted at the moment. Just look at Krafft-Ebing's rabid 'scientific' denunciations of all sorts of sexual activities we would consider acceptable today. Even more palpably idiotic is the fact that the grand American Psychiatric Association's official Bible, the 'Diagnostic and Statistical Manual' of all the categories of mental illness and their diagnostic features, used to include homosexuality as one of their diagnostic categories until in 1973 -- when the utterly arbitrary, totally unscientific, social movements of the day decided that being gay was fine -- the 'scientific committee' editing the DSM coincidentally and miraculously 'discovered' that homosexuality was no longer a disease! This is not to doubt that STDs are a real disease, but these make consensual sex between adults no more or less bad than it is between children and adults. This is also not to doubt that all forms of sexual activity which are arbitrarily socially disapproved of can cause psychological trauma just because of that arbitrary disapproval -- the same way failing to be as skinny as a coathanger to fulfill society's artificial notion of feminine pulchritude not only makes many young girls today mentally ill with anorexia but it can even kill them through self-starvation. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
zapatos Posted February 23, 2011 Share Posted February 23, 2011 List of Possible Babysitters for Saturday Night: Cindy Grandma Mrs. Robinson Marat Johnny Mary Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DrmDoc Posted February 24, 2011 Share Posted February 24, 2011 Why does a sexual orientation have to involve a desire for sexual connection with something which is a 'body' in the specific sense in which a human being is a body, rather than in the more general sense in which a shoe is a body? Why does it have to involve a desire for something you can fall in love with, like a human being or a dog (is bestiality included?), rather than in something you can't possibly fall in love with, like a corpse or a Republican? This whole debate seems rather sterile, something like the preoccupations of Medieval philosophy over whether God was a body or not, or whether Christ was a corporeal part of the Holy Spirit and God the Father, or just compresent with them in some more unusual sense of the term. This was once a major issue dividing Protestants and Catholics over the nature of communion, but such terminological fuss about where the 'essences' of things force us to divide our categories are distinctly antique. Now we just subdivide and arrange categories to suit whatever we find useful for our analytical processes, and in this approach I would urge that we just accept that a desire for sexual connection with something non-human can be admitted to be a sexual orientation, given the very close link between the notions of 'desire for connection with' and 'orientation to.' As for all the self-serious psycho-social 'studies' purporting to show the objective harmfulness of whatever our arbitrary social system has now contingently decided is bad, I think those are undermined by the more open-minded anthropological research conducted by Margaret Mead which showed that the lack of age-related sexual taboos in the South Sea Islands actually had a beneficial effect in making teenagers there more normal than they were in developed cultures having such a taboo. Generally, psycho-social 'science' is a fairly arbitrary shill for whatever arbitrary values any society has adopted at the moment. Just look at Krafft-Ebing's rabid 'scientific' denunciations of all sorts of sexual activities we would consider acceptable today. Even more palpably idiotic is the fact that the grand American Psychiatric Association's official Bible, the 'Diagnostic and Statistical Manual' of all the categories of mental illness and their diagnostic features, used to include homosexuality as one of their diagnostic categories until in 1973 -- when the utterly arbitrary, totally unscientific, social movements of the day decided that being gay was fine -- the 'scientific committee' editing the DSM coincidentally and miraculously 'discovered' that homosexuality was no longer a disease! This is not to doubt that STDs are a real disease, but these make consensual sex between adults no more or less bad than it is between children and adults. This is also not to doubt that all forms of sexual activity which are arbitrarily socially disapproved of can cause psychological trauma just because of that arbitrary disapproval -- the same way failing to be as skinny as a coathanger to fulfill society's artificial notion of feminine pulchritude not only makes many young girls today mentally ill with anorexia but it can even kill them through self-starvation. When a young person cannot think for him or herself and is totally reliant on an adult to survive, can that person willing consent to sex with that adult without the adult's urging? If so, how is it possible when the child is incapable of making informed decisions? Imagining yourself as a 6 or 7 year old child without the experience and knowledge you have now, do you think you would willing approach and engage an adult in sexual activities without the adult leading or asking you to do so? If so, were you that sexually mature as a child? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Moontanman Posted February 24, 2011 Share Posted February 24, 2011 When a young person cannot think for him or herself and is totally reliant on an adult to survive, can that person willing consent to sex with that adult without the adult's urging? If so, how is it possible when the child is incapable of making informed decisions? Imagining yourself as a 6 or 7 year old child without the experience and knowledge you have now, do you think you would willing approach and engage an adult in sexual activities without the adult leading or asking you to do so? If so, were you that sexually mature as a child? I realize it's anecdotal but I was sexual as a child, i sought it out and enjoyed it, i have to admit no adult males were ever involved and I only liked sex with girls but i was sexual, not sure about the mature part, but children can be sexual with no adults involved. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DrmDoc Posted February 24, 2011 Share Posted February 24, 2011 (edited) I realize it's anecdotal but I was sexual as a child, i sought it out and enjoyed it, i have to admit no adult males were ever involved and I only liked sex with girls but i was sexual, not sure about the mature part, but children can be sexual with no adults involved. And how old were you then? Were you a prepubescent? If so, what led you at that early age to take the initiative? For example, were you exposed to sexual imagery or media before you initiated that behavior or are your earliest memories filled with desires to initiate and engage sexual behaviors before you understood what they were? If so, how did you articulate your desires without understanding what they were? As a teen, you may have had a curiosity; as a prepubescent, however, such curiosity seems unlikely. Edited February 24, 2011 by DrmDoc Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Moontanman Posted February 24, 2011 Share Posted February 24, 2011 (edited) And how old were you then? Were you a prepubescent? If so, what led you at that early age to take the initiative? For example, were you exposed to sexual imagery or media before you initiated that behavior or are your earliest memories filled with desires to initiate and engage sexual behaviors before you understood what they were? If so, how did you articulate your desires without understanding what they were? As a teen, you may have had a curiosity; as a prepubescent, however, such curiosity seems unlikely. First I would like to say that your idea that a child cannot be sexual without coaching is simply not true, Kinsey, in his study of human sexuality, found that infants respond to sexual stimulation with erect penis's and lubricating vagina's. My mom says she couldn't keep my hands out of diaper when I was a baby, I have always (as far as i can remember) been aware of how "good" sexual touch felt. No sexual imagery or media in 1955 WV mountains, we barely had electricity no TV for sure. At first all that I knew was touching my self but by the time I was 4 or 5 (maybe even earlier) i had discovered how much better it felt to have someone else touch me. My first really clear memory of a sexual encounter other than just feeling around was at 5, the little girl next door wanted to play house, she showed me how great fellatio felt, I was hooked for sure. The major encounters I remember clearly were mostly of little girls my age or close, several teenagers, and two adult women. Most of this occurred when we had moved into town and lived in the company housing of FMC. The children there who were sexually active knew who the adults were to avoid, we knew the behaviors they displayed as they tried to get us alone and we usually avoided them, there were a few kids who liked the adult guys, mostly little boys, few of the little girls would go with the adult men but a few did, no one ever reported being harmed but for the most part the kids stuck with each other and ignored the adults. The play ground was a hot bed of sexual negotiations, we even had special places we would go to have sex so we could be outside the eyes of prying adults. To be honest this did cause me some stress after I became an adult, i had read and heard all the hype that said is you had sex as a child then you would become a child molester, i had therapy but the doctor said such sexual play among children was natural and since I no longer had sexual desire for children (even then the holy grail of sex for me was adults not other children) he thought I was in no danger of being a molester and he was correct. I raised my own kids and about half the neighborhood and had no desires of that nature pop out. I'm not sure what all my experiences mean but I had em, can't go back and change it for sure. I think the most important thing was the very limited adult contact we all had, the adults had a completely different attitude about sex, looking back the adults, the males at least, it's easy to see how they only viewed us kids as toys to be used, no way can that be healthy or fun for a child. Edited February 24, 2011 by Moontanman Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Marat Posted February 24, 2011 Share Posted February 24, 2011 DrmDoc is concerned about how someone can possibly dare to make such a dangerous, hideous, mind-twisting choice as to engage in something so awful and frightening as sex with another person unless he or she is fully mature and capable of bearing such a massive weight of responsibility for that choice. But this fretting about whether the child is sufficiently mature to make the choice only arises from the utterly arbitrary, and even mentally ill, cultural assumption that sex is presumptively bad so that only the very highest level of maturity can justify any positive choice to be sexually active. A friend of mine, for example, was found to have great natural talent at the piano when she was just five, and then she was coopted by friends, relatives, and teachers and transformed by intensive tutoring into a piano prodigy. While she was able to perform with a major symphony orchestra at age 10, she in fact gradually discovered that she didn't much like the piano, and so by age 21 she gave it up completely, leaving her entire childhood a barren, wasted landscape of endless piano lessons for nothing, because she never really consented to that investment of time and effort into something that the adults around her were more interested in than she was. Yet no one, either then or now, regarded this massive co-optation by adults of a child too young criticially to consent to such a huge investment of time and energy into a career path which turned out to be an extremely harmful waste for the child. Why was and is there still no worry about what was done to this child by adults for their own purposes without first obtaining the required consent from a more mature child? Because it was not sex, and only sex is irrationally hated and feared, not piano lessons. I would agree with all that Moontanman said about his own experience of a childhood naturally and spontaneously oriented to sexual behavior, which was suppressed by adults -- which is the truly unnatural sexual intervention in the lives of children by adults for their own interests. The group of young children I played with was always spontaneously inventing and playing sexual games such as 'doctor,' and the only limit to this activity was the interference by adults who were always trying to keep us from doing what we wanted. In one much-favorered version of the game called 'Barber Shop,' the only girl in the group, about two years older than the rest of us, would play the role of a 'barber,' using her billowing skirt (yes, young girls dressed like that in my day!) as a 'barber's apron,' and then when imaginary robbers would come into the barber shop, the 'waiting customers,' who included whatever young boys -- ranging in age from five to nine over the years -- would huddle under her skirt to hide from the robbers. Here there was a gap in the plot coherence, because for some unexplained reason those hiding from the robbers were also expected to pull down the 'barber's' underpants and commit various outrages against common decency, which lasted until the robbers left, disappointed once again to find no customers in the barber shop. We used to play this game in a vacant field in back of our houses, where we could hide from our worst enemies -- our parents, who were always intervening to stop these entertaining games -- in the tall grass. At least the boys of the group would have been ecstatic with delight if we had ever been offered the prospect of playing such games with an actual adult woman, and we often fantasized about this without really understanding why we were all so interested in something which seemed so silly, since in those repressive days young people were not told anything about sex, instincts, hormones, genetics, or reproduction under their wedding night. And yet now what we would have found utterly delightful as children has been officially portrayed in the post-Hippie era reaction against human sexuality as the greatest possible crime on the planet, supported by all sorts of moronic social science 'studies' insisting in their shrill, self-righteous way that we would have all been psychologically crippled for life if the 'barber' with the billowing skirts -- who designed and introduced that game herself -- had been not two years older than we were but ten or twenty years older. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DrmDoc Posted February 24, 2011 Share Posted February 24, 2011 (edited) First I would like to say that your idea that a child cannot be sexual without coaching is simply not true, Kinsey, in his study of human sexuality, found that infants respond to sexual stimulation with erect penis's and lubricating vagina's. In your review of Kinsey's study, did the infants take the initiative and stimulate themselves or were they stimulated by the researcher? If stimulated by the researcher, how does this differ from acts of an adult who initiates sexual contact with a child? With pedophilia, isn't always the adult who initiates sexual contact with a child rather than the opposite? My mom says she couldn't keep my hands out of diaper when I was a baby, I have always (as far as i can remember) been aware of how "good" sexual touch felt. No sexual imagery or media in 1955 WV mountains, we barely had electricity no TV for sure. At first all that I knew was touching my self but by the time I was 4 or 5 (maybe even earlier) i had discovered how much better it felt to have someone else touch me. My first really clear memory of a sexual encounter other than just feeling around was at 5, the little girl next door wanted to play house, she showed me how great fellatio felt, I was hooked for sure. Although our taste buds, as infants fresh from our mother's womb, were receptive to solid food, we were not physiologically; although you were born physiologically sensitive to initimate touch, you were likely not physiologically prepared for sex with an adult, which is what we are attempting to discuss here. If you were circumcized as an infant male, your intimate area probably required additional care and attention. That additional care and attention provides one likely explanation why you may have found intimate stimulation particularly soothing as a child. This is akin to the case of a young man, whom I knew from his infancy, who had a foot fetish. I later learned that his mother engaged him continually in a game that involved tickling his feet with her nose when he was an infant. In a case involving a female, she experienced a severe rash as a child and also required extra care that may have influenced her sexual inclinations and expressions as a child. In each of these cases, the child was not the intiate of the intimate contact but was most likely influenced by the contact, which is the position where we will inevitably arrive in our discussion of pedophilia--the submission of the most innocent and vulnerable among us to sexual violations exceeding their will or ability to stop. I would agree with all that Moontanman said about his own experience of a childhood naturally and spontaneously oriented to sexual behavior, which was suppressed by adults -- which is the truly unnatural sexual intervention in the lives of children by adults for their own interests. The group of young children I played with was always spontaneously inventing and playing sexual games such as 'doctor,' and the only limit to this activity was the interference by adults who were always trying to keep us from doing what we wanted. In one much-favorered version of the game called 'Barber Shop,' the only girl in the group, about two years older than the rest of us, would play the role of a 'barber,' using her billowing skirt (yes, young girls dressed like that in my day!) as a 'barber's apron,' and then when imaginary robbers would come into the barber shop, the 'waiting customers,' who included whatever young boys -- ranging in age from five to nine over the years -- would huddle under her skirt to hide from the robbers. Here there was a gap in the plot coherence, because for some unexplained reason those hiding from the robbers were also expected to pull down the 'barber's' underpants and commit various outrages against common decency, which lasted until the robbers left, disappointed once again to find no customers in the barber shop. We used to play this game in a vacant field in back of our houses, where we could hide from our worst enemies -- our parents, who were always intervening to stop these entertaining games -- in the tall grass. Sex play among children isn't the same as an adult inserting him or herself into those games. In that play, the children are likely mimicing what they've observed among adults and do not seek-out and drawn adults into the play. What I've observed in the comments of R and Marat is what I've found among the cases I've reviewed on this subject, which is an inability or unwillingness to empathize with the victims of pedophilia. Rather than as victims, pedophiles perceive the children they encounter as willing participants imbued with some adult intent, curiosity, and desire likely beyond their maturity. Pedophiles can't empathize or see themselves through the eyes of a child who is subject to the sexual will of an adult because they likely did not crave that experience. If the oppoisite were true--that they did desire sexual contact with an adult--that desire would persist into adulthood and they'd desire adult sexual relationships. If it is true that they always were attracted to children, then they would understand how abhorrent it is for a child to be forced into a relationship with an adult. This is like a male homosexual forced into a hetersexual relationship when what he truly desires is to be with a male. If a pedophile was born "oriented" to children, then that pedophile would have felt violated as a child when subjected to the sexual will of an adult. If you have been sexually attracted to children all your life, then you should understand what your life would be if you were forced into a sexual relationship with an adult. If, however, you would see no violation in you as a child involved with an adult, then you should continue to be involved with adults although you are no longer a child. So I ask again, when is sexual contact between a child and adult considered censensual not rape? Edited February 24, 2011 by DrmDoc Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Marat Posted February 25, 2011 Share Posted February 25, 2011 Since the world I grew up in was considerably more sexually repressed than the modern world, I am sure none of those playing 'barber shop' had the slightest idea what sexuality was, nor had any of them seen a trace of it in its adult form in the surrounding culture. I actually didn't know until after high school that the vaginal crease was vertical rather than horizontal: the sexual repression of the culture was so total that that information was simply inaccessible. Logically, I had inferred that it must be horizontal, since then it would maintain concinnity with the mouth by running parallel to it, but friends of mine now tell me I was wrong. You worry that the pedophile fails to empathize with his victim, but I am also sure that the fanatical priest terrifying his young students with the horrors of eternal damnation also fails to empathize with the perspective of his own victims, yet no one worries about this, because religion in contrast to sex is arbitrarily supposed to be good so the lack of empathy between adult and child doesn't matter, while for sex, which is arbitrarily supposed to be bad, the lack of empathy is somehow decisive. Only if you think of the child as a victim -- which is an artificial cultural assumption -- is the lack of empathy, if there is such a lack, important. As the 'barbershop quartet' grew older, we used to fantasize and enthuse together over what it would be like if we had managed to gain access to an adult female who was inclined to fill the barber role, and we would have gone wild with delight if that cherished wish had come to fruition. I cannot imagine how we then would have been traumatized for life by our wish coming true. Children are naturally sexual, as the Kinsey Report noted, and few things are more sexually unnatural, perverted, and traumatizing than denying people's natural sexual needs, which for some reason in our society is considered a normal and laudatory form of starvation to impose on children. A good example to clarify things is to consider that in many jurisdictions of the world today, or in the United States a century ago, girls could get married with their parents' permission at age 13. Were these girls psychologically warped forever by the consummation of the marriage? If so, the society must have been quite generally insane, given the commonality of marriage at a very early age for girls. If you subtract a piece of paper logged at the local city hall from the analysis, and think of these same girls as unmarried, but just consenting to sex out of curiosity, indifference, a desire to please, or their own physical desire, would the missing marriage certificate and the failure to recite the magic words before a Minister change the neutral or pleasurable act of consummating a marriage into a life-destroying trauma? To say that it would seems to require a reversion to magical thinking. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Moontanman Posted February 25, 2011 Share Posted February 25, 2011 In your review of Kinsey's study, did the infants take the initiative and stimulate themselves or were they stimulated by the researcher? If stimulated by the researcher, how does this differ from acts of an adult who initiates sexual contact with a child? With pedophilia, isn't always the adult who initiates sexual contact with a child rather than the opposite? Well since the child doesn't have pedophilia and by definition the adult has to have pedophilia if he or she makes sexual contact with the child I'm not sure what you are trying to say but I did indeed do my best to initiate sexual contact with adults when i was a kid. Although our taste buds, as infants fresh from our mother's womb, were receptive to solid food, we were not physiologically; although you were born physiologically sensitive to initimate touch, you were likely not physiologically prepared for sex with an adult, which is what we are attempting to discuss here. This is very thin ice for a discussion but it really depends on exactly what type of sexual contact is being initiated, a childish level sexual game or is the adult going to physically rape the child? If you were circumcized as an infant male, your intimate area probably required additional care and attention. That additional care and attention provides one likely explanation why you may have found intimate stimulation particularly soothing as a child. This is akin to the case of a young man, whom I knew from his infancy, who had a foot fetish. I later learned that his mother engaged him continually in a game that involved tickling his feet with her nose when he was an infant. In a case involving a female, she experienced a severe rash as a child and also required extra care that may have influenced her sexual inclinations and expressions as a child. In each of these cases, the child was not the intiate of the intimate contact but was most likely influenced by the contact, which is the position where we will inevitably arrive in our discussion of pedophilia--the submission of the most innocent and vulnerable among us to sexual violations exceeding their will or ability to stop. I'm really not sure what you are saying here, circumcision is sexual abuse or results in a sexually aware child? Sex play among children isn't the same as an adult inserting him or herself into those games. In that play, This is true for sure. the children are likely mimicing what they've observed among adults and do not seek-out and drawn adults into the play. No, this is not true in my personal experience. What I've observed in the comments of R and Marat is what I've found among the cases I've reviewed on this subject, which is an inability or unwillingness to empathize with the victims of pedophilia. Rather than as victims, pedophiles perceive the children they encounter as willing participants imbued with some adult intent, curiosity, and desire likely beyond their maturity. I have to agree, most adults who seek out sex with children do not see the child as anything but a sex toy, no adult can have a real adult sexual relationship with a child, most children do avoid adults in their sex games, more because of fear of punishment but to a great extent we felt like the adult men who sought us out were just creapy... Pedophiles can't empathize or see themselves through the eyes of a child who is subject to the sexual will of an adult because they likely did not crave that experience. If the oppoisite were true--that they did desire sexual contact with an adult--that desire would persist into adulthood and they'd desire adult sexual relationships. If it is true that they always were attracted to children, then they would understand how abhorrent it is for a child to be forced into a relationship with an adult. This is like a male homosexual forced into a hetersexual relationship when what he truly desires is to be with a male. If a pedophile was born "oriented" to children, then that pedophile would have felt violated as a child when subjected to the sexual will of an adult. If you have been sexually attracted to children all your life, then you should understand what your life would be if you were forced into a sexual relationship with an adult. If, however, you would see no violation in you as a child involved with an adult, then you should continue to be involved with adults although you are no longer a child. So I ask again, when is sexual contact between a child and adult considered censensual not rape? Society defines any sexual contact between an adult and a child as rape, but rape is generally also considered a violent crime, some times children are indeed curious and as long as the sexual contact is limited to what the child wants and not what the adult wants I'm not sure if is is really rape but I know this is a rare event and most child adult sexual relationships are doomed to harm the child, pedophilia is not a sexual orientation, what bothers me the most about it is the adult lack of concern for the child, who is the pedophile to decide the child's sexual orientation, does the pedophile care if the little boy he is trying to seduce is gay or not, he doesn't care about the likely life time of problems encountered by the child due to this confusion. The pedophile cares not for the child, no matter what the OP says, the pedophile only cares about his own immediate sexual needs. The child is just a toy used to satisfy those needs, it is an unhealthy relationship from the stand point of the child who's ideas of sex are still childish at best. Can a child consent, to a childish sexual contact yes but that is not what pedophiles are looking for and what they are looking for is about as likely to be found as a unicorn. My point is that a child can be and often are sexually aware on their own with no adults orchestrating them not that pedophilia is ok. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DrmDoc Posted February 25, 2011 Share Posted February 25, 2011 (edited) Well since the child doesn't have pedophilia and by definition the adult has to have pedophilia if he or she makes sexual contact with the child I'm not sure what you are trying to say... You provided Kinsey's study of infant sexual stimulation as evidence of sexuality among children. Essentailly, he had to engage acts of pedophilia--engage in some sexual contact with a child--to get his results. His study would have had more weight if he could have shown infants becoming aroused without researcher intervention. An erect penis and vaginal secretions in infants resulting from stimulation by an adult are not necessarily evidence of sexual arousal in infants and are decidedly not evidence of an infants readiness for sexual contact with an adult. but I did indeed do my best to initiate sexual contact with adults when i was a kid As an infant or prepubescent child? Precisely, how old were you? This is very thin ice for a discussion but it really depends on exactly what type of sexual contact is being initiated, a childish level sexual game or is the adult going to physically rape the child? As I recall, this discussion regards sexual contact between adults and children. That taste buds analogy regarded the lack of physical readiness among prepubescent children for such contact in the way that an newly born infant is not physically ready for solid food although its taste buds can be stimulated by such food. I'm really not sure what you are saying here, circumcision is sexual abuse or results in a sexually aware child? Consider my comments in the context of your reply regarding your hands continually in your diapers as a child. If you were a circumcized child, the additional attention and care your penis recieved as a child "provides one likely explanation why you may have found intimate stimulation particularly soothing as a child." Diddling one's private parts as a child is no more evidence of sexual awareness at a young age than is thumb sucking. No, this is not true in my personal experience. Are you saying that as a infant or prepubescent child you were able to articulate your sexual desire to adults? That you were interested in adults? How might such an attraction for adults evolve into an attraction for children upon reaching adulthood? I have to agree, most adults who seek out sex with children do not see the child as anything but a sex toy, no adult can have a real adult sexual relationship with a child, most children do avoid adults in their sex games, more because of fear of punishment but to a great extent we felt like the adult men who sought us out were just creapy... We are getting nearer to what I mean by empathizing with children. Society defines any sexual contact between an adult and a child as rape, but rape is generally also considered a violent crime, some times children are indeed curious and as long as the sexual contact is limited to what the child wants and not what the adult wants I'm not sure if is is really rape but I know this is a rare event and most child adult sexual relationships are doomed to harm the child, pedophilia is not a sexual orientation, what bothers me the most about it is the adult lack of concern for the child, who is the pedophile to decide the child's sexual orientation, does the pedophile care if the little boy he is trying to seduce is gay or not, he doesn't care about the likely life time of problems encountered by the child due to this confusion. I disagree; rape is an act of dominance wherein a person in a position of authority and influence uses that position to cajole, urge, or otherwise force the cooperation of the naive and/or vulnerable. The pedophile cares not for the child, no matter what the OP says, the pedophile only cares about his own immediate sexual needs. The child is just a toy used to satisfy those needs, it is an unhealthy relationship from the stand point of the child who's ideas of sex are still childish at best. Can a child consent, to a childish sexual contact yes but that is not what pedophiles are looking for and what they are looking for is about as likely to be found as a unicorn. My point is that a child can be and often are sexually aware on their own with no adults orchestrating them not that pedophilia is ok. Sexual awareness does not confer the sexual maturity or understanding of an adult. Prepubescent children, not teenagers, who engage in sex play likely do so because of some prior underlying, adult influence. If such a child is sexually active, this is not sufficient evidence that the child is motivated by an adult yearning. You worry that the pedophile fails to empathize with his victim, but I am also sure that the fanatical priest terrifying his young students with the horrors of eternal damnation also fails to empathize with the perspective of his own victims, yet no one worries about this, because religion in contrast to sex is arbitrarily supposed to be good so the lack of empathy between adult and child doesn't matter, while for sex, which is arbitrarily supposed to be bad, the lack of empathy is somehow decisive. Only if you think of the child as a victim -- which is an artificial cultural assumption -- is the lack of empathy, if there is such a lack, important. You have yet to directly address any of my questions or show that you have any understanding of children except from the position of one who takes pleasure in violating innocense. Even R, the person who began this thread, declared sex acts with children as wrong. What are you declaring? Edited February 25, 2011 by DrmDoc Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Marat Posted February 25, 2011 Share Posted February 25, 2011 You seem to focus a lot in this discussion on whether there is adequate consent to the sex that occurs between adults and children. But again, the amount of consent a culture requires for any given activity is a function of how that culture arbitrarily evaluates that activity. If the activity is regarded as harmless, like going to church to have guilt and fear pummelled into you by some fanatical preacher talking constantly about hell and damnation, then children are imagined to be able to consent fully to this even at a very young age. But if the activity is arbitrarily regarded as harmful, such as child-adult sexual contact, then it is assumed that the degree of informed consent and the level of maturity required to establish valid consent is enormous. But should it be? In the childhood sexual games that I played I was actually happy -- in contrast to my early religious inculcation at a very young age, which terrified me. Why would I be legally incapable as a child from consenting to something I liked but legally capable of consenting to something I hated and which was forced on me by adults in their own interest with no empathy for my own feelings? Society has always had highly arbitrary definitions of rape, that is, sexual relations occuring without legal consent. In some jurisdictions a girl can get married with her parents' permission at age 12 or 13, and then the consummation of that relationship is deemed perfectly consentual so it is not rape. But of course, the action sexual activity in those cases is identical with the sexual activity of an adult having sex with a 12 or 13 year old in a society which forbids marriage at that age. So how do the children involved experience the consummation of the marriage as a delight and the consummation of the unmarried liason with an older person as a perpetually mind-warping horror? Is the power of the piece of paper in the registry office really so great as to be able to alter the phenomenology of the act to make it harmless in the first case and utterly destructive in the second? This sounds more like magic than science. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now