What are the reasons for pedophilia? *MAY TRIGGER*

Cessna172 wrote:Maybe you are misunderstanding the meaning of the word "sex carachters". "Sex carachters" are EVERY SINGLE feature which permits to understand if a person is a male or a female. A female with muscles, simply has a typical masculine features, but for the rest 95% could look like a typical female. There are feminine men and masculine women, but at a physical level the masculine side in an adult male will be always prevalent, and the same for adult females.

I think you haven’t been around enough ultra butch lesbians. And believe it or not, there are gay women out there who love the ultra butch types and wouldn't look twice at a girly girl. Apart from a vagina and no y chromosome, you’d struggle to tell the difference with some of them. Your model is too simple, I’m afraid.

But in any case, you’re deflecting from my primary point (yet another fallacy), so let’s get back to it:

People are attracted to something of the essence of male or female before they go on to find physical characteristics (including primary and secondary sexual characteristics) attractive. This is why a man or woman can say they were aware of their sexual orientation long before they developed the capacity to be physically attracted to men or women. I knew I was emotionally attracted to females at around 7, but I didn't have the capacity to find them physically attractive until 3 years later.

Cessna172 wrote:Fetishes.
Everything that is not related with biological physical features is a fetish.

So when I’m attracted to a woman because she has a propensity to laugh more readily than most, that's a fetish because it's not physical? Nonsense, my friend. Why is it that I would pick up on this and find it attractive but I would never notice if a man had a similar tendency? Because I’m emotionally drawn to the essence of women, and have been since I was a child, before any inkling of physical attraction dawned on me.

Cessna172 wrote:You were suggesting that sex carachters are fetishes. Not at all!

No, I didn’t suggest that. Please quote me to show where I suggested that.

Cessna172 wrote:Primary and secondary sex carachters are the primary vectors of the sexual orientation. And the typical behaviour of a female is a sex carachter too, but concerns the psychological side.

I love how in your past three posts you’ve started to add in the behavioural element as a sex characteristic. It's a concession to my argument; it wasn’t in your original argument at all.

Cessna172 wrote:I repeat: your problem is that you don't understand the meaning of the word "sex carachters". Do you think that men are men only because they have muscles and penis?

You can add the roll eyes smiley all you like (it’s a form of ad hominem in itself).

I said that there is more to male and female than pure physicality. So, by extension: no, I don't think men are men only because they have muscles and a penis. This much should be obvious from my argument. I’d appreciate it if you could recognise that it's not me who's reducing this to mere physicality; it's you. Please don’t undermine your own argument by presenting mine as yours. The last line of the quote above could easily have featured in my first response to your black-and-white position.

Cessna172 wrote:For every pedophile who claims that he likes only children of one gender, you will find two or three who are attracted, at last at some level, to both.
That's what I have found out thanks to pedo forums.

This is not a strong argument. There are no stats on this (as far as I'm aware), so arguing purely from what you’ve seen on forums is a rather assailable position. Besides, what are you suggesting? That because children share similar characteristics (smooth skin, small stature, etc.) paedophiles must be attracted to both to some extent? What of the one in three you have observed who aren't attracted to both? This undermines your own argument. And if you discount that one in three, then you would be committing a no true Scotsman fallacy ('well, then he wasn't a proper paedophile').

Cessna172 wrote:In a girllover forum (pedophiles attracted to girls) there was a poll which asked members if they were attracted to boys. 3 out of ten voted they were attracted to boys as much as they were to little girls, and other 3 out of ten voted that, although they prefer girls, had at least some attraction towards prepubescent boys too.

Now you’re committing the shifting goalposts fallacy. In the last quote you said for every one paedophile who is attracted exclusively to girls, there are two or three who are attracted, at least to some degree, to both. Two or three for every one? This would mean the paedophile exclusively attracted to one sex would make up 25% - 33.3% of the overall paedophile population. But this poll you cite suggests 40%, with 30% of the remaining 60% being at least questionable (it's likely that a fairly substantial proportion of people are bisexual to some extent, so this is not specific to paedophiles).

Cessna172 wrote:In a poll of a boylover forum member were asked if they prefer little girls or men, and 50% voted for girls.

So presumably, then, the other 50% voted for men? Ergo that shows nothing to back up your point.

Cessna172 wrote:Why are you not attracted to boys? Because they have primary and terziary sex carachters.

In part perhaps, but I’ve never argued that the physical sexual characteristics are not important, merely that my attraction to such characteristics didn’t properly kick in until the onset of puberty. I was attracted to girls emotionally and (in a childish way) romantically long before that, however.

Cessna172 wrote:As I have said since I wrote the first message in thid discussion, sexual orientation is a casual attraction towards some physical and psychological features, which determine the object of your attraction: feminine women, masculine men, masculine women, feminine men, prepubescent boys, prepubescent girls, teenagers, infants, and so on...

You’re misrepresenting what you said to include the psychological element. What you actually said in your first post in this thread was:

Cessna172 wrote:The body features you like, will determine the sexual orientation you will develop.

The element pertaining to psychological characteristics is my argument. You can argue my standpoint if you like, but you’re preaching to the converted and undermining your own argument at the same time. Your shifting of the goalposts is more than evident.

Cessna172 wrote:In other words, the features you like are not the consequences of your sexual orientation, but it's the sexual orientation that is the consequence of features you like. What I was suggesting with my first reply, tryng to discuss the reasons for pedophilia, is that everyone of us is predisposed in being attracted to some features, and according to them we develop our sexual orientation.

I am inclined to disagree with this for the reasons I have already given.

Cessna172 wrote:So, to answer to the OP question: I think no one is born gay/straight/pedophile. These are only abstract categories, which human have invented for trying to describe human sexuality. [...]And BTW, I don't think that "heterosexual" and "homosexual" are sexual orientations, but only abstract words.

It is clear that such labels are handy pigeonholes rather than concrete facts. The sexuality of an individual is the aggregate of everything to which he/she has found attractive, does find attractive and will find attractive in whatever way. Nonetheless, it is the case that there are people – a great many people – who are only attracted to one sex (for example), in the sense that their appreciation of the sex to which they are not attracted is restricted to the realm of the aesthetic, with any sexual or romantic attraction being negligible. Whether the scope and intrinsic potentialities of their sexuality are things they are born with or acquire is debatable, but it’s not the debate we’re having (you're deflecting again, but I'm gracing the deflection with a response because it's still an interesting topic). You’re insisting that one’s sexuality (let’s call this X) is determined by (i.e. secondary to) the range of sexual characteristics to which one is attracted (let’s call these Y). This strikes me as resembling some form of petitio principii: in what way are X and Y not simply the same thing? Unless all you’re really doing is saying the label ‘hetero’ (for example) comes after the fact, which is nothing more than calling into question the capacity of words to reflect reality an sich. Again, you’re preaching to the converted – this is nothing new philosophically.

Cessna172 wrote:Thinking that the sexual orientation is related to a single gene is ridiculous. Every gene of us is related with our sexual orientation, and since your genes are not identical to to genes of your feather, is is obvious that you don't usually acquire his sexual orientation. But I wouldn't be surprised if, for example, a pedophile attracted to little boys discovered that his father loves small women, with small boobs and smooth skin.

This is a debate you can have with someone else. Genetics or reasons for developing certain attractions is not the subject of my argument. My argument revolves around the fact that attraction is not merely to physical characteristics, and I’d like to keep on track in this regard rather than get involved in your transparent deflections.

Cessna172 wrote:If we have to create categories for describing sexual orientation, I think there are at least four sexual orientations; one towards little girls, an other one towards little boys, an other one towards men and one towards women.
So, for example a man attracted to prepubescent boys and an other man attracted to men have two different sexual orientations.

As I’ve said, I think that ‘labels are handy pigeonholes rather than concrete facts. The sexuality of an individual is the aggregate of everything to which he/she has found attractive, does find attractive and will find attractive in whatever way’.

Cessna172 wrote:NO, people are attracted to some kind of persons, who can be male/female, adults/children, and so on...
And a preference for a gender or an other is surely based on primary and/or secondary sex carachters and/or psychological sex carachters.

This is the biggest instance of shifting goalposts I’ve seen from you. To stretch the metaphor somewhat, you’ve practically lifted them out the ground, carried them down the pitch and planted them squarely at the opponent’s end. So people are attracted to types of people first and foremost, and preference for sex (don’t confuse this with gender) is secondary to this? I note also that you slip in my argument again at the end – psychological characteristics. This wasn’t what you initially argued. To remind you, you said:

Cessna172 wrote:The body features you like, will determine the sexual orientation you will develop. [...] I said that, according to me, everyone is predisposed in being attracted to some physical features. And you DEVELOP your sexual orientation according the features you like.

Body features. Physical features. Not type of person, not psychological characteristics. Body features and physical features.

Cessna172 wrote:Attraction is actually not only physical/sexual attraction, but romantical attraction too, which is a part of the attraction.

Romantical attraction is not "blind", but it's based on physical/psychological features EXACTLY in the same way as sexual attraction is.

I’m tempted to say you’re blind on this point because you’re arguing from the standpoint of male sexuality, which is far more visual than female sexuality. But I don’t believe men are incapable of seeing beyond the confines of their sexuality. Romantic attraction may be swayed by visual attraction, but I’ve already given a counterexample (the girl with the propensity to laugh a lot). I’ll give another example: I spoke with a woman on the phone today. She was a call centre agent. I’ve never seen her, but the way she spoke was alert and full of energy, and I found that attractive. She was open and warm, she didn’t falter in her speech, she was relaxed. Her voice was not silky smooth or anything, but the way she pronounced certain vowels was feminine and cute. These qualities attracted me to her, even though I didn’t have the faintest idea what she looked like.

Cessna172 wrote:If secondary sex carachters didn't exist, you wouldn't be able to see the difference between males and females. So, how could you choose between the two?

This only creates a case for an ability to distinguish between the sexes. It doesn’t present a case for sexual attraction being based on bodily/physical features alone.

Cessna172 wrote:Gender preference would only be related to a preference of genitals. And if genitals (primary sex carachters) neither existed, the gender initself wouldn't exist... and we wouldn't be here doing this discussion.

You’re completely confusing the terms sex and gender.

Cessna172 wrote:If you think there is some sort of elettromagnetic field which make males attarcted to females and females attracted to males, ok... I respect your belief... but I won't share it with you until you won't be able to support it with a scientific study.

This is a straw man. Why pick something as odd (and assailable) as an electromagnetic field? Because it’s wacky and easy to criticise. I have outlined above non-physical qualities (psychological, behavioural) that allow me to be attracted to females. I was drawn to their nature long before I found them physically attractive.

Cessna172 wrote:The exclusive thing I can see is that genders differentiate between each others thanks to physical/psychological sex carachters, and so I suppose that EVERY possibile discrimination between the two (work, friendship... sex, love... and so on) is actually based on a discrimination between masculine and feminine sex carachters.

You could really benefit from reading Judith Butler’s Gender Trouble, as well as other writers in the subject area of queer theory (Eve Kosofsky Sedgwick, etc.). At present, you’re just toying with the rudiments of a subject area you don’t really understand. At the very least you need to learn the difference between sex and gender. And again you’ve slipped in psychological characteristics – my point, not yours.

Cessna172 wrote:Isn't "laughingh a lot" a psyhocological carachter?

It’s behavioural. Not a bodily feature, not a physical feature. This is what I have been arguing all along. You haven’t admitted you were wrong explicitly, but you have slowly slipped in the psychological/behavioural element more and more, which is more than merely a concession to my argument but an outright contradiction of your original point, which was (let me remind you again):

Cessna172 wrote:The body features you like, will determine the sexual orientation you will develop. [...] I said that, according to me, everyone is predisposed in being attracted to some physical features. And you DEVELOP your sexual orientation according the features you like.

^This was your original point. It looks very different in its revised point now:

Cessna172 wrote:I repeat: according to me, the sexual orientation describe the KIND OF PERSONS you like.
Adult or child, female or male, tall or little... serious or JOYFUL...

This is not a repetition of your original point. 'Serious or joyful'? These are not bodily or physical characteristics. You’ve strayed a very long way from your original argument. I can hear the walls of the stadium being demolished to make way for the goalposts!

Cessna172 wrote:I am suggesting that the sexual orientation is not an abstract attraction towards a gender, but an attraction towards some physical/psychological features, which make you attracted to a kind of persons: adult/child, female/male, serious/joyful,....

Once again you’re slipping in the words psychological, serious/joyful. You’ve come so far over to my standpoint that you’re starting to argue it to me! Incredible.

Cessna172 wrote:That's why there are so many pedophiles, like me, who think the gender of the child is not so important or even immaterial: because we like some features which are related to children, and we don't care so much about features related to the gender.

You don’t care about features related to the gender (by which I presume you mean sex)? Fine. That doesn't detract from my point. In your case you would have been attracted to children in some quasi-romantic way before you went on to develop attraction to certain physical characteristics.

Cessna172 wrote:Furthermore, showing that many boylovers prefer women more than men, I am suggesting that sexual attraction is not based on a gender initself, but on a mix of psychological and physical carachters. Many persons say that I can't speak of pedosexual orientation, because the sexual orientation would be based (for all persons) in a pure discrimination between the two genders.

I am very bored of this thing, because I know for sure that I'm sexually oriented towards qualities which have little or nothing to do with the gender.

You can argue this with someone else. My points are that it ain’t all based on physical features, and that attraction starts long before one has the capacity to be drawn to people because of certain physical features. I haven’t said more than this, which is why your next accusation is unfounded:

Cessna172 wrote:People like you, who think that everyone of us is born for being attracted to ONE gender or TWO GENDERS

Where did I say that? Please quote me.

(I also asked you in my previous post to quote me when you levelled an incorrect criticism. You didn’t, so I presume you had to concede you were wrong.)

no offense but this argument seems so unproductive... all i got was that Gina is attracted to girls because of experience, and that you think its all in your genetics...

Cessna172 wrote:About the phone speaking: at the phone you don't see the person, but you hear his/her voice, and the voice is actually a real important part of the sexual attraction. It is one of the sex carachters. Women have a different voice than men, and children have a different voice than adults. So, I can say without any problem that the voice, in a se xual orientation based on the gender or on the age, is very important. But is the voice a psychological carachter? No, it's physical. [...]Yours point about the phone converesation was not a good argumentation. Not at all. You have implictly admitted how important is the physical side. So much that only ONE physical feature alone can actually create an attraction. [...] I see that you are confusing physical with psychological: the phone speaking was a bad argumentation.

You’re confusing voice with manner of speaking. I didn’t say I found her voice attractive. I described her way of speaking, so it’s still a very good argument. Indeed, I even downplayed the voice aspect. See here:

GinaSmith wrote:the way she spoke was alert and full of energy, and I found that attractive. She was open and warm, she didn’t falter in her speech, she was relaxed. Her voice was not silky smooth or anything, but the way she pronounced certain vowels was feminine and cute.

Cessna172 wrote:The way a person speaks? Well, this is related with both physical and psychological sides.

The voice is physical; the manner of speaking is not.

Cessna172 wrote:I admit there is something psychological at the level of a phone speaking.... but related with you (subject), and not the object of your sexual attraction. When you hear an attractive feminine voice, not only the voice in itself create attraction, but furthermore, thanks to the voice, you start imagine, in a conciously or inconciously way, how could she look. And remember that are not your eyes which actually view, but your brain.

No, I imagine how she might be, her personality, whether we could be friends, whether she would be submissive, whether she’s popular, whether she would enjoy the same things as I might, what kind of image she has, whether we would get on during a date, whether we might share views and ambitions, whether she's a nice upper middle class girl or a rough and ready working class girl, whether she might be the type to read Proust or Joyce, whether she cooks, whether she’d be good in bed. Forgive me for being presumptuous, but I get the impression you have a very two-dimensional sexuality where the visual apperception of physical features is primary and omnipotent. Of course, it could be that male sexuality, being more visual, is more preoccupied with the physical, but I suspect most men would agree they can share the kind of romantic ‘a priori’ buzz from the call centre agent’s manner of speaking I’ve described. Or could men only get that from the voice itself (i.e. the physical properties of her speech rather than the personality her manner of speaking evokes)? I'm not sure that does justice to the depth of male sexuality.

Cessna172 wrote:Well, although I can see your point, I don't think that the psychological side is as much important as the physical one.

I would certainly agree that physical/bodily features are important, but why they’re important is the crux of our disagreement. I believe we are innately attracted to people (for example, females), and our physical tastes are then shaped a posteriori. You believe that the physical attraction is primary and psychological response is determined by that. It’s an impasse, but not one that urgently needs resolved. It's probably best we agree to disagree.

First let me state I have never committed an act of this or sought to. Having been in mental illness support sessions with adults who were abused I have seen the damage it does and hate pedophiles.

I just wonder if men are attracted to the female mind in it's natural state. As people become adults they are fair game to be medicated. There emotions and social skills are numbed by medicine often. I say this because my ex girlfriend age 49 hated me when I took my medication but I could be locked up if I didn't. What I am saying is don't medicate adults and risk the consequences. Then adults would be naturally feeling strong emotions for each other. You cannot give special treatment to children by not medicating them and expect us not to be impressed by their relative mental maturity. Doctors are causing pedophilia as they see women who are attracted to certain men as mentally ill.

The last female to walk up to me and say 'hi sexy' was 12 and I obviously walked away. Maybe if bold women were not classed as ill they would be a little older hopefully! Ie fully grown women.

radoxme wrote:Having been in mental illness support sessions with adults who were abused I have seen the damage it does and hate pedophiles.

Hi Radoxme. I presume you mean you hate child molestors, rather than simply people who are attracted to children. What you've said is analogous to saying 'I've gotten to know women who were raped and seen the damage it does and hate men'. There's a difference between attraction and acting on attraction.

radoxme wrote:I just wonder if men are attracted to the female mind in it's natural state. As people become adults they are fair game to be medicated. There emotions and social skills are numbed by medicine often. I say this because my ex girlfriend age 49 hated me when I took my medication but I could be locked up if I didn't. What I am saying is don't medicate adults and risk the consequences. Then adults would be naturally feeling strong emotions for each other. You cannot give special treatment to children by not medicating them and expect us not to be impressed by their relative mental maturity. Doctors are causing pedophilia as they see women who are attracted to certain men as mentally ill.

The last female to walk up to me and say 'hi sexy' was 12 and I obviously walked away. Maybe if bold women were not classed as ill they would be a little older hopefully! Ie fully grown women.

I'm not quite sure what you're getting at here. Do you mean that children's minds are purer? The way I read it you seem to be suggesting either that all adults are on medication or all adults are regarded as ill or sullied in some way. I'm attracted to females of around 7 to late 40s, and I see that attraction as a continuum rather than two (or more) distinct categories of attraction.

Eeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeek

In a nutshell all I am saying is to lower the prevalence of this increasing crime it makes sense to preserve the beauty of humans into full adulthood who are too often physically or mentally scared. I do not intend to discuss attraction to children as I am happy to only mate with mature women of good health.

radoxme wrote:In a nutshell all I am saying is to lower the prevalence of this increasing crime it makes sense to preserve the beauty of humans into full adulthood who are too often physically or mentally scared.

Scared or scarred? Or both? And by what - child abuse or medication?

Sorry. Scarred. By anything and everything. The illness and the 'cure'.