• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

The pedophile comparison

Panache

Irrelevant Pissant
DP Veteran
Joined
May 4, 2007
Messages
4,194
Reaction score
1,041
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Libertarian
I see this on threads all the time, most recently in the born or turned thread. Someone brings up pedophilia as a comparison to homosexuality, and folk get all up in arms over how the comparison is not valid at all.

To me, a homosexual is someone who prefers sexual partners of the same sex, and a pedophile is someone who prefers sexual partners of a prepubescent age. Both are sexual preferences, and if homosexuals are born with their preference, there is no reason to think that pedophiles are not born with theirs.

Could someone explain to me why the two preferences are not comparable?
 
I see this on threads all the time, most recently in the born or turned thread. Someone brings up pedophilia as a comparison to homosexuality, and folk get all up in arms over how the comparison is not valid at all.

To me, a homosexual is someone who prefers sexual partners of the same sex, and a pedophile is someone who prefers sexual partners of a prepubescent age. Both are sexual preferences, and if homosexuals are born with their preference, there is no reason to think that pedophiles are not born with theirs.

Could someone explain to me why the two preferences are not comparable?

Let's take your premise one step further. Since a heterosexual is one who prefers sexual partners of the opposite sex, and a pedophile is someone who prefers sexual partners of a prepubescent age. Both are sexual preferences, and if heterosexuals are born with their preference, there is no reason to think that pedophiles are not born with theirs.

Based on your premise, would say that the above is also true, and THESE two preferences would be comparable?
 
Let's take your premise one step further. Since a heterosexual is one who prefers sexual partners of the opposite sex, and a pedophile is someone who prefers sexual partners of a prepubescent age. Both are sexual preferences, and if heterosexuals are born with their preference, there is no reason to think that pedophiles are not born with theirs.

Based on your premise, would say that the above is also true, and THESE two preferences would be comparable?

Well, except that I think the point in comparing pedophilia and homosexuality is to compare two sexual preferences that are not the norm.
 
Well, except that I think the point in comparing pedophilia and homosexuality is to compare two sexual preferences that are not the norm.

Which is why I am doing a consistency check.
 
But heterosexuality is the norm so that comparison really serves no purpose.

Heterosexuality is as much a sexual orientation as homosexuality. If the comparison applies to one, it applies to the other.
 
Heterosexuality is as much a sexual orientation as homosexuality. If the comparison applies to one, it applies to the other.
Y'know, I can't argue against that, but I'd honestly rather believe that pedophilia does not really compare to either heterosexuality or homosexuality, since pedophilia means one participant in the relationship is necessarily a victim.
 
I see this on threads all the time, most recently in the born or turned thread. Someone brings up pedophilia as a comparison to homosexuality, and folk get all up in arms over how the comparison is not valid at all.

To me, a homosexual is someone who prefers sexual partners of the same sex, and a pedophile is someone who prefers sexual partners of a prepubescent age. Both are sexual preferences, and if homosexuals are born with their preference, there is no reason to think that pedophiles are not born with theirs.

Could someone explain to me why the two preferences are not comparable?



There's a good reason that comes to mind straight away: there are supporting evidence for homosexuality being influenced by genetics, but not for pedophilia (at least that I ever come across). If there are you are free to put the evidence up for scrutiny and claim the comparison.
 
Y'know, I can't argue against that, but I'd honestly rather believe that pedophilia does not really compare to either heterosexuality or homosexuality, since pedophilia means one participant in the relationship is necessarily a victim.

Panache will argue one of two things. Either this is irrelevant to his premise...one's orientation is exclusive of another's consent. Or that non-consensual sex would be the same no matter what the orientation, but if the child consents, the 'victim' argument no longer applies.

Your point is decent, but this is a tough debate to win. I, however, am still curious as to what Panache's answer to my question in post #2 is.
 
Panache will argue one of two things. Either this is irrelevant to his premise...one's orientation is exclusive of another's consent. Or that non-consensual sex would be the same no matter what the orientation, but if the child consents, the 'victim' argument no longer applies.
Huh, hadn't thought of these. I get what you're saying. For me though, it's the victim equation that makes all the difference.

Your point is decent, but this is a tough debate to win. I, however, am still curious as to what Panache's answer to my question in post #2 is.
Well, I hope you get your answer, CC. As for me, I'm going to bed. :peace
 
Huh, hadn't thought of these. I get what you're saying. For me though, it's the victim equation that makes all the difference.

I've debated Panache before. I know his style.

Well, I hope you get your answer, CC. As for me, I'm going to bed. :peace

Me too. Good-night.
 
There's a good reason that comes to mind straight away: there are supporting evidence for homosexuality being influenced by genetics, but not for pedophilia (at least that I ever come across). If there are you are free to put the evidence up for scrutiny and claim the comparison.

There's as much evidence that pedophilia is genetic as there is for homosexuality being genetic. Meaning, not very much. :)

Although what causes pedophilia is not yet known, beginning in 2002, researchers began reporting a series of findings linking pedophilia with brain structure and function: Pedophilic (and hebephilic) men have lower IQs,[54][55][56] poorer scores on memory tests,[55] greater rates of non-right-handedness,[54][55][57][58] greater rates of school grade failure over and above the IQ differences,[59] lesser physical height,[60] greater probability of having suffered childhood head injuries resulting in unconsciousness,[61][62] and several differences in MRI-detected brain structures.[63][64][65] They report that their findings suggest that there are one or more neurological characteristics present at birth that cause or increase the likelihood of being pedophilic. Evidence of familial transmittability "suggests, but does not prove that genetic factors are responsible" for the development of pedophilia.[66]

Link: Pedophilia - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


Tim-
 
Let's take your premise one step further. Since a heterosexual is one who prefers sexual partners of the opposite sex, and a pedophile is someone who prefers sexual partners of a prepubescent age. Both are sexual preferences, and if heterosexuals are born with their preference, there is no reason to think that pedophiles are not born with theirs.

Based on your premise, would say that the above is also true, and THESE two preferences would be comparable?

Absolutely.
 
Can you tell me what the purpose behind the comparison is?

The purpose is to illustrate how little bearing the innate/choice has on whether homosexuality is ok or not.

-If homosexuality is a choice, then it is a fine choice to act upon because it doesn't hurt anyone.
-If homosexuality is an innate trait, then it is a fine trait to act upon because it doesn't hurt anyone.

-If pedophilia is a choice, then it is bad choice to act upon because it hurts children.
-If pedophilia is an innate trait, then it is a bad trait to act upon because it hurts children.

Whether orientation is innate or not has absolutely nothing to do with whether choosing to act upon it is good or bad. Many people seem to think that gay is ok because gay people didn't choose to be that way. The comparison with pedophilia should help dispense with that myth and draw focus back to the real reason gay is ok, which is because it causes no harm.
 
The purpose is to illustrate how little bearing the innate/choice has on whether homosexuality is ok or not.

-If homosexuality is a choice, then it is a fine choice to act upon because it doesn't hurt anyone.
-If homosexuality is an innate trait, then it is a fine trait to act upon because it doesn't hurt anyone.

-If pedophilia is a choice, then it is bad choice to act upon because it hurts children.
-If pedophilia is an innate trait, then it is a bad trait to act upon because it hurts children.

Whether orientation is innate or not has absolutely nothing to do with whether choosing to act upon it is good or bad. Many people seem to think that gay is ok because gay people didn't choose to be that way. The comparison with pedophilia should help dispense with that myth and draw focus back to the real reason gay is ok, which is because it causes no harm.

Not to draw too deep into this, but... Let's put aside cultural norms for a moment. Let's also assume that not all pedophilia is rape. I DO understand the argument that, how can a child give informed consent, and without it, how can it not be rape.. I get that. To understand pedophilia in a truly biological instinctual sense, we must look back into our past as a species. I would imagine that pedophilia was rampant, but at what age was it more, or less rampant. I think that this is the key to understanding it, and is all too uncomfortable for people to discuss. We look at the animal kingdom (As gays often prefer to do as reassurance of their innate homosexuality) and we see adults mating with less mature females all the time. Why? Less mature, but reproductively capable. We don't see them mating with females that are not capable of reproducing, at least not that I'm aware of.. So the question really is all encompassing at what specific age, or moment is a female, or opposite sex, become desirable?

Tim-
 
Last edited:
Not to draw too deep into this, but... Let's put aside cultural norms for a moment. Let's also assume that not all pedophilia is rape. I DO understand the argument that, how can a child give informed consent, and without it, how can it not be rape.. I get that. To understand pedophilia in a truly biological instinctual sense, we must look back into our past as a species. I would imagine that pedophilia was rampant, but at what age was it more, or less rampant. I think that this is the key to understanding it, and is all too uncomfortable for people to discuss. We look at the animal kingdom (As gays often prefer to do as reassurance of their innate homosexuality) and we see adults mating with less mature females all the time. Why? Less mature, but reproductively capable. We don't see them mating with females that are not capable of reproducing, at least not that I'm aware of.. So the question really is all encompassing at what specific age, or moment is a female, or opposite sex, become desirable?

Tim-

We can actually study primitive cultures both historically and presently. Even in ancient Sumeria they did not have sex with children. Primitive cultures that have little contact with the outside world today do not exhibit the pedophilia we have in modern society. Yes, people got married as young as 12 in the olden days, but that is the age of puberty, not prepubescent. Pedophilia as we know it is a very modern creation.

That being said, all pedophilia is rape. It's rape not because of the issue of consent but because children do not naturally within their development seek sexual relations with adults. Children have to be groomed to engage in that behavior. And that is exactly what pedophiles do. They find a child and slowly, incrementally groom the child to engage in sexual behavior with them. As such, pedophilia is an act of teaching children to engage in potentially harmful behaviors which they do not fully understand. We wouldn't stand by and let a drug dealer teach children how to inject heroin and we won't stand by and let pedophiles teach children how to engage in sexual behavior.

Hence, I object to the comparison of pedophilia to homosexuality.

(One exception, in some primitive societies mothers masturbate their infants to calm them. However, that is not an act for the mother's sexual gratification so it is not pedophilia.)
 
Last edited:
Hence, I object to the comparison of pedophilia to homosexuality.

Do you? Or do you object to the comparison of people who choose to molest children with people who choose to engage in homosexual intercourse?

This thread as I understand is about orientation and whether it is innate or not. Whether homosexual intercourse is harmful or not is an issue completely divorced from whether it is innate or not.

If pedophilia is innate, then pedophiles cannot help their preference for children. I don't think there is anything wrong with being a pedophile, so long as one chooses not to act on one's impulses.

Similarly if homosexuality is innate, that doesn't mean that it's ok, and if it is a choice, that doesn't mean it's not ok.
 
CT -
We can actually study primitive cultures both historically and presently. Even in ancient Sumeria they did not have sex with children. Primitive cultures that have little contact with the outside world today do not exhibit the pedophilia we have in modern society. Yes, people got married as young as 12 in the olden days, but that is the age of puberty, not prepubescent. Pedophilia as we know it is a very modern creation.

See. I knew I shouldn't have brought it up. I take issue with your claims. There are many instances of rampant pedophilia, and pederasty (Gay pedophilia) in ancient times. Besides, you touched on my point about the semantic way pedophilia is framed and diagnosed. What classifies the diagnosis from age 10 to say age 13? Is this based on some pathology, whether psychological, or physiological that determines when it's a disease and when it's natural? Why is it pedophilia when the child is age 10 and prepubescent, and not at age 11 when they are menstruating, as an example?

That being said, all pedophilia is rape. It's rape not because of the issue of consent but because children do not naturally within their development seek sexual relations with adults. Children have to be groomed to engage in that behavior. And that is exactly what pedophiles do. They find a child and slowly, incrementally groom the child to engage in sexual behavior with them. As such, pedophilia is an act of teaching children to engage in potentially harmful behaviors which they do not fully understand. We wouldn't stand by and let a drug dealer teach children how to inject heroin and we won't stand by and let pedophiles teach children how to engage in sexual behavior.

Well, let's say you're right, mostly. However, you're not right 100%. So, some children deal better than others, some are more sexual than others; moreover, back to my arbitrary age modifier, at what age is it "more" harmful to the child?

Now, besides all that. To suggest that pedophilia hasn't been around for our entire human history is ludicrous. Incest has, homosexuality apparently has, bestiality has, why would you suspect that pedophilia would be any different? Assuming you see the logic in that, again I ask, putting aside all these cultural pinning's how can one not compare pedophilia to a form of human sexuality, as possibly innate as sexual orientation?

Tim-
 
The purpose is to illustrate how little bearing the innate/choice has on whether homosexuality is ok or not.

-If homosexuality is a choice, then it is a fine choice to act upon because it doesn't hurt anyone.
-If homosexuality is an innate trait, then it is a fine trait to act upon because it doesn't hurt anyone.

-If pedophilia is a choice, then it is bad choice to act upon because it hurts children.
-If pedophilia is an innate trait, then it is a bad trait to act upon because it hurts children.

Whether orientation is innate or not has absolutely nothing to do with whether choosing to act upon it is good or bad. Many people seem to think that gay is ok because gay people didn't choose to be that way. The comparison with pedophilia should help dispense with that myth and draw focus back to the real reason gay is ok, which is because it causes no harm.

Interesting. I think what Panache is trying to say is that whether or not homosexuality is a choice is irrelevant, the reason we should or shouldn't be upset about it is whether there are victims involved. Even if it is a choice it should be okay. This is a really interesting take, though not unexpected from a Libertarian.
 
Absolutely.

I knew it. I always find your arguments interesting, if not original and, at times, somewhat off the beaten path... if not bizarre. But one thing... you are always consistent and never hypocritical.
 
I knew it. I always find your arguments interesting, if not original and, at times, somewhat off the beaten path... if not bizarre. But one thing... you are always consistent and never hypocritical.

Awwww shucks. :3oops:
 
Heterosexuality is as much a sexual orientation as homosexuality. If the comparison applies to one, it applies to the other.

Even though no study has stated that conclusively?
 
There's as much evidence that pedophilia is genetic as there is for homosexuality being genetic. Meaning, not very much. :)



Link: Pedophilia - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


Tim-

Correlation is not causation. I read the part and it doesn't say much about causes of pedophilia, except this part: The findings may also suggest "a dysfunction at the cognitive stage of sexual arousal processing."[68]

We know addiction can change our brain structures, how do we know that this alteration in pedophiles is not a result of whatever trigger the pedophalia behavour latter in life, or as a result of the "addiction" t pedophilia itself?

On the other hand, with homosexuality, there's been strong evidencts that it is not because of our family environment (i.e. straight or homosexual parents), twin studies that support the genetic hypothesis, and it occures frequently in other animals. If you have findings that show that other animals are frequently attracted to and attack female that aren't fully developed, please provide them.

The American Psychological Association, American Psychiatric Association, and National Association of Social Workers stated in 2006:
“ Currently, there is no scientific consensus about the specific factors that cause an individual to become heterosexual, homosexual, or bisexual—including possible biological, psychological, or social effects of the parents’ sexual orientation. However, the available evidence indicates that the vast majority of lesbian and gay adults were raised by heterosexual parents and the vast majority of children raised by lesbian and gay parents eventually grow up to be heterosexual.[2] ”

The Royal College of Psychiatrists stated in 2007:
“ Despite almost a century of psychoanalytic and psychological speculation, there is no substantive evidence to support the suggestion that the nature of parenting or early childhood experiences play any role in the formation of a person’s fundamental heterosexual or homosexual orientation. It would appear that sexual orientation is biological in nature, determined by a complex interplay of genetic factors and the early uterine environment. Sexual orientation is therefore not a choice.[66] ”

The American Academy of Pediatrics stated in Pediatrics in 2004:
“ Sexual orientation probably is not determined by any one factor but by a combination of genetic, hormonal, and environmental influences. In recent decades, biologically based theories have been favored by experts. Although there continues to be controversy and uncertainty as to the genesis of the variety of human sexual orientations, there is no scientific evidence that abnormal parenting, sexual abuse, or other adverse life events influence sexual orientation. Current knowledge suggests that sexual orientation is usually established during early childhood.[66][74][75] ”

The American Psychological Association states "there are probably many reasons for a person's sexual orientation and the reasons may be different for different people", and says most people's sexual orientation is determined at an early age.[1] Research into how sexual orientation in males may be determined by genetic or other prenatal factors plays a role in political and social debates about homosexuality, and also raises fears about genetic profiling and prenatal testing.[76]

Professor Michael King states: "The conclusion reached by scientists who have investigated the origins and stability of sexual orientation is that it is a human characteristic that is formed early in life, and is resistant to change. Scientific evidence on the origins of homosexuality is considered relevant to theological and social debate because it undermines suggestions that sexual orientation is a choice."[77]

The authors of a 2008 study stated "there is considerable evidence that human sexual orientation is genetically influenced, so it is not known how homosexuality, which tends to lower reproductive success, is maintained in the population at a relatively high frequency". They hypothesized that "while genes predisposing to homosexuality reduce homosexuals' reproductive success, they may confer some advantage in heterosexuals who carry them". Their results suggested that "genes predisposing to homosexuality may confer a mating advantage in heterosexuals, which could help explain the evolution and maintenance of homosexuality in the population".[78] A 2009 study also suggested a significant increase in fecundity in the females related to the homosexual people from the maternal line (but not in those related from the paternal one).[79]

Garcia-Falgueras and Swaab state in the abstract of their 2010 study, "The fetal brain develops during the intrauterine period in the male direction through a direct action of testosterone on the developing nerve cells, or in the female direction through the absence of this hormone surge. In this way, our gender identity (the conviction of belonging to the male or female gender) and sexual orientation are programmed or organized into our brain structures when we are still in the womb. There is no indication that social environment after birth has an effect on gender identity or sexual orientation."[80]

Homosexuality - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

http://faculty.wcas.northwestern.edu/JMichael-Bailey/Publications/Bailey et al. twins,2000.pdf
 
Last edited:
Assuming you see the logic in that, again I ask, putting aside all these cultural pinning's how can one not compare pedophilia to a form of human sexuality, as possibly innate as sexual orientation?

Tim-

If you can find some evidence that pedophilia has been around for most of human history, then I would love to see it. And by pedophilia I mean sex with prepubescent children. If you can find evidence of hundreds of species of animals that engage in sexual behavior with their juveniles then I would love to see that as well. Until I see such evidence, I cannot accept that pedophilia is a sexual orientation.
 
Back
Top Bottom