Thursday, December 11, 2008

Pedophilia, Paraphilia and Society

It was once said about me, when I was attacking what I characterize as the pedophile witch hunt in the west, that perhaps I wish us not to "hunt" pedophiles at all. Ignoring the use of the word hunt with regard to human beings and before I explore the question of whether or not merely hunting pedophiles is the best way to protect children, I'd like to clarify my position on pedophilia generally.

In short, I think we shouldn't create pedophiles and then act all surprised when we find them. The natural next question is how can they be created? And who is doing the creating?

The first question's answer is obvious. and to ask it exposes a fundamental and willful ignorance. To ask the question exposes a deep and pressing ideological bias quite honestly not seen since Nazi Germany. You probably felt it already and have formed opinions about me before ever reaching this sentence because of a clear and factual implication that I've already made that you probably disagree with. The implication, and indeed my outright statement, is that pedophiles are humans. They are not monsters to be caught and tortured.

I dare say they aren't even sick genetically speaking. In my view pedophilia is formed like any other fetish, though obviously it has some drastic social consequences. This bring us to our next question because I've just explained that pedophiles are not born, they are made.

To go into this in detail would be dissertation material in both content and length. To understand my position you must also have a basically workable conceptual understanding of genetics, psychology, sexuality, and sociology. I consider myself rare in meeting all those requirements. Though of course I have no accredited stamp 'proving' it beyond my entry level college courses.

The DSM IV has a great section on paraphillia. I myself have a quite harmless fetish, and that was part of my motivation for undertaking the reading required to help answer the question "why do I feel this way?" I believe I have a satisfactory and accurate answer. It is environmental.

I am quick to add that I believe homosexuality to be a genetic anomaly, though I also believe one can acquire a "fetish" for the same sex as a result of the same mechanism that grants fetish's to all people, which accounts partially for the confusion about the origin of homosexuality. Those of one genetic sexual preference, with a fetish for the other, in my opinion accounts for the majority of people labeled "bi". I will of course not discount the possibility of a genetically bisexual individual, but I will hazard a guess that they are quite rare. And determining a blood test for sexuality so to speak will be to put it mildly, difficult, if not entirely needless. A good starting point for understanding this hypothesis would be the book Adam's Curse, which explores the consequences of intracellular genetic competition between mitochondrial and nucleic DNA.

The mechanical or environmental formation of a fetish is actually quite simple, and amounts to accident and timing. The fact that most people share sexual traits with their peers is no accident. Without going into the evidence I'll simply state that as some point during the transition from childhood to adolescence sexuality is in large part imprinted, in precisely the same way a baby bird imprints when hatching from the egg.

Children by definition are not at fault in this process, or put in another more obvious way, one cannot help and or is not responsible for their sexual formation. This is important because it shows that disposition towards pedophilia is ethically neutral. Again, put simply being a pedophile is not evil.

It must be noted that this process is analog not digital, it is not an on off switch, one can be afflicted only in part while still harboring 'healthy' sexual appetites. This in my view accounts for the infantilization some men require sexually despite not being pedophiles. (hairless vagina, child like behavior, extreme petiteness preference, pigtails, etc) This in turn partially and ironically accounts for the demand that the market is responding to when it uses sexually appealing and yet childlike models to hock its wares, which in turn creates an environment conducive to the creation of criminal pedophiles.

We create them by first and foremost by annihilating all possible routes to free, easy, and safe sexual release. Also by demonizing masturbation, pornography and outlawing all forms of non-sanctioned sexual indulgence despite their harmless nature. This over reaction stems from ignorance mainly, and to a lesser but still significant degree, from cultural puritanism.

For example, cartoons of pedophilia, which is not well understood, are illegal, but cartoons of murder, which is fairly well understood, are not only legal, but desirable. This approach of annihilating all safe outlets for pedophiles has tragic consequences for both pedophiles and children.

A good way to test the accuracy of this claim would be to compare sexual assault rates per child in the united states and japan. I say this because japan has a famously permissive attitude toward pedophile themed cartoons and manga, while the united states decidedly does not. I predict that sexual assault on children in japan is lower adjusting for population differences etc, than in the united states.

We as a society need to realize that our actions have consequences and that sexuality is both a basic human need and an effect of the environment. If you starve someone long enough they will sometimes steal, or even kill to sate their hunger. Guilt and fear are not 100% reliable tools to prevent pedophiles from acting on their paraphillia. Thus 100% emphasis on humiliation and punishment is tantamount to causing child rape. We all share responsibility for this.

No comments:


My photo

I'm a politically and culturally subversive author with obsessive tendencies and a lot of free time. I feel a sense of personal responsibility for the fate of my species. My writing is the result.

My primary blog is at but this G+ profile is a far more active representation of my viewpoint.

Generally I feel the answer to society's ills are technological in nature not political or cultural.

Having said that, I do have political positions of course and I strongly feel that we need to embrace nuclear power and deploy a universal basic income.