This is science?

[ssurgul]

Wow. I had no idea that such a clearly theological agenda could be legitimately regarded as scientific evidence. I guess I should just go and marry Dr. Laura and have 6 or 7 kids right now, since clearly everything that modern psychology and genetics have been uncovering is just horribly, horribly misled.

http://www.nostatusquo.com/ACLU/NudistHallofShame/Underwager2.html

(This article was found on the ASAIRS site, under the heading 'Pedophile Similarities'. ASAIRS [Animal Sexual Abuse and Information Resource Site] can be found here: http://www.asairs.com . My personal opinion is that this is yet another ultra-hype, ultra-panicky site catering to those who are zealously persecuting anything and everything that isn't heterosexual, missionary position with clothespin-on-nose-and-prayer-of-forgiveness-in-heart copulation specifically and solely to reproduce. Yeah, I'm a little bitter and more than a little annoyed by whackos like this.)

Comments

I think you're misreading these people

[osiris831.livejournal.com]

I don't think I agree with these researchers, but it looks to me as though they are definitely NOT pushing the conventional right-wing anti-everything agenda. They are making an incredibly radical statement, that pedophilia can be a responsible lifestyle choice. That takes guts, particularly here in the psychotically repressed U.S.

Re: I think you're misreading these people

[ssurgul.livejournal.com]

{This must be in two parts because it overflowed the comment length.}

No, actually I don't believe I am. You need to realize that it's not their conclusions I'm objecting to. I have no problem accepting the notion that a pedophilic relationship could, under the right circumstances, be very good for both partners. However, their arguments are very flawed, no matter what their intention and conclusion are. And, as with any science, as soon as the arguments are flawed, the conclusion is rendered invalid.

In the first place, the concept they're introducing in the early part, a 'subject reality' based on a learned behavior when one is very young and thus equates to a physiological component is fraught with trouble.

While I can easily understand the concept of the subjective reality, I find a tremendous amount of difficulty visualizing any interaction with an adult or other children which would equate to the behavior of sexual relations with youngsters as acceptable, unless it were to witness such. And, there are far too many cases where someone has seen if not been involved with it whereby the observer has zero interest in pursuing such. Further, the vast majority of those who are subjected to pedophilic relations early on don't grow up to be pedophiles as well. Their sexuality is typically quite challenged and screwed up, as are their morality surrounding sexual relations, but that doesn't lead immediately to being a pedophile and in most cases that I'm aware of, never does.

Further, the argument postulated seems very much a fusion theory, in an effort to placate both camps (genes vs. environment) without doing a satisfactory job in either case. By completely dismissing the geneticists and claiming that the entire process by which one learns to be a homosexual or a pedophile is a learned behavior completely dismisses the research done, for over a decade now, on Xq28. And while the links I give below aren't canon even to me, they so provide much stronger evidence of a genetic link to at least part of this behavior, if not all of it.

Re: I think you're misreading these people

[ssurgul.livejournal.com]

The other side of their argument is that they are discounting, at least in part, much of the argumentation given by the choice advocates. Obviously they are stating that the choice is made because it's a learned behavior, and thus someone could choose otherwise. While I'm certainly all in favor of people being a lot more accepting of their own choices, and a lot more responsible action in general, it doesn't follow that being more responsible about their actions and choices can lead to a change. Several of the homosexual conversion programs, whereby a gay man or woman 'chooses' to be straight for whatever reason, have shown significant reversion rates. I don't have insight into those numbers, here, unfortunately, but I have heard that most were/are over 50%, or higher. One could write this off as the person simply not really wanting to change. But, it doesn't hold when taken in combination with the presumed reasoning for wanting to change in the first place: to stop the persecution, and the guilt inflicted by an unaccepting society. This, of course, leads back to the argument of why would any one willingly choose to become a homosexual, especially those that come from an accepting and loving home, just to face this many obstacles, and possible persecution and even death solely due to that 'choice'. I realize I've rather ranted against the homosexuality aspect here, and it's not fully germaine to this topic. However, the two psychologists were good enough to link their arguments to homosexuality as a clear parallel example. And, since I have a much broader experience with other homosexuals and discussion with them, I'm focussing there as the same argumentation would easily apply to pedophilia.

Sorry for the excessive ranting, but I wanted to be certain you understood where I'm coming from, and why I was so angered by this information being presented. And I'd ask you to remember, at the end of this, that I don't disagree with their conclusions. But, the road they use to get there leaves a LOT to be desired. And I see a tremendous amount of the right-wing influence in their statements and work. I've not attacked that here, as it's a futile exercise, to say the least. I will simply leave it as another effort on their part to find a 'happy ground' between the two opponents, which has again fallen flat.