Actually, I'd tend to look at this from the opposite point of view. From an evolutionary viewpoint, pedophilia (at least heterosexual pedophilia) could be argued to have at least some advantage, in that there is potential (either at present, or future) for the partner to bear children. In fact, practically every species on the planet seems to have a biological imperative to mate as soon as they are biologically capable of doing so. In humans, that can be children as young as 10 or 12 years of age...which we consider to be pedophilia.
I was under the impression that pedophiles by definition tend become less and less attracted to a child as physical evidence of maturity begins to manifest and becomes more and more obvious. Pedophilia seems to me more of a fetish than a sexual orientation. Nobody can say that someone who goes crazy over feet, for instance, is driven by some innate desire to reproduce.
On the other hand, homosexuality serves no evolutionary purpose that I can fathom whatsoever. So, if homosexuality can arise as a biologically predetermined preference, I fail to see why sexual desire for children is impossible. What...your argument is that in pretty well every other species on the planet, mating is automatic as soon as they are sexually capable of it, but in humans it is actually a psychological perversion?
Again, pedophiles are attracted to the apparent
lack of sexual capability in a mark; immaturity which is generally indicative of a person who is smaller, weaker, and more easily manipulated. "Humans and maturity and procreation" doesn't seem to be an important factor. Sure, the pedophile attaches a superficial sexual significance to it; but consider, some violent criminals attach a sexual importance to crimes like robbery and serial murder, in cases where sex or rape simply isn't involved. They quite literally get off on doing whatever it is they're doing. I suggest that arguments vis-a-vis gender and procreation instinct do not apply to this issue.
Exactly my point. The very same arguments that you are using to dismiss sexual preference for children were used (and even continue to be used) by those who consider(ed) homosexuality to be a psychological disorder. Homosexuality was (and still is by some) equated with beastiality, and a host of other psychological disorders. So simply saying it is equivalent to other psychological disorders does not necessarily make it so -- yet that is the only argument that you've been able to put forward.
But the arguments you've used - such as that at some point pedophilia "used to be OK" - can be used to justify the dismissal of the opinion that other outdated anachronisms (such as slavery) are inherently bad. Religious inquisitions
used to be OK; indentured servitude
used to be OK.
Science has examined homosexuality and has decided that it isn't a disorder. Science is continuing to examine pedophilia, and has
not made a similar decision as of yet. It has also not decided to make sociopathy or manic depression "not-disorders" yet. So, it seems to me the argument that homosexuality "used to be bad but isn't anymore" is a non sequiter, if the implication is that science is
likely similarly mistaken about pedophilia. If the implication is that science is only
possibly similarly mistaken about pedophilia, the argument is useless - science is
possibly similarly mistaken about absolutely everything.
Consider modern history as a graph describing change over time. In earlier times, "homosexuality" was considered abberant, and things like slavery and pedophilia were considered acceptable. As man learns more over history, and becomes enlightened, things change. He comes to realize that things like homosexuality are not so abberant after all, whilst other things he used think were OK, he now realizes, aren't.
Better and more clinical arguments have been made by other posters; while still others have more or less echoed the things I've said. What you need to understand is, with this particular issue - as with some others, for instance racism - a particular person can be prompted, by matters of circumstance, to form a very strong opinion about pedophilia without resorting to or being confronted with statistics and analysis. Of course, it's certainly not fair for such a person to say something like "you should believe me because I happen to know better"; but it also might be a bit capricious to judge such a person's opinion as
completely baseless.
I pity anyone so blind/screwed up that this isn't incredibly obvious. And what if some brilliant scientists decided it's NOT? Rev up the kiddie porn?
Unfreakingbelievable. Be afraid.
