Child Sex and the Law

[The Comrade]

[exploited]

[The Dharma Bum]

I think we are basically in agreement on the issue.

[lil bit]

[exploited]

[lil bit]

[exploited]

I understand that the scientific evidence might be offensive to you, but nonetheless a consensus does indeed exist. As noted in the Harvard Mental Health Newsletter:

http://www.health.harvard.edu/newslette ... pedophilia

Consensus now exists that pedophilia is a distinct sexual orientation, not something that develops in someone who is homosexual or heterosexual. Some people with pedophilic urges are also attracted to adults, and may act only on the latter urges. Because people with pedophilic urges tend to be attracted to children of a particular gender, they are sometimes described in the literature as heterosexual, homosexual, or bisexual pedophiles. Roughly 9% to 40% of pedophiles are homosexual in their orientation toward children — but that is not the same as saying they are homosexual. Homosexual adults are no more likely than heterosexuals to abuse children.

[lil bit]

[exploited]

You seem to want science to alter it's conclusions to fit your preconceptions about politics and sexuality.

The simple truth is that homosexuality is an orientation, as is pedophilia, and that orientation results from a mix of biological differences and environmental influences. Homosexuality is not a choice, as you know, it is innate. It is for this exact reason that homosexuals need and deserve various legal protections. Their behaviour, however much others may consider it disgusting or immoral, is both innate and harmless.

That is what makes this discussion so difficult. Pedophilia is a sexual orientation, born from differences in brain structure, and so in that sense we should not be treating pedophiles as criminals, no more than we should treat homosexuals as criminals. They were quite literally born that way.

That presents big problems, because even though it is natural and innate behaviour, it does cause harm to children, regardless of the presence or non-presence of malice. The question thus becomes, how do we proceed? How do we develop a legal system that can first distinguish between sadists and true pedophiles, then treat them accordingly, while also protecting children?

In my opinion, we need to work on how we react to pedophiles who haven't yet actually engaged in sexual behaviour with kids. Child porn is not harmless, and yet it a pedophile satisfying his urges with porn is better than satisfying them with a child. So when we learn of child porn possession, these are the people we need to develop a treatment regime for, rather than literally alienating them from society, shaming them beyond belief, etc.

That is a good first step.

[lil bit]

Well, the definition of sexual orientation is:

someone's sexual orientation is whether they are sexually attracted to people of the same sex, people of the opposite sex, or both

http://www.collinsdictionary.com/dictio ... rientation

I don't really understand why anyone, scientist or not, would try to alter that definition.

It just clouds the issue.