Studies prove that most men find females attractive at ages much younger than the age of consent in most western nations.
This is a bad faith post from a one day old account.
It’s not possible to come to the conclusion that a study done in 1995, of European, African-American, Hispanic, and Asian men (including 3 that admitted they had engaged in peodophilic activity) represents most western nations
This is a bad faith post from a 9M old account.
no you
Removed by mod
what is the debate here? this study only had 80 participants, and has barley any citations =/
Here’s the full paper in case anyone is interested: https://sci-hub.se/https://doi.org/10.1016/S0005-7894(05)80039-5
Here’s the citations on google scholar: https://scholar.google.com/scholar?cites=7045687540461565868
If it was done right, and just a group of volunteers not cherry picked, over one fourth is quite bloody high.
Do you dispute it?
To me the OP study is common sense, but has become perhaps politically incorrect or taboo to acknowledge. Once children hit puberty, their bodies start to become able to reproduce and thus start to become attractive for reproduction.
Presumably then the study is conflating postpubescent adolescents with prepubescent children and calling all of these “children” which it is “wrong” for adults to feel attracted to, except that basically our biology hasn’t changed while societal norms have shifted to tell people to wait to older ages to reproduce.
Regarding attraction of prepubescent children in “normal” men, either this could be because the children are made to look like adults or thought to be like adults. This one I can’t wrap my head around as much and would need more information to be able to respond to the study.
At least in my experience, I felt pretty “adult” at a young age once I hit puberty and was attracted to those my age and older who were in probably in their 20s and 30s of the opposite gender.
Mostly the issue here is about having teens wait a bit to be able to become mature enough to sustain a family. I suspect “age of consent” discussions are a bit of a distraction, or a necessity for legal considerations, but I felt able to “consent” to certain actions at a young age but wouldn’t have been mature enough to take care of a family. Thus there is a gap between base biology and the skill of the intellect.
Also society is literally degenerate and unable to bring up young people to be skilled and productive at young ages which complicates the discussion. There are some exceptional students graduating college as teens or preteens for example, which to me attests to the actual capabilities of teens or preteens. But society sometimes “infantilizes” adolescents in to adulthood, perhaps underestimating their capabilities, and this is spilling over in to thinking of teens up to age 18 as “innocent children”. At least when I was a teenager, I was pretty aware of a lot of bad things I could do. But lots of people mature at different rates, so we try to take averages to accommodate some people maturing at younger and older rates.
Anyway, the OP study is a bit ambiguous on what they consider “children” to be and what they did to establish that “normal” people were attracted to “children”.
Here is a link to the full paper. ---------> http://74.208.31.225/scv/src/1571171090284.pdf
As a subject, paedophilia (both as a disorder and the material associated with it) is much worse than herding cats, and the consequences of this confusion are profoundly harmful.
A paedophilic disorder is a paraphilic disorder. There are many variations of these:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_paraphilias
A paedophilic disorder is ONLY:
"Pedophilic Disorder Diagnostic Criteria 302.2 (F65.4)
A. Over a period of at least 6 months, recurrent, intense sexually arousing fantasies, sexual urges, or behaviors involving sexual activity with a prepubescent child or children"
- DSM-V
“Natural” paedophilic disorders are exceptionally rare. By “natural” I imply a lack of “nurturing” causation, such as trauma.
On the face of it, I feel that this study was unethical. Participants were subjected to suggestions of children as sexual associates - an unacceptable harm in itself.
“Natural” paedophilic disorders are exceptionally rare. By “natural” I imply a lack of “nurturing” causation, such as trauma.
Is there a study confirming this?
You seem to be someone interested in information. I hope to provide.
From the DSM-5:
Paraphilic disorders included in this manual are voyeuristic disorder (spying onothers in private activities), exhibitionistic disorder (exposing the genitals), frotteuristicdisorder (touching or rubbing against a nonconsenting individual), sexual masochismdisorder (undergoing humiliation, bondage, or suffering), sexual sadism disorder (inflicting humiliation, bondage, or suffering), pedophilic disorder (sexual focus on children), fetishistic disorder (using nonliving objects or having a highly specific focus on nongenital body parts), and transvestic disorder (engaging in sexually arousing cross-dressing). These disorders have traditionally been selected for specific listing and assignment of explicit diagnostic criteria in DSM for two main reasons: they are relatively common, in relation to other paraphilic disorders, and some of them entail actions for their satisfaction that, because of their noxiousness or potential harm to others, are classed as criminal offenses. The eight listed disorders do not exhaust the list of possible paraphilic disorders. Many dozens of distinct paraphilias have been identified and named, and almost any of them could, by virtue of its negative consequences for the individual or for others, rise to the level of a paraphilic disorder. The diagnoses of the other specified and unspecified paraphilic disorders are therefore indispensable and will be required in many cases. In this chapter, the order of presentation of the listed paraphilic disorders generally corresponds to common classification schemes for these conditions. The first group of disorders is based on anomalous activity preferences. These disorders are subdivided into courtship disorders, which resemble distorted components of human courtship behavior(voyeuristic disorder, exhibitionistic disorder, and frotteuristic disorder), and algolagnie disorders, which involve pain and suffering (sexual masochism disorder and sexual sadism disorder). The second group of disorders is based on anomalous target preferences. These disorders include one directed at other humans (pedophilic disorder) and two directed elsewhere (fetishistic disorder and transvestic disorder).The term paraphilia denotes any intense and persistent sexual interest other than sexual interest in genital stimulation or preparatory fondling with phenotypically normal, physically mature, consenting human partners. In some circumstances, the criteria “intense and persistent” may be difficult to apply, such as in the assessment of persons who are very old or medically ill and who may not have “intense” sexual interests of any kind. In such circumstances, the term paraphilia may be defined as any sexual interest greater than or equal to normophilic sexual interests. There are also specific paraphilias that are generally better described as preferential sexual interests than as intense sexual interests. Some paraphilias primarily concern the individual’s erotic activities, and others primarily concern the individual’s erotic targets. Examples of the former would include intense and persistent interests in spanking, whipping, cutting, binding, or strangulating another person, or an interest in these activities that equals or exceeds the individual’s interest in copulation or equivalent interaction with another person. Examples of the latter would include intense or preferential sexual interest in children, corpses, or amputees (as a class), as well as intense or preferential interest in nonhuman animals, such as horses or dogs, or in inanimate objects, such as shoes or articles made of rubber. A paraphilic disorder is a paraphilia that is currently causing distress or impairment to the individual or a paraphilia whose satisfaction has entailed personal harm, or risk of harm, to others. A paraphilia is a necessary but not a sufficient condition for having a paraphilic disorder, and a paraphilia by itself does not necessarily justify or require clinical intervention. In the diagnostic criteria set for each of the listed paraphilic disorders. Criterion A specifies the qualitative nature of the paraphilia (e.g., an erotic focus on children or on exposing the genitals to strangers), and Criterion B specifies the negative consequences of the paraphilia (i.e., distress, impairment, or harm to others). In keeping with the distinction between paraphilias and paraphilic disorders, the term diagnosis should be reserved for individuals who meet both Criteria A and B (i.e., individuals who have a paraphilic disorder). If an individual meets Criterion A but not Criterion B for a particular paraphilia—a circumstance that might arise when a benign paraphilia is discovered during the clinical investigation of some other condition— then the individual may be said to have that paraphilia but not a paraphilic disorder. It is not rare for an individual to manifest two or more paraphilias. In some cases, the paraphilic foci are closely related and the connection between the paraphilias is intuitively comprehensible (e.g., foot fetishism and shoe fetishism). In other cases, the connection between the paraphilias is not obvious, and the presence of multiple paraphilias may be coincidental or else related to some generalized vulnerability to anomalies of psychosexual development. In any event, comorbid diagnoses of separate paraphilic disorders may be warranted if more than one paraphilia is causing suffering to the individual or harm to others. Because of the two-pronged nature of diagnosing paraphilic disorders, clinician-rated or self-rated measures and severity assessments could address either the strength of the paraphilia itself or the seriousness of its consequences. Although the distress and impairment stipulated in the Criterion B are special in being the immediate or ultimate result of the paraphilia and not primarily the result of some other factor, the phenomena of reactive depression, anxiety, guilt, poor work history, impaired social relations, and so on are not unique in themselves and may be quantified with multipurpose measures of psychosocial functioning or quality of life. The most widely applicable framework for assessing the strength of a paraphilia itself is one in which examinees’ paraphilic sexual fantasies, urges, or behaviors are evaluated in relation to their normophilic sexual interests and behaviors. In a clinical interview or on self-administered questionnaires, examinees can be asked whether their paraphilic sexualfantasies, urges, or behaviors are weaker than, approximately equal to, or stronger than their normophilic sexual interests and behaviors. This same type of comparison can be, and usually is, employed in psychophysiological measures of sexual interest, such as penile plethysmography in males or viewing time in males and females.
…
DSM5 pg. 697
Pedophilic Disorder Diagnostic Criteria 302.2 (F65.4)
A. Over a period of at least 6 months, recurrent, intense sexually arousing fantasies, sex- ual urges, or behaviors involving sexual activity with a prepubescent child or children (generally age 13 years or younger).
B. The individual has acted on these sexual urges, or the sexual urges or fantasies cause marked distress or interpersonal difficulty.
C. The individual is at least age 16 years and at least 5 years older than the child or chil- dren in Criterion A.
Note: Do not include an individual in late adolescence involved in an ongoing sexual relationship with a 12- or 13-year-old.
Specify whether: Exclusive type (attracted only to children) Nonexclusive type
Specify if: Sexually attracted to males Sexually attracted to females Sexually attracted to both Specify if: Limited to incest
Diagnostic Features The diagnostic criteria for pedophilic disorder are intended to apply both to individuals who freely disclose this paraphilia and to individuals who deny any sexual attraction to prepubertal children (generally age 13 years or younger), despite substantial objective evidence to the contrary. Examples of disclosing this paraphilia include candidly acknowledging an intense sexual interest in children and indicating that sexual interest in children is greater than or equal to sexual interest in physically mature individuals. If individuals also complain that their sexual attractions or preferences for children are causing psychosocial difficulties, they may be diagnosed with pedophilic disorder. However, if they report an absence of feelings of guilt, shame, or anxiety about these impulses and are not functionally limited by their paraphilic impulses (according to self-report, objective assessment, or both), and their self-reported and legally recorded histories indicate that they have never acted on their impulses, then these individuals have a pedophilic sexual orientation but not pedophilic disorder. Examples of individuals who deny attraction to children include individuals who are known to have sexually approached multiple children on separate occasions but who deny any urges or fantasies about sexual behavior involving children, and who may further claim that the known episodes of physical contact were all unintentional and nonsexual. Other individuals may acknowledge past episodes of sexual behavior involving children but deny any significant or sustained sexual interest in children. Since these individuals may deny experiences impulses or fantasies involving children, they may also deny feeling subjectively distressed. Such individuals may still be diagnosed with pedophilic disorder despite the absence of self-reported distress, provided that there is evidence of recurrent behaviors persisting for
6 months (Criterion A) and evidence that the individual has acted on sexual urges or experienced interpersonal difficulties as a consequence of the disorder (Criterion B).
Presence of multiple victims, as discussed above, is sufficient but not necessary for diagnosis; that is, the individual can still meet Criterion A by merely acknowledging intense or preferential sexual interest in children.
The Criterion A clause, indicating that the signs or symptoms of pedophilia have persisted for 6 months or longer, is intended to ensure that the sexual attraction to children is not merely transient. However, the diagnosis may be made if there is clinical evidence of sustained persistence of the sexual attraction to children even if the 6-month duration cannot be precisely determined.
Associated Features Supporting Diagnosis The extensive use of pornography depicting prepubescent children is a useful diagnostic indicator of pedophilic disorder. This is a specific instance of the general case that individuals are likely to choose the kind of pornography that corresponds to their sexual interests.
Prevalence The population prevalence of pedophilic disorder is unknown. The highest possible prevalence for pedophilic disorder in the male population is approximately 3%-5%. The population prevalence of pedophilic disorder in females is even more uncertain, but it is likely a small fraction of the prevalence in males.
Development and Course Adult males \νιψ pedophilic disorder may indicate that they become aware of strong or preferential sexual interest in children around the time of puberty—the same time frame in which males who later prefer physically mature partners became aware of their sexual interest in women or men. Attempting to diagnose pedophilic disorder at the age at which it first manifests is problematic because of the difficulty during adolescent development in differentiating it from age-appropriate sexual interest in peers or from sexual curiosity. Hence, Criterion C requires for diagnosis a minimum age of 16 years and at least 5 years older than the child or children in Criterion A. Pedophilia per se appears to be a lifelong condition. Pedophilic disorder, however, necessarily includes other elements that may change over time with or without treatment: subjective distress (e.g., guilt, shame, intense sexual frustration, or feelings of isolation) or psychosocial impairment, or the propensity to act out sexually with children, or both. Therefore, the course of pedophilic disorder may fluctuate, increase, or decrease with age. Adults with pedophilic disorder may report an awareness of sexual interest in children
that preceded engaging in sexual behavior involving children or self-identification as a pedo- phile. Advanced age is as likely to similarly diminish the frequency of sexual behavior involv- ing children as it does other paraphilically motivated and normophilic sexual behavior.
Risk and Prognostic Factors
Temperamental. There appears to be an interaction between pedophilia and antisociality, such that males with both traits are more likely to act out sexually with children. Thus, antisocial personality disorder may be considered a risk factor for pedophilic disorder in males with pedophilia.
Environmental. Adult males with pedophilia often report that they were sexually abused as children. It is unclear, however, whether this correlation reflects a causal influence of childhood sexual abuse on adult pedophilia.
Genetic and physiological. Since pedophilia is a necessary condition for pedophilic disorder, any factor that increases the probability of pedophilia also increases the risk of pedophilic disorder. There is some evidence that neurodevelopmental perturbation in utero increases the probability of development of a pedophilic orientation.
Gender-Related Diagnostic Issues
Psychophysiological laboratory measures of sexual interest, which are sometimes useful in diagnosing pedophilic disorder in males, are not necessarily useful in diagnosing this disorder in females, even when an identical procedure (e.g., viewing time) or analogous procedures (e.g., penile plethysmography and vaginal photoplethysmography) are available.
Diagnostic Markers
Psychophysiological measures of sexual interest may sometimes be useful when an individual’s history suggests the possible presence of pedophilic disorder but the individual denies strong or preferential attraction to children. The most thoroughly researched and longest used of such measures is penile plethysmography, although the sensitivity and specificity of diagnosis may vary from one site to another. Viewing time, using photographs of nude or minimally clothed persons as visual stimuli, is also used to diagnose pedophilic disorder, especially in combination with self-report measures. Mental health professionals in the United States, however, should be aware that possession of such visual stimuli, even for diagnostic purposes, may violate American law regarding possession of child pornography and leave the mental health professional susceptible to criminal prosecution.
Differential Diagnosis Many of the conditions that could be differential diagnoses for pedophilic disorder also sometimes occur as comorbid diagnoses. It is therefore generally necessary to evaluate the evidence for pedophilic disorder and other possible conditions as separate questions. Antisocial personality disorder. This disorder increases the likelihood that a person who is primarily attracted to the mature physique will approach a child, on one or a few occasions, on the basis of relative availability. The individual often shows other signs of this personality disorder, such as recurrent law-breaking. Alcohol and substance use disorders. The disinhibiting effects of intoxication may also increase the likelihood that a person who is primarily attracted to the mature physique will sexually approach a child. Obsessive-compulsive disorder. There are occasional individuals who complain about ego-dystonic thoughts and worries about possible attraction to children. Clinical interviewing usually reveals an absence of sexual thoughts about children during high states of sexual arousal (e.g., approaching orgasm during masturbation) and sometimes additional ego-dystonic, intrusive sexual ideas (e.g., concerns about homosexuality).
Comorbidity
Psychiatric comorbidity of pedophilic disorder includes substance use disorders; depressive, bipolar, and anxiety disorders; antisocial personality disorder; and other paraphilic disorders. However, findings on comorbid disorders are largely among individuals convicted for sexual offenses involving children (almost all males) and may not be generalizable to other individuals with pedophilic disorder (e.g., individuals who have never approached a child sexually but who qualify for the diagnosis of pedophilic disorder on the basis of subjective distress).
