User:Jonomacdrones/paedophilia

Essay on Origins of Paedophilia and How One Decides it is Wrong
Primarily, when one looks at the idea of paedophilia, one must identify and define paedophilia. Hansard, the publication of minutes from debate and discussion in the UK Houses of Parliament, states there is no legal definition of the word, yet offers the Oxford English Dictionary's definition as a person with paedophilia, i.e. an abnormal especially sexual love of children from Lord Williams of Mostyn's response to the question raised by Lord Robertson of Oakridge. Wikipedia defines a paedophile as the paraphilia of being sexually attracted primarily or exclusively to prepubescent or peripubescent children. Pedophilia is described as a mental disorder by standard diagnosis manuals, including the DSM IV and ICD-10. (you might want to state the diagnostic criteria here)

Clearly, paedophilia is the act of being attracted to, or acting upon, these urges which have been deemed (illegal,) unethical, (a mental illness) and abnormal. This obviously begs the question, why does one feel an aversion to the idea of sex with children, and why is it (considered) wrong?

The age old question, therefore, which needs answering is this; If it was socially acceptable to have sexual relations with children, Would one do it? The author is at pains to declare that he does not under any circumstances feel any sexual attraction to children, nor does he advocate sexual relations with children under any circumstance. But why is this so? Does man's aversion to this fetish (very dubious claim, orientation more common today), as it were, stem from the moral outcry and the fact it is taught as wrong? Or does man truly find the idea disgusting?

In the author's opinion, it is impossible to tell. So lets look at the arguments on either side. In many countries and communities which, under most circumstances, one would deem uncivilized, it is common place for adults to have sex with children. Many countries have much a much lower Age of Consent than countries such as England and America, such as Spain, which has an age of consent of 13 or Japan, which also has an age of consent of 13. This glaring disparity between ages of consent obviously shows that either some countries are morally derelict, or that one person's view on acceptability differs from another's. This could possibly be a case for the original drafter of an Age of Consent bill's theories on moral decency being incorrect.

Almost everyday there are stories in the news about paedophilia and/or sex offenders, the media will always report these items because of the social outcry, whether one likes it or not- paedophilia is, and most probably always will be, wrong to the public and deemed unacceptable. The question must be asked then- if other countries have less tight laws, and other communities other beliefs, is the belief that sexual relations with children being wrong the result of a too conservative (with a small 'c') media with narrow minded ideas? Or is the fact that since other cultures believe in magic and 'voodoo' a sign that they're wrong, and we're right?

In order to answer this, one must look at the reasons, both psychologically and socially, why the age of consent is needed in the first place- obviously for the idea that paedophilia laws stem from media perception and attention the panic must have been caused by someone, somewhere along the line. Psychologically, it could only, feasibly, have come from one place- the male perception on the weakness of women, since the connotations of paedophilia is sex with an under-age girl, generally. A lot of men who have daughters, sisters etc. will resent the idea of these important women having sexual relations, whether at the age of consent, or far older- its a male condition to worry about, what was once defined as, the Fairer Sex. The idea of a daughter, especially, engaging in sexual acts with a man is a hard concept for a man to come to terms with, its an old idea of women being subservient to men and the fact that men can not imagine a woman having similar urges to men. The idea its self is highly sexist, and highly irrational (too early to be judgmental), but its a prevalent ideology nonetheless. Obviously, therefore, the age of consent law can only come from a man's point of view, most probably a father who feared for the 'purity' and 'sanctity' of his daughter- whilst this may not be provable, one can assume it is a same conclusion to come to.

If this stands as true, it would explain how tighter laws governing paedophilia only exist in more modern years. The idea that this is due to some enlightened age is a theory one must not give credence to, our times are no more enlightened than 50 years ago- the only difference is that whilst one looks upon our world through the haze of technology, one fails to grasp that it is still the same world, and the same minds are at work. Humans, by nature, are a social creature and therefore do not like to be seemingly ostracised. An idea about a contentious issue, therefore, is most likely to be accepted right away, if one believes something is wrong, no matter how credible/ numerous the source is, one will automatically distance one's self from it. Thus it must have been that the first person in authority to draft a bill on paedophilia would have influenced enough people for the idea to take root. As a result of which, as more and more people are told it is wrong, more and more people believe strongly in it.

Of course, as stated above, it is impossible to tell whether this is the true reason that people, including this author, believe paedophilia is wrong as there are too many variables and influences that affect life, it is also perfectly reasonable to believe that if it is true, there are people who believed that paedophilia was wrong without media influence, as the first hypothetical person did- although these people would have to have lived minus media exposure/ minus exposure to media.

Now one accepts that whatever the actual morality of paedophilia is, that is always going to be deemed wrong by society, one must provide a plan of action, as it were, into what happens when a paedophile is found.(Too early to conclude, just look at homosexuality and their moral status) In this case, one should identify the different types of paedophile. This essay will use the author's own views on the different types. Type A: Feeling of attraction to minors whilst self-loathing one's self for the idea Type B: Feeling of attraction to minors without acting upon it (Type A and B will be known as suffering with Inactive paedophilia) Type C: Feeling of attraction to minors, using mild child pornography stimulants; Child Model Websites, Non Nude (Indirect Paedophilia) Type D: Feeling of attraction to minors, consensual sex with a minor within one year of the Age of Consent (Mild Direct Paedophilia) Type E: Feeling of attraction to minors, rape, using Fully Nude Child Pornography, Creating Child Pornography. (Direct Paedophilia) (consider that minors does not necessarily mean prepubescent child) The medical texts DSM IV and ICD-10 both state paedophilia as being a mental illness, a curable one at that (are you sure?), so why, when one hears the word Paedophile, does one automatically automatically reach for the gavel and throw away the key? Why does society stigmatise the idea of paedophilia and act negatively on it? As with any medical condition, almost, it is feasible for an inactive paedophile of type A or B paedophilia to move onto a more direct form of paedophilia, the cycle of which could take years- years of which could have been spent helping the person to realise they're not subversive, they just need to learn to control their urges. Common cures for these feelings are Chemical Castration, whereby testosterone levels are decreased in a man's body to cope with this. A study by Klaus M. Beier of the Institute of Sexology and Sexual Medicine at Charité, a large university hospital in Berlin, Germany, reported success in a preliminary study using role-play therapy and medicine. According to researchers, the pedophiles were better able to control their urges once they understood the child's view.

Of course, one must consider in cases of Type E, and to a lesser extent Type D, paedophilia that the law is very clear. The direct paedophilia types must be shown that the law is clear, that if a person with sub-average intelligence murders then it is still actionable by the law. Type E paedophilia where there is a clear rape of a minor is clearly an issue which needs to be addressed in society. Whether one believes in treatment for all types of paedophilia, or whether one believes in a Law and Order society where the paedophile must be punished, a custodial sentence cannot be avoided, whether it is as a punishment, or to enforce therapy on the imprisoned, one cannot forget the fact that other children may be at risk.

Ultimately, whether it is believed or not, there is strong reason to believe that sex with children is wrong because we're told sex with children is wrong (que?). However, one cannot accept this view now and decide to change one's point of view as the human brain will not, and indeed can not, change the pattern of which one's morals are set out. Whether one believes that children have the mental capacity, too, to understand sex and willingly consent, or whether one doesn't, the fact of the matter remains that one still probably find a child of such mental maturity, lolicon and Lolita exist in literature and comics only.