On Pedophilia

Pedo-erotic urges exist in everyone to varying degrees, often subconscious or not strong enough to elicit our attention, but existing nonetheless. It's pretty clear there may even be an evolutionary basis for pedophilia--that men have it in abundance because they need to be attracted to "younger" females who are more fertile for child-rearing--and that we've understood this for a long time without calling it what it is. It's highly likely that if women have a pedophilia strain in them, it's in regards to child-rearing itself. And since there is very little outward distinction in sex physicality between boys and girls, pedophilia may even express itself in contrast to the traditional Kinsey scale of sexual orientation. In any case, we need not feel dirty for this underlying desire so long as we understand the difference between attraction and self control.

Self control may not be something our modern society expects from us as it constantly seeks to cripple our sexual resolve for profit, but it is important for all of us to maintain, pedophile or not. Pedophilia is as human as anything else, for better or for worse, so we need to understand that people only become child molesters when they break the law, regardless of whether they were pedophiles or not. After all, any child who has ever had a crush or an infatuation or attraction to another child below the legal limit is a "pedophile" too, perhaps not clinically, but socially. And that goes for everyone, of every sexuality.

Much of what we call pedophilia in a "clinical" sense though might simply be an untimely pairing of biological directives and modern cultural norms. In the modern world, artificial age limitations have no relation to the biological time clocks we used to observe, when puberty was the final hurdle for procreation. Times may have changed, but kids are still biologically capable of reproducing after puberty. It's a fact of nature, no matter how inconvenient it may be to our modern sensibilities. Wait a while and our sensibilities may change again.

But while the scathing vitriol regarding pedophilia is allowed to rage unmitigated, how rational are the sensibilities we actually defend? That old-time "final hurdle" of sexual cognizance is creeping toward the middle-aged and upwards, where people often have to resort to costly medications to even achieve arousal. And as if to compensate, we add further insult to nature by denying even the existence of child and adolescent sexuality when it is biologically in its prime. Youth can't participate legally because we keep them from knowing the rules socially, so this creates an ecological situation perfect for child sexual exploitation to thrive.

It's simply unnatural to bear children as relatively late in life as we do, but we do it because that time period tends to be more stable and secure for child-rearing in our middle-class culture. It's also simply unnatural to deny all children and adolescents their sexual cognizance, but we do it because we want to maintain their ignorance and prolong their potential victimization, which serves us as adults. We subjugate youth by forcing their abstinence and dehumanize them by re-classing their biological drives as dangerous promiscuity, and we do it because we want to punish the rapists among us--the adults. And since "no punishment is enough" for the adults who commit these crimes, the only ones who end up adequately paying the price for the adult evils are the children themselves, once they too step over the line with other kids. There are just as many 5 year old sex offenders as there are 55 year old sex offenders*. There is no distinction.

And our sentiments remain intact, and so does every child's ignorance. Rape and biology go together better than rape and morality, and we let morality dictate what is biological now. We seem to think that because the worst among us might rape children, all children must be subject to forcible abstinence under penalty of law. So once suppressed in our youth, our immoral biology then continues to ride under the surface of our so-called "civilized" appetites. I'd even take it a step further and say that so much of what we consider to be female sexual objectification is actually very childish in appearance. The modern idealized female form, with its emphasis on smooth skin, thin limbs, and wide eyes, is an attempt to transplant the features of a child into those of a legally and culturally acceptable adult.

And as to the sexual preference for youth and its appropriateness by itself (outside its connection to molestation), where do those standards originate anyways? The same society that actively encourages our sexual attraction to automobiles, food, alcohol, and any object that can be bought and sold, is then going to tell us what sexual attractions are "unnatural?" Just compare one unnatural urge with another one. Our culture is still youth-based, otherwise our economy would hinge on the attractiveness of saggy, middle-aged adults. Even as much as the middle-aged, middle-class adults would like to think this is the case, it is not.

How many times in suggestive advertising have you seen a woman with batted eyes and a finger to her lips in that "opps, silly me" stance? Is that not childish in appearance  Is that not what Nabokov might have called, the "nymphet" amok in the eye? In general, the whole "cute kid" gimmick in films and advertising speaks to these underlying desires en mass. "Cute" and "sexy" stimulate the same pleasure centers of the brain biochemically, as do psychoactive substances and food. The whole practice of schoolmasters flogging kids on the ass was a highly sexually charged release of the adult's pent up aggression, and many still swear by it, so is that not clinical pleasure seeking? Afterall, is not rape more concerned with conquest than sexuality? Do typical adults not dream of child conquest as they go about their business with children in tow?

Of course they do, they just don't realize that it is a desire one and the same with that of child molesters--the only difference being that child molesters actually do what the typical adult only dreams of doing. One doesn't have to be a pedophile to harm children or to dream of doing it, but anyone who actually does harm a child sexually is automatically branded one. Rape is an atrocity no matter where it crops up and who the victim or perpetrator is or what their sexuality is, but rape can and does exist contrary to sexuality, and outside of pedophilia people understand this. Pedophilia is an attraction, rape is a loss of self control. Child molestation exists whether pedophilia does or not, and likewise. Child molestation is solely a product of  a weak resolve, and still pedophilia exists whether or not self control is present.

This is also true when speaking about the popular assumption of a pedophile's weak self control, and where that expectation actually originates. Heterosexuals have the luxury of being able to express their sexuality freely and openly. They grow accustomed to doing it and assume it is the same for everyone, but it isn't. They make the conclusion that repressed sexual feelings will inevitably lead to harmful consequences, but it isn't necessarily so. Fringe sexualities with a sound mind actually have to learn self control in more constant, realistic terms, so they may actually have a higher degree of it than their "normal" peers, who are accustomed to building erections at the sight of beer bottles and automobiles. If most straight men don't rape feminine-shaped cars or curvy bottles, then it's possible even fewer "pedophiles" rape children.

Those who do though, are deserving of the worst.

* United States Bureau of Justice Statistics. (2000). Sexual Assault of Young Children as Reported to Law Enforcement. 8 (Figure 6). Retrieved July 19, 2012.

An Open Appeal

An open appeal, an earnest request:

Life & Style, in the process
of harming a child.

For those who advance themselves at the expense of others in any form... for those who seek to own humanity... for those who hold one group of humans to a different standard than another for reasons having nothing to do with just desert or character... for those who lie to themselves in order to justify their own deeds... for those who work to separate humanity from its children... for those who count out a group of people from sympathy because they are "minority case" victims...

For those who peddle fear and paranoia to scapegoat and magnify the "easy targets" while protecting the real oppressors... for those who cause great unintentional harm with the best intentions... for those who devalue a human being (a man, woman, boy, or girl) only when it is socially acceptable to do it... for those who mock and ridicule the weakened man for the glory of the stronger... I see the mark of the beast on your smiling faces. Congratulations!

If you are accomplishing your directive in life by doing any of the above, then congratulations to you, antichrists of the world. Congratulations on your infamy. I laugh in the maw of your glory in our culture, for yours is the resting place of history's hell-mouth. The derision of people like you will forever be rolled across the tongues of your own progeny. Congratulations on your personal alignment with all mankind has determined to be vile and unjust. The fight for human dignity could always use a nemesis like you to make an example.

But if that is not what you desire, you who revel in any of the above, then you must turn and become purified by reason, justice, and the love of human dignity before you can be considered a person. You are not a good person in this world by your own decree, but by your works.

As damnation follows infamy, vindication follows integrity, and the choice is yours.

Severity over Statistics

I don't believe in putting people down and hiding behind statistics to justify doing it. I despise that mentality of compartmentalizing people by numbers, or assigning respect by numbers, or thinking about people in terms of averages and percents rather than faces and names. Statistics is a tool used to justify the inequality of respect and reverence shown to human variation, particularly in regards to tragedy. It doesn't have to be that way, and it would be great to live in a world where people were people and received the respect or disdain they deserve regardless of what group they belong to and what the average crime rate for that group is, or what the average poverty rate for that group is, or what the average grade point average for that group is...etc.--but sadly, that is not the world we allow ourselves to live in. Individuals get credit or criticism based on the characteristics most common to their group, and statistics makes it possible.

Statistics is often used to engineer equality by pouring resources into a priority group at the expense of the so-called "stronger" group, but social engineering promotes nothing but unequal opportunity--mainstreaming for one, and disenfranchisement for the other. True "equality for all" means exactly that (if one values equality, that is), so you can't both organize to benefit or prioritize one group (ie. women/children/men/wealthy/poor...etc.) at the expense of another group, and still remain an egalitarian. But there's no question that the facts of a situation are indeed the facts--that men earn more than women for instance--but the general facts shouldn't blind us and keep us from respecting and observing that people do exist outside the "average." This we tend to forget as we cater to the mediocrity of the middle. Our minds fall prey to heuristics and stereotypes, ignorance rules the day, and statistics makes it possible. 

Furthermore, if it's wrong to claim about individuals, then it's wrong to claim about groups of those same individuals. Insensitivity is more than just being disrespectful to individuals, it should also include showing disrespect to groups of people. This isn't to say that we should censor ourselves, just that we should not tolerate disrespectful speech, even if the thrust of that disrespect is supported by evidence (statistics). We might agree that saying "Bobby is stupid," is insensitive, but how much less insensitive is saying, "the group that Bobby belongs to ("boys," for example) is a whole batch of stupidity"? We think we're good people when we dodge the bullet of hurting someone's personal feelings as we use statistics to justify our personal prejudices against the group that person belongs to, but it doesn't make it right, or valid, to do such. We ignore individuals and insult groups of humans en mass, and we think these numerical truths we are using to accomplish this categorization are doing society a service. They are most likely not.

I also believe in focusing on severity over statistics. Numbers are used as a form of distancing oneself from tragedy. To headline on "only 20 people killed"  kind of makes whatever happened in the story seem insignificant. That's a lot different than simply saying, "20 people killed." Likewise, if only one kid got raped in a juvenile detention center in the last hundred years, who am I to disqualify the significance of that for the victim by referring back to numbers--by saying, essentially, "well, it wasn't so bad, you were the only one in the last hundred years!" The point being, if it was severe enough, and it hurt the victim, then no other quantity should get in the way of that "fact". Severity over statistics. Bruises over averages. Humans over outliers. Cases over representative samples. People before numbers.

I think this constant need to frame tragedy in a numerical context is a defense mechanism built into us to maintain our personal perspective rather than have it subject to the full weight of the tragedy itself. This is normally supposed to be of great benefit to the human, but in these times of constant information, we find ourselves turning away from tragedy at a rate unseen in human history. When you read something appalling, you automatically search for reasons to discredit what you're reading so as to not have to feel upset over it, even if it's a minuscule piece of information missing, or any tiny part that may not relate to your personal circumstances (so you don't have to believe that it happened).

This is especially true if the victim is not your typical victim (a "man" getting raped, for instance). People only seem to get fired up about things when they fit into a preconceived schema (ie. "women are always victims"), and otherwise ignore and underestimate all else to distract themselves from the validity of the tragedy before them. In all truth, I don't know what is worse, a mind like mine (which tends to take all sources of information at their word), or the multitude of minds that need constant verification for every detail before they feel any human emotion, period.

If you can find a reason not to feel bad about something you see, do you not feel better as a result? You could say then that the reason we study things at all is so we can "feel" in control of a situation we feel powerless about. Instead of feeling that gut reaction of disgust regarding rape, for instance, we study it and put a whole bunch of numbers in our heads to persuade ourselves into thinking of it in terms of percents and averages rather than faces and names. And when we do that, we underestimate the names and faces, particularly those we have cast to the side as "outliers." We create a society, an organization, that caters to the statistical average, and not only ignores the "outlier" but even flat out mocks him, and takes pleasure in his dejected circumstance. The male victim of rape is one such outlier that is routinely mocked and underestimated.

People underestimate the human element in the rightfully quantitative social sciences. I don't. I concern myself with that which people underestimate.