Peodophilia The Root Cause

[cacian]

Do people need to be told paedophilia is wrong?
In other words how do you define paedophilia without reaching out to the dictionary?

Some countries allow for children as young as 12 forced to marriage to older men and is supposed to be the culture.
I feel that just because a country allows it does not make it right.
In the same way that just because a culture thinks that nudity around families is the norm does not make it right.
Culture does not equal right. Children are vulnerable because they are young, rely on adults for supervision and learning. They do not understand adults who cannot behave themselves.
Adults must learn to behave appropriately, make sense around children to set an example and showed them the wrong from right.

On reason that one commits child abuse is because they have been abused themselves.
The other would be the total ignorance on what a child means. An adult that does not understand the difference between a 13 year old and a 30 year old is my eyes someone who need to taught like a child about what a child means. It is scary to think that there are adults in this day and age who do not grasp the difference between a child and an adult.
Where did the adult go wrong?

[Volya]

Paedophilia isn't wrong. Sexual abuse of children is wrong. I don't care if somebody is a paedophile as long as they don't hurt other people.

[BienvenuJDC]

In the days of the pioneers, there were 15 year old girls (childbearing age) and 25-30 year old men (the age that a man could finally accumulate enough to be established) that married. Children were taught how to function as adults at an early age. This worked. The problem is that our culture doesn't teach children to grow up. There are 30 year old college students who aren't any more mature than the ones in high school. I guess one needs to define when someone ceases to be a child. I don't think that 18 is a magic number.

As far as a pedophile is defined, (literally a lover of children), you'd have to define what the individual sees as love. The Phileo love (as defined by the original Greek word) means an affectionate love (not a sexual love). If one takes the word at its pure original meaning, there is nothing wrong with it. However, if you define it as a sexual love, that is a different topic.

[Alexander III]

Interesting point; how would we define the pedagogic societies of ancient Athens and Sparta; from the accounts it seems that a far greater portion of male society was inclined to enjoy young boys than the observed homosexual ratio in men of the 21st century (1 out of 10). Would you define pedagogy as pedophilia, and if so is it not remarkable to see how many men took part because it was a social construct rather than one which is genetic. To pharaprase; if a society encourages men to be attracted to young boys, and thus produces a large amount of men who have such inclinations; human sexuality so malleable that it might just be that pedophilia is an unwanted cultural construct of our times.

[Calidore]

I went to a book signing by Andrew Vachss some years ago, and during a Q & A he made a clear distinction between pedophiles, who are sexually attracted to children, and predators, who act on that attraction. He said he feels sorry for pedophiles, because they have to live with these feelings that they know are wrong and would never act on.

[OrphanPip]

Interesting point; how would we define the pedagogic societies of ancient Athens and Sparta; from the accounts it seems that a far greater portion of male society was inclined to enjoy young boys than the observed homosexual ratio in men of the 21st century (1 out of 10). Would you define pedagogy as pedophilia, and if so is it not remarkable to see how many men took part because it was a social construct rather than one which is genetic. To pharaprase; if a society encourages men to be attracted to young boys, and thus produces a large amount of men who have such inclinations; human sexuality so malleable that it might just be that pedophilia is an unwanted cultural construct of our times.

The Ancient Greek pederastic practices were not pedophilic, since they involved post-pubescent boys, most likely around 14 to 20, and most didn't involve anything sexual. There is also little evidence that same-sex sexual acts were more or less common than they are today. I also feel compelled again to draw the distinction between orientation and acts, because they are not the same thing.

As to pedophilia itself, there is very little reliable information about it because the only large scale studies have looked at convicted sex offenders.

[Paulclem]

The problem with paedophilia - whatever the inclinations or practices of the paedophile - is that there is a clear disparity of power. Age empowers whilst bring a child makes them vulnerable - physically, emotionally and intellectually. That is why progressive countries have raised the age of consent.

Bien's point about 15 year olds only makes sense because of the frequency of mortality due to childbirth. The question of maturity is perhaps false because of course no one asked those girls if they were ready. It would have been an expectation. As such I do not see it as a point supporting having younger brides, particularly as there is no need to rush these days. I heard a report the other day that suggested that more and more women were having children later. Their choice made in mature awareness rather than an expectation or an imposition by culture.

[Mutatis-Mutandis]

Some may not be aware of what pedagogy means.

[Alexander III]

The Ancient Greek pederastic practices were not pedophilic, since they involved post-pubescent boys, most likely around 14 to 20,

By law in the majority of western countries, a 30 year old man having sex with a 17 or 16 year old boy; would be considered an act of pedophiliac rape. I am using the law to define pedophilia.


and most didn't involve anything sexual.

The literature, and art of the period, as well as the histories; clearly show otherwise. Unless you have been reading victorian translations which naturally tried their best to remove all such content.

Also how do you define "sexual" - anally penetrating a free-born youth was a social stigma both in greek and roman world. Yet the majority of pederasts would insert their penis between the youth's thighs and have sex in such a manner, fondling of genitals was also common.

8449


8450

8451


There is also little evidence that same-sex sexual acts were more or less common than they are today.

Easy there with "evidence". I hope we can clearly agree that homosexual men are in the 21st century a definite minority. The clear majority of men are heterosexual leaning. Yet in ancient greek art and literature we see a huge amount of space given to homosexual and pedrastic love and sex. Why much like nowadawys there is not a single novel which does not include a love interest between a man and a woman; in virtually all surviving greek and roman novels and epics there is not a single one which does not have a homosexual love affair; normally between an older man and a youth. That is my "evidence"; and it seems clear enough to me to be comprehensible to the majority of people.


I also feel compelled again to draw the distinction between orientation and acts, because they are not the same thing.

If what you mean by this is that the majority of peoples can perform and enjoy both homo and hetero sexual acts; all the while having a clear preference for one over the other - then yes I agree with you.

[cacian]

I went to a book signing by Andrew Vachss some years ago, and during a Q & A he made a clear distinction between pedophiles, who are sexually attracted to children, and predators, who act on that attraction. He said he feels sorry for pedophiles, because they have to live with these feelings that they know are wrong and would never act on.

Hi Calidore you make a very good point indeed.
That is how our societies fail today in the sense we do not take care of the obvious.

[OrphanPip]

By law in the majority of western countries, a 30 year old man having sex with a 17 or 16 year old boy; would be considered an act of pedophiliac rape. I am using the law to define pedophilia.

Pedophilia is not a legal category, it's a psychological one, it refers specifically to sexual attraction to pre-pubescent or para-pubescent children. Also, in the vast majority of Western countries the age of legal consent is 16, and there is often a separate legal category for illegal sex with a post-pubescent minor, such as statutory rape in the US.




The literature, and art of the period, as well as the histories; clearly show otherwise. Unless you have been reading victorian translations which naturally tried their best to remove all such content.

Also how do you define "sexual" - anally penetrating a free-born youth was a social stigma both in greek and roman world. Yet the majority of pederasts would insert their penis between the youth's thighs and have sex in such a manner, fondling of genitals was also common.

You are reading selectively, the majority of Greek histories make no reference to the sexual practice being particularly widespread, mentioning the existence of something is far from it being evidence of it being common. There is also ample evidence of disapproval of homosexual acts, and statements making it clear that sexual pederastic associations were uncommon.



Easy there with "evidence". I hope we can clearly agree that homosexual men are in the 21st century a definite minority. The clear majority of men are heterosexual leaning. Yet in ancient greek art and literature we see a huge amount of space given to homosexual and pedrastic love and sex. Why much like nowadawys there is not a single novel which does not include a love interest between a man and a woman; in virtually all surviving greek and roman novels and epics there is not a single one which does not have a homosexual love affair; normally between an older man and a youth. That is my "evidence"; and it seems clear enough to me to be comprehensible to the majority of people.

A huge space? As to presence in Greek epics, Homer certainly pre-dates Greek pederastic social practices, there isn't much evidence to suggest there is any homosexual in the Homeric epics, although their was a subsequent tradition of interpreting them in such a way.

What I would say is that I caution the naive interpretation of Greek culture as having widespread homosexual relations. The rhetoric of pederasty was typically based around emotional intimacy, and sexual aspects of the relationship were often stigmatized depending on the period. And for the most part the practice seems to have been limited to a very small group of aristocratic people. In such cases, if a city has only 20 or so active pederastic pairs going on, and maybe only 3 or 4 were actively sexual, then it would still account for a widespread erotic discourse. Yet, this is far from being evidence that people were widely favouring homosexual sex, or that these people were homosexual. You are suggesting a fluidity of sexuality which simply is unlikely. A great deal of empirical study has gone into conversion therapies, and there is little evidence that sexuality can change very much at all. The willingness of people to have sex with people of the same or different gender under certain circumstances is not demonstrative of their sexual orientation.

This is what I take issue with when you suggest that society is constructing pedophiles. Because you make it seem like society is the ultimate arbiter of people's sexuality, which is not supported by the scientific or historical evidence of sexuality. There is good reason to be highly suspicious of drawing broad reaching conclusions from limited evidence about a society that spanned hundreds of years.




If what you mean by this is that the majority of peoples can perform and enjoy both homo and hetero sexual acts; all the while having a clear preference for one over the other - then yes I agree with you.

I mean far more than that, but I don't feel like going through this again at the moment.

[Alexander III]

I could retort to you comment section by section; but the essence of my criticism remains the same; there is no evidence behinde your stance, it is fair if that is your belief, but you are presenting it as evidence and assuming to be correct without being it.

I stated that in greek art and literature there is a ubiquitous theme of a male/male relationship much as in the 21st century the ubiquitous theme in the majority of literature/art is a male/woman relationship.

To counter my claim you merely needed to cite one example, but the example you do cite clearly contains the Achilies/Patroclus case, which by classic age greeks was regarded as a homosexual love.

You might cite that there are very few depictions of homosexual intercourse but then again there were no depictions of hetero intercourse in the epic tradition as such things were too common for the epic form.

Were we do see depictions of intercourse is in greco roman novels, which was the medium for the common, and thus could depict intercourse. In the majority of novels which we posses, homosexual intercourse is always depicted.

So the essence of what I say is this: in the greek world, the aristocratic culture created a cultural norm amongst the aristocracy of man/youth sexual and mental relationships; which were indulged in by what is clearly not a minority of men.

Compare and contrast with 21st century; where the numbers are clearly different. All I am saying is that the culture one is born into and fixed into one as a child, has a huge affect on sexual desire and respectability as well as guilt - and that is a factor which needs be considered.

[JCamilo]

Nah, the classic representation in greece is male/female. Zeus alone accounts for all of this. You may have one or another more homessexual god, but you have Aphrodite, which is after Zeus the god with more stories, which are male/female. Achilles -patroclus case is a controversial interpretation and almost the only in the entire Trojan cicle (there is like cryseie-trolius, ulysses- penelope, achile -briseide, helen-paris, etc,etc).

Being homessexual had negative undertones enough to throw dirty at Sappho (and she being more victim of propaganda than not). Really, for every case of homssexual story you have dozen heteresexuals. I do not know if the proportion is like today, which is irrelevant, Greeks just have more sex than us according their tales.

[cacian]

Interesting posts.
I was wondering would anyone read a book written by a peodophile?
In other words is it acceptable for a society to allow for books to be written by paedophiles offenders or not?
Is it a good idea ?

[Volya]

Why would a paedophile not be allowed to write a book? Freedom of speech is meant to be part of the foundation of democracy.

[Shevek]

Why would a paedophile not be allowed to write a book? Freedom of speech is meant to be part of the foundation of democracy.

I think cacian's referring to erotica involving child-sex fantasies, and books that imply conspiracies to rape children.

As for the OP... there's very little evidence to my knowledge about what the "root cause" of pedophilia is, although I've read estimates that only about 50% of sex offenders are pedophiles. The others do it for power. So the discussion has to be much broader than pedophilia if deterring sexual abuse is what you're concerned with.

[Mutatis-Mutandis]

Interesting posts.
I was wondering would anyone read a book written by a peodophile?
In other words is it acceptable for a society to allow for books to be written by paedophiles offenders or not?
Is it a good idea ?

Please tell me this wasn't just a roundabout way for you to once again bash Nabokov.

[E.A Rumfield]

Why is nudity wrong? We all have sexual organs. There is nothing "wrong" with that. If anything we should embrace these things. Repression is a cause of a lot of our sexual tension. We do a poor job at sexual education. Sex can be like all things good bad or indifferent. Why do people have sex with children? That is like asking why do we rape and murder, it is a part of us. Undeniably a part of each and everyone of us. A part of every living thing. Whether it manifests itself in a certain individual is besides the point, it exists and not in severely isolated instances. Denying won't help. The only thing we can do is teach our children who grow into adults. We cannot stop every case of violence and so on but we can do a better job. For all our advancement the school systems only aim is to breed subservient workers, not well rounded and functioning human beings, and it barely succeeds at that.

Is it a good idea to read books in which alcoholism or cigarette smoking is praised? We know these things are bad for us but they are alluring for likely the same reason. Prohibition doesn't work and never will with literature or what have you. Read what you like accept what you please think before you speak. There are a lot of Lolita's out there and a lot of weak men. If anything in that book Lolita is in the "wrong". She calculated the whole thing, seduced the man etc.

[cacian]

Please tell me this wasn't just a roundabout way for you to once again bash Nabokov.

:goof:

No.


I think cacian's referring to erotica involving child-sex fantasies, and books that imply conspiracies to rape children.

As for the OP... there's very little evidence to my knowledge about what the "root cause" of pedophilia is, although I've read estimates that only about 50% of sex offenders are pedophiles. The others do it for power. So the discussion has to be much broader than pedophilia if deterring sexual abuse is what you're concerned with.

Hi thank you Shevek that is exactly what I meant.
How do you mean power? Do you mean an adult wants to exert power over a minor?
There is a lot of evidence to support that those who offend were offended themselves. A kind a whirlwind trap situation if you like.