/younglove/ - Pedophilia Discussion

>>21000

Miswiring explains a lot of fetishes, including foot fetishism.

>>21002

youre gonna get a lot of pissy posters using the term fetish in conjunction with pedophilia

I've liked them long enough to realise females are best in personality and other things at younger age.

>>21002

pedophilia isn't a fetish usually.

>miswiring in the brain

No.

The terms "miswiring" or "brain abnormality" are incorrect in that they suggest our neurology has been shown to be in deviation from the norm or that there are any pointers to this being the case. It hasn't; there aren't; no high quality studies on pedophilia have ever taken place because voluntary parti>>21005

cipation in a study of such a taboo nature immediately introduces a strong bias towards activist types (losers)and people who maybe aren't so cautious or self-controlled(retards).

This type of selection bias doesn't present an insurmountable roadblock in other studies because there is usually an unrelated social group as reticent to take part as the population of interest, but this isn't a possibility when studying pedophiles because, frankly, we are hated more than any other similar group by a wide margin.

The most we can say about etiology is that whatever happens happens early in life. That's it. My pet theory is that arousal in response to secondary sexual traits exists on a spectrum informed by genetics and the exclusive pedophile has some environmental exposure which causes a normally low expression of the arousal to drop to zero. There's no evidence for this, I just intuitively see pedophilia as a quirk of our thousands of generations of sexual selection as a species.

>>21026

>no high quality studies on pedophilia have ever taken place

Nonsense.

http://rsbl.royalsocietypublishing.org/content/10/5/20140200.full?sid=aa702674-974f-4505-850a-d44dd4ef5a16

>>21027

I don't think you understand the effect sampling bias has on research.

Luckily it didn't make a difference in this instance because that study isn't about pedophilia at all; it included pedophile groups to solve a common problem with fMRI research which is ending up in a logic loop wherein a hypothesized structure in the brain is assumed to exist because something is flashing when participants perform a specific task that would hypothetically use such a structure.

If you mean to say the brain structures associated with sexual arousal are activated when people who are sexually aroused by children look at children is the finding I should give a shit about I'll remind you of the existence of penile plethysmographs and physiology textbooks; pedophiles aren't sewer monsters who've mutated a new way of becoming sexually aroused.

The differences between the pedophile and the normal groups for the other measures can't be generalized to pedophiles because of sampling bias.

tl;dr not a study on pedophilia

>>21030

I'm at least 50% sure what you said has no meaning and is just technobabble.

>>21026

>The terms "miswiring" or "brain abnormality" are incorrect in that they suggest our neurology has been shown to be in deviation from the norm or that there are any pointers to this being the case

Unless you believe that the brain is unrelated to our minds, then there's a huge piece of evidence staring you in the face. If our brains were identical to everyone else's then we wouldn't be pedophiles. We'd be those other people.

>>20994

It's a result, of liking little girls before being taught that liking little girls is wrong. and then when people try to teach you that liking little girls is wrong you don't believe them.

>>21031

I'm not >>21030, but I'm at least 50% sure you haven't read at all what he's written.

And I say this even though I, while not having read the article in question, consider it, judging by its abstract, indeed relevant to this discussion.

>>20994

> if paedophilia is a result of some miswiring in the brain

As I don't consider neurology developed enough to meaningfully measure differences between brains or estimate an 'average' or 'normal' case, I believe that (at least for now) we're unable to verify whether 'paedophilia is a result of some miswiring in the brain', even if this is the case (which we can't test for currently).

Insofar…

> Do you think that paedophilia is a result of little girls features (small, cute, "innocent"..etc) or the attraction was already there and you simply idealize little girls from noticing them more?

I don't consider myself a paedophile, but I do think certain 'features' can cause attraction even if they weren't intended to do so in the first place. If one has a crush on cuteness, I don't think it is far-fetched to assume this can cause that person to fall for little girls as well.

On the other hand, it might very well be the other way round, the attraction being already there, causing the crush on cuteness in the first place (as 'childlikeness' and cuteness usually go hand in hand).

> Is there any explanation for your attraction to little girls beyond some kind of miswiring?

As said above, I don't think our state of science already allows us to talk about 'miswiring' in the brain. We already had problems because of this back in the 1940s, when lobotomy became popular (the idea was the same, elimination of 'miswiring' in the brain).

However, if we manage to talk about mind instead of brain and instead of 'miswiring' some less judgemental expression, such as 'alternative conceptualization', I may suggest that there is a mutual influence between features one is attracted to and configurations in the brain that cause said attraction. E.g., if this is true, affection for cuteness may cause affection for children, and that affection for children may reciprocally cause affection for cuteness, i.e. both increasing each other. That might turn paedophilia into a 'hen and egg' problem where you cannot decide what caused the whole thing in the first place, but that 'primordial cause' could very well have been something completely different, e.g. in (early?) childhood or in your genetic information.

>>21194

>We already had problems because of this back in the 1940s, when lobotomy became popular (the idea was the same, elimination of 'miswiring' in the brain).

That's like fixing your a burnt fuse by ripping the fuse box out of the wall. The problem isn't the idea of miswiring, it's the fact lobotomies are extreme.

>>21202

Well, of course the extremity of lobotomies was why that practice (became unpopular again and) disappeared.

However, the reason why they became popular in the first place was that people actually believed there were 'miswirings' in the patients' brains causing behaviour we now understand to be completely normal, and that they moreover believed such 'miswirings' could be cured by a simple procedure like lobotomy.

The idea that a lobotomy could cause, by destruction, the brain to renew connections (which then wouldn't be 'miswired' anymore) was appealing because the misconception of miswiring was appealing, like Jews being the cause of all evil or workers having to take over their bosses' factories.

What we should learn from that part of history is not that 'fixing your a burnt fuse by ripping the fuse box out of the wall' didn't work. (Although I believe there are some people who still think it does.) What we should learn is that we're unable to check whether the fuse is burnt in the first place (or, if not unable, at least not very reliable in doing so).

>>21222

Or we can just accept that certain things can't be fixed ethically, miswring of the brain being one of them.

>>21230

Either I don't get your point or you're not responding to what you claimed to respond to. Why are you talking about 'ethically fixing' something in response to someone stating we're unable to decide whether it's broken at all?

>>21231

Does it even matter if you can't fix it?

>>21234

Well, maybe we're talking at cross-purposes, but what I'm basically saying is that we shouldn't be talking about 'miswiring' because we can't assess whether there is some 'miswiring' (stress on mis) at all, while you seem to be saying that it's irrelevant whether we're talking about 'miswiring' or not because even if it's 'miswiring' we're unable to 'fix' that 'miswiring'. If that's true, I don't really get why our differences are relevant to the topic suggested by OP's questions.

>>21246

sexual attraction to children is one thing, but the inability to be aroused by sexually mature partners is pretty objectively a miswiring of some manner

saying "people reacted to this issue poorly thus there is no issue" is a fallacy by fallacy.

and yes, we are in fact able to check whether thee fuse is burnt.

your brain affects your mind, just because we dont understand fully how so does not mean we can't know the simple fact that it does.

>>21253

> sexual attraction to children is one thing, but the inability to be aroused by sexually mature partners is pretty objectively a miswiring of some manner

Yes. It can be considered a miswiring (considered the main purpose of attraction, i.e. promoting sexual reproduction) in one's behaviour or something like that. Which doesn't necessarily mean there is something in the brain we could identify as a 'miswiring'. You're of course right that there has to be some kind of configuration that causes said behavioural 'miswiring'. You do ignore though that we cannot necessarily identify, at least exactly, where in the brain this configuration can be found. And even if we could: We aren't able to tell yet what influence that part of brain has on a person's mind. If removing it – and I'm not saying it should be removed – means destroying also positive aspects of that person's personality (e.g. creativity or something), are we really allowed to call it a 'miswiring'?

> saying "people reacted to this issue poorly thus there is no issue" is a fallacy by fallacy.

I didn't say so, did I? I was just saying that neurology hasn't yet developed enough. And that therefore talking about 'miswiring' is problematic. Saying "There is certainly an issue so let's randomly guess what it could be and take actions according to our guesses" is also a fallacy.

> and yes, we are in fact able to check whether thee fuse is burnt

I cannot really respond to this as my humble knowledge of neurology implies the opposite. You have to motivate your opinion if you want me to comment on it.

> your brain affects your mind, just because we dont understand fully how so does not mean we can't know the simple fact that it does.

Yes. But as I tried to explain above, there is a difference between being able to make an observation (your mind behaves sickly), being able to diagnose its causes (there is a miswiring in your mind), and being able to pinpoint the cause's physical manifestation (neuron X is badly connected to neuron Y). It's just the same with fuses (light isn't working / there has to be a burnt fuse / fuse Z is burnt). The latter operation requires knowledge about how the system works, and we don't have that knowledge yet as far as brain/mind is concerned.

Besides, what may have puzzled me was your 'ethically fix' slipslop, as I hadn't been talking about ethics before (except that lobotomies are considered ethically problematic now).

>>21317

>means destroying also positive aspects of that person's personality (e.g. creativity or something), are we really allowed to call it a 'miswiring

Just because fixing it causes more problems doesn't change the fact that there is an initial problem to begin with.

>>21320

Yes, but that's not what it was all about. Fucking read what I write. I never denied there is some 'initial problem to begin with'. I just wanted to express that we are firing shots in the dark if we assume something we don't really understand to be responsible for something we don't really understand either.

As for the fix that causes more problems, consider what fuses were invented for in the first place. If your fuse is burnt, you insert a new one and your house burns down because of that, was the burnt fuse really a bad thing? The light not working isn't a good thing either, but if fuses that can cause such problems being burnt weren't useful for something, they wouldn't have been inserted into the circuit in the first place. That may be a strange analogy, but I hope it serves to illustrate my point about the 'miswiring'.

>>21331

>I just wanted to express that we are firing shots in the dark if we assume something we don't really understand to be responsible for something we don't really understand either.

If you are supposed to be attracted to one thing and you are instead attracted to something else, than that's a miswriring. Why are you so unsure of that?

>>21331

>. If your fuse is burnt, you insert a live squirrel and your house burns down because of that, was the burnt fuse really a bad thing?

Given that a fuse is not supposed to be burnt, yes a burnt fuse is a bad thing.

>>21334

> Why are you so unsure of that?

I'm not unsure of whether being attracted to the wrong kind of person is a miswiring, I'm unsure of what kind of 'miswiring' we're talking about. That is, I wanted to remark that we have to be careful whether we're talking about a 'miswiring in the brain' (as suggested by OP) or some other kind of miswiring (i.e. in one's behaviour). I didn't even want to start such a philosophical discussion; I noted that neurology doesn't seem to have developed enough so I wanted to send a reminder about caution. That's probably nitpicking of me, but as pointed out earlier, that whole 'miswiring' issue is prone to be misunderstood.

>>21337

So you would happily remove all fuses from your house to get rid of them being burnt? (Doesn't have anything to do with the analogy; the analogy is unsuited for explaining what I wanted to get across. I just wonder about the consequences.) I figure out it's hard to come up with an analogy to illustrate convincingly what I mean. It's all about some configuration of something being bad or counterproductive for some job but essential for another so that it has to be accepted as a 'necessary evil' or 'the lesser evil'. BTW, nice how you changed the wording of my text while quoting me.

>>21348

>I figure out it's hard to come up with an analogy to illustrate convincingly what I mean.

How about … trying to diagnose a computer problem when you have a sketchy understanding of the hardware and you don't have any access to the software source code?

>>21348

>So you would happily remove all fuses from your house to get rid of them being burnt?

You're being an obtuse faggot and you know it.

Yes, I would happily replace a burnt fuse with a non burnt fuse.

I'm not an exclusive pedo, but if I was I would definitely want to be attracted to adults. You don't have to get rid of attraction to children to be attracted to adults you know.

>>21351

Yes, sort of, maybe. I'm not sure whether that brawler of dialogue partner of mine will be convinced by it though.

>>21352

> You're being an obtuse faggot and you know it.

I'm probably not in the position so say so, but no, I'm not, although I've already thought as much as you seem to think so. After all, isn't it you who's being obtuse trying to disprove a position by argumenting in favour of a completely unrelated one?

> Yes, I would happily replace a burnt fuse with a non burnt fuse.

I talked about removing, not replacing. Fucking read what I write.

> I would definitely want to be attracted to adults. You don't have to get rid of attraction to children to be attracted to adults you know.

So what? Does that fact extend our knowledge of the interrelations between brain and mind? Does that fact allow us to tell exactly what went wrong in the brain as soon as there's something wrong with someone? Does that fact give us the wisdom needed to decide whether something we don't understand is wrong? If you've read and also understood what I was trying to express in the first place, i.e. in >>21194, you should be able to either answer all these questions honestly with 'no' or provide a logically profound, utterly understandable and immediately problem-related explanation why truisms like the many ones you've already presented here, namely the above commonplace platitude, bear the least significance for what I was talking about in the first place.

That is, if you aren't just some kind of brazen internet troll flooding this thread with his brainsick intellectual squitters. Good night.

>>21379

>I talked about removing

Well guess what nobody else is talking about removing anything either you fucking chode. How about you stop writing at all.

>Does that fact allow us to tell exactly what went wrong in the brain as soon as there's something wrong with someone?

How about YOU fucking read what WE write? Nobody here is suggesting that they know for a fact exactly what is happening.

Yes, we do know for an indisputable absolutely 100% empirically verifiable fact that the brain is 1-to-1 related to the mind and the mind uses the brain as part of influencing our sexuality. We KNOW this. What we don't know is exactly how.

You're essentially crying that just because we can't ~know~ that the number chain is infinite, that we should just through out all math because it might not theoretically work under every unknowable variable and thus we are not allowed to even have a relaxed informal discussion without offending your intense autism.

>>21383

> Well guess what nobody else is talking about removing anything either you fucking chode.

But I am. And guess why? Because I wanted to address your unfitting fuse analogy. Just don't make analogies if you don't want people to address them.

> Nobody here is suggesting that they know for a fact exactly what is happening.

That puzzles me: Until now I was holding the view that you were basically saying: 'We know exactly that paedophiles' brains are miswired!' If that's not what you were talking about, please enlighten me explaining your mistakable use of language.

> Yes, we do know for an indisputable absolutely 100% empirically verifiable fact that the brain is 1-to-1 related to the mind

How many times have I told you that this is not what I'm talking about? Of course the mind is only related to the brain (to what else?), and probably the brain is related only to the mind, but you seem to be sure that means anything that can be found in the mind has exactly one, only one, counterpart in the brain. You're basically falling prey to one of the most stupid (and sadly most widespread) fallacies of logic: A implies B; B is true, thus A. Like, if America didn't exist I wouldn't be living there. But hey, I'm not living in America, so America doesn't exist. Or like, if there was some miswiring in the brain, there would be effects upon that brain's owner's mind; there are strange effects in a paedophile's mind, so hey there must be some miswiring in his brain.

Yes, we do know for an indisputable absolutely 100% mathematically verifiable fact that recursively enumerable languages are 1-to-1 related to turing machines. Yet we're (provably!) unable to decide the halting problem.

> the brain is 1-to-1 related to the mind

> We KNOW this. What we don't know is exactly how.

And as long as you don't know how somehing works, you're an arrogant snob if you pretend to do so. For instance by claiming (and refusing to demonstrate its correctness) there is a miswiring where we're unable to verify even whether you're right or wrong.

> You're essentially crying that just because we can't ~know~ that the number chain is infinite

That's what I mean: Don't pretend to know about something you don't really know about. We do know that the number chain, if you're talking about natural numbers as defined by the Peano axioms, is infinite and has a cardinality of aleph-null.

> and thus we are not allowed to even have a relaxed informal discussion without offending your intense autism

On this board, I've experienced an interestingly common schema: Whenever someone is lacking well-grounded arguing skills needed to defend his/her (right or wrong) position and losing ground to some dialogue partner, he/she accuses said partner of being autistic – moreover, intensely autistic –, harping on irrelevantly hair-splitting details, and unable to conduct a 'normal' conversation. Do these accusing people – i.e. you – even notice how much this sounds like a mental evidence of incapacity, a confession of intellectual failure? I'm not trying to figure out who of us has started offending the other in the first place because both of us haven't covered ourselves with glory, but are you really lacking appropriate arguments so much you need to consult the old 'you're an autist' scam?

I go see the doctor and say, 'Doctor, every single time I drink tea my eye hurts.' According to your logic, the doctor now should answer, 'Hm, there's probably a miswiring in your brain!' What I'm trying to get across is that I'd like the doctor to rather think for a moment and then answer, 'maybe you should remove the spoon from the cup next time.'

>>21005

It's not a fetish.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pedophilia

>Pedophilia or paedophilia is a psychiatric disorder in which an adult or older adolescent experiences a primary or exclusive sexual attraction to prepubescent children, generally age 11 years or younger.[1][2] As a medical diagnosis, specific criteria for the disorder extend the cut-off point for prepubescence to age 13.[1] A person who is diagnosed with pedophilia must be at least 16 years of age, but adolescents must be at least five years older than the prepubescent child for the attraction to be diagnosed as pedophilia.[1][2]

>Pedophilia is termed pedophilic disorder in the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM-5), and the manual defines it as a paraphilia in which adults or adolescents 16 years of age or older have intense and recurrent sexual urges towards and fantasies about prepubescent children that they have either acted on or which cause them distress or interpersonal difficulty.[1] The International Classification of Diseases (ICD-10) defines it as a sexual preference for children of prepubertal or early pubertal age.[3]

Most pedos get really defensive about this shit but I'll be honest:

I probably have some weird Fruedian problems that skew my perception of adult women as evil, cruel, castrating harpies. I grew up with several very domineering adult women. Compound that with all sorts of relationship problems as a teen and adult and I think I've just come to fear adult women and sex with them. Meanwhile every little girl I met from the time I was a kid has been so sweet, innocent, kind, and loving.

And another thing that pedos are terrified to admit is the aspect of power. I'm sure that my inclinations have been influenced buy the fact that adults are innately seen by kids as teachers, protectors, and people who are in a position of respect and authority over them. Pedos get incredibly offended when I say this, since they assume I'm someone who wants to use power to take advantage of and hurt little girls, so I'm eagerly awaiting your hateful responses. I've done a lot of introspection, and this is just how I feel

>>21472

Because power is usually seen as a tool to get your way.

Parents absolutely have power over their children but we don't usually think about it like that because they ostensibly want what's best for their children, not themselves.

It's like the topic of manipulation. Manipulation isn't necessarily a bad thing. A therapist essentially manipulates you into feeling better about yourself. But when discussing manipulation, it's usually only talked about in a negative sense.

>Because power is usually seen as a tool to get your way.

And men getting their way is haram is women's societies.