Pedophelia: Nature or Nurture

[halik]

Originally posted by: her209
What are your thoughts?

Personally, I don't think anyone (who had a choice) would choose to be sexually aroused by children, therefore I have to choose nature.

That's a fallacy. Your argument flows "you wouldn't chose to be aroused by children" -> "pedophilia is genetic".

I'm sure the people can't help being aroused by kids, but that doesn't in any way imply that it's genetic.

 

[aidanjm]

Originally posted by: DonVito

Originally posted by: aidanjm

Utter bullsh1t.

I'm not sure why you're so worked up over this. As I said, I think homosexuality is generally a predisposition that is born, not made. I haven't said anything homophobic and I don't have homophobic feelings. I have not said or implied that homosexuals are likelier to become molesters themselves.

In terms of the research, I am reposting what I've read on this subject.

Shrier and Johnson interviewed 300 intercity boys as part of a general intake health history at an adolescent outpatient clinic. Forty of the adolescents disclosed an experience of being sexually assaulted by a male before puberty. These 40 were compared to an age-matched control group from the same sample of boys who do not report abuse. Shrier and Johnson found that while 90% of the control group reported they were heterosexual, only 42.5% of those reporting sexual victimization said they were heterosexual - 47.5% said they were homosexual, and 10% said they bisexual. Only 6 of the 40 victimized boys had revealed the molestation to anyone prior to participation in the study interview. The citation is: Johnson, R. L., and Shrier, D. K. (1985). Sexual victimization of boys: Experience at an adolescent medicine clinic. J. Adolesc. Health Care 6: 372-376.

As it happens, the first close gay friend I had (we met in high school) was raped by an older man when he was 12. Obviously he is just one person, but the research suggests a correlation here.

It's so sleazy to quote one or two studies that appear to support your point of view. (Although, in fact, the research you describe above doesn't support your POV: It's entirely possible (and seems likely to me) that gay teenagers are more vulnerable to being sexually assaulted in the first place.) (It also seems likely to me that individuals willing to acknowledge they are have same-sex attractions are going to be more honest about expressing potentially embarrassing personal details about their lives such as incidences of abuse). What does the bulk of research in this area suggest? It suggests that sexual abuse does not make people gay or lesbian. I think it is interesting that you are willing to describe an adult male who abuses boys as "homosexual".. Would you refer to a man who rapes little girls as "heterosexual" - as if there is no difference between him and yourself? Or would you classify this person as a "Child abuser" or "pedophile" indicating a qualitative difference in the orientation and behavior of this individual as compared with yourself. The research you are describing assumes no qualitative difference between adult gay men or lesbians (what I would call "homosexuals") and adult men who abuse children of the same gender. In other words, you have a homophobic bias built in to these studies (in terms of how they are defining "homosexual") which provide extremely misleading results.

 

[aidanjm]

Originally posted by: DonVito

Originally posted by: aidanjm

Originally posted by: Falcon39
Wow, what a surprise. aidanjm refuses to believe well presented evidence linking homosexuality to abuse. I'm shocked.

Thanks for that, dipshit. I do have a 4 year degree in psychology and I have skimmed through the research in this area, and I can tell you that the consensus (among reputable scientists) is that lesbians and gays do not have a same-sex sexual orientation due to being sexually abused as children.

As it happens I too have a 4-year degree in psychology - frankly I don't see it as any kind of qualification for purposes of this discussion, as undergraduate work is not very in-depth. Perhaps things are different in Australia. Do you have citations for research showing no correlation between molestation and homosexuality?

Frankly I don't see how you could have taken 4 years of psychology and emerged with such a credulous, uncritical attitude.

 

[halik]

Originally posted by: virtualgames0
Nature.
As lewd as people make pedophilia be, but statistics show that at least 1 out of 4 people are aroused by underage people. Now this doesn't mean they find underage people more arousing than adults, nor does it even mean they fantasize about having sexual acts with one who is underaged, it just means that they are aroused when seeing someone underaged naked.
I think nature makes humans aroused by underaged, but nurture makes people not aroused by the underaged through conditioning on how "wrong" and "disturbing" it is.

Edit: Here's a source from wikipedia
"In 1989 Briere and Runtz conducted a study on 193 male undergraduate students concerning pedophilia. Of the sample, 21% acknowledged sexual attraction to some small children; 9% reported sexual fantasies involving children; 5% admitted masturbating to these fantasies; and 7% conceded some probability of actually having sex with a child if they could avoid detection and punishment.[24]

Feierman (1990) predicted that 7-10% of men are sexually attracted to prepubescent boys.[9]"

Someone brought this up before - there's a difference between pedophilia (attraction to pre-pubescent) and being attracted to jailbait.

 

[Don Vito Corleone]

Originally posted by: aidanjm

It's so sleazy to quote one or two studies that appear to support your point of view. (Although, in fact, the research you describe above doesn't support your POV: It's entirely possible (and seems likely to me) that gay teenagers are more vulnerable to being sexually assaulted in the first place.) What does the bulk of research in this area suggest? It suggests that sexual abuse does not make people gay or lesbian. I think it is interesting that you are willing to describe an adult male who abuses boys as "homosexual".. Would you refer to a man who rapes little girls as "heterosexual" - as if there is no difference between him and yourself? Or would you classify this person as a "Child abuser" or "pedophile" indicating a qualitative difference in the orientation and behavior of this individual as compared with yourself. The research you are describing assumes no qualitative difference between adult gay men or lesbians (what I would call "homosexuals") and adult men who abuse children of the same gender. In other words, you have a homophobic bias built in to these studies (in terms of how they are defining "homosexual") which provide extremely misleading results.

I have said NOTHING to equate child molesters and homosexuals. You have entirely fabricated that. In my experience (which I suspect is more extensive than yours, though of course I may be wrong) pedophilia transcends the concepts of homosexuality and heretosexuality - it is a paraphilia unto itself, and people with a sexual interest in children are not restricted by their homosexuality or heterosexuality (any more than a person who has sex with animals is restricted by his gender preference).

I must say, though, that I take strong exception to your implication that homosexual children are more predisposed to being molested - you're essentially saying the molestation was chosen by the victim rather than the offender. That's a disgusting and incorrect argument, and I speak from experience in this arena.

In the meantime, you have cited no research at all. I keep an open mind and I'm perfectly ready to have my mind changed, but you have cited nothing whatsoever in support of your arguments.

 

[iamaelephant]

Originally posted by: aidanjm

Originally posted by: Falcon39
Wow, what a surprise. aidanjm refuses to believe well presented evidence linking homosexuality to abuse. I'm shocked.

Thanks for that, dipshit. I do have a 4 year degree in psychology and I have skimmed through the research in this area, and I can tell you that the consensus (among reputable scientists) is that lesbians and gays do not have a same-sex sexual orientation due to being sexually abused as children.

No one said that gays and lesbians have same-sex orientation due to sexual abuse. The studies quotes merely show a correlation between the two in a statistically significant quantity. Not that I expect you to bother even attempting to read this, as you are by far the most closed minded homosexual I have ever come across.

 

[Konigin]

I'd say its a little bit of both.

 

[Don Vito Corleone]

Originally posted by: aidanjm

Frankly I don't see how you could have taken 4 years of psychology and emerged with such a credulous, uncritical attitude.

I've said it before - I am amenable to having my mind changed, but you have presented zero evidence in support of your arguments.

 

[halik]

Originally posted by: DonVito

Originally posted by: aidanjm

It's so sleazy to quote one or two studies that appear to support your point of view. (Although, in fact, the research you describe above doesn't support your POV: It's entirely possible (and seems likely to me) that gay teenagers are more vulnerable to being sexually assaulted in the first place.) What does the bulk of research in this area suggest? It suggests that sexual abuse does not make people gay or lesbian. I think it is interesting that you are willing to describe an adult male who abuses boys as "homosexual".. Would you refer to a man who rapes little girls as "heterosexual" - as if there is no difference between him and yourself? Or would you classify this person as a "Child abuser" or "pedophile" indicating a qualitative difference in the orientation and behavior of this individual as compared with yourself. The research you are describing assumes no qualitative difference between adult gay men or lesbians (what I would call "homosexuals") and adult men who abuse children of the same gender. In other words, you have a homophobic bias built in to these studies (in terms of how they are defining "homosexual") which provide extremely misleading results.

I have said NOTHING of the kind. You have entirely fabricated that. In my experience (which I suspect is more extensive than yours, though of course I may be wrong) pedophilia transcends the concepts of homosexuality and heretosexuality - it is a paraphilia unto itself, and people with a sexual interest in children are not restricted by their homosexuality or heterosexuality (any more than a person who has sex with animals is restricted by his gender preference).


In the meantime, you have cited no research at all. I keep an open mind and I'm perfectly ready to have my mind changed, but you have cited nothing whatsoever in support of your arguments.

The real issue here is that Aidanjm is emotionally attached to the subject (being gay himself) and doesn't like the idea that homosexuality could be a sort of a deviation caused by childhood abuse.

 

[Don Vito Corleone]

Originally posted by: halik

The real issue here is that Aidanjm is emotionally attached to the subject (being gay himself) and he doesn't like what the studies have shown. Good luck trying to argue with him...

I don't really even see this as an argument - I am perfectly amenable to letting him educate me on this subject. So far he has failed to do so.

 

[halik]

Originally posted by: DonVito

Originally posted by: halik

The real issue here is that Aidanjm is emotionally attached to the subject (being gay himself) and he doesn't like what the studies have shown. Good luck trying to argue with him...

I don't really even see this as an argument - I am perfectly amenable to letting him educate me on this subject. So far he has failed to do so.

Well that's great that you're open minded about the topic, but I highly doubt you'll convince him of anything.

 

[6000SUX]

Originally posted by: Eli
Depends on how young we're talking here.

Underage != pedophilia.

Technically, if a woman is having her menstrual cycle, she is ready to breed, and many cultures realize this and incorporate it.

You're misinformed. Many girls get their periods before the age of ten these days, and the average age drops with each generation. Different theories exist as to why this is so.

 

[waggy]

Originally posted by: 6000SUX

Originally posted by: Eli
Depends on how young we're talking here.

Underage != pedophilia.

Technically, if a woman is having her menstrual cycle, she is ready to breed, and many cultures realize this and incorporate it.

You're misinformed. Many girls get their periods before the age of ten these days, and the average age drops with each generation. Different theories exist as to why this is so.

that does not change the fact that with the onset of puberty women devolop breast, curve of hips etc. Wich men are attracted to. its society that says it is wrong not nature.

 

[6000SUX]

Originally posted by: waggy

Originally posted by: 6000SUX

Originally posted by: Eli
Depends on how young we're talking here.

Underage != pedophilia.

Technically, if a woman is having her menstrual cycle, she is ready to breed, and many cultures realize this and incorporate it.

You're misinformed. Many girls get their periods before the age of ten these days, and the average age drops with each generation. Different theories exist as to why this is so.

that does not change the fact that with the onset of puberty women devolop breast, curve of hips etc. Wich men are attracted to. its society that says it is wrong not nature.

No, nature says it's wrong, too. There's no culture in the world that thinks that it's okay to have sex with ten-year-old girls, and ten-year-old bodies are not yet ready to have children. If you think it's okay to lust after ten-year-olds, you unfortunately ARE a pedophile.

 

[waggy]

Originally posted by: 6000SUX

Originally posted by: waggy

Originally posted by: 6000SUX

Originally posted by: Eli
Depends on how young we're talking here.

Underage != pedophilia.

Technically, if a woman is having her menstrual cycle, she is ready to breed, and many cultures realize this and incorporate it.

You're misinformed. Many girls get their periods before the age of ten these days, and the average age drops with each generation. Different theories exist as to why this is so.

that does not change the fact that with the onset of puberty women devolop breast, curve of hips etc. Wich men are attracted to. its society that says it is wrong not nature.

No, nature says it's wrong, too. There's no culture in the world that thinks that it's okay to have sex with ten-year-old girls, and ten-year-old bodies are not yet ready to have children. If you think it's okay to lust after ten-year-olds, you unfortunately ARE a pedophile.

so you saying people are not attracted to females with post puberty sexual charistics? and can you point out where i said its ok to lust after 10 yr olds? stop trying to change the topic.

studies after studies have shown what i have said. Men are wired to look for younger women with female bodies (post puberty). Women are wired to look for big strong men who are leaders.

 

[6000SUX]

Originally posted by: waggy

Originally posted by: 6000SUX

Originally posted by: waggy

Originally posted by: 6000SUX

Originally posted by: Eli
Depends on how young we're talking here.

Underage != pedophilia.

Technically, if a woman is having her menstrual cycle, she is ready to breed, and many cultures realize this and incorporate it.

You're misinformed. Many girls get their periods before the age of ten these days, and the average age drops with each generation. Different theories exist as to why this is so.

that does not change the fact that with the onset of puberty women devolop breast, curve of hips etc. Wich men are attracted to. its society that says it is wrong not nature.

No, nature says it's wrong, too. There's no culture in the world that thinks that it's okay to have sex with ten-year-old girls, and ten-year-old bodies are not yet ready to have children. If you think it's okay to lust after ten-year-olds, you unfortunately ARE a pedophile.

so you saying people are not attracted to females with post puberty sexual charistics? and can you point out where i said its ok to lust after 10 yr olds? stop trying to change the topic.

studies after studies have shown what i have said. Men are wired to look for younger women with female bodies (post puberty). Women are wired to look for big strong men who are leaders.

You're an idiot. It's right in your post above, where you are saying it's natural to lust after ten-year-old girls in response. If you are arguing that it's natural, you are arguing (with a couple of misguided others) that it's okay. If you think it's okay, it is because you have these feelings yourself.

When did I change the topic, moron? We're still on topic. I'm now being diverted (stupidly) by you, to talk about your pedophilia.

You don't know what you're talking about with respect to sexual attraction, either. Men and women are wired above all to look for physical symmetry and the absence of disease, not for the developing sexual attributes of ten-year-old girls.

Obviously I would not claim that no one is attracted to ten-year-old girls. You and others like you clearly are. Some are attracted to infants, and rape them.

 

[aidanjm]

Originally posted by: DonVito
I have said NOTHING to equate child molesters and homosexuals. You have entirely fabricated that.

You are quoting research which conflates people with an adult homosexual orientation, and people who sexually abuse or are sexually attracted to children on the same gender. E.g., "In studies conducted by Diana Shrier and Robert Johnson in 1985 and 1988, males who had been sexually abused as children were almost seven times as likely as non-molested boys to become homosexuals." This is just intellectually dishonest not to mention profoundly homophobic.

Originally posted by: DonVito
I must say, though, that I take strong exception to your implication that homosexual children are more predisposed to being molested - you're essentially saying the molestation was chosen by the victim rather than the offender

No that's not what I'm saying you half wit. I'm talking about vulnerability. Factors that increase a child's vulnerability to being abused. It has nothing to do with choice you fool.

Originally posted by: DonVito
That's a disgusting and incorrect argument, and I speak from experience in this arena.

You seem to be rather stupid, therefore I wouldn't place much stock in your insights gained from experience.

Originally posted by: DonVito
In the meantime, you have cited no research at all. I keep an open mind and I'm perfectly ready to have my mind changed, but you have cited nothing whatsoever in support of your arguments.

You're the one making the claim of a link between childhood sexual abuse and an adult homosexual sexual orientation. I am merely questioning your claims. So far you've mentioned a few dodgy, poorly designed studies which appear to rely on convenience samples and make use of exceedingly suspect definitions of terms like "homosexual".

 

[aidanjm]

Originally posted by: Falcon39
The studies quotes merely show a correlation between the two in a statistically significant quantity

No the studies don't show that at all.

 

[aidanjm]

Originally posted by: halik
The real issue here is that Aidanjm is emotionally attached to the subject (being gay himself) and doesn't like the idea that homosexuality could be a sort of a deviation caused by childhood abuse.

You are correct. However my position is supported by the (credible) research.

 

[Descartes]

Originally posted by: aidanjm

Originally posted by: halik
The real issue here is that Aidanjm is emotionally attached to the subject (being gay himself) and doesn't like the idea that homosexuality could be a sort of a deviation caused by childhood abuse.

You are correct. However my position is supported by the (credible) research.

Can you provide references to your credible research?

 

[Don Vito Corleone]

Originally posted by: aidanjm

You are quoting research which conflates people with an adult homosexual orientation, and people who sexually abuse or are sexually attracted to children on the same gender. E.g., "In studies conducted by Diana Shrier and Robert Johnson in 1985 and 1988, males who had been sexually abused as children were almost seven times as likely as non-molested boys to become homosexuals." This is just intellectually dishonest not to mention profoundly dishonest.

The research I've cited makes no such conflation. I'm not sure how you're managing to read that into it.

You seem to be rather stupid, therefore I wouldn't place much stock in ytour insights gained from experience.

Your petty insults are further evidence of the weakness of your rhetoric. I've said nothing insulting to you and I'd appreciate the same in return.

Your the one making the claim of a link between childhood sexual abuse and an adult homosexual sexual orientation. I am merely questioning your claims. So far you've mentioned a few dodgy, poorly designed studies which appear to rely on convenience samples and make use of exceedingly suspect definitions of terms like "homosexual".

You seem to feel that if you forcefully say the same thing over and over, it will become persuasive - this isn't the case (not to mention that for a person who is so quick to call a stranger "stupid," your grasp on "your" versus "you're" is disappointingly weak!). You have yet to cite any evidence in support of your position, and your critiques plainly indicate a misunderstanding of what I've posted.

If you're not prepared to discuss this subject thoughtfully, I'd suggest you stay out of this discussion. As it happens I have to believe I have more experience with child molesters than anyone else on this board (in fact, here is the appellate decision upholding a conviction and life sentence I garnered in a molestation case I prosecuted), so I don't think, notwithstanding your schoolyard insults, that I am a fool on this topic.

 

[waggy]

Originally posted by: 6000SUX

You're an idiot. It's right in your post above, where you are saying it's natural to lust after ten-year-old girls in response. If you are arguing that it's natural, you are arguing (with a couple of misguided others) that it's okay. If you think it's okay, it is because you have these feelings yourself.

When did I change the topic, moron? We're still on topic. I'm now being diverted (stupidly) by you, to talk about your pedophilia.

You don't know what you're talking about with respect to sexual attraction, either. Men and women are wired above all to look for physical symmetry and the absence of disease, not for the developing sexual attributes of ten-year-old girls.

Obviously I would not claim that no one is attracted to ten-year-old girls. You and others like you clearly are. Some are attracted to infants, and rape them.[/quote]

sigh. you are hopless. i have not said its ok to lust after a 10 yr old. I have said its nature for men to be sexually attracted to young women who have gone through puberty. Women with curves, breast etc.

research backs me up

Now am i saying guys should want to hook up with a 10 yr old wh o has the body of a women? NO. they may be physicaly mature but they are not emotionaly or mentaly able to handle it.

 

[iamaelephant]

Originally posted by: aidanjm

Originally posted by: DonVito
This is just intellectually dishonest not to mention profoundly homophobic.

Oh give me a fvcking break!

 

[6000SUX]

Originally posted by: waggy

Originally posted by: 6000SUX

You're an idiot. It's right in your post above, where you are saying it's natural to lust after ten-year-old girls in response. If you are arguing that it's natural, you are arguing (with a couple of misguided others) that it's okay. If you think it's okay, it is because you have these feelings yourself.

When did I change the topic, moron? We're still on topic. I'm now being diverted (stupidly) by you, to talk about your pedophilia.

You don't know what you're talking about with respect to sexual attraction, either. Men and women are wired above all to look for physical symmetry and the absence of disease, not for the developing sexual attributes of ten-year-old girls.

Obviously I would not claim that no one is attracted to ten-year-old girls. You and others like you clearly are. Some are attracted to infants, and rape them.

sigh. you are hopless. i have not said its ok to lust after a 10 yr old. I have said its nature for men to be sexually attracted to young women who have gone through puberty. Women with curves, breast etc.

research backs me up

Now am i saying guys should want to hook up with a 10 yr old wh o has the body of a women? NO. they may be physicaly mature but they are not emotionaly or mentaly able to handle it.

[/quote]

From the page you stupidly posted:

"Men who were 21 years old prefered, on average, women who were 18.5 years (Buss, 1994: 51) As men get older, they tend to be attracted to women who are increasingly younger than they are. Men in their thirties prefer women 5 years younger, while men in their 70's prefer women who are 10 to 20 years younger."

I never said youth wasn't attractive. What I did specifically say was that being sexually attracted to ten-year-old girls is not natural, and you decided to argue. Keep at it!

Again, A TEN-YEAR OLD IS NOT PHYSICALLY MATURE. If you think this, you are likely a pedophile.

 

[waggy]

Originally posted by: 6000SUX

Originally posted by: waggy

Originally posted by: 6000SUX

You're an idiot. It's right in your post above, where you are saying it's natural to lust after ten-year-old girls in response. If you are arguing that it's natural, you are arguing (with a couple of misguided others) that it's okay. If you think it's okay, it is because you have these feelings yourself.

When did I change the topic, moron? We're still on topic. I'm now being diverted (stupidly) by you, to talk about your pedophilia.

You don't know what you're talking about with respect to sexual attraction, either. Men and women are wired above all to look for physical symmetry and the absence of disease, not for the developing sexual attributes of ten-year-old girls.

Obviously I would not claim that no one is attracted to ten-year-old girls. You and others like you clearly are. Some are attracted to infants, and rape them.

sigh. you are hopless. i have not said its ok to lust after a 10 yr old. I have said its nature for men to be sexually attracted to young women who have gone through puberty. Women with curves, breast etc.

research backs me up

Now am i saying guys should want to hook up with a 10 yr old wh o has the body of a women? NO. they may be physicaly mature but they are not emotionaly or mentaly able to handle it.

From the page you stupidly posted:

"Men who were 21 years old prefered, on average, women who were 18.5 years (Buss, 1994: 51) As men get older, they tend to be attracted to women who are increasingly younger than they are. Men in their thirties prefer women 5 years younger, while men in their 70's prefer women who are 10 to 20 years younger."

I never said youth wasn't attractive. What I did specifically say was that being sexually attracted to ten-year-old girls is not natural, and you decided to argue. Keep at it!

Again, A TEN-YEAR OLD IS NOT PHYSICALLY MATURE. If you think this, you are likely a pedophile.
[/quote]


man you are hung up on 10 yr olds arnet you? we missing something?

i never said that 10 yr olds are mature. i said men are wired to look after younger women who are POST PUBERTY (which again research proves). you are the one who keeps obsessing after the so called 10yr old with a womens body.