Trigger: Pedophilia the Orientation?

[Unveiled Artist]

Fixed.
You don't control what you are attracted to. You do control how you behave with that orientation.

I'd say both. A former criminal is stigmatized for her behavior. For example, if she were a child molester fifteen years in her past and trying to get her life straight, once parents know, they don't let their child be around her even when that child isn't in danger. Criminals are stigmatized a lot.

Yes, orientation too. I did meant behaviors.

 

[Unveiled Artist]

Yep. Different definitions in different fields. And while I'm q, I use the psychologists definition of the word. I think they have the authority to define words in their field (while lgbtq don't).

Attraction is a vague word. It can be platonic, lust, emotional, betrothal, etc. In respect to context, LGBTQ are more than likely not talking about just physical attraction. When we see a straight couple together, I'm sure most of us are not thinking they are straight just because of how they are aroused. I think it goes deeper than that.

I think the majority of us have a combination. I highly assume those attracted to children are solely physiologically attracted to them. Both attraction but the orientation is different.

I mean, even if I were technical about it, the P throws off the LGBQ... these are referring to the other person's sex but stick the P in there to refer to age and it throws the acronym off.

 

[Saint Frankenstein]

Paedophiles love children, by definition

That's total bs. What definition you using? The definition where wanting to bang children is loving them? No, pedophiles are just people who are sexually attracted to children. Says nothing about loving them. Some may, others don't.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Kind o' makes you wonder.
Isn't this how LGBT started.
In some lands, homosexual relations were outlawed.
However, thinking back some years, it was outlawed in those places that now accepts it.

People were expecting this for years now.
They expect bestiality is next, or that one may get pushed in front of the other.

I see that you still do not understand "informed consent".

Neither animals or children are capable of informed consent. I am constantly disappointed in the inability of fundamentalists to understand basic morals.

 

[Saint Frankenstein]

Which boards?

The old IMDb boards.

 

[Estro Felino]

I see that you still do not understand "informed consent".

Neither animals or children are capable of informed consent. I am constantly disappointed in the inability of fundamentalists to understand basic morals.

Exactly.

 

[Heyo]

That's total bs. What definition you using?

Literal translation. Paedophile is Greek for child lover.

The definition where wanting to bang children is loving them? No, pedophiles are just people who are sexually attracted to children. Says nothing about loving them. Some may, others don't.

Hetero men just want to bang women. Says nothing about loving them.
(Which is too true to really use as a counter example, but I hope you get my drift.)

 

[Subduction Zone]

I'll never buy the "it's an orientation" line, as that seems to be an attempt to validate it. Sexual attraction to prepubescent children is a psychological disorder, period. I've spoken to various "non-offending" pedos over the years (you find all kinds on trashy message boards) and they shared various personality traits, including arrested development.

I agree. But there may be alternatives to abusing children these days. Isn't that a good thing?

One of the obvious wrongs with pedophilia is child porn involving actual children. Since many pedophiles only go so far as to indulge themselves in kiddie porn there are high tech alternatives. I have recently found out how easy "Deepfakes" are easy to make. A girl that I like sent me a short music video clip to me. Instead of the clip being of the singer it was her. And it was amazingly natural looking. Amateurs can now place their face, or the face of anyone that they want on another actor. Instead of abusing kids fakes can now be made with adult actors. Though I would not want my ugly mug attached to some porn floating out there in the internet, I would rather see just the faces of children used rather than actual children. If someone got off on my face it is a sacrifice that I am willing to take so children are not abused.

 

[Saint Frankenstein]

Literal translation. Paedophile is Greek for child lover.

Hetero men just want to bang women. Says nothing about loving them.
(Which is too true to really use as a counter example, but I hope you get my drift.)

Stop comparing this to normal sexuality. It's not. It's a paraphilia. You gonna compare wanting to bang dogs to romantic love between men and women, too?

 

[NewGuyOnTheBlock]

Stop comparing this to normal sexuality. It's not. It's a paraphilia. You gonna compare wanting to bang dogs to romantic love between men and women, too?

I don't see Heyo doing that. I perceive what is being said is that the attraction is intrinsic; and that the attraction, in and of itself, says absolutely nothing else about that person other than the description of their attraction.

 

[MatthewA]

There is about 3 definitions for the word love in the Webster’s dictionary ; one definition for love is having sexual intercourse. That is a fact in case you did not know.

Love is often a misused term especially contrary mostly to what the Bible says about what love is (1 Corinthians 13).

 

[stvdv]

I just don't think that this is the only factor that can be involved, thus can not explain every case of sexual assault. Here are some other factors I believe may be involved in sexual assault:

• Impulse control issues
• Boundary issues
• Anger issues
• Control / Power issues
• Brain damage
• Mental retardation
• Emotional immaturity
• Flawed beliefs and perceptions (like the clergy who reported that his molestation of a 7 year old child was 'consensual')
• Empathy issues (lack thereof)

In other words, I do not disagree. However, each assailant is different and the circumstances from different offenses are also unique, so the casual factors will not always be identical.

I like simple: Lack of Love

All others follow from it

 

[NewGuyOnTheBlock]

I like simple: Lack of Love

All others follow from it

Simple is good. But oversimplification leads to inadequate conclusions. I don't agree with your conclusion. It may be true for some circumstances and offenders, but not all (though I do agree that touching a child is certainly NOT an act of love).

If I were to encapsulate into a single point, like you have done, I would have said: "Bad Beliefs". I suspect there is a grain of truth in that one that can fit into all circumstances of abuse and all offenders (though I believe people can change their beliefs).

 

[Red Rodent]

If I were to encapsulate into a single point, like you have done, I would have said: "Bad Beliefs".

I was with you until this point, NewGuy. I agree that paedophilia is an orientation, inasmuch as it's not something anyone chooses. I note that most paedophiles do not molest children and, indeed, most child-molesters are not paedophies (they're primarily attracted to adults, the child being simply a convenient victim). Of course the sexual abuse of a child is no more an act of love than the rape of another adult.

What I can't get my head around is how anyone, minor-attracted or not, can come to believe that it's OK to molest a child. Isn't it the most reviled form of offending known to mankind? Aren't we constantly hearing accounts from victims/survivors about how it wrecks lives? No one can claim to be unaware of these things. Child molestation is psychopathic behaviour, pure and simple, isn't it?

 

[Twilight Hue]

I see that you still do not understand "informed consent".

Neither animals or children are capable of informed consent. I am constantly disappointed in the inability of fundamentalists to understand basic morals.

Sometimes you need to tell animals that too. *grin*

 

[Mock Turtle]

I am really interested in understanding what is in their psyche. Because I believe the attraction to children.....is irrational.

I do not think that theirs is love. Love is loving and being loved in return.

Well I do actually think differently here, and I know it isn't a popular viewpoint, but for many that are true paedophiles (having an attraction to prepubescents), I think they often do have a rational attraction to children but which goes beyond the normal bounds that many will feel towards children. If one observes people in general, most are actually attracted to children and their world, especially within the family setting of course, and it is quite rare to find people who don't like children or actually hate them. The problem for paedophiles seems to me that that they break through the normal boundaries that most feel instinctively towards children - their love, affection, and protective feelings - and allow themselves to feel sexual love towards them. And this seems to be the issue - that they can't remove the sexual aspect from the quite rational attraction towards children that we all tend to feel as being natural. One only has to look at the number of sexual offences against children within the home setting - this being the greatest amount rather than unknown individuals abusing children. The reason being perhaps that a boundary was crossed and behaviour strayed into abuse during normal interactions.

 

[Mock Turtle]

Hey, thanks for asking.

Dr. James Cantor, from Canada, performed brain scans on convicted molesters. What he found was surprising: When the areas of the brain related to sexual arousal were activated, so were the areas of the brain that are responsible for nurturing behavior and emotions. When the areas of the brain that are responsible for nurturing behavior and emotions were activated, so were the areas of the brain that are responsible for sexual arousal.

In other words, the research indicates that there is a crosswiring of the brain between nurturing and sexuality.

Are paedophiles' brains wired differently?

Granted, this was a very small sample size; and the sample size was based on offenders; and no scientific finding can be considered valid until it passes the tests of peer review, repeatability, predictability, etc. But it does suggest that attraction to children is more neurological than "learned".

Yes, the attraction is irrational. Another point on which we can agree.

The problem is, from what I gather, that we can't say whether their brains were changed due to the attraction or they were born like this - until we scan people from birth and see the changes, which I don't think has been done yet.

 

[Mock Turtle]

The problem here (reading) is orientation to a lot of us lgbtq isn't just about physical attraction. Those who are attracted to children aren't forming a relationship with them and seeing them beyond their looks. It's totally physiological. Orientation talks about psychological attraction, emotional, romantic, and physical.

So,in that context it's not an orientation. But if you just mean physiological, yeah. To me attraction in and if itself is normal. I don't see it leading to behavior whether same sex, opposite, or child. But the context of orientation isn't strictly physiological that's why it's not an orientation.

I don't think this is true either, that paedophiles are just shallow and look towards the physical aspects. I think some do see their relationships more as love affairs, even if they are delusional as to what is actually going on between them.

 

[Estro Felino]

If one observes people in general, most are actually attracted to children and their world, especially within the family setting of course, and it is quite rare to find people who don't like children or actually hate them. .

I think you are confusing attraction with affection.
To begin with...it is a given that the great majority of pedophiles are males.
Women tend to have that motherliness...the maternal instinct towards children, that is why women are considered more suitable to become elementary school teahers (at least in my country, with the compulsory Montessori method).
The maternal instinct is an instinct of protection towards the child. Protecting them from evil.

That said...if it really deals with love (and I doubt it) are pedophiles aware that children will not love them in return?

 

[Twilight Hue]

The problem is, from what I gather, that we can't say whether their brains were changed due to the attraction or they were born like this - until we scan people from birth and see the changes, which I don't think has been done yet.

People need to be prepared for the hard science on the matter.

 

[Mock Turtle]

I think you are confusing attraction with affection.
To begin with...it is a given that the great majority of pedophiles are males.
Women tend to have that motherliness...the maternal instinct towards children, that is why women are considered more suitable to become elementary school teahers (at least in my country, with the compulsory Montessori method).
The maternal instinct is an instinct of protection towards the child. Protecting them from evil.

That said...if it really deals with love (and I doubt it) are pedophiles aware that children will not love them in return?

I don't think there is any confusion. Males can have much the same feelings as females in this respect even if they don't give birth to them. And your last sentence is an assumption too, given that many children do have long-term relationships with paedophiles - for whatever reasons, and love cannot be ruled out simply because we don't like to think so. Unfortunately children aren't mature like adults and might be deceived as to what they experience, but I don't think one should rule out that they do have love towards any abuser. It's often that they feel such perhaps as to why they might not betray them or expose them.