Pedophilia: Choice or Genetic?

Pedophilia: Choice or Genetic?

by

Published on August 23rd, 2006, 8:40 am
Rift: Religion

The debate over whether or not homosexuality is genetic or an active choice has been going on for quite a few years now. Well, last night I got to thinking what with all the news about John Mark Karr and all. What about pedophilia? Do you think it's a choice or do you think there is a genetic base to it? Personally, I don't think either one is a choice. I don't think people can choose their sexual orientation any more than they can choose the color of their skin. Some things are just beyond our power to change and this is one of them.

We can throw personal responsibility out the door and blame our choices on things we can not control or we can take bear responsibility for our choices. Because a person chooses to believe they are made a certain way certainly doesn't make it so.

There is always a choice to do, or act in a certain way. But the internal need to fufill, or mental inclination towards might not be a choice.

Liv wrote:There is always a choice to do, or act in a certain way. But the internal need to fufill, or mental inclination towards might not be a choice.

I believe the will to avoid acting upon a situation is directly related to the strength of the moral character of that person. Strength in moral character is something that is built up throughout life.

Just because a person has these "urges" most certainly does not absolve them of the responsibility of controlling those urges with professional help if needed. Anybody that has ever tried to stop smoking can tell you that you can't control whether or not you have the urge but you most certainly have the power to control how you react to those urges.

RebelSnake wrote:Just because a person has these "urges" most certainly does not absolve them of the responsibility of controlling those urges with professional help if needed. Anybody that has ever tried to stop smoking can tell you that you can't control whether or not you have the urge but you most certainly have the power to control how you react to those urges.

I agree. But you have to admit that over time the more you resist the urges the easier it becomes to resist. The same with building character and morals.

RebelSnake wrote:The debate over whether or not homosexuality is genetic or an active choice has been going on for quite a few years now. Well, last night I got to thinking what with all the news about John Mark Karr and all. What about pedophilia? Do you think it's a choice or do you think there is a genetic base to it? Personally, I don't think either one is a choice. I don't think people can choose their sexual orientation any more than they can choose the color of their skin. Some things are just beyond our power to change and this is one of them.

Your sexual orientation -- the things that stimulate a sexual response -- you have no control over, I believe. I've not studied the scientific literature on the matter, but I think it makes sense. What you do in the face of that orientation is another matter. In the case of homosexuality, the attraction to humans of the same sex, engaging in that sort of behavior with a consenting partner shouldn't be a problem.

I rather pity pedophiles, because their desires can only lead to harm and confusion for the children they are attracted to. So their lives are ones of either denial of their sexual urges, or giving in and becoming monsters. That's a horrible way to live, I should think.

RebelSnake wrote:The debate over whether or not homosexuality is genetic or an active choice has been going on for quite a few years now. Well, last night I got to thinking what with all the news about John Mark Karr and all. What about pedophilia? Do you think it's a choice or do you think there is a genetic base to it? Personally, I don't think either one is a choice. I don't think people can choose their sexual orientation any more than they can choose the color of their skin. Some things are just beyond our power to change and this is one of them.

I'm not quite sure, but I strongly suspect that many pedophiles may be that way as a reaction to having been sexually abused themselves as children. So, it may not be genetic, but a reaction to childhood trauma. Which then puts it in the classification of a mental disease, like Post Traumatic Stress Disorder that is produced by a particular type of traumatic event or series of events. One might inherit a tendency to develop that illness as a result of a particular type of trauma. So it could very well be like what we think may happen with diabetes: one is born with a genetic disposition to react to certain types of life events with degeneration of the islets of Langerhans in the pancreas--leading to diabetes. Similarly, one might be born with a genetic disposition to be damaged in a particular type of way by childhood rape trauma, and the way that one is disposed to react is to continually try to recreate the situation that produced the trauma. But when one is no longer a child, one takes on the role of the abuser so as to recreate the situation.

It does not mean, however, that the person should be allowed to go about traumatizing other children. If the person cannot or will not control his/her impulse to use children sexually, then that person needs to be isolated from society so as to eliminate his/her opportunity to victimize more children.

Jan 29, 2008:

Questioner wrote:I'm not quite sure, but I strongly suspect that many pedophiles may be that way as a reaction to having been sexually abused themselves as children.

That the case, alot of victims of Pedophiles would also eventually grow into Pedophiles themselves, right?

If the person cannot or will not control his/her impulse to use children sexually, then that person needs to be isolated from society so as to eliminate his/her opportunity to victimize more children.

That I can agree with.

The premise that pedophilia is analogous to homosexuality has one over-riding flaw. Consent.

Thats is not always the case. **January 6th, 2008, 10:26 pm** Reply with quote

Thats is not always the case.

A child cannot legally give consent therefore it's considered rape. Sex between consenting adults is different an adult can. Of course if the adult does not give consent then the act is also rape.

A Person wrote:A child cannot legally give consent therefore it's considered rape. Sex between consenting adults is different an adult can. Of course if the adult does not give consent then the act is also rape.

If it was legal for a child over 3 years to give consent then, in your world view, would it be moral?

Is it reaonable that a child of three can consent to a sexual act? No. Would it harm the child? Yes. Therefore it is immoral, which is why it's illegal.

What does the your worldview - the Bible say?

BecauseHeLives wrote:
If it was legal for a child over 3 years to give consent ...

But it's not legal so the question is irrelevant.

A Person wrote:Is it reaonable that a child of three can consent to a sexual act? No. Would it harm the child? Yes. Therefore it is immoral, which is why it's illegal.

What does the your worldview - the Bible say?

How young were those little girls the OT ( and NT) dads were selling into marriage- or slavery? Don't recall reading a posted age limit. :?:

Dancing around the question I see....

BecauseHeLives wrote:Dancing around the question I see....

No, APerson answered it head on. I think C.Alice posted a question you might want to answer though.

To restate the question formally:

Does the Bible say it would be immoral/wrong to have sex with young girls?

If not do you consider it immoral?

Why?

This is not a trick question. (except that it's three questions, but since we know the answer to #1, I thought I'd give you a heads-up for #2 & #3)

A Person wrote:To restate the question formally:

Does the Bible say it would be immoral/wrong to have sex with young girls?

If not do you consider it immoral?

Why?

This is not a trick question. (except that it's three questions, but since we know the answer to #1, I thought I'd give you a heads-up for #2 & #3)

Before an answer can be given then I think it's appropriate that you give your definition of morality.

I've done that - Reason, logic and empathy. It's time for you to demonstrate yours.

If you don't like 'immoral' substitute 'wrong'

Does the Bible say it would be wrong to have sex with young girls?

It's a simple question. Please don't obfuscate.

I've done that - Reason, logic and empathy. It's time for you to demonstrate yours.

If you don't like 'immoral' substitute 'wrong'

Does the Bible say it would be wrong to have sex with young girls?

It's a simple question. Please don't obfuscate.

Empathy has nothing to do with morality. I can emphasize with a person being in prison but it wouldn't necessarily be morale for me to let him loose. Reason and logic might as well apply to a math equation. My point is this: you are asking a morality question and my point is that you haven't the slightest idea how to guage morality so how can you possibly judge my answer? With that being said, you can't reason right from wrong either without using popular opinion as a guide. Other than using "LAW" you have no standard.

Does the Bible say it would be wrong to have sex with young girls?

It's a simple question. Please don't obfuscate.

BecauseHeLives wrote:
I've done that - Reason, logic and empathy. It's time for you to demonstrate yours.

If you don't like 'immoral' substitute 'wrong'

Does the Bible say it would be wrong to have sex with young girls?

It's a simple question. Please don't obfuscate.

Empathy has nothing to do with morality. I can emphasize with a person being in prison but it wouldn't necessarily be morale for me to let him loose. Reason and logic might as well apply to a math equation. My point is this: you are asking a morality question and my point is that you haven't the slightest idea how to guage morality so how can you possibly judge my answer? With that being said, you can't reason right from wrong either without using popular opinion as a guide. Other than using "LAW" you have no standard.

here's my question again:

How young were those little girls the OT ( and NT) dads were selling into marriage- or slavery? Don't recall reading a posted age limit.

C. Alice wrote:
BecauseHeLives wrote:
I've done that - Reason, logic and empathy. It's time for you to demonstrate yours.

If you don't like 'immoral' substitute 'wrong'

Does the Bible say it would be wrong to have sex with young girls?

It's a simple question. Please don't obfuscate.

Empathy has nothing to do with morality. I can emphasize with a person being in prison but it wouldn't necessarily be morale for me to let him loose. Reason and logic might as well apply to a math equation. My point is this: you are asking a morality question and my point is that you haven't the slightest idea how to guage morality so how can you possibly judge my answer? With that being said, you can't reason right from wrong either without using popular opinion as a guide. Other than using "LAW" you have no standard.

here's my question again:

How young were those little girls the OT ( and NT) dads were selling into marriage- or slavery? Don't recall reading a posted age limit.

Point to the scripture and then we'll discuss.