Is pedophilia a sexual orientation?

PART 1

In the images below you can see a whole family of ducks.

The male

http://campusbasement.com/wp-content/up ... d_duck.jpg

The female with infants

http://www.tehcute.com/pics/201201/duck-family.jpg

In this specie of ducks, you can recognize the male and the female thanks to the color of the plumage.

This mean that the color of the plumage, in this specie, represents one (and the most evident) secondary sex carachteristic (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Secondary_ ... acteristic).

Pay attention to the color of the plumage of infants.

1) The color is different to the one of adult females and adult males
2) The plumage of infants doesn't change with gender: males and females have the same.

Some notes:
1) The color of the plumage of males can be called "Male secondary sex carachteristic".
2) The color of the plumage of males can be called "Female secondary sex carachteristic".
3) The color of the plumage of infants can be called "Infantile carachteristic".

The third point is a key in this discussion.

"Infantile carachteristic" can be considered the opposite of "secondary sex carachteristic". The follwing statements are true:

1) Before an infant of a specie reaches puberty, he/she has infantile carachteristic
2) When an infant of a specie reches puberty, infantile carachteristic is gradually replaced with secondary sex carachteristic

3) Therefore, infantile carachteristic is a set of physical qualities which are not related to gender, but to infantile age.

Every specie has its peculiar secondary sex carachteristic and infantile carachteristic. Humans too.

Pedophilia is the attraction towards prepubescent children.
Pedophiles are attracted to infantile carachteristic.

Many people think that serxual orientation in humans can be defined only with words "homosexual" and "heterosexual".
According to them, pedophiles would be a subset of the two sexual orientations: something like a fetish that both homosexuals and heterosexuals can have.

The question is: what is the sense of the previous statement, when it's evident that pedophilia is NOT an attraction towards gender related physical qualities, but towards age related physical qualities?

Pedophiles are attracted to infantile carachteristic, which is the opposite of secondary sex carachteristic: what does pedophilia have to do with gender-based attraction???

This is the end of PART 1, and the beginning of PART 2.

PART 2

In the part 2 I'll speak about a study of Balanchard, "Sexual Attraction to Others: A Comparison of Two Models of Alloerotic Responding in Men" (2010).

The paper can be downloaded here: http://link.springer.com/article/10.100 ... 010-9675-3

The goal of this study was to investigate the typical pattern of sexual orientation in humans.
Infact, the study has been presented with the title "What is sexual orientation?".

The questions were:
1) What drives a person towards an attraction to a category of persons (men, women, boys, girls)?
2) In which way are different sexual preferences related with each other? If, for example, a man is primarily attracted to prepubescent boys, what will be more likely his secondary attraction?

If you test a male with Penile plethysmography (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Penile_plethysmograph), and you show him erotic pictures with different subjects (men, women, boys, girls), you can draw a function of his sexual arousal (according to penis volume). The highest point of the function identifies the primary sexual orientation of the subject.

Balanchard wanted to build a mathematical model which could predict the function of sexual arousal of a male with the different categories of persons, given as input his primary sexual orientation.

The first hypothesis was that attraction in humans could be generalized as an attraction towards to one gender or an other, which is what most people believe.
The model based on this first hypothesis was not able to correctly predict the function, so it was wrong.

The second hypothesis was that attraction in humans could be generalized as an attraction towards a combination between gender and age.
This second hypothesis was better than the first, but still not so good.

The third hypthesis was that attraction in humans could be generalized as an attraction towards a human morphology (a set of physical qualities).
This hypothesis produced the best results.
An important concept of this third model, is the morphological distance.
morphological distance is a mesure which says how much two catagories of persons are different in relation of physical qualities/morphology.
Higher the distance, higher the difference.

Here below you can see the table of morphological distances

http://s28.postimg.org/w7c7ndxzv/distan ... logica.png

Balanchard found out that, thanks to morphological distance, he was able to calculate the probability that a person with a determined sexual orientation was attracted to a person outside the prefered category.
Lower the morphological distance between the prefered category and the non prefered category, higher the probabily of a sexual attraction towards a subject of the non prefered category.

For example, the morphological distance between prepubescent boys and prepubescent girls is considered to be 1, while the morphological distance between prepubescent boys and an adult males is considered to be 2.
Therefore, the probability that an homsoexual pedophile has an attraction towards a prepubescent girl is higher in respect of an attraction towards an adult male.

In the image below you can see the results of the Penile plethysmography test that Balanchard used to verify each hypothesys. The sample: 2278 males.

https://my.psychologytoday.com/files/im ... -47822.jpg

As you can see, in teleiophiles (people attracted to adults) the secondary attraction is towards children of the prefered gender.
The reason is esay to understand.
Take for example the morphological distance between adult females and other cathegories of persons.

Women - Pubescent girls : 1
Women - Prepubescent girls : 2
Women - Prepubescent boys : 3
Women - Pubescent boys : 4
Women - Men : 5

As you can see, the morphological distance between adult females and other age groups of females is lower in respect to every morphological distance between an age group of males and adult females.

For that reason, teleiophiles tend to feel their sexual orientation as an attraction towards a gender.

What they don't understand, is that in reality their attraction is not towards a gender, but towards a human morphology.


The same thing is infact not true when it comes to pedophiles.
Consider the morphological distance between prepubescent boys and other cathegories.

Women - Prepubescent boys: 3
Pubescent females - Prepubescent boys: 2
Prepubescent females - Prepubescent boys: 1
Pubescent males - Prepubescent boys: 1
Adult males - Prepubescent boys: 2

As you can see, the sexual arousal of homosexual pedophiles towards prepubescent girls is higher than sexual arousal towards adult males.
The reason is, an other time, easy to understand: the morphological distance between prepubescent boys and prepubescent girls is lower.

Many pedophiles think that pedophilia is a sexual orientation, but they have an hard time to explain it to teleiophiles, because teleiophiles are not able to feel the position of pedophiles in the scale of morphological distance.
Teleiophiles think that sexual orientation is based on a gender preference because is what you feel when you are at the extreme left or extreme right of the scale of morphological distance.

An interesting observation: if, in the image

https://my.psychologytoday.com/files/im ... -47822.jpg

you move your eyes in this direction: Heterosexual teleiophiles - Heterosexual hebephiles - Heterosexual pedophiles - Homosexual pedophiles - Homosexual hebephiles - Homosexual teleiophiles (it is a counterclockwise rotation) you can perceive like everything moves from left to right.
Do you see?
It is the movement inside the scale of morphological distance.

It is a scale where heterosexual teleiophiles are at the extreme left, homosexual teleiophiles at the extreme right, and pedophiles in the middle.

To conclude the PART 2, the model of Balanchard is obviously not perfect, but the general idea works well. At least, we know that sexual orientation is not an attraction towards a gender, but towards a set of physical qualities.

CONCLUSION

Pedosexuality is the sexual orientation of persons whose primary sexual attraction is towards children.
It is an attraction towards a particular human morphology related to infantile carachteristic.
Pedosexuals can have a preference for boys or girls, and can be divided in other subcategories: pedohomosexual and pedoheterosexual.

P.S.: before you write "this is not true for me" , "my brother...", "my sister....", "my friend..", remember that the people in the sample were 2278, if you know a little bit about statistic and what "high numbers" and "low numbers" are.
Of course what is written in this thread, can not be applied to each single human, but can be applied to high numbers of individuals.
I always speak about PROBABILITY, if you read.

Very interesting. I hope you continue to make more posts like this.

The problems I have with paedophilia as an orientation stem from an evolutionary perspective and the problem that paedophilia has been dragged up from pre pubescent, to pubescent and now all the way up to 18. I am troubled that as far as I know (correct me if I am wrong), paedophilia has not been confirmed in nature. Homosexuality has been more than 2000 times, but nature defines the being ready for sex as being after puberty. This has consequences, to class those who find 5 yr olds the same as those who find 14 or 17 yr olds attractive means cluncky, haphazard laws, child protection policies and research.

But I am pushed to thinking that in evolutionary terms, orientation seems to define attractions to males, females or both. I lean towards age/visual characteristics being preference - but when I say that I am not saying it's a choice. If however it is a preference, that leaves room for possible treatments, and that is hopeful. If it is an orientation, then there is less hope for treatments, and the fixed paedophile is to be condemned to much psychological suffering. For this reason I hope it is demonstrated to be a preference rather than orientation in the future. Then real work on how to treat paedophiles can begin.

cumulusjames wrote:Very interesting. I hope you continue to make more posts like this.

Of course!

The problems I have with paedophilia as an orientation stem from an evolutionary perspective and the problem that paedophilia has been dragged up from pre pubescent, to pubescent and now all the way up to 18.

This is not true.

AOC law is a thing (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Age_of_consent) and pedophilia is an other (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pedophilia).

Pedophilia is the preference for prepubescent children, and it is the opposite orientation of Teleiophilia, which is the preference for adults.

The meaning of the word pedophilia has never changed.

I am troubled that as far as I know (correct me if I am wrong), paedophilia has not been confirmed in nature. Homosexuality has been more than 2000 times

First of all, pedophilia exists in humans, and humans are part of the nature.

By the way you can find pedophilia outside the human species.

Pedophilia in cats: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Pqu0MiSPjy8

Pedophilia in bonobo: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Nzz3au6PZhM

Pro-Homosexuals always say that homosexuality exists in animal, but they forget to say that in many cases is homosexual pedophilia.

About the bonobo: according to a study (which I can't find at the moment) sex between adult and infants is completely normal, and in 1/3 of cases the initiator is the infant.

but nature defines the being ready for sex as being after puberty.

Wrong.
You are ready for REPRODUCTION after puberty.
Sex? Prepubescent boys can have erections and dry orgasms, so they are technically ready for SEX before puberty.
Dont confuse SEX with REPRODUCTION.
The ability you gain with puberty is to eject sperm with the orgasm, and NOT to have an orgasm.

But I am pushed to thinking that in evolutionary terms, orientation seems to define attractions to males, females or both.

The first hypothesis was that attraction in humans could be generalized as an attraction towards to one gender or an other, which is what most people believe.
The model based on this first hypothesis was not able to correctly predict the function, so it is wrong.
[......]
The third hypthesis was that attraction in humans could be generalized as an attraction towards a human morphology (a set of physical qualities).
This hypothesis produced the best results.

Here below you can see the screenshot of the results a poll which was made in a forum for boylovers (pedophiles attracted to boys).

http://oi60.tinypic.com/f4qwj9.jpg

To the question "What do you like?", 16 persons voted that they had an attraction towards females (6 towards preteen girls, 5 towards teen girls, 5 towards women), but only 3 voted they had an attraction towards adult males.

But sexuality, you said, is an attraction towards a gender.

Boylovers (homosexual pedophiles) are interesting to understand human sexuality.
They prefer males when it comes to children, but many times prefer females when it comes to adults.
Why?
Because one thing that pedophile like so much about children is their smooth skin.
Adult males are hairy.
Females of each age group have a smooth skin.

Nothing strange. Infact this is exactly what says the study of balanchard: the third hypthesis was that attraction in humans could be generalized as an attraction towards a human morphology (a set of physical qualities).

I explained why teleiophiles feel that sexual orientation is towards a gender.


As you can see, the morphological distance between adult females and other age groups of females is lower in respect to every morphological distance between an age group of males and adult females.

For that reason, teleiophiles tend to feel their sexual orientation as an attraction towards a gender.

What they don't understand, is that in reality their attraction is not towards a gender, but towards a human morphology

I lean towards age/visual characteristics being preference

Why do you divide the concept of "visual characteristics" from the concept of "sexual orientation"?
Visual characteristics are the PURE ESSENCE of sexual orientation in humans, as explained by the research of Balanchard.

Thank-you for putting this together. I was particularly interested in your presentation about Blanchard as I've followed his work to some degree for several years, he is retired now; I appreciate you unpacking what you have and adding your interpretation as despite some dead-ends, Blanchard was a creative and determined sexologist.

In the UK folk are being prosecuted for sexual activity with 16 yr olds, in spite of the fact this is the legal age of consent, and it is reported in the media as being paedophilia when this happens. Also saw an episode of without a trace or something a few months ago which depicted a topless photo of a 17 yr old as child pornography, and the sexual activity between the 17 yr old (who was just about 6ft from what I could tell) as being paedophilia.

It has also gone unnoticed by the gay rights lobby that the age of consent in the UK has effectively been put back up to 18 from 16, because laws relating to the internet on child pornography, sexual activity with a minor and grooming go up to 18. If you are a 16 yr old gay male then to find anyone else would usually require the use of the internet.

There are 16 yr olds on the gay cruising apps over here. I would be prosecuted and called paedophile by both the courts and the press were I to communicate, let alone go with them.

As an aside, the only reason I stopped sleeping with 16 yr olds is the same reason I stopped sleeping with 18 or 21 yr olds - because I'm not so attractive these days.

I don't think that most of the secondary sex traits of a female are comparable to a male's secondary traits, or the plum of ducks.

I think that the secondary traits body hair, under arm odor, large adult pores, stronger bones, stronger muscles, smaller eye ratio are masculine traits that women have to share like men have to share nipples. I think that women have evolved to lack masculine traits over the years because men aren't attracted to them for a beneficial reason I suppose. I think that women are essentially people who lack development, and that development would be masculinity.
If you take certain masculine secondary sexual characteristics of females that match males(body hair, under arm odor, upper body strength, adams apple, large sweat glans, etc), and take them away completely, then the adult human female resembles a child with breasts and a vagina. Masculine traits serve a purpose and females don't need them.
Maybe child brides were such a evolutionary benefit to men, that men evolved the attraction. If this attraction was there, then older females who lacked development would be considered more attractive than other older females who had less development.

So the attraction to youth and childlike characteristics is natural male attraction towards females.Here is some proof.. Look at how post pubescent females must hide their secondary sex characteristics in modern society just to be noticed: http://egomoral.com/child-bride-denial/

Look at how most mammals are heterosexually hebephilic: http://egomoral.com/pedophilia-is-dominant-in-mammals/

Homosexual attractions are probably a result of intersex. A man who is attracted to another man has developed the female part of the brain that is attracted to certain masculine traits. If this homosexual man lusts after prepubescent boys then he developed the masculine attraction to undeveloped feminine characteristics while evolving the feminine attraction to certain male characteristics.

I think that the majority of what the law tries to define as pedophilia is overwhelmingly heterosexual hebephilia. Rape statistics also support my theories and they are based on 300,000 sexual assaults.
http://richardfelson.files.wordpress.co ... inepdf.pdf

The overwhelming amount of heterosexual hebephiles compared to the very small amount of homosexuals or 'actual pedophiles' means something. There is a constant attempt to define heterosexual hebephilia as homosexuality, pedophilia and infantophilia.

I feel unsure that discussions about whether there is any evidence that paedophilia/hebaphilia are naturaly occurring phenomena are helpful in the context of these forums.

My concern is that not everyone with such desires who visits these forums is as rational or intelligent as some of the main participants. Anything which could be taken out of context and be misinterpreted as condoning such things/giving justification might have negative outcomes.

I don't know. I'm not sure it is helpful. The primary purpose of this forum is to get help and support in managing deviant desires so you do not act on them isn't it? I'm a bit worried these discussions might run counter to that objective.

I think that arguing that hebephilia is a natural attraction in a biological sense, is helpful for people who are stressing over such attractions. You can help them to accept it and not stress over it so much without condoning fulfilling their hebephillic desires.

Not for me. I'm a "victim" of hebaphilia don't forget.

I think attraction to adults and 13-14+ children of the same gender as your adult attraction is natural. However we should still respect the age of consent laws and the possibility that such relations could cause harm to the child and should never condone such relationships.